Sitting of 12 March 1946

Preamble
The House met at c. Quarter past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table,— Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords.]
  Bill to be read a Second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table,— Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
  North West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority Provisional Order Bill.
  Bill to be read a . Second time Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FUEL AND POWER

    Gas Supply, Crickhowell
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that Crickhowell, Breconshire, has been without gas since last April and, despite the repeated assurances given to the hon.
    922
    Member for Brecon and Radnor, there is no supply at present; and if he will examine the possibility of taking the plant over immediately.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): I am aware that Crickhowell has been without gas since last April. This has been due to the extreme difficulty in obtaining a replacement of the working manager who left the works last April and to the very dilapidated condition of the plant. By kind assistance from neighbouring gas undertakings that plant has now been put in order. It has, however, been found quite impossible to engage a new manager though a succession of men have been interviewed for the post. My regional officers are in close touch with the situation and are doing their utmost to assist the undertaking to obtain staff.
    Mr. Watkins:In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply and in view of the fact that the matter has been raised on several occasions before, cannot something more definite be said today?
    Mr. Shinwell:If we could obtain the staff, we should be only too pleased to assist the hon. Gentleman in his constituency, but the trouble is that we cannot get the staff. The managers are very reluctant to undertake responsibility at this very small gasworks and, short of drafting labour for this purpose, there is nothing we can do except to try and persuade people to go there.

    Severn Barrage Scheme
    Sir Stanley Reedasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the shortage of coal, it is now proposed to proceed with the recommendation of the expert committee which reported on the Severn barrage and hydro-electric project to construct a new tidal model and to give the dock authorities the opportunity of being represented on a committee of hydraulic experts who would supervise the construction and operation of the new model.
    Mr. Shinwell: This matter is under review, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Sir S. Reed: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not treat this matter as urgent? It has taken two years to construct the model and with coal at 39s. 6d. a ton this is an economic proposition.
    Mr. Shinwell: In relation to the shortage of coal, I must say that this scheme would hardly be of much assistance because it would take eight years to construct.

    Petrol Rationing
    Mr. Toucheasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether some modification of the petrol rationing regulations will be made to enable motor car owners to save up March to June coupons for use in the holiday period.
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, to enable motorists to save petrol and to ease traffic on the railways, he is prepared to consider making coupons valid for the month of issue and the next two following months, so as to avoid the danger of carrying petrol in cans in private motor-cars.
    Mr. Shinwell: Owing to considerations connected with supply and distribution, I am not able to extend the period of validity of basic ration coupons beyond the month of issue and the next following month. With a full tank, and coupons for two months, a motorist will have practically three months' supply which will provide for over 500 miles travel. This would normally obviate the need to carry cans, but if the motorist chooses to carry one or two cans in addition, there would not appear to be any objection.

    Gas Pressure, London
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that gas pressure in the London area falls off during periods of cold weather; to what extent this is due to shortages of coal or manpower; and what steps he is taking to remedy this falling off.
    Mr. Shinwell: 1 would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Captain F. Noel-Baker) on 17th December.

    Electricity Supplies (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Goochasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that many rural electrification schemes are held up because of the difficulty experienced by companies in securing materials and men; and if he will facilitate the
    924
    carrying out of these schemes in the interests of food production.
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir, and all possible steps will be taken to alleviate the position, but as I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany) on 12th February last, progress is bound to be slower than we would wish because of the limited supplies of labour and materials.
    Colonel Clarke: Does not the Minister think that some of this delay is due to the authorities insisting on too high a standard of construction, and could not some simpler form be considered such as is used in countries abroad?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of any obstacles being put in the way of electricity authorities wishing to undertake expansion. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows of any such obstacles, perhaps he will let me know.
    Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many schemes of rural electrification are being held up by the lack of timber, and can he say what is being done about that?
    Mr. Shinwell: I have an impression that there was a Question on the Order Paper about steel poles being used in place of timber pole?, but it has not been asked and, therefore, I cannot say anything about it.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Could the right hon. Gentleman consider approaching the Postmaster-General with a view to trying to obtain some of the many poles which I believe are held by the Post Office?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am looking at the Question on the Order Paper to see whether it refers to poles, but I cannot see anything about it.

  COLLIERY HOUSES
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will prevent the dispossession of miners from houses tied to collieries when such miners have developed incurable industrial diseases which render them unfit for work, as in the case of Mr. James Kelly, of Binley Colliery, Coventry, particulars of whom have been sent to him.
  Mr. Shinwell: I have no power to interfere with the exercise of contractual rights affecting the tenancy of colliery

  925
  houses. I am, however, looking into the particular case referred to and will write to my hon. Friend about it.

  DEMOBILISATION

    Monthly Rate
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Labour the average monthly rate of demobilisation for the last three months of 1945; and the scheduled monthly rate for the first six months of 1946.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): In the last three months of 1945 the average monthly number of releases and discharges from the Forces and Women's Auxiliary Services was 351,164. The corresponding figure derived from the programme for the first six months of 1946 is 320,370.

    Students
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now extend option of Class B release to students for the professions studying with in their professions, which option is now enjoyed by universities students.
    Mr. Isaacs: I regret I am not prepared to extend Class B releases in the manner suggested.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some indication on what date this unhealthy system may cease to exist?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I cannot agree it is unhealthy, and I could not pledge myself to any date.

    Personal Case
    Major Lloydasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Flight-Sergeant Pilot A. B. Coltant, who was released at the request of his Department in January in Class B, has not been found the employment for which release was granted, is not permitted to find himself a job, is without income or unemployment benefit and is not allowed to return to the R.A.F. until his Class A release is due; and if he will take steps to see that this man is found employment immediately.
    Mr. Isaacs: Flight-Sergeant Pilot Coltant elected to be released in Class B under the block scheme for work in connection with the housing programme is an electrical overhead linesman. His ex-
    926
    perience was found to be limited and he was not prepared to accept unskilled work. It was not, therefore, found possible to place him in work of national importance, and he was recommended for recall to the R.A.F. I understand that the Air Ministry have issued instructions for his recall.

    Owners of Businesses
    Mr. Royleasked the Minister of Labour, in view of recent changes in demobilisation plans, and of the fact that a re-registration of customers for food items is due in July, if he will make arrangements for the release in Class B, or Class C, of men in the Forces, whose businesses were closed on their call-up to the Services, so that they may re-establish their businesses at the most appropriate time.
    Mr. Isaacs: The existing arrangements already provide for the release of members of the Forces in Class B when this is essential in the interests of food distribution. Release in Class C is a matter entirely for the Service Departments.
    Mr. Royle: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great disadvantage suffered by these men whose competitors are established, and is he also aware that without release in the next two months the best opportunity will have passed?
    Mr. Isaacs: There is nothing I can add to the answer. That provision is made for release under Class B and Class C it the men can get the letter from the Service Departments.
    Mr. Royle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that releases under Class B and Class C are not being granted solely on the ground that a man has asked to return to his business?
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot say that I am aware of that. If the hon. Gentleman will send me particulars of any case I will be glad to look into them.
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how unfairly the Class C provision works, in that a man with a light business, which his wife has carried on, is eligible for release under Class C, whereas a man with a heavy business, which has had to be closed down, is not eligible?
    Mr. Isaacs: If my hon. Friend will put that question down to the appropriate Department, and not raise it in a supple-

    927
    mentary question, to me, he will get a better answer than he will from me. I could not answer it.

    Group Releases
    Mr. James Callaghanasked the Minister of Labour what groups it is hoped to reach by 31st December if it is possible to demobilise down to strengths of 650,000, 175 coo and 275,000 men in the Army, Navy and R.A.F. respectively.
    Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 5th March, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. Callaghan:If, as 1 assumed, that was a refusal could I ask the Minister if he realises that now he has agreed to publish the numbers in every group below 50, all sorts of unofficial estimates will be made, and will he not avoid disappointment by giving an official estimate?
    Mr. Isaacs: My non. Friend says, "Assuming this is a refusal." If he looks at my answer, he will find that it is not so.
    Mr. Callaghan: But is it not a fact that we have not yet been given the highest group it is hoped to reach by 31st December in all the Services?

    Women's Services
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make on the continuance of service of conscripted women in His Majesty's Forces.
    Mr. Isaacs: Members of the Women's Auxiliary Services, whether conscripts or volunteers, are being released in accordance with the Class A and Class B release scheme.

    Agricultural Workers!
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Labour whether there is any limit to the number of agricultural workers with a minimum of 12 months' service in the Forces who will be offered immediate Class B release; and when the new policy was first promulgated to the Service Departments.
    Mr. Isaacs: No limit has been set to the number of agricultural workers who are releasable and have served a minimum of one year in the Forces to whom release in Class B may be offered. It is
    928
    not anticipated, however, that the total of releases will greatly exceed the target figure of 18,000 announced earlier The Service Departments were asked to make the additional offers in the middle of February.
    Mr. Turton: Will the Minister explain why this very important change of policy was so shrouded in secrecy, and will he now give wide publicity both in the Services and in the agricultural industry to this new policy?
    Mr. Isaacs: I did not know it was shrouded in secrecy, but I did rise to answer a supplementary question put by the hon. Gentleman last week, and because of an interruption I could not do it. That is when I wanted to put it over in the House.
    Mr. Snadden: Could the right hon. Gentleman say if the figure of 18,000 to which he referred is a United Kingdom figure?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, they are not all in the United Kingdom. We have got to get them from all over the world, but we hope it will give us another 2,000 on top of the 18,000.
    Mr. Turton: Will the Minister consider at another time giving publicity without waiting for a Member on this side of the House to ask a supplementary question?
    Mr. Isaacs: It was because the decision had only recently been taken, that 1 wanted to get it across as quickly as I could.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Labour whether men released under Class B for work in agriculture will normally be allowed to return to their prewar employment or to seek work near their homes; and in what circumstances they are directed to work at a distance from their homes.
    Mr. Isaacs:Every effort is made to place agricultural workers released under Class B in approved agricultural work of . their own choice. Men who express no preference are normally offered work within daily travelling distance of their own homes. They are not directed to work at a distance from their homes.
    Mr. Turton: May we have publicity of these facts given to all men in the Forces, as there is widespread misconception among them that if they accept Class B

    929
    release for agricultural work they will be directed to work away from their homes?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. We will see what can be done, because that might improve the number of acceptances.
    Major John Morrisonasked the Minister of Labour the number of men who have been released to date as individual specialists and under the block scheme, respectively, for full-time employment in agriculture.
    Mr. Isaacs: The number of men released to date in Class B as individual specialists for agriculture is 736; the number reported as released under the block release scheme, up to 15th February, the latest date for which information is available, is 5,188.

    Farmers and Smallholders
    Major J. Morrisonasked the Minister of Labour whether farmers, smallholders and men from ancillary occupations, who have served a minimum of one year in the Forces, are being, or will be, offered Class B release.
    Mr. Isaacs: Farmers and smallholders are not dealt with under the block release arrangements, but are considered for release as individual specialists on application by the Agricultural Departments. Ancillary workers are also considered for release on application by the Agricultural Departments, but under a scheme of bulk nomination.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the release of workers upon dairy farms is proceeding satisfactorily?
    Mr. Isaacs: That would be a matter of opinion. Obviously they cannot be wholly satisfactory until we have got them all out, but it is proceeding as satisfactorily as it can be under the circumstances.
    Mr. David Eccles: Could the Minister say why a farmer is not allowed to come in block release? Have not some of these men, whose wives are carrying on for them, as much right to be released as farm workers?
    Mr. Isaacs: If the scheme works as it is anticipated, it may be possible to get such men out more quickly under the nominated scheme than under block release.

    Long-Service Personnel
    Mr Harry Wallaceasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there are men who have served compulsorily since the outbreak 0f war in the Services for five years or more; and by what date these men will be released.
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. Since the release scheme takes account of age as well as service, men who have served five years or more will be in many different release groups. Some of the younger men will be in release groups which have not yet been promulgated for release and it is not therefore possible to say by what date they will all be released.
    Mr. Wallace: Could my right hon. Friend undertake to review this position, as there is much dissatisfaction in these age groups? These men are being prejudiced in their return to civil life. They have given the country the best years of their lives. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to review the position and announce some date.
    Mr. Isaacs: It is being reviewed, and we have looked at it to see if we can make some departure from the general scheme, but to do so would create such a number of other anomalies and dissatisfactions that we have had to abandon that. I can say that I have every hope that by the end of Group 32 all these men will be out.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Discipline in Industry
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Labour if he will give the House a résumé of the reports and representations which he has received on discipline in industry.
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. The position remains as stated in my reply of 13th February last.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister aware that his reply did not indicate any serious dissatisfaction in the state of industry, whereas employers and industrialists had grave concern about it?
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot for one moment accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's statement because I met a representative gathering of employers last week and there was no complaint at all on that score.

    Lytham St. Anne's
    Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Minister of Labour the number of people registered as unemployed in Lytham St. Anne's on 14th January 1946; and what was the number on 13th August 1945.
    Mr. Isaacs: At 14th January, 1946, the number of unemployed insured persons suitable for ordinary employment on the registers of the Lytham and St. Anne's Employment Exchanges was 30. The corresponding figure for 16th July, 1945, the nearest date to 13th August for which figures are available, was four.

    Blackpool
    Wing-Commander Robinsonasked the Minister of Labour the number of people registered as unemployed in Black pool on 14th January, 1946; and what was the number on 13th August, 1945.
    Mr. Isaacs: At 14th January, 1946, the number of unemployed insured persons suitable for ordinary employment on the the register of the Blackpool Employment Exchange was 517. The corresponding figure for 16th July, 1945, the nearest date to 13th August for which figures are available, was 107.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Minister say how many unemployed persons there are in other seaside resorts?

    Agricultural Workers (Advertising)
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Labour whether permission will be granted to farmers in Scotland to advertise for labour direct, without having first to apply for such permission to the local employment exchange.
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. The industry is still subject to the Essential Work (Agriculture) (Scotland) Order and it is not proposed to amend the provision relating to restrictions on advertising for an agricultural worker. This is in accord with the views of the representatives of both sides of the industry in Scotland.
    Major Lloyd: While appreciating the significance of the reply, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that this procedure does, in fact, often inconvenience farmers in moments of emergency and that it always takes something like three weeks to a month to obtain the permission and very often as long to obtain the necessary labour?
    Mr. Isaacs: We take as much notice as we can of the desires of industry. On 12th February this year a meeting was organised between all concerned at which the desire was expressed that we should maintain the Regulation.
    Mr. Snadden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a fortnight must elapse before an employer is permitted to advertise?
    Mr. Isaacs: I can only repeat that the National Farmers Union and the Scottish Farmworkers Union have asked us to maintain the Regulation.
    Major Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct his officers in Scotland to be sympathetic in expediting these applications?
    Mr. Isaacs: There is no need to instruct them to do that. They are always sympathetic.

    Rehabilitation Centres (New Establishments)
    Mr. William Adamsasked the Minister of Labour what progress he is making with the establishment of further rehabilitation centres upon the lines of the Egham model; and whether he will lake steps to avoid the growth of waiting lists of disabled men awaiting admission as such waiting has an adverse mental effect, particularly on neurotic cases.
    Mr. Isaacs: I have decided to establish a number of rehabilitation centres on the lines of the Egham model in various parts of the country, and I am now examining the suitability of certain premises for the purpose.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Mr. J. S. Mann, Lowdham, Nottinghamshire, who served four and a half years in the R.N. and then volunteered for the mines, is unable to obtain his release, although his group was demobilised last November' and when this man will be able to resume his prewar employment.
    Mr. Isaacs: On the general question, 1 would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Islington (Mr. Cluse) and the hon. and gallant Member for Bewdley (Major Conant) on 18th December last, a copy of which I am sending him. Mr. Mann applied for his release from the mines on medical grounds. The local appeal board

    933
    made a recommendation in his favour, and on 3rd March he was given permission to leave the industry.
    Mr. Shephard: While I am very glad to hear that this man has been released, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the position of men similarly placed?
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot add to the answer which I gave.

    Mental Institutions
    Mr. Walkerasked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to say when mental defective institutions will be supplied with the necessary attendants and domestic staff, of which they are in such need.
    Mr. Isaacs: During 1945 my Department placed 2,480 women and 381 men in mental nursing or mental deficiency nursing. In addition, employers engaged just over 1,000 nurses by direct contact, making a total of practically 4,000 persons engaged for mental nursing and mental deficiency nursing during the year. I have no separate figures of placings of domestic workers in this field, but in 1945 my local officers filled nearly 50,000 domestic vacancies in hospitals of all types.
    Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are numbers of these mental defective institutions which are complaining very bitterly about not having staff and servants at their disposal, and so long as this state of affairs continues their administration and management become almost impossible?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, we are aware of that, and every step is being taken to find the labour, but if the labour does not exist we cannot supply it.
    Mr. Walker: In view of that answer, 1 beg to give notice that I will bring this matter up on the Adjournment.

    Interrupted Apprenticeships
    Mr. Gilzeanasked the Minister of Labour why, in the Resettlement in Civil Life (Interrupted Apprenticeships) Scheme, tailoring and other trades are excluded from the benefits of the scheme.
    Mr. Isaacs: The tailoring trade and others in the clothing group of industries are not excluded from the benefits of the scheme for interrupted apprenticeships. The scheme for the ready made and whole-
    934
    sale bespoke tailoring trade has been completed in consultation with representatives of the trade and is now being printed. Consultations with representatives of the retail tailoring trade are in progress, and arrangements are being made for discussions with representatives of the Wages Council covering other branches of the clothing trade.

    Stoppages of Work
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Labour how many stoppages of work have occurred in the last six months on the part of workers who refused to work with a non-trade unionist.
    Mr. Isaacs: According to the information at my disposal, there were 30 stoppages of work in the six months up to the end of February, 1946, which were due to the refusal on the part of workers to work with non-trade unionists. The stoppages in question involved some 7,500 workers.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is highly desirable that as many people as possible should join the unions for their respective trades, but does he consider that the repeal of the Trade Disputes Act, 1927, is going to do that?
    Mr. Isaacs: I think that matter had better be discussed on the Trade Disputes' Bill.

    Foreign Labour
    Mr. Steeleasked the Minister of Labour if members of the Polish troops who hold qualifications can be permitted to take up temporary appointments in civilian work until such time as a decision on their future is made by the Government.
    Mr. Isaacs: The whole question of the use in civilian employment of foreign labour, including members of the Polish Forces, is at present under consideration.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can hurry up his decision, especially in view of the great desirability of reducing the number of people in the Polish armed forces at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Isaacs: I rather approach it from the necessity of getting as many people into work as we can. There are a number of complicated matters, alien laws, and one thing and another, but we are

    935
    anxious to make use of these people and have them work rather than eat without doing any work.

    Redundant Workers (Unemployment Pay)
    Mr. Edehnanasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that 550 workers, recently declared redundant at Messrs. Humber, Limited, have been refused unemployment pay on the grounds that their unemployment is due to a trade dispute; and whether he will withdraw his approval of the redundancy notices in order that they may not be used as instruments of duress against the men.
    Mr. Isaacs: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance that the facts are substantially as stated in the first part of this Question and that the Court of Referees is considering appeals against disqualification for unemployment benefit in a representative number of test cases. As regards the second part of the Question, I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to the reply I gave him on 27th February. The matter is governed by the provisions of the Essential Work Orders, and the national service officer is unable to take any further action in the matter except after the hearings by an independent local appeal board of any appeals made by the workers concerned against his decisions.
    Mr. Edelman: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the proceedings of the appeals are expedited in order that this unfortunate strike can be brought to an end as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, we will do that. I would like to say that if the men concerned had taken the advice of their own trade union the dispute would not have happened at all.

  MILITARY SERVICE

    Civil Engineers and Building Workers
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of men registered as workers in civil engineering, at present in His Majesty's Forces;
    (2) the number of men registered as building workers, at present serving in His Majesty's Forces.
    Mr. Isaacs: It is estimated that the total is about 275,000, of whom about 20.000
    936
    are civil engineering workers. These figures include craftsmen and their labourers but not general labourers

    Apprentice, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Labour why he refuses to release the apprentice urgently required by Messrs. Sparks, of Aberdeen, for highly skilled work on Cleveland auto-lathes making parts for 20-ton railway waggons for U.N.R.R.A.; and if he will reconsider this refusal, in view of the fact that these waggons are needed to supply devastated Europe, that operators skilled in the use of these lathes are scarce and that this scarcity is delaying the making of 153.300 parts of such 20-ton waggons for which Messrs. Sparks have orders.
    Mr. Isaacs: District Manpower Boards, in deciding deferments, are required to pay special regard to the importance of railway wagon production. The Manpower Board concerned however reached their decision in this case having regard to all its individual circumstances, including particularly the fact that the young man in question was transferred to railway wagon production only after his deferment had been cancelled in respect of his . previous work, which was of an entirely different character. This young man of 19 cannot be described as a key man and I do not propose to intervene to stop his call up.

  SCOTLAND

    Fishing Industry
    Major Sir Basil Neven-Spenceasked the Secretary of Stale for Scotland if a fisherman who acquires a motor fishing vessel from the Admiralty and finds it necessary to alter the position of the engine can add the cost of such alterations to the price of the boat for the purpose of receiving assistance by way of grant or loan under the Inshore Fishing Industry Act.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): Yes, Sir.
    Sir B. Neven-Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if a fisher man will get a grant under the Inshore Fishing Industry Act towards the cost of buying or reconditioning a boat without at. the same time taking a loan.
    Mr. Westwood: An applicant for a grant who does not at the same time apply

    937
    for a loan will not thereby be precluded from obtaining a grant. Under the Act, however, grants can be given only in cases of need, and it will be necessary to consider whether the applicant qualifies in this respect.
    Sir B. Neven-Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if any conclusion has been reached as to the practicability of using Mulberry sections for constructing piers and harbours for fishing boats.
    Mr. Westwood: The possible use of Mulberry components in the construction of fishery harbours and piers has been fully examined. I am advised that in many cases the use of such components is impracticable, and that generally normal methods would produce better results at a lower cost.
    Sir B. Neven-Spence: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman get on with the construction of new and very badly needed harbour works forthwith?
    Mr. Westwood: That question is not in the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. J. J. Roberstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of ex-Admiralty M.F.Vs. now available to his Department for transfer to the inshore fishing industry; and if he will ensure that the claims of ex-Service fishermen, who have lost their boats on war service, will have first consideration in the allocation of these vessels.
    Mr. Westwood: 48 Admiralty M.F.Vs. suitable for inshore fishing are being released to the fishing industry in Great Britain. Of these 24 will be complete and 24 will be disposed of at the launching stage. In addition, there will be 40 vessels of the 75-foot type, which will be more suitable for herring fishing. No allocation has been made as between Scotland and England and Wales. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
    Mr. Roberston: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that information, may I ask him if, in the allocation of these vessels, he will consider the areas where there are large numbers of unemployed fishermen recently demobilised, and consider giving some preference to those men?
    Mr. Westwood: I will certainly give consideration to the point which has been raised by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Maclay: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether Scottish fishermen are to deal with his Department in the pursuit of these rather elusive vessels, and will he state that the Admiralty has no longer anything to do with them?
    Mr. Westwood: The Admiralty still have the responsibility for the disposal of these vessels, but the applications for their use, so far as Scotland is concerned, should be made through me.
    Mr. Boothby: With regard to the vessels for disposal for herring fishing, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Herring Industry Board will be taken into consultation before these vessels, which are suitable for herring fishing, are allocated?
    Mr. Westwood: I will certainly give consideration to the point raised by the hon. Member.

    Excisable Liquor (Sunday Sale)
    Colonel Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the widespread disappointment at the Government's decision not to continue Regulation 42D and the Orders following thereon, under which the supply of intoxicating liquor to travellers on Sunday is restricted to persons taking a meal on the premises; what recommendations he has received from chief constables upon this matter; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation at an early date to place the main provisions of this Regulation upon the Statute Book.
    Mr. Westwood: I am not at present able to add anything to the reply given to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Gilzean) on 4th December last, in which it was stated that the possibility of introducing legislation had been carefully considered but, as it was clear that any such Measure would be controversial, it could not be proceeded with in the present congested state of the Parliamentary time table. As was also stated in that reply, however, I am keeping a very close watch on the position and will consider the introduction of fresh legislation if experience shows that the circumstances resulting from the expiry of the Defence Regulation make necessary an amendment of the law.
    Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: In regard to the part of the Question which deals with what recommendations he has received from chief constables in this matter, would not the right hon. Gentleman say that there is a wealth of evidence to show that the abuse of the bona fide travellers' privilege under modern conditions of travel gives rise to much drunkeness and disorder on Sundays, and does directly cause many road accidents?
    Hon. Members: Speech.
    Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members must ask questions and not make speeches.
    Mr. Westwood: At Question time it will be impossible for me in answer to a supplementary question to reply to a speech.
    Mr. McKinlay: Could I ask my right hon. Friend how it was found possible to permit this S.R. & O. to lapse, seeing that the conditions which were responsible for its imposition had disappeared, and still continue to erect permanent buildings on sites requisitioned under the Defence Regulations?

    Housing
    Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state the names of the private building companies who have offered to build large numbers of houses in Glasgow, by orthodox methods, and the number of houses they are prepared to build; and, in view of the fact that direct labour schemes will only supply a very small part of the necessary houses, if he will accept any reasonable offer to build, so that the 80,000 claimants at Glasgow can be housed.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): I am not aware that any large contractors have offered to build houses by orthodox methods for the Corporation or have been invited by them to do so. With regard to the latter part of the Question, the hon. Member can rest assured that I am anxious to encourage the provision of houses in the City by every agency.
    Mr. McGovern: While desiring the greatest progress possible in house building by direct labour, may I ask if the hon. Gentleman is aware that the direct labour schemes are touching only the fringe of this problem, and that the people in the Glasgow area expect houses to be built for them? Will the hon. Gentleman see that in the shortest space
    940
    of time every available resource will be used in order to put up these houses as early as possible?
    Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Gentleman can take it from me that for the solving of the housing problem of the City of Glasgow, which is dreadful, I will lose sight of no agency, provided that that agency is competent to fulfil its duties.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that direct schemes on the present plans are capable of dealing with the situation at an early date?
    Mr. Buchanan: I would say that the direct labour could not by itself solve the problem. That is why I have introduced an allocation of large consignments of Weir houses to the city, and I am proposing to add to orthodox methods what might be termed unorthodox methods.
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the present weekly rate of deliveries of aluminium houses in Scotland; the total number delivered; and how this compares with the original target.
    Mr. Buchanan: The present weekly rate of deliveries is 14, and the total number delivered is 126, which represents an advance of 25 on the programme.
    . Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the extent to which the Orlit house is being ordered in Scot land; and the progress that is being made in preliminary preparations for the delivery of these houses.
    Mr. Buchanan: The Scottish Orlit Company are at present in negotiation with a number of local authorities as well as the Scottish Special Housing Association for the erection of some 2,700 houses in addition to 410 houses which they are building in Edinburgh. Several local authorities are also proposing to erect houses of this type. The firm's new factory at Sighthill, Edinburgh, is nearing completion and I understand that it is hoped to commence production shortly. Arrangements are well advanced for the erection of a similar factory at Paisley.

    General Register House
    Mr. McKieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the inconvenience caused to legal firms by the time taken by the General Register House, Edinburgh, in recording deeds, he will

    941
    give a directive to the Department to expedite the return of these documents.
    Mr. Westwood: The staff of the General Register House has been seriously depleted during the war and the shortage in the typing grades is particularly acute. With the conclusion of hostilities the volume of business has greatly increased, and some delay is unavoidable; but as additional staff becomes available the delay will be reduced.
    Mr. McKie: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep this matter very much in mind as great inconvenience has been caused?
    Mr. Westwood: Certainly I will.

    Holy Cross Academy
    Lord John Hopeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give a date for the commencement of urgent repair work to Holy Cross Academy, Edinburgh.
    Mr. Westwood: As has been explained to the hon. Member in correspondence, further repairs to the existing school building are impracticable, and the only satisfactory solution to the accommodation problem at this school is the completion of the unfinished new building. So far the limited supplies of labour and materials available have prevented this, but I hope it will be possible to resume work at an early date.
    Lord John Hope: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of when that early date will be?
    Mr. Westwood: I cannot, but 1 can promise the Noble Lord that it will be as soon as possible, as soon as materials are available and we can carry through the work.

    Justices of the Peace (Advisory' Committees)
    Mr. Balfourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland who selects the members of the committees which act as advisers to the lord lieutenant of the county on the appointment of justices of the peace; and who are the present members of the advisory committees for the counties of Stirling, Banff and Argyll.
    Mr. Westwood: The members of the advisory committees referred to are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1911, to assist
    942
    him, personally and confidentially, on certain matters in relation to the selection of justices of the peace. It has for some years past been the practice not to make any public announcement either of the names or proceedings of such committees. My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is reluctant to alter this practice until the matter has been considered by the Royal Commission which will shortly be set up.

    PRODUCTION CAMPAIGN
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Labour whether mechanics and operatives are today producing the same amount of work in the same time as did men handling similar activities prewar; and, if not, what is being done to remedy this situation.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am afraid this Question is not capable of a simple answer, either in the affirmative or the negative. With regard to the second part of the Question I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the meetings last week between Ministers, trade unions and employers on the subject of production.
    Mr. Bossom: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that a bricklayer today lays only about half the number of bricks he laid prewar? Is anything being done to try to encourage them?
    Mr. Isaacs: I do not know whether it has anything to do with hens not laying so many eggs because they are not getting so much food.
    Major Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider inviting the B.B.C. to broadcast to the nation the method which the Russian nation adopts to produce greater production from the workers?
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Prime Minister, whether he will call a conference of representatives of the employers organisations and of the trade unions to discuss with His Majesty's Government the possibilities of increasing the industrial output of this country.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): At meetings last week which were addressed by myself and other Ministers, the Government discussed with representatives of employers' organisations and of the trade unions the present situation and the need for maximum production.
    Mr. Boothby: Would the Prime Minister consider holding a conference in the near future at which representatives both of the employers and of the trade unions could meet together under the auspices of His Majesty's Government?
    The Prime Minister: There are going to be meetings in the various provincial centres.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Will the Prime Minister issue to hon. Members a statement showing the results of these discussions, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has called our attention to them and we are quite unaware of what took place?
    The Prime Minister: No report is being issued as far as I know.
    Mr. S. Shephardasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to publicise the need for increased production by posters on hoardings and in factories and workshops.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. As part of the publicity in connection with the Prosperity Campaign, it is proposed to use posters in both these ways.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Prime Minister, together with the Minister of Labour, consider making an appeal to employers and employees on the news-reels?
    The Prime Minister: That is under consideration. We are also looking into the possibilities of the radio.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Prime Minister avoid posters of the type issued after the last war, which were the object of derision on the part of most of the workers, and will he consider that posters promising higher wages and limitation of profits would do the trick?
    Mr. Snadden: Did the right hon. Gentleman say" austerity or "prosperity ''? We could not hear him on this side.

    NATIONALISED UNDER-TAKINGS' STAFFS (LOCAL ELECTIONS)
    Mr. Harold Macmillanasked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the Government to debar the employees of undertakings brought under
    944
    public ownership and control from standing as candidates in municipal, county or local elections.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Macmillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman take special precautions to call the attention of the Minister of Fuel and Power to the implications, public and private, arising out of his reply?
    The Prime Minister: I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend is a diligent student of Hansard.

    CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (DIRECTOR-GENERAL)
    Mr. Oshorneasked the Prime Minister whom he proposes to appoint as director-general of the new Central Office of Information; what are his qualifications and experience; and what are his powers and salary.
    The Prime Minister: I hope that an announcement will be made very shortly.

    E.N.S.A.
    Wing-Commander Millingtonasked the Lord President of the Council why, in view of the fact that E.N.S.A. will wind up in the United Kingdom at the end of March and overseas at the end of June, its budget for 1946 is only £1,000,000 less than for 1945.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The programme of E.N.S.A. entertainment for the Services in the 12 months ending in August, 1946, which has been approved by the National Service Entertainments Board and the Service Departments, provides for a total expenditure of £3,500,000 as compared with £4,500,000 in the preceding 12 months. This reduction takes account of the decision to eliminate live entertainment at home, except for performances to personnel in hospital, at the end of March; E.N.S.A. will continue to be partially responsible for cinema entertainment at home. Entertainment overseas will continue under E.N.S.A.'s auspices until the end of August, and will not terminate in June. It is considered that the reduction of expenditure over the 12 months ending in August next by

    945
    £1,000,000 as compared with the previous year can be regarded as satisfactory; it should be realised that the greater part of the expenditure is in respect of the early months of the period.
    Mr. Walkden: Has anyone on the part of the Government troubled to go into the details of this organisation which quite obviously is a waste of time and energy and, in the main, is altogether un-necessary?
    Mr. Morrison: I think the final observations of my hon. Friend are rather sweeping.
    Mr. Walkden: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Morrison: I am glad he agrees with me. The matter has been gone into thoroughly by the Service Departments, and the National Service Entertainments Board.
    Mr. Walkden: In view of the nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the whole subject on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.

    GERMANY (AGRICULTURAL METHODS)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by how much he estimates the main arable crops to be harvested in North and East Germany in 1946 will be reduced as the result of the recent sub-division of the large light land farms into uneconomic small holdings.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The sub-division of large farms occurred in the Soviet Zone of Germany. I have no estimates of its effect on the 1946 harvests.
    Mr. Vane: Will the Minister agree that a considerable reduction is to be expected, and that for the people in Germany next winter will prove as difficult as this?
    Mr. Hynd: Obviously it is difficult to assess at this stage the effects of any such change in agricultural methods. The results will only be known at a later stage. In any case, they are in the Russian zone of Germany and it would be impossible for me to give any answer
    Mr. Vane: Since the land is unsuitable for small holdings, all experience points to a very considerable reduction.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Northern Ireland (Loan)
    Commander Nobleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the amounts which have been de ducted annually from the imperial contribution to the Northern Irish Treasury for the purpose of meeting liabilities resulting from the Northern Ireland Government's guarantees in respect of the borrowings of the Northern Ireland Road Transport Board in each year since 1938.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): The loan raised by the Northern Ireland Government in 1939 to advance moneys to the Transport Board carries an annual sinking fund which is a charge on Northern Ireland revenue and is, therefore, taken into account in fixing the Imperial contribution The amount of the Sinking Fund began at £100,000 and rose to £128,000 last year.

    Bank of England (Agricultural Interests)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why no director representing agricultural interests has been appointed to the Court of the Bank of England.
    Mr. Daiton: Because, as I stated on the Second Reading of the Bank of England Bill,
    "it is Dot intended that there should be representation of any sectional interest whatever on the Court."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 29th October, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 51]
    Mr. Boothby: In view of the fact that agriculture can hardly be described as an ordinary sectional interest, in the general sense of the words, and that the monetary policy of this country in the 1920's was mainly responsible for its ruin, will he not reconsider this?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I am informed that no fewer than three of the present Court have some practical knowledge of farming.

    Italy (Trade Relations)
    Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the granting of a trade credit to Italy at an early date, so permitting resumption of, trade between Italy and this country, especially in view of the fact that the U.S.A. has already granted credits to Italy for trade purposes.
    Mr. Dalton: Trade relations have already been resumed, but I am not prepared to grant a credit.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that the American Government have already granted a credit of 500,000,000 dollars, and in view of the fact that it is essential that industry should be got going in the North of Italy again, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision and make an announcement at an early date?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, I cannot reconsider the decision. The Americans are better able to grant credits than we are.
    Mr. Stokes: But is it not a fact that the Americans have granted the credit?
    Mr. Dalton: That is another question.
    Mr. Stokes: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Dalton: The hon. Gentleman must put it down.

    Personal Case
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what regulation it is necessary for Mr. Wilcock of Ampfield, Romsey, to obtain his Department's permission to send his daughter's golf clubs to the U.S.A.; and whether he is aware that his Department demanded the completion of four separate forms before they would consider Mr. Wilcock's application.
    Mr. Dalton: Under Regulation 5B of the Defence (Finance) Regulations certain information must be produced to the Customs before goods are exported to the United States. If the hon. and gallant Member will send me particulars of this case, I shall be glad to look into it.

    France (Trade Agreement Negotiations)
    Mr. Ecclesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the trade negotiations with France have yet been concluded; and on what terms he has renewed the credit previously available to that country.
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to effect a new financial agreement with France.
    Mr. Dalton: I am now engaged in discussions on these matters with the French Government.
    Mr. Eccles: Would the Chancellor give us an assurance that current trade with France will not be held up by want of credit facilities?
    Mr. Dalton: I am now discussing with the French Government what we can do to assist Anglo-French trade, but I must repeat that we are not in a position to give large credits today. People must, on the whole and in general, pay for what they get with reasonable promptitude.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is most important that foreign countries should realise that friendship with us results in increased economic prosperity?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

    Service Pay (Income Tax)
    Mr. Challenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the fact that men on discharge from the Forces have to pay Income Tax on the service pay they receive during the leave to which they are entitled, discourages many of them from taking up paid work during that period; and whether, in view of the necessity for encouraging productive work, he will consider remitting Income Tax on the paid leave of Service- men on demobilisation.
    Mr. Dalton: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 23rd October last to the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Colonel Enroll).

    Budget Questions
    Sir John Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider increasing the margin of preference given to Empire products in the cases of wine, coffee, sugar, raisins-and tobacco, in view of the necessity of increasing our Empire resources of these commodities
    Mr. Oliver Pooleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider removing the Purchase Tax on electric kettles, electric irons and electric- washing machines on the ground that these appliances contribute greatly to the conservation of fuel.
    Mr. Dalton: The hon. Members will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will the Chancellor at least give the assurance that his hands

    949
    will be kept free to increase the margin of preference in his next Budget, if at that time he so desires?
    Mr. Dalton: This is not the time of year to give any such assurances on any matter relating to the Budget.
    Mr. De la Bère: Surely we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Dominions?

    Foreign Investments
    General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the approximate capital value of the foreign investments still held by this country and the annual interest due and received thereon, respectively; and, in view of the importance of preserving and increasing our invisible exports, what steps are being taken in each case of default to secure payment of the interest due.
    Mr. Dalton: Interest received in 1945 from overseas investments was about £170 millions. The other figures asked for are not at present available, but the Bank of England are now making estimates which I shall be glad to publish when completed. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply on Tuesday last to the hon. Baronet the Member for East Ealing (Sir. F. Sanderson).
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Have we not numerous investments in South America, and in view of the importance of invisible exports, which has been emphasised by the Prime Minister and by the right hon. Gentleman, will he take all possible steps to see that those investments are realised and the interest on them collected?
    Mr. Dalton: I said in the answer to which I referred in my reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that all steps which are appropriate to each particular case will be taken to protect our overseas investments That, of course, goes for South America

    Income Tax Officials (Interviews)
    Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the difficulties of many citizens in daily employment who wish to consult income tax officials and cannot see them as they are only available during short hours in daytime; and whether he will consider arranging that such offices
    950
    be open for at least one evening during the week as is done in other Government Departments.
    Mr. Dalton: If my hon. Friend would let me know in what particular locality he thinks this service would be useful, I shall be glad to see what can be done.
    Mr. Freeman: Is t not a tact that a very large number of Income Tax payers are having difficulty in understanding Income Tax law in nearly every big town, and would he make inquiries as to what can be done in this respect?
    Mr. Dalton: If the difficulty exists, it is one of long standing, and I doubt whether it is really worth while making officials, after a very hard day's work, sit up in the evening and wait for callers unless there is some proof that the thing is really necessary.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it not universal and distressing?

    Anglo-Canadian Agreement
    Squadron-Leader Hollisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, in view of Article 2 of the Anglo-Canadian Agreement, are the guarantees that the credits made available by Canada will be spent on purchases in Canada.
    Mr. Dalton: The Agreement does not provide that the proceeds of the Loan are to be spent only on purchases in Canada, but the greater part will be so spent.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

    Customs and Excise, Blackpool
    Mr. Channonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the grievances of the staff of Accountant and Comptroller-General's Office of the Customs and Excise Department on account of their continued retention in Blackpool; and whether, in view of this and the desirability of having the maximum accommodation in Blackpool available for holiday makers at the earliest opportunity, he will arrange for the return of this office to their normal headquarters at the earliest opportunity
    Mr. Dalton: This case is being considered, but there is a very serious shortage of accommodation in London.
    Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: In view of the need for permanent all-the-year-round employment in Blackpool will the right hon. Gentleman consider the policy of retaining Government Departments there? And at the same time will he remember the necessity of providing permanent accommodation for them instead of requisitioning holiday accommodation?
    Mr. Dalton: I shall be glad to look into that possibility.

    Civil Service Examinations
    Major Vernonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the next Civil Service entrance examinations are to be held for the special department class, the executive class and Customs and Excise.
    Mr. Dalton: Reconstruction examinations for these three classes in March, July and May respectively, and a normal open examination for the executive class in April.

    BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (PRESTIGE ADVERTISING)
    Mr. Bowlesasked the Assistant Postmaster-General, as representing the Ministry of Information, why the B.B.C. departed from its usually strict policy against prestige advertising over the radio by broadcasting the British Film Festival, organised by the "Daily Mail," on 3rd March, 1946.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr.Burke): This broadcast involved no departure from the B.B.C.'s established policy.
    Mr. Bowles: Did the hon. Gentleman hear at the end of the broadcast that the people who listened in to it were asked to send on a postcard the names of whom they thought the best actor or actress? This was sponsored by the "Daily Mail."
    Mr. Burke: It involved no infringement of the Charter or of the licence. The B.B.C. has frequently broadcast entertainments such as the Henry Wood Memorial Fund concert at the Albert Hail, sponsored by the "Daily Telegraph," and the massed bands concert run by the "Daily Herald."

    EX-PREMIER'S SPEECH, UNITED STATES
    Mr. Hutchinsonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General, as representing the Ministry of Information, why the machinery of the Ministry was used to circulate to the Press the full report of the speech made on 5th March at Fulton, Missouri, by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill).
    Mr. Burke: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Hutchinson: Could the hon. Gentleman be more explicit, in view of the statement by the Lord President of the Council on 19th February about the circulation of his speech by the Ministry of Information? Are we to assume that the prohibition of the circulation of speeches of a political character extends merely to the speeches made by Members on this side of the House?
    Mr. Burke: I think my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was very explicit yesterday, and very full.

    " BRITISH ALLY "(CIRCULATION)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Assistant Postmaster-General, as representing the Ministry of Information, what is the circulation of the publication "British Ally" in Russia, exclusive of its circulation among the diplomatic corps and Soviet Government departments.
    Mr. Burke: 50,000 copies of the weekly publication "British Ally" are printed in Moscow, of which about 1,500 copies are distributed free to Soviet officials and organisations, to the diplomatic corps in Moscow, and to correspondents. All the remaining copies of "British Ally," with the exception of a few which are sent abroad for information, are distributed by subscription and sale throughout the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Osborne: Is the copy subject to censorship before publication?
    Mr. Burke: No, Sir. I replied to that on a previous occasion.
    Major Lloyd: Would the hon. Gentle-roan consider ensuring that the number

    953
    of issues of "British Ally" circulating in Russia is the same as the quantity of copies of "Soviet News" and the "Soviet Weekly" circulating in this country?
    Mr. Burke: We can consider that in view of the position when the allocation of paper comes to an end.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it not preferable to take every opportunity we can of putting over the British case in the U.S.S.R.?

    BRITISH CAMPAIGN MEDALS (ALLIED PERSONNEL)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the conditions under which all ranks of allied armies, serving in complete allied units and not filling individual appointments in British War Establishments, may be considered to have qualified for British campaign medals in respect of service during the 1939–45 war; and whether such conditions apply equally to all operational theatres.
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger): I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the Answer given to the hon. and gallant Member on 19th February.
    Mr. Vane: Will the Financial Secretary hasten this matter and bear in mind that the effect of what is done will be greatly reduced if these awards are only made months or years after the event?

  BRITISH ARMY

    Royal Artillery Depot, Woolwich
    Mr. Rees-Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the accommodation at the R.A. depot, Woolwich, was condemned some 50 years ago as unfit for the housing of troops; and whether he will now move this depot to one of the new R.A. permanent camps, such as Oswestry.
    Mr. Bellenger: I can find no evidence to support the statement that this accommodation was condemned 50 years ago as unfit for the housing of troops. A considerable amount of work to improve the accommodation was, however, carried out between 1925 and 1932. Any modernisation of Army barracks which is
    954
    still necessary will be undertaken when circumstances permit, but there is not sufficient accommodation available to the Army at present to permit permanent barracks being left empty. Certain elements of the Royal Artillery Depot are already housed outside Woolwich to ensure that the barracks are not over-crowded.
    .Mr.Rees-Williams: Is the Financial Secretary aware that, during the war, and probably now, a large number of soldiers were housed in stables at Woolwich, and will he send the Director of Quartering to Woolwich for a week to live in the accommodation, because then he might change his mind?
    Mr. Bellenger: I think that that would be most unkind on the Director of Quartering.
    Mr. Berry: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the married quarters are absolutely useless and that I have pressed this question on the War Office on a number of occasions to get the matter put right?
    Mr. Bellenger: I am not going to deny that accommodation during the war and before the war was not adequate for our troops, but it is our intention at the War Office to alter this as soon as we can do so.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is it not the case, so far as the rebuilding of military barracks is concerned, that circumstances never do permit it, because either Service Estimates are being cut to the bone in peacetime, or there is a war on and a shortage of labour?
    Mr. Bellenger: Now that we have a change at the War Office in regard to political direction I have more confidence in the future than in the past.
    Mr. De la Bère: A thoroughly unsatisfactory answer.

    Transit Camp, Hook of Holland
    Mr. Walkdenasked the Secretary of State for War if he will investigate the causes of delay of men at the transit camp in the Hook of Holland who are returning to Britain on compassionate leave; if he is aware that quite often men are detained there for five or six days; and if he will improve this service.
    Mr. Bellenger: During the last 12 months the service from Hook of Holland

    955
    to Harwich has been temporarily suspended on only three occasions on account of bad weather. Otherwise accommodation has always been sufficient to clear all men from the transit camp each day, whatever the reason for their journey may have been, and I have received an assurance from the headquarters concerned that men are not detained for five or six days. In the circumstances I see no necessity for any further action on my part.
    Mr. Walkden: Is the Minister aware that there have been a number of complaints about this bottleneck at the Hook of Holland, and that it is not due to bad weather? The War Office and the welfare officers seem to do their job, but the bottleneck always seems to happen at the Hook of Holland. Will he not go more deeply into the question?
    Mr. Bellenger: Whether or not my hon. Friend thinks it is satisfactory, this is probably the best Channel route we have available. Although I have not been to the Hook of Holland to inspect this transit camp, I have seen two other transit camps, in Calais and Dieppe, and I am satisfied that on the whole these camps and the services provided on these routes are as satisfactory as we can get them at the moment.

    ELECTION DISQUALIFICATIONS (VALIDATION BILL)
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Government has considered the reports from the Select Committee on Elections, and, as recommended by the Committee, they propose to introduce forthwith a Bill to validate the elections of the hon. Members for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison), North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet) and Bristol Central (Mr. . Awbery). The Committee are satisfied that in each case the disqualification arose purely from inadvertence, combined with the difficulty of interpreting and applying the existing law, and we hope that the House will agree to the early passage of the Bill through all its stages, in order that the hon. Members concerned may resume their Parliamentary duties as soon as possible.

    POSTAL SERVICES (IMPROVEMENTS)
    Mr. Burke: I should like to make a short statement about the proposed improvements in postal services. My Noble Friend intends in May, with the co-operation of the railway companies, to restore seven more travelling post offices which will enable the Post Office to guarantee delivery by first post next week day anywhere in England and Wales of correspondence posted in London in time for the 4 to 5.30 p.m. collections. Posting times will also be improved in other parts of the country for delivery by first post on the following week day. In October, my Noble Friend intends practically to complete the restoration of the network of night travelling post offices which will give a posting time of 6 to 0.30 p.m. in London for delivery by first post next week day. Posting times will also be improved further in other parts of the country.
    My Noble Friend, also, intends with the further co-operation of the railway companies, to make a start in May with scheduling parcel mails to individual passenger trains, a practice which had to be abandoned during the war. By October next, further progress will be made in accelerating parcel mail circulation and the interval between posting and delivery should be reduced by as much as 24 hours on medium and 48 hours on long distances. My Noble Friend would like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the helpful spirit of co-operation in which the railway companies have sought to overcome their great working difficulties in order to improve the letter and parcel mail services.
    With regard to air services, as night flying inland air services develop, my Noble Friend proposes to use them to improve the mail service in suitable cases. To begin with, first priority is being given to consideration of a night flying service between England and Northern Ireland and Eire.
    As regards letter collections and deliveries, the position will be considerably improved this summer in many places, and by the end of the year the improvement will be general. In London, on week days, excepting Saturdays, additional collections will be made at 7.30 p.m. and 9.0 p.m., the 9.0 p.m. collection being restricted in the central

    957
    area. On Saturdays and Sundays, the last collection will be at 6 to 6.30 p.m. There will be five deliveries—one a restricted delivery—in head districts in place of the present three deliveries, and the starting time of the final delivery in head and sub-districts will be 7.0 p.m. instead of 3 to 4.15 p.m., as at present. We shall aim at an earlier finish for the first delivery. In provincial towns, a later collection, restricted as before the war to certain collecting boxes, will be given at 8 to 8.45 p.m., and the afternoon collection will be made later in many rural districts, timed generally to connect with the outgoing main evening mail from head office. In provincial towns of 50,000 inhabitants and over, there will be an additional delivery, making three in all in the central districts. In rural areas having only one delivery at present, an additional delivery will be given where the traffic justifies this service. My Noble Friend proposes, in connection with these changes, to give provincial towns postmen on outdoor services a half-holiday on Saturdays by making the final delivery at about noon to 1.0 p.m. and the final collection at about 6.0 p.m. He proposes a concession on similar lines for postmen serving rural areas. It will be open to local authorities to take up individual cases with the Post Office, if they so desire.
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these improvements, brought about with the cooperation of the railway companies, will mean a return to the prewar rates of postage?
    Mr. Burke: I cannot anticipate that.
    Mr. Tom Smith: Can my hon. Friend say whether improvement of the postal facilities in the House of Commons is contemplated?
    Mr. Burke: The House of Commons will be part of the general scheme.
    Mr. Nicholson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether his Department has calculated the possibility of their plans going wrong owing to the grave shortage of coal affecting the railways; and if he proposes to invite the Leader of the House to enable us to have a Debate on this important matter?
    Mr. H. Wallace: I am afraid that I did not catch altogether what my hon. Friend said. I would like to be clear
    958
    on the matter. I think that he referred to the final delivery in London being at 7 p.m. I am not sure whether he said that he hoped it might be possible to improve and accelerate the despatch of that delivery—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not asking a question.
    Mr. Wallace: I apologise if I have not put my remarks in the correct form. May I ask why the concession to postmen in the provinces is apparently not to apply to London postmen? I should like to know why they are excluded.
    Mr. Burke: I think that matter is under consideration.
    Mr. Butcher: May I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he cannot improve the postal services to the North of Scotland? I am sorry to hear that air postal services are not mentioned in his statement, as there is no doubt that it takes four days for letters to reach certain areas in Scotland.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he will be able to make a similar statement concerning the improvement of telephone services?

    ACQUISITION OF LAND (AUTHORISATION PROCEDURE) BILL
    Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]
    Minutes of Proceedings to be printed [No. 96.]

    STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.
    Tenth Report from the Select Committee (with Memoranda relating to certain Orders), brought up, and read, as follows:
    Your Committee have considered the. Distribution of Industry (Development Areas) Order, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 197); a copy of which was presented on 20th February, the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (No. 1) Order, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 211), a copy of which was presented on 22nd,

    959
    February, and the Drafts of the Department of Overseas Trade (Dissolution) Order, 1946, of the Ministry of War Transport (Dissolution) Order, 1946, and of the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Dissolution) Order, 1946, copies of which were presented on 7th March, and are of the opinion that there are no reasons for drawing the special attention of the House to them, on any of the grounds set out in the Order of Reference to the Committee.
    They have also considered the Improvement of Livestock (Licensing of Bulls) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 223), a copy of which was presented on 20th February, and are of the opinion that the special attention of the House should be drawn to it, on the ground that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the laying of it before Parliament.
    They have also considered the Order, dated 1st February, 1946, amending the Food (Points Rationing) Order, 1945 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 158) a copy of which was presented on nth February, and are of the opinion that the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on the ground that its purport calls for elucidation.
    To lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 97.]

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon London Necropolis Company Limited; and or other purposes."— [London Necropolis Bill [Lords.]
    LONDON NECROPOLIS BILL [Lords]
    Read the First time, and referred to;he Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Resolved:
" That this day, notwithstanding anything in paragraphs (2) and(4) of Standing Order No. 14, the Air Supplementary Estimate, 1945, may be considered in Committee of Supply and may be taken after a quarter past Nine o'clock; and that the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."— [Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1946

  NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE
  Resolved:
  " That a number of officers and airmen, not exceeding 760,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Air Force Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, excluding those serving in India on the Indian Establishment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947."

  VOTE ON ACCOUNT
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That a sum, not exceeding £150,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Air Force Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947."

  MR. STRACHEY'S STATEMENT
  3.26 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Strachey): The Committee will understand that in preparing for my task of introducing and recommending these Estimates to the Committee, I studied the speeches of my distinguished predecessors, Secretaries of State for Air and Under-Secretaries of State for Air. I find that their speeches were of two kinds. During the war, they took the form of an account of the work of the Royal Air Force during the preceding year. Before the war, they took the form of recommendations and explanations of the expenditure proposed for the following' year. As this is a transitional year, this, I think, must be a transitional kind of

  96l
  speech, and, with the Committee's permission, I shall try to do three things: First, to say something about the work of the Royal Air Force in the concluding months of the war. If I did not do that the record of the Royal Air Force during the war, as presented to the Committee so eloquently by Sir Archibald Sinclair, year after year during the war, would be incomplete. Secondly, to say something about the expenditure proposed for the coming year, and, thirdly, to say something—although I must warn the Committee that it will be something very tentative at this stage—as to the future functions, character and size of the Royal Air Force.
  I should spend all my time if I attempted to give a chronological account of all the actions in which the Royal Air Force was engaged in the concluding weeks and months of the two wars— between 6th March, 1945, when Sir Archibald Sinclair spoke to the Air Estimates, and the surrender of Japan on 16th August last. The Royal Air Force took a part and a very prominent part in every one of those culminating actions of the war. It was over the 21st Army Group in its final advance across the Rhine and into Germany. There our . Tactical Air Forces maintained perfect air superiority over our advancing Armies. I should like to say something of Coastal Command work in the final killings of the U-Boat as they were driven from their Baltic training grounds by the advance of our Russian Allies.

  But all that marvellous story of the end of the war is fresh in our memories and I could add very little to it in the time at my disposal. I would like to have said something, too, about the work of Transport Command in the Burma campaign. That was a notable campaign for many reasons but for none more than that it was the first time British Forces were engaged in a campaign which was made wholly dependent on air supply. In Burma in the months of June and July last eight squadrons of the R.A.F.— some 200 aircraft—carried 32,000 troops, delivered 47,000 tons of supplies, and evacuated 9,500 casualties. I think that there are many Members of the Committee who from personal knowledge can clothe these bare facts with the sense of the human achievement and human sacrifices which these figures mean.
  962
  As I say, I cannot pursue a catalogue of all the operations of the -concluding phase of the war, but what I should like to do is to use what time I can in this part of my speech to say something about what we now know to have been the results of the main offensive effort of the Royal Air Force. I feel it necessary to offer to the Committee certain reflections on the results of the strategic bomber offensive, because that offensive was not only the principal effort of the Royal Air Force, but it was, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said at the time, for a large part of the war the principal offensive effort of this country. Very great resources were devoted to it. At one moment, we were producing no less than 500 heavy bombers a month, and in the execution of that offensive, 50,000 members of air crews lost their lives. Therefore, I think it is a high national concern for all of us to ask the question, were those' resources really well employed? Did they inflict more damage on the enemy at a lower cost to ourselves, than if they had been used in any imaginable alternative way? Presumably, the only alternative way would have been to have cast them at the German armies deployed across Europe as was done in the previous war, instead of casting them, as was done in this war, through the air at . Germany itself.
  Here I must interpolate one word of warning. I am going to speak entirely about the Bomber Command of the Royal Air Force in the strategic bomber offensive, because that is what we in this Committee are concerned with, but it would be sad indeed if that fact made anyone suppose I am pretending that Bomber Command of the R.A.F. was the sole participant in the strategic bomber offensive. On the contrary, it was not the sole participant, and in the concluding months of the war, of which I am speaking, it was not even the largest participant in that offensive. Those superb forces, the 8th and 15th U.S. Air Forces with the vast resources of America behind them, were participating side by side in that offensive, in a joint and inseparable effort. The mortal injuries on the enemy, which I am going to describe in a moment, were inflicted by those three forces acting together and it would be idle and invidious to try to laud either one or the other force. But

  963
  my object is to assess the results of the vast effort which this country devoted to the strategic bomber offensive. Of course, it is too early yet to cast any final balance sheet of what was achieved. We must, I think, await the conclusions of the very careful and very detailed work of assessment which is being done in the Air Ministry today; nevertheless, I feel that the Committee have a right to hear which way the evidence is pointing, because obviously, that must have a profound. effect on our whole defence policy in the future.
  What 1 am going to put before the Committee on this occasion is not any Air Ministry assessment or any Air Ministry estimate of what was achieved. I am going to place before the Committee the opinions of some of the leaders of the German war effort who were at the receiving end, as it were, of our strategic bomber offensive, because I think that their opinion has some weight in the matter. In the closing months of the war, with which I am dealing our strategic bomber offensive had risen to its climax, and it was concentrated on two complimentary types of objective— the German transportation system and the German synthetic oil industry. These objectives had been most carefully chosen, and they were, I believe, complimentary, because an attack on them represented in each case an attack on German mobility, and mobility is the very essence of the capacity to wage war.
  As evidence of the effect of that offensive, concentrated on these two objectives, I will call Dr. Albrecht Speer, sometime Reichminister for Armaments and War Productions. I think if any man knew what was actually being accomplished, it should be Speer. Let us hear him, then, on what we were doing. Let us hear him first on the effect of our bombing of the German transportation system. He said in the summer of 1944:
  " Concentrated day and night attacks on the Ruhr transport and communications system first began to cause most serious anxiety about future developments, since supplies to industry in the rest of the Reich of the numerous products of the Ruhr, ranging from coal to single items, were bottled up in the Ruhr owing to transport difficulties."
  Naturally, the transportation attacks can be directed not only to a great industrial objective or industrial area such as the
  964
  Ruhr; they may be directed to the actual means of transportation behind the lines to prevent assistance to the enemy's armies in the field, and they were so directed. Speer says of that aspect of the offensive:
  " Transport difficulties were decisive in causing the swift breakdown of the Ardenne offensive. The most advanced railheads of the Reichbahn were withdrawn further and further back during the offensive owing to the continuous air attack's."
  Here we approach the borderline between strategic and tactical bombing, and we are more especially concerned with the effort we devoted to pure strategic bombing—that is to say, an effort not directly related to the ground operations which were going on at the same time. So, I turn to the other great objective which we were bombing at that time—the German oil industry. I would again call Speer as a witness. It might be said that his evidence is suspect now that the war is over, because he might tell us what he thinks we might be pleased to hear, and, therefore, we should discount a good deal of what he has to say. Fortunately, we know what Speer thought, and knew of the effects of our offensive at the time, before the end of the war—actually when the war was proceeding—because we have five "top secret" reports which Speer made to Hitler, on the effect of our oil offensive, during its course from May, 1944 to May, 1945. I will quote a few words from each of them. The first one which Speer delivered to Hitler on 30th June, 1944, says:
  " The enemy's attacks on the hydrogenation works and refineries were intensified during June. If we do not succeed in protecting the hydrogenation works and refineries better than formerly, then in September "—
  that is, September, 1944—
  " of this year an impossible situation in the fuel supply for the Wehrmacht and country will arise."
  A month later, on 28th July, 1944, Speer reported:
  " The attacks on the synthetic-oil plants and refineries in July had the most dire consequences. It was possible for the enemy, in most cases, to destroy the plants effectively shortly after work in them had been resumed."
  A month later, on 30th August, 1944, he was reporting:
  " If the attacks on the oil industry continue in the same strength and with the same precision in September as in August, the last stocks will be consumed."

  965
  Unfortunately, as a matter of fact, the weather broke in the middle of September in that year, and the enemy were given a small respite from the pounding of his oil supplies. However the attacks went on, but they could not be so effective as during the summer. In his next report, which is dated the 5th October, 1944, Speer says that he was able to get produced 9,000 tons out of a possible 22,000 tons of aviation spirit. I believe it is hardly too much to say that German resistance through that winter could only be prolonged because of the unavoidable fact that there had to be some relief at that moment. However, that respite was short-lived indeed. If the last winter of the war, just over a year ago, Bomber Command developed to it: highest point the art of night precision bombing. They began the development of it in the transportation attacks in France, but such precision attacks were of comparatively short range. However, they perfected, in the last winter of the war, night precision bombing attacks on individual plants deep into Germany. I shall always regard that as the very greatest achievement which Bomber Command made in the whole course of the war In Speer's last report, on 19th January, 1945, he wrote:
  " Since 13th January, a new series of heavy attacks have been made on the mineral oil industry, which have, up till now, led to the elimination of the large hydrogenation plants of Poolitz, Leuna Bruex, Blechhammer and Zeitz for a considerable period; this after the last quarter of the previous year, when all the plants situated in the West, especially Scholven, Wesselring, Welheim, and Gelsenberg fell out completely. Moreover, it has now been determined that the attacks which take place sc often at night now, are considerably more effective than daylight attacks, since heavier bombs are used and an extraordinary accuracy in attaining the target is reported."
  I believe these final and culminating oil and transportation attacks, British and American, were strategic bombing's greatest achievement of the war, and that they played an absolutely decisive part in the breaking of German resistance.
  The Committee will want to know just how they did play that part in breaking German resistance, what was the actual process by which the effects of strategic bombing contributed to victory. Again, Speer can tell us how the thing happened. In interrogation, after the war, he said:
  " In the Luftwaffe the shortage of liquid fuel became insupportable as from September, 1944, onwards, since as from that date
  966
  the allocation was cut down to 30,000 tons a month, whereas the monthly requirement amounted to between 160,000 and 180,000 tons. So far as the Army is concerned, the shortage of liquid fuel, which, in this case, was also due to supply difficulties—where transportation bombing came in for the first time—first became catastrophic at the time of the winter offensive of 16th December, 1944; and this was substantially responsible for the rapid collapse of the German defensive front against the Russian break-out from the Baranovo bridgehead. There were approximately 1,500 tanks ready for action, but those had only one or two fuel supply units and were consequently immobilised "
  There, we see how, in actual effect, strategic bombing made resistance to the Allied Armies, advancing on Germany from East and West, impossible In practice, the end of the war could only come in this way, by the pressure on Germany from the air, from the ground, and by our naval and other measures. It may be of interest to the Committee to know what Speer said when he was asked the direct question:
  "Do you believe that strategic bombing alone could have brought about the surrender of Germany? "
  He replied:
  " The answer is, Yes. The attacks on the synthetic oil industry would have sufficed, without the impact of purely military events, to render Germany defenceless."
  There are other German war leaders, whose evidence we have on the subject, who are in agreement with Speer For instance, Field Marshal Milch, the head of the Luftwaffe, said crisply:
  " If the synthetic oil plants had been attacked six months earlier Germany would have been defeated about six months sooner."
  They could not be attacked six months earlier, but, at any rate, that is his opinion. Dr. Rischer, head of the Oil Department of the German Ministry of Armaments, said:
  " If the air attacks had been concentrated on industry, particularly oil, chemicals, power and transportation, the war would have been over one year sooner."
  Those attacks were concentrated as soon as they could be. Dr. Hottlage said:
  " The war would have ended much sooner if precision bombing attacks had begun earlier than they did—certainly if the German transport system and oil production had been attacked"
  I submit to the Committee that that was the answer to our question: was the tremendous effort we made, and the great resources we devoted to the strategic bomber offensive, justified? We have

  967
  evidence which can give us a broad, decided answer. When the necessary skill had been developed, and the true . objectives of transportation and oil had been found, all the sacrifices of life, and all the heroism which was devoted to, and lavished upon, the strategic bomber offensive was fully justified. I believe that the war was won with a far smaller cost of life to this country than it could have been done in any other way.
  I turn from those few remarks on the end of the war, to the situation and problems which face us in the Air Ministry today, and which face the whole nation. I want to say something as to the part which the Royal Air Force, as one of the Fighting Services, is called on to play in the national life today. I believe that the Services can make a vital contribution to the supreme end of national reconversion and recovery. The first and obvious contribution they can make is to carry through a speedy, but controlled and orderly, demobilisation. That is what we are doing. Let me remind the Committee of the key figures in that connection On VE-day, the strength of the R.A.F. was 1,110,000. On 31st December 365,000 had been demobilised, and by 30th June next another 377,000 will have been demobilised. Further, by 30th June out of 1,110,000 the number who will have gone will be 742,000. Seven out of 11, or over two-thirds, will have been demobilised within 13 months of the end of the German war, and 10 months of the end of the Japanese war. That cannot be characterised as a slow rate of demobilisation. On the contrary, it is a reasonable rate of demobilisation, and it will not end on 30th June next. It will go on and, as the Committee know, the figure which the R.A.F. comes down to by 30th December next is 305,000.
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: May I ask the Under-Secretary whether these figures are for men only, and if so, can he give the figures for women?
  Mr. Strachey: They include both men and women. I can get the separate figures after my speech.
  I put it to the Committee that, in the middle of the process of demobilisation as we are today, the scheme of age and service group devised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the closing
  968
  period of the war is standing and standing well its supreme test, for it is a supreme test to demobilise four out of five men—which means, taking the three Services together, 4,000,000 out of 5,000,000 men—within 18 months of the end of the world war. Every demobilisation scheme must be in the nature of a compromise between the principle of perfect fairness between individual men, and the principle of the needs of the nation for the demobilisation of particular men, without reference to their age or length of service. I suggest that the so-called Bevin scheme, with its Class A under which, in practice, 90 per cent. of the men are demobilised, and its Class B, under which some 10 per cent. are being demobilised, is the best practical reconciliation of those two contradictory principles which can be made.
  As to the other perfectly legitimate points of criticism which are so often levelled against the scheme, the uneven-ness between trade and trade, which is very slight, or the rather greater uneven-ness between Service and Service, we can only say that those unevenness were also contemplated. They are provided for in the White Papers which originally put forward the scheme, and they do no more than make workable a scheme which would be impossibly rigid without them. It is true that in the Royal Air Force we have not passed through the period of demobilisation without our troubles, and' those troubles are profoundly regrettable. But who ever did get through a period of general demobilisation after a great war, without some trouble; and if we compare this time with past experience, those troubles will seem slight indeed. I believe I heard in the course of the defence Debate an interjection which suggested that the rate of Royal Air Force demobilisation had been speeded up as a concession to our recent troubles. I want to say a word on that because I think it is important. It is completely untrue that anything of that sort was done. I will tell the Committee exactly what happened. We found that men in India had become out of touch with the true situation, and believed that the rate of demobilisation was going to be far slower than was actually the case. They believed that there had been no change since the announcement which I made in October last, that Group 32 would be reached by June next, and the

  969
  position—comic if it had not been tragic—had been reached in which men were committing acts of indiscipline against a rate of demobilisation which was far slower than the one we knew in fact was to be implemented.
  Therefore, far from changing our rate of demobilisation all we did was, as I told the House, to announce what our programme was to be five months ahead, instead of three. Actually the rate was not varied by one single day. The only lesson this contains is, I think, the great importance of telling men as far ahead as possible what the rate is to be. Of course there are limits to that, because if we go too far ahead either we have to be so cautious as enormously to understate the rate, or there is the risk that owing to some unforeseen circumstance we shall fail to keep up with our announced rate, and I am determined almost at all costs not to do that. The process of demobilisation is of course only one part of the huge and most complexed clearing and unwinding process in which the Royal Air Force and the other Services find themselves engaged.
  Earl Winterton: Before the Under-Secretary leaves this point, may I ask him whether the figure he gave for the end of this year represents the permanent figure for the next two or three years, and if so how does it compare with the figures for the Royal Air Force and the Auxiliary Air Force at the outbreak of war?
  Mr. Strachey: No figure has yet been decided for the permanent Air Force. The only decision is the 305,000 at the end of this year.
  The second point in connection with the clearing up and unwinding process concerns the disposal of surplus. The Committee-knows that the procedure is that we at the Air Ministry declare stores and supplies to be surplus, but it is the Ministry of Supply in almost all cases who sells them. I can assure the Committee that we are declaring stores surplus at a fast rate, but they are of such a miscellaneous character that I find it difficult to give them a numerical measure. We shall declare surplus stores which were occupying 6,000,000 square feet of space. In individual items, 13,000 vehicles have been declared surplus and we are about to declare another surplus 17,000; 100,000
  970
  tons of explosives has been declared surplus and we are just about to declare surplus another 300,000 tons. I do not quite know what the poor Ministry of Supply will do with it, but the Committee may be assured that we are most anxious to get this stuff off our hands. The manpower drain occasioned by looking after it is most serious.
  Then there is the question of the release of airfields. Hon. Members of the Committee may have the impression—as I had before 1 looked into the matter—that vast areas of cultivable land in this country is occupied by airfields, and in the present food situation they are naturally and quite rightly anxious that it should be put back to agricultural use at the most rapid pace possible. We are doing everything we can in that direction. We have released 100 airfields and parts of 50 more since the New Year; 50,000 acres were released last year. That process is continuing, but I would warn the Committee not to build too great hopes on the contribution of food growing, which the release of airfields, in itself, can give, for the figures are, to meat any rate, somewhat surprising. There are some 31,000,000 acres of cultivable or pasture land in the United Kingdom of these, at the peak point, the Air Ministry held 240,000 acres, that is less than one per cent., and of that one per cent. a third has already been released, so that even if we could release every single airfield which we still hold, the contribution would be considerably less than one per cent. of the agricultural land of the country.
  We are using some 6½ million square feet of hangarage and other accommodation on airfields for prisoners of war, for the accommodation of soldiers and sailors, and for storage purposes. This enables us to get out of industrial premises. We are sometimes urged to make the huts available for emergency housing purposes and there is no rule against that, but, on the whole, it is usually considered that they are more suitable for the purpose of getting troops out of billets in ordinary houses and thus indirectly saving housing space.
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: In the figure of 31,000,000 acres of pasturage and cultivable land, does the Under-Secretary include hill land, sheep land, mountain land, and so on?
  Mr. Strachey: It is land used for agricultural purposes. It does not of course include a barren mountain for instance.
  Mr. Macmillan: Does it include sheep land?
  Mr. Strachey: 1 can get the exact definition later, and will break the figure down.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Mary-lebone): How much of the aerodrome area now in existence is actually being acquired, either for grazing, or for the growing of vegetables and other things of that kind?
  Mr. Strachey: I think I can supply the figure giving the proportion of the acreage held by the Air Ministry under cultivation, although I do not know how long it will take to get it.
  . With regard to the derequisitioning of properties, I mean by that non-industrial properties held, so far we have derequisitioned 4,500 non-industrial properties, that is two-thirds of those held. Those held were, therefore, 6,000. Another 1,000 will have gone by the end of June, leaving only 500. Of factory space, we held at the peak point 9,000,000 square feet. By the end of June we shall be out of 6,500,000 square feet, and we hope to be out of practically all the remainder, that is 2,500,000, by the end of the year.
  Now I ask the Committee to turn to the Estimates themselves. They will see that the Estimates are transitional. That, of course, does not mean that fuller Estimates will not be presented later in the year; on the contrary, they are coming in April and will be debatable. These Estimates give the Committee a chance of considering—they have considered it formally already, of course—under Vote A the number of the men which is it constitutionally necessary that the Committee should sanction the Government to maintain; and of voting a sum on account to sustain the Royal Air Force in the meantime. They will see that the figure in Vote A is 760,000, but I would remind the Committee that the only meaning of that figure is that it is the figure from which the Royal Air Force will drop. That is a maximum figure, which will drop to 305,000 by the end of the year. The demobilisation figures, which I have already given, are the figures to go by,
  972
  and not that figure of 760,000 which simply means the Royal Air Force in all its strength. In that connection, the Committee will see also that £176,500.000 under Vote I is the cost, not of maintaining 760,000 men, but of the falling average of the men maintained through the year as the Force drops to its figure of 305,000 by the end of the year.
  The next financial point to which I would call the attention of the Committee, is that of terminal charges, that is, the charges which are special to this year as a demobilisation year. They are not shown separately but they make a most important and substantial amount in every one of the principal Votes shown on the Paper. The terminal charges in all amount to no less than £80,000,000. The three big items of them are £31,000,000 for leave pay, £25,000,000 for war gratuities, and £11,000,000 for post-war credits. So that the real provision for the Royal Air Force for this year is not £255,500,000 but £175,500,000. The terminal charges being what they are, it is almost true to say that the faster we demobilise for this year, the more it may cost. The terminal charges are, in my opinion, fully justified. We are entirely right to treat the men as they leave the Royal Air Force and the other Services in this very generous way. That is the explanation of why the figure has not come down more rapidly, and why we shall really only feel the enormous financial relief from demobilisation next year.
  The other great point which, of course, hon. Members will have noted in these Estimates, is that in contrast to prewar years the cost of new aircraft and supplies generally is not included in these Estimates; they are borne on the Vote of the Ministry of Supply, as is the cost of development and research. That is all part of the new system of centralising the supply of the Armed Forces which the Government have already announced. We are perfectly clear that this new system has the most important advantages. I will say something about research in a moment but, apart from research, it will enable the Government to foster and safeguard the industrial war potential of the country far more effectively than if the Services were buying separately under the old system.
  Earl Winterton: It does not include naval supplies?
  Mr. Strachey: It does not include shipbuilding; it includes some naval supplies but not ships.
  Nevertheless, any system must have its difficulties as well as its advantages, and there would be real difficulties and even dangers if the user Departments—in this case the flying Departments, the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Admiralty—lost their direct touch with the makers of the weapons and supplies which they are using. We had some experience of this problem at the Air Ministry because the Ministry of Aircraft Production was formed in 1940, and at once this problem presented itself. I believe it is not too much to say that, in the course of the war years, the two . Departments, M.A.P. and the Air Ministry, solved this problem. It was solved by the inclusion of an Air Marshal, a member of the Air Council, with the post of Controller of Research and Development, and a strong staff of serving officers of the Royal Air Force as an integral part of the Ministry of Aircraft Production The two Ministries, the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the Air Ministry, interlocked and inter-meshed in a very big way, and I am happy to tell the Committee that that system is to be perpetuated in only a very slightly different form in the new arrangement with the Ministry of Supply. The senior aircraft post in the Ministry of Supply will be the Controller of Aircraft Supplies, and this post will normally be filled by a serving officer. Today, for example, it is filled with great distinction by Air Marshal Sir W. A. Coryton, who remains a member of the Air Council. Also, the Air Ministry will be represented directly on the Supply Council which is formed under the chairmanship of the Minister of Supply.
  This brings me to the question—all-important, in my view—of research and development. I would like to say a word or two as to why we at the Air Ministry regard this question as of such quintessential importance today. I do not know that everyone fully realises that the end of the war found us just over the threshold of a vast new technical revolution in the field of aviation. The technicians tell us that there have been three great revolutions already in the short history of aviation. The first occurred between 1914 and 1918, in the course of the first world war. In that period, there
  974
  emerged the first breed or species of practical aircraft, which were developed out of the purely experimental types that existed before 1914. These were the old classic biplane types with which the 1914–18 war was fought and that breed, or species, really lasted until about 1930. Then—perhaps we might date it from the famous Schneider Trophy race of 1931—there appeared a recognisable new breed of aircraft. That was the high performance piston-engined monoplane. This second and distinct breed of aircraft also lasted a number of years. The famous Spitfire was one of the first, and also one of the last of that type or breed. Those were the aircraft with which the Royal Air Force fought the war. The heavy bomber, the Halifax Stirling, Mosquito, Spitfire and Hurricane, were all piston-engined monoplanes. The Schneider Trophy reminds us that we led at the beginning of that revolution in aviation, and also that, while we never lost the technical lead in design, Germany did equip her new type of aircraft before we did. In 1940 we caught up again, but at what a cost, and what a risk?
  In 1946, we are beginning on a third revolution and, T believe, the most profound of the three, in the development of aviation. It is a revolution which is affecting combat aircraft, transport aircraft and civil aircraft alike. It is most profound because it is based on a new method of propulsion. The gas turbine engine is the key to the situation. Whether we harness it to a propeller, as one might do temporarily, or, more permanently, where it issues direct in a jet, it is fundamentally a new engine, and is superseding the piston-engine altogether, whether as a single seater fighter or, before very long, the 100 seater air liner. Naturally, in producing this new breed of aircraft, tremendous new problems have been set for the airframe designers. All these problems have not been solved, for gas turbine engines are setting problems of a new range of speeds. The most strange and fascinating problems begin to appear. At 760 miles an hour, the speed of sound is attained at ground level, while at 30,000 feet the speed of sound which varies with the temperature, is only 660 miles an hour. These speeds are being approached: At the speed of sound, we are told, a strange wall or barrier, arises and there is very stiff air resistance. It is a most formidable and difficult task

  975
  to break through that barrier, but, once through it, technicians tell us, possibilities arise of quite phenomenal speeds. This possibility, judging from the way in which science is moving, is certain in the not very distant future, to become an actuality. This revolution is more fundamental than any before in all types of aircraft, and this new breed of aircraft is not the only one of the series of startling technical developments which was coming in at the end of the war. I need not remind a Committee sitting in London, of the possibility of guided aircraft. It may be that in that field there may lie reassuring possibilities for the defence of this country. The super-fast submarine, although not an aviation development, may set a problem for the Coastal Command of the future. Finally, overshadowing in some, though not all respects, all other developments, is the release of atomic energy. But this is best seen, not as an isolated development, but part of the whole series of startling scientific developments.
  To turn to the proper theme of the third revolution in aviation, it is based on the appearance of the gas turbine engine. The point I want to put to the Committee is that, once again, in this field, this country has undoubtedly the leadership. No one is yet producing gas turbines as good as ours. We are not, it is true, enjoying all the advantages we ought to have, because we have not developed the large airframes suitable for civil and transport uses to match the incomparable engines which we are able to produce The Committee knows the reason for that. It is the honourable reason that we concentrated everything on the prosecution of the war. But it opens the opportunity, if we are to develop our research to the utmost degree, of incalculable advantages. I do not think that is putting it too high. Incalculable advantages to this country can be reached, if we press on in the technical development in which we have not yet caught up with our own development in the engine field.
  I remind the Committee that I am speaking of aircraft in general, because the third revolution, based on the new method of propulsion, affects all aircraft. This fact is recognised in the new arrangement for research. The research is not done by the Air Ministry simply for com-
  976
  bat aircraft, or by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, or the Admiralty. It is centralised in the Ministry of Supply, so that its efforts can be applied generally over the whole aviation field. This new arrangement necessitates, of course, a certain amount of cross reference, as it were, in the estimates.
  I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that while there is no figure for research here, they will find in the Vote of the Ministry of Supply a figure of £28,000,000, which is to be devoted to aviation research. The Committee may feel that a figure of £28,000,000 is a substantial one, but I put it to hon. Members that that may prove to be a very small figure compared with the benefit which will accrue over and over again to this country by devoting this sum to aviation research for the future. If we economise on some things—and we must economise rigorously on many things—I beg of the Committee that we shall not have economies in research and development. We hold the lead today, but do not let that make us complacent for one moment. If we slacken in our development, we shall be very rapidly overtaken. The friendly rivalry of the American aviation industry is intense. They will throw their vast resources into development of military and, perhaps above all, of civil types. It will be all the better for the world, because the world will benefit both from our development, and from theirs. I beg of the Committee that in this friendly rivalry we should always keep our end up.
  So much for the Estimates themselves. I now come to the third part of my task, which is to say a few words on the future of the Royal Air Force, so far as we can foresee it. There are certain basic decisions which we say, perfectly openly and clearly, have not been taken, and which we believe cannot yet be taken. This is because we do not know the kind of world in which we are going to live and therefore the functions which the Royal Air Force will have to perform in that world. Those functions are bound to depend on two events which have taken place in the very recent past; one full of hope, and the other full of menace. I refer, of course, to the release of atomic energy, and the foundation of the United Nations organisation, both of which— taken in conjunction, and they interact on each other—are bound to affect the

  977
  functions and, therefore, the size and structure of the Royal Air Force.
  The Committee will not expect me to say anything on the subject of the atomic bomb, but it is clear that the long-range bomber will ultimately have to be designed either for the existing or chemical type of explosive or atomic explosive. There is the whole question of the possibility of defending this country or any country from attack by aircraft carrying atom bombs. All these subjects are, of course, under the constant attention of the technical advisers of the Air Council, of the Air Staff and of the Air Council itself. It is odious even to have to think of the inexpressibly ghastly consequences of war today, but we have to think of them, just so long as international anarchy persists. But will that international anarchy persist? During the last few months the United Nations organisation has been founded. Will it develop a world force capable of enforcing the will of the United Nations organisation in the world? I submit to the Committee that, in that possibility, rather than in any scheme of national defence, lies the real safety of all peoples of all countries. For that supreme purpose, and it is a supreme purpose, of the unity of world force, undoubtedly air forces are the most suitable instruments. As and when such a world force develops the Royal Air Force must be prepared to make a worthy contribution, to take a worthy part.
  The Royal Air Force has other functions. It has police functions in the world today, and some decisions, therefore, can be taken because of these immediate functions. In common with the other Services, we have fixed our postwar pay and allowances code for airmen, and now for officers in the permanent Air Force. I am able to announce a very small, but I hope acceptable, reduction in the overseas tour of duty. Single men will, in future, beginning 1st April, have their tour of duty reduced from three years six months to three years, bringing them to the same level as married men. I know it is not much, but it comes in the midst of the heaviest programme of release and repatriation. It will take until 1st October to complete, and, after that time, we hope to go further. We do assure men who are thinking of making the R.A.F. their
  978
  career, that the terribly long overseas tours which have been the rule during the war, are not for one moment intended to be the rule in the postwar Air Force. In conjunction with the other Services, we hope very soon to institute a sustained recruiting campaign, because all our plans for an efficient Air Force, depend upon a successful voluntary recruiting campaign. When the time comes, we hope to enlist the help of hon. Members on all sides of the Committee in it.
  The question which I daresay will be raised, and with which I shall deal at more length in summing up, is the non-regular components of the R.A.F., which we hope to reinstitute. The A.T.C., the auxiliary squadrons, the University squadrons, the R.A.F.V.R.—all these, we hope, will be reinstituted in the near future. I can say one word about the A.T.C. 1 know the sense of frustration which the A.T.C. have sometimes felt, but a good deal has been decided, and we shall very soon be able to give them their exact place in the future organisation of the Royal Air Force. I can tell them now that we have provisionally fixed their strength. For the moment, it is to be 75,000. That is very rear their present strength, and it is a strength which will enable us to accept all cadets of satisfactory standard into the R.A.F., and will therefore enable the A.T.C. to plan more effectively than they have been able to do heretofore.
  I should have liked to be able to make one more announcement as to the future of the W.A.A.F. Everyone who served in the R.A.F. during the war and many others who saw its work will agree with me that the W.A.A.F. was an outstanding success. It was not only in the domestic trades, important as they are, but in many of the operational trades, radar "met.," and many others, that the W.A.A.F. proved—and this is the opinion of the Air Council—that there are many jobs which cannot merely be done as well by women, but can be done better by women, than by men. I can tell the Committee that it is the view of the Air Council that an essential operational factor of the R.A.F. would be lacking if there was no W.A.A.F. But we must await the announcement from all three Services, on the future of the women's Services.

  979
  1 have only one more thing to say. I hope none of us will under-estimate the value to this country of the reputation, the fame, of the R.A.F. I believe that the world's consciousness of what the R.A.F. did during the war is, today, one of our greatest national assets. All over Europe, and all over the world, those three letters "R.A.F." mean something very deep in the hearts of men. It is not merely that in 1940, the R.A.F. stood between the world and Hitler. It is not merely the big hammer blows of Bomber Command in ridding the world of Nazism. It is also that, in the later stages of the war—a large part of the war—the Royal Air Force took a very close and intimate part in aiding all those great popular movements of resistance thrown up all over Europe. To thousands of brave men and women all over Europe, the R.A.F. was the only link with the free world. I have twice recently had the privilege of visiting France, in connection with R.A.F. exhibitions and functions. As many Members of the Committee know, those words "le Raf " mean something very deep in French-speaking Europe today. A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of seeing the first performance in Paris, of that great film "Jericho," which records one of the most romantic of all the episodes of the war, when, just over a year ago, squadrons of Mosquitoes of 2nd T.A.F., blew down the walls of Amiens Gaol, and released the French patriotic resisters, who were there awaiting execution.
  Also there few with the R.A.F. during the war men of many nations. Not only were there magnificent groups and squadrons of airmen of our Dominions, but Frenchmen, Czechs, Poles, Norwegians, Yugoslavs, Dutchmen, and men of many other nations; so that, wherever one goes today, if one travels by the airfields, one will find men who fought and flew in Bomber, Fighter, or Coastal Command. These are not insignificant facts in the world today. I always remember in this connection, that in 1940 when I was serving as the adjutant of No. 87 Fighter Squadron, it came to my knowledge that, in that dark hour, the people of Spain had made for themselves roughly made R.A.F "wings," which they were wearing—because they did not dare to wear anything more open—as a symbol of their
  980
  opposition to Fascism. I remember going to my then commanding officer, the late Wing Commander Ian Gleed and telling him of this, because I felt that he and his pilots ought to know. I pointed out to him that, in flying and fighting as they were doing every night, defending their own country against Fascism, they had become a symbol for the world, of the defence of all peoples against Fascism. I well remember the impression that made on Gleed. For most of the peoples of Europe, liberation from Fascism has been achieved, though not for those Spaniards. Perhaps they still wear, in hope, the symbols of the Royal Air Force though there, as elsewhere, liberation cannot come from outside sources alone. At any rate let us not forget what all the world remembers: that the Royal Air Force stood, not only between us and slavery, but between all peoples and slavery.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. George WardI can well imagine that the Under-Secretary feels very proud that he has had the task of opening the first Debate on the Royal Air Force since the end of the war. If I may say so, he rose to the occasion admirably. The Committee will, I am sure, congratulate him very heartily on his most able speech, in which he achieved with notable success the three aims which he set himself He also paid a most eloquent tribute to the Royal Air Force with which hon. Members on this side of the Committee are most anxious to associate themselves. I myself do not propose to look backward in the course of my remarks, except to draw a lesson here and there from the past. I propose rather to look forward, and to deal exclusively with the peacetime Air Force.
  In dealing with such an extensive subject, it is, of course, impossible to touch in detail on more than three or four aspects in a short speech. In any case, there are many other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who are better qualified than I am, both by experience and powers of oratory, to deal with the other aspects and to complete the picture. I am sure that the aim of all speakers in this Debate must be approximately the same, namely, to provide an Air Force large enough and well enough equipped to meet our present commitments, as we know them now, and in so far as we can see them in the immediate future, and so to shape our Air

  981
  Force, that it can readily and smoothly be expanded in case of emergency. It seems to me that only in relatively small matters, as for example the relative size of the various branches of the Service, is there likely to be any disagreement. I, therefore, propose to concentrate my remarks on the general shape and structure of the peace time Air Force. I propose to put forward a few suggestions and ideas regarding the four main branches of the Service, the reserves, the regulars, the R.A.F. Regiment and the W.A.A.F.
  Although I realise that T am looking ahead further than the period covered by the Estimates, I put forward these ideas to the Government for consideration when drawing up their next Estimates It may seem strange that I put the reserves before the regulars, though it is no stranger, perhaps, than the fact, that, I myself, started as an auxiliary and became a regular later, thereby qualifying to speak with some experience of both branches. The reason I wish to deal with the reserves first, is that when looking at the Estimates the figure which strikes one most forcibly is the £350,000 allotted to the auxiliaries and reserves. I know that that is not a final figure, but I hope it is not an indication of the importance attached by His Majesty's Government to the auxiliaries. We have learned, I hope, many lessons from this war, lessons which, one assumes, will be carefully borne in mind by the Government when drawing up their Estimates. It would appear from this figure that one important lesson seems to have escaped us entirely, namely, that the Auxiliary Air Force, before the war, was the nation's best bargain.
  I would briefly refresh the memory of the Committee on the record of the Auxiliary Air Force. It started in 1926 with, I think, four squadrons, and grew slowly at first. Then, about the middle of the '30's, it grew very rapidly until at the beginning of the war, there were over a dozen squadrons of the Auxiliary Air Force dotted throughout the British Isles. Except for a sprinkling of regular officers and airmen, they were entirely composed of volunteers, not only air crew but technical personnel as well, and they kept themselves up to a high standard of training during weekends, in the evenings, and at annual camps. Their equipment gradually improved as their value
  982
  became more and more apparent, until at the beginning of the war they were equipped with the latest type of aircraft and other equipment, and their proficiency in its use was, I think it is no exaggeration to say, the admiration and even the envy of the most highly trained regular squadrons. When war came, the auxiliaries were ready to go straight into the heat of battle, without any further preparation. The part they played in the Battle of Britain is well known to the Committee, and, indeed, is indelibly inscribed in the records of the Royal Air Force. The whole of this great contribution to our air strength was made at a fraction of the cost to the Treasury of the same number of regular squadrons. Most important even than the cost, in my view, was the outstanding spirit among the officers and the men in those auxiliary squadrons. Each man took a jealous pride in his squadron, a pride which was almost unknown in regular units.
  What was the secret of that outstanding spirit? Why did these men take such a pride in their auxiliary squadrons? I think those are vitally important questions. I think that we should make full use of that spirit, and shape our peacetime Air Force, with the aim of fostering as large a measure of that spirit as we possibly can. I am convinced that a very large part of the answer can be put down to local patriotism. What these men were so proud of was not only the fact that they were all volunteers doing the job because they liked it, and felt it had to be done; to a still greater extent they were proud of the fact that their squadrons had been raised in, and recruited from their own part of the country and bore its name. The squadrons were organised on a regional basis, situated as near as possible to the large centres of population. In addition to the squadron numbers, they were identified by the name of the part of the country whence they sprang. They were known by such titles as the County of London Squadron, the County of Warwick Squadron, or the City of Glasgow Squadron. Of course, there is nothing new about all that The Army has always known the value of what they call regimental feeling. In the past, we in the Royal Air Force have had to rely more on pride of service, but, in my view, there is a very great difference indeed between pride of service and regi-

  983
  mental feeling. No one will deny that we have pride of service in abundant measure, but I think we should do all we can to foster as much of the regimental or squadron spirit as the nature of our service will allow.
  For this reason, I think the Auxiliary Air Force should form the broad basis of all our reserves, because it is the ideal medium through which we can make the fullest use of local patriotism and engender as much as possible the spirit of which I have spoken. What do I mean by this broad basis? Clearly, our reserves must be organised and arranged according to some definite plan and in pursuance of some definite aim. I, therefore, suggest that the Auxiliary Air Force should consist of all those people, whether they be air crews, technical and maintenance personnel, radar operators, operation controllers, flying controllers or anyone, in fact, who is going to form the first line of reserves in an emergency. Everyone of these people should either belong to or be attached to an auxiliary squadron in his own part of the country, and should get such training as is possible with that squadron during the week-ends.
  Behind that first line reserve, there is clearly a large body of men who need not be so highly trained in an emergency—the pilots, for example, who are beyond the age limit for operational flying, but would still be badly needed for such flying jobs as instructors, ferry pilots and many other flying duties which have to be performed. There are also administrative and equipment officers and many more, whose names must be listed as reserves readily available for call-up in an emergency, but whose training would consist more of keeping in touch with Service matters than making themselves proficient at their own particular trades. All these people, I suggest, should belong to the Volunteer Reserve, and should get such training as they require at suitable centres throughout the country.
  Before the war, there was a third kind of reserve—the reserve of Air Force officers. I have never discovered, and I do not think anybody else has, either, what exactly was the difference between the R.A.F.O. and the R.A.F.V.R., but, as the R.A.F.O. died a natural death at the beginning of the war, I suggest that it should be left to rest in peace. There is surely no need unnecessarily to com-
  984
  plicate matters by having two kinds of reserve, but, by making the Auxiliary Air Force our first line and the Volunteer Reserve the second line, we should have a tidy and logical plan, based on the degree of readiness and standard of training necessary, and we should be able to make full use of this important local pride and patriotism. 1 have spoken at some length on this matter of reserves because I attach great importance to it. But before I leave it, there is one other point I wish to make. If we are to get our reserves properly organised, equipped and trained, the sooner we re-establish Reserve Command the better, and I would like to ask the Under-Secretary whether he will be in a position, in his winding-up speech, to give us some indication when we may expect to see Reserve Command, which did such valuable work before the war, revived and set up again in suitable headquarters.
  I now turn from the reserves to the regulars, and I am going to say very little here, because, being the core of the whole subject, I imagine that it is on the regular Royal Air Force that most hon. Members will wish to speak. I shall not touch, therefore, on the various operational aspects, training of pilots, provision of equipment and aircraft, or even on such matters as the disposition of our squadrons throughout the Empire, but there is one point on which I have long felt somewhat strongly and to which I would like to draw the attention of the Government for consideration in drawing up these Estimates.
  There are many ways of acquiring good discipline in the. Services, and what applies to one does not necessarily apply to all of them, but I think there is one factor which is common to all three—the example which the officers set, and, particularly, the relationship between the officers and the men. In my view, the officers will set a good example only if they are trained to have a strong sense of responsibility, and, having been so trained, are given certain responsibilities to shoulder right from the beginning of their Service life. The relationship between officers and men will only be really good if they are working closely together, if the officers know as much as they can about the men under their command, if they study their individual characters and the particular problems of each man, whether of a private or a

  985
  Service nature, and, finally, if they try in every way to win the confidence and respect of their men. I believe that this officer-man relationship is very much more difficult to achieve than it is in the other two Services, because of the inevitable division between the flying and non-flying personnel. I therefore implore the Government, in settling the structure of our peacetime Air Force, to do all they possibly can to close the gulf which yawns between the winged and the wingless. Before the war, we could hold our own with either of the other two Services on the matter of discipline. No one who saw the Royal Air Force at work, whether on training exercises or at the Hendon display, could fail to be impressed by their smartness and efficiency; but today, I think we have to face the fact squarely that, when compared with the other two Services, our discipline comes out third, and I do not think the reason is very far to seek.
  I am well aware that, in time of war, the system of centralised maintenance, or the garage system, as it is called, is by far the most economical in the use of manpower, and, indeed, has many other advantages. On the whole, it has worked extremely well, but, in my opinion, it has been the main cause of the deterioration of discipline in the R.A.F. It has removed from the shoulders of the younger officers of the General Duties Branch the great bulk of their responsibilities. It has tended to widen the gap between flying and non-flying personnel, and it has made virtually impossible the close relationship between officers and men, because, only in the Technical Branch, do they work side by side to anything like the same extent as before the war. A highly important question therefore arises. Is it better to preserve during peace a system which we know must be used during war, or is it better to have a system in peace which we know must be abandoned in war but is likely to produce a greater sense of responsibility among General Duties officers, a greater feeling of well-being amongst the airmen, and, therefore, a happier, more efficient and better disciplined Service? In my view, there can be no doubt as to the right answer, but I am disturbed to see, in Paragraph 14 of Cmd. Paper 6750, that the Technical Branch is to be established on a permanent basis. Therefore, I ask the Undersecretary what steps the R.A.F. propose
  986
  to take in peace time to give the junior officers of the General Duties Branch more experience of man management, a greater sense of responsibility, and a closer relationship between the officers and the airmen.
  I come next to the Royal Air Force Regiment. I have some suggestions to make regarding its future which may be somewhat controversial, but which I seriously commend to the Government for their very careful consideration. I think I am doing the Army no injustice—and certainly I mean none—if I say that the R.A.F. Regiment came into being owing to the inability of the Army adequately to defend our airfields at the beginning of the war. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I know from my own experience that the question of ground defence was at that time the station commander's worst headache, and I have no doubt it was a commitment which the Army felt it could ill afford to undertake and which it undertook a little grudgingly. The division of command between the Army and the R.A.F., a division which later on worked so admirably in the desert and on the Continent of Europe, at that time led to many difficulties and misunderstandings.
  However, when the R.A.F. Regiment was formed and took over the defence of airfields, things immediately started working very much more smoothly. Although it was performing the duties of soldiers, it was part of the R.A.F., and it was able and willing to give its full and undivided attention to the special problems of ground defence, working closely and in harmony with the station commander. As the war went on and the R.A.F. Regiment expanded and grew, both in numbers and experience, it more than justified its existence, both at home and overseas, and it emerged from the war with a record of which it may be justly proud. In my view, in so doing, it also. justified its continuance as a part of the peace-time Air Force. In the event of another war, we should again require the R.A.F. Regiment, and if that be so, it is essential we should preserve a nucleus on which to build; otherwise we shall find ourselves without the experienced officers and men. But in peace-time there is no airfield defence. The question arises, therefore, as to how best to employ the Regiment and keep it trained. It is in answer to that

  987
  question that 1 wish to put forward some suggestions.
  The first suggestion is that the R.A.F. Regiment should take over all the police duties on our air stations. A man who joins the R.A.F. does so mainly because he is interested in aircraft and with the aim of becoming proficient at a trade in connection with aircraft. If he finds himself in the Administrative or Equipment Branch, he may console himself that, at any rate, indirectly, he is helping to keep the aircraft in the air. But the duties of station police, while having no appeal whatever to the. airmen, are ideally suited to the R.A.F. Regiment. Since its aims are to protect the station against all intruders and miscreants, whether it be the wartime invader or the peacetime lawbreaker. The second suggestion goes a step further, for police duties would not in themselves, of course, be sufficient to keep the Regiment fully employed in large enough numbers. There are, however, many other duties at present performed by airmen, mainly by aircraft hands, but sometimes even by tradesmen; I am referring to such duties as those of postmen, mess servants, cooks, and all the multifarious tasks involved in keeping the station clean and orderly and running it from day to day. I would hand all these duties over to the R.A.F. Regiment, and I would reduce considerably the establishment of aircraft hands in the R.A.F. The duties I have mentioned would not, of course, be the Regiment's only duties, because they would still be required to keep themselves well trained in the use and handling of weapons, and in the problem of defence, ground combat and field craft, which were their original duties, for which they were originally formed, and which they would be called upon to perform as their primary task in time of war. They would become to the R.A.F. almost exactly what the Marines are to the Navy, and while performing an invaluable role in peace, would form the hard core on which to expand the Regiment in war.
  There is one further suggestion I wish to make regarding the R.A.F. Regiment. If they are to attract the right type of officers and men, it would, I think, be necessary to offer them some inducement of a rather more exciting nature than the duties I have mentioned. I would offer the following inducement. I would select from time to time, from the officers
  988
  and men of the R.A.F Regiment, a number to be trained as glider pilots, and I would hand over to the R.A.F. Regiment all the duties performed during the war by the Glider Pilot Regiment of the Army. During the war, glider pilots were drawn from the Army and trained by the R.A.F. After their training they went back to the Army, and they kept themselves in flying practice as best they could with the limited facilities which the Army could offer them, in cooperation with the R.A.F. 1 do not think any of those early glider pilots, who had a considerable gap to fill between their training and the moment they went into action, would agree that the position was anything like satisfactory.
  I had a certain amount to do with their training, so that I am not speaking entirely without personal experience. All the more credit to them that, when the moment arrived, they went into the air with the skill and energy which we all admired so much, in spite of their sometimes having become a little rusty in the interval. The reason the glider pilots were drawn from the Army was that the pilot, once he had landed his glider at the appointed place, had to become a soldier, and he had to be fully trained in the art of combat and fieldcraft. But is not that rôle one exactly suited to the R.A.F. Regiment, who are the soldiers of the Air Force, and whose training would consist largely of ground combat and fieldcraft, and would not all those difficulties experienced by the Army in keeping its glider pilots in flying practice be resolved if the R.A.F. became entirely responsible for the selection, the training, and the keeping in practice of the nucleus of glider pilots on which we should have to expand during war? There are a few questions I wish to put to the Under-Secretary, and I hope he will be in a position to answer them. Is it intended to keep the Royal Air Force Regiment in being? If so, how is it intended to employ it? Can he suggest a more logical method of producing glider pilots than selecting them from the R.A.F. Regiment?
  I now turn to the fourth of the main branches of the R.A.F. the W.A.A.F. I hope they will forgive me for being so ungallant as to put them last. I can excuse myself only by saying that I was brought up to eat bread and butter before embarking on cake, and I suppose the

  989
  habit has persisted. It is essential that the W.A.A.F should continue in peace-time. I was delighted to hear the Undersecretary of State say that there is at least some hope that this will be so. It is only by keeping them in being that we can obtain experienced officers and senior N.C.O's. In wartime that nucleus can be expanded into an efficient service of the required size. At the beginning of the war one of the greatest problems of the W.A.A.F. was the lack of good administrative officers. Many airwomen have told me that at that time their officers were inexperienced and unwilling to accept responsibility. That is very understandable. Any lack in that direction was amply made up for by the magnificent work which the W.A.A.F. did when they got into their stride, but at least we can ensure that the lack does not happen again.
  There are a great many staff, clerical and administrative duties which could be performed admirably by a small peace-time body of regular officers and airwomen who might wish to make a career of the Service. These, I submit, should remove the "A" from their uniforms and become an integral part of the Royal Air Force. They should be very carefully selected and trained. In addition, there should be a reserve of W.A.A.F.S. attached to auxiliary squadrons as there was immediately before the war. They should receive such training as is possible at week-ends and in the evenings. In an emergency it would be possible to select from their number suitable officers and N.C.Os. with at least a measure of training and a knowledge of Service matters.
  I have not touched upon the code of pay recently published I believe that other hon. Members may wish to do so. But I welcome wholeheartedly any proposals which will attract young men and women of the highest possible ability who might otherwise have felt that there was a more fruitful outlet for their energies in some other walk of life. Neither have I mentioned living conditions, in peacetime, though I consider them just as important, and I hope the Government will give the matter the closest possible attention. We should bear in mind that the young man who joins the Air Force today has to give up many of the creature comforts of home life and particularly his personal privacy, and such small matters as the adequate
  990
  stowage of his kit and personal belongings. I know that those are only small details but attention to them will pay a handsome reward in the contentment and efficiency of the Service.
  I have tried in the course of my remarks, to put forward suggestions as constructively as possible and not merely to criticise. Where I have seemed to criticise the Royal Air Force I have done so in a spirit of helpfulness and not of destructiveness. On the contrary, it would be impossible to pay too high a tribute to the Air Force. 1 have no doubt that many tributes will be paid by other hon. Members One has only to remember that by day and night, in the air and on the ground whether attacking, defending, escorting patrolling, planning, organising, or training, they kept up their ceaseless efforts with determination and great gallantry, and with that spirit of gay indifference and wealth of understatement which so confused our Allies and confounded our enemies. By the tireless devotion to duty of the men of all ranks, the Royal Air Force blazoned its motto, "Per Ardua ad Astra," across the pages of history., and earned the admiration, the gratitude and the respect of the entire world.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. Max Aitken: Thank you, Major Milner, for calling upon me at this point in the Debate. Most of this Debate will take place, I am sure, on the planning side of the Service. I would like to speak of the operational aspect of the Royal Air Force. In 1939, the R.A.F. was really a British Royal Air Force. It was not large, and during the early part of 1940 it was rapidly whittled down. At the beginning of the Battle of Britain, 1 had the honour of commanding a Hurricane squadron. At that point that squadron had been reduced to only six pilots. At the end of the war, I had the honour to be commanding a wing of Mosquitos. The squadrons were then up to 30 crews per squadron. The reason for that great increase was the Empire training scheme. Our young men were taken out of this country and sent to the Dominions to train. The Dominions not only trained them but sent them back together with the best from their own countries, crewed, trained and ready to fly together as an Empire unit. In my last wing we were a mixed bunch, New

  991
  Zealanders, Australians, Canadians, British and Rhodesians. Never has a Fighting Service become such an Empire force as the Royal Air Force did during the war. 1 suggest that the Empire Air Force should be retained. Why should we lose in peace, what we have gained in war? We should have an Empire Air Estimate. Could we not have an Estimate submitted by all the Dominions, a central Empire air pool, and planning based on Empire bases just as we do on British bases?
  Now I turn to the question of weapons. I sincerely hope there will never be another war. If there is a war certainly we shall never be the aggressor. Therefore this country would be attacked first, and the first blow in the next war will be serious. In order to ward off that blow, we need an absolutely first-class defence such as was built up by Fighter Command under the three great Air Marshals during the last war. The greatest deterrent to war is attack, just as the greatest deterrent to the German attack on this country in the latter part of the war was our Bomber Command. Our power of attack would be tremendous as an Empire unit which was founded on communications and bases throughout the world. Operating as a unit it would be possible to attack and bomb any part of the world six hours after take-off, flying at modern airspeeds, and that includes the North and South Poles. I say a bomb, but it must be an atom bomb. We must face the facts. During this war our weapons were sometimes inadequate and we nearly lost important battles because of that.
  If, in the next war—and pray God there never is one—our weapons are smaller than the other man's, and if we have not got the atom bomb and he has, then we shall lose the war. It is agreed that we are going to spend £1,167,000,000 on the Services, and only £1,500,000 on the development of the atom bomb. I would suggest that, until we have got that bomb, we should reverse the Estimates and make sure that we get it quickly. If we need manpower in order to develop factories for the atom bomb then, I suggest, the men should be taken out of the Services. If we need the money then, I suggest, the Estimate should be cut. We will not get away with being unprepared in the next war. I have heard some of the younger hon.
  992
  Members opposite, who have never seen a battlefield, say that they would like to see our Services cut, but, as I have said, we will never again get by if we are unprepared. In conclusion I would like to say that the right weapons supplied to an Empire Air Force would, in my opinion, preserve peace. The Empire Air Force was not founded by chance, and it will not flourish by neglect.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Driberg: I should like to join in the congratulations which the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) has offered to my hon. Friend the Undersecretary for the extremely competent and, if I may say so, graceful way in which he introduced this Debate. I always have to be a little careful when dealing with the Air Ministry, because it so happens that both my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his Noble Friend the Secretary of State are constituents of mine. Therefore, if I am too troublesome with them, I am apt to get a savage letter about the local bus service or a demand for a compassionate posting, or something like that. I was most interested in the story which my hon. Friend had to tell today, and particularly speaking from this side of the House, by the fact that he spoke not only as a Minister who was very evidently on top of his job, technically and in every way, but also as a Socialist. I thought the final passage of his speech was most moving and eloquent in its references to the coming liberation of the people of Spain. Indeed, I hope that the Royal Air Force will be able to play its full part at least in supplying our Republican Allies when that moment of liberation comes. That might, incidentally, be a useful destination for the surplus explosives which the Ministry of Supply may find so embarrassing a possession, provided we make sure that they fall into the right hands.
  I want to raise a few more or less disconnected points, some of which I hope my hon. Friend will be able to answer. They are not all major points, but they are points not capable of full examination at Question time. Therefore, I hope that he will consider them now I am sure the whole Committee was very glad to hear his announcement of the reduction of the tour of overseas service, which is excellent so far as it goes, and his further assurance that in the permanent postwar service the term overseas will not neces-

  993
  sarily be anything like so long as at present. On that point, I wonder if he could say a word about the maximum period of service in particularly bad tropical climates: there are, as he and the Committee know well, a number of stations on the Persian Gulf, for instance, and places like that, where conditions are really extremely bad and where, during the war and since, men have had to serve for quite unduly long periods, very often without sufficient amenities in the way of entertainment and even electric fans. Although, in this climate, an electric fan may seem a superfluous luxury, in stations like Shaibah and Vizagapatam it is really a necessity in every building on the station.
  My hon. Friend referred delicately in passing to the recent unhappy incidents in the Far East, for which so many different names have been found on different sides of the House. I gather that he has now settled for the good old Irish word "troubles," and left it at that. On the basic causes of those troubles—apart from the obvious overriding cause, that all the men concerned wanted to get home at the earliest possible moment—I wonder whether he can say anything more about what has been done to make sure that full and accurate information is really conveyed to the men. We know about his demob forms. They are admirable so far as they go, but are we sure that they go far enough? All hon. Members, I am sure, will agree that an astonishingly large number of Setters come from airmen and soldiers stationed overseas which show that they are labouring under a complete misapprehension about some of the most elementary facts concerning the rate of demobilisation, the percentages of demobilisation, and all the rest of it. Yet, they certainly study with the greatest care everything that they can find. It seems as if there were still some kind of gap to be made up in the information services inside the Service. I am sure that that is germane also to the point made by the hon. Member for Worcester about the officer-man relationship, and that in the Royal Air Force, as compared with the other two Services, there is still a great deal to be done in the way of making officers feel that they are really responsible for the welfare and interests of the other ranks.
  There is another point on which I should like to touch. There is a class
  994
  of airmen about whom we hear comparatively little in the Debates in this House, and yet they are a class to whom we owe a good deal. I am referring to the West Indian airmen, of whom, I believe, there are still several thousands in this country. Many of them have been here for some years and they are naturally anxious, just as our own men overseas are anxious, to get home to their own country. Their time of service here has, in many ways, not been altogether happy. They cannot be expected to like our climate very much, and, here and there—although this should not be exaggerated—there have been unfortunate instances of racial or colour clasnes. I would like to ask my hon. Friend if he can possibly give us any facts about the repatriation of these men. I gather that there is really something of a dilemma in that connection. They are, naturally, anxious to get home to the West Indies as soon as possible. By far the greatest number of them come from Jamaica. I gather that there is, at this moment, a scheme to ship them all home in three or four shiploads quite quickly, and to demobilise them almost at once. Where the problem arises is that anything in the nature of a resettlement scheme, or proper reinstatement in civil employment, is quite embryonic in the West Indies compared with anything that we have here; and there is already serious unemployment in the West Indies.
  Therefore, I would like to ask my hon. Friend, as the custodian of the welfare of these West Indians who joined up and came to our help years ago, and many of whom feel that they have to some extent been let down—because certain promises were made to them when they were recruited, not all of which have been fulfilled—what he is doing to ensure not only that they are repatriated as soon as possible but that when they are repatriated they are given a reasonable guarantee of demobilisation and resettlement conditions comparable with those which are enjoyed in this country.
  My final subject is one about which 1 have questioned my hon. Friend several times at Question time. In the course of some recent replies to Questions about the R.A.F. station in the Azores, he referred to the work that R.A.F. personnel have to do in connection with civil aviation. It is, obviously, extremely important that civil aviation should be built up as efficiently and rapidly as possible, and it may

  995
  be necessary during this transitional stage to use R.A.F. personnel for that purpose. While they are on a station like the Azores, and while they have got nothing else particular to do, it certainly is more sensible that they should be doing a useful job like that than doing nothing; but I would like from my hon. Friend an assurance that the work they are doing for B.O.A.C. is in no case prejudicing a man's normal right to repatriation. Of course, I assume it is not prejudicing his right to demobilisation under his release group: that would go without saying. I would also like my hon. Friend to consider one or two of the actual specific grievances which arise in the course of that relationship between the R.A.F. and B.O.A.C. The reason why the R.A.F. ground staff feel a sense of grievance—perhaps slightly illogical— is primarily the difference in the rates of pay and conditions. That sort of difficulty has arisen before in the course of the war. It arose as between Royal Navy and Merchant Navy ratings in certain circumstances. No doubt there are obvious and good explanations for it. None the less, whatever the explanations, it does create a certain psychological barrier between these two classes of workers on the same airfield—perhaps quite a small airfield somewhere overseas.
  A second point comparable to that, but not quite the same, is the difference in the maintenance schedules for inspection, repair and replacement. The R.A.F. personnel sign a form to the effect that they have completed an inspection of an aircraft up to R.A.F. standards when, in fact, it has only been completed up to B.O.A.C. standards. That is rather an anomalous situation, and 1 would be glad if my hon. Friend would say a word about that. A third point is that the R.A.F. personnel are, in many cases, "over-seered" or supervised by B.O.A.C. personnel, who, again, have their different standards of maintenance and inspection and so on. I do not know what the solution is. I do not know if there is a solutionߞwhether it is possible in some way to arrange for a transfer of personnel, or whatever the solution may be—but there is a definite grievance on many of these overseas stations during this transitional period.
  I would like to conclude by saying how warmly, I am sure, the whole Committee
  996
  shares the feelings of gratitude and admiration expressed, far more eloquently than I can express them, by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and by the hon. Member for Worcester, to the men in the Royal Air Force. I have lived throughout the war on the edge of a night fighter station on the Essex coast. It has even been my proud privilege to have my own home requisitioned, and to have living in it men who have gone out night after night—so many of whom, alas, have not returned. Although only a very humble civilian myself, I would like, if I may be allowed' to do so, to join in that tribute.
  5.25 p.m.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I would like to offer to the Under-Secretary my sincere congratulations on his very fine effort this afternoon. We served together on the same station in 194.1, and I remember that on one occasion I had to stop his weekend leave.
  Mr. Strachey: I remember it very well.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I do not feel qualified to discuss the strength of the R.A.F. in relation to the terrible inventions connected with atomic energy, although it does require some consideration because I imagine that in time it will reduce the size of Bomber and Fighter Commands. However, I hope that for the moment anyhow, the Royal Air Force will be planned on the basis that we know nothing at all about atomic energy. It is for the heads of staffs to decide. I was very pleased to hear the Under-Secretary state that £28 million would be allowed for research in aviation. I was not clear whether that amount was for the Royal Air Force alone, or for the Royal Air Force and civil aviation.
  Mr. Strachey: It is for aviation in general—the Royal Air Force, the Fleet Air Arm and civil aviation—because so much of the research is undifferentiated between the three.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I thank the Under-Secretary for making that clear. The sum of £ 28 million does seem rather a formidable amount if one looks back 16 years ago, when the Air Force got only £16 million for the whole year, and that was in respect of everything. I do not think it is too much to cover the whole field of aviation in this country, and I

  997
  would like to refer to that again in a few minutes.
  The great success of the Royal Air Force in this war, I believe, has been due to the fact that in the early days, even in Lord Trenchard's time, when the R.A.F. was getting this meagre amount per annum, a very large proportion of it was spent on development work. For Instance, in the early '30s the Royal Air Force was already projecting the eight gun fighter—the Hurricane and the Spitfire—and a very large proportion of the money received was put into that development. Whereas at the same time the French were building up an air force of some 4,000 front line aircraft, which in a matter of three or four years became obsolete, we had a small Air Force which could be readily expanded when the time came. I only wish that before the war the War Office had adopted the same attitude towards tanks, and I wish the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) were here, because he would, no doubt, like to hear my references to that subject.
  I would like to see a much closer liaison between the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough and the manufacturers, because we want all the research we can get, whether it is on the initiative of the Government or from free enterprise. It does not matter where we get it, so long a 5 we get our research to keep pace with that of other countries, and the cheaper it can be done the better. I would also like to see the aircraft manufacturers given an opportunity, as in the past, to produce private venture aircraft such as the Mosquito, the Spitfire and others which they built off their own bat. We want an Air Force which is modern and efficient, and which can be very rapidly expanded. We are a small nation, comparatively speaking, and we cannot afford to have hundreds of thousands of men locked up in the Armed Forces. Therefore, we must follow the line of having a comparatively small but good Air Force. We have been told that we are to have 19 Auxiliary Air Force squadrons—they are to be reformed—and I noticed earlier on that the Under-Secretary shook his head when he was asked if £350,000 was to be the amount expended on this Force and the Reserves. Even if it is more than that, it is still the best bargain which this Government have made so far.
  998
  My own view is that the Auxiliary Air Force should be doubled; instead of having 19 squadrons, I would like to see 38. I well remember before the war, when I had the privilege of commanding 615 Squadron at Kenley, which was the only squadron South of London, I asked whether we could not form another auxiliary squadron at Kenley but the Government of that time said it could not be done. Young men are keen to serve in thesesquadrons. I am getting letters from young men with whom T have served in this war who are anxious to give their services. We now have the nucleus to form these squadrons. We have been waiting for a long time to see when the Air Ministry is going ahead. I warn the Under-Secretary, he is losing valuable time in this respect. I do not know, but I rather guess it is because the Army are not quite ready with their plans and the three Departments have to keep in step. I hope the Under-Secretary will press this point with the Government.
  I realise that we must have some form of compulsory service in this country for a limited period. I do not like the idea of conscription, but we have to see that we are well armed. If we now have a big drive to get all the volunteers we can to join our Services—whether it is the Army, Navy or Air Force—we might find that in a very short space of time conscription could be on a comparatively small scale. I hope every effort will be made to get these men to join, as I am sure they will. At the same time, I would like to see the A.T.C. given more encouragement. I think that when the Air Force formed the A.T.C. it was one of the wisest moves they ever made. They got the cream of the youth into the Air Force because they got them at a tender age. I should like to see this corps administered much on the same lines as the Auxiliary Air Force so that the two could work together, and in addition to the A.T.C. feeding the Royal Air Force with regulars, they could go from school into the Auxiliary Air Force to spend their weekends and their evenings training. I would ask that the A.T.C. be given better equipment and more supervision, both for their welfare and the service life in the A.T.C.
  Having lived in one of our Colonies, Hong Kong, for several years I used, as

  999
  a part-time pleasure to help to instruct in the Hong Kong Flying Club. I was always surprised that although that club was subsidised by the Hong Kong Government we were not teaching the Chinese to fly. Europeans could come along, even Germans, and learn to fly at the expense of the Colony. There were these young Chinese, probably a million Chinese subjects living in Hong Kong, who could, if they wanted, claim British nationality; yet neither there nor at Singapore was there a scheme whereby those young men could learn to defend their native land. I believe that if we had followed a policy of teaching them to fly to defend their country before the war, then the result of the battle at Singapore with the Japanese might have been quite different from what it was. I would like to see a volunteer reserve or an Auxiliary Air Force squadron formed in all our Colonies. It is cheap, and if we can get these young men to think for themselves and to defend their native lands it will be a good thing for all concerned.
  I am going to make a suggestion which I know will not be popular with the generals, or perhaps with the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish). I make this suggestion with all seriousness. A.A. Command should be taken over by the Royal Air Force. I have considered this problem for many years. It took two and a half years to build up co-operation between A.A. Command and Fighter Command. One remembers in 1940, when one saw the soldiers at one end of the mess and the airmen at the other end. It was the fault of the administration. It could be overcome if we put A.A. Command in blue in this country so that they could get co-operation on the ground and co-operation from aircraft in the air. It worked all right in the end, when these men came to live on Air Force stations and worked together. I contend it should be one Force.
  I would like to refer briefly to the question of the interchange of personnel with our Dominions and Allies. Before the war the Air Force used to exchange personnel with Canada and with other Dominions on a very small scale. During the war that has grown considerably. I hope we shall get officers spending a year or two with each of the other air forces, visiting the staff college, and so on. I
  1000
  would like to see that not only with the Dominions but with our Allies, both America and Russia. I believe that if Russia and America would fall into line with this suggestion we would have gone some way towards building up what might be the beginnings of an international air force, but there must be goodwill on all sides for it to be brought about. I want to refer for a moment to the sergeant-pilot. Here is a man who, during the war, fought splendidly alongside the officers. However, as a sergeant-pilot he was a misfit in his own mess. The old-time technical sergeant often resented the young sergeant who had attained his rank in a matter of one or two years living in his mess. I think the sergeant-pilot should either be commissioned or should be given a rank between warrant officer and pilot officer, and they should have their own mess. The sergeant-pilot is an anomaly, and his rank should be adjusted. He has fought his way parallel with the officer; he has lived with the officer in the dispersal huts, but he has not lived with him in the mess. I think that is wrong.
  I now refer Comd. Paper 6750, regarding pensions for officers It says:
  " The new scheme will not apply to officers who were on the retired list on the 19th December, 1945. Consideration is being given, however, to the position of retired officers who have given full time service in the Armed Forces in the 1939–45 war."
  I do not know why this date of 19th December has been given at all. Why not make it Christmas Day? That would be far more attractive. I suggest the date should be VE-Day, because a number of officers in all the Services were retired after VE-Day, and I do not see why they should be penalised because they happened to leave the Services one month, say, before an officer who came out after 19th December. I hope the Under-Secretary will press the Treasury to give way on this point. It is unfair and should not be so. The Air Force is a young Service. It now has a great tradition behind it, and I make one request, that it should be kept a young man's Service.
  5.38 p.m.
  Group-Captain Wilcock: It is very easy for me to follow and agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) I am sure we are not discussing this from any party angle at all. The

  1001
  aim, which we all wish to see, is that we shall have a most efficient Royal Air Force. Sooner or later there is no doubt the Treasury, or the people who are controlling the money, are going to start on the Royal Air Force; perhaps not this year, but certainly at some future date. For that reason I sincerely hope the Secretary of State has in mind that we shall have a small professional Air Force with the support of the Auxiliary Air Force and the Volunteer Reserve, as we had before the war. I do think that ought to be kept in mind, because if we try to spread our resources, as we are doing now, and as we are likely to do, if we try to keep strength in every part of the world, we shall not achieve what we surely should do, namely, to have a mobile and highly professional Air Force available at a moment's notice; not available to expand at a week's or a month's notice, but available as a striking air defence force.
  It is unfortunate that we have to discuss the matter of the Royal Air Force just after the war. If we are to have an offensive force, then, as the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield has said, let us have it as a young, professional, up-to-date force. Do let us, if we can, jump that gap between a postwar air force, with all its confusion, and an air force that we hope to see in the future. Do not let us have that gap during this transitional period, when we have a large number of people employed in the Air Force who are not up t6 professional standard. I make that point particularly, because we suffered from that for about 10 years after the last war before we really knit together a force which could be called an efficient defensive and offensive instrument. This time we must have the time to do it. There are one or two points concerning airmen. Cannot we simplify some of the trades in the Royal Air Force? Is it necessary for the R.A.F. in future to have over 150 ground trades? It is not necessary in industry, and 1 cannot think that it is necessary in the R.A F. It is one of those things which have grown up, I feel, because nobody has taken the drastic step of telling the men that, if they are in the Service and have a basic trade, they must, nevertheless, be prepared to do other work. It is rather different from civil life in that respect. Expense and lack of efficiency are involved, and although it is a little thing
  1002
  I recommend it to the Under-Secretary of State for his consideration.
  I raise the matter of maintenance because, as 1 have said, I fear that economy will be written across the Air Ministry one of these days. Maintenance surely might be done by civil aviation under a centralised system. I do not say that because civil aviation would make a better job of it than the R.A.F., but because I think the R.A.F. should have its money and its personnel for running its squadrons, and because it would also preserve the great reserves of civil aviation. The factories are now gradually decreasing in numbers and their personnel are being dispersed, but if the maintenance of the R.A.F., as a matter of future policy, could go over to the civil side, and if aircraft could be repaired and overhauled in civil factories, the R.A.F. would not need a large maintenance organisation. In case of war, instead of having to build up the maintenance organisation again, it would already be in existence. When we built up the maintenance organisation in the R.A.F. it was at the expense of the civil side. I recommend the idea to the Under-Secretary as being worthy of his consideration. One other thing. Will those who are now planning for the future consider the concentration of our air forces? A war such as we have just had must cause the spreading of our air forces, but spreading is always a great waste, and we now have forces in the Azores, in Iceland, in Bermuda, along 2,000 miles of the North African coast, and I cannot believe that that is necessary today. As soon as possible we should hand those bases over to the civilians and use all the resources of the R.A.F. for the purpose of building up an efficient force concentrated in certain areas.
  I would also like to refer to the question of overseas service, which is such an important one to the people concerned, from the point of view of the married officers and men. I cannot believe that it is necessary, in these days of quick travel, to send a married officer overseas for two or three years. There are two alternatives. One is to be compelled to do so, as is now suggested, and the other is to send their wives and families after them. I have a horror of that second thing happening, and I have heard rumours that it is being planned. I have heard that the business of sending wives

  1003
  and children, and more usually wives without children, overseas is about to start again for all Services. It means, in actual practice, that the women who perhaps more deserve to go are never able to go because they have children. It is the senior officer's wife and the women without children who go, and it is illogical and has caused heart-burning. I cannot believe that the expense of arranging accommodation and so on for a very small percentage of officers' or airmen's wives is really justified these days, particularly in the R.A.F., where we can lift people from any part of the world in a couple of days. Therefore, I suggest that a married man or officer should do his overseas period of three years, if it is three years, a year at a time. Let the single men do their three years; they probably want it, and are probably much more comfortable than they are at home.
  I see by the Estimate that the sum of £30 million is allocated to works and works services, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us a little more explanation on this point. It seems to me to be a very high maintenance figure. Perhaps I am wrong, but it has not been explained why £30 million should now be required for works. If it includes aircraft, it is an entirely different matter. May I refer to the question of the W.A.A.F.? We all know what services they have done; it would really have been most difficult to carry on in the R.A.F. without them, but I wonder whether they are really necessary after the war. I know that I shall be unpopular for saying this, but if they are, I hope that it will be at home only, because, as I said, my idea of this professional air force is that it should be a hard-hitting mobile force, and that I do not think can be achieved if we send our women's Services overseas.
  I missed one thing from the Under-Secretary's admirable speech. He made no reference to our Colonial air forces and to the liaison we have with them now. In the R.A.F at home we have large experimental establishments, which are very costly indeed in money and manpower. Is the same thing happening in Canada? Have we the same thing in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa? Are we setting up parallel organisations, because, if so, surely it is a bad thing? Could we not have some
  1004
  agreement whereby certain experimental work should be handed over to certain countries or Colonies which are more suitable for it? I cannot see why we have a marine establishment in this country. We do not want flying boats in the R.A.F.; they may be marvellous for civil aviation, but I cannot think that we must have them in the R.A.F. Possibly in Canada, with the long stretches of sea coast along the Pacific, they may be useful. Surely, that should be the country in which to carry on a large marine experimental establishment. I only make the suggestion because I am still looking at this matter from the point of view of economy for the future. I am sure we must do so, because manpower is an overriding consideration in all these things.
  Sir W. Wakefield: Is not the hon. and gallant Member referring to the Dominions? I understood him to say Colonies all the time; is he referring to activities in the Colonies, or to the activities of the Dominion Air Forces?
  Group-Captain Wilcock: I thank the hon. Member for making that point. I did, of course, mean the Dominions; it was purely a slip of the tongue. I would like to add my congratulations to the Under-Secretary for his speech on our Air Force, of which we are all so proud. We feel—I am sure I speak for all hon. and right hon. Members—that we receive, as Members of the House of Commons, remarkable services from the Air Ministry through the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Air. I have a very heavy correspondence concerning Royal Air Force personnel, and it is extraordinarily well treated by the hon. Gentleman. I have a most important constituent who has a grouse in that he. has not had a civilian suit although he has been discharged for four months, and that is myself; but beyond that, the hon. Gentleman seems to have done everything that he has been asked. The Royal Air Force has done its duty to the country, and we must see that we do our duty to the Royal Air Force.
  5.51 p.m.
  Wing-Commander Millington: As I listened to this Debate, I thought I was back in the Royal Air Force, because wing commanders always follow air commodores and group captains; and so I think it is proper that I should follow an air commodore and

  1005
  three group captains at this moment. On 1st May, 1945, I first took my seat in the House of Commons after winning a by-election. The "Daily Telegraph" newspaper said that my entering the House of Commons was astounding. The" thing that astonished me was that I was alive to come into the House, because I had just completed a tour of operations with Bomber Command. I remember well, that when I first joined my squadron, the night before I received my posting, the station to which I was posted lost 12 aircraft out of the 28 that had flown that night. The Under-Secretary of State, in his introductory speech, referred, I thought, a little casually and in passing to the fact that 50,000 men lost their lives in Bomber Command during the war. He forgot to mention 15,000 others who suffered serious casualties, including being taken prisoner of war, and the overriding fact that this enormous number of casualties, 65,000 in all, was out of a sum total of 110,000 trained.
  The fact that when I first reported to a squadron 12 out of 28 crews had '' gone for a Burton," as we used to say, and 'the fact that when I first reported for operational duty, the average expectation of life for nine new crews out of 10, in the group to which I was posted, was less than six months, have a significance in the whole of my outlook in the political world in which I live, and also upon the attitude I have towards the Royal Air Force and towards this particular Debate. We want—that is; the people who served in Bomber Command of the Royal Air Force and their next-of-kin—a categorical assurance that the work we did was militarily and strategically justified. I am sorry I should go back to this old question. There have been words of high praise spoken in this Debate and written in the Press, words of congratulation, but there has also been an undercurrent of thought that the strategic work of Bomber Command was wasteful of our manpower and over-destructive in its effect upon the enemy. I feel I am justified on behalf of 50,000 widows and bereaved mothers in asking the Under-Secretary of State to make much more clear than he did in his speech—upon which I join in congratulating him—that the work that was done by Bomber Command was completely justified from the military point of view and, particularly, from the strategic point of view. If it was not com-
  1006
  pletely justified, then some investigation must be held into the position of those people who were responsible for the direction of Bomber Command, particularly from the years 1943 to 1945, which resulted in such a great waste of manpower.
  This matter is precipitated in my mind by the signal fact that, in the terminal honours, at the end of last year, in the New Year's Honours List, the name of the chief architect of Bomber Command, Sir Arthur Harris, was a conspicuous absentee. 1 know it will be argued that in the Honours List six months previously the Commander-in-Chief of Bomber Command received the Order of the G.C.B. But he retired from the Royal Air Force without any public expression of gratitude for the work, not that he had done, but which his Command had done under him. He left the country in a bowler hat for America, without having been included in the terminal Honours List. There is- a feeling amongst the men who have served in Bomber Command that what appears to be an affront to the Commander-in-Chief of that Command is, in fact, an affront to the people who served in that Command and, of course, to those who suffered casualties. We feel that if our organisation did a good job of work in all respects, as we believe it did, the least that should be done is that an honour should be conferred on its head, comparable to the honours paid to commanding officers of similar units, particularly in the other Services.
  I go from that to some consideration of the nature of the organisation of the permanent Royal Air Force. I heard with interest the remarks made by the air commodore and group captains who preceded me in this Debate. But it does not seem to me that they have really got to the most important consideration in the structure of a permanent regular Air Force. During the war there was the incentive to work and fight such as one can never hope to expect to have in peace time, the consciousness that in the daily or nightly facing of danger men were "sticking out their necks," as we used to say, for something which was worth while. In peace time you have not the ever present spur to endeavour, and, particularly, the spur to self-sacrifice that is always present in war. The function, par-

  1007
  ticularly of a Labour and Socialist administration, should be to provide the spur for proficient and self-sacrificing service, if we are to attract to the ranks of the regular Air Force precisely the kind of men upon whom this country must depend if ever her shores are threatened with invasion.
  We have all been interested in what the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) earlier this afternoon called the "troubles" in the Air Force. Similarly, most hon. Members who sit on the Government benches have been interested in the discussion held in recent meetings of the Trades Union Congress on the question of conscription. I think that both the speech of the hon. Member for Maldon, and the conclusions arrived at by the Trades Union Congress, have a direct bearing upon what I have in mind, this question of the future of the Air Force. It will be remembered that, apart from the specific question of demobilisation and repatriation, it became apparent, particularly in the Far East, that the Air Force is made up now of a body of men who have achieved during the last six years a fairly high degree of political consciousness. Similarly, the Trades Union Congress gives as one of the conditions on which it will approve conscription for the armed Forces, that there shall be a measure of democratisation of the Forces.
  I ask the Under-Secretary whether he cannot make some pronouncement to show that the Air Ministry realise that the character of the men who make up the Air Force has changed during the last seven years. A man in the Royal Air Force is now conscious of his status as a citizen, as well as of his status as a member of the Armed Forces. Are the Air Ministry prepared to go any way in the direction of democratisation? This is a time in our history when the men in the Air Force, and in the other Services which are governed by King's Regulations, should no longer be bound by irksome rules which deny them rights as citizens. I refer in particular to an incident which will be within recollection of the Undersecretary. It is the scandalous incident which occurred this year at Grantham, where an aircraftman was brutally treated by the police of his unit, because he dared to pen an anonymous letter to a local newspaper.
  Mr. Sidney Shephard: Will the hon. and gallant Member give a definition of what he means when he uses the word "brutal? "
  Wing-Commander Millngton: Yes, I will. Brutality is not merely a question of physical violence. Mental violence is almost more brutal than physical violence, and, when a 19 year old lad has to be summarily arrested and intimidated by R.A.F. police in a public place, that, in my submission, is greater brutality than if someone had struck him. I am not submitting that the officer commanding the unit in that particular case went beyond his powers under the appropriate regulations. I submit that the regulations are wrong, and that it is time it was possible for a young man, who is serving in a military capacity, to take a full share in the political life of the country in which he lives, to take a full and active part in public meetings, and to be allowed the right freely to write letters and articles, even on Service matters, for publication in the local and national Press. If that kind of relaxation of the regulations were followed by Service Ministers, we should be taking the first step towards making men in the R.A.F., the Army and the Navy realise that they are men, and not a peculiar brand of children who can be entrusted with millions of pounds' worth of equipment, but cannot be trusted with, perhaps, the chief weapon of all, the weapon of ideas.
  The Under-Secretary, in consideration of the kind of Air Force which we are to have, and which is to attract the men we want, should pay attention to the traditional basis of promotion, and particularly of promotion to commissioned rank. During the period of the war, there has been a considerable relaxation from the traditional approach. This has been inevitable, because the supply of men of what used to be called "the right type," has not been sufficient to fulfil the demands, of war. When an other rank completes a form of submission for promotion to commissioned rank, he is still asked for particulars of his school, sports and clubs. I submit that these considerations are irrelevant, if there has been built up in the Service in which these men have served as other ranks, a proper relationship between officers and men. All that should be required is a detailed report on efficiency, powers of leadership

  1009
  and the like, and a recommendation by the local unit commander; these should carry the men forward without reference to what is known as background. A board should be more concerned about a man's ability, efficiency and powers to lead, than about the kind of school or club of which he happened to be a member. There is a final consideration, and I was delighted to hear the . Under-Secretary refer to it in his most interesting peroration, and that is, that it does not matter how much money you may give the men, and how much better are their quarters, if the direction of the Service is wrong, then, because the men have become politically minded, we shall not get the men freely to join the Forces and serve in them.
  The Under-Secretary said there was a great hope for the people of the world who had been born during the last twelve months by the formation of U.N.O., although some may doubt how much hope was demonstrated at the recent meetings. Recently I have had submitted a questionnaire which was circulated among men of an R.A.F. station in Norfolk. It was circulated from the rank of A.C.2 up to corporal; apparently it was felt that sergeants and commissioned officers ought not to be included, because they had some vested interest in the Service. These men were asked whether they would continue in the Service more willingly if the pay was doubled, and only one per cent. said that in these circumstances they would. They were asked whether they would continue in the Service if they were given something to do during the time when they could not normally be employed on Service training and duties. An overwhelming number "opted" in favour of having more to do, which is one of the instances where the working men of this country choose to have more work to do. The conclusion is that button cleaning, and what is known in the Services as "buli," of one sort and another, excessive discipline and excessive parades at unduly early hours in the morning, are conditions of service which put off rather than attract the people we want voluntarily to make their career in the Royal Air Force. Finally, the question was put whether the men would rather serve in a national Royal Air Force, or in a Royal Air Force which was part of the international Forces working under U.N.O. for international law and security.
  1010
  I cannot possibly convey to this Committee, or indeed to my persona) friends, what it means to people with my experience during the war to see their friends killed on operations night after night. It is not the immediate menace to one's self which is so destructive to one's morale, because I have not yet met an airman who thought that it could possibly happen to him, even when the losses were 50, 60 and 70 per cent. It is this business of having to go up three or four nights a week, losing one, or three from a squadron, or 30 from a group in one operation, which makes the airmen, of all people, conscious of the fact that there is no profit for anyone in war for nationalistic purposes I submit that the future recruitment of the Air Force is entirely bound up with the foreign policy of the British Government. If it is made clear that the Air Force will be used as an instrument for international law and peace, then the men will come in voluntarily to assist in the building up of that international Force. It is my most terrifying nightmare that ever again the Royal Air Force should be used as an instrument of nationalistic war
  One final word which I feel 1 ought to say, because I am a member of no Party but my own. In consideration of matters of foreign policy and of the future of the Armed Forces. we have to thank whatever God we may believe in, that we have a Labour Government sitting on the benches opposite I believe, although there are a thousand things on which I disagree with individual Members of the Labour Party, that in their desire to make the fighting Services a career in which a man can find full self-expression and a decent way of life, they are many years in front of their predecessors in Government. Furthermore, in the Secretary of State for Air, particularly on today's showing, I am convinced that the Royal Air Force has a political leader of whom they will always be glad
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: I should imagine that the Committee have listened with profound attention and appreciation to the series of distinguished speeches which we have had this evening from those with operational experience in the Royal Air Force. Perhaps I shall be forgiven if I mention, in particular, the remarkable speeches of my hon. Friend

  1011
  the Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) and the hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Max Aitken). The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington), who has just spoken, is also entitled to the greatest possible attention by reason of his practical experience, although he will not expect me to agree with every word that has fallen from him
  I should also desire to add my humble addition to the bouquets of praise which have been showered on the Under-Secretary of State this afternoon. As one who has had the privilege of serving in the same position under somewhat less exacting circumstances, because I was heavily chaperoned either by Sir Archibald Sinclair or by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), I should like to add my congratulations to those of others. The hon. Gentleman's easy Parliamentary action, his complete mastery of his subject, and the art which he developed during the war in his radio talks of making a difficult subject sound perhaps a little easier than it is, all these things have endeared him to the House of Commons and permit us to say that when a certain quantity of "dead wood" has been removed from the Treasury benches, these qualities will enable him to find rapid promotion. If 1 may be permitted to add a drop of vinegar to the oil of praise, without which no salad dressing is complete, 1 should say that his Parliamentary performances render it easy for us to forget his somewhat totalitarian and murky political past. The hon. Gentleman has this qualification for Office in the Air Ministry: he knows exactly when to bale out. Having abandoned successively the Messerschmitt of Sir Oswald Mosley and the fiery Stormovik of the Communist Party, he has at last taken his seat in the celestial band wagon of the Labour Party—a somewhat cumbersome machine which I rather doubt to be airworthy, and certainly hopelessly overloaded at the present time. Should it ever become airborne and get into difficulties. I shall expect to see a pale blue parachute detach itself from its entrails and the hon. Gentleman descend gracefully into the maternal and catholic though slightly unexciting embrace of his Conservative mother earth
  In the otherwise masterly speech to which the hon. Gentleman treated us this
  1012
  afternoon, I noticed a certain reluctance to deal with fundamentals—a characteristic which is not confined to the hon. Gentleman among the occupants of the Front Bench. We are told that this Government are charged with a firm mandate for planning. Very well, then, let them plan on clear, constructive and fundamental lines for our security. We are given a White Paper which contains some figures which are, frankly and admittedly, meaningless symbols so far as the ultimate size and shape of the Royal Air Force is concerned, but we are not told in any clear language what the Air Force is to be for. What is the place of the Air Arm in our general strategic scheme of imperial defence? I do not altogether accept the hon. Gentleman's view that now is not the time to speak plainly on these matters. It is true that the position has changed and changed rapidly, but I have never heard of a situation which was not changing and changing rapidly during the course of my life time. I do not suppose that it will cease to change rapidly either in the immediate or more distant future, and I cannot help thinking that the rapid changes going on around us are being used as excuses by various persons inside the Government for failing to maintain a clear conception of what it is they are really about when they are maintaining the Armed Forces of the Crown in general and the Royal Air Force in particular. What is the Government's view of the size and, more important, the shape and organisation of the Air Force, and how is it designed to fit into the general plan of imperial defence?
  Several hon. Members have spoken with feeling and distinction on welfare, pay, training and terms of service—subjects which we would all be agreed in treating as important, the more so at this particular time, for we are living at a moment when large bodies of men are maintained under the Colours who are anxious to return to civil life at the earliest possible opportunity and in whose eyes, therefore, the question of welfare and demobilisation assume a greater importance than they might do at any other time. But I should imagine that the hon. Gentleman would in the main agree with me when I say that the morale and efficiency of a disciplined force does not in the last resort depend so much upon welfare, im-

  1013
  portant as that is, as it does upon certain imponderables, in the organisation, upon the use to which that force is likely to be put; upon the consciousness of the part it is really destined to play in Imperial and world affairs. It depends upon confidence in the excellence of the material which it is called upon to use; upon the consciousness of its discipline; upon the reliance upon its leadership, in all ranks; and upon its tactical doctrine and its training. It is upon these matters in the Royal Air Force—and in other Services for that matter, although we are only concerned here with the Royal Air Force—that a clear stream of tactical and strategic doctrine should begin to be issued from those in authority both inside the Service and on the Government Front Bench.
  Such doctrine would be clearly opportune at the moment. It is a general, although I think not a universal, feature of new destructive inventions of past years, that in the main each tended not so much to supplant something which had gone before as to add a new complication to military science. Thus when the air arm itself appeared during the first world war, it did not supersede—and it has shown hitherto no signs of superseding—the use of armies to occupy the ground or of navies to command the sea, but it has complicated the task of all the Services and the various devices which are used for the purposes of controlling the land and sea respectively.
  If the air arm has complicated tactical and strategic doctrines, it has also rendered far more complex the great apparatus of supply which has to go behind the deployment of a tactical force. Thus also at the close the recent hostilities brought new and untried weapons into view. When I say untried, I mean untried in the scope which will undoubtedly be given to them, should the unfortunate event of further hostilities ever again take place. There have been pilotless aircraft, rocket bombs and I feel bound to mention, although with a certain sense of diffidence on the subject, that new and completely revolutionary destructive agency comprised in the release of atomic and nuclear explosive. What is the view of the Government of these discoveries on the shape and size of the Royal Air Force? Have they any view? I trust at any rate they will not fall a victim to
  1014
  the heresy that these inventions reduce the necessary size or value of the air arm. On the contrary, I trust they will accept the view, which I personally share, that although rocket weapons and atomic explosives greatly modify the targets and influence the tactics of air warfare they render the supremacy in the air over this country, the other vulnerable points of the Empire and sea lanes, more vital and imperative than was ever the case before because control of the sea is impossible without control of the air above it. How are we to attain in relation to our air defences the necessary degree of preparedness in times of peace in order to discharge the various roles and responsibilities which this Government in common with others has undertaken? The vital interests of this country have at all times been so numerous and so varied that we have at no time been in a position to sustain military forces of any type adequate for our ultimate requirements in the possibility of war, and that fact has coloured our whole political and military preparations in past centuries. It is this consideration, and not so much the criminal negligence which it is the fashion to impute to the British race by certain critics, that has been the explanation of our reluctance to maintain a large warlike establishment, to impose compulsory military service and make our people subject to wartime controls in times of peace. The atomic age will tend in my judgment to accentuate the difficulty of maintaining all our Services, and in particular the Air Force, on a war footing in time of peace, and, therefore, it falls to be considered what numbers the Government should maintain in our military forces, and particularly our Air Force, having regard to the limitations upon our strength. These limitations must also affect not merely the numbers but also the nature of the Force, because it is quite impossible for this country, with its world wide commitments, to maintain a force either of the requisite size or the necessary shape before the nature of a potential danger has fully made its appearance. The force required may be different in shape as well as in size and such forces in the main cannot be improvised.
  The shape of a required force is determined by the particular war it is required to fight and this is especially true of the Air Force. The Air Force required to

  1015
  beat Germany was very different from that which would have been deployed against Japan, and the shape of the Air Force which we, in fact, employed to defeat Germany was, as the Under-Secretary for Air rightly observed, determined in its ultimate appearance and organisation by the fact that it was designed to be welded into a larger force of which the United States Air Force was an important and perhaps the more important partner. The great night bomber force which we developed would not, therefore, necessarily represent our main effort if the Air Force came to be used in warlike operations again. We cannot tell. It follows therefore that we cannot in time of peace maintain either the size of the force we may require in time of war or maintain a force of the same shape and on the same plan because we might hereafter have to develop our existing forces along one or more of several inconsistent lines. From these facts it follows that Britain's defence has at all times been adequately maintained only on certain principles, and I shall be glad to hear from the Government to what extent they agree with the principles I am about to put forward and in what way they would apply them to our Air Force in the future.
  First I mention, only to dismiss it as being outside the scope of the present Vote—but I mention it because no discussion on military commitments would be complete without it—that the actual size of our Air Force must be based upon a foreign policy which is designed to give us security. It is said, and it has been said, I think, in recent Debates in this Committee, that the purpose of an armed Force is to implement a foreign policy, but it has also been an important part of the functions of the foreign policy of this country over centuries to supplement our Armed Forces. Only upon the supposition that we have a foreign policy, which, whilst remaining just, is still designed to give us a measure of security, can we hope to plan for the future either the size or shape of our Air Force, or indeed of any of cur other military forces. It would indeed be out of Order for me to indicate the principles which that policy should maintain, but perhaps it would be right and in order for me to say this. Upon my reading of our history that policy, whether it has been
  1016
  called by one name or another, could always legitimately have been described by the general expression—collective security. We have always sought to supplement our own weakness by collecting together other peoples who were prepared to defend the reign of law which it has always been the peculiar glory of our country to make its main principle of defence. It follows from this that the Armed Forces which we should maintain in being in times of peace, and particularly our Air Forces—because it is upon that Force that the main brunt will inevitably fall at first—must be such that no power in the world is capable of overcoming it by a decisive blow before we have time to deploy our full military strength.
  It is not our purpose, and it should never become our purpose, to maintain a force capable of aiming a decisive blow at other people or maintaining a force capable of defending ourselves for indefinite periods in time of war, but it is vitally necessary at all times for us to have in being a force which can prevent a decisive blow being aimed at us before we have time to deploy our main military strength. And I should like to be assured that the Government have that principle clearly in mind and know what is the size of the force required for that purpose. Do they, for instance, agree with the calculations made on 22nd October last by the Leader of the Opposition. He, I think, suggested that an adequate air force for this purpose would be a force of 150 to 200 operational squadrons with reserves and training squadrons in addition and with about 4,000 aircraft, based upon a ration strength not exceeding 400,000 men. I gather from the demobilisation figures given by the Undersecretary that that is not the view of His Majesty'sGovernment, because they apparently aim by the end of this year to reduce the personnel of the Royal Air Force to 305,000 men. This Committee is entitled to know upon what basis of organisation that figure is arrived at, and whether the final figure is likely to be larger or smaller than 305,000 men, because, unless the House of Commons is ultimately going to ask questions of this kind and ask them particularly at a time like this when there is admittedly no real question of military security involved, it is going to lose control of defence policy, and I may say that if it does lose control

  1017
  of defence policy it is ultimately going to lose its sovereign position in the Government of this country.
  Secondly, it follows from what I have been saying that, as we can hope to keep only a relatively small force in being, the whole organisation of that force ought to be based, in the first place, on its expansibility in time of war. We should concentrate on quality rather than quantity and I was glad to hear the Undersecretary himself emphasise the need for research and development, for the maintenance of the highest quality of aircraft rather than the production of the greatest quantity at the present time, for a high degree of training rather than a high degree of mobilisation, and I was also glad to note the emphasis on the development of adequate reserves. In this connection let me say that I agree with the hon. Member for Worcester, that I was disturbed by the relatively small sum allowed for the development of reserves which stood at £350,000. I should like to think that that does not represent the full expenditure which will ultimately be expended upon reserves, and to be reassured by the hon. Gentleman in that respect. Thirdly, our forces must be flexible in the sense that they are capable of expansion in several different alternative directions. In war there is an element of specialisation in training. Bomber pilots, fighter pilots, transport pilots and so on tend to develop in separate species, but in peacetime we need to be more flexible than this and each different general duties officer must be capable of fulfilling several roles.
  Next I think we must hear a little more about the degree to which training is to be world wide in scope. Nobody would think anything of a Navy which was trained only in home waters; it has become increasingly difficult to train an Army on Salisbury Plain, in fact I venture to think it is impossible; but the training of an Air Force which was confined in any way to this country, or to one or two narrow training areas, would, I think, be ridiculous and would reduce us at once from the level of a first class Power. It is to revert to the bow and arrow school of strategy and not to base our strategic air training on the air routes of the world, the bases of the Commonwealth and the training grounds of the Empire. To what extent is this being done? We cannot
  1018
  grasp the meaning of modern strategy unless we disperse the training of our pilots instead of concentrating it in this country. What plans have the Government for this? No Air Force can be efficient unless it is in a real sense inter-continental. What plans have been made for reciprocal arrangements with the Dominions or even with the United States or Russia? What plans are in contemplation and what steps have been made to implement them?
  Equally urgent, although on a smaller scale, are our relations with our close friends and Allies across the Channel. I cannot contemplate any military operations on the Continent of Europe in which the air ports of France, Belgium, and Holland are not equally important to us as are Tangmere and Northolt. What steps are being taken to cement the cordial relations built up during the war with Dutch, Norwegian and Belgian airmen, including those who formed, as the hon. Gentleman rightly and eloquently said, part of our own Royal Air Force under our command? If an international air force, devoted to the cause of the United Nations and of peace, is to be a reality in the prevention of aggression, it can be developed only on the basis of existing contracts by a truly internationally, or may I say federally, minded Government of the United Kingdom.
  Group-Captain Wilcock: This is very interesting, but I wonder just why the hon. Member is suggesting that this training should take place abroad. He has suggested that it would be an advantage to train pilots or air crews in any other country than England. Where does this lead us?
  Mr. Hogg: I had hoped that I was beginning to make myself plain. I am certainly suggesting that we should not confine the training of our pilots to England. The war showed that even so far as elementary training is concerned there were other parts of the world far more suitable—where, for instance, the weather was much better. But in particular I was stressing not so much the weather and the available land—which are great limitations upon British training—but the actual strategic and tactical doctrine which would be involved in confining our training to this island. The whole essence of modern warfare is that it is world wide and if you are to train your Air Force to be an efficient weapon

  1019
  of war, training must be world wide. It is, I should have thought, amply clear that the analogy to which I ventured to draw the attention of the Committee held good; that a fleet trained in Portsmouth, would not be likely to put to sea and win a naval battle, and an Air Force which has spent its time flying from Prestwick to Cornwall, is not going to be much good when it comes to a question of traversing and commanding the air routes of the world. For that reason I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, although extremely apt, betrayed a failure to grasp what I was saying, which I can only hope is not shared by the rest of the Party which at the moment commands a majority in this House.
  Group-Captain Wilcock: I have been awaiting an explanation from the hon. Gentleman. He still has not convinced me that there is any advantage in training somewhere else. This is the best country for training. If our pilots are trained here, surely they can serve overseas, but why stress this matter of training elsewhere?
  Mr. Hogg: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not been impressed with what I have been saying, it would be difficult by mere repetition to impress him with any arguments at all, but I am surprised that he should not have considered even the practical difficulty of carrying out extensive air training in and over this country. Those of us who were Members of this House in the last Parliament will remember the complaints at the noise of night flying, the difficulty of obtaining bombing ranges, and the annoyance caused by the requisition of property. I should have thought that, even on simple practical grounds like this, training elsewhere than in this country—in a less populous area—could well be justified, and on tactical and strategical grounds I should have thought the case unassailable.
  I turn now to questions of discipline and organisation. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will reply to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend about the future of central maintenance. This seems to me to be one of the cardinal questions of discipline which the R.A.F. has to settle for itself. Other speakers have referred to the future of the R.A.F. Regiment, to the length of the overseas tour, to the A.T.C. and the W.A.A.F. I
  1020
  should like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman what is the future of the Staff College? Has it yet a home? What is to be the length of the course? What is the quota of air officers to be admitted to the inter-Service course in Imperial defence—if one is to be allowed to assume that there will be one? What about the post-graduate Staff College? What steps are being taken to see that the combined Services at that level are suitably indoctrinated with air mindedness?
  Lastly, I must say that I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have given—painful as it is—a fuller account to Parliament of the question of discipline in the R.A.F. at the present time. There have been, as the Committee knows, a number of painful incidents which can only be described as mutiny. I should imagine that at no other period in the history of Parliament since the Stuart Kings, could such an incident have taken place without Parliament being given the fullest possible detailed report. How many men were involved? How many stations were involved altogether? In what did the incidents consist? Were there any outbreaks of actual disorder or violence? What disciplinary action has been taken and against how many of the mutineers? What has been the result of such proceedings as have been started? Was the widespread character of the outbreak a coincidence? Was it due simply to what was imagined, rightly or wrongly, to be the ineptitude of the demobilisation policy of the Government, or was there an organisation where sinister influences were at work? If the House of Commons is to maintain any kind of control over the policy of Government, we must insist on answers to questions of this kind. Was there any coincidence between these mutinies in the East, and the disturbances among the civil population at the same time? Was it part of a deliberate and engineered attempt to weaken the prestige of this kingdom in that part of the world or was it just a coincidence in point of time? What steps are being taken by the Government to improve discipline and morale and prevent a recurrence of incidents like these?
  I can but regard it as disturbing that of the three Services, the Air Force, so far, has been the only one to be affected. What is the explanation of this and what steps are being taken to learn such

  1021
  lessons as these incidents involve? It is necessary, unfortunately, to speak plainly about these matters. Public control over the discipline and organisation of our Forces can be obtained only at the price of giving full publicity to painful events. During the war we have learned the habit of secrecy in order to avoid giving our enemies things to say about us, but in time of peace we must unlearn this lesson at the earliest possible moment. I can but think that the relative want of frank discussion of this painful subject has been unfortunate, and a bad augury for the future.
  Other speeches have ended, and mine also shall conclude, with a tribute to the Service whose work and organisation we are discussing. If such tributes were intended to increase the glory of the R.A.F. they would be unnecessary and would fail in their aim. The name of the R.A.F. liveth for evermore. But it is right that tributes should be paid— not for an increase of the glory of the Service, but as the discharge of a just debt which all of us owe and must faithfully pay. The battle honours of the Royal Air Force in the recent war, the sharp and decisive victory in the battle of the fighters over Britain, the long years of growing weight of bomber attack when the Command employed sustained casualties on a scale comparable only with the most intensive operations on land, the long vigil of Coastal Command, the slow climb to supremacy and the decisive intervention of the tactical Air Forces in each theatre of operations, the huge network of ground and ancillary organisation all over the world—these great battle honours take their place, quite naturally and without exaggeration, amid the great battles of history, with Marathon and Salamis, with the Crusades, with the defence of Christendom against Islam in the early Middle Ages, and with our own victories over the Armada and at Trafalgar. It is not possible to exaggerate the heroic character of these times, and it is necessary to remember them, because, in the years which preceded the war, from which we have but recently been delivered, we lived in the midst of great events and contrived to find them dull. Never was greater blindness among mankind.
  The world now is living in its most decisive days. One could hope— and I do hope in one sense—that the great battle honours of the Royal Air Force will now
  1022
  gradually grow old and almost, if it were possible, fade away like a revered war standard reposing in honourable retirement in the aisles of some ancient church. I am bound to say that I do not believe that the times are yet safe for us to hold that doctrine. The world as I see it—and my whole reading of history confirms me in the belief—is passing through a period of convulsion. The world is not yet safe for the rule of law. The world is not yet safe for liberty. The price of liberty remains what it was in the days of our ancestors—eternal vigilance. Like the hon. Gentleman who introduced these Estimates, and like my right hon. Friend the acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Eden), I believe that the whole weight of this Common wealth of which we are members must be thrown whole heartedly behind the United Nations organisation. I look forward, at some time, to an abatement of sovereignty, which will make something like peace and order possible among the nations, but, until that time, I am bound to say that I feel certain that the Royal Air Force, perhaps more than any of the three Services, must remain a potent influence, a glittering weapon, ready for use if need be, in the cause of righteousness and the support of the rule of law—the things for which so many brave men have died in the years which have passed, and for which we might again, if need be, have to make the same sacrifice should mankind once more fail to learn the lessons thrust upon them so plainly by experience.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Jack Jones: I enter this Debate in trepidation We have heard air commodores, group captains and squadron leaders, and it is very much like the Debate we had on the Navy Estimates a few days ago when we were taken back by the Navy people to the days of the man with a peg leg and a hook for a hand. Today, we have been taken back to the days of the men who flew in box kites, and then on to hear of craft which can do 760 miles per hour and carry this atomic bomb—goodness knows why, and against whom. I have listened with interest to the speeches, and more particularly to that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). One envied him his oratory. It would be indeed a great thing if it could be effective. He always kicks off by pin-pricking His Majesty's Government. He

  1023
  got mixed up today with the ideals of our Party, and the blue pennant, or a blue parachute, but we struck the blue pennant quite a while ago. The story he poured out reminded me of the story of the parson who owned a hog that was sick. Despite all he did, and all the medicine he gave it, the pig still continued to grant. I would recommend the hon. Member for Oxford not to grunt so much at the people who are trying to do such a lot for the country, which was left undone by his Party.
  The facts are that we, on this side of the Committee, are very humble people, the ordinary people of the world, who do not understand the reasoning of the hon. Member's speech. I have heard the word "war" today more than I heard it during the war. It grieved me to sit and listen. Why talk about war? Have we not had enough of war? Make no mistake about it, the people of this country will not go to war again particularly against their brothers and sisters, their Allies who fought this last war. [An Hon. Member: "Do not tell me that. '] The hon. Gentleman says, "Do not tell me that." The pity is that such minds will persist in thoughts of war. If those minds had been trained to dwell on the things—
  Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: What is the hon. Member's Party doing with Spain at present?
  Mr. Jones: The question of Spain is one—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It is not in Order to introduce Spain into this Debate. Hon. Members must deal with the Air Estimates now before the Committee.
  Mr. Jones: This question is one which His Majesty's Government are dealing with through our Foreign Secretary to the satisfaction of the British public at all events. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are not satisfied with his conduct of the business, they should say so, and not accord him praise with their tongues in their cheeks.
  I do not speak in this Debate as an airman, but I am the proud father of five children who have served in all the Services—the Air Force, the W.A.A.F., the Navy, the Army—and I myself served in the Camel Corps in the last war, so
  1024
  we have a rather unique record. I congratulate the Minister on his very able, clear, concise utterance this afternoon, and I also want to congratulate him on a letter which I received this morning, 50 copies of which I have already had made to send out to the boys in India. It is a four-page document setting forth an answer, to their grievances. It is an able exposition, made in a humanitarian way. I also congratulate him on the answers we get from him—a thing we could recommend to some of his colleagues in office.
  We humble back benchers look at this matter in a humanitarian way. A sum of £28,000,000 is to be spent on research. I want some of the money to be spent on the reconditioning of the men, as well as of the engines. I want to see some of that money spent on research into such things as the cookhouse attached to the squadron, which is hardly ever mentioned. I want to see some money spent on training people to make a meal out of the things they find to make meals of, when they get out to Timbuctoo, China and elsewhere. Also I want to see some of that money spent on the furtherance of the education of those gallant lads who, in the midst of their careers, take up Air Force duties. I have never been satisfied with what has been done, and, while I know times are not opportune during war, the time will be opportune during peace to allow an educated man, who has studied enough to take part in the Royal Air Force, and do his duty, to continue in his spare time his studies, to equip himself with all the knowledge ho wants to return to civilian life.
  I represent the biggest constituency in this country, and I get a spate of letters from men in that constituency who are serving. Their one cry has been that they are denied the opportunity today to put into use the technical things they have learned while in the Air Force, and they are now decrying a system which refuses to allow them to be trained to take part in this great humanitarian crusade of re-civilising the world. Then there is the question of recreation. I know that during the war, opportunity was given to these gallant lads for recreational pursuits, but it was not sufficient. That also is something on which some money must be spent. It is no use expecting a fellow to go up into the clouds, unless he is equipped with a physique that will stand up to it. One hears hon. Members on

  1025
  the benches opposite, talking about flying at 760 miles per hour. God knows where the pilot is going to, and why he should be going at that speed, but I want to be sure that he is equipped to land at the other end safe, with a whole body and a whole mind.
  These are the problems which beset ordinary back benchers like myself. Then there is the question of the W.A.A.F. My daughter, recently demobilised from the W.A.A.F., tells me that, given a fair and reasonable opportunity, it can be a grand life, it can be a good life, it can be an honoured profession. Women can do work, which men cannot do so well, for instance on wireless, meteorological reports and so on. This work is well within the ambit of women. We should as soon as possible, therefore, announce the future prospects for women who are prepared to serve, the rates of pay, the terms and conditions.
  There is another big question about which I have always been worried. This war has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the 15-year-old school leaver can be just as good a squadron leader, as the man from the university. These boys have proved themselves. They have been given the opportunity, during the war, to be the equal of those men, and I say that those who have proved themselves during the war, should have equality of opportunity during peace. I say this in no carping spirit to hon. Gentlemen opposite. When it comes to promotion, there should not be such questions on the questionnaire as, "What was your father? ", "What public school did you attend? "and so on. These young men should be given the same opportunity as the others to prove themselves worthy to serve what is still the greatest country of all and I hope that question will receive some attention also. I hope that the future Air Force of this country and of the world will be trained to be a citizens Air Force, that it will not be trained to carry bombs into the heart of the enemy, but to carry good will into the hearts of our friends.
  I know some hon. Members on these benches, as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite, believe that this idea is Utopian, but I think it is possible. I say it can be achieved, and I say that it would do much more good if we had planes carrying not 50 commandos, but 50 happy,
  1026
  carefree young people of our country to visit other countries, in order to pass on to other nations, information such as was passed on when I took my trip to America during the war, information about what we, the common people, stand for. That would do much more good than information appearing in the Press about Debates such as this, telling our potential enemies what we are prepared to do in the case of war. It would tell our Allies and friends in other lands, what we are doing to ensure peace. If we did that, I feel certain that the hon. Member for Oxford would be able to sleep at night more peacefully than he can at the moment in his present perturbed state of mind.
  There can be, there must be, please God there will be, through these Estimates today and through the expenditure of this money, the use of the wealth of this nation to bring about not a state such as we saw before the last war, and before the previous war, but one in which money shall be spent advantageously to engender in the hearts of those who may be our potential enemies, a desire to be nothing but our friends.
  7.0 p.m.
  Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: Like the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Jones) and hon. Members on all sides of the Committee, I gladly pay my tribute to the Undersecretary of State for the most lucid exposition he has given this afternoon about the work of the Royal Air Force. I was particularly interested in his analysis of the achievements of the strategic bomber offensive. From what he said, it is quite clear that the sacrifice made by men of Bomber Command was not in vain, because they did achieve their objective, in inflicting very material damage on the enemy. We, on this side of the Committee, dissociate ourselves most emphatically from the attack made on the Under-Secretary in his absence by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington) when he accused the Under-Secretary of treating in a casual way the losses of Bomber Command. We do not think the Under-Secretary was in any way casual about the matter, and we know how deeply he feels on this subject. We regard the attack as unwarranted, and we are with the Under-Secretary on this matter.

  1027
  I agree with the hon. Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Hogg) when, in reviewing the present situation in the Royal Air Force, he pointed out that all cannot be well at the present time. That was exemplified by what my hon. Friend called the mutinies in India, and which the Under-Secretary more euphemistically referred to as "regrettable troubles." These troubles are now a thing of the past, and I believe we should analyse the situation, and learn from it how we can prevent any recurrence of such troubles in the future. Throughout the whole of the war, the discipline of the Royal Air Force was something of which we were all proud, and we must set about removing the causes that bring about these troubles. One of the fundamentals is that the Government should keep faith with the men and when they make promises to the men, should carry them out, promptly and to schedule. I think many of the men in the Forces were misled by extravagant promises in regard to demobilisation made by many hon. Members during the General Election. Admittedly, the Government tried, at a later stage, to make the matter clear, but a great deal of the damage was already done. I urge on the Under-Secretary that he and his Department should live up to promises that are made.
  One or two examples could be given. On 8th November, an announcement was made to the public and the Service that the tour of duty in the very difficult surroundings of the Aden Command, was to be reduced immediately to 12 months. On 20th February, the position was still unchanged, and men were still carrying out their terms of duty which, by that time, were well beyond the period of 12 months promised. Only when I raised the question in the House, was the Under-Secretary of State able to say that he hoped—but could not promise, owing to the difficulties of the situation—that he might be in a position to get the men out by the beginning of March. If we cannot get the men out in a reduced period, do not let us promise it, because it only makes them fundamentally dissatisfied.
  Another thing which would help would be a quickening of the procedure for the redress of grievances. As is well known men in the Services most frequently write to Members of Parliament asking for help
  1028
  in their own case. To the men or women who write, that case is absolutely vital and important. It is the one thing that really matters to them. Yet we are faced with the situation that owing to a hold up in administration within the Air Ministry-it takes the Under-Secretary a month, or sometimes six weeks, to reply to letters. We know he himself is doing his best, and we appreciate the most courteous spirit in which he deals with this matter. But no Under-Secretary should be put in the position in which he has to begin his letters by saying, "I must humbly apologise for the disgraceful delay in answering your letter." We sympathise with the Under-Secretary, because he is in that position, but after all in these Votes there is nearly £3,250,000 voted for expenses of the Air Ministry itself. Will the Under-Secretary not consider some increase in staff, so that he might get the support necessary to deal with the many cases put before him by hon. Members?
  I am not going to deal in detail with operational questions, but I would like the Under-Secretary to tell the Committee if we are continuing to develop our photo-reconnaissance work and how much of that is being done in the policing and occupation of Germany today. At the end of the war, our photo-reconnaissance and photo intelligence were doing absolutely first-class work. Are we now using them as the eyes of the occupation Forces in Germany? The hon. Member for Bolton made some mention of research. We, on this side of the Committee, urge greater expenditure on research; we are not asking the Under-Secretary to retrench on the expenses of the men in any other way. We believe in research. Economy in research today, may well lead to wasted lives tomorrow. During the Debate, Members on all sides of the Committee have shown great concern about the problems of the future of the Royal Air Force, and have not forgotten the future while considering the needs of demobilisation today. We hope this country will never repeat the mistakes of the pacifist 1930's, but that the country has learned the lessons of the war and never again will have to face a position wherein the defence of the country is left to the few and we have too few pilots, and too few planes adequately to look after the needs of the country.

  1029
  In my belief, the nation needs a strong offensive and defensive Air Force; a defensive force obviously for the purposes of protecting our own shores and the shores of our Empire against aggression, and an offensive force, so that we can carry out promptly whatever military obligations may be imposed on us as members of the United Nations. To make that force a power for keeping the peace of the world, it should be known that our Air Force is ready for action at any time and is not merely in a position in which we can step it up ready for action in six months' time. It is only a powerful force ready for immediate action which will have the effect of deterring aggression and enabling everyone to keep the peace.
  The time has now come, when so many men are leaving the Forces, when the Ministry has to consider questions of recruiting for the future. That is no doubt why the new terms of pay for the Forces were recently announced. I wonder if they are as good as they should be. I have not examined them in real detail yet, but I know hon. Members are beginning to hear the first rumblings of complaint from officers, who say that they are not getting a fair deal, that though their pay is nominally increased, the fact that their allowances are now to be taxable will leave in their pockets a net sum which will be less than they are getting under the old system. I hope that the Under-Secretary will look into that matter, because if that is accurate, it is not living up to the promise given of a general improvement in the conditions of service.
  Another method which I feel would help in recruiting men for the Royal Air Force would be a guarantee that, at the end of short or medium term employment in the Forces, they would be able to enter civilian employment at once. The Minister should set up a proper employment board, which will prepare future plans for the individual airman, months before he leaves the Force, so that he can step right from one employment to another. The training in the Royal Air Force is good. It equips a man for many jobs in different walks of life. It should enable him to enter a long and honourable career in industry. If we can have a proper link up between the Services and industry, men with the maturity of ex-
  1030
  perience which comes from the Royal Air Force will know that they will have real chances to obtain employment afterwards.
  I change to a rather different subject. During the war the Royal Air Force became very much an international Air Force. Along with other Members of this Committee I served on the same station as Czechs, Poles, Dutch, Belgians, French and Norwegians, men from the Colonies and the Dominions and from the United States of America, who were all united in a common team, and wore the same or similar blue uniform. They fought side by side with us, and now it may well be that on account, perhaps, of love of the Service, or on account of difficulties in their former homeland, many of those men in our Forces may not wish to return home, and would like to continue their employment with the Air Force. I wonder if the Under-Secretary could tell us whether employment is to be offered to the air crews and ground crews from other nations who have served with distinction in the Royal Air Force, and who wish to stay. An influx of new blood has come into this country and it should be allowed to stay. I remember when I represented a constituency which is now represented by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. C. Shaw cross) I came across some people whom I thought were uncommonly good citizens. I did not know until later that they were first generation Poles, whose parents had come to this country to seek industrial employment, had Anglicised their names and had become first-class citizens of this country. It may be that in our Forces we can get new and first-class blood which has helped us in this war. They worked well with us In many cases air crews and ground crew? changed back again to their own national forces when their country became liberated, or, in the case of the American Eagle Squadrons, when their country came into the war. But though in new uniforms, and a new Force, the spirit of comradeship of the air remained. It is a significant thing, in considering international relationships, that the vast open spaces of the air know no national boundaries. I want to continue that new comradeship of the air.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) referred to training. We can link up our friendship and possibilities for training as well. I suggest to the Under-Secretary that

  1031
  we might have in this country designated airfields to which certain foreign squadrons could fly and visit this country. In return, say in France, Belgium and Holland, and indeed other countries of Europe, there would be designated airfields to which our squadrons could fly. Training for long distance flying requires long distance flights. There is not the space for that round this country. If we could fly, in peace, without all the trouble of going through diplomatic sources, having passports and so on, we could have a situation in which squadrons could go to a designated airfield, armed only with orders from the commanding officers, and with only the men's uniform as a passport, and mingle with their contemporaries of the other Air Forces, then the comradeship would continue, and it could only be a good augury for continued friendship in the future. I make no limitations as to the countries to which this should extend. Suffice it to say, that we could have such arrangements with all freedom-loving nations which would give unqualified support to the United Nations, because these would naturally be our friends. Having established that point, we should go further, and try to achieve, as far as we can, common procedure in signals, radio and landing, and common types of equipment in radio, armaments and guns, so that all the Forces would be prepared to act together as part of a cohesive force, to deal with a common aggressor at any time.
  My last point about co-operation is that, during the war, the combined power of the British and American Air Forces created the greatest striking force there has ever been in the history of the world. We and the Americans have a real knowledge of each other and a deep understanding. I want to see that continued. During the war, we had a free interchange of students between the Royal Air Force staff college and the American staff colleges, but I am anxious for an assurance that that can be continued, because it can only be for the good of both nations. On 21st November, I asked the Under-Secretary a Question about it. At that time he told me:
  "there are a number of American officers at the Royal Air Force Staff College and several Royal Air Force officers are attending the Staff College course in the United States."
  1032
  He added:
  " The future of these arrangements is under the consideration of my Noble Friend."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November,1945; Vol. 416, c. 424.]
  Could the Under-Secretary say whether his Noble Friend has made up his mind, and if we may, now some months later, have the assurance that this friendly co operation between these two great Forces will continue? I urge on the Committee the need for maintaining the strength and efficiency of the Royal Air Force, and in continuing the co-operation of our Air Force and the Air Forces of other freedom loving nations. In that way, our strength and our cohesion will be of military support to the United Nations, and a guarantee for the peace of the world.
  7.19 p.m.
  Squadron-Leader Segal: I should like first cordially to endorse the opening remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson) about the disciplinary difficulties which have recently arisen in the R.A.F. Although we sit on opposite sides of the House he happens to be a fellow Lancastrian, and to sit, as I do, for a two-Member constituency. I would ask the Under-Secretary not to be led away by the siren pleadings of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) for a detailed explanation of the causes and the circumstances associated with those difficulties which have arisen recently in India. I cannot help feeling that a far mere opportune moment will arise at a later date when these difficulties are perhaps not quite so fresh and vivid in the memory of those who took part in them. I think that for the moment we should be content to accept the explanations of the Under-Secretary that they arose out of misunderstandings which occurred in that area about the true nature of the speed-up in Royal Air Force demobilisation.
  One cannot attempt to follow the hon. Member for Oxford in his somewhat colourful exposition of his views on these Air Estimates. On the last occasion we had the privilege of hearing him he referred to the pale pink tie, studded with swastikas, of one Member of the Government. Today we were regaled with the pale blue parachute which was to assist the Under-Secretary to land safely on

  1033
  earth. We who constantly fall under this spell, as I often do, as one of his constituents, although I should have a great deal of hesitation in casting my vote for him, are now becoming familiar with the spectacle of the hon. Member for Oxford draped in a sheet of spotless white. On this occasion we were glad to find he has diverted his attention away from his "pin-up girl" and strayed back into the fold of marital rectitude. We can feel some comfort that he has at least taken to heart the moral of the old poem:
  " If monogamy has made a hog of me
  Do you think polygamy will make a pig of me? "
  At last we find he is firmly established on the path of true monogamy.
  May I, however, direct the attention of the Committee to a rather more serious and sober subject by referring to item No. 5 of these Air Estimates which allocates the niggardly and, to my mind, completely inadequate sum of £410,000 to the medical services? It is perhaps unfortunate that the medical branch of the Royal Air Force is somewhat inadequately represented in this House. I feel that the occasion should not be lost to direct the attention of the Committee to the integral part which the medical branch of the Royal Air Force and its associated dental branch, played in the great achievements of this Service during the war. The last war happened to be the first real trial during a major war for the Royal Air Force, the youngest of the three Services. Both the Army and the Navy have been tried out in a proud record of long and outstanding service to the country over centuries of past wars. The last war was to the Royal Air Force the first real test of its strength and efficiency. I think we can all feel that the youngest Service of the three has come through with its prestige greatly enhanced and with the utmost achievement to its credit.
  I would like to stress particularly the part which medical research has played in its essential contribution to both bomber and fighter efficiency in the recent war. All sections of the medical branch went through a period of anxiety and stress, from the squadron medical officer, through the medical receiving stations, which later on developed into the mobile field hospitals, right up to the Royal Air Force hospitals. The medical personnel of the Royal Air Force had to adapt itself to conditions which were sometimes of exces-
  1034
  sive difficulty and extreme strain. I feel we must all pay our tribute to them for the way in which they discharged the duties that fell upon them. One of the previous speakers on this side of the Committee referred to matters affecting the welfare of the personnel in the Royal Air Force, matters of feeding and catering, matters of ordinary simple human comforts. In these essential branches it often fell to the lot of the medical officer to play a decisive part. Above all, I feel that some tribute is due to the magnificent spirit of comradeship which developed between the medical officer of a unit and all other sections of that unit. To many men he was the one remaining link with civilian life. The medical officer was never fully able to feel himself an essential part of Royal Air Force discipline. Fundamentally he still remained a doctor with his first duty to his own profession.
  Having paid this tribute to the Royal Air Force medical branch and to the associated dental branch, I pass on to a consideration of some of the wider aspects of the question. Perhaps I am able to speak with a little greater freedom as a result of being demobilised after six very happy years in the Royal Air Force. I cannot omit some passing reference to the appalling wastage of medical material which exists in the Royal Air Force. I have no doubt a similar wastage exists in the other two Services. Instances occur to my mind of a Royal Air Force station consisting of only 80 men, under the charge of a medical officer, with a large Army general hospital situated only two-and a half miles away fully able to cope with any medical emergency that could have arisen. There is also the factor that doctors who join the Royal Air Force are called upon to deal only with a few of the age groups that they are likely to come across in ordinary medical practice, that those age groups happen to be easily the healthiest age groups with which they could ever have to deal, that they are largely concerned with the treatment of one sex only, and almost exclusively debarred from the treatment of children.
  We found during the war, and I am fully convinced we shall find the same thing in times of peace, that the medical officer is not kept fully occupied and not able to avail himself of the fullest degree of medical practice. On the other hand, one of the most gratifying features of the

  1035
  Royal Air Force medical service during the war was the close association we were able to enjoy with the Army and Navy medical services, and the intimate co-operation that existed among all three Services in their medical branches. I feel that this reciprocity should be more fully developed in the future and extended on the widest possible scale. Although one may be apt here to commit a heresy, I feel that no doctor should be forced to spend the whole of his active life working for one of the three Services alone. I cannot help feeling that, at some future date, we shall have evolved one wider medical service which may interchange its personnel among the three Services of the Crown, and that there will be a far closer degree of co-ordination among all three medical branches. There is another aspect of the wastage of medical material which exists in the Forces in which we may derive a valuable lesson from the medical organisation of our American Allies. They have medical administrators responsible for the purely administrative side of the service who are not fully qualified doctors. It is a service analogous to our hospital administrators, who are not themselves qualified doctors. I feel that there could be a tremendous saving in medical personnel effected by separating the purely administrative side of the medical branch from the essentially medical side.
  Finally, many of us look forward not only to the contributions which medical men may make to the Royal Air Force, but also to the essential contributions which the medical branch of the R.A.F. can make to a wider and more comprehensive medical service, unified to serve all three great branches of defence. We also look forward to the contributions of this wider unified medical branch to the great structure of British medicine that we hope to see evolved in the near future. I believe not only that doctors have an essential service to render to the R.A.F., but that the R.A.F. has an essential contribution to make to British medicine, and that all the doctors in it should be afforded the widest possible scope to practise their art in all the branches to which medicine can attain. May I say how greatly one enjoyed hearing the statement of the Under-Secretary in introducing these Estimates? I cannot help feel-
  1036
  ing, however, that he might have dealt somewhat more generously than this allocation of a mere £410,000 for the future of the medical service.
  7.34 p.m.
  Squadron-Leader Hollis: A number of hon. Members and hon. and gallant Members, with a much better claim to gallantry than I have, are anxious to address the Committee, and I will not keep them long, as I wish to make only a single, small, but not unimportant point, which I commend to the attention of the Under-Secretary. That point is this. We hear today, and hear every day, about problems of demobilisation and about people who are anxious to get out of the Services, but I would commend attention to the smaller number of people who are anxious to stay in the Services. There are a certain number of people, both officers and other ranks, who have come very deeply to love the Royal Air Force, and who, if they can be given suitable security, are very anxious to give the rest of their lives to it. Particularly, I would say a word about short service commissioned officers. It seems to me to be obviously desirable that what are known as the "chair-borne" positions in the R.A.F., which are occupied by somewhat elderly persons, should, to a considerable extent, other things being equal, be given to people who in their younger days have been in operational service.
  I have here a letter from a short service commissioned officer, who joined in 1933, but who, owing to the coming of the war, found himself serving a longer time than he expected, and who performed distinguished service, winning the D.S.O. and D.F.C. and finishing up as a Wing-Commander. He is now, at the age of 35, without any especial civilian experience, and, therefore, very ready to consider the possibility of giving the rest of his life to the R.A.F. I would commend such people most warmly to the Under-Secretary, and would ask him to tell the Committee and the country as fully as he can what is the position in which he regards them. I would not say that the Under-Secretary has been unsympathetic on this point, as we have been in correspondence on the subject, and my experience has been very much the same as seems to have been the experience of other hon. Members in various parts of the Committee, which is

  1037
  that they have received the fullest, most sympathetic and most unbiassed consideration from the hon. Gentleman, and from his faithful Achates the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) for all their requests, large or small. But, on this point, the Under-Secretary tells me that the matter is under consideration, and I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to bring that consideration to a head and at any rate to tell the Committee what chances there are of a final decision at an early date.
  The hon. Gentleman has also referred to Air Ministry Order A.2/46 in which the conditions, at present laid down are stated. I feel that this is a far from lucid document, and, as at present set out, is throwing more confusion than illumination on the situation. I have a letter here confirming that, and it states:
  " Like nearly all A.M.Os, it is a masterpiece of ambiguity I read it as that one was ineligible to reapply for a permanent commission if one had been rejected in the first place. This was also the view taken by everyone I have met, including the A.O.C."
  I again appeal to the Under-Secretary and assure him that he will be doing a great public service if he can tell the Committee and the country, in language which is under-standed of the people, what the present position is. It is one of the evils of this day that, the nearer we approach to the era of the common man, the more frequently are the directions for getting there given in language quite impossible for the common man to understand, and I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to use his great mastery of prose in order to illuminate the dark places of the Air Ministry ruling on the subject
  7.39 p.m.
  Flight-Lieutenant Crawley: As a very humble and inexpert member of the Auxiliary Air Force before the war, I am very pleased to know that these squadrons are going to be reconstituted. I am one of those who hope that this Vote is not going to be any hard and fast sum with regard to the future. The argument against such squadrons is usually that there is no room for the amateur in the R.A.F., but I disagree. That might possibly be true of the Army, but I am sure it will never be true of the Navy, as long as there are ships afloat, or of the Royal Air Force, as long as there are piloted aircraft. Flying is one of those arts, perhaps rather
  1038
  like steeple chasing or cricket, in which the amateur can approach the professional. There is a great deal of temperament and instinct in flying, and a great deal depends upon enthusiasm. Before the war, regular officers used to say of the auxiliary squadrons that the best thing about them was that they flew because they liked it. I believe that the auxiliary squadrons justified themselves, and that the members of those squadrons, some of the most distinguished of whom are now in this House of Commons, and one of whom, in particular, intervened in this Debate from the Benches opposite, justified themselves in the Royal Air Force afterwards. If these squadrons could be extended, they would prove to be a great economy in the Royal Air Force.
  There are three points to which I wish to refer briefly. In the first place, the territorial basis of these squadrons should be preserved. As long as there are zones in fighter defence, it is a good thing to have some intimacy between those who are above the zones and those who are on the ground in them. I am sure that that heightened morale during the war. Secondly, there should be a closer connection between the auxiliary squadrons and the regular squadrons than there was before the war. At that time they were separated, using different airfields and so on, and there was a great loss all round. Certainly, there was a loss for the auxiliary squadrons, because they would have been able to pick up very much information if they had been more closely associated with the regular squadrons. I think there is also something to be said on that side from the point of view of the regular squadrons. I know that before the war regular officers regretted not being in closer touch with the countryside surrounding their stations. If auxiliary squadrons could be associated with definite fighter stations, I feel that this would be a most useful and important link between the Service, which is apt to get detached from the population, and the people among whom they live. In the re-organisation of the auxiliary squadrons, I hope that matter will be borne in mind.
  Thirdly, on the question of the recruitment of officers to the auxiliary squadrons, before the war this was done, in the old-fashioned way of the Territorial Army, by application and selection. If everybody in the Royal Air Force is to go

  1039
  through the ranks in future, and if this system is carried out in the Auxiliary Air Force, there may obviously be difficulties, particularly when, should it ever occur, war is declared. There would then be officers who had been selected on quite different bases. There are, surely, ways in which this difficulty might be overcome. One of them would be that all those who enter the Auxiliary Air Force should do the first part of their period in the ranks. There could then be some general method of selection for commissions. I commend that suggestion to the Under-Secretary.
  7.43 P.m.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield: Like other hon. Members, I wish to pay a tribute to the speech of the Undersecretary of State for Air. Having taken part in most of these Debates on the Air Estimates during the last ten years, I appreciate the information which the Under-Secretary gave to the Committee. I was particularly glad to hear his important statement about the value of strategic bombing. . I do not think the importance of that statement can ever be overestimated It gives a complete justification to that band of men in the Royal Air Force who, without previous experience of any kind, but in the belief and faith that many lives could be saved and the war perhaps be won by strategic bombing, pursued that course irrespective of criticism in this House, the country, and elsewhere. I think that what the hon. Gentleman said vindicated the soundness of their judgment and their faith.
  Tribute has been paid, by one of those who served under him, to Sir Arthur Harris, the chief of Bomber Command. No tribute could be too great to that man and the men he led. They had to do their bombing and their fighting in faith. The pilots of Fighter Command, when they destroyed aircraft, saw the Results of their work. When armies in the field won victories, the results of those victories were before their eyes. In the great naval actions, when the ships of the enemy were sunk, the evidence of victory was to be seen. But the crews of Bomber Command went out night after night, never knowing the results of their work. It was faith and inspiration that carried them through, led by that great
  1040
  leader, Sir Arthur Harris, and paved the way to victory. I think no praise can be too great for the men who did not know until perhaps months afterwards how successful had been their attacks at the heart of the enemy. It is particularly fitting that the Under-Secretary of State should have made that statement, so that the armies may know how many thousands of lives were saved, our Allies may know how many lives were saved, Russia may know how many Russian lives were saved, by the gallantry, devotion, courage, and work of Bomber Command.
  The Under-Secretary while paying a justified tribute to the past, said little about the future. He said that basic decisions cannot now be taken because of the new developments of atomic energy and the founding of the United Nations. I suggest to him that while, obviously, certain decisions cannot be made, there is one decision which can and ought to be made now, namely a statement about the organisation of Reserve Command. The hon. Gentleman said that it should be possible for a statement to be made in the very near future That is not good enough. It was last November that the postwar system of organisation, control, training and conditions of service of the non-regular Air Force were stated by the Secretary of State for Air to be under active and detailed consideration at the Air Ministry. In the meantime, nothing has happened. This delay is very serious. It is essential that the new A.O.C. in charge of Reserve Command be named at once. It is of vital importance that the machinery of organisation of Reserve Command be made known. At the present time, there are many experienced air and ground crews who are only too anxious to continue to serve their country in maintaining our technical standards and in training the younger generation. They cannot be taken in. That enthusiasm, unless it is harnessed now, will disappear, and that vital war experience will not be available in the future.
  To get such a reserve organisation going takes time. Every day's delay now means 10 days delay in getting the reserve organisation working efficiently. We cannot afford to have that delay, because the reserve training of young people must be done in the early stages. The training and preparation necessary for young people in the reserve affects the position not today, but 15 and 20 years hence, and

  1041
  it this country is to play its part in the United Nations organisation, it is essential that the contribution which we are best able to make, that of the air, which must always be our first line of defence, should be certain beyond any shadow of doubt.
  It is important, in whatever organisation for the reserves takes place, that the civil interests be adequately harnessed. In prewar days and during the war, the help of the civilian authorities and of disinterested persons of influence in localities, was invaluable. I hope that steps will be taken to ensure that the fullest possible assistance from civilians and from municipalities, such as county organisations, will be taken. In the postwar set-up I hope that the Royal Air Force and the Army Territorial Associations will be linked as one. In his statement recently, the Prime Minister hinted that we must now look at the three Services as one Service. Here is a good opportunity for linking together the Royal Air Force, the Army and the voluntary associations. I hope that we may hear something of what it is intended to do in that direction.
  I wish to say a word on the Air Training Corps. It is satisfactory to know that the target has been set, but much of the enthusiasm that the corps possessed has been dissipated, because of lack of leadership. I hope that that organisation during the coming year will not be thought of merely as a kind of welfare or social organisation. I hope that the young people in it will be made to realise that they have a real purpose in life, and that if they join that organisation, they can fit themselves not only for service to their country but for service to the wider United Nations organisation which has been set up. Immediate targets and purposes must be provided. Young people must be given opportunities for flying, for synthetic training and for doing all the things in connection with the air which the young love to have. Let those things be done, and there will be no shortage of volunteers.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to make clear his intentions with regard to the W.A.A.F. organisation. It is essential that an organised Corps be kept in being in peacetime to form a nucleus for expansion in wartime. It is essential, if there is to be a W.A.A.F. organisation, that there shall also be a Girls' Air Corps
  1042
  as well as an Air Training Corps. There was no special Girls' Air Training Corps officially recognised during the war, because it was not possible to give reasonable guarantees that those who did specialised training would be able to join the W.A.A.F. In peacetime that ought not to be the case. I hope that consideration will be given to forming a Girls' Air Corps and to providing, in that way, a suitable basic training for girls.
  I conclude by urging the Under-Secretary of State to do all he can to get an Empire training scheme developed. In Rhodesia, where much training has been done, there are first-class opportunities for continuing that air training. In an intervention, an hon. Member on the other side of the Committee suggested that it was not desirable to do so, or that there was no necessity for it. Anyone who looks at the map of England, and sees all the restrictions that exist in connection with flying, will admit that they make the map look as though it had the measles. The more flying done in other parts of the world, the greater will the opportunity be for those who cannot go into the Empire to do their training. I hope there will be the fullest opportunity for exchange between the Dominions and this country. It is in the exchange of our young men with those of the Dominions and other countries that this aim will best be achieved.
  I ask for an assurance that immediate action is being taken to get a Reserve Command established at once, and that there will be no delay in developing, to the fullest extent possible, an Empire training scheme within the Commonwealth.
  7.55 p.m.
  Squadron-Leader Sir Gilford Fox: I congratulate the Undersecretary of State for Air on his very courageous and helpful speech I would like to thank him for the many occasions on which he has helped individual Members out of particular difficulties in their constituencies, where an Air Force matter has been concerned. In particular, I am thinking of his efforts, which have been successful in securing the derequisitioning of Shilling ford Bridge Hotel, and have given great satisfaction to my constituents. I would like him also to come over to the R.A.F. station at Benson only two miles from there, to look into another

  1043
  matter. This Debate is one of the few occasions on which we can raise questions covering the policy of the Minister of War Transport and the Air Ministry, respecting trunk roads being diverted around aerodromes. A few months ago I asked a Question on this subject, and in his answer, the Under-Secretary of State said that he did not think it was a very serious matter for the main Henley-Oxford trunk road to be diverted three miles and for my constituents to have to spend more time on the journey in motoring that distance. Fortunately, we have been able to narrow the difference down to some 417 yards. I hope that with the help of the Under-Secretary we may be able to solve the problem, whether it shall be Plan A or Plan B.
  . I should like to put it on record that if we look at those 417 yards from the financial point of view, the capitalised annual cost in road transport charges will come to a considerable sum of money. Let us assume the cost of vehicle miles to be 3d. per mile. A prewar census showed that3,000 vehicles a day went along this particular road of 417 yards. The extra cost would thus be £3,240. If we capitalise that sum at 3 per cent., it brings us to £108,000. Assume that that traffic will increase in the next few years to some five times the present volume. That brings the total capitalised loss to £540,000. If, in addition, the loss of time is taken into account, and we assume an average vehicle speed of 30 m.p.h., the average loss of time for each vehicle is approximately half a minute and, therefore, equals 23.7 hours per day for 3,000 persons. Assessing this loss at 4s. per hour, we find that the daily loss to be £4 15s. or £1,734 per year. Capitalised at 3 per cent., that figure becomes £57,800. If traffic increases five times, this figure becomes £289,000. In other words, the total annual capitalised extra transport cost can be estimated at £829,000. I have brought forward these figures, because I want the Minister to realise how important it is to keep our trunk roads as short as possible, and not to have unnecessary diversions round aerodromes. In wartime, we submitted to it because of necessity, but now that we are coming to peace, the interests of the civil community must, as far as possible, come before those of the Services.
  1044
  Another problem that I regret has not been mentioned is the case of the warrant officer, and his pension. Hon. Members on the other side have been saying what a scandal it was that people wanting to become officers had to fill in forms, showing their school and their education. I will tell this Committee a far greater scandal; officers promoted from the ranks do not get the same pension that they would get had they always been officers. I think it is a very great scandal, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will give justice to these ex-warrant officers who are the backbone of the Service. Only today, I received a letter from one of them, in which he says:
  " On studying the White Paper I note that a squadron leader with 16 years' officer's service (I served 25½years in all to get 16 years' officer's service) will receive £400 per annum approximately. Yet in my case, which is typical of the R.A.F., I receive £171 per annum plus a temporary 10 per cent."
  It is an absolute scandal, and I do ask the Under-Secretary to look into the matter. If the position is not improved, how are we to get future recruits? If we recruit through the ranks, it is only justice that their pensions should be adequate.
  Lastly, I come to the question of the mutinies in India. I believe the whole cause of the trouble is lack of discipline in the Air Force. It is not the Provost Marshal's fault; he does his best to maintain discipline when officers and other ranks go out into the street and leave their aerodromes. When charges and reports are sent in, station commanders try to gloss them over. The station commanders are at fault and their behavior is the real cause of the mutinies in the Royal Air Force. This trouble has been foreseeable for the last two or three years. I ask the Under-Secretary to do all he can to support the Provost Marshal and his Department and those good station commanders who are trying to enforce discipline, and thus enable the Royal Air Force, once again, to be an efficient and well-disciplined body.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. Sidney Shephard: It would certainly be remiss in a Debate on the Air Estimates if no more than a passing reference were made to the Air Training Corps. In the few minutes that I intend to speak I want, first, to talk about the present position and then about future policy we had a Debate on the Air Training Corps a year ago and, if I remember rightly, the hon. Gentleman

  1045
  The Member for Reigate (Mr. Touche) moved a Resolution. In that Resolution he regretted the lack of leadership by the Air Council which was causing discouragement and concern to officers, cadets and instructors and urged the need for an immediate declaration of policy and future intentions for the Air Training Corps. The position today is infinitely worse than it was a year ago. The organisation is disintegrating; there is not the slightest doubt about that. Creeping paralysis has set in. In its early days, the Air Training Corps had a strength of something approximating 250,000. A year ago that figure had dropped to 115,000, and by January this year the strength was down to 67,000. What is very important is that that 67,000 is not an effective strength. It includes all those cadets who may attend for a meeting or two, or a parade or two, and I would imagine that the effective strength of the corps today is something in the region of 25,000.
  Time after time successive Ministers of Air have made declarations with regard to the A.T.C. They have all declared that it will continue as a volunteer cadet organisation, but beyond that nothing has been done, either to put forward a policy for the future or to satisfy the grievances of the present. I want to say a word or two on those grievances. The first and worst grievance which has existed in the A.T.C. since its inception is the fact that there is no guarantee that a boy, after having spent two or three years in training, will get into the Air Force. During the war many hundreds of first-class cadets were drafted into the Army. What annoyed them so much was that they saw other young men with no training in the A.T.C. getting into the Royal Air Force. I have no doubt that there may have been a good reason for that in wartime, but in peacetime those boys should be given a guarantee that when they have finished their training. and if they are called up, they will have the opportunity of serving in the Royal Air Force. If that guarantee were given I am sure it would go a long way to removing the dissatisfaction which exists today.
  Then there is the hardy annual about greatcoats. In another place last week there was a short Debate on the subject of the Air Training Corps, and the Secretary of State for Air, when asked to make a statement with regard to great-
  1046
  coats, said that they were needed for Europe and that they needed reconditioning, and so on. Men are being demobilised from the Royal Air Force at the rate of tens of thousands, and their greatcoats are being handed in. What on earth prevents those greatcoats from being passed on to the A.T.C. cadets? I am certain that if they were given the coats they would recondition them themselves. This is a sore subject and those of us who are associated with the Corps have it thrown at us at every meeting. We understood the position during the war and that it was impossible to allocate the cloth, but the position has altered, and I ask the Under-Secretary to see whether he cannot allocate some of the greatcoats which have been handed in to the units. I always understood that the pre-service training organisations were to be treated alike. I know for a fact that the Sea Cadets are being supplied with overcoats, and I have a letter in my pocket to that effect. If that is so, surely it is only fair that the Air Training Corps should be treated on the same basis.
  Then there is the question of the surplus of Royal Air Force equipment. We have heard of planes being smashed up and of radio equipment being dumped into quarries. I do not know how true that is, but there must be a tremendous amount of surplus available for these cadets. I hope the Under-Secretary will look into that point too. The last main grievance is about accommodation. Young men cannot be kept together in a movement like this if they only have schools for training and recreational purposes. There must be a recreational side to the movement, and that is why it is so important that the question of accommodation should be thoroughly tackled. I understand that in a short time the A.T.C. is to come under the Territorial Association. I welcome that step and advocated it in the Debate a year ago. The Air Ministry have taken a very wise step. The Territorial Association administers the Army cadets, and administers them very well. I am convinced that it will administer the A.T.C. just as well. But there is one point with regard to the civilian committees, and I would like the Under-Secretary to say what the intention is with regard to these. At the moment there are Squadron Committees and Air Council Committees. Are they still to

  1047
  exist once the organisation comes under the Territorial Association? This movement is in danger of collapse, and I tell the hon. Gentleman that from personal experience. Unless the Air Ministry really do something to provide a policy which will appeal, I am afraid we can say "good-bye" to the Air Training Corps. It has done fine work, and we really need it in the future. I hope the policy, which I presume will be announced, will be such that the decay will be arrested and we can then begin to rebuild the movement which did such good work during the war.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. Osborne: In the five minutes left to me, I would like to make four points as a civilian on a Service matter, and to make them as seen by my constituents, the farmers in North Lincolnshire. The Minister said that only one per cent. of agricultural land in the country was held by his Ministry. It seems that in North Lincolnshire they own a great deal more than one per cent., and I wonder if he could tell us how much of the good agricultural land of the country they do own, particularly in Lincolnshire. The farmers there feel that many of the aerodromes are only being used to about 50 per cent. capacity, and they wonder why the training and operations could not be concentrated into a smaller number of aerodromes so that more of the land could be handed ever to the agriculturists for growing the food we want. The Minister of Agriculture has appealed to the farmers to grow as much food as possible, but when they see these aerodromes only partly used, they think the Government do not mean business and that the Ministry are not setting a good example. My second point is this I ask the Minister to open as many as possible of the roads that cross these aerodromes. If only one per cent. of the agricultural land is held by his Ministry, then to my farmers in Lincolnshire it seems that they have built every aerodrome across a road, and I would appeal to the Minister to reopen those roads and so save a good deal of time and petrol in agricultural constituencies. My third point is that today I received from one of my constituents this letter, from which I would like to read an extract:
  1048
  " Dear Sir. I have heard they are getting ready for cutting grass on Waltham aerodrome "—
  that is near Grimsby—
  " every day instead of leaving it to be cut for the cattle in the winter. I am writing to ask you if you could do something to stop . this waste as the food situation is so bad and there are no planes on the aerodrome and there have not been any since last April."
  Would the Minister look into that because obviously there is waste there and I would like that land to be saved for the agriculturists instead of being wasted.
  I come to my last point. The Minister will remember that some weeks ago I asked him about some hutments in the greater Grimsby area which were, and still are, empty. The Grimsby Rural District Council had asked the Minister if they could use them for temporary housing, and his reply was that they might be required for prisoners of war. It seems incredible that the Minister should say that he would prefer to keep these huts empty in case prisoners of war might require them, and deny them to the bombed out people of Grimsby who want to use them. Only a fortnight ago I saw those huts myself and they could be well used. There are in my constituency people who would be very pleased to use them. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision because this is not an isolated case. There are lots of hutments all over the country which could be, and ought to be, used. I would like the Minister to consider the four points I have put to him, and I ask him to think again, especially in the case of the hutments in the Waltham area.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: It is an old tradition of this Committee that when a Minister or a Secretary of State introduces an Estimate he is followed by the holder of that office in the preceding Government. The fortunes of political warfare have today removed from among us the figure who is most worthy to play that role. Sir Archibald Sinclair gave five years of most devoted service to the Air Force, and I do not think there is any man who had any part in that glorious Government of 1940–45, or who knows anything at all of the conditions of the work of the Royal Air Force, who would not wish to pay a tribute to the Secretary of State who served the Air Force so well through such perilous years.

  1049
  I held this post for only a very few weeks; I have, therefore, found it wise to surrender the major duty to my hon. Friends, and very worthily they have carried it out. I do not think from a young new Member have I ever heard so good a speech as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward), who made a most experienced speech. My hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) and Devizes (Squadron-Leader Hollis), and my hon. Friends the Members for Holborn (Mr. Max Aitken), St. Maryle-bone (Sir W. Wakefield), Newark (Mr. S. Shephard) and Louth (Mr. Osborne) have all added their contributions, dealing either with small details of great importance or with large aspects. Then, of course, the late Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), has made a contribution which I regarded as of the greatest value and importance to the great problems which underlie the whole of the questions surrounding a Service such as the Royal Air Force.
  It was only for a few weeks that I held the proud post of Secretary of State for Air, but I would like to take this opportunity of making a few personal observations. In my short time at the Air Ministry I learned personally the value of the services of those great officers to whom we shall always be indebted, the greatest of all being Portal, one of the great names in all our Service history. Others who helped me personally—Evill, Hill and Slessor—will always, I hope, remain my friends, although it was for so short a period that I worked with them. I would also like to pay a tribute to one of the greatest public civil servants who served the Air Force, but who has now, unfortunately, left the Air Ministry—Sir Arthur Street. I do not think there is any man who has served with such devotion in that position, or who has done such splendid work for the Air Ministry and for the whole of the Service. I had, of course, the advantage for a certain period in my life as Minister, of making considerable use of the Air Force and flying about, with the varying chances and risks of flight, many hundreds of thousands of miles in the Mediterranean, and I also had the great experience of seeing there some of the great commanders at work, including Tedder, the worthy successor to Portal; Coningham who. with Tedder,
  1050
  was the real founder of the alliance and co-operation between the Army and the Air Force which was the foundation of those great victories. Anyone who saw that mess that General—now Field Marshal—Alexander maintained, where hundreds of our men live together in that close co-operation, will realise how this was brought about—painfully and slowly, but most effectively, and it was the foundation of our victory.
  I was able to see other aspects of its work in the political or semi-political and diplomatic work of detached forces like the Balkan Air Force, the officers operating in Greece, and so forth. Although I have no technical knowledge and very little experience of administration of that great Service, from what I saw of it in the field when I was very close to some of its headquarters, and from my short experience as Secretary of State, I would like to offer my humble services for any good or help I might ever be able to afford in any possible shape or form. Those days, to which the Under-Secretary referred in the beginning of his speech, were so short a time ago, yet how long ago they seem; terrible days, but great days. Those of us who lived through them, in whatever capacity, somehow feel that now we live in the rather baffled bathos of this twilight between peace and war; they were days which had their compensations in the great sense of service and unity which bound us together. It is in that temper that we should, and do, approach these Estimates today.
  The Under-Secretary began his speech by saying that he had made a study of the speeches of his predecessors and found that they fell into one of two categories. I thought he was going to say either good ones or bad ones. If he had said that, there would be no doubt into which category his speech fell; it fell into the category of good speeches, very good speeches. It was, as he explained it, transitional, because these Estimates themselves are much the result of a transitional situation. We are in the rather peculiar position of having these Estimates in this rather abbreviated and attenuated form because it is necessary to pass some kind of Estimates before the end of the year, as it is necessary to have a Consolidated Fund Bill. Then, no doubt, we shall have another set of Estimates, and, I suppose, another set of speeches and another set of Debates all of which will be very agree-

  1051
  able. The speech of the Under-Secretary was admirable, one of the best expositions I have ever heard; admirable in its tone, temper and manner. It had, if he will allow me to say so, only one fault, which the uncanny genius of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Driberg) for spotting anything at all second-rate, immediately lighted upon. That, of course, was at the end of his speech where, out of the vast number of heroic services which the Air Force had rendered to resistance movements all over the world, he referred not to Holland, or France, or Belgium, or any of our Allies, but to Spain. That, I suppose, was the sop to Cerberus; Cerberus accepted it, and played the role he was expected to play. That will, no doubt, sufficiently rehabilitate the hon. Gentleman for the patriotic speech he has made today, for those of his followers who may find it a little out of feeling—
  Mr. Jack Jones: I did not mention Spain.
  Mr. Macmillan: I would never put the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Jack Jones) in that category. I referred to the hon. Member for Maldon.
  Mr. Jones: I thought the right hon. Gentleman said "Bolton."
  Mr. Macmillan: I have far too great a respect for the character and charm of the hon. Gentleman ever to put him in such a category
  I was also very glad the Under-Secretary paid tribute to Bomber Command. We know the feelings which those terrible events have caused. I sympathise with those feelings, although I do not agree with them, which were raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington). Those casualties were indeed terrible; 65,000 casualties in that operation only. They were comparable to the casualties of the infantry battalions of the last war. In this war it was the bomber who suffered them; in the last war it was the infantry officer, and the lives of both were about the same at the worst period of each war. I think it is, and will be, a compensation and a solace to those who have suffered, the relations and friends of those who lost their lives, to feel that it was not in vain. The powerful and valuable quotations which the Under-Secretary gave
  1052
  from the documents, which we now have in our possession, the diaries and secret documents of the German High Command showing the immense value of that attack and the great effective power of strategic bombing, will be an additional solace to those who suffer today
  Whatever may be the final decision of experts upon the future values of bombing or upon the theories of the past, let us not forget that at the time it was the Cabinet of the day who decided to put so much of the national effort into the bombing forces. What was the situation? The situation was that there appeared to be no other way to get to grips with the Germans. We had been driven out of France. Russia was not our Ally; she still stood moodily aside in the equivocal isolation of the Ribbentrop-Stalin pact. There was no particular reason to think that America would be drawn into the war. In the summer of 1940, and the months following, the bombing force was, in fact, the only method by which we could ever get to grips with our enemy, or do them any damage at all. All these considerations should not be forgotten in evaluating the wisdom or un-wisdom of those decisions. I am very glad the Under-Secretary prefaced his speech in introducing these new peace Estimates by paying that tribute to such an important part of the work of the Air Force in the war.
  Since I had the honour to preside over the Air Force for a very short time when it was still at war, perhaps I might pay some tribute to another part of the work of the Air Force which is sometimes forgotten, namely, the work it did in the Burma campaign, quite unique in the history of the Air Force, when it not only operated and fought, but carried on the whole supply of the Army. That work, which was performed by the officers and men in Far Eastern Command, work they are still doing, must be remembered with pride and never forgotten by hon. Members of this Committee The Undersecretary went on to devote his speech to a number of topics, wisely chosen and well planned, and I have only a few words to add to what my hon. Friends have said on the various points.
  On the question of demobilisation, I was glad that he dealt, though not deeply, with the question of what are called the troubles which took place in

  1053
  the Air Force Those incidents were a source of terrible grief to all those who love the Air Force. I was glad he made it quite clear that any changes in procedure were not due to these acts of indiscipline. It is true there were changes but they were not because of these troubles The changes from the programme as originally announced were due to the pressure of the House of Commons, partly that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) who first opened the question of the rate of demobilisation, and of the public by all legitimate methods which, of course, affect Governments. I think we might take a little credit for the fact that this great pressure was brought upon the Government. I was glad that the Undersecretary said so categorically, that whilst he yielded, as Governments should yield to pressure from their own party, from the Opposition and from public opinion, they yielded in no way at all to the indiscipline of any body of men. We are told that an investigation is being made. I must reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford. We must be told the results of that investigation, and we must be informed of the real underlying facts which brought about such a lamentable state of affairs.
  After dealing with the demobilisation of men, he dealt with the demobilisation of stores, and there I think his record is good. He is getting rid of land buildings, factories and surplus stores, but what does not give me much satisfaction is that, when the Air Ministry declares stores to be surplus, the Ministry of Supply do not play up, but say "No bid." The fields and hills and valleys of England are still strewn with vehicles which he declares to be superfluous. He says there are 20,000 vehicles, but they are still standing in the fields and lanes. Cannot we ask the Air Ministry to bring a little pressure to bear on the Minister of Supply to put these vehicles into effective use by the public. If they did, they would earn the gratitude of the public.
  That leads me to the Under-Secretary's very sound point that these Estimates are, of course, intermediate and transitional, and that they include the immense sum of £81 million for terminal charges. Further, they contain no sum for aircraft and stores which are being supplied by another Department, so that when we talk about the Air Estimates today, it is as if
  1054
  we are talking about the Navy Estimates without any Vote for ships. That leads to the very difficult problem, and the decision which the Government have taken, about the method of supplying the fighting weapons for the three Services. This is not the time to debate it at large and I must leave the hon. Gentleman time to reply. I know the difficulty of reaching the right balanced solution, but I am not altogether happy about the system which existed during the war and which is going to exist now. I have observed that the Navy, who since the time of Pepys have had a pretty good idea of how to travel permanently first class have never agreed to any of these inter-Service arrangements except for those stores which are of no particular interest. They will not allow anybody else to build their battleships, but they will allow the Ministry of Supply to buy gym. shoes. That is what it amounts to.
  I served with the Ministry of Supply under three Ministers, and have watched the Ministry of Aircraft Production under various Ministers, and the question as to whether this works well, as between the user and the supplier, depends upon a lot of things. It depends to some extent upon the personality of the Ministers, how strong they are or how weak. It depends, under these new arrangements, on how far the inter-locking directorship system works, and upon how far one can keep a close association. But we must recognise that the system puts the user two places away from the manufacturer. He does not deal with the manufacturer, except through some other Department, and I therefore hope the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary will not be too sanguine about this arrangement, but will watch it with the greatest care, and fight the battle of the Air Force with the most tremendous energy. I hope they will remember also that these Departments are not now, as they were in the war, fortified by a great influx of genius, intelligence and successful men of industry, commerce and design who gave their services freely during the war. They are naturally relapsing into the normal bureaucratic type, deprived of the services of those special experts.
  I was, however, very glad and reassured by the phrase used by the Undersecretary about the importance of development and research, and of being always ahead without letting up. He

  1055
  reminded us of the mistakes we made before, and how we had dropped behind, as he said, at what a cost and what a risk. I hope we shall never revert to those terrible years, when, for whatever cause—and this is not the time to allot praise or blame—we did not keep our armaments up to the point where they ought to have been kept, when the whole nation was taught to trust to words and formulae and not face the realities of life, when the one voice crying in the wilderness was not listened to—a voice which, I am glad to say, is not yet still. There are certain basic decisions, the Undersecretary tells us, which cannot be taken until we know what kind of a world we are living in, both technically and politically. The trouble about life is that you cannot go on putting off your decisions until you know what kind of a world you are living in. One is just born into it, and must go on taking decisions as they come.
  The Under-Secretary told us that we do not know what the developments will be. He said there were two great features, the atom bomb and U.N.O. One he said was a hope, and the other a menace—no, I must get them in the right order, one is a menace and the other a hope. I very much liked the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn, who made a short, sharp and snappy speech, asking if we had got any atom bombs We have to make our decisions as we find things; we cannot put them off for ever. I know it is difficult at such a time, but I remember that when we discussed it before everybody said we should have to think it over very carefully. Nine months have gone by, and we are still thinking it over. I beg the Under-Secretary to use all his influence—and it is the lay-men and civilians who ultimately force the technicians and experts to reach decisions, that is the function of Ministers—to get a decision made, and to build the new postwar Air. Force in accordance with the decisions which are taken. If they are wrong, well, they are wrong—but the risk must be taken of coming to a final decision at some point or another.
  The Under-Secretary says that he relies on all Members to assist him in the recruiting campaign. We on this side of the Committee will help him. The speeches made about the regular and auxiliary forces by the hon. Members for Worcester and Newark and by the hon.
  1056
  and gallant Member for Buckingham (Flight-Lieutenant Crawley) all show the intense interest there is on all sides, with a very few exceptions. There is this advantage; we have learnt something from the two wars—at least I hope we have— and I think the hon. Gentleman will be helped on all sides of the Committee. He may even be helped by the London County Council this time; I hope we shall have none of that nonsense about not having cadet battalions or territorial organisations, and the other indignities which defiled this great metropolis of Empire.
  We were told that the Air Council had reached the conclusion that there were many jobs which could be better done by women than by men, a conclusion with which many men and women will agree. But after all that we were told by the Under-Secretary that he was sorry he could not make any announcement about the W.A.A.F. Let him take pleasure and support from both sides of this Committee from the tributes that have been paid, and on technical grounds realise the importance of having at least a nucleus on which if necessary expansion can be built. I will not go into detail as to the many other points which have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford developed in a very impressive speech the questions of training and of the future of the Air Force. He dealt with its associations first with the Empire, then with our great associates and old friends, those who served with it in the past, and then, if things develop as we all desire, as part of an international service to preserve the peace of the world. Meanwhile there are these minor but immediate questions of training, and it is very important they should not be neglected. I think they have been adequately and admirably dealt with by my hon. Friend. .
  I was very pleased with an observation—I am speaking simply as a layman, though an old officer of a minor kind—that fell from the hon., and gallant Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock), who said it is very important that a man should the trained to undertake other work as well as his basic trade. I do hope that those very profound words of his will sink into all of the Services. In saying this I am not speaking of great strategic, or tactical training but of individual training. I am

  1057
  bound to say, perhaps because in middle age one thinks only of the benefits of the old system, that having seen a great deal of all three Services, I think there has been a tendency in this war to forget the truth that the first duty of any man who wears the King's uniform is to defend himself with his personal weapon when called upon to do so. That tendency has been the result partly of specialised duty. We find in all the Services men who say such things as, "I am a telegraphist," or" I am a motor driver" or "I am a specialist." Each forgets that his rifle is his personal weapon and that when he is attacked or his headquarters are attacked or when he is in a tight place, it is up to him to put up a proper show. There have been instances in this war which would not have happened had that traditional training by officers and men been observed. A man's second duty is his technical duty; his first duty is to learn to defend himself with his own weapon in any circumstances in which he maybe placed. I have wondered sometimes what would have happened to some of our headquarters if there had been an airborne landing, of even a small number of the enemy. I wonder if those who knew how to use their rifles would have had them clean, according to old standards of discipline and drill. I, therefore, hope that there will be an opportunity of going back to that old principle of putting specialist training as a man's second duty, his first duty being to learn to defend himself.
  I wish to end by once more congratulating this Committee on a Debate which, I think, has been of great value. The Under-Secretary of State for Air ended his speech rightly with a very moving tribute to the Royal Air Force. He is a fortunate man to play a role in its rebuilding and development now. The late Under-Secretary of State for Air, the hon. Member for Oxford also ended his speech with very moving words. If I cannot emulate that language it is partly because I think it is difficult to trust oneself to speak on that note with sufficient control, so deep are the emotions in any man who has shared the risks and dangers, service and work of the Royal Air Force. These tributes are commonly made in war and immediately after war. I hope they will not be forgotten as the years go by.
  Mr. Driberg: Before the right hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, may I ask him one question? I unfortunately missed his opening remarks, but I am told he made a rather damaging comment on myself and my humble contribution. May I ask him to repeat it?
  Mr. Macmillan: The role of this House is once nightly, not twice nightly.
  8.45 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Strachey): We have had, I think, a most valuable Debate. It has been of very great value to me. at any rate. I will try to cover as many as possible of the very large number of points that have been raised by hon. and right hon. Members. I do hope that if I do not manage to cover them all, they will know that I have a note of them and will take them up in the office tomorrow. In his valuable speech, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) spoke first about the auxiliaries, and a good many Members followed him. We do share entirely his enthusiasm and their enthusiasm for the auxiliary Forces, and the belief that they can play not only as big a part in the future as they did before the war, but very likely, a considerably bigger one.
  I should very much have liked to have been in the position to announce the setting up of a Reserve Command, which has been referred to by several speakers, and to have been able to say exactly how the auxiliary Forces would fit in with the postwar Royal Air Force. I should say from the course of the Debate that many well informed Members had a good idea of how it was going to be done in any case; and I do not believe they are far wrong. I can say about the announcement which, unfortunately, was just not ready for various reasons for this occasion—it has to be correlated between the Services, of course—that we shall not have to wait for it for an appreciable time. The amount of time, I think I can safely say, will be measured in weeks, not months. I agree that any delay at the moment is deplorable, that we are missing very valuable time, and we most urgently wish to see exactly how that is all going to be done. A figure was mentioned of a score of auxiliary squadrons. I think there, again, that is not far wrong or far off our initial target in this field.

  1059
  The hon. Member for Worcester went on to speak of the regular Forces, and he dealt with the question, which was taken up by several further speakers, of the problems of discipline or, as I should like to call it, man management; of the relationship between officers and men. It is really rare it takes a disciplinary form, of course, as he knows very well, in the Royal Air Force. Peculiar problems do undoubtedly exist in the Royal Air Force on that side, as against any of the other Services. He asked us, I think, very legitimately, what our mind was on that subject, and what we propose to do. He raised two specific issues. One was the question of maintenance, what he called "the garage system "of maintenance; by which maintenance is, as it were, divorced to a very considerable extent from the squadron which is operating the aircraft. He agreed that it was inevitable during the war. We agree that in peacetime it is an undesirable system whatever the economies, and we are gradually reverting to the system by which we have squadron maintenance, maintenance in the squadron. It is not yet done but, undoubtedly. it will be possible to revert to that. It is a great psychological advantage.
  He then raised the problem of the future administration of the Service by its officers. It is a problem of great complexity. I do not pretend to be an expert on it or to be competent to speak on it, but it is one side of the Royal Air Force of which I have had personal experience as a very humble "Admin." officer myself. It was, undoubtedly, though inevitable in the war, not an ideal situation, by which the administration of the unit was done by "Admin." officers who did nothing else, and that the flying and fighting was done by officers who sometimes, through no fault of their own, did little of the administration. We do propose gradually, and as the possibilities offer, that that should to a very large extent stop, and that the administration, which is the leadership, really, of the men, should be done by the general duties officers. I should like to quote a paragraph from a recent Air Council letter which has gone out on this subject:
  " In the Council's view, the object to be aimed at is that every airman should know that there is a particular officer to whom he may go for friendly help or advice on any matter, whether it relates to his private or Service life, whenever the position of the man
  1060
  or his efficiency is suffering from undue strain. Conversely, every officer should appreciate that there are certain individual airmen who expect to come to him for such help and advice, and it is both his duty and a privilege to encourage their confidence and study how to maintain and increase it."
  That is the ideal at which we are aiming. In the far easier conditions of a regular Air Force, with an officer serving for a comparatively long period, when flying training does not absorb, as in wartime, practically the whole of his time and energies, I do not see why it should not be possible for the G. D. officer to run a squadron in the same way as a regimental officer in the Army. That would go "a long way towards solving this difficult and extremely important question. A number of points were raised by the hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Max Aitken) on the question of Empire Forces. I cannot follow him on that, although it is a point of importance; it is a matter of great complexity, but we have never for one moment lost sight of the contribution of the Dominion Air Forces. Naturally, we welcome all contributions which they still feel able to make towards Imperial defence in the future.
  The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) raised the important question of full and accurate information being given to the men. We are doing a great deal on that, but in the long term it is what I would call a public relations question. We are considering the future of the Public Relations branch of the Air Ministry, and whether the functions of that branch cannot be modified to some extent to include a great deal of the work of explaining the Royal Air Force to itself—what I would call internal public relations, which are of the utmost importance. He raised also the question of our help to civil aviation. I quite appreciate the difficulties there, and the irritations which some men may feel when they know some of their work is going to the benefit of B.A.O.C. or civil aviation services. I make no apology whatever for this help, and it is considerable, which the Air Force is giving during this transitional stage to get civil aviation on its feet. I believe that it is a real national service, but I can give the hon. Member the assurance that no one's release or repatriation, so far as I know, is being delayed for this reason. The hon. Member asked what is the solution? I have no doubt at all what is the solution—it is not a long-term one—the solution is

  1061
  for B.O.A.C. and the other civil corporations being set up to take over civil air lines one by one. The scheduled services of Transport Command are, in fact, being taken over by civil operators, and we have every hope and confidence that that process will be virtually complete by the end of June next. This is a transitional problem, and one which we are determined to solve in the next few months.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), after passing lightly over a poignant memory of ours, when I served under him in an R.A.F. station at Colerne, made several suggestions of great interest. I was particularly interested with his suggestion that auxiliary squadrons might be extended to overseas, and that we might have auxiliary squadrons manned by nationals in our Colonies, Dominions and Dependencies. I cannot of course make any ad hoc statement or decision about that, but it did strike me as being a very valuable suggestion, and one which is well worth examining. He then passed to the subject of the A.T.C. This question was touched upon by a number of hon. Members. I could not quite accept the statement of the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. S. Shephard), who drew a somewhat gloomy picture of the present state of the A.T.C. I can assure the Committee that the numbers of the A.T.C. are again rising. I do not think that it could be considered to be in such a critical situation as he has depicted, but that is no reason why we should not give it every help in our power, because we regard it as being of the utmost importance. The hon. Member rightly stressed the importance of equipment. We have been able to provide a very substantial grant for gliding facilities for the A.T.C, and we have been able to provide special flights at R.A.F. stations. These flights which can be arranged for cadets are not, as before, merely lifts, but special flights which have been laid on for the purpose. Making a cadet feel that he can be airborne seems to me to be of great psychological importance. That does not mean that we underestimate the importance of the ground trades, which to any boy who is of a mechanical mind are of the utmost fascination.
  The hon. Member asked that A.T.C. cadets should be assured of going into the Royal Air Force. I cannot give him an unequivocal guarantee of that sort, but I
  1062
  stated in my opening speech that the A.T.C. has a target of 75,000, and that is a figure made to approximate to the size of the Royal Air Force. We have announced it provisionally, but it should make it possible for us to accept into the Royal Air Force every cadet who reaches a satisfactory standard. All A.T.C. cadets cannot, of course, be aircrew, but we shall be able to give to the A.T.C. an indication of the proportion of aircrew and other important trades which are required, so that in fact the A.T.C. fits into the Royal Air Force. Part of this I have been able to announce today and further details will be announced very shortly, together with the general announcement which will cover reserve commands and our auxiliary forces. In a few weeks time, I do not think that there will be very much left which will prevent the A.T.C. from finding its feet again, and going ahead with its work. I do not think that there will be any outstanding decisions still held up. The question of greatcoats was mentioned. Some greatcoats have been issued to cadets who are flying, but I will bear in mind the suggestion and see whether, when the pressure of clothing demands for the R.A.F. has diminished, greatcoats cannot be provided for the A.T.C. That is also a matter which I regard as of being of great importance. The adaptation of huts and the like— all these are a question of time and labour. They should all become more and more easy to solve in the quite immediate future.
  A number of points have been raised. I was not, unfortunately, in the House when the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Milling-ton) felt, I understand, that in the opening parts of my speech I did not sufficiently emphasise the tremendous service—to my mind the absolutely decisive Service—to this country of the air crews of Bomber Command and the sacrifices they made. I can only tell the Committee that I failed utterly in the main purpose of that part of my speech if that impression was given. As the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) said—and I am very grateful for his remarks—the one thing we can do for the men and women who mourn members of the air crews of Bomber Command is to prove to them in every possible way that the sacrifices of those crews were not in vain, their lives were not wasted, and

  1063
  they were employed in the very best possible way for the winning of the war.
  He went on to speak of the important question of commissioning. He will have seen in the statement made in the White Paper on the pay and conditions of officers that in future the commissioning system of the Royal Air Force has been modified, that the cadet will go through Cranwell as an attested airman, that the fees of Cranwell have been abolished and, therefore, a considerably more democratic arrangement has been arrived at in the process of commissioning.
  I pass to the interesting and important speech of my predecessor in office, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who prefaced his remarks by taking a flattering but not quite accurate interest in the ups and downs of my own political career. In his extremely graphic description of the political aircraft which, he said, I had ridden, he spoke of my coming at last to the staid air liner—I think that was his phrase—of the Labour Party of today. Then he went on to say that he wondered if that Labour air liner would ever take off. There, I think, I detect a point of intense personal interest on his part. He was wondering if the Labour air liner would ever take off from these benches. I am afraid that I must tell him that the take-off must be long delayed. I see no signs of it whatever. [An Hon. Member:" He sees no hope of it? "] Hope springs eternal in the human breast; but we on this side of the Committee are unable to see any signs of this remarkable event. He went on to speak, as did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley, who summed up from the other side, of the fact that I said frankly and clearly that certain fundamental decisions on the future size, nature and character of the Royal Air Force had not yet been taken. Both the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen said: "You cannot put off taking such a decision for ever." That, of course, is perfectly true, but I would put it to the Committee that, if this Government or any other Government attempted to decide what the character, size and structure of the permanent postwar Air Force was, only one thing could be said about that decision and that is, it would be quite certain to be wrong, because the fundamental data both technical and political does not exist.
  1064
  The right hon. Member for Bromley said when he was Secretary of State for Air they were already considering these things and the data was already before them, but much of the data was not even available so short a time ago as that. He could not be considering the effect of the atom bomb, for the atom bomb had not been exploded at that time, and the United Nations organisation had not met. These two great developments have taken place just in recent months, and I do re-emphasise that the long term character of the Royal Air Force cannot possibly be decided wisely, at any rate, at the present moment, and, of course, it does not mean that we are doing nothing. I have told the Committee today, and the House was told by the Prime Minister last week in the Defence Debate, that the figure of 300,000 is that to which it is proposed at the moment to reduce the Royal Air Force with a corresponding first line strength of squadrons and aircraft. The hon. Member for Oxford asked us how that figure was arrived at. I say quite simply that that is a figure which, all things considered, we think will be adequate, and no more than adequate—because we cannot have a man more than is necessary in the present state of the country—to meet our commitments as at 1947. It seems to me it would be simply crystal gazing to look further ahead than that at the present time, and that is why unashamedly and frankly we put before the Committee those provisional decisions as to the immediate future of the Royal Air Force, while reserving a long term decision until the situation becomes far clearer than it is today.
  A large number of further important points were made by hon. Members on the question of training flights. I agree entirely with those speakers who said that world wide training flights were of great importance in that they were partly training and partly operational in the sense that they are carried out by fully trained squadrons and fully trained formations. I do not think there can be any doubt that such flights will form part of the work and life of the Royal Air Force in the future. We were asked for details of any arrangements we were making to help our allies in Europe. A good deal has been done in that way. I have visited R.A.F. formations which were handing over Halifax squadrons at Marignac aerodrome, Bordeaux, recently and,

  1065
  under the Hartemann agreement with the French Government a great deal of help is being given to the French Government in the building of their air force. Similar contacts are in train or have actually taken place in a number of other places.
  Next I come to speak very naturally and quite rightly on the matter of the indiscipline that has taken place in India. I am asked to tell the Committee more fully what happened. I should be delighted to do so but I cannot at the moment because the actual investigations are proceeding and the courts of inquiry and the like are actually sitting. They are being undertaken by the most responsible officers on the spot, including the Inspector-General of the Air Force, and obviously we could not possibly anticipate or pre-judge their verdict. Undoubtedly when that is available we shall be able to give more information on the subject.
  The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Jack Jones), in his very moving speech, referred to the question of the £28 million for research. I should like to make it clear to him that under the new centralised arrangement for research by no means all this sum will derive to warlike purposes. It is impossible to allocate fundamental or even semi-fundamental research into aerodynamics as between military and civil aviation. It is impossible to say what its ultimate purpose will be. It adds to our store of knowledge and our capacity to build aircraft of all types, and that is why we believe, in spite of certain difficulties, that the advantages of that type of centralised research under my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, far outweigh any disadvantages there may be. The hon. Member went on to speak of education in the Royal Air Force. That also is a thing we have very much at heart, and we aim to make the period of service of the Royal Air Force of the future—whether for the man who has just been called up for a short time today, or for the regular who goes in for a comparatively long span of life—a period in which education goes on technically and culturally in every sense of the word. We believe that we shall be able to do that to a very great degree in the postwar Air Force.
  There are a number of points with which, I am afraid, I shall not be able to deal adequately. There was an interesting speech by the hon. and gallant
  1066
  Member for Preston (Squadron-Leader Segal), who felt that the allocations to the medical services were insufficient. He must remember, however, that these medical services will cater for a very much reduced force of under one-third of the strength he knew, and that, therefore, it may not be so small a sum as he thinks. The hon. and gallant Member for Devizes (Squadron-Leader Hollis) spoke of applications for permanent commissions. I would say in one word that they are now open once more and the fact that it was not possible to accept an officer in the past does not mean that he cannot re-apply now or has prejudiced his chance of being accepted in any way.
  Finally, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley spoke again on the subject of these basic decisions. They depend, I believe, not only on the atom bomb and the technical development of which I have spoken, but profoundly on political developments, and on the development f the United Nations organisation. Let us remember that, in spite of all the difficulties and the dark side of the world situation which faces us, and which no one wishes to overlook the Military Staffs Committee of the United Nations organisation has met. The Royal Air Force representative on that Committee, Air Chief Marshal Garrod, is a most distinguished officer—I was speaking with him only this morning—and he has told us that the Committee has at any rate founded itself. It has come into being, and we at the Air Ministry regard it as the seed which may contain the hope of the future, and the Royal Air Force is determined to make its contribution to it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £150,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Air Force Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947."

  AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1945
  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, 1946, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year."

  Schedule

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  £

  £

  Vote

  1. Pay, etc., of the Air Force

  10

  78,000,000

  Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.— [Mr. Mathers.]

  BORSTAL INMATE'S DEATH
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House do now adjourn." [Mr. Mathers.]
  9.16 p.m.
  Mr. G. Lang: I am obliged to ask the House to consider for a short time a matter which is unfortunate and sad, but which calls for certain comment and some explanation. My hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle) raised this matter on the day that the House rose for the Christmas Recess. It concerns the death of a Borstal boy, which occurred in November last. With commendable promptitude, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary ordered an inquiry. The report of that inquiry has been, for some time now, in the hands of Members. I do not desire tonight to enter into the matter of the dispute which took place at that inquiry. The fact is that this unfortunate boy, Clatworthy, came against the regulations, was reported, was punished—severely punished—and was later transferred to another institution. Some two months after that he became ill. Despite every attention, and there is no doubt that he was given the most careful and complete medical attention, he died, early in November. This inquiry was the result. The inquiry seems to have been conducted with great care and humanity by the Official Referee who was appointed. He decided to exclude the Press and the public, in order that the Borstal boys who had to give evidence, might feel more at home. I should like to suggest that those boys might have felt less embarrassed if the inquiry had not been held on prison premises, and that the presence of prison
  1068
  officers must have negatived any value that the exclusion of the Press and the public might have had. That is perhaps a small matter.
  There are three main matters to which I desire to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend. The first is the question of the adjudication upon this boy. It is true that the boy had been convicted prior to the time when he came to Wormwood Scrubbs for allocation to Borstal, in March of last year. But he was described by the Official Referee in his report, and by all the prison officers except one—and that one is an important exception—as a boy who, properly handled, was quite manageable and a properly-conducted Borstal lad. There could be nothing dreadfully wrong with the boy in view of that evidence, and that fact, of course, heightens the tragedy of his death. After the incident—to which I do not refer—in the cell, where this boy had run amok and was restrained by force, he was personally brought up for adjudication. I raised in this House last Thursday with the Home Secretary, the question of adjudication by one visiting justice. I must repeat that point to-night. I would be very thankful, not to have had the fearful responsibility which fell upon Mr. Nias in this case, of being the sole visiting justice to adjudicate.
  The Home Secretary said that it was difficult to get a rota every week. No doubt it might be, although I should have thought it would not be too difficult to get two justices. The contention might be that two justices might disagree, but surely that would be a sufficient reason for remanding the case again until the monthly meeting of the justices. I hope this matter will be speedily considered. I must remind the House, of what the judgment was and also that, according to the Official Referee's report, the Governor pointed out to Mr. Nias that this was not a case for very severe punishment.
  What in fact was the punishment? It was nine days "No. 1" restricted diet, and cellular confinement for a period of 21 days, "No. 2" restricted diet, and 21 days no association. If that is not in the nature of severe punishment, I fail to understand the English language. This nine days restricted diet consists of three days on bread and water, then three days on prison fare,

  1069
  and then back to three days restricted diet. Whatever may be the reason for introducing three days of normal prison fare between two periods of three days each on bread and water, the result is cruel and fantastic beyond description. Anyone who has sons, and knows the appetite of growing lads, can understand what it must mean to a boy of 19 to be put on bread and water for three days, and then on prison fare for three days, and then on bread and water again for three days. To me there is something shockingly brutal in that, and it is entirely foreign to everything we regard as ordinary treatment, even of detained persons in this country.
  The further restricted diet consisted of porridge, potatoes and bread, so that there was a total of 30 days for this growing boy of 19 on restricted diet. When I later read the medical evidence, and the frequent use of that dread word "anaemia," I found it difficult not to associate those 30 days on starvation diet with anaemia. It is true that the doctors discovered a very rare disease. It was not the first time doctors have made such a discovery, and I have no doubt that it will not be the last. I commend to my hon. Friend the Home Secretary consideration of that kind of treatment. It is no use to build up a sort of facade outside Borstal, and talk about recruiting citizens and the public school spirit, if, when there is difficulty, we go back to these primitive and rather savage methods. The boy was described by officers who knew him as a decent boy.
  The only other thing of serious importance to which I wish to call attention, is the evidence in regard to the reception of the unfortunate woman, the boy's mother, at the Home Office. It is quite evident that she was under a misapprehension and that no appointment had been made, but this distracted woman went there in November, months after the earlier occurrences. We have, most of us had to deal with women at times of great anxiety, and I am thankful to say that no mother will believe her boy is very bad. This mother came to the Home Office and saw a gentleman named Mr. King. I am hoping we shall be told whether Mr. King is still in a position to receive visitors of this sort.
  This poor woman is kept waiting for what the Official Referee described as a
  1070
  very long period. Of course she is excited, of course she is anxious, and of course she is incoherent. Mr. King discovers that she is illiterate, so he gives her the comforting advice to go and put her complaints in writing. Nothing more stupid could be imagined. I can only hope that this particular gentleman is no longer in a position to deal with people like that. This mother went away distracted and unhappy, and within a month her boy was dead.
  These are the main matters which I thought it right to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend. I have tried to speak with restraint. I feel strongly about this matter, as many of us do, but I thought it right to speak as restrainedly as I can, because I am much more anxious, if I can, to have some consideration given to these things than I am to ventilate my own feelings or to attempt any kind of eloquence about this unfortunate matter. I thank my right hon. Friend for the promptitude with which he instituted the inquiry. I am obliged to the Official Referee for the humanity with which he wrote this report. I am thankful that he found it possible at the end to express his own sympathy with this unhappy woman, who was deprived of her son. That sympathy we all share, and not least, I feel, my right hon. Friend.
  9.27 p.m.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: As one who has profound respect for the Borstal treatment and institution, it is a little disturbing to find one or two matters which are contained in the Report. The first matter to which I would like to call the attention of hon. Members is contained on page 5, paragraph 7, of the report, that is, with regard to the officer Evans. The charge was made against Evans, who was in charge of these boys, that he used physical violence. That charge was not accepted by the gentleman who investigated this complaint, and, of course, everyone in this House will accept that fact. But when we look to this man Evans to see what were his qualifications for handling difficult boys, and no one can be tested more in their handling of boys than those in charge of these boys in Borstal, we find he is a war auxiliary officer, aged 23. He is described as lacking in tact and sense of humour, and, further than that, a most extraordinary thing, that he was

  1071
  " an abnormally fat, ungainly young man with a peculiar gait."
  No man who has been to school, and probably we in this House have all been to school, fails to appreciate how boys will bait a person of that kind. In my submission, it was disgraceful to put a person of that character into a Borstal institution, in charge of boys who required tactful handling. It is deplorable that a person who can be so described can be put into any institution which handles boys, be it a public school or Borstal. It was asking for trouble, and it met with trouble. Reading this report, it is almost correct to say that the nature of this person was such as to lead to the scene which terminated in this fatal conclusion.
  A further point to which I would like to draw the attention of the House is on page 13 of the Report, in respect of the reception which this unfortunate lady, Mrs. Clatworthy, received, when she went to interview the Prison Commission Staff Officer. Those who have been well educated can fend for themselves when they meet public officials. No educated person who has stood in one of these public offices can have failed to notice the difference of treatment between those who are able to speak and fend for themselves, and those who are not able to do so. In fact, it is a deplorable feature in many of these cases, that those who are least able to speak and protect themselves, get the least consideration. Advantage is taken of their lack of power to stand for their own cause, and to express themselves powerfully in then own interests. The fact that they are deficient in these powers, is very often taken advantage of in many public institutions, not only in Borstal institutions and amongst Prison Commissioners.
  I do think, now we have a Socialist . Government, that those who are in public departments of the Civil Service should be exceptionally civil to those who are not able to command language, or who have not the facility of speech or the distinguished appearance of some hon. Members on these benches. I think at the end of this Report it is said that Mr. King, although he was not discourteous might have conducted this interview with a little more sympathy. Knowing that these words were those of a distinguished
  1072
  lawyer, I think that the fact that he so found, shows that Mrs. Clatworthy did not receive that courtesy and attention which she ought to have received from a civil servant.
  9.32 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. G. Lang) gave me notice of the points which he intended to raise, and I thank him for his courtesy in that matter. This case gave me, as I assured the House on 20th December, very considerable anxiety. I was very careful as to whom I chose to conduct the inquiry, for I share some of the misgivings expressed by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde with regard to the medical profession. If I may say so, it is only his profession, which I regard with more terror than the medical profession. I was exceedingly anxious that I should fulfil, to the letter, the request that was made to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Shorediteh (Mr. Thurtle) that the person conducting the inquiry should have such assistance as would enable him to deal adequately with any efforts on the part of the medical profession to be dogmatic in the statements that it made. I had the good fortune to be able to select a lawyer of some distinction, and very considerable experience, who also holds medical degrees both as a physician and surgeon, so that it was not necessary to appoint a medical assessor. I had, in the person of His Honour Tom Eastham, an individual who was capable of dealing with the whole of the matter.
  I am quite sure that every one who has read the report will feel that he devoted all his skill and energy to arriving at a true basis on which he could make his findings. I want to express my personal thanks to him and, I feel sure, the thanks of the House for the time and attention that he devoted to this matter, including an adjournment that would certainly not have been granted by the courts, to enable the whole case for Mrs. Clatworthy to be adequately presented to him. I have noted what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said about the place of the inquiry, and I am inclined to agree with him that it would be desirable, on future occasions, to consider holding such an inquiry, not on prison premises, so that the atmosphere

  1073
  may be as far removed as possible from that of either prisons, Borstal institutions, or a place of detention.
  I now come to his more specific complaints. I think it is desirable that, where an offence against discipline has been committed, for the alleged culprit not to be kept with the charge hanging over him too long. I think that, if it occurs just after one of the monthly visits of the whole committee of visiting justices, it would be quite wrong to keep the charge hanging over the lad for a period of three weeks or more. It is desirable that justice in these matters should be reasonably quick, because I think it is often more likely to be connected with the actual offence in respect of which it is administered, than it will be if a long period elapses. Unfortunately, at the present time, the number of visiting justices of suitable age—and I want to emphasise this—who are available for doing this work of attending at the prisons each week, is very limited, and I am not at all sure that if the two justices disagree, it would be desirable that the case should wait over. I am not at all sure that, even if I had two justices, I should not have to say that the more lenient view taken should be the one that should prevail. I am hopeful that, with the return of men from the Forces and so on, my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will be able to reinforce the benches with a considerable number of younger men, who have experience of the world and its temptations and difficulties, and who will be available for these and other duties connected with the ancient and honourable post of Justice of the Peace. I would hope that, as increasing numbers become available, it may be possible to do something to ensure that a larger number of justices shall be available.
  With regard to the actual punishment, I am sure that hon. Members and right hon. Members will realise that I did not invent this particular form of punishment. What I have said about the medical profession will, I think, indicate that I am prepared to take my own feelings when I was about the same age, as being indicative of what a growing lad feels, and suffers when he is put on restricted diet, rather than the expert witnesses and dietitians, who seem to do extraordinarily well, through not observing their own rules. I say, quite frankly,
  1074
  to the House that I am concerned about the infliction of severe dietary punishment on growing lads and girls, and I intend to have a most careful investigation made on this. But I do want to point out—and I am quite sure that I shall have the sympathy of everyone in this—that I must have some means of enforcing discipline on recalcitrant and refractory lads, and the prison officers and the officers in Borstal institutions must find, even when we have done our best to make the position of the lads as comfortable as we can, that there will be a number who will not, for one reason or another, respond and who will give trouble. There must be some effective means of ensuring discipline, but I intend to have a very careful inquiry made to see whether I can find some method of maintaining discipline that will not be detrimental to the physique and health of the lads.
  I come to the question of Mr. King. May I say that Mrs. Clatworthy was represented, and the prison officers were represented, at the inquiry? The prison officers had the very great advantage of being represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), who most effectively represented them, and the State paid for the legal assistance that was placed at the disposal of Mrs. Clatworthy. Mr. King was unrepresented, and I think, possibly, that he suffered a little from that. I think one point was overlooked. Mr. King did offer to take a written statement down from Mrs. Clatworthy, but Mrs. Clatworthy replied that if a written statement was to be made, it should be made by her other son. That point, unfortunately, was not brought out sufficiently clearly to secure inclusion in the Report. I do not dissent from what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen) with regard to the responsibilities of a civil servant. In fact, he merely repeated words which I used on 20th December last. I alluded to what my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch said, and I continued:
  "… the allegation of discourteous treatment she received during her visit. Apart from what I say on other matters, I will certainly make immediate inquiries into the truth of those allegations, for it is my desire that any person calling at one of His Majesty's prisons on legitimate business should receive the courteous treatment the subject has the right to expect from any public official."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1945; Vol. 417, c.1600.]

  1075
  It is not merely that there should be no discourtesy; there should be positive courtesy shown, and a helpful attitude adopted. I think that Mr. King has suffered from the fact that he alone of the parties to this inquiry was not represented. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe dealt with the case of the man Evans. I want to point out that Evans was not and is not, a Borstal official. The trouble on this occasion arose from the fact that, in circumstances that were well known to the House, we had to keep in Wormwood Scrubs—after all, the earlier incidents occurred at the time when my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council was Home Secretary £a number of lads who bad been sentenced to Borstal training, merely because there were not Borstal institutions to which we could send them. Evans was a prison officer who happened to be employed, during the critical time, in that part of the institution which was being used as
  1076
  a detention place for boys awaiting the time to go to Borstal
  During the war, we were not able to have the Borstal training schemes for officers that we would have desired to have. We have now restarted them on a restricted scale. I hope that, within a very short time, we shall be recruiting and training men for Borstal work who will have the necessary qualifications. I think the House is well aware, from what I have had to say at Question time from week to week, that I have been giving this matter of the Borstal institutions my most careful attention, and I was able to say last week that I can now see my way to the time when the full Borstal training will be resumed, and I shall have both institutions and officers at my disposal who will enable the usual form of Borstal training to be undertaken.
  Question put, and agreed to
  Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to Ten o'Clock.

COAL INDUSTRY
  Pithead Distribution, West Riding
  Pithead Distribution, West Riding
  Accidents (Boys, South Wales)
  Accidents (Boys, South Wales)
  National Coal Board(Salaries)
  National Coal Board(Salaries)
EMPLOYMENT
  Ex-Servicemen
  Ex-Servicemen
  Motor Industry, Nottingham
  Motor Industry, Nottingham
MILITARY SERVICE
  Architectural Students
  Architectural Students
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  DEMOBILISATION
  DEMOBILISATION
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Local Authorities (Borrowing Facilities)
  Local Authorities (Borrowing Facilities)
  Anglo-Swiss Monetary Agreement
  Anglo-Swiss Monetary Agreement
  Excess Profits Tax
  Excess Profits Tax
CIVIL SERVICE
  Age of Entry
  Age of Entry
  Assistant Commissioners (National Savings Committee)
  Assistant Commissioners (National Savings Committee)
  Reconstruction Examinations(Candidates)
  Reconstruction Examinations(Candidates)
  Revenue and Excise Departments (Staffs)
  Revenue and Excise Departments (Staffs)
SCOTLAND
  Housing
  Housing
  Military Imprisonment
  Military Imprisonment
  Education (Backward Children)
  Education (Backward Children)
  Mentally Defective Children
  Mentally Defective Children
BRITISH ARMY
  Mental Nursing Orderlies
  Mental Nursing Orderlies
  Ammunition Dumps, Surrey
  Ammunition Dumps, Surrey
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Building Trades Operatives
  Building Trades Operatives
  Clothing Outfits
  Clothing Outfits
  Italian Women (Marriage)
  Italian Women (Marriage)
  Dispersal Centre, Edinburgh
  Dispersal Centre, Edinburgh
  Mutinies and Disturbances
  Mutinies and Disturbances
  Released Soldiers (Civilian Clothing)
  Released Soldiers (Civilian Clothing)
  Vienna (Carrying of Arms)
  Vienna (Carrying of Arms)
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Training Areas (Release)
  Training Areas (Release)
  Oversea Service
  Oversea Service
  Units (Location)
  Units (Location)
  Burma (Cigarettes and Soap)
  Burma (Cigarettes and Soap)
  Re-Employed Officers (Pensions)
  Re-Employed Officers (Pensions)
  Ossett Camp (Conditions)
  Ossett Camp (Conditions)
  A.T.S. Recruitment, Lincoln
  A.T.S. Recruitment, Lincoln
  Class Intakes
  Class Intakes
  Polish Forces, Scotland(Leave)
  Polish Forces, Scotland(Leave)
  Malaya (Rations)
  Malaya (Rations)
  Composite Lodging Allowances
  Composite Lodging Allowances
  Long Service
  Long Service
  Java
  Java
  S.S. "Corfu" (Travel Conditions)
  S.S. "Corfu" (Travel Conditions)
  Requisitioned Property
  Requisitioned Property
  Regular Soldiers, Italy (Victory Leave)
  Regular Soldiers, Italy (Victory Leave)
  POLISH SECOND CORPS (NEWSPAPER ARTICLES)
  POLISH SECOND CORPS (NEWSPAPER ARTICLES)
ARMED FORCES
  N.A.A.F.I. Supplies
  N.A.A.F.I. Supplies
  Entertainment
  Entertainment
  Re-enlistments
  Re-enlistments
  E.N.S.A. (Admission Charge)
  E.N.S.A. (Admission Charge)
PRISONERS OF WAR
  Spanish Republicans
  Spanish Republicans
  Dietary
  Dietary
  Accommodation
  Accommodation
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Wild Life Conservation
  Wild Life Conservation
  Satellite Town, Stevenage
  Satellite Town, Stevenage
  Street Tree Planting
  Street Tree Planting
  Middlesex (Housing Land Survey)
  Middlesex (Housing Land Survey)
  Public Footpaths (Signposts)
  Public Footpaths (Signposts)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Brick Supplies (East Kent)
  Brick Supplies (East Kent)
  Requisitioned Brickworks
  Requisitioned Brickworks
  Shelter Bunks (Shipment to Greece)
  Shelter Bunks (Shipment to Greece)
  Cement Industry (Inquiry)
  Cement Industry (Inquiry)
  Requisitioned Premises, Droitwich
  Requisitioned Premises, Droitwich
  Tubular Scaffolding
  Tubular Scaffolding
  Builders' Labourers (Shortage)
  Builders' Labourers (Shortage)
  Albert Hall, Aston
  Albert Hall, Aston
ROADS
  Traffic Signs
  Traffic Signs
  Queensferry (Tolls and Charges)
  Queensferry (Tolls and Charges)
RAILWAYS
  Nationalisation (L.M.S. Campaign)
  Nationalisation (L.M.S. Campaign)
  Heating
  Heating
  R.A.F. (ICELAND)
  R.A.F. (ICELAND)
  BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES (NEWSREELS)
  BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES (NEWSREELS)
  SOVIET PUBLICATIONS
  SOVIET PUBLICATIONS
  RADIO PRODUCTION UNIT. BOURNEMOUTH
  RADIO PRODUCTION UNIT. BOURNEMOUTH
  GAS CLEANSING ATTENDANTS, SHEFFIELD
  GAS CLEANSING ATTENDANTS, SHEFFIELD
EDUCATION
  Maintenance Allowances
  Maintenance Allowances
  Teachers' Status, Dolgelley
  Teachers' Status, Dolgelley
  HOUSING SITES, STEPNEY
  HOUSING SITES, STEPNEY
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Jam
  Jam
  Wheat and Flour
  Wheat and Flour

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Hemphill—Took the Oath.

LONDON NECROPOLIS BILL. [H.L.]
Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

IMPROVEMENTS IN POSTAL SERVICES.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I beg to put the following question of which I have given private notice, namely, to ask His Majesty's Government if they can state the improvements proposed in the postal services.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for the opportunity of making a statement in accordance with my undertaking of December 5th last about the improvement on the war-time postal services which I propose to effect this year. I intend, in May, with the co-operation of the railway companies, to restore seven more travelling post offices, which will enable the Post Office to guarantee de-
2
livery by first post next week-day anywhere in England and Wales of correspondence posted in London in time for the 4 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. collections. Posting times will also be improved in other parts of the country for delivery by first post on the following week-day. In October, I intend practically to complete the restoration of the network of night travelling post offices which will give a posting time of 6 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. in London for delivery by first post next week-day. Posting times will also be improved further in other parts of the country.
I also intend with the further co-operation of the railway companies, to make a start in May with scheduling parcel mails to individual passenger trains, a practice which had to be abandoned during the war. By October next, further progress will be made in accelerating parcel mail circulation and the interval between posting and delivery should be reduced by as much as twenty-four hours on medium and forty-eight hours on long distances. I should like to take this early opportunity of paying tribute to the helpful spirit of co-operation in which the railway companies have sought to overcome their great working difficulties in order to improve the letter and parcel mail services.
With regard to air services, as night flying inland air services develop, I propose to use them to improve the mail service in suitable cases. To begin with, I have directed that first priority be given to consideration of the question of night flights between England and Northern Ireland and Eire.

3
As regards letter collections and deliveries, the position will be considerably improved this summer in many places, and by the end of the year the improvement will be general. In London, on week days, excepting Saturday, additional collections will be made at 7.30 p.m. and 9 p.m. (the 9 p.m. collection being restricted to the Central Area). On Saturdays and Sundays, the last collection will be at 6 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. There will be five deliveries (one a restricted delivery) in head districts in place of the present three deliveries, and the starting time of the final delivery in head and sub-districts will be 7 p.m. instead of 3 p.m. to 4.15 p.m., as at present. We shall aim at an earlier finish for the first delivery.
In provincial towns, a later collection, restricted as before the war to certain collecting boxes, will be given at 8 p.m. to 8.45 p.m., and the afternoon collection will be made later in many rural districts, timed generally to connect with the outgoing main evening mail from head office. In provincial towns of 50,000 inhabitants and over, there will be an additional delivery, making three in all in the central districts. In rural areas having only one delivery at present, an additional delivery will be given where the traffic justifies this service. I hope that may affect localities in which many noble Lords have a special interest.
I propose, in connexion with these changes, to give provincial town postmen on outdoor services a half-holiday on Saturdays by making the final delivery at about noon to 1 p.m. and the final collection at about 6 p.m. I propose a concession on similar lines for postmen serving rural areas. It will be open to local authorities to take up individual cases with the Post Office, if they so desire.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for the information he has given to us, and I am sure that your Lordships will feel that we are grateful to the Post Office for taking these steps which will regain its old reputation for speed and efficiency in which quite justifiably before the war it had considerable pride. The information the noble Earl, the Postmaster-General, has given to us will not only be satisfying to the public but, if I might for one moment speak for the commercial community, I am sure it will give them great
4
satisfaction. I am grateful to the noble Earl for the statement he has made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That leave be given for the Lord Llewellin's Motion (now standing for Thursday, the 21st instant) to be advanced to to-morrow.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (DEVELOPMENT AREAS) ORDER, 1946.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday, the 28th of February last, be approved.—(Lord Pakenham).
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORTLAKE CREMATORIUM BOARD) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
2.38 p.m.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. There is no particular Party which can claim the credit for this Bill, and such credit as it brings is equally to be shared, I think, by all Parties. I may, perhaps, remind your Lordships of the circumstances in which this Bill came about. At the out-break of war, a Commission was sitting on the question of workmen's compensation. Their labours had to be suspended by the outbreak of war after they had

5
done a very considerable amount of work, but it was felt that the work they had done and the evidence they had collected should not be wasted. Accordingly the Home Office—the Secretary of State at that time was Mr. Herbert Morrison, and the Under-Secretary of State was Mr. Peake—worked at the plan and evolved, I think, the main germ of the idea, namely, that workmen's compensation should be transferred and become a social service and that it should be very closely equated to the principle of war pensions with which, of course, at that time we had all become familiar.
At that stage I think that the credit for the idea was due to one member of the Labour Party and one member of the Conservative Party. The Bill passed then into the general charge of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, who was Minister of Reconstruction. In those days the noble Lord used to stress his non-Party character; so much so that I looked forward with confidence to being able to welcome him into the ranks of the Labour Party. I need hardly say I still look forward to that, with perhaps rather less confidence than a year ago. Anyway, he took the matter in hand and I had the great privilege and honour of serving on his Committee. Members of all Parties served on that Committee. A White Paper was published, I think, in September, 1944, Command Paper No. 6551, and I would recommend any of your Lordships who want a short statement as to the reasons for this Bill to read the foreword to that Report, which sets it out with a lucidity and a brevity which I could not possibly emulate to-day.
In the next month, October, 1944, I became Minister of National Insurance. I am getting so old that perhaps I may now justifiably claim to become reminiscent. I realized that my tenure of that office, which of course was dependent upon the German war, was not likely to be very long, and I was very anxious whilst I did hold the office to be able to produce some Bill. It would, I think, perhaps have been better if we had concentrated on bringing in one long insurance measure, of which this social insurance would have been a part and family allowances perhaps another part. It was quite obvious that I could not hope to do that in my term of office, and therefore I pressed that I might be allowed to work first on family allowances and
6
secondly on industrial injuries insurance. I got my way and I managed after a considerable Parliamentary tussle to see family allowances through, and then I turned to this question of industrial injuries insurance. I was working against time for the reasons I have given. I confess I worked very hard, and I confess, too, that I was beaten by the shortest of possible heads. I got the approval of all the necessary Committees. The House met, as we now know, for the last time in the days of the Coalition Government on Friday, May 18. Unfortunately the edict went forth that I was to obtain the formal approval of the Cabinet on Friday, May 18, and therefore I could not give notice of introduction of my Bill. I was unable therefore to publish the Bill under my own name, but my successor in the new Caretaker Government, Mr. Hore-Belisha, did me the great honour of introducing the Bill in exactly the same form in which I prepared it.
To-day I catch up with my dear friend again. I feel rather like the old nanny who by tradition is always looking down from the gallery to see how the young lady, whom she helped to bring into the world and nursed through her tender years, is comporting herself on her first public engagement. I should also like to pay a tribute to the work done by Sir William Beveridge. He also investigated this matter and he too came to the conclusion that workmen's compensation should be transformed into a social service. Although I confess that I think on this matter of workmen's compensation, his report was not so satisfactory as it was on some other matters, yet we must pay our debt of gratitude to him.
I think anybody who considered the system of workmen's compensation as it has developed, realized, as those of us who practised in the law realized, what a godsend it had been to workers in industry. Yet certain limitations and failures did reveal themselves. The first among them I think was this. The scheme of workmen's compensation was based entirely on earnings, and what was compensated for was loss of earnings. Consequently, one could have a case like the following: Let me take the case of a shorthand typist who was injured by some accident arising out of or in the course of her employment, who had lost both legs, but who managed to get to the office afterwards perhaps by the aid of wooden

7
legs or what you like, and earn just as much as she earned before. No compensation would be payable in such a case because there had been no loss of wages. The Act did not take into consideration the loss of enjoyment of life, the loss of the privileges which all of us who enjoy good health enjoy automatically. That was the first defect in the Act. Then there was the very great difficulty of ascertaining what the wages were. A very large porportion of the cases in the latter years turned on an ascertainment of wages which formed the basis of the calculation. Then it followed that if an injured person made an effort to go back to work, and did go back to work, the mere fact that he earned wages automatically involved the reduction of the compensation. I am quite convinced from what I saw in the time that I held the office—and it made me more certain than ever—that part of the curative treatment of these people is to get them back as wage-earners earning their own living.
Then, too, there was this difficulty. Employers used to insure—indeed under some more modern legislation they were compelled to insure—and the conduct of this matter passed into the hands of the insurance companies, and, although I must not be understood for a moment as making any attack on the insurance companies, vet a good deal was lost in that the employer could not deal directly with his man; he had the matter taken out of his hands, and in some cases undoubtedly there were rather unworthy attempts made to get the injured workman to enter into a composition which was going to put an end to his right of remuneration. Further, there is no doubt that the administrative cost of the existing system was too high. In some cases it amounted to as much as 50 per cent. Fifty-three per cent. was the figure quoted. Only 47 per cent. therefore of the amount paid found its way into the pockets of the workers. In other cases, such as in the case of the mutual companies, it was by no means so high, but even there it was seldom under 20 per cent. Your Lord-ships will, I am sure, agree that if we can adopt a system which is going to cut down considerably the percentage of administrative costs it is very desirable to do so.
The other point is this: when Mr. Joseph Chamberlain introduced his great
8
scheme he was very anxious to keep it out of what I may call the legal atmosphere. He wanted to have the thing dealt with by all authorities, as it were, sitting round a table. He wanted a system of friendly arbitration. That was a failure. As your Lordships know, no topic of the law lent itself more readily to famous legal battles than the determination of the issue as to whether an accident had arisen out of or in the course of employment. When I came to draft this Bill I confess I was very anxious to see if I could get rid of that phraseology altogether. Various other suggestions were made in connexion with employment and so on, but I came to the conclusion that we had better stick to the words "out -If and in the course of employment" which by this time had become clarified to a very great extent; at any rate, we knew what we were talking about.
Now some of your Lordships may ask—and I felt this very strongly—is it really capable of any qualification at all? This case used to be put to me, and I put it many times to myself. You have two men, one of whom slips on a piece of orange peel just outside the works gate, falls down and breaks his thigh. That is not an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The other man has precisely the same accident inside the works gate, and that accident would be arising out of and in the course of his employment. So those two men, who have met with very much the same disaster, are treated in quite different ways. I agree that that is an anomaly which we failed to get rid of, but if you consider the history of the matter I think you will come to the conclusion that it is quite impossible at this stage to get rid of it. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in war-time conditions, a married man with one child, who is injured by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, gets fifty-five shillings a week, whereas if he is injured by an accident not so arising he gets today very much less. Under the new social insurance scheme a single man would get twenty-six shillings, whereas a single man under these proposals will get forty-five shillings.
We could not afford, without making the contributions impossibly high, to bring the twenty-six shillings up to forty-five shillings. The alternative was to

9
lower the forty-five shillings to twenty-six shillings. That was, to my mind, the great weakness of Sir William Beveridge's suggestion. He wanted to deal with this problem by dealing in the same way with the first thirteen weeks after the injury, whether it was or was not arising out of or in the course of the employment, and he proposed, subject to a variation depending on the value of money, twenty-four shillings for a single man for the first thirteen weeks. You could not expect the workers to agree to that. Under the present system, they have a scheme provided for them to which they do not contribute directly at all, and from which they get very much more. They would say, with convincing logic to my mind, "Now you are asking us to come in and contribute directly. Are you really proposing that the compensation we get to-day—forty shillings for a single man for thirteen weeks—is going to come down to twenty-four shillings, or twenty-six shillings, or whatever it may be?" That is impossible.
I hope, if this country reaches once again that prosperity which we all desire, which of course will only come through the industry of its inhabitants, that in the fulness of time we shall be able to move this social insurance scheme up until it reaches or approximates to the level of the industrial insurance scheme; but I am not prepared to move the industrial insurance scheme down to fit into the figures which alone we can afford for a social insurance scheme.
Now let me say a word about the finance of the Bill. I hope we shall have none of that jeering which I have sometimes heard—I am sure we shall not in your Lordships' House—that "This is one of those ridiculous claims of nine-pence for fourpence," and so on. Of course, these benefits have to be paid for. Let us see how the figures stand. It is estimated by the actuary—and in this difficult and novel field he can do little more than make an instructed guess—that the amount of the contributions will be of the order of £30,500,000, and, following the normal principle, one-sixth of that money comes from the taxpayer, so that the other two sides, the employers and the workers, have to find £25,000,000; that is to say, they have to find something like £12,500,000 each. So far as the employer is concerned, that is very sub-
10
stantially less than he is finding to-day. That is one of the vices of considering this Bill apart from the other Bill. We are putting very heavy burdens on the employer in regard to social insurance. Your Lordships should understand that so far as the employer is concerned he is finding actually less in the way of premium for workmen's compensation than he is having to pay to-day. £12,500,000, then, is the amount of the contribution. The contribution for the man is eightpence, the man himself paying fourpence and the employer four-pence, and for the woman sixpence, the woman paying threepence and the employer threepence. The expenses, when the scheme is fully working, are estimated to amount to £32,000,000 a year, a deficit of £1,500,000. I said, "when the scheme is fully working," and it will be many long years before the scheme is fully working, before the full burden has to be borne. In the meantime the excess payments—for that is what they will be—will be funded, so that we shall be able to finance the full scheme at a later date. But even if we cannot, the ultimate deficit is equivalent only to one halfpenny extra contribution.
Your Lordships will see that the scheme provides for a quinquennial review by the actuary, who will, of course, report on the fund. The cost of administration is estimated to be £3,500,000, and as the expenses are estimated to amount to £32,000,000 you will see that the cost of administration is estimated to come to very little over ten per cent., which is a much more satisfactory figure than the fifty, forty or twenty per cent. under the existing scheme. We have rejected the idea of a levy on particularly dangerous industries. We are applying the law of averages to everybody. It is a fact that the bank clerk is very much less likely to sustain injuries than the miner, but the bank clerk and the miner both have to pay their fourpence in order that in this matter all can stand equally, because those men who are injured in the course of their work are really very much in the same position as the soldier who is injured in the course of his duty—they are the soldiers of industry.
Now I must, without undue length, say something about the details of the Bill. It is divided into some six parts. Part I deals with the question as to who is in,

11
who is to insure. The answer, broadly speaking, is everybody employed under a contract of service. But you must distinguish between a contract of service and an office. I do not suppose the Lord Chancellor or the Judges would be held to be employed under a contract of service; they hold offices. But there would be many border-line cases where it is very difficult to decide whether a contract of service is the governing document or not. In those cases the Minister decides, and there is an appeal to the Courts who can review, the Minister's decision.
I am sorry—I have always been sorry—that the self-employed person is not in the scheme. That is very hard, and there are many small people, working on their own account, who want this help just as much as the employed man. But they have no employer, and the whole system of a contribution by the employer and the employed person breaks down. At all stages of the Bill, under all Governments, this matter was most sympathetically considered, yet we all came to the conclusion most reluctantly that we could not take these people in. As to the benefits, I have told you that we adhere to the words "arising out of and in the course of employment," but we have modified the rigour of those words to some extent. If you look at Clause 7 (4) of the Bill your Lordships will see we have provided that if the accident takes place in the course of the employment it is presumed to have arisen out of the employment, unless the contrary is proved. Sometimes there is the case of a man who falls dead and it cannot be said whether the disease of the heart which caused the death was or was not brought about by something he was doing, because he, the only witness, is dead. Therefore we have put in something to deal with cases of that kind. Then we have said a man is to get workmen's compensation, even though he is disobeying instructions, as long as he is engaged on his employer's business. Clause 9 deals with the case where a man is travelling on a vehicle which is provided by his employer, even though he is not under an obligation to use that vehicle. Clause 10 deals with the position where a man is injured in meeting an emergency—whilst engaged in rescue work and that sort of thing.
12
As to the amount of benefits, the Bill differentiates between injury benefit and disablement benefit. Injury benefit is a benefit which is payable for the first twenty-six weeks, if disablement lasts so long. For a single man it is forty-five shillings; if the man has a wife, sixteen shillings is paid in addition, and for his eldest child seven shillings and sixpence, making a total of sixty-eight shillings and sixpence for a married man with one child. The other children, your Lordships will remember, are provided for under the Family Allowances Act. That is important, because no less than ninety per cent. of the cases are finished and cleared up within a period of twenty-six weeks, but if you have a case where a man is still incapacitated at the end of twenty-six weeks, then he is assessed for a disability pension. If his degree of disability is assessed at less than twenty per cent. he receives a gratuity and his case Is cleared off, but if it is more serious, he is assessed to a percentage of forty-five shillings, which is a one hundred per cent. payment. It has the great advantage that he receives that pension for life in an ordinary case, and if he can earn money that fact does not prejudice his pension. He still has every inducement to go to work to earn his own living and contribute to the general well-being. In certain cases there may be an unemployability supplement. Clause 13 provides for an unemployability supplement of twenty shillings. In bad cases where a man needs constant attention he can obtain an extra allowance for that, up to as much as two pounds a week. In normal cases it would be twenty shillings only.
Finally, the Minister has done something which I was not able to do; he has dealt with the case colloquially known to lawyers as "the engine-driver's eye case." Directly you depart from a basis of wages, you encounter this difficulty. There are certain cases, of which the engine-driver's eye and the compositor's finger are the classic examples. A compositor may lose the top of one finger, which would be a very slight injury to an ordinary man, but in the case of a compositor it would make it absolutely impossible for him to follow his trade. An engine-driver, who is earning good money as a highly-skilled man, may have an accident, involving the loss of the sight of one eye; for all ordinary purposes he would be all right, but he could never

13
drive an engine again. Therefore, in those particular hard cases, the Minister has provided, by Clause 14, that those people may get a supplement over and above that which they would normally get, amounting to as much as a quarter of the forty-five shillings, always provided that that does not bring them above the forty-five shillings which is the maximum.
The provisions as to death benefits are very complicated, and I should not be justified in detaining your Lordships in describing them. It is sufficient to say that generally what is provided is a pension and that the essential qualification, save in the case of a widow, is that the person receiving the pension should have been wholly or mainly maintained by the deceased person. In certain cases where the maintenance is less than mainly or wholly, there may be gratuities.
Part III of the Bill deals with the determination of questions, apart from the Minister's determination, which are in most cases subject to an appeal to the Courts. Medical matters, that is to say, the degree of disablement, are dealt with by a medical board consisting of not less than two doctors, and, by a medical appeal tribunal, consisting of a chairman and two medical practitioners. In legal matters, since the employer no longer has any interest or there is no insurance company having any interest to say that the man did not receive his injuries in the course of his employment, we have an insurance officer. It is his duty to decide whether the accident did or did not arise in this way. There is an appeal to the local appeal tribunal, which consists of representatives of employers and workers, and a chairman with legal qualifications. With leave, there is an appeal from that tribunal to the Commissioner. Leave may be given either by the local tribunal or by the Commissioner. The Minister is very anxious—and when I was Minister I took the same view—that we should try to get back to the original idea of trying to reduce legal formality so far as we can. Therefore, he does not propose, in the regulations he is going to issue, to allow legal representation before the local appeal tribunal except with the consent of the Chairman. However, if the case comes before the Commissioner—and before him there will be important cases on which other cases may turn—it is obviously right that the
14
legal representation should be allowed. Part IV extends the provisions of the Bill to industrial diseases. There is an immense amount of work to be done by the Minister in regard to this matter, particularly in regard to these dust lung diseases such as pneumoconiosis.
Part V deals with finance, administration and legal proceedings. Clause 57 provides for the setting up of an Industrial Injuries Fund. Clause 58 provides for quinquennial valuation. Clause 60 makes provision for an Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which will consider all those matters, and give the Minister the benefit of its advice. Clause 61 deals with inspectors. The powers of an inspector certainly seem to be very formidable in the clause as drafted. That was the subject of a good deal of discussion in another place and the Minister promised he would look into it. In the course of our Committee discussions here, I shall bring in certain Amendments which, I think, will modify the rigour of the clause without, I hope, interfering with its essential effects.
The next part, Part VI, deals with miscellaneous and general matters. Clause 72 enables the Minister to institute research. I was very insistent on obtaining this power, and my colleagues were very ready to agree. I think it will be a good thing it the Minister is able to say, "This pneumoconiosis is proving too expensive: I am having to pay out an enormous amount in respect of it. I will get some scientists on to the job and see if they cannot devise a method of stopping the disease." I think that is of great value. Vocational training is dealt with in Clause 73. Under Clause 74 the Minister has power—if necessary, free of charge—to provide such things as artificial limbs and those articles which are needed by people who have been injured. Clause 81 deals with past cases. It is very hard that men who happen to have been injured before this Bill becomes an Act should find themselves less well provided for than those who receive their injury after the Bill has become an Act.
I had made some provision in Clause 81 for payments to supplement the allowances provided for in such cases. The Minister has made it plain that he is anxious to go still further, and I may be in a position—I cannot definitely promise anything now—at some later stage

15
to suggest to your Lordships an Amendment dealing with these past cases. My hope is to see if I can bring them more nearly into line with the present situation. I am not attempting to deal with the man whose case has been settled. I am talking about the man who is still continuing to receive a pension. The burden of providing the pension falls upon an insurance company, and it would not be right that we should relieve them of that burden. On the other hand if we are going to pay that man more handsomely, it would not be right that they should bear that extra burden. In that way, I think it is possible that something may be done.
One other matter upon which I would touch is the question of alternative remedies. At the time of the White Paper the Minister appointed—following a suggestion in the Beveridge Report—a Committee which is presided over by Sir Walter Monckton to consider alternative remedies. The fact is that though I am told that that Committee is to report shortly, I have not yet received their Report, and I do not expect it for another month. If that Report comes to hand in time, before we have finished the Committee stage of this Bill, I may be able to introduce an Amendment to deal with the situation. It would be, in many respects, more satisfactory to get the whole thing tidied up in this Bill if that can be clone. If, on the other hand, the Report is not ready I shall ask your Lordships to pass the Bill as it is, and we shall have to have another Bill to deal with the question of alternative remedies.
As I have said, in what, I hope, has been a not too lengthy review of the Bill, I can cordially commend it to your Lordships. I believe that it is a really important measure, and that it is conceived on absolutely sound lines, though, of course, there is much that may be said when we come to detailed consideration of the clauses. I can assure your Lordships that you will find us very ready to consider any practical suggestions and I have no doubt that the Bill is capable of improvement. I know that suggestions will not be made or considered in any Party spirit. This Bill is the product of men of good will working together for a common end, and I am sure that it is in that light that it will be dealt with by your Lordships. I commend it to your
16
Lordships and ask you to give it a Second Reading.
Moved that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, this is a very important Bill affecting, I suppose, one third of the population. Perhaps if one were to confine oneself to adults, it would be true to say that it affects the greater part of the adult population of the country. I am sure that we are all extremely indebted to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for the way in which he has moved the Second Reading, and for the explanation which he has given. Certainly, no Bill for which general support is sought could have been commended more felicitously or in more reasonable terms, and I would like to assure him, at once, on behalf of those who are around me, that we shall certainly do everything in our power to contribute to the passing of this Bill into law. We believe that by so doing we shall be joining in a very important reform—indeed, as regards the matter in hand, in almost a revolution. It is not, of course, true that the old system which is now going to be replaced by this Bill had not very good points, which may perhaps be acknowledged. But in fact to-day the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which is repealed, lock, stock and barrel, in the Schedule to this Bill, are really out of keeping with modern developments for dealing with State assistance, administered by the State, for those of our fellow-citizens who fall into misfortune of one kind or another.
Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's name should always be held in honour, because he was actually the inspirer and the author of the Workmen's Compensation Bill of 1897. It is worth while spending a moment to see how great was the change that was brought about at that time. The claim which a workman who was injured at work might have against his employer was limited before that time to the cases where he was able to prove, and prove affirmatively, that his injury was due to negligence for which his employer was responsible. Therefore, it was a complete answer before Mr. Chamberlain's Bill became law, for the employer to say: "I am very sorry that you have met with this disaster at work and while working for me. But it is not my fault, and,

17
as it is not, there is no question of my having, by force of law, to compensate you." That was a matter which was changed by the Bill of 1897, and it was a great and beneficent change. It treated the employer as being as much answerable, within the limitations of the Statute, for dealing with the case of an injured workman as if he was dealing with a case of injured machinery. He had to mend the machinery, and it was made equally his duty to do what he could to mend the injured workman.
That was a provision which effected an immense revolution in the relations between workmen and employers. It has been improved and amended by Parliament since, but, at this moment, it is the basis of the law on this particular subject, and when this new Bill is passed it will lapse into history and be swept completely out of the Statute Book. I was very glad to hear my noble and learned friend say, what I have long thought, that the first and possibly the principal advantage of the change was that you did not make the compensation which a man received depend upon an inquiry into his earnings. After all, when an injury is suffered in the home in consequence of a man being laid aside through an industrial accident it is a very hard-hearted and imperfect method to measure that injury by treating it as some portion of his earnings. Whether the income in the home is smaller or larger the things that have to be done to try to deal with the injury and help the injured man, within reasonable limits, are the same. Therefore, I mark it as the first and most important feature in this legislation that it gives the go-by altogether, when the injured man claims to receive benefit, to the questions: "How much were you earning?"—or, more strictly, "How much were you earning on the average in the course of the last so many years?"—"Have you allowed for times out of work?"—and all the other questions of that kind. I feel that it really does not matter what the earnings were of a man who meets with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment when he was under contract of service.
The noble and learned Lord, when he replies at the end of the debate, will tell me if I am wrong, but I suppose a managing director is a person who is acting under a contract of service. I suppose the newly-appointed head of the
18
Coal Board may very well be acting under a contract of service, but I do not know. It will be some consolation to persons in that position to know that if they squirt the ink into their eye as they are signing a letter on behalf of the institution for which they are signing, they will be entitled to forty-five shillings a week. It is better to have that than to keep up this irritating and essentially unjust idea that a man should receive compensation based on what he is getting paid.
All of us who have known this subject at all—I claim to know it fairly well because I was called to the Bar almost immediately after Mr. Chamberlain's Bill became law and I have had much experience of this subject both as lawyer and judge—will mark a second change which this Bill tries to secure. Many an employer, when his workman is injured, might feel that he wanted to deal with him without taking every point of objection and deal with him as man to man. But, in the nature of things, under the system of workmen's compensation every employer in a big way has to insure. The insurance companies are very well-run bodies, and I must say in my experience generally have acted very fairly, though I have known of exceptions. Once the employer insures under the Workmen's Compensation Act and an accident happens, he has to hand the case over to his insurance company, and no feelings of his own can be allowed to influence the decision arrived at if he is going to have the advantage of the insurance for which he has paid.
That is a bad system. It does tend to harden the relations between employer and employee. It does tend to make the workman feel that he is being treated as though he were a mere machine instead of a being of flesh and blood. I know one of the main objects of this Bill—and one which the Government had in view when I was a colleague of my noble and learned friend, although my part was a very minor one—is to get rid as far as may be of that strictly legal view of the matter and to substitute, if we can, something which is more domestic and, some people would say, more human. Well, that seems to me to be very good. There are one or two considerations the other way. As things stand under the Workmen's Compensation Act the careless employer, the employer who brings upon himself constant claims because his

19
machinery is not properly fenced, or because his arrangements are carried out in a thoroughly careless manner, is liable to find an insurance company will turn on him and say: "If you have accidents like this we shall charge you a higher rate of premium." I do not myself see in this new Bill any provision—perhaps no provision is possible—aiming at securing that the employer who pays his four-pence a week has got any inducement to be careful. He might produce a very large number of claims, and I do not see any means by which he is to be restrained or kept in order. Perhaps it is impossible to do that.
There is another thing upon which I feel everybody may not agree, but it is my own conviction. I am not sure—and here I address myself to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack more particularly—that it is unimportant for the workman that the decision as to whether he is going to get benefits is to be arrived at in the first instance by a civil servant—largely, I suppose, as the result of a paper application. The decision should ultimately be only a few weeks later, but it might be more, and it would be handed to him on a piece of paper in which he will read whether he has got it or not. I speak subject to correction from those who know more about it, but I have the strong impression that there is a certain satisfaction which the workman derives froth seeing his case presented; from hearing the witness examined; from hearing the County Court Judge discuss it and argue it out. Very often he comes away saying: "I know that County Court Judge very well. He is a perfectly fair man and even although the case was decided against me, I can see why." I am sure he is more satisfied with that than he would be with receiving a letter marked "O.H.M.S.," without a stamp on it, and opening it to find out whether the insurance officer—one of a large number of hard-working upright men—has decided he should get it or not.
You cannot have all advantages in any scheme, and my own quite deliberate view, which I venture to press upon your Lordships' House, is this. Taken as a whole this Bill is an immense improvement on the existing arrangement. If I say one or two words on matters of possible criticism I hope that the noble and learned
20
Lord on the Woolsack and the House generally will not think I am criticising the Bill generally. This is a case where a good deal of responsibility falls on this House, and we must prepare ourselves to discharge it. First of all, there are alternative remedies. The Lord Chancellor, no doubt wishing not to occupy more time, did not spend very long in explanation of that point. It is familiar, of course, to some people but not, I think, to everybody, and if I may be allowed I wish to explain the situation which has to be faced and which has not yet been dealt with at all.
When a workman meets with an injury at his work there are many cases in which he may have a perfectly good claim against his employer for a lump sum by way of damages for negligence. A very good example is a failure to fence machinery. For example, take a case where the employer is prosecuted and fined in the Police Court because that piece of machinery which ought to be fenced was not, and where the man who has lost his fingers brings an action against the employer in the ordinary way in the Courts, because employers are answerable for their negligence. This Bill does not alter that in the least and, therefore, there are really two roads, either of which is open to him, or rather both of which are open to him. One is the road of applying for benefit under this Act, and the other is making a claim quite apart from this against his employer for negligence. That is a very well-known difficulty in this particular branch of the service of industrial protection. It is dealt with in the Workmen's Compensation Act—as it has been dealt with ever since the first Act—and it is usually described as the section which deals with alternative remedies. As Mr. Chamberlain thought it right and in the law as it now stands, as it has been made by Parliament, there is a limitation on the right of the injured person to pursue both roads, to Seek both remedies. The remedies are not cumulative, they are alternative. He may get his remedy by one road or he may get his remedy by the other if, of course, he can prove negligence.
One of the most difficult sections of the Workmen's Compensation Act (I think it is now Section 29 which some of us had to deal with) is the one which deals with alternative remedies. It is provided, for instance, in the present law, that if

21
the injured workman makes a mistake and goes against his employer for a lump sum of damages for negligence and fails, he can save his position and have an award made in terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act. That is quite right, though it is subject to the possibility of an order being made about costs, inasmuch as one action has already been fought. At present this Bill, though it professes to be, of course, a perfectly complete piece of legislation, consisting of these six Parts and a number of Schedules, contains a great gap. It is quite impossible to suppose that Parliament is going to pass it finally without dealing in some proper way with the question of alternative remedies.
I must say I was distressed to hear the Lord Chancellor hint at a possibility that this Bill would become law without the necessary new clause or clauses about alternative remedies being put in. That, I think, my Lords, has never been said on behalf of the Government in Parliament before. In the House of Commons the Minister of National Insurance expressed his regret that he could not already produce clauses about alternative remedies, but he used language which was quite plain. He anticipated and asserted that, of course, upon getting the Report of the Monckton Committee, these clauses would be inserted in your Lord-ships' House. In order that he might get a little support for that proposition, I recollect that he apologized to his supporters for having to use such an instrument. Now we are told by the Lord Chancellor that there is a possibility, or he hints that there is a possibility, that this Bill may reach the Statute Book without that being done. I think that would be a very wrong course. You certainly cannot leave it alone, and surely you must make a provision about this, whatever the reasonable provision is, before you repeal altogether the Workmen's Compensation Act, which does make such provision, and carry this new legislation which does nothing of the kind. Otherwise, the employer is really not going to be fairly treated. He is going to make his contribution of fourpence a week, and he is not otherwise going to get any benefit out of the Bill. It would be a very strange result if it were said: "Let the workman have both remedies without any restriction at all."
22
I see the difficulty in devising what would be right, and I suppose that is the explanation of why the Monckton Committee, which was appointed in July, 1944, has not yet reported to the Government about it. But is it not really right to say, with great respect to His Majesty's Government, that the responsibility is primarily theirs, and they cannot justify passing into law a Bill with this striking omission merely because they are waiting for somebody else to recommend to them what they ought to do? I say that in the most friendly way, but I do hope that what I am saying will commend itself to the judgment of the Lord Chancellor, because I feel convinced that if this Bill went on the Statute Book and became law with out such a provision, very great difficulties might hereafter arise. Sir William Beveridge was not so successful, I agree, in dealing with this part of the subject as he was with the rest in his great Report, but Sir William Beveridge's Report, which was issued long ago, included a chapter headed, "Problem of Alternative Remedies." I must say I think it would be only reasonable to ask the Government to offer us a solution of that problem before they seek to get the Royal Assent to this Bill.
The next point is about self-employed persons. I quite appreciate the sincerity with which the Lord Chancellor told us he would like to get such persons included. I quite appreciate the great difficulty that does exist. But does the House appreciate the full existence of the anomaly which this Bill is going to create if you do not bring what is called the self-employed person in? Take the instance of the village joiner, who is very often the village undertaker as well. He works on some piece of local building, fitting window frames—when he has the necessary licence—and perhaps he employs a mate, a single man, a workman whom he pays. They are working on a scaffolding, and the scaffolding collapses. The two of them meet with exactly similar injuries; each breaks his leg. Do your Lordships realize that the result of this Bill will be that the workman employed by this self-employed man will get forty-five shillings a week, whereas the self-employed man, incurring exactly the same risks and doing exactly the same work, will get only twenty-six shillings a week; and the only compensation he will have in addition will be that

23
he will have paid fourpence a week to help to insure his mate? Really, can that stand as right? Can it be right to say to the local builder and to the various people engaged in small trades, such as the local shopkeeper: "You are actually working at your trade side by side with one person whom you employ, and where you both meet with exactly the same accidents in exactly the same circumstances, one of you will get 45s. per week under this Bill and the other will get 26s."?
I thoroughly understand the difficulty in providing against it, but I think ingenuity ought to be sufficient to find some sort of remedy. The Minister in charge of the Bill in another place said he would be glad to consider it if he had representations on the subject. Well, the small shopkeeper, the small joiner, is not necessarily a member of some powerful trade union; but surely, my Lords, you will agree that he still has his rights, and he has a right to be dealt with on fair terms as compared with other people. It is not really true to say that this Bill is limited in its benefits to people who are employed on a contract of service. This Bill expressly covers, for example, a taxi-cab driver who is driving a taxi-cab on hire. He is not employed by anybody. He is expressly included. It includes share-fishermen who join in going out and bringing in a catch and who are not employed by anybody. It includes firemen. I am not sure that it does not include policemen. The question is: Cannot we justly ask in this House for further consideration for this particular class of person who it does seem to me under the present Bill is not being fairly treated? If he were his own workman he would get 45s. a week as a single man, another sixteen shillings if he had a wife, seven and sixpence for a child, and it may be, as the Lord Chancellor explained, another one pound because he is really so very much smashed up, and perhaps another two pounds because he needs to be specially attended to. Is it right to say to another man, whose only fault is that he is not actually employed under a contract of service, but who is doing exactly the same thing: "Oh no, you are not a person under contract of service. Therefore you must fall back on the 26s. a week"? I do not think it is fair.
24
Before I sit down I would like to say a word about the relation of the profession of the Law to this Bill. I my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will forgive me—although he speaks with far greater knowledge of the Bill than anyone else in this House—I thought I detected him saying that the chairman of a local advisory committee would be a person of legal qualifications. I cannot find that in the Bill. We might move an Amendment in order to justify what the Lord Chancellor said but I do not think it is in the Bill. Indeed, it is very remarkable how scared the framers of this Bill seem to be of legal assistance in any quarter. It is true that they compel a certain amount of respect by adopting the phrase "an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment." That has been the phrase ever since the first Workmen's Compensation Act and if it is said that workmen's compensation has led to a good deal of litigation it is to be observed first of all that the number of cases otherwise disposed of is infinitely greater than the number litigated. Secondly, this phrase "an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment" has been one of the principal subjects of legal exposition. Many of us have had occasion to do our best to give it a clear meaning and I think the judges have done a great deal to clarify and simplify the essential considerations.
I should like to ask my noble and learned friend, if he intends to speak in reply, whether the insurance officer, and on appeal from him the local appeal tribunal, is going in any way to be guided by, or governed by, the decisions which have been laid down as to what does constitute an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. It would be a very great pity if these rules and principles were not observed. It would simply open the floodgates of endless confusion. On the other hand, if they are going to be observed might it not be as well to take the opportunity to include the help of those who know something about the subject? I quite understand that in merely trivial cases you do not want to have the interposition of specially trained legal practitioners. There is a good deal to be said for a domestic forum up to a point, but I think that the contemplated provision—it is not in the Bill—of regulations which are aimed at excluding professional

25
lawyers from appearing before local tribunals is ill-advised in the real interests of the public.
The conception which some people seem to take pleasure in expressing, that the professional man enters on needless, lengthy, technical and meaningless arguments, is in my experience without foundation. On the other hand it is perfectly certain that there are many cases in which a completely lay tribunal or lay commissioner—there is nothing about the qualifications of a commissioner either, in this Bill—may be accepted. I know it may be said that there is a regulation of this sort already to be found in the unemployment insurance regulations. It is a regulation to this effect, that during the consideration by a court of referees the claimant, insurance officer—any officer of the Ministry of Labour that the Minister may direct—shall be entitled to be present at the sitting of the court and that the claimant may be represented at the court by any persons not being counsel or solicitor authorized by him. Is that really a reasonable provision? I suppose that trade union secretaries carefully avoid being called to the Bar! One or two of the Under-Secretaries of the present Government have that distinction. If he were a private member of the House of Commons and an individual wished to be represented by him, he could be told, "You cannot do that. You are counsel or solicitor." These, after all, are the people who have received some training in this matter. It is really ridiculous to say here in the House of Lords that you do not in many cases put an applicant under a severe disadvantage because he is not entitled to have this particular form of service. The good lawyer is the least technical, but he is very often the person who sees what the case turns upon and puts the right questions in consequence, whereas I have heard people who have not had that ability spend a good deal of time asking questions which were not to the point. I hope I can have some assurance on that point.
I venture to make these comments because I know something of this subject—it has been of the greatest interest to me all my life—and I most warmly approve of this very great effort made by all Parties to improve the law on this subject. But I do not think that you will be doing all that you ought to do
26
in connexion with this Bill, technical as its appearance may be, unless in some of these matters you give your attention to securing means by which this instrument, on which we sincerely congratulate the Lord Chancellor, will effect its purposes in the best possible way. This is a great and valuable revolution. It may be, and I hope it will be, an influence for good in relations between employers and employees. You will not have them as opposed parties where one is injured and the other has got to pay. That is all to the good, but let us make it a conjoint effort, the best we can. If the Lord Chancellor should think any of the observations I have to make are of any value I hope he will receive them in the spirit that I intend, of a single-minded desire to improve this Bill.
3.49 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, in his attractive and welcome explanation of this Bill the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack took the House sufficiently into his confidence to say that in its early stages he had asked to be allowed to produce some Bill. Anybody looking at the result will I think agree it is some Bill and he is entitled therefore to the credit for it. It is changing what has been now for a period of fifty years a most valuable part of our legal system, in removing the procedure under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and substituting a procedure which is quite obviously much more in consonance with the whole trend of modern social thought and legislation and therefore one which, as a matter of consistency and convenience as well as from inherent justice, ought to be adopted by Parliament. At the same time, although we are prepared to give this Bill a Second Reading, and indeed to welcome the general propositions on which it is based and the main system which it expounds, we also at a more convenient stage perhaps will decide to put forward some suggestions in concrete form as to improvements which might be made in Committee.
The greatest tribute I could pay in what I had been going to say to your Lordships is that it has already been said by the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken and therefore that absolves me from going into any detail today, but I would specifically desire to reinforce as strongly as I can what he said on the subject of the contemplated omission

27
from this Bill up to the time when it actually takes its place on the Statute Book of any satisfactory provision with regard to the alternative remedy. That is going to leave the whole position so unsatisfactory that I do suggest to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with all respect that some effort should be made to galvanize the Committee who are considering this matter into a little more urgent action. Alternatively I suggest, if such a regrettable course were necessary, that this Bill should bide its time until it is possible to incorporate in it a proper clause based upon the findings of that Committee, if it is necessary for the Government to wait until that Committee has reported before they come to any conclusion as to what is the right course to follow.
Another point made by the noble and learned Viscount, in respect of which I confess I feel very strongly, is the exclusion from this Bill of the owner of the one-man business, the master craftsman. We have had instances given. Numbers of them immediately come to one's mind. You may get a man under a contract of service with a great industrial company to receive £10,000 a year as chairman and managing director who in his room in the offices of the company sustains some injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and who is therefore entitled to claim under this Act, In the course of that injury he may have caused some damage to the room and a master carpenter may be brought in to repair that damage. He may have the misfortune to suffer a similar injury in the same place. But although the chairman and managing director of the company is going to get forty-five shillings a week, he will get for an exactly similar accident in exactly the same place the sum of twenty-six shillings. I understand the difficulties in a contributory scheme of inserting a class who will not be primarily contributors, but at the same time I should have thought with the noble and learned Viscount that it would not outstrip the ingenuity of the Government to find some plan which might open rather wider the door of this Bill and let that class of man in. I hesitate to use what is at the present moment a highly inflammable phrase and suggest anything in the nature of "contracting in" of persons who are
28
not ex officio, so to speak, within the scope of this Bill, but it may at the same time be worthy of consideration whether some such scheme on those lines could not be devised.
The only other point I wish to deal with at this stage is the matter which is covered by Part III of the Bill, the Determination of Questions and Claims. The noble and learned Viscount has said there is no provision at the moment for the chairman of a local appeal tribunal to be a person of any legal experience at all, and indeed, although it is perhaps implied from the fact that difficult points of law are to be left to their decision, there is no actual provision that the Commissioners to be appointed under the Act shall be members of the legal profession either, although it may, as I say, be implied from the functions which are allotted to them. There was some tendency in another place rather to regard the history of the past years of litigation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts as a sort of lawyers' Bank Holiday. Well, there has been a great deal of litigation. Some of it has probably lasted a great deal too long, but on the other hand in the course of forty years of the application of these Acts a great many valuable decisions have been arrived at. I think it is not unfair to say that the law now is substantially clear on most of the main points of the Acts, and indeed that consideration has led the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to retain this famous and much-disputed phrase, over which the legal armies have swung back and forth for so many years, of the accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
I agree entirely that you want in the interests of the workman to get a decision as concisely and as expeditiously as possible and that you do not want to go on protracting the matter through an unnecessary number of Courts or tribunals. I say an unnecessary number. After all, under the Workmen's Compensation Acts the matter started first with the County Court Judge as arbitrator and then went direct to the Court of Appeal, and only in proper cases proceeded to your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: By special leave.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: By special leave. As I say, so many matters

29
under that Act have now been clarified. The number of cases which are still obscure is probably very small. If this Bill and the machinery that it will set up were doing what there was some indication in another place they were intended to do, and indeed to which the Lord Chancellor made some reference, if it set up machinery to decide claims by the process of a sort of fireside chat, there might be a very good argument for saying you want to get rid of the formal and perhaps formidable atmosphere of a Law Court and conduct it all nicely and comfortably over a table. But, although I do not want to go into detail at this stage, just think of what is going to happen under the Bill as it stands. If there is any question as to whether a man is a proper person to come within the Act, that goes to the Minister. If the Minister or the claimant is not satisfied, that goes to the High Court. If there is any question as to the injury, that goes to a medical tribunal. If there is still not satisfaction it goes to a medical appeal tribunal.
Other questions start with the insurance officer and proceed from him to the local appeal tribunal, and then, if there are difficult questions of law, proceed to be tried by three Commissioners: if there are not difficult questions of law, by one Commissioner. You have not got so simple a framework or so easy and swift a machine under the present plan as to say you can afford to dispense, in the interests of expedition and general friendly atmosphere, with any intervention by the Court. You let in the Court by way of an appeal being made to the Court from those questions which are left to the Minister's decision, and yet there is no appeal to the High Court from the decision of these one or three Commissioners whose business it is to try difficult points of law. And there is no indication at the present moment as to how far their decisions are to be binding on each other, on whom they are to be binding or whether they are to be binding on the local appeal tribunal. I do suggest that in the end the probability will be that there will be a very great confusion of decision amongst those various bodies which could be resolved if an appeal were allowed from those Commissioners to the High Court.
You want finality, and you will not get finality unless you get a decision of the High Court. We shall, in all probability, set down an appropriate Amend-
30
ment at a later stage. With those criticisms—and they are serious, and I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will give them attention—we of course welcome this Bill as a long delayed but very proper attempt to bring the whole question of insurance against industrial accidents into line with the present trend of social legislation.
4.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I desire only to add a very few words to those which have fallen from the previous speakers, and I have this excuse: that like my noble friend Viscount Simon I have sat in quite a large number of these cases. I have sat both in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords, and I have long been aware of the absolute necessity for fresh legislation to deal on a fair and equitable basis with the claims of workmen arising out of industrial injuries. For myself, I think the Bill on the whole is an admirable measure. It carries us a long way towards justice, and I agree with the encomiums which have been bestowed upon it.
I think it would be just, in order that the House may be aware of the position of practically all lawyers, that I should say that I entirely agree with what has fallen from my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon and my noble friend the Marquess of Reading, as to self-employed persons and as to the vexed question of alternative remedies. With regard to the alternative remedies, I cannot help thinking that it would be a completely new departure if the Legislature were to say, "We cannot at the moment state what the proper regulation should be on this question, and therefore we are going to omit all reference to it in the Act." I do not think the Legislature has ever taken up that standpoint. Although it is, of course, very desirable that we should have the advantage of a report on the matter from the Committee that has been considering it, there is a comparatively simple course which I think should be taken by this House and by the Legislature if the Monckton Commission has not yet reported. An Amendment should be accepted to the effect that a workman who has suffered an injury should have the option of proceeding under the Act of Parliament (as it will be) or of taking his proper steps against the employer. There really is no injustice in that. It

31
gives him an election, and until some better plan can be proposed I think it is fair and just. I venture to say that is far better than leaving the hideous gap which will be left if nothing is done in reference to alternative remedies.
The question of self-employed persons is, I admit, very much more difficult. I agree with what my noble friend the Marquess of Reading has just said, that it seems to be a terrible thing that in some of the cases which he has mentioned by way of illustration, the unfortunate owner workman can have no redress whatever. He may be ruined by an accident taking place. I venture to hope that the Government will find it possible to do something to meet the grave injustice of that case, but I would like to say, as a matter of fairness, that I know it is a very difficult point.
Then we come to the question of counsel and solicitors who are not to be allowed to help, and who are, as my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon has said, the only people who are really accustomed to deal with matters of this great difficulty and complexity. Here I will say, with complete good faith, as I am sure everybody will admit, that there are no cases more difficult and complex than some of the cases that have arisen in relation to workmen's compensation for injuries. Unless you have sat in the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords for days, listening to such cases, unless you realize the terrible doubts and differences that arise, unless you have studied the books which show how often the decisions in Courts below have ultimately been reversed in higher tribunals, you will hardly be able to realize the weight of the argument which I am now just mentioning to your Lordships as to the extraordinary difficulty of presenting some of these cases before a tribunal, with adequate arguments, unless you have spent a fair proportion of your life in studying the question. Therefore this is the last case in which, as I think, the advantages of having trained assistance should be taken away from the unfortunate claimants.
That is all I have to say, except one remark in reference to Clause 8 of the Bill. I agree that something like Clause 8 is necessary. It is a clause which deals with accidents happening
32
while acting in breach of regulations. I believe there is a real danger that one of the results of the Bill as it stands will be to lead to carelessness and recklessness on the part of workmen. I know very well that, after a long period of work, when people are tired and badly in need of a holiday, they often get reckless in reference to the regulations under which they ought to be carrying on their occupation. It really would be a lamentable thing if it were to be found that as a result of this Bill, which is intended to secure great advantages to workmen, there will result a larger number, and it may be a substantially larger number, of accidents than before.
My own impression is—and I hope it will be considered at a later stage—that if the accident really is due to complete recklessness on the part of the workman he ought to be deprived of a remedy, not in order to punish him, poor fellow, but in order to show the workmen as a whole that there is a necessity for the utmost care in the management of some of the industrial machines which are now in use for producing various goods. Although no clause that can be suggested would be perfect, I venture to think that in cases where there has been on the part of the workman, not a casual piece of forgetfulness but a deliberate disregard of some absolute provision made for the protection of himself and his fellow men, or complete recklessness, something should be done to exclude him from the benefit which the Act otherwise would give him. I feel that these observations are very largely Committee stage observations, but this Bill is so important and it is so desirable that we should all of us, on either side of the House, work together to improve it, if it be possible to do so, that that is my excuse for intervening in the matter.
4.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, your Lordships will perhaps allow me to reply briefly to the observations which have been made. In general, I am grateful for the way in which the Bill has been received, although I must say that some of the criticisms are so far-reaching that, if effect were given to them, it would be very difficult to carry the Bill through.
With regard to alternative remedies, there really is no suggestion of the hideous map that has been referred to.

33
The Workmen's Compensation Acts do not come to an end on the passing of this Bill, but only on the appointed day. Quit obviously a very considerable time must elapse before the appointed day comes, because it is necessary to have the same appointed day for this Bill and the other Bill, and before the appointed day comes we must have legislation dealing with alternative remedies. I quite agree that it would be wrong to leave the employer in a position in which he could be shot at twice over for the same thing. The point is, shall we do it in this Bill (if we get the Committee's Report in time), or shall we wait and do it after-wards? In any case, it obviously has to be done before the appointed day comes. In Clause 88 of the Bill you will find it stated that the repeal of the existing Acts will be only as from the appointed day. I give your Lordships the assurance that we shall deal with it; the question is whether we deal with it in this Bill or in a separate Bill.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Do I understand that the appointed day for this Bill will be the same as the appointed day for the general Social Insurance Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That was always the intention. The arrangements for cards, payment of contributions and all those things must go together. I do not want to commit the Minister, but our idea has always been that it is fundamental that the two dates must be the same. I can give your Lordships the assurance with regard to the alternative remedies that certainly the matter must be dealt with.
Then I come to the matter of the self-employed man. I know full well that all your Lordships have great ingenuity and a great knowledge of this matter, and I would very much like to see the proposals which you put forward. All I will say is that everybody who studied this subject started with the same idea, namely, that the self-employed man ought to come in, but subsequently came to the conclusion that he could not be brought in. I will go so far as to say that I believe that if you bring in the self-employed man yon will go a very long way towards destroying this scheme altogether. After all, this is an amendment, a modification or a redrafting, if you like, of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The self-employed man is not a workman employed
34
by anybody; he is his own employer. If you are going to allow the village joiner to come in—he is a small man and we have every sympathy with him—are you going to allow everybody to come in? Is this going to cease to become a Bill for workmen and is it going to extend to everybody? If so, the whole finance of the Bill must be considered again. The consequences of that, to my mind, would be far reaching. I can only say that we looked at it, those of all Parties and of no Parties, with the greatest sympathy, but we came to the conclusion that it could not be done. However, I am quite receptive about the matter. No doubt your Lordships who have spoken about this matter have given careful consideration to the way in which it can be done, and we will look at any proposals you make, but for the moment I am bound to tell your Lordships that, having lived with this Bill for a good many weeks and months, and having discussed this very matter with colleagues of all shades of opinion, this is the conclusion to which I came. Therefore, although I will certainly keep an open mind, I am, quite frankly, not very hopeful about the proposals which were made but I shall look with interest to see what your Lordships may suggest.
Then I was asked a question about the chairman of the local appeal tribunal. If I said that the Bill provided he was to be a legal chairman then I was wrong. The Minister said quite plainly in another place that he contemplated that the chairman would be a legal chairman, and I do not suppose it really matters to him very much whether it is in the Bill or not. I suppose his answer would be that there might be some rather odd and peculiar case in which he could not get a suitable lawyer and therefore would have to get somebody else. However, in 99 cases out of a hundred he would certainly want a lawyer, and I gather that he would certainly be guided by the jurisprudence which has arisen with regard to what is an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. In principle, therefore, I concede that it is desirable to have a legal chairman.
With regard to representation before the local tribunal, I am a lawyer myself and I have spent all my life in the law. It was when I became Minister of National Insurance that, for the first time, I got out of the law and was able to look at

35
it from a rather different point of view; at any rate, I learned how other people looked at it. There is no point on which the unions and the employers are more insistent than that this thing should be taken out of the legal atmosphere. They say "If one side has a lawyer before the local tribunal the other side will say, 'He has got a lawyer: I must have one too' In that way lawyers will become common and people will say 'I have got to have a lawyer'".
VISCOUNT SIMON: The other side would be the Minister.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The other side would be the Minister, I agree. However, my noble and learned friend knows very well that he and I in our young days have often heard a solicitor say, when there has been a solicitor on one side and counsel on the other, "The other side has got counsel; I did not know they were going to do that. Please may I have an adjournment to get counsel on our side?" The sort of idea is that if you have counsel on one side you must match him on the other. I am not saying it is right; I am only mentioning the representations that were made to me. Perhaps we might meet the difficulty in the Committee stage. I hope we shall not, as a rule, allow legal representation before the local tribunal, just as I hope we shall always allow it before the Commissioner, but I think there may be exceptional cases in which representation before the local tribunal is necessary. I suggest that it is a matter which might well be left to the chairman of the local tribunal, who might be asked in any particular case: "This is a difficult point on which we want Mr. So-and-So of counsel. May we be represented by counsel?" Then he would say "Certainly you may do so." If the other side, the insurance officer, wanted legal representation, he could have it too. That is a possible way out of the difficulty which we will certainly consider.
As to the last point which was raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maughan, I find myself very much against the idea that we should say that, because a man had been reckless and had thereby suffered some frightful injury, he should be deprived of all remedy. I think that would be a most retrograde step. My recollection is—I have not looked it up.—
36
that even to-day where the injury results in serious or permanent disablement you allow the worker compensation although the accident was brought about by his serious and wilful misconduct. To say that in no case where there has been recklessness is there to be compensation would be, I think, a most unfortunate step.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAN: That is going much further than I suggested.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I misunderstood the noble and learned Viscount, I am sorry. I understood the proposition was this, that you ought to lay down a firm rule that where an accident was caused by recklessness you were going to deprive the worker of the benefits under the Bill. If the noble and learned Viscount did not say that I apologize for having misunderstood him. But I think that that, at any rate, would be a retrograde step, and I would be very sorry to see it taken. I do not believe that a worker is restrained from recklessness—which unfortunately it does happen that he is sometimes inclined to, particularly at the end of the day—by the thought that: "I must be very careful, because if I do this, that or the ether, I shall not get compensation." I do not believe that that is the proper way of looking at it. However, if the noble and learned Viscount puts down an Amendment to deal with this, I shall certainly give it most careful consideration. I am very grateful to your Lordships for the support which you have given to this Bill. I believe that it is a very real and very valuable reform.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROVISIONS FOR SECURITY.
4.23 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART rose to call attention to the unsatisfactory provisions for security in this country; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, security is a very important part of national defence, and, therefore, I make no apology for returning to the subject. Just over a year ago, I brought forward a Motion in this House drawing attention to some defects in our system, and asking that they should be remedied. That Motion was agreed to, and to-day I would

37
be glad to know what if anything has been done in the interval. I stressed four points, First, in regard to naturalization, I pointed out that this should no longer be the monopoly of one branch of the Home Office. I suggested that there should be formed an Inter-Departmental Committee composed of representatives of the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the three Fighting Services, the Board of Trade and the Board of Education. I suggested that to that committee all matters pertaining to naturalization should be remitted, and they would then be able to judge them in the light of their pooled experience. I would be glad to know whether such a body has been set up. I know, of course, that the Home Office draw upon the experience of other Departments when required. But that is not at all the same thing. What I asked for was a standing committee whose members would automatically have the opportunity of volunteering their knowledge and experience without waiting to be asked.
Secondly, I asked that any person or body drawing directly or indirectly subsidies from abroad for purposes of politics or propaganda should declare the fact and the amounts received. I should like that knowledge to be also available to the public. Once the Government were in possession of that knowledge they could easily discriminate between a friend, a foe and a doubtful person. Now, a word about the methods of importation of foreign subsidies. It is rather necessary, because it points to a distinct joint in our harness. Before the war we knew that the Fascists were getting funds from abroad. We were pretty certain that we knew the way in which this was being done. Indeed I was pretty certain I knew the man who was doing it. But we were quite powerless to verify, and even if we had had the power to verify, we could have done nothing. There is nothing to prevent a man leaving Dover with £5 and returning with £5,000. That sort of thing went on under our noses, and I believe that we should not again allow ourselves to lapse into a position of that kind.
I asked, thirdly, that drastic restrictions should be applied to the intake of aliens into this country immediately after the war, until we are in a position to cope with an influx which otherwise might contain dangers. I know that, on the contrary, we have thrown open this country
38
to any displaced persons who have relatives here who are willing to receive them and look after them. I am not criticizing that. It is a measure of humanity. But I am asking the Government if they are really quite sure that their measures of control and investigation of this intake are satisfactory. After the last war they were not. I would like to be sure that better methods are being followed this time. Let me give an example to show the sort of thing to which I refer. Two or three days ago I read in the Press that the Board of Trade were importing a couple of hundred German scientists and technicians. Again, I am not criticizing. I am sure that the Board of Trade have very good grounds for this action, and that it is fully warranted. But, I wonder if the Board of Trade or the Government quite realize that ninety per cent. of the scientists and technicians working for big industrial German firms were not only Nazis but ardent Nazis. I presume that this lot has been properly "vetted" or "screened"—to use a word which is fashionable now. At the same time, I would like to remind the House that the verb "to screen" has two meanings—the first is to sift, and the second is to conceal. If we are not careful we may find that verb, used in this connexion, gradually degenerating into the second sense. In that case we shall be laying up for ourselves a good deal of trouble in the future. Fourthly, I touched on the subject of undesirable bodies in this country. To-day I must say a good deal more about that, but before I begin I would like to assure your Lordships that I shall speak with moderation and with knowledge of the facts. I think it is particularly necessary to avoid all exaggeration in these matters. There is no cause for alarm, but there is a case for vigilance. Exaggeration is to be deprecated, because any word in that direction is immediately pounced upon by enemies, or even by professing friends, abroad, and grossly distorted.
With that preface, I would remind your Lordships how, on the occasion of which I am speaking—it was I think a year ago last February—I alluded to only two bodies, one, "The Link" and the other, Captain Ramsay's associates. I must say a few words more about Captain. Ramsay to-day, because that episode points to another joint in our harness. For a long time before the war, I was

39
getting, by means of my own, a full account of what went on at Captain Ramsay's meetings. I can only say that they were imbued with rabid Nazism and rabid Anti-Semitism. And here I am going to diverge for a moment to say a word about Anti-Semitism. It is the prep-school of violence. It is part of the ordinary technique of what, I think, is rather misleadingly called Fascism. As a matter of fact, there was very little Anti-Semitism in Italy. In any case Fascism is relatively moribund, and was never very formidable, whereas Nazism was always intensely formidable and is still very much alive. I daresay your Lordships will have noted that Field Marshal Montgomery stated last week that seventy-five per cent. of the Germans are still Nazis. I can remember years ago that a great many people in this country were very down on me for saying that I would not allow for more than twenty-five per cent. of good Germans. But I am not going to repeat that now.
I would, however, like to refer further to Anti-Semitism and to remind your Lordships that it is deliberately used to create a violent frame of mind, and when that frame of mind has been created it is exploited for other purposes. That is why it was so immensely valuable to the Nazi technique. About a fortnight ago I saw in a Swiss review, Die Weltwoche, an article which was headed "The Diary of a Werewolf." It was the musings of a young S.S. Officer, in which he wrote, "Anti-Semitism was always the best of our propaganda weapons, and when we start again we shall have to start on the same basis." I pursue that subject no further, and come back to Captain Ramsay for a minute. When I found out what Captain Ramsay was up to, I wanted to have him prosecuted, knowing that there was another war coming, and I wanted him inside in good time. Other people took a different view, and he was, left at liberty until the hour of our direst peril, in 1940, to consult with The traitor, Tyler Kent, whom I consider an exceedingly lucky man not to have been hanged.
We have been assured that all those bodies were officially dissolved. Yes, but they are beginning, as I predicted, to come to some sort of life again. You have the 18B Detainees' Fund, the 18B Publicity Fund, with addresses at 21, Gray's Inn Road and 15, Woburn Square.
40
Again, you have the League of ex-Service Men and Women, which is closely connected with them. Most of those who attended the functions of that body were ex-members of the British Union of Fascists. The British Union of Fascists has not been re-constituted, but it was sought to replace it for a while by a body known as the Independent Nationalists, which was launched at a meeting on March 24, 1945. I his is an example of the necessity of keeping the thing in focus, because that movement has been a flop. It ran a certain number of meetings last year, of which I have a record, and I do not think the biggest had an attendance above five hundred. By the end of the year the number of people attending those meetings had grown very considerably. Thus, on December 15, at the Royal Hotel, there were no less than 2,000 people, all howling away to their hearts' content. I think the figure I have given you shows that without any exaggeration or overemphasis there is an expansive tendency there, and I predict the Government will find the expansive tendency is continuing.
Next I come to a rather more inner circle which styles itself "The National Front after Victory Group," which is housed at 15, Craven Street. Its membership is rather more interesting than that of the other bodies, but again we must keep the thing in focus, because they also are very short of funds and there have been abortive efforts to merge this body with the British People's Party. Coming a little lower down the scale, let us cast a glance at the so-called British Protestant League in Glasgow. That is run by Radcliffe, who also edits the Vanguard. The Vanguard is just a subversive rag, and I shall not worry you with any accounts of its turpitudes. Radcliffe has accused the members of the Government Front Bench of perpetrating worse atrocities than the Germans or the Japanese. A good many people have urged upon successive Home Secretaries that the V an-guard should be prosecuted, but no action has ever been taken. The reason given, of course, is that its circulation does not warrant the action, but that is a rotten argument. It means that a Home Secretary will prosecute when a paper has a circulation of 50,00); but will not prosecute papers, let us say, of 5,000, where the circulation works out exactly double.
I think it was in the second speech I made in this House that I said, "You cannot measure sin by circulation," and I repeat that to-day. This matter of prosecution is again one of our weaknesses, and one of our deficiencies. May I drive that home with an even more cogent example? In 1936 a man called Leese, leader of the Imperial Fascist League, was prosecuted and jailed for six months for an attempt to create a public mischief. When he got out he immediately repeated the offence in a very aggravated form by publishing a book called, My Irrelevant Defence, and naturally he should have been prosecuted and jailed for considerably longer. But presumably nothing happened to him. After an interval he cropped up again. Early this year three men were convicted by a United States Court for inciting to riot, and the principal charge against them was that they had been circulating that very book. Only the day before yesterday this man hit the headlines again with more of the same offences, and he has been able to cock a snook at the Law.
I have mentioned these three men among others, Ramsay, Radcliffe and Leese, because I think jointly they point to a weakness in our system. I venture to suggest that the remedy may lie in some form of law of community libel. When Radcliffe accuses noble Lords on the Front Bench of atrocities, or when Leese accuses the Jews of ritual murder, I think there should be some law under which action against people of that kind would be facilitated. There is no explanation for these matters whatever, and it is fatal ever to dramatize them. As a matter of fact there are probably only about 5,000 registered Fascists in this country, but I think it is common knowledge that in all totalitarian movements the number of inscribed party members is always surpassed by the unregistered adherents.
I do submit to the House that it is entirely anomalous and absurd that we should be pledged to eradicate Nazism on the Continent and allow it to begin growing up here in even an attenuated form. That kind of thing always exposes us to a certain amount of legitimate misunderstanding on the Continent and to a great deal more wilful misrepresentation. For the past six months the actions of this country have been subjected to
42
a chorus of anti-British propaganda such as I have never in my life known or even dreamed of in peace-time, let alone from a professing Ally. One of the recurrent causes of these complaints is our alleged indulgence towards Fascism in this country. I think we might contribute to restrict the area of misrepresentation by slightly better methods for the control of what is not a danger but is certainly a nuisance. I know what I shall hear anon about freedom of speech, and I say in advance that I approve of freedom of speech. I can use a good deal of it myself and enjoy it, and I should be the last person in the world to wish to curtail it by any undue method. At the same time, freedom of speech should be a reasonable god, and not a fetish.
What I propose to the Government is what I hope your Lordships will find entirely reasonable, and which I hope meets the case without any exaggeration. I ask that there should be enacted legislation which will make it an offence for any person to print, utter or distribute material calculated to stir up civil strife or hatred in this country or to subvert the Constitution of this country on totalitarian lines. I ask, moreover, that it should be an offence to import any funds or material from abroad for this purpose.
I ask, further, that it may be made an offence to import funds for any political purpose without declaring them. We have a democratic Constitution of which we are justly proud, and I submit that we should be prepared to defend it with clarity and vigour. I believe you are going to need those qualities. Therefore I ask that the principle and practice of our security should be reconsidered in the light of what I have said to-day. In one respect I think it may easily get on to the wrong lines. I shall say no more on that to-day and I hope that I may not have to revert to the subject. I beg to move for Papers.
4.40 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion before the House. I think the House is indebted to the noble Lord for bringing to your Lordships' notice these supremely important matters. His eloquence, as usual, makes it difficult for those who follow him. My interest and concern in this matter of security have led me on two former occasions in the last twelve or thirteen months to submit certain information and put certain

43
proposals before your Lordships. On both occasions the country was still in the grip of total war, and the measures which I then ventured to advocate for the better security of the community are to-day mercifully no longer applicable. My protest, which I am reluctantly compelled to repeat to-day, against the employment of considerable numbers of German nationals in our Government Departments and in other walks of our public life, brought upon my luckless head a storm of disapproval from the Liberal Benches when the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, whom I am glad to see in his place, poured scorn upon the views which I then expressed and, with great eloquence and a somewhat caustic wit, vigorously assailed me for my lack of charity towards those Germans resident in this country. It was a brilliant performance displaying great histrionic qualities, marred only—
THE MARQUESS OF READING: What does the noble Lord mean by "histrionic"—that it was put on?
LORD AILWYN: The word "histrionic" is one which the noble Marquess will understand as well as I do. It was marred by certain misrepresentations and distortions of what was actually said. The difference between us, of course, was fundamental. The case for the alien was being most ably expounded in that quarter of the House while I was more interested in putting the case of this country and of the Englishman. My Lords, I still am. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack why it is necessary to-day for numbers of unnaturalized Germans to be employed in our Government Departments. I am aware that Defence Regulation No. 60D authorizes their temporary employment if, firstly, they have special qualifications and if, secondly (and this is the point I would particularly stress), no suitably qualified British subjects are readily available. Well, it is conceivable, of course, that during the war, with its immense call on man-power, there were not readily available sufficiently qualified British subjects. But to-day, with demobilization in full swing, can it possibly be said that that situation still exists? I am most anxious not to overstate this case, and I readily admit that from the point of view of security to-day
44
the employment of these Germans is not the menace that I hold it to have been while war was being waged.
But from a long-term point of view, I ask your Lordships to consider whether it is wise, with the world in its present unsettled state, and whether it is fair and just to our own people that foreigners and ex-enemy nationals in particular should be employed in our public service. It may well be that we shall hear from the Government that there is no intention of retaining this Defence Regulation 60D for very much longer. It certainly is very difficult to understand why it should not be repealed forthwith. I should be most grateful if the Lord Chancellor would give the House some information on this matter. I went into considerable detail when inviting your Lordships and the Government to consider the matter last May. The only satisfaction I received from the Government spokesman was a series of waspish remarks accusing me of making grossly exaggerated statements and of raising hares. He ended with the amiable suggestion that the matter should not have come up for discussion in your Lordships' House, and finally made the strangely improper request that I should refrain from raising the question again.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: In the usual terms.
LORD AILWYN: I beg your pardon?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If the noble Lord had read the concluding remarks of what I said last May, he would observe that what I told him then was that he should not bring up the same question again with the same remarks he employed on that occasion. I have no reason to withdraw now and I certainly have no intention of doing so.
LORD AILWYN: The noble Earl might wait until I ask him to withdraw. Ever since I have had the honour of being a member of your Lordships' House I have tried not to make exaggerated statements. I am far happier sitting in my place imbibing wisdom and gathering the pearls which fall from your Lordships' lips—some of them. But when I am moved to leave my safe refuge and rise to address your Lordships, I try to be objective and to have my facts well documented. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Munster,

45
may be disposed to agree in retrospect that the emulation of the hornet is not the happiest way of replying in Parliamentary debate, and incidentally that your Lordships' House is a very suitable and proper forum for these matters of security to be discussed. A noble Lord at the end of that debate remarked to me "Depend upon it, when you are met with rudeness in a Government reply you may be sure you have got under their skin." My Lords, I would not like to get under anybody's skin; it sounds a most uncomfortable performance!
What I am concerned to do is to bring to the notice of the Government of the day a situation which is distasteful to the people of this country. I was assured on that former occasion—and indeed in February, 1945, when I first raised this question—that the employment of aliens in Government Departments would never prejudice the employment of our own people. I have to say that information which has come my way, entirely unsolicited and unsought by me, appears on the face of it to refute that assurance. So I am left in that sore state of perplexity to which 2,000 years ago Pontius Pilate gave expression when he cried "What is truth?" Because of that perplexity and because of my real disquiet in this matter, I do ask for a very solemn assurance from His Majesty's Government that the most searching vigilance may be applied and observed in this matter, to see that under no conditions whatever the employment of these aliens and ex-enemy aliens shall ever be allowed to prejudice the employment of our own people. I am persuaded that none of your Lordships will under-estimate the importance of this matter.
Before passing to my next point, I want to register a mild protest at the unsatisfactory form of reply one gets from the Government to a straight question. I asked a week or two ago the same question that was asked in another place in January, 1945, and asked by me last May, to wit: "How many un-naturalized Germans are employed in our Government Departments?" The same stereotyped form of reply was given on both former occasions, the only difference being the numbers quoted. Those numbers, by the way, progressively increased. In January, 1945, the figure was 66; in May, 1945, it was 83; and in
46
February, 1946, it was 97. One wonders why. The Treasury, appearing anxious to cover itself, did not say that ninety-seven are actually employed but said "Consent has been given in the case of ninety-seven persons of German nationality." To make it still more disingenuous and evasive they said, "In some of these cases employment has been terminated." That is what I call a rather tortuous reply and I ask the Government if in future we may have a straight, plain answer to a plain question. A further point I wish to put before the House is exercising many other minds besides my own. Is it wise or desirable that large numbers of aliens and Germans in particular, should be allowed to change their names to British names? What are the qualifying conditions governing these changes, these metamorphoses? You meet a Mr. Shaw and find that yesterday he was Herr Schwabacher, or a Mr. Graham who was Herr Steinberger or Mr. Ian Stewart Menzies who yesterday was Herr Hans Menzinger.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: No, no.
LORD AILWYN: The noble Earl says no. I can repeat the names. With Germany's record as fresh in our memory as it is—and for our better security hope it may long so remain—it does seem to me, in spite of one remark in the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, last Thursday, an intolerable position. There was only one point on which I disagreed with Lord Lindsay and that was when he said that one of the greatest qualities of the English is that they have short memories. It is one of their greatest qualities that they do not remember and they meet the occasion at the time as the situation demands. It is unfair to take a sentence out of its context, but I want to say that in my own humble opinion a very long memory is required in all our dealings with Germany. It seems to me intolerable that German nationals should be allowed to live in this country masquerading under British names. I for one should like to see the Government take a strong line in this matter and prohibit these people from changing their surnames into English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish names for a period of ten or even twenty-five years. There is no prejudice in such a proposal. It seems to me it is stark common sense

47
and facing up to reality and, I suggest to your Lordships, a due regard for the dignity of this country. Someone wrote the other day, "What is wrong with a country that has so little pride in its ancestry as to permit such prostitution?" There will be many who will agree with that view.
I am a little tired of being told that these things are in accordance with the traditions and customs of this country. I find myself unable to accept that line of argument. I have as much reverence for tradition in the real sense of the word as other noble Lords, but to-day we are slowly and painfully emerging from the devastation and agony of the second of two world wars brought about by Germany. Are we really to accept the axiom that what we did in the spacious days of the past when happiness and security reigned supreme in our land, we must always continue to do? Autres temps, autres moeurs. Let us not confuse the word "tradition" with "quixotry" and let us guard against allowing what someone called the other day that national characteristic of ours—extreme tolerance—to degenerate into a vice.
I was greatly interested to see the report of a debate on a Motion moved in your Lordships' House in 1918 by a very distinguished sailor, Lord Beresford, under whom I had the honour to serve as a midshipman forty years ago. He, too, asked for information about aliens employed in Government offices and the number of Germans who had been permitted to change their names. In the course of his remarks he observed that he thought he voiced public sentiment when he objected to Germans being employed by the Government and maintained that, as taxpayers who pay these people salaries, we are entitled to know the names and characters of the people whom we employ. I can only say that I am glad to find myself in such good company; but I am pained to notice that in the course of the debate he too, while receiving very considerable support from noble Lords, was given nevertheless unsatisfactory replies from the Government of the day. History repeats itself but, as your Lordships know, "sailors don't care."
There is one other point. I desire to draw attention once more to the alteration in the nationality rule for the admission
48
of candidates to His Majesty's Civil Service. It was contained in a Civil Service Commission Regulation dated November 21, 1944. By this revision permanent appointment to the British Civil Service is now open to "a naturalized British subject who has resided in His Majesty's Dominions and/or been employed else where in the service of the Crown for at least five years out of the last eight years preceding the date of his appointment." There is one qualification. The appointment of a naturalized British subject to the Foreign Office and to the three Service Ministries shall be subject to the consent of the political heads of those Departments. May I draw your Lordships' attention to the implications of this regulation? The majority of Germans now living in this country have fulfilled the residential qualification and have now only to apply for, and be granted, naturalization to become eligible for permanent appointments in His Majesty's Civil Service. Bearing in mind that implication it would appear to my uninstructed mind that Parliamentary approval should have been sought for such a measure. I may be entirely wrong in this, in which case I shall no doubt be corrected. Nevertheless, this change was made in an unobstrusive way and the public was suddenly made aware of the fact that key posts in our public service were no longer reserved for British-born subjects. Apart from the impropriety, in my view, of such a measure, the question of security is clearly involved. If it was not so, there would have been no reason for the proviso I have just read about the Foreign Office and the Service Ministries. Lastly, how can such a measure be justified to-day when demobilization is at its height and when, as I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, the other day when the House was debating the noble Marquess, Lord Reading's Motion on the work of the Civil Service, there is no evidence of any lack at all of British subjects coming forward as candidates? Surely one's yardstick in all these matters should be: is this or that innovation likely to be beneficial to our country? I ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with great respect to say in what way this measure can be said to be in the national interest.
Let me end by suggesting to your Lordships that there are many contributory causes to war and unrest. It is difficult

49
to assess with any accuracy those causes, direct and indirect. If the gods of old had only been content to remain in their abode on the summit of Mount Olympus, feasting on ambrosia and nectar, instead of descending to earth and meddling with the affairs of mortals, there would, for example, have been no Trojan war. The direct cause, as your Lordships will remember, was the elopement of Helen, wife of King Menelaus of Sparta, with Paris, the son of King Priam of Troy. But observe the sequence of events. A wedding feast; a slighted goddess, uninvited. Disgruntled, she peevishly throws the Golden Apple among the guests with the inscription "For the Fairest." Jealous commotion follows. Venus, Juno, and Minerva all claim the apple. Jupiter, not man enough to decide in so delicate a matter (and perhaps his spinelessness may be excused when one remembers that that difficult lady, Juno, his wife, was one of the aspirants) he shoos them all off to Mount Ida, where we are told the beautiful shepherd, Paris, was tending his flocks. To him is committed the decision—a dirty trick. They all importune him, poor mortal. Venus wins after promising him the fairest of women for his wife. Under her protection he sails for Greece. By her machinations the lovely Helen, until then living happily with her husband, is persuaded to elope with Paris. And so the stage is set; the ruinous Trojan war begins, and for nine long years the Grecian heroes go to their death.
Admittedly, as Mr. H. A. L. Fisher tells us in his History of Europe, the facts of history are obscured in a haze of legend. But the moral is clear. Tradition was largely to blame for the catastrophe. If the celestials had stayed put and confined their love-making and other intrigues to their own company min domain, Jupiter might have been less of a voluptuary; Juno might have been less vinegary; the fateful decision would not have been relegated to a mortal, and the earth would have been spared the cataclysm which followed. A little farfetched, you say. Perhaps. But there may be a moral there, nevertheless. I have kept your Lordships too long. Let not our passion for tradition blind us to the realities and the requirements of the present time. Let me beg His Majesty's Government seriously to consider whether our future security is to be built upon the rock of British enterprise or upon the shilling sands of a Tower of Babel.
5.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, who has just spoken to your Lordships, was good enough to inform me that he intended to refer to a speech which I delivered to your Lordships last May, replying for His Majesty's Government, I thought it would be fit that I should intervene for a very few moments in this discussion to amplify the remarks which I made to the House on a previous occasion. At that time I was speaking with the whole authority of His Majesty's Government, and one member of the Government was the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who I understand is replying to the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, this afternoon. May I be permitted to give your Lordships some indication of the procedure which is followed at the present time, upon the admission of foreigners into this country? For indeed nine-tenths of the debate to which your Lordships have listened this afternoon depend practically wholly upon the admission of foreigners. No foreigner, either at the time when I was at the Home Office, or I understand to-day, was allowed to enter this country without a passport. That passport is issued by his own country. In addition, he has got to obtain a visa; and in any case he is not allowed to land in this country either at the port to which he sails, or at the aerodrome at which he arrives, without the permission of the immigration officer. That officer can subject him to any condition which he may see fit to impose. This rigid control should be sufficient to protect the national interest and indeed the security of the State. There may, of course, be isolated cases in which there is illegal entry, but I know of no case (certainly none came to my knowledge during the time that I was at the Home Office), where this method of illegal landing had undermined the security of the State, except possibly in war-time, when, of course, that was the nature of the method of enemy spies to accomplish.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I hope my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting him for a moment, but what about all the displaced people who have not got passports and cannot get passports and who may come to this country? I am only asking as a matter of information.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Viscount is a little early in interrupting. I am coming to that now. I will turn straight away to the refugees who were landed here during the war. Those refugees were landed on conditions, and amongst a number of conditions it was clearly laid down that they were not to be allowed to land, if they intended to set up businesses or to take up employment, without the authority of the Home Secretary. I am quite certain during the time I was at the Home Office that there was no fear that those refugees, to whom we had given entry for the period of the war, and perhaps a little beyond, were entering into any occupation which might deprive British Service men of their rights of employment when they were demobilized. But I intend to ask the Lord Chancellor, who I understand is replying, to say if these important conditions are still in force, whether those conditions apply to those refugees who are still in this country, who came here at the beginning of the war, and who were allowed entry on the conditions which I have just mentioned.
I stated on the previous occasion that, if His Majesty's Government were satisfied that the existing powers which they possessed to control the entry of aliens into this country were insufficient, they would not hesitate to come to Parliament and to ask Parliament to grant them additional powers, however drastic and however severe those powers may be. I would, indeed, ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack if that is still the case, that if His Majesty's Government feel they have insufficient powers, they will come to Parliament and ask Parliament to give additional powers. These aliens of enemy nationality who came to this country at the beginning of the war were all interned when France fell. Each and every case was considered on its merits, and the individual was released only if the Secretary of State was satisfied that his or her sympathies lay with the Allied cause.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting. He says they were all interned. He must except those who by that time had entered the Armed Forces.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am coming to those. These aliens whom I have just mentioned, who were interned
52
and whose cases were subject to review on merits, were released if the Secretary of State was satisfied that their sympathies lay with the Allies. These cases, from my recollection of them, were considered one by one, and it was physically impossible to generalize about the whole crowd who came over here. I am perfectly satisfied that none of those foreigners in this country to-day, of enemy nationality, who came here to avoid the persecutions and the terrors to which they were subject in their own country, have been guilty of espionage or of efforts to undermine the security of the State. I am saying nothing about the Englishmen to whom the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, referred in the course of his speech. I am wondering if I might ask the Lord Chancellor whether these foreigners of enemy nationality, who are at the moment in this country, are being encouraged to return to their own countries when the danger to their lives has ceased and when the totalitarian Governments from which they fled in 1939 or before have been wound up.
Finally I would like to make a very brief remark on the position of naturalization. A short time ago—at the end of last month — the Home Secretary announced in another place that it was intended to widen the scope of naturalization, and amongst those who might send in claims to be naturalized as British subjects were a large number of foreigners who had served in one capacity or another in the service of the Crown. Personally, speaking entirely for myself, I have no objection. It is a proposal which I frequently persuaded my right honourable friend the former Home Secretary, the present Lord President of the Council, to agree to, and I am glad to think that my persuasive powers have had some effect upon His Majesty's present Government. I understand it is intended that those individuals who have served in the Armed Forces or who have priority to the claim for naturalization on the ground of their contribution to the war effort or to the economic welfare of the country, will be carefully considered and, indeed, will receive very favourable consideration on any demand they put forward. Now who were these aliens who were employed, not necessarily in the Armed Forces, but in the Government Departments, and whom the noble Lord, Lord

53
Ailwyn, held so much to ridicule and contempt?
LORD AILWYN: Would the noble Earl repeat that? Ridicule and contempt of whom?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I said that the noble Lord held up these individual enemy aliens who were employed in Government Departments to ridicule and contempt, and said that they should never be so employed. Will he disagree with that? I do not think so. Now who were these enemy aliens? The noble Lord should surely know better than I do, being a gallant naval officer, that certainly one if not two of these enemy aliens who were employed at the Admiralty throughout the whole period of the war was vital to one scheme the Admiralty had in mind. Is it proper, is it right, to turn round now to ridicule the services which they rendered to this country during the time of the last war? Those men who were employed in the Civil Service—and the figure which the noble Lord gave was the maximum that had been employed; they may not all have been employed at the same time—were taken into the service because of their particular qualifications, because of the views which we knew they held and the knowledge which we knew they possessed of some particular subject which was vital to the success of the scheme we were putting through at that time. I have no hesitation in saying that the views I expressed last May on behalf of His Majesty's Government are the views which I believe, and I certainly hope, the present Government hold. I have no reason whatever, in spite of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, to withdraw one word or to express regret to your Lordships that I made the remarks I did on that occasion.
5.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I do not propose to go into any cases of detail. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Vansittart that it is important that at this time we should not fail to learn and apply the lessons of the past. Equally, however, I think we want to be pretty sure that we do base ourselves on real experience and that we learn and apply the right lessons. I venture to intervene for a moment or two because I happened, for some years at the beginning of the war, to have considerable responsibility for and ex-
54
perience in co-ordinating these security matters. I would like very shortly to put to your Lordships one or two propositions which I think are fundamental and with which I do not think my noble friend Lord Vansittart will disagree. In the first place, security is not an absolute abstraction; it is and must always be a balance of advantage and disadvantage. I know that in the early stages I found a tendency to impose so many regulation and so many restrictions on operations, on industry and on shipping, that it would not only have occupied mast of the Army we had at that time in guard duties but it would almost have rendered production, transportation and shipping impossible. There was a quite natural tendency to try and guard against every possible chance. I agree with him in this: that it is vital to continue that combined experience which we all had at the present time.
We very soon found that the real thing we had to consider was this: What is the balance of risk, what is the real risk, and how is that risk to be met? If I may put it in a sentence, it would be that security should always be informed by Intelligence—and I use Intelligence with a big "I" in the first place, but certainly equally with a small "i" as well. It really is essential that you should not treat these as abstract propositions but that the whole of your sources of Intelligence should be used, as indeed the noble Lord knows very well we did use them, in order to appraise the risk, see what the right solution was and then apply it. If I may say so, there should be another cardinal rule, and that is that no Department, no Office, should be allowed to say, "This is my business and it is not anything to do with you." On the Security Executive we had the rule that nobody was allowed to say that. Everybody came, we faced up to our propositions quite irrespective of what was the function of this or that Department; everybody had to put what he had into the common pool. Then we appraised the problem and we arrived—or I hope we did—as nearly as we could at the right solution and decided who were the proper people to carry it out. That really, I think, worked pretty well. I think I shall carry with me on those propositions anybody who has had practical experience.

55
The question of aliens has been debated a good deal. I am sure it would be foolish and wrong to deprive ourselves of the great knowledge which we can get from Germany at the present time. We shall not only get that knowledge by sending our best experts over to examine inventions on the spot; we must draw upon the people as well and use them. I agree it may be said there is a balance of risk, but I am quite certain that unless that is done—done with scrupulous care if you like—those people will certainly go somewhere else, because they are not going to be left in a vacuum, and we shall lose at a critical time of industrial development knowledge which it is vital for us to have. I agree those people must be carefully vetted. There is a difficulty in discussing these things in public debate but it would be idle to pretend that after six years of war, during which certain services worked very well indeed, we do not know a great deal about a great many things and a great many people. Provided that that knowledge, that Intelligence, is applied, I certainly should not be under any anxiety.
May I respectfully say, also drawing on experience, that the most dangerous man—it may be the most dangerous woman, too—is not always the most outwardly disreputable? As to the scum, quite rightly, we put lots of them inside at the critical time, but a great many of them did not really matter very much. They were used, willingly or unwillingly—probably willingly. I dare say some of them did not quite know what they were up to, but others certainly did. The really dangerous man is not the active black-shirted leader of some semi-secret, semipublic organization; he is quite a different person. He is intensely respectable; he has the most respectable friends in many countries, in many Parties and in all quarters.
I am certainly not going to mention any names, but I remember one man whom nothing would have induced me, so far as I could use my influence, to permit to come near this country, but whose entry was vouched for by some of the most respectable of my friends in all quarters. He was very rich, he was prepared to be quite generous to many causes in this country, and he had some respectable—really respectable—relations. He had some very curious sources from
56
which he made some of his money. I remember a very good friend and colleague of mine who said, "But this sort of man cannot do this sort of thing." I said to him, "What sort of man do you suppose is really at the back of this sort of racket? It is not the person who appears in the police courts; he is too far back for that kind of thing and it is very seldom you can catch him, even when you know about him." Do not let us think it is just the people who are obvious. That is one of the reasons why information by Intelligence, with a big "I," is so important, so that we know who is who. I was very much interested in Lord Vansittart's proposals about cash and so on. He read out a definition which—I hesitate to draw on my very slender legal knowledge—sounded to me like the present law of sedition.
LORD VANSITTART: I did not read out anything. It was a very loose form of words which I did not mean necessarily to be the one adopted. I am not a legal man either. It was a suggestion.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was not criticizing my noble friend's law. What I was going to say was that it sounded to me very like the existing law of sedition. I am greatly interested in his suggestion that there should be knowledge and publicity about organizations which receive cash from outside. I think there is a great deal to be said for that, but, if I may make the suggestion to him, it is not only cash which matters. It is just as important to know whether people are receiving orders from outside as whether they are receiving cash.
5.26 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot hope to remember all the questions which have been asked in the course of this discussion, but I will do the best I can to answer, at any rate, some of them. My experience of aliens since the war started has been rather like that of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, who referred to the Admiralty men. Before Mr. Churchill's Government was formed I was a private Member of Parliament and I was elected as chairman of a certain Parliamentary Committee. The two Secretaries of State for Air in those days, first of all Sir Kingsley Wood and later the noble Lord, Lord Temple-wood, gave us every assistance they

57
could. We very soon came to the conclusion that the whole essence of expenditure was to increase production. We looked to see what was the bottleneck in aircraft production and we very soon discovered where it lay. It lay in a certain technical process which I do not suppose I should mention even now.
What did we find? Owing to the fact that Hitler had started persecuting the Jews, a Jewish gentleman called Mr. Loewe had come to this country and had brought about eight assistants with him. Had it not been for the work those people were doing for us at that time I think we should have been in a difficult position. When the critical time came the military authorities and the Home Office clapped everybody who had a funny-sounding name into gaol. What did they do at once, but put in all Mr. Loewe's assistants. By this time Lord Beaverbrook had become Minister of Aircraft Production, assisted by Lord Llewellin. Mr. Loewe came to see me in my room at the Law Courts and he said, "What do you think has happened? They have locked up all my assistants." I said "I will speak to Lord Beaverbrook," and I did so. I should not like to tell your Lordships all that he said but he did say, "Leave it to me. I will see what I can do." He had a tremendous struggle but, I need hardly tell your Lordships, he won, and after a few days those people were back again at their work. I know, having talked it over with other colleagues of mine, that that story can be duplicated and that there are very many instances of the same kind. There is no doubt that we owe a very great deal to some aliens.
Most of them had far better reasons for disliking Hitler than any of us in this Chamber. Therefore, let it be quite plain that I am not by any means ill-disposed towards these people. Further, I like to think that the traditional doctrine of this country has been to provide an asylum for political refugees. I am very glad to think that, in the past, Karl Marx and the Empress Eugénie came over here. So, you will see from what I have said, that I am not, in any sense, ill-disposed to these aliens. I should like to say, in the first place, that I realize, of course, that the grant of naturalization is a very serious matter. It is a very serious matter for this reason. The 1914 Act provides that:
58
"A person to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted by a Secretary of State shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to all political and other rights, powers and privileges, and be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities, to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject.…."
That is the right he gets, and as that is the right, it is incumbent upon us to take the very greatest care to see that we only grant it to people who are worthy of it. And, believe me, my Lords, the very greatest care is taken. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, on the last occasion when this was raised, put forward the suggestion that there should be an Inter-Departmental Committee instead of, as at the present time, a Home Office Committee. That suggestion was considered, but it was not accepted. It was considered—and, I think, rightly—that it would not strengthen the present organization. So long as the responsibility is cast fairly and squarely upon the Home Office, and so long as there is complete liaison with other Departments, who may be likely to have anything to say about a person whose case conies up for consideration, that seems to me the most satisfactory solution. And that is what we, in fact, have.
By the next question which the noble Lord asked he indicated that societies that receive any form of subsidy from abroad should be registered, so that the public might know of the fact. Now when I am discussing foreign affairs, and I have to answer the noble Lord on behalf of the Government, I always feel that I am at an undue disadvantage. He understands all about such matters, and I understand very little. But on a subject of this sort we are on a footing of equality. Let me tell the noble Lord not to put his trust too much in the making of all sorts of laws. Laws are obeyed by the law-abiding people. When you are dealing with people who are getting money from abroad, you have to bear in mind that there are many ways of doing it. It is not, of course, an easy thing to detect, and it is very questionable if new regulations would effect an improvement. I have myself a small.22 rifle, for shooting rabbits, and the difficulty which I have, filling up forms and so on, to get ammunition is colossal. I have never yet heard of any gunman who has been held up in his activities because he could not get a revolver or cartridges for it. Making

59
regulations in matters of this kind is apt to result in simply putting impediments in the way of the law-abiding citizen, while leaving the other fellow, who is not a law-abiding citizen, unaffected because he simply ignores them. I do not believe in dealing with persons who engage in murky pursuits of this sort by way of regulations. I do not think that they would be deterred by hearing that an announcement was to be made to the public that they were receiving subsidies. What would happen would be that they would receive these subsidies and make no disclosure of the fact. On the one hand, thoroughly respectable people who receive subsidies would be in the published list, while, on the other, the really bad ones would not appear. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that what we want in this connexion are not more regulations, but intelligence and information. And His Majesty's Government is not so completely without information as some of these people might, perhaps, desire.
With regard to restriction upon the entry of aliens into this country, the noble Earl, Lord Munster, has stated the position perfectly correctly. The admission of aliens is now very strictly controlled. A visa is granted for a prolonged stay only to an alien with a strong connexion here already, and there are all sorts of stipulations about engaging in business. The grant of a visa however does not guarantee an entry, and the alien still has to satisfy the immigration officer and register with the police if his visit is to extend over a certain period.
The noble Lord went on to ask that there should be greater supervision of undesirable societies—pseudo-Fascist societies. He mentioned some gentlemen I know very well—Mr. Radcliffe, Captain Ramsay and Mr. Leese. I know them very well. I am not going to say very much about the matter now except to make it clear that I think that although there is no cause for alarm, any Government, at the present time, that did not take serious notice of these matters, would be very ill-advised. I can assure your Lordships that this Government is taking serious notice of all the matters which have been mentioned. I am not going further than that, except to say that we shall continue to take that notice.
60
The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, who suggested a form of words, might like a reference to the Digest of the Criminal Law by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen. The noble Lord will find on page 93 of the Seventh Edition a statement of the law on sedition. I think the noble Lord will agree that he has there something which is very much what he wants.
"A seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against the person of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the Government and Constitution of the United Kingdom, as by law established, or either House of Parliament—
I suppose an intention of such a kind against the Front Bench of this House would be included. Then, at a later stage it goes on:
"…. or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects."
There are the words, and may I tell the noble Lord, as one who has had responsibility as a Law Officer of the Crown, that I know very well what you have to consider in taking action? First, you have to consider if you are going to get a conviction. It is very unfortunate if you take proceedings and do not succeed in getting a conviction. You want to be tolerably certain that you are going to get a conviction. Where you have a man who wants a little cheap advertisement, very often you find that he is trailing his coat to make you prosecute him in order to get the advertisement he wants. It is a fact which you have to bear in mind. That I think deals with the question which he asked.
Now I come to the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, who enlightened what is after all a dull subject. He asked why it is necessary to have unnaturalized Germans in Government Departments and what is the statutory authority. Regulation 60D of the Defence Regulations, which is now continued by the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, makes it lawful to employ them so long as there are no equally suitable British subjects. I will try to explain why to the noble Lord, because I have not the slightest desire not to give him a candid answer. It is difficult for this reason, that it is easy to find out in how many cases consent to employment has been given, but unless you go through and check up each person and see whether he or she is still

61
employed, you cannot say how many are still employed. I can say that the number is 160, but that includes enemy, neutral or stateless aliens who have been employed with Treasury consent. Without finding out what is the life history of each of the 160, it follows that I cannot tell him whether all the 160 are still so employed. He will realize that it is not only Germans, but also neutral or stateless persons. Whether any of them are now left I do not know. He asked why unnaturalized Germans apparently in increasing numbers are employed in Government Departments. As far as I know, that is not so. I have no figures which make me think they are being employed in increasing numbers, but I do not know on what figures the noble Lord is relying.
LORD AILWYN: I read the figures to the noble and learned Lord, 60 in January, 1945, 80 in May, 1945, and 97 to-day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Those are only people for whom consent has been given. Of course if you are going to carry on like that, each date you mention must be a larger number, but it does not in the least follow there are a larger number employed, and so far as we can trace it is probably not true to say that the number employed is larger. May I add this? In spite of demobilization, in certain branches it is so extremely difficult to obtain any helpers that I should be thankful to have some Germans. Take, for instance, the Services divorce scheme. The whole of the Services divorce scheme is being held up because I cannot obtain sufficient typists.
The next question was: "What check is there on Germans in this country changing their names to British ones?" Under Defence Regulation 20 (1) it is an offence for any alien to change his name without the authorization of the Secretary of State. Consent was given occasionally during the war to aliens who were serving in order that they might conceal their real identity, so that if they did fall into enemy hands they would not be penalized. Subject to that, consent has been given only in a very few cases. If an alien has become naturalized, however, then as I read the British Nationality Act of 1914, he has all the rights of a British subject and can change his name just as much as any of us can change our names.
62
Another question was "Why are naturalized British subjects admitted to permanent employment in the British Civil Service when there must be a sufficient number of British subjects available?" Well, there is not a sufficient number of British subjects available in many classes and many types of work. The Nationality Regulations were revised in 1944 because it was felt that this was carrying out the principle of the Act of 1914, which said that once naturalized you are a British subject for all purposes. In the case of the Service Departments and the Foreign Office the special permission of the Head of the Department has to be obtained before a naturalized British subject can be appointed, but with regard to the other Departments a person who has been naturalized is eligible to enter the Service.
I was asked that we should take very great care that Germans and other aliens were not allowed to compete with British subjects in the labour market. May I give the noble Lord this word of warning, which I am sure he does not need? It should not be thought, as some people used to think before this war, that the labour market is a limited thing, that there are only a certain number of jobs available, and if one alien comes in and takes a job then there is one job less for a British subject. The long and short of the matter was stated by Viscount Swinton. I believe myself that we shall get the best reparations from Germany by trying to imbibe some of the German technical skill and knowledge, and therefore I am glad we are going to have 300 or 400 highly skilled Germans over here. I am willing to risk their being Nazis—and I think they probably are—so long as they are highly skilled technicians who will teach our people something which they did not previously know. They may, like the Huguenots of old, be worth their weight in gold. I do want to say that if an alien comes and contributes by production more than he consumes, he does not diminish the demand for labour, he positively increases it.
I will give the noble Lord this assurance. If it is a question of there being a British subject and a German competing for the job, both being equally suitable, I will give him the most absolute guarantee which the law requires that in such circumstances the British subject should be employed. I hope the noble Lord

63
will rest satisfied that we are not going to allow our subjects in this country to be preferred to an undesirable alien. I think, to the best of my recollection, I have dealt with the various questions that I can remember, and I hope I have been able to satisfy your Lordships.
5.45 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, the time is getting short and there are four Motions to follow this. As I have caused a good deal of trouble, perhaps I may be absolved from entering into what arose between the two noble Lords who followed me, particularly as the points they raised were slightly aside from those on my Motion. Of course if I am asked to adjudge, as Lord Ailwyn suggested, between a good memory and a bad one, there is no doubt where my money would go. But I would like to remind the House in that matter of the saying of the famous French epigrammatist, La Rochefoucauld, when he remarked that every-one complains of their memory and no one of their judgment. Some time ago, in a book called Black Record, I was indiscreet enough to quote Tacitus and it took me an awfully long time to live that down. I should be reluctant to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, right back into Greek mythology because I am sure I should never hear the last of that.
I was very grateful for the support given to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I can assure him that I do not wish to introduce any cumbersome regulations or red tape, but I ask for consideration of quite a small number of points and quite simple ones. I could not agree with him more when he says—I do not think he used quite these words but something very near it—that these matters should be handled with and by Intelligence. That is the essence of the whole thing. I also listened with approval to what the noble Lord said on the dangers of respectability. Perhaps we should all endeavour to avoid anything so suspect. I am afraid I did not get very much change out of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He said that he turned down, after mature consideration—and everything I know is always turned after mature consideration—the idea that matters of naturalization should be handled by an Inter-Departmental Committee. I suppose I must take your word that it is the better sys-
64
tem, but I still prefer my own, not unnaturally.
On the matter of registering or declaring subsidies from abroad, I think I got even less encouragement. He was good enough to say that on this matter we were at least on a footing of equality. I hotly disclaim that; he was right up there and I was down here; that cock will not fight either. I am exceedingly sorry to hear that. Finally, coming to what I propose in the matter of legislation to meet subversive action in this country, he used the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. They both said that legislation to that effect already existed, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was even good enough to read it out to me. That reminds me of a famous passage that took place between Mr. Owen Seaman, one-time editor of Punch, and Sir Max Beerbohm. Sir Max Beerbohm said: "You have the nicest job in the world." He said: "I know I have." "You must get an awful lot of good material as editor of Punch." "I do." "Why don't you use it?" asked Sir Max Beerbohm!
I would only add one comment to what I said then, and that is that the passage quoted by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did not cover part of my submission, which was that there should be penalties for trying to subvert the Constitution of this country on totalitarian lines. I am sure that no such provision appears in the tome from which he read because totalitarianism did not exist when that was drawn up. Therefore, while I am not really quite satisfied with the reception that my Motion has received, I hope at least it will have done something to stimulate interest in these matters. As I said at the end of my speech, I have reserved to myself the right to revert to the subject if I think I find that our present method, or lack of method, is not giving the best results. With these remarks, therefore, my Lords, and still with my eye on the clock, I shall beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

IMPORTATION OF TOMATOES.
LORD SEMPILLhad the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government why licences to import Canary Islands tomatoes are still

65
withheld; to draw attention to the fact that all sections of the British fruit and vegetable trade are willing to take the sole risk of importing on the Canary Islands authorities' terms the 25,000 tons awaiting shipment to Britain, for which they were specially grown; that many tons are rotting away as a result of the present inaction; that the trade is willing to accept these terms as a precedent for the importation of Colonial and Continental products; that great hardship is caused by the refusal to deal equitably with importers without selling premises, and that as a consequence quantities of fruit and vegetables may be denied the British public; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, much has happened since several weeks ago the Motion now before your Lordships was set down on the Order Paper. There has been considerable agitation on the "tomato front." The first part of the Motion that I have the honour to submit deals with licences to import tomatoes and arrangements as between importers and exporters. Your Lordships will have seen that on February 27th the Minister of Food announced that licences to import tomatoes from the Canary Islands were to be granted, and your Lordships, too, will have noted with considerable satisfaction that the first cargo of tomatoes is on the high seas and will arrive at one of the ports in England this week. So far so good, my Lords. But why this long delay in bringing so essential a food as the tomato to our table? What has happened to the bulk of this season's crop which we used to consume between the months of November and April or May in pre-war years? Where are the tomatoes that were grown during this season that is now moving rapidly to a close? The importance of any matter that relates to food cannot, I suggest, he overstressed, and in particular is this so with tomatoes since there has been a failure to secure this valuable commodity that was grown in the Canary Islands for the British Market.
May I remind you that the Minister of Food very properly encouraged this affair and indicated to growers in the Canary Islands on July 31 last that importation would be arranged for commencing from November of last year. A month before that date and many months before the present season opened I drew the atten-
66
tion of my noble friend Lord Llewellin (then the Minister of Food) to the tomato potential, in which he expressed a very keen interest and gave instructions that the matter should be fully considered and asked me to lodge with the Ministry all the information that I had. Such, my Lords, was done and, as your Lordships know, licence have been granted an the first cargo of tomatoes is coming along. How vital is the need for such a food? Had it been possible, my noble friend Lord Harder would have been here to stress the dietetic side of this question, but the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, will deal rather fully with this side of which they have made a special study. Your Lordships will, I think, remember that. Dr. Franklin Bicknell said quite recently:
"At the end of six years of permanent malnutrition the situation is getting worse daily. The housewife is suffering more and more from malnutrition, with all its attendant symptoms of bad temper, inefficiency and strain."
It has been emphasized in previous debates in your Lordships' House that the unbalance that is now so much a feature of all affairs to-day must be attributed to a large extent to a diet which is deficient in the essential vitamins, in calcium and other essentials. Dr. Elizabeth Gourley, the Medical Officer of the L.C.C. said quite recently:
"We have never had so many multiple boils, sores, rashes and scurvy patches, caused by the lack of vitamins C and D contained in fruit and fats respectively, and the lack of calcium. With regard to vitamin C we have been reduced to almost 18th century plight."
The Minister of Food was good enough to write to me at the end of February, some hours before leaving for the United States, and suggested that, since he had arranged to re-issue licences to import Canary Islands tomatoes, perhaps the Motion might be withdrawn. I greatly appreciate the Minister's letter. In the letter the Minister pointed out that it was his duty to take the greatest care to see that perishables like tomatoes were shipped in such fashion that they arrived as near as possible undamaged and that they were bought "upon terms which will take from us as little as possible of our limited stock of foreign currency." The Minister also said that he had hoped to get better terms for the purchase of Canary Island tomatoes, but in order to

67
avoid a further delay he had decided to accept the new terms and let the tomatoes come in.
No mention was made in the Minister's letter in regard to the last part of the Motion before your Lordships touching the hardship that will be caused to the importers without selling premises as a result of the Order of October, 1945, which altered the Emergency Powers Order of April 7, 1941, which merely confirmed the existing practice known as the A. B. C. D.—exporter, importer, wholesaler and retailer—and introduced a new figure into this cycle in the person of the first-hand salesman. Since the Minister was on his way to the United States when I received his letter, I wrote at some length to the Parliamentary Secretary, pointing out this omission. The honourable member, Dr. Edith Summerskill, wrote on March 7, and said that she was causing inquiries to be made about the matters I had raised, and would let me know. Perhaps at the termination of this debate we shall hear from the noble Lord replying for His Majesty's Government the result of these deliberations. Your Lordships will be well aware of the keen interest which Dr. Summer-skill takes in such matters. Recently she said:
"I know that one of the finest ways of rehabilitating a country is feeding the people plentifully and well. We are not withholding anything from you."
So we may infer that the Parliamentary Secretary is in full sympathy with the idea of importing without delay the maximum amount of tomatoes.
The Minister in his letter said he wanted to be sure the best terms were obtained. The Ministry of Food announced on July 31 last that the importation of tomatoes from the Canary Islands would be resumed when the season started, on November 1, and continued until the middle of May. Nothing further, however, was heard from the Ministry until the middle of December, when the Minister, in a statement to the Press, stressed the desirability of obtaining tomatoes without delay. In those days there surely can be no doubt at all that terms were not only actively under consideration by the Ministry but under discussion with the exporters and the importers.
The terms on which tomatoes are being imported were fixed between the respect-
68
tive Governments in December of last year, and yet we see no tomatoes until the end of March, nearly the end of the season. The importers have been successful in persuading the exporters to give them terms which are more advantageous than of old. The terms now in force do not call on the importers, as did the terms before the war, to pay 100 per cent. f.o.b. Las Palmas or Teneriffe, but 85 per cent., the remaining 15 per cent. or a portion thereof being dependent on damage to the cargo and being assessed at the port of unloading in England. The introduction of the middleman, who receives a 5 per cent. commission, plus 6d. a packet, weighing approximately 25 lbs., is really not necessary, since the A. B. C. D. arrangement already referred to will now the war is over work very well. So why disturb it? My noble friend Lord Woolton, who has unique experience in these matters, may, I hope, feel disposed to say a word or two on this question, because he knows only too well that the result of the introduction of this firsthand salesman is to cause delay and increase the price to the consumer. It is ridiculous to suggest that whatever may have been found desirable in time of war, when the Government was the sole purchaser but had no distribution organization, should apply to the circumstances of to-day.
The present arrangement reacts most unfairly, as I said before, on the bulk of the importers, who in the past have borne their share of the heat and burden of the day. The bulk of them have not got selling premises, since they have been accustomed to make adequate arrangements with the wholesalers so that there was a minimum of delay and also the minimum of cost involved in the goods reaching the retailer. The present situation favours such few importers as there are who have selling premises and enables them not only to secure the fair profit that falls to the importer and to the wholesaler, but in addition an extra profit, a third profit, that is now to be paid to the newly introduced first-hand salesman. This arrangement is not one which is required. It adds to the price the consumer has to pay.
The Ministry have not seen to it that their actions kept pace with their words. Your Lordships will remember that they have stressed time and time again the

69
need for the obtaining of tomatoes, and have encouraged the Canary Islands tomato growers, but their lack of planning has been so outstanding that without exaggeration 35,000 to 40,000 tons of this season's tomatoes have been lost to this country. Just consider the fact that the Ministry in November had four ships in the Canary Islands, two at Las Palmas, and two at Teneriffe, and these ships were sent for the sole purpose of bringing back cargoes of tomatoes. There they lay for three or four weeks, and they came away empty. There was no lack of tomatoes—the ships could have been filled—but there was a complete absence of planning. There can be no doubt at all that the terms which could have been negotiated at that time with the exporters would have varied very little from the terms which are now in force, which, as I reminded your Lordships, were fixed in December last year.
Surely it is small wonder that the Prime Minister of Australia, speaking in the House of Representatives a few days ago, relative to food for Britain, said according to The Times report:
"The difficulty all along has been to know just what is wanted. There has been so much vagueness, and such a mass of official contradiction, that incalculable opportunities have been lost already, and the latest statement from the Ministry of Food does little to clear the air."
I beg to move for Papers.
6.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sempill, who has just delivered to us a most interesting and informative speech, in regard to the shipment of tomatoes from the Canaries, has asked me to say a word in support of the appeal which he has made. So far as the dietetic value of tomatoes is concerned, this is, of course, beyond dispute. Not only is the tomato of high feeding value, but of course its therapeutic value is probably greater, with the possible exception of onions, than any fruit or vegetable we raise in this or any other country. I know nothing whatever about the trade conditions under which this importation was contemplated, but I venture to say, in the light of what the noble Lord has just said, that if there were actually ships in the harbours of the Canaries waiting with a view to shipping large quantities of tomatoes, lying there in the wharves, ready for shipment to this country, and which eventually sailed away with empty
70
ships' bottoms, in the face of the present appalling shortage of food it is surely nothing short of a crime that these tomatoes should not have been carried to Great Britain or some other part of starving Europe.
I am reminded of an instance which perhaps my noble friend Lord Woolton will remember when, as Chairman of the Empire Canners' Council, then concerned in the shipment of various canned foods, particularly fruit and fish and some vegetables from our various Dominions, some three years ago, I went with a deputation from the Empire Canners' Council to meet Lord Woolton and drew attention to the fact that there were large quantities of canned fruits and, fish and jam awaiting shipment from South Africa and that ships were actually leaving the ports with little or no cargo bemuse the consignors of other commodities had not sent these commodities in time before the departure of those ships. To our very great delight he gave a very emphatic order that that sort of thing must never occur again during the war, but that those who had valuable food cargoes that they were able to ship should be entitled with his authority to ship these foods from those South African ports. Surely something of the same sort ought to have happened with regard to these tomatoes awaiting shipment from the Canary Islands.
I would only add in conclusion that I do venture to hope that the Minister of Food, in the face of the prospective shortage of foods of high nutrition value, will make a special appeal to grow such vegetables as tomatoes and onions in our gardens and allotments to the utmost capacity during the next two years. Given a favourable season (in 1941, 1942, and 1943 we had the most remarkable ripening conditions for tomatoes all over this country) we might as a result of such an appeal very substantially augment our own production of this very valuable vegetable, to the increase of our food and to the enhancement of our national health.
6.12 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, earlier in the afternoon on my noble friend Lord Vansittart's Motion we were discussing one aspect of security, and now on my noble friend Lord Sempill's Motion we are discussing another security question, for tomatoes are a valuable protec-

71
tion to human health. In view of the lateness of the hour I shall confine myself to the role assigned to me by the noble Lord who has raised this question, but I cannot pretend to understudy for Lord Horder who is a much greater expert than I. I will deal with the question not fully but as briefly as I can. I turn to the excellent Manual of Nutrition which was published by the Ministry of Food in 1945, and there I find that a proper supply of all vitamins is necessary for an adequate diet. They give three. The first is Vitamin A, which is found in dairy produce and eggs and in vegetable foods. Among vegetable foods are tomatoes which with 288 international units per ounce come fifth in the vegetable list. Next comes Vitamin B. I need not say much about that because I believe we are quite secure in Vitamin B since the Government had the wisdom during my absence in foreign parts to return to the 85 per cent. bread.
LORD WOOLTON: It was not wisdom. It was a matter of compulsion.
LORD HANKEY: If I am in order, I should like to congratulate the Government on that action. My only regret is that they did not seize the opportunity to spread the good news to our countrymen that they were at any rate going to receive a much more wholesome bread. The third vitamin mentioned was Vitamin C, and that occurs mainly in fruit and vegetables including the tomato which, with seven milligrammes per ounce is tenth in the fruit and vegetable list. According to the same authority, if insufficient Vitamin C is provided, the growth of children will be checked, the gums and mouth will become susceptible to infection (our old friend the question of teeth), the healing of wounds and fractures becomes slower, and in the last resort the final result is the appearance of scurvy. Vitamin C is on the whole, I understand, the hardest of the three to obtain in sufficient quantities. We need every scrap of Vitamin C that we can get. Some of the best sources of it like oranges, grapefruit and lemons are always in rather short supply. Some others like black currants, which is the best of all, are seasonal, and they usually have to be reserved for children, so that that makes the question of tomatoes all the more important. There is one other reason
72
why tomatoes are so important Unfortunately Vitamin C is easily destroyed by cooking, but tomatoes are one of the fruits which most people are quite ready to eat in a raw state, so that you can get away easily from that disadvantage. Also it is an extremely popular form of food.
From these remarks it will be seen how important it is to keep open any source of tomatoes that exists, particularly at this time of the year when Vitamin C is short. That is why the alleged delay in granting licences in the Canary Islands is peculiarly regrettable. I recognize for my part that food control is unavoidable at present and likely to remain so for some time to come. It must obviously be very difficult for the Ministry to keep in touch with all the vagaries of the markets of so many essential foodstuffs. The only safe rule seems to be to work as much as possible through the ordinary trade channels. I do not pretend to know the intricacies of this particular trade, but I understand from my noble friend that this rule has been neglected in the case of tomatoes, and that one important element in the machinery, namely, the "pure" importers who were responsible for the importation of the majority of the Canary Islands tomatoes in normal times, were excluded from acting as first-hand salesmen by this Order which was issued in October, which created a new firsthand salesman and gave him great advantages, but resulted in a failure to get the food to the markets. Whatever is said about this in the past, I do hope that we shall receive adequate assurances from the Front Bench about the future so as to ensure that nothing of the kind takes place in the case of any of the produce containing Vitamin C that will be coming forward in the countries adjacent to our islands.
6.9 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? We have had a marvellous investigation into the value of tomatoes this afternoon. I am looking forward with very great pleasure to the time when once again I may be able to eat one. But that is not what I thought we were going to discuss. I thought we were going to discuss this Motion which on the whole seems to me to deal with something other than the value of tomatoes. I think we can take the value of tomatoes for granted. I support everything

73
that the noble Lord who has just spoken has said as to their value from a health point of view. We like them, too—which is important. I could not form a judgment on this issue without foreknowledge, and that I am sure we shall gain from the noble Lord who will reply. I should just like to say this, however. During the period of the war, when exchange was difficult, when shipping was difficult, when we really could place no reliance on the ordinary channels of distribution being in existence, it was necessary for the Government to determine things. I hope the time will come—and I am sure noble Lords on the other side would take this view, too, certainly regarding perishable things like tomatoes—when we shall abandon that machinery.
We did get very ample supplies of tomatoes before the war. They were brought in at the risk of people in this country who, for the most part, put their money into the concerns of the growers and of the planters overseas. Sometimes the risk was not a good one. But, as a result of taking the risk, they certainly brought a very large number of tomatoes to this country. I wonder whether His Majesty's Government and the Minister do not consider that the time has come when we need not bother so much about an orderly marketing of tomatoes, a precise definition of "first salesman," "second salesman" "and" "importer," but that it should be left to the trade, putting on a ceiling price so that the public cannot, in a time of scarcity, be robbed. I think this may be one of the places in which Government regulation might be cut down a little. I would beg the Minister not to let regulation interfere with us getting the food, and it looks in this case as though it has done so. That is all I wish to contribute to this debate.
6.23 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord who has just spoken for his statement, which has helped me somewhat. As to the remarks made by the noble Lord who preceded him regarding dietetic value and that sort of thing, I do not propose to follow them at any length. We concede all that right away, but it is hardly indicated in the Motion on the Paper. I make only one aside of my own. While not disputing at all Lord Hankey's pronouncement as
74
to the great advantage of 85 per cent. wheat in the bread, I, for one, do not like it; therefore it seems to me that discounts all the dietetic value so far as I am concerned, and I imagine there are a good many more who look at it from the same point of view.
Turning to the Motion on the Paper, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, who opened this debate, must not have been completely in touch with the circumstances and the conditions obtaining in this particular trade. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, remarked that he hoped we would entirely abandon the machinery. To a large extent one would agree with that. He said, "Leave it to the trade," but he himself set out with the idea—and I am sure he would not desire to depart from it—that the one thing we wanted to do was to preserve the trade, and that those agencies which operated legitimately before in handling the trade should be kept in being. He knows there were a large number of people concerned with it who were not actually the owners, nor did they at any time handle or touch the produce. They were commission agents. They had no premises on this side. It was felt that that should not continue during the period of the war and the period of stringency which now exists. The Ministry have always maintained that position having regard to the limited supplies, as it would add very considerably to costs, to say nothing of the difficulties.
Now there is no lack whatever of adequate machinery, proper to the trade, for the distribution of tomatoes as and when they arrive in this country. The difficulty arises largely before then. Lord Sempill was not quite right when he said, for instance, that the payment of eighty-five per cent, was laid clown, fifteen per cent. being left to cover losses, damage, etc. That is not at all an accurate description of the position. The Spanish Government decreed that tomatoes should be sold at a firm price—that is to say, that without any regard whatever to selling price here there should be an agreement made with, them by the person directly dealing with them, at a fixed price from which there should be no departure. They decreed, too, that eighty-five per cent. of the cost should be paid on shipment.
I may mention, by the way, that the traders at first refused to handle the

75
shipments on those conditions, and the import licences were withdrawn. After some discussion, there was a slight reduction obtained to the extent of 5 per cent., and the traders picked up the matter again. It is found, however, that in trades dealt with like this, particularly those dealt with through the Spanish Government who are mostly concerned, most of the goods are severely damaged, to the extent, sometimes, of as much as 50 per cent. of the whole commitment. The produce is more particularly open to that damage when it is sold in this manner, where there are no people dealing with it in a proper manner and where the exporters are not responsible for the goods until sold. That is one of the things which has to be borne in mind when one is considering this matter.
LORD WOOLTON: If it does not embarrass the noble Lord, may I ask if it is true, then, that the Spanish Government insist on a flat price regardless of the qualities?
LORD AMMON: That is the difficulty which I am trying to impress upon the House. The Spanish Government themselves have decreed the price. Therefore we, on this side, have had to have regard to our sterling and the dollar exchange, and we cannot accept what really amounts to almost a kind of blackmail: "Either you have got to have them at our price or you do not have them at all. What is more, you not only have them like that, but you have them under the conditions under which we choose to send them, without your having any word in it."
That is the difficulty in which we find ourselves. Although the Ministry of Food are anxious to get as much food as possible into this country, they do not intend to do so on any terms foreign exporters may try to extort. They have laid down rules for ensuring, as far as possible, that the proportion of waste is low, and for limiting the expediture of foreign currency what is absolutely necessary. It is quite true, as has been said by two noble Lords, that ships did lie in port empty, waiting for cargo, and that our Government had secured space in those ships, but, to use a colloquialism, the Spanish Government grew tough and put up the price. The British Government refused to submit to that, but after nego-
76
tiation, knowing the need for foodstuffs in this country, particularly of the dietetic value of tomatoes, they had to give way. They secured a concession to the extent of five per cent. of the amount to be paid before shipment. Still, they were pretty harshly treated. That is all that lies behind the whole business in this particular connexion.
So far as the distributors are concerned, the Government have followed all along the line that has been laid down. From the beginning it has been the policy of successive Ministers of Food to distribute through the existing channels of trade. Nobody would know better than the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, that probably there is a bigger margin in the vegetable and fruit trade than in any other trade, and therefore they have to take steps to keep it within proper and reasonable limits, which also has a tremendous effect on price. There is nothing to hide; the Government are willing and anxious to buy everything they possibly can at reasonable prices in the ordinary way, but they refuse to be held to ransom in this particular manner, particularly as they have no guarantee under the conditions that have prevailed hitherto that, even at the increased price that is demanded from them, they are going to get food which will be quite fit for consumption. That, I submit, is the answer.
6.32 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, time is getting on, and your Lordships have other things to do this afternoon, so I will not detain you more than one minute. I thank the noble Lord for his interesting reply. I am sorry that he has not time to deal with this question of the normal procedure, and the doing away with this recently injected first-hand salesman. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lords who have supported me in this matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MISSION TO INDIA.
6.33 p.m.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is the intention of the Government, following the precedent set in the case of the Cripps' Mission, to make public the Cabinet instructions under which the new Mission

77
of Three will operate, before that Mission enters upon its task in India. The noble Lord had also given notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether their present policy with regard to India abrogates the provisions of the Declaration of March 30, 1942, in respect of relations with the Indian States and the protection of minorities. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the two questions which stand in my name, and which are complementary to each other, I have no wish whatever to enter into the many complications and controversies which at present affect and afflict the various peoples of the Indian sub-continent, but I do think that we ought to get some clearer idea of what the Government have in mind at the present juncture.
We know that a Commission of three Cabinet Ministers is about Ito go to India. This is not the first Commission. The first Commission in 1942 was composed solely of one of the three Ministers who form the Commission now. The former Commission announced a bold and clear policy which was expressed in a declaration by the then Prime Minister before the Commissioner, Sir Stafford Cripps, set out, and which was amplified in a White Paper published when the Commissioner had been some time in India, but when he had not fulfilled his Mission and had not finally got answers from those with whom he had to deal. The method which the White Paper of April, 1942, disclosed was that there should be created an elected constituent body. It is unnecessary to go into the details although I have them before me if they are required. That was the main idea.
When that body had been created, it was intended that it should enter into a treaty with the British Government in order to bring about, as far as that is possible, a final and agreed settlement. But the Commissioner was not given in negotiating, or in preparing the ground for the negotiation of that treaty, an unlimited discretion. Three conditions were imposed upon him: first of all, that no Province of British India should be obliged to come into the arrangement for a Central Government against its will; secondly, that no Indian State should be required to do so; and thirdly, that racial and religious minorities should be protected. That basis of the constituent body has been changed, and now all we know is that the Government propose to
78
act on a basis not yet specified and only on certain, so far as we know, conversations with unspecified parties. That is a big change, but I do not wish to comment on whether the Government are right or wrong. What I wish to know is whether there are any other changes. It is necessary to observe that the conditions I have mentioned were overriding conditions: they did not depend in any way on what the views of the proposed constituent body, when it was constituted, would be; they were absolute conditions of any treaty that might be agreed upon. Those same conditions. I may remark, were at any rate implicitly endorsed by the present Viceroy and the present Prime Minister in their declaration of September 19 of this year.
The question as to the minorities is specially important. There is a very mistaken impression, not in this House but in the country generally—you see it continually expressed in articles and letters to the newspapers--that you have only to reconcile the Hindu and the Mahomedan and all will be well. That is very far from being the case, and that, I think, is admitted in the declaration of the former Prime Minister in 1942. In particular, official statistics are somewhat misleading. If you will refer to Whitaker's Almanac, you will find the Hindus number 254,000,000, but from that you have to deduct the numbers of the Depressed Classes. You cannot regard the Hindus as in any sense a body united in their views. There are apparently not published the numbers of the Depressed Classes. From all the information I can obtain, there cannot be fewer than 50,000,000 and they might approach to 60,000,000. That, of course, makes a very large deduction from the 254,000,000 that I have mentioned. I think I ought to add that no body expressed views adverse to the proposals of 1942 more strongly than the Depressed Classes through the mouth of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, whose acquaintance I made on the Joint Select Committee. He impressed me as being a man whose education and ability were quite equal to those of any other of the Indian delegates. In a letter to Sir Stafford Cripps from Dr. Ambedkar and Mr. M. C. Rajah, the following passage occurred:
"We are all of us absolutely convinced that the proposals are calculated to do the greatest harm to the Depressed Classes, and are sure

79
to place them under an unmitigated system of Hindu rule."
Dr. Ambedkar actually referred to others as Hindus. He does not apparently claim the name of Hindu for himself. The letter went on:
"Any such result which takes us back to the black days of the ancient past will never be tolerated by us, and we are all determined to resist any such catastrophe befalling our people with all the means at our command."
Considering their numbers and their views, I feel that their position, in any arrangement that is made, must be borne in mind.
Then I might say something about the Mahasabha. They are militant Hindus, but they are very far from acknowledging the organization of Congress as necessarily to be obeyed. But I do not want to dwell on the question of numbers. Any minority has a right to be protected. All minorities have rights, and there are others, besides those I have mentioned, which are not to be ignored. There are between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 Christians, some 6,000,000 Sikhs, and a smaller number of Jains—about 1,500,000. The aboriginal tribes, I understand, amount in the aggregate, although they are by no means homogeneous, to some 25,000,000 people. Then, of course, there is the very small but very important minority of Parsees, and a still smaller minority of Jews.
In considering this question of numbers, I would remark that there are four substantial countries in Western Europe which have populations under 10,000,000—Holland, Switzerland, Belgium and Portugal. So, when you come to bodies of 6,000,000 and 7,000,000, they are far more important than they look if you compare them with European standards. What I want to ask is does the declaration as to minorities still hold good? I do not ask for a moment by what methods the Government may think that they can secure their protection. Personally, I would say no more than that I do not see how any plan can give them adequate protection which does not provide for reserve powers and a completely independent Supreme Court. But I do not ask the Government to argue these matters at all. I do, however, ask two questions—first of all, whether the assurances of 1942 still hold good; and, secondly, whether they will not, before the Commissioners
80
enter on their work, vouchsafe some clearer indication of the principles upon which they are to act.
6.46 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE): My Lords, I propose to answer the questions as they appear on the Order Paper. My answer to the first question put by the noble Lord is this. The present policy of His Majesty's Government is to initiate discussions with the representatives of British India and of the Indian States with a view to securing the quickest and best method and procedure for framing a new constitutional structure for India. While therefore the principles underlying the 1942 Declaration relating to the Indian States and the protection of minorities remain, the precise application of them is necessarily subject to modification in the light of these discussions.
With regard to the second question asked by the noble Lord, it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to make public the Cabinet's instructions nor indeed would this be in accordance with precedent. I would point out to the noble Lord that the Draft Declaration of 1942 was not published until after Sir Stafford Cripps had discussed it with the Indian leaders, and in any case it was not the Cabinet's instructions to him but the terms of the offer which he was authorized to make which were published.
6.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I can fully appreciate the difficulties which the Secretary of State for India and Burma feels must restrain him from disclosing details of a negotiation that has not yet begun. Those of us here who wish to see his Mission, and the Mission of his colleagues succeed do not desire to say anything that is calculated to compromise them. At the same time, I do feel that, although Lord Pethick-Lawrence may be on strong ground in saying that the Cabinet instructions should not be disclosed, it would be wise to take the Opposition more into his confidence in matters of this kind than seems to be done at present. Let me remind him that at every recent stage in the constitutional development of India we have always tried to advance upon an all-Party front. The Mission presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was composed of representatives of all three Parties.

81
Round Table Conferences, in which I took part for several years, and the Joint Select Committee were also all-Party concerns. As one who is very anxious to see that this final chapter, as we believe it to be, in our relations with India, as they have hitherto obtained, should also be an all-Party settlement, I do not wish to embarrass him to-day or to press him for, specific details, but I would ask him to take these facts into consideration. I would also ask him to remember what happened at the end of the last war in the matter of the Irish settlement. I want to see this final Indian chapter as unlike the final Irish chapter as we can possible make it.
I feel it would be disastrous that here we should be kept in the dark until the last moment, and then suddenly wake up, as we woke up then, to find that a settlement had been signed, sealed and delivered in the middle of the night without anybody knowing anything about it at all. I say that not because I wish to put difficulties in the way of this last chapter, but because I wish to see this settlement of all Parties brought about. I also say it for this further reason. Having had many years of experience in dealing with these terribly difficult constitutional problems in India, I do want to see the detailed propositions before they are actually accepted. My experience in dealing with these questions is that the only way to confront them is to confront the details. These generalities, the protection of minorities, the rights of Princes, and so on, can mean everything or nothing. It is very important that we should see the precise proposals and judge them upon their merits. I have therefore risen for this sole purpose, to remind the noble Lord opposite that hitherto these Indian developments have always been, so far as we could make them, upon all-Party lines. I suggest it would be wise to follow that example in the present case.

DEBTS OF EX-ENEMIES.
6.53 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON LORD WOOLTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to recover debts owed to British subjects by countries with which we have recently been at war. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this question on the Paper because I want to
82
draw the attention of the Government to the position of people who own sterling bonds issued or guaranteed by foreign Governments or States. I do not propose to deal at all with the ordinary commercial debts that may have been incurred between British nationals and people trading in ex-enemy countries. The size of the issue which is involved is one that I am told by the Society of Foreign Bond Holders, who have the information, amounts to the sum of no less than £750,000,000 worth of capital. I would occupy your Lordships' time just for a moment by drawing your attention to the way in which these loans came about. They were loans to foreign Powers, but to foreign Powers with whom we had, at the time at which the loan was made, alliances or, at any rate, with whom we were obviously on terms of friendly relations. There was no question here of speculative gambling. Often the loans received the encouragement of high authorities. Some of them you remember were encouraged by the League of Nations, and several of these loans were in fact made at the time when the Labour Government was in office. These loans gave great encouragement to international trade; they were of great value to us as a nation—they were issued here because London was the financial centre of the world—and they brought, of course, credit and profit to us. I hope that the Government, who are hearing much, I believe, of this story, will not think that this is just another instance of big business coming along and asking what the Government is going to do to protect it. I know the Government is most anxious to protect big business.
I am not going to try and make your Lordships' hearts bleed at five minutes to seven at night, but these loans are for the most part held in very small denominations, the average holding being only £500. So we are dealing with the population of the country quite widely and not with any particular class, although I must admit this, that the insurance companies have quite large holdings in these bonds. The reason for that is that they are now an essential part of their trade, because it has become quite common in recent years for foreign Governments to say to British insurance companies who are proposing to develop in foreign countries: "If you do that, then you must have a deposit in this country of our bonds," and

83
that is the reason why the insurance companies are quite considerable holders of these loans.
I have not raised this question in the interests of the insurance companies, but because so many of the quite ordinary people of the country hold these bonds and they are wondering what is going to happen to them. They entered into these obligations with these foreign Governments and friendly Powers in all good faith that their interest would be paid, their good bond would be met, and in the long run their capital would be returned to them. I think it is not unusual that we should expect the Government to take every step which it is within their power to take to protect the rights of these citizens. Precisely what they can do I am not in a position to say, but I hope perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us.
There is one thing I am quite clear about and that is that this issue should be raised in the Peace Treaties that are subsequently to be negotiated. I will not detain your Lordships longer, but I think this is a matter of justice, and I think it is also very considerably a matter of expediency. We are a trading nation. International trade is of the greatest importance to us. Loans to foreign Powers from this country have been a great source of trade and wealth to us in the past, and they will be again in the future when once again we have restored our holdings and are in a position to export capital. Of course, every time you have default you reduce the tendency of people in this country, the willingness of people in this country, to invest their money abroad, and that in the end may prove to be of some detriment to our trade. I should be glad if the Government could give us some assurance that they are taking this matter seriously, and that they will take such steps as lie within their power to protect the people of this country from loss and to see that obligations by foreign Powers to British citizens are honoured.
6.59 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity of making a fairly full statement on this matter, which is undoubtedly one of considerable public interest. The noble Lord will forgive me
84
if I confine myself in my reply to debts owed to British subjects by countries with whom we have recently been at war, because that is the only really proper issue dealt with in his speech to which his question actually refers. He has talked in a most interesting way about the £750,000,000 which is owed us by various countries, but it is reckoned that much smaller sums are due from the ex-enemy countries, some £90,000,000 owing from Germany, at a rough computation, and perhaps £14,000,000 from Egypt.
There were, of course, considerable claims by persons in the United Kingdom and in other United Nations against the enemy countries in respect of contractual obligations entered into before the war. They may be described broadly as contract debts (including trade debts), bank balances, dividends and interest, business profits, payments out of trusts and settlements, patents and copyright royalties, rents, and also the capital of securities, loans and mortgages which had matured before the war. The policy of His Majesty's Government will be to secure a settlement of these pre-war claims on such terms as circumstances permit; that is, with proper regard to other competing claims such as restitution, reparations, costs of occupation and relief; but there is little reason to hope that (except in the case of Finland and in the case of Siam) the foreign exchange earnings of the countries available for the purpose will be sufficient to warrant a belief that a settlement will be effected easily and rapidly. The deterioration in the economies of the enemy countries, let alone their past history, makes it obvious that few if any of the countries concerned will be in a position for some years to effect substantial transfers in satisfaction of United Nations pre-war claims.
After the last war the recovery of debts owing to British subjects or residents in the United Kingdom by ex-enemy countries was dealt with in the various Peace Treaties. Under the arrangements made in these Treaties, enemy property in the United Kingdom was liquidated and the proceeds of liquidation provided the principal means by which pre-war debts were recovered. The situation at present is different from what it was after the last war, since, in most cases, the enemy property under our control will amount to a great deal less than the debts due to us.

85
There is the further complication that there is not any early prospects of a Treaty with Germany or with Japan. Treaties with Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania are being discussed at the present time by the Deputy Foreign Ministers, with a view to a Peace Conference in Paris in May. The discussions have not, however, yet reached the stage at which it is possible to forecast what provision (if any) will be made in regard to recovery of pre-war debts.
In the case of Germany a Reparations Agreement was signed at Paris on December 21 last by the eighteen countries entitled to reparation from the Western Zones of Germany under the Potsdam Agreement. Article 6A of this Repara-Agreement provides that each Signatory Government shall liquidate German assets within its control and shall charge such assets against its reparation share. It remains, however, to be decided how the question of recovery of pre-war debts owed by Germany is to be dealt with. The Government have received representations from representatives of the bondholders on the question of ex-enemy bonds, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, as your Lordships will recall, on March 6 that he intended to meet representatives of the interested parties shortly. The Govern also, of course, have fully in mind the question of pre-war trade debts from enemy countries. But at the present stage, for the reasons explained in the case of Germany and Japan, Italy, Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria, it is not at present possible to say more than that this important question is under consideration.
Steps have been taken in two cases, namely, that of Finland and that of Siam, with which I will conclude by troubling your Lordships. Finland is in a special position among the countries with which we are still at war, by reason of her ability and willingness to enter into contracts to supply us with large quantities of timber and other valuable materials. A Memorandum of Agreement was entered into between the United Kingdom and Finland on August 2, 1945, providing for a resumption of trade and financial transactions and the liquidation of indebtedness between the two countries. Under this Agreement Finland agreed among other things that 12½ per cent.
86
of all moneys due from United Kingdom Government Departments in respect of purchases made in Finland (together with certain moneys collected by the Custodians of Enemy Property in the United Kingdom as being due to persons in Finland) should be paid into a special account at the Bank of England. This special account will exist for the purpose of meeting sums, due and payable (at the date of the coming into force of the Memorandum of Agreement) from the Government of Finland or persons in Finland to the Government of the United Kingdom, or to persons resident or carrying on business in the United Kingdom or in any of the British Colonial Dependencies. That arrangement, therefore, has been made. These sums include interest accrued and bonds due for redemption of certain Finnish loans and other agreed claims.
With regard to Siam, Article 5 of the Agreement of January r, 1946, terminating the state of war between the United Kingdom and Siam, provides:
"The Siamese Government agree to accept liability, with the addition of interest, at an appropriate percentage, in respect of payments in arrears, for the service of loans and for payment of pensions in full since the date when regular payment ceased."
The method of settlement of other claims against Siam is under consideration. I hope that this recital will convince the noble Lord that we are certainly taking the matter seriously.
LORD WOOLTON: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.

APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, you will see on the Order Paper six Motions standing in my name, in which I ask your Lordships to add the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanmore, to six Committees of this House, and the name of Lord Henderson to the House of Lords Offices Committee. I am sure your Lordships will allow me to express our appreciation of Lord Stanmore's willing-. ness to continue to serve on these Committees, where his great knowledge and experience will be invaluable. Perhaps at this late hour you will allow me to move the adoption of the Motions standing in my name.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
Moved, That the Lord Stanmore be added to the Committee.—(The Earl of Drogheda).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Moved, That the Lord Stanmore be added to the Committee.—(The Earl of Drogheda).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Moved, That the Lord Stanmore be added to the Committee.—(The Earl of Drogheda).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Moved, That the Lord Stanmore and the Lord Henderson be added to the Committee.—(The Earl of Drogheda).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, That the Lord Stanmore be added to the Committee.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PERSONAL BILLS COMMITTEE.
Moved, That the Lord Stanmore be added to the Committee.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUILDING RESTRICTIONS (WARTIME CONTRAVENTIONS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
FURNISHED HOUSES (RENT CONTROL) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
STATUORY INSTRUMENTS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT) CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a and referred to the Examiners.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that His Majesty had (by Comission) revoked certain Letters Patent and had appointed the Chairman of Committees for the time being and Viscount Hutchinson (Earl Donoughmore), the Lord Stanmore, the Earl of Drogheda, any person who shall have been Chairman of Committees, the Lord Denman, the Earl of Granard, the Earl of Clarendon, the Viscount Hailsham, the Earl of Lucan, the Viscount Mersey, the Viscount Sankey, the Viscount Maugham, the Viscount Caldecote, the Lord Temple-more, the Viscount Simon, the Viscount Addison, the Lord Hare (Earl Listower), the Viscount Southwood, the Lord Jowitt, the Earl Fortescue, and the Lord Ammon to be Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor. The said Commission was read.
DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE (DISSOLUTION) ORDER, 1946.
MINISTRY OF AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (DISSOLUTION) ORDER, 1946.
MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT (DISSOLUTION) ORDER, 1946.
Report from the Special Orders Committee: That they examined the Special Orders as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Orders raise questions of policy and principle which have been already accepted by the House when passing the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1946, under which the Orders are submitted for approval; that the Orders are not founded on precedent inasmuch as they are the first Orders which have been presented to Parliament under that Act;

89
that in the opinion of the Committee the Orders can be passed by the House without special attention, and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to present an Address to His Majesty praying that the Orders be made.
Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

  WOODLAND PLANTING GRANTS.
  WOODLAND PLANTING GRANTS.