Sitting of 30 October 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    Personnel (Fiancees, Travel Facilities)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what action he is taking to assist in the bringing to this country of British subjects resident overseas who are engaged to be married to naval or former naval personnel.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): Passages to this country at the public expense are not granted to the fiancees of naval or former naval personnel, and the Admiralty is unable to provide them with any assistance in this matter.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the assistance given by the American authorities in similar cases to the fiancees of their nationals, is it not possible for something to be done in this case?
    Mr. Dugdale: I quite realise that the House naturally has every sympathy, as, indeed, have the Government, for fiancees, but it is difficult in the case of fiancees of naval personnel, and also of people in the other Services.

    Atom Bomb (Warship Design)
    Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to make any change in the design and construction of British warships following the recent atom bomb tests.
    Mr. Dugdale: Design and construction of His Majesty's ships is at all times subject to modification as the result of experience and of research and experiment. The lessons learnt from Bikini tests will certainly be used to the full, but a great deal of examination and analysis must take place before these results can be fully apprehended.
    Wing-Commander Robinson: Has any communication been received from the Americans to indicate that changes in design may or may not be necessary as a result of the tests?
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. We are awaiting the official report.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Has any consultation taken place with naval architects or with the great private shipbuilding firms? Or will the matter be confined entirely to the Admiralty?
    Mr. Dugdale: We shall have to wait for the reports before deciding anything.

    Fishing Gear (Dangerous Objects)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why, in his Department's Press Notice No. 14, dated 16th October, 1946, issued to fishermen instructing them to carry out certain methods with regard to dealing with foreign objects in their nets, he stated that his Department would bear no responsibility for damage or injury brought about by carrying out this instruction; and if such instructions are in accordance with his Department's procedure.
    Mr. Dugdale: The notice was purely an endeavour to give fishermen the best technical advice on how to deal with potentially dangerous objects which might become entangled in their fishing gear while trawling. Any claims for damage to property which might occur in such circumstances would normally fall to be considered under the appropriate scheme of the Board of Trade or under any private insurance cover effected by the claimant, and claims for personal injury would similarly fall to be considered by the Ministry of Pensions.

    Edinburgh Ice Rink
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the

    585
    Admiralty, if he will now derequisition the premises of the Edinburgh Ice Rink, Limited at Haymarket, Edinburgh.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): The Edinburgh Ice Rink is at present being used for the storage of engines and spare parts. These are being cleared as quickly as possible and it is hoped to derequisition the rink before the end of the year.

    Y Scheme Personnel (Release)
    Mrs. Nicholasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the services of men in the R.N. who were recruited under Y Scheme will be reckoned, for purposes of demobilisation, from the date when they started training with the University Naval Divisions.
    Mr. Dugdale: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 26th February, 1946, to the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. King), to which I have nothing to add.

    Education
    Mrs. Nicholasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what facilities are provided for lower-deck personnel to continue their education during their period of training.
    Mr. Dugdale: The normal syllabus of naval training includes a good proportion of general education. For those preparing for civil life, extensive facilities are provided under the education and vocational training scheme. The subject is a very wide one, and if the hon. Member will let me know the aspect of the matter in which she is particularly interested, I shall be happy to send her further information.

    Admiralty Yacht
    II. Sir Ronald Rossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the sale of H.M.S. "Enchantress," what steps are being taken to provide a vessel suitable for use as an Admiralty yacht.
    Mr. Dugdale: In the interests of economy, no steps are being taken for the time being to provide a successor to H.M.S. "Enchantress."
    Sir R. Ross: Is it not extremely important that political heads, and in particular the present political heads, of the Government, should keep in touch with the Fleet by going to see it? Is it appreciated that the "Enchantress" was capable of, and actually did, remarkably good work as an escort vessel?
    Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, Sir. I quite realise all that. She did very good service, but there are many luxuries that we have to forgo, and the "Enchantress" is one of them.

    Trincomalee and Singapore
    Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty in what type of building are naval shore-based personnel accommodated at Trincomalee and Singapore, respectively.
    Mr. W. Edwards: At Singapore the majority of the naval ratings are accommodated in permanent barracks constructed before the war. At the Naval Air Station some of the ratings are housed in temporary timber huts. At Trincomalee the greater part of the accommodation is temporary, chiefly consisting of timber huts. At both bases a limited number of officers have permanent residences.
    Commander Noble: Can the Civil Lord give an assurance that the temporary accommodation at Trincomalee is in good repair?
    Mr. Edwards: I can give the assurance that we are going into the matter very carefully to see if we can improve it, and, in fact, to make permanent accommodation there. In addition, we have sent out a representative to go into the whole question of accommodation and present a report.

    POLISH NAVAL FORCES
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the Polish men-of-war which, in cooperation with our Naval Forces, rendered valuable services throughout the war, have now been turned over to the Admiralty and their officers and men disbanded, he will make a statement recognising and thanking the Polish Naval Forces for their services to the Allied cause.
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. The gratitude of the British people for the services rendered to the Allied cause, not only by the Polish Navy but by all the Polish Armed Forces, has been gladly acknowledged in the House, by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and also on numerous occasions outside this House. I do not consider that a further statement is called for.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not the question of the Polish Naval Forces a special one? Is not the Minister aware of the dissatisfaction and of the disappointment that exist? Are the Admiralty not aware of the circumstances, and are they not willing to record their appreciation of the services rendered by the Polish Forces?
    Mr. Dugdale: The hon. and gallant Member will be interested in the fact that no statements thanking other Allied Forces have been made, either on the return of loaned ships or upon the departure of the Forces to their own countries. We do not think an exception should be made.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a special case?
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Minister see that the Trades Union Congress receives a copy of the answer which he gave to the first Question, in view of the very uncomplimentary remarks made at that conference about the Poles?
    Mr. Dugdale: Surely the T.U.C. can see the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    NATIONAL TRUST LAND (ENCLOSURE)
    Mr. Marloweasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the donor of that part of the South Downs known as the Seven Sisters and Crowlink conveyed the land to the National Trust on condition that it should be preserved as an open space in perpetuity for the public; and whether, as he is responsible for charitable trusts, he proposes to take any action in view of the fact that part of the land has been enclosed by a tenant of the National Trust.
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that part of the Sussex Downs known as the Seven Sisters and Crowlink, which
    588
    was purchased by certain persons and handed over to the National Trust to be kept as an open space for the enjoyment of the public for all time, has now been fenced in with the permission of the Trust; and what action, being responsible for charitable trusts, he proposed to take about this matter.
    The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): The attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has been called to the matters to which the hon. Gentlemen's Questions relate, and investigations are being made by the Treasury Solicitor on his behalf. The Treasury Solicitor is in communication with the National Trust. I am sorry that I am not yet in a position to indicate what attitude my right hon. and learned Friend will feel he ought to adopt, but I can assure the hon. Gentlemen that the whole matter is under active consideration.
    Mr. Marlowe: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that statement. Will he bear in mind when this matter is investigated that some £10,000 was raised by public subscription for this land to be kept for the public, and as it is now wired, including electric wiring, will he carry out the intention of the gift, which was that it should be kept open?
    The Solicitor-General: That certainly will be borne in mind, but the hon. and learned Member will know that these questions depend upon an exact ascertainment of rights and are bound to be matters of considerable complication and to involve a considerable amount of investigation.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the Solicitor-General aware that all the land on the cliff is unfenced, that the public have access through gates to all the land that is fenced, and that some of the fencing is necessary to enable land ploughed up during the war to be restored to permanent grass for the benefit of the public?
    The Solicitor-General: All the circumstances are being investigated, and we will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has just referred to.
    Mr. Taylor: Can the Solicitor-General say when we may expect some report on this matter?
    Mr. Stokes: Next Session.
    The Solicitor-General: I think that I can say very shortly, but I cannot be more precise than that.

    FLATFORD MILL (PUBLIC RIGHTS)
    Dr. Santo Jegerasked the Attorney-General if he is aware that Constable's Mill and the surrounding land and buildings at Flatford were bequeathed to the nation in 1937, and, in view of certain enclosures and limitations of public rights which have occurred there, what steps he is taking to preserve the public rights.
    The Solicitor-General: Inquiries are being made as to the circumstances and legal position with regard to the properties to which my hon. Friend refers. When these inquiries are completed I will communicate further with my hon. Friend.

    LAND REGISTRY
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Attorney-General if he is aware of the delay which at present occurs in the work of the Land Registry; what is the cause of this; and if he will take steps to have the work there expedited.
    The Solicitor-General: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to a Question by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 2nd May, from which he will see that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware of the delays in the Land Registry and that arrangements to shorten them are in train. The cause of the delays is still a shortage of trained staff. Since May the staff has been increased by 25 per cent., but this increase is largely offset by a corresponding increase in the intake of work in the Registry due to the return of staff to solicitors' offices during the same period. The total delay in effecting registration of title has nevertheless been reduced. I may say that efforts to improve the position are in no way being relaxed.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Mr. C. J. T. Pensotti
    Mr. Baker Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Air what action he now proposes to take in the case of Mr. C. J. T. Pensotti, in view of the fact that this
    590
    officer has been exonerated by a committee of the Middle Temple of the charges on which he was convicted by a R.A.F. court martial in April, 1944.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): Mr. Pensotti has already availed himself of the right of an officer or airman who considers himself aggrieved to petition against the findings and sentence of a court martial. He has submitted five petitions. Each of these was fully considered by the Secretary of State for Air at the time, in July, 1944, in September, 1944, in April, 1945, in June, 1945, and in September, 1946. The conclusions that there were no grounds which would justify a variation in the findings or sentence of the court martial were reached after consultation with the Judge Advocate-General and Law Officers of the Crown.
    Although the inquiry by the Benchers of the Middle Temple held in November, 1944, was a domestic inquiry into the conduct of a member of the Bar and was not in any way the hearing of an appeal against the findings of the court martial, the then Secretary of State for Air naturally reviewed the case very carefully in the light of the observations made by the Benchers. After further consultation with the Judge Advocate-General and the Law Officers he again came to the conclusion that there was no ground to justify him in interfering with the findings or sentence of the court martial. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend is unable to take any further action in the matter.
    Mr. Baker White: May I ask why it is that a very eminent legal body, including, I think, three judges of the High Court, came to such a completely different decision on this case from that of the Judge Advocate-General? Does the Under-Secretary not think that, apart from this great difference, there are grounds for a good deal of further inquiry?
    Mr. de Freitas: I said in my answer that although the inquiry by the Benchers of the Middle Temple was entirely a domestic matter, the Secretary of State for Air of that time naturally reviewed the case very carefully and again took into consideration the views of the Judge Advocate-General and the Law Officers of the Crown.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister realise that there is a great difference between the body he referred to and the parliament of the Middle Temple, consisting of 19 lawyers experienced in sifting and weighing evidence, many of them High Court judges, who sat upon two separate occasions and thoroughly investigated this case? In view of that does the Minister not think that in order to see that justice is done to Mr. Pensotti there should be further inquiries?
    Mr. de Freitas: It is not for me to enter into discussion on the domestic matters of the Middle Temple. At the inquiry no witnesses were heard.
    Mr. Teeling: Is it not true that at the inquiry definite reports of all that had been said by both sides were brought forward, and would it not be equally true to say that it is the King's Regulations only on which the Secretary of State for Air is working? Would it not be far better if in peacetime we could have a court of appeal in the Services?
    Mr. de Freitas: On that point I have nothing to add to what has been said on behalf of the Secretary of State for Air by the Secretary of State for War as to the new committee of investigation which is being set up.
    Mr. Berry: As this is not an isolated case of injustice arising out of courts martial in the Royal Air Force, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to have an inquiry made into the whole question of courts martial in the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. de Freitas: I have already answered that question.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the matter cannot be allowed to rest here? Does he not realise that the whole administration of public justice is brought into disrepute by a conflict of this kind, and would he not submit the whole question to some impartial inquiry, failing which we might have another Archer Shee case?
    Mr. de Freitas: My right hon. Friend, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for War, has set up a general committee of inquiry. In this particular case my right hon. Friend is unable to take any further action in the matter.
    Mr. Stephen: Would the hon. Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend the widespread feeling in the House that the commonsense way to deal with this particular case is to have a court of inquiry?
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: Is it not a fact that when the Minister came to reconsider this case, the legal advice he had came from precisely the same source as was responsible for the prosecution in this case?
    Mr. de Freitas: No, Sir. The Judge Advocate-General has remained the same but legal advice has come from the Law Officers of two different Governments.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As men should not be convicted where there is a reasonable doubt, is the Under-Secretary satisfied that there is no reasonable doubt in a case where a man has been cleared by a tribunal consisting of three High Court judges and a former Socialist Attorney-General?
    Mr. de Freitas: There is no petition before the Secretary of State at this moment. The question of my opinion does not arise.
    Mr. Pritt: Would my hon. Friend consider, in view of the widespread feeling that grave injustice has been done here, arranging for time of the House to be given to discuss this matter?
    Mr. de Freitas: If it is a matter which is raised on the Adjournment, there could of course be no objection.
    Several Hon. Membersrose—
    Mr. Speaker: I think we had better get on to the next Question.
    Mr. Baker White: On a point of Order. I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

    Married Personnel, Egypt
    Brigadier Lowasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the families of married warrant officers and other ranks in the R.A.F. serving in Egypt are being sent home from Egypt in order to clear married quarters for single officers; for how many married families, officers and other ranks, respectively, there is accommodation in Egypt; and what plans he has to increase it.
    Mr. de Freitas: I think there must be some misunderstanding. Families in Egypt are not being sent home to provide accommodation for single officers. As regards the second part of the Question, there are service married quarters for 29 officers and 203 airmen, mostly in the Delta area. We have started work on 260 more quarters which will bring our Service accommodation up to over 300, all of which will be in the Canal zone.
    Brigadier Low: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that that will meet the demand of ranks of the Royal Air. Force who wish to have their families in the Suez Canal zone?
    Mr. de Freitas: I am satisfied that it is a reasonable estimate of our requirements over the next couple of years.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the changes now taking place in Egypt are causing considerable anxiety of mind to wives of serving men over there, and that they are uncertain as to whether or not they should proceed to Egypt to join their husbands? Would the Government take an early opportunity of making a statement on this?
    Mr. de Freitas: So far as the R.A.F. is concerned, we have informed wives that they should not go out there now because of the difficulty of accommodation, and families who are in Egypt will have first claim on the new quarters which are being built.

    Singapore (Nursing Orderlies)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that, since the closing down of the R.A.F. hospital at Singapore on 15th September, the nursing orderlies, together with 20 more who arrived on 19th September, have been misemployed as ACH/GD.s; and whether these men will be classed for release in their present trade or retarded five groups as nursing orderlies, as set out in the promulgation for the month of December.
    Mr. de Freitas: The R.A.F. Hospital in Singapore has not been closed down but has recently been moved to another part of the island. During the change over some of the nursing orderlies have been employed on helping with the move.
    594
    These airmen will be released according to their mustered trade of nursing orderly, which in December will be up to the general level of release for ground trades.

    Education Branch (Commissions)
    Mr. Morleyasked the Secretary of State for Air how many applications have been received, respectively, for permanent and temporary commissions in the new R.A.F. Education Branch; and how many of these applications are from serving education officers.
    Mr. de Freitas: 4o and 36 respectively, all of which were from permanent members of the educational service. There have also been 71 applications for short service commissions, 14 of which have been from temporary members of the educational service.
    Mr. Morley: Can my hon. Friend say how many of these applicants have the qualifications stipulated by the Ministry?
    Mr. de Freitas: I cannot say that without notice.

    Air Training Corps
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Secretary of State for Air the present strength of the A.T.C.; and the total number of overcoats issued to units for cadets now serving.
    Mr. de Freitas: On 31st July, which is the date of the most recent quarterly return, the strength of the Air Training Corps was about 57,000. I am glad to say that a general issue of greatcoats has now been approved; cadets will get them as soon as possible after the units have sent in particulars of the numbers and sizes they need.
    Mr. Shephard: Could the Under-Secretary say whether it is proposed to issue overcoats to each one of the cadets, or is there to be a limited issue?
    Mr. de Freitas: We shall not have enough surplus R.A.F. coats and we shall get the number made up by the Army. They will have an A.T.C. flash on their shoulder.
    Mr. Shephard: Since the Sea Cadets, of whom there are 33,500, each have an overcoat, why cannot there be some uniformity of treatment for all these pre-Service training units?
    Mr. de Freitas: They will each have an overcoat.

    University Course (Service Time)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is the policy of his Department to include in the calculation of a man's period of service time spent on the R.A.F. short university course at Cambridge.
    Mr. de Freitas: No, Sir.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it a fact that these men while on this course cannot leave Cambridge without being subjected to R.A.F. disciplinary measures? If that is so, is there any good reason why this course should not count as service?
    Mr. de Freitas: I would like notice of that first point about leaving Cambridge. These men were certainly not embodied, they were not paid, and they remained civilians, but I will certainly look into that point; I was not aware of it.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Croydon (Fire-Fighting Facilities)
    Mr. Rees-Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is aware that there is no satisfactory system of inspection by his Department of fire-fighting equipment, appliances and personnel at Croydon airport; and what steps he is taking, particularly in view of the approaching winter season, to ensure that the fire-fighting facilities at Croydon are adequate.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The fire-fighting equipment, appliances and personnel at Croydon airport are inspected at regular intervals and three inspections have been carried out during the last four months. I am satisfied that the fire-fighting facilities at the airport are adequate to meet present needs and those that may arise during the forthcoming winter.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, when the Question was put down, no training whatever was being given to the firemen, no asbestos suits were provided, no
    596
    uniforms were given, and the fire-fighting equipment was left outside in all weathers?
    Mr. Lindgren: I am not aware of that. I do not know the date on which the Question was put down, but my information is that inspections were carried out by the Air Ministry, who were then responsible, on 15th July and 20th August. The Ministry of Civil Aviation took over responsibility on 1st September, and their first inspection took place on 7th October, when everything was satisfactory. On the particular circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend, if he will let me have information, I will personally look into the matter.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that, when wrecks occur at Croydon, the attendance of the fire brigade is at least as prompt as the attendance of the Customs officers?

    U.K.—South Africa
    Mr. Edward Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what circumstances have determined the decision to discontinue the flying-boat service between Britain and Durban; and what arrangements are being made to wind up the undertaking and to provide for the staff.
    Mr. Lindgren: At the Southern Africa Air Transport Conference held in Cape Town in 1945 it was decided that the flying boats, which have now been in service for nine and a half years, would be withdrawn at the end of 1946 and that the service between the United Kingdom and South Africa should be operated by landplanes. The flying boats, all of which are based on Durban, will be flown to the United Kingdom for disposal and the organisation at the Durban base, which was a wartime expedient, will be dispersed. Retrenchment of locally engaged staff is taking place, and arrangements have been made to repatriate British Overseas Airways Corporation's contract staff and their families to this country.

    Beam Approach System, Renfrew
    Mr. Rankinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what progress has been made

    597
    towards the installation at Renfrew airport of the standard beam approach system for winter operations.
    Mr. Lindgren: My Noble Friend appreciates the importance of installing the standard beam approach system at Renfrew as soon as possible. It is expected that site tests will be completed within the next one to two weeks and in the meantime negotiations are proceeding for the acquisition of the necessary land.
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Can the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House whether there have been many occasions in this country where services have had to be cancelled owing to insufficient or unsatisfactory beam service equipment?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether or not any attempt has been made to make good this deficiency in equipment by the use of material from redundant air stations?
    Mr. Lindgren: The question of material is not the factor which has caused delay; the cause of delay is the difficulty in the acquisition of land, and landowners have not been too helpful.
    Mr. Cobb: Can my hon. Friend say whether, when this equipment is installed, it will be British or foreign equipment?
    Mr. Lindgren: British equipment.

    Accidents (Investigations)
    Mr. Wardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when the findings of the investigation into the accident to an Avro York near Bathurst, West Africa, on 6th September, 1946, will be made known.
    Mr. Lindgren: The investigations into the cause of this accident have not yet been completed. At present, therefore, I am unable to say when the report will be ready but I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no avoidable delay in publishing it.
    Mr. Ward: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it was reported in the Press, on, I think, the day following the accident, that Air Vice-Marshal Bennett himself, and a member of the accidents branch from the Ministry of Civil Aviation, went out to Bathurst by air to look into the cause of this accident? That is
    598
    almost two months ago; surely they have had plenty of time to arrive at some decision on the matter?
    Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Member should know, and I believe he does, that Air Vice-Marshal Bennett has no responsibility for the reporting of accidents. He is associated with an operator. The inspector in charge of accidents is now at Bathurst and we are awaiting his investigations before the report can be published.
    Mr. Wardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what steps he is taking to ensure that the causes of serious accidents to commercial aircraft are made know to the public without unreasonable delay.
    Mr. Lindgren: It is my noble Friend's intention that publication shall take place as rapidly as possible. But, as the hon. Member will appreciate, close care is needed in the preparation of the reports, and investigations may inevitably be protracted by reason of the technical questions which arise.
    Mr. Ward: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is a widespread feeling amongst the public that the publication of the results of such investigations is deliberately delayed until the excitement in the Press and among the public has died down?
    Mr. Lindgren: One can understand the uninformed public having that feeling, but I should be surprised if it is held in any quarter where there is knowledge of air accidents and the circumstances associated with them.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the uninformed public as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Lindgren: We are doing that as quickly as we can, but it is difficult to do it for the Benches opposite.

    Manchester—Continent
    Mr. Errollasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, when he intends to inaugurate direct air services between the Ringway airport of Manchester and continental cities; and whether he will now publish the routes and separate dates of inauguration.
    Mr. Lindgren: The operation of civil air services is, of course, in the first places a matter for the corporations. The British

    599
    European Airways Corporation, which is concerned in this case, plans to start services to the continent of Europe from different cities in the United Kingdom as soon as the necessary aircraft and ground facilities can be made available. The precise routes to be flown have not yet been determined, and the order of priority for the allocation of aircraft to routes depends on traffic and technical considerations, which are now under examination.
    Mr. Erroll: Does the Minister realise that the citizens of Manchester are very disappointed at this bureaucratic delay, and can he explain why even Air France is able to fly a service between Manchester and Paris before we can?
    Mr. Lindgren: I cannot explain that in this House, but the hon. Member knows the reasons very well himself
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Lindgren: If the hon. Member does not know, this is not the place to explain it.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Could we have a better answer to this serious question? I do not know how the hon. Member knows what hon. Members in any part of the House know of a particular subject when they ask a question.
    Mr. Lindgren: I have already stated in the original reply to the Question that the difficulties are lack of aircraft and of ground equipment in relation to the airport.
    Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister withdraw his remark about the ignorance of hon. Members on this side of the House, because in the next answer he accuses us of knowing all about it?
    Mr. Lindgren: I assume that hon. Members who put such Questions down know the types of aircraft flown on the various lines.
    Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Member elucidate his former reply a little more? Does he mean that he is prepared to give private information to individual hon. Members of one sort or another, but is not prepared to give it in the House? If so, what are his grounds of action?
    Mr. Lindgren: I am not prepared to answer a question of that sort.
    Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. Is there no means at our disposal by which we can make a Minister answer a question?
    Mr. Speaker: Only by raising the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Hogg: I beg to give notice that, owing to the most unsatisfactory reply of the hon. Member, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    London—Aberdeen
    Mr. Spenceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the reasons for the delay in starting an air service between Aberdeen and London.
    Mr. Lindgren: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my predecessor on 5th June last. I would, however, add that preparations are in hand for the start of a service at an early date between Aberdeen and London, via Prestwick and Glasgow.
    Mr. Spence: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor told me that this service would start in October and, without any explanation, he then informed me, in reply to a recent Question, that it would start early next year? Will the hon. Member give a definite date, and an assurance that when the service starts it will be better than the inadequate and obsolete proposals made by his predecessor?
    Mr. Lindgren: The service will commence early in November, and I am certain that when it begins the hon. Member will be satisfied.
    Mr. Hogg: Is the assurance that the hon. Member has now given worth anything more than the assurance he gave to the friendly societies?

    Prestwick
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will now state the findings of the inquiry which it was promised would be instituted in regard to the cancellation of the air service between Prestwick and London.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am not aware that an inquiry into the cancellation of the air service between Prestwick and London was promised. The fullest consideration was given to all the circumstances before

    601
    it was decided to suspend the service. I may add that preparations are in hand for the start of a service at an early date, between London and Aberdeen which will call at Prestwick.
    Sir T. Moore: Whilst fully appreciating that the hon. Gentleman is not yet fully familiar with his Department, may I ask if he is aware that the former chief of the Department, Lord Winster, gave a definite undertaking that this inquiry would be set up and that further information would be given on the subject? Is not that on the records of his Department?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, not as far as I have been able to find out through the investigations which I have carried out following this Question being placed on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Minister arrange for the service between London and Aberdeen to be a direct service without calling at Prestwick?
    Mr. Lindgren: It is most difficult to placate all the various interests in Scotland. I am making a special tour of Scotland at the request of the Minister to get first hand information.
    Sir T. Moore: Pending that welcome visit, I am afraid I will have to pursue the matter further on the Adjournment.
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the precise reasons why the daily air service between Prestwick and Belfast is being cancelled as from 31st October.
    Mr. Lindgren: The existing airport at Belfast is not readily capable of improvement to enable regular services with the larger aircraft, which have been brought into use this year, to be run with due regard to safety in the winter months. The alternative airport at Nutts Corner, which will be suitable for the larger aircraft, will be ready at the end of the year, or, I hope, earlier. In the meantime, the British European Airways Corporation had no alternative but to suspend the service in question, owing to the non-availability of smaller aircraft. The service between Renfrew and Belfast is, however, being maintained with such aircraft.
    Sir T. Moore: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the two replies he has just
    602
    given mean that the great airport of Prestwick, by his own Government designated as an international terminal, has now no direct air contact with any other airport in the United Kingdom? It is disgraceful.
    Mr. Lindgren: The question of facilities for the area is of much greater importance than the use of a particular airport.
    Sir R. Ross: Is the hon. Member aware that not only has this service been cancelled, but on the other services to Belfast big machines have been taken off, and they are now using only small machines? Owing to the inadequacy of the steamer service, these air services are of particular importance and cannot some proper air services be supplied to make up for the undue reduction of services to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Lindgren: The Ministry of Civil Aviation is only responsible for the air services. So far as is humanly possible the services withdrawn because of the withdrawal of Dakotas are being made up with smaller aircraft by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and every endeavour is being made to make up for the seating capacity of the heavier withdrawn aircraft.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: This service was costing 30s., and it has been replaced by one costing 50s. If that was to placate Scotland, or to unite Scotland, the Government are going the wrong way about it.
    Mr. Lindgren: But I always thought Scotland was more concerned with safety than even price.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: As the hon. Gentleman is to make a tour does he recall that his predecessor made a tour, and found things in Scotland which he had never thought of? All the details of that tour must be in the office, if he looks them up.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not the case that the actual cost to the passenger for the return journey from Renfrew to Belfast is cheaper per mile than the return journey from Prestwick?
    Sir T. Moore: No, 50s., compared with 30s.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Political Education
    Mr. Rees-Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there is scope for the application of the Army system of courses to adult education in the Colonies; and whether he will take steps to inaugurate such courses and, in particular, to establish in the Malayan Union and Singapore courses for the political education of men and women likely to be among the political leaders of these territories in the future.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): Yes, Sir. The importance attached to the experience of the Army Bureau of Current Affairs will be clear from the fact that the former Director-General of Army Education and the former Director of that Bureau are members of my Advisory Committee on Education in the Colonies which is now considering the problem of encouraging the appreciation which Colonial peoples already show of current affairs and the practical problems involved in responsible citizenship. The inauguration of courses is a matter for Colonial Governments, and I am conveying to the Governors of the Malayan Union and Singapore my honourable Friend's suggestion regarding political education in those territories.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Might I ask the Secretary of State what mental or moral means tests are also to be applied to find who are to be the suitable political leaders in Malaya in future?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Is the Secretary of State aware that I can give him the names of a large number of suitable persons for this purpose in Malaya, and I have no doubt other hon. Members can do the same?

    Annual Reports
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the publication, by each Colony, of the comprehensive year books promised by his predecessor.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The question of the future form and content of annual reports relating to Colonial territories has now been considered, and I intend shortly to address to Colonial Governments a despatch asking them to resume the issue
    604
    of these reports in a revised form which will, I hope, be found more informative, interesting and attractive than that previously in use.
    Mr. Reid: Will my right hon. Friend see that when these reports are published, the state of each Colony at the time the British took it over is given, so that a contrast can be made between the past and present?
    Mr. Creech Jones: In most of the reports there will be some section dealing with the historical background. That point will be kept in mind.

    News Broadcasts (Communal Listening)
    Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is generally the practice in Colonies which have their own radio services to have loud speakers placed in public places for the distribution of news in the vernaculars.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. Arrangements for communal listening to news broadcast in vernaculars are already in operation in most of the Colonies which have their own broadcasting services.

    HONG KONG (CONSTITUTION)
    Mr. Rees-Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are being made to give the inhabitants of Hong Kong a fuller and more responsible share in the management of the affairs of the Colony.
    Mr. Creech Jones: As my predecessor stated in the House on 1st May, the Governor of Hong Kong has been instructed to examine this whole question in consultation with representatives of all sections of the community, and to submit a report at an early date, bearing in mind the policy of His Majesty's Government that the constitution should be revised on a more liberal basis as soon as possible. The Governor has practically concluded his consultations and I expect to receive his recommendations in the near future.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that both these answers show that his tenure of office is becoming a very promising one?
    Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that when these investigations are being made, special consideration will be given to the question of establishing a solid union movement in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Those steps have already been taken.

    MALTA (COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT)
    Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the recent resignation of nine elected members of the Malta Council of Government.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Nine of the elected members of the Council of Government resigned on 13th September as a protest against the arrangements proposed for the progressive reduction of the establishment of the Dockyard, and for the provision of alternative employment for the labour discharged. I am in consultation with the Governor on the situation.
    Mr. Reid: Is it not a fact that the members who resigned were all Labour members?
    Mr. Creech Jones: They were members of the Labour Party. The Governor is in this country at the moment and I am discussing the whole problem with him.
    Mr. Stanley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, on the resignation of these nine members, there are any left?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, I believe that one is still there.

    ADEN
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many beds and how many patients there are in the hospital at Aden; and whether he is satisfied that the staffing of the hospital is adequate.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Civil Hospital at Aden has 214 beds, an increase of 44 since before the war. The number of patients at the present time is 293, most of the surplus being accommodated in temporary cots. Owing to difficulties in obtaining staff, the staffing of the hospital is not, at present, up to its full strength, but
    606
    efforts are being made to remedy this state of affairs as soon as possible.
    Mr. Skeffington: Will my right hon. Friend consult with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air in order to ascertain whether doctors in the R.A.F. stationed in Aden could be used to assist in alleviating the dire shortage of staff?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir, but the problem is still one of accommodation. We have a project for a new hospital in mind.
    Mr. Walkden: Is it not true to say that this hospital, despite the increase in beds, is terribly overcrowded, and that the public health service needs overhauling? When shall we receive a report on the whole situation?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am fully aware of the difficulties. We are discussing, at the moment, the construction of a new hospital. We hope to push on with that as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what educational provision is made for the native Jews and Indian inhabitants of Aden and, in particular, what secondary education is available for them.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Lower secondary and primary education is available for Jews and Indians, equally with others in Aden, through the mediums of Hebrew, Gujarati, Urdu, English and Arabic in grant-aided schools, as well as through Arabic in Government Schools. Above this level, the final four years of secondary course to school certificate are taught through the medium of English only. Education at this level is provided in Government secondary schools for boys and in Government-aided mission schools for boys and girls, to all of which children of all races are eligible for admission. It is not possible to distinguish between native and immigrant Jews and Indians. Many Indians from Aden receive secondary education in India.

  WEST INDIES

    Federation (Conference)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the West Indian colonies have accepted the principle of West Indian federation; and

    607
    what action has been taken as a result of their decisions.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The legislatures in all the Colonies consulted, with the exception of the Bahamas, have debated the despatch of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) of 14th March, 1945, and have expressed willingness to participate in a conference to consider what practical steps can be taken to achieve closer association between them. I am considering how best to carry discussions further and the convening of a conference as soon as practicable. I hope to approach the Governors concerned shortly.
    Mr. Skinnard: In view of the fact that feeling in favour of federation is rapidly getting stronger throughout the British West Indies, as evidenced by various federations of professional, trades union and other bodies, does not my right hon. Friend consider that the Colonial Governments should lead rather than lag behind public opinion?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I think it will be appreciated that this movement must grow, but we are taking all possible steps to encourage discussion and association between the various territories.
    Dr. Morgan: Have the Government of the Island of Barbados also now accepted the principle of federation with the other Colonies?
    Mr. Creech Jones: They have accepted the view that a conference would be desirable, and are willing to participate in it.

    Trinidad (Constitution)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans are being made for the revision of the Trinidad Constitution with a view to establishing a fully representative legislative council and the responsibility to that body of the executive council.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Elections were held in Trinidad last July on the basis of adult suffrage. Already five of the nine members of the Executive Council, which has an unofficial majority, are members of the Legislative Council and four are elected members. I think it best to gain for a short period more experience before deciding on the next step in substantial constitutional advance.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction in Trinidad at the fact that there is a pretty liberal Constitution in Jamaica and that they feel that they are themselves in a fit state to proceed further?
    Mr. Creech Jones: During the last year or so substantial advances have been made in making the Trinidad Constitution more liberal. We must wait a short while longer before we can decide what substantial advances should now be made.

    1939–45 WAR (DESIGNATION)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Prime Minister what is the official designation of the 1939–45 war.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I rather doubt whether it is necessary to prescribe an official designation for use on all occasions. On the whole, I think the phrase "Second World War" is likely to be generally adopted. But there may be occasions, as for example for inscriptions, when the addition of the years will be regarded as appropriate.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the Prime Minister aware that to use the expression "Second World War" presupposes that there may be another? Would it not be a good idea to call it merely the 1939–45 war," or, better still, to take the risk of calling it the "Last World War"?
    The Prime Minister: So far as I know, there was a first and a second Punic War, and not a third.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister whether he will make arrangements for answers to Questions addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to receive precedence on one day a week.
    The Prime Minister: There are a number of difficulties in my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I will see that his point of view is kept in mind.
    Later—
    Wing-Commander Robinson: On a point of Order. I have on the Order

    609
    Paper today, Mr. Speaker, Question No. 7o, which involves restrictions placed by the Minister of Food on the right of constituents to approach their own Members of Parliament. In view of its importance, may I invite the Minister of Food to exercise his right to give an oral answer to that Question?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think this is a good custom. Any hon. Member might get up and say, "May I have my Question answered? "It is the prerogative of the Minister alone to answer a Question if it has not been reached.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Further to that point of Order, may I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there are 27 Questions to the Minister of Food and that we have no means in this House of securing answers to them from one of the most important Departments of the Government? May I ask the Prime Minister if he will give consideration to the fact that the Ministry of Food touches the life of the people so closely that it is very important to hon. Members to have answers to their Questions?
    The Prime Minister: In answer to the hon. Member, I would say that the whole question in regard to the allocation and the order in which Questions should be taken is now under consideration through the usual channels, with a view to alterations and improvements in the new Session.
    Mr. Churchill: In the course of that consideration, will the Prime Minister bear in mind the idea of giving another quarter of an hour to Questions?
    The Prime Minister: We will give consideration to all these matters.

  GERMANY

    Control Commission Staff
    Mr. Marloweasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many persons who have been enrolled in the Control Commission in Germany have not yet proceeded to take up their posts there; how many of these have been maintained on pay in this country awaiting posting for periods exceeding two weeks, four weeks and six weeks, respectively; and what is the approximate total weekly cost of maintaining such persons in this country.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): On 19th October 3,613 persons were waiting to go to posts in Germany. Of these 748 have been on pay for less than two weeks, 501 from two to four weeks, 400 from four to six weeks and 1,964 for over six weeks. Their total weekly pay amounted to just over £20,000. Movement to Germany is now proceeding rapidly: the number of persons waiting in this country should be reduced by at least 1,000 within the next seven days and the number will continue to decrease rapidly thereafter. A period of about three weeks is in any case needed for kitting, inoculations against disease and necessary instruction preparatory to going to Germany.
    Mr. Marlowe: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is deplorable that something over a thousand should have been maintained on pay here for over six weeks; and in view of the fact that the Control Commission is already over staffed will he cut that figure down as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Hynd: The answer indicates that we are cutting it down as quickly as possible, but I would not like to give the impression that I am at all satisfied with the situation. At the same time, I ask the House to recognise that the staffing of the Control Commission in Germany is an extremely difficult operation. We must have some regard to synchronisation in replacing Army personnel in Germany; the necessity for economising in German accommodation, which would be duplicated if the staff went over too rapidly; and also it should be borne in mind that a certain number are more urgently required in Germany than others. We cannot guarantee that the staff can be sent over strictly in relation to the time that they have been waiting in this country.

    Hamburg Project (Removals)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people have already been moved from their homes in Hamburg in order to provide for the Hamburg project and where accommodation, at least as suitable as that which they have left, has been found for them.
    Mr. J. Hynd: As I informed my hon. Friend a week ago, some 500 persons have been moved from war damaged houses which were to be demolished. We have

    611
    arranged for these people to share accommodation with other Germans temporarily until they can be accommodated in other houses and buildings which are at present being repaired.
    Mr. Stokes: Am I to understand that nobody has been removed from any house except war damaged houses, and, further, does the Minister mean to imply that no further removals will take place until the end of 1947, in view of the suspension of the Hamburg project?
    Mr. Hynd: No, Sir. I cannot give the latter assurance because the removals to which I have referred—the 500 from the damaged houses—concern the only persons who have been removed in connection with the Hamburg project. The removals have been due to the fact that the project involved the building of a large block of flats in the centre of the town, on the site of which there are a number of damaged houses which have to be removed. The persons living in them at present have to be found accommodation elsewhere whilst the scheme is proceeding.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend give me an answer to the latter part of my Question? Where is accommodation, at least as suitable as that which they have left, being found for them?
    Mr. Hynd: It is being found in other suitable existing German houses and buildings. The fact that we have had to move staff to Germany has made it necessary that we should ask the Germans to move up a little and make room.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister accompany me to Hamburg so that I can show him the conditions?

    Coal Production
    Mr. Scott-Elliotasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what increase in the output of coal in Germany has resulted from the increase in mineworkers' rations.
    Mr. J. Hynd: The output per manshift in the British zone increased from 0.87 tons at the end of July to 0.92 tons in the third week of October and coal production has risen from 176,000 to 183,400 tons per day in the same period. This increase is due to several factors but I think the most important is the increase in the mineworkers' rations.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will try to secure a further increase in the ration in order that he may secure an additional increase in the output of coal?
    Mr. Hynd: I do not think that the key to further production lies in a further increase in the miners' rations, which are now substantial; but there are other factors which contribute towards increasing the output of the miners, and those are having very close attention by the Government.

    Newspapers and Periodicals
    Mr. Scott-Elliotasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the regulations preventing the posting of printed matter; including newspapers, to individual Germans can now be relaxed.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Under existing regulations, newspapers and periodicals may be sent by individuals in the United Kingdom to individuals in the British zone of Germany or the British sector of Berlin through any publisher, newsagent or bookseller. As I explained yesterday in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) I am considering whether it is now possible to expand these facilities.
    Mr. Stokes: Is there any weight limit in this connection, because HANSARD has been returned to me as being too heavy?
    Mr. Hynd: I am not sure, but I think the suggestion that HANSARD has been returned is rather out of date.
    Mr. Stokes: No—yesterday.
    Mr. Hynd: This is the first I have heard about it and I will certainly look into the matter.
    Captain Crookshank: Does the Minister's answer mean that an individual person in this country may not send a newspaper to an individual German through the post?
    Mr. Hynd: Yes, Sir, unless it is sent through a publisher or a newsagent.
    Captain Crookshank: Why should that be so?
    Mr. Hynd: For censorship reasons.

    Requisitioned Houses
    Mr. Scott-Elliotasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will

    613
    state the number of private dwellings which have been requisitioned from Germans in the British zone during the last three months; and whether he will give an undertaking that further requisitioning will not normally be made.
    Mr. J. Hynd: During the three months ended 30th September, some 4,250 dwellings were requisitioned; in the same period about 6,250 were derequisitioned. As further requisitioning may be necessary for the redeployment of the forces of occupation, the housing of Allied contingents, and other reasons, I cannot give the undertaking for which my hon. Friend asks. However, strict instructions have been issued to ensure the economical use of all available accommodation.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: Is the Minister aware that this policy of requisitioning causes so much fear that people are not prepared to repair their own houses?
    Mr. Hynd: I was not aware of that factor. If my hon. Friend reads the answer he will find that some 2,000 more houses have been derequisitioned than have been requisitioned.
    Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister say how many people were displaced and how many people will occupy the space which the others left?
    Mr. Hynd: I could not give that information without notice. On the latter point, there is no guarantee that people who are removed from existing accommodation will be given equivalent accommodation elsewhere
    Mr. Bossom: It was promised.
    Mr. Hynd: No; I promised suitable accommodation, but in view of the fact that people who have been removed in some cases are people occupying large houses where accommodation cannot be spared on that scale, it makes it obvious that there must be a moving up.
    Mr. Bossom: In many of these houses there have been as many as six, eight or 10 families and they will now be occupied by only two people and a child.
    Mr. Hynd: The hon. Member apparently is quoting from a number of specific cases of which I am not aware. I cannot say whether the conditions to which he has referred do in fact exist. It is obvious that with the overcrowded condition
    614
    in Germany, if we are to make provision for an officer and his family, we will be taking probably more accommodation than is normally occupied by a German

    Black Market Prosecution
    Captain John Crowderasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many prosecutions there have been for black market offences in Germany since five civilians employed by the Control Commission were convicted at Dusseldorf on 9th August, 1946.
    Mr. J. Hynd: I assume the Question refers to employees of the Control Commission for Germany. One civilian employee has been prosecuted for this offence since 9th August. He was found "not guilty."
    Captain Crowder: Can the Minister say whether there is any appeal against the decisions of these military government courts and what facilities are given for free legal advice to those brought before them?
    Mr. Hynd: I would not like to say without notice what are the precise facilities for free legal advice. Of course, all these cases are subject to review, and any circumstances brought to the notice of the commander-in-chief or myself would be taken into consideration.

    Sudeten Germans
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that the Government of Czechoslovakia is now prepared to allow Sudeten German men whose families have already been expelled to Western Germany without them, to rejoin them in the Western zones, if not serving a sentence of more than one year; and whether he will take steps to make this widely known in the British zone, so that families can apply for their men-folk if still detained in Czechoslovakia.
    Mr. J. Hynd: No, Sir. I am not aware that such a proposal has been made. Sudeten Germans are in any event not expelled into the British zone.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that quite a large number of Sudeten Germans' wives are in the British zone, and, in view of the fact that the decision has been made by the Czechoslovak Government but has not been made

    615
    known publicly, will he see that it is widely broadcast in the British zone?
    Mr. Hynd: I am not aware whether there are Sudeten Germans' wives in the British zone, or, if so, how many, but I understand the decision relates to those men expelled from the Western zone, and that the scheme provides for Sudeten Germans to come into the British zone.

    AUSTRIA (U.N.R.R.A. SUPPLIES)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the total value of U.N.R.R.A. supplies actually handed over to the Austrian Government up to 30th September or the last convenient date.
    Mr. J. Hynd: I am informed by the London office of U.N.R.R.A. that according to the latest information available to them, the approximate value of supplies actually handed over to the Austrian Government up to 20th October is £22 million.

    CHEESE SUPPLIES
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Food whether he has considered the statement made by the chairman of the New Zealand Dairy Board to the effect that there is no shortage of cheese in this country; and what action he is taking to inform New Zealand of the facts.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): Yes, Sir. We asked for an elucidation from the New Zealand Government and it turns out that Mr Hale's remarks were part of a statement made to the Dominion Dairy Conference. He was endeavouring to emphasise the importance of preventing
    616
    any decrease in butter production in favour of cheese, which is in line with Ministry of Food policy. The New Zealand authorities however, are fully aware that we need as much cheese as they can send us without diminishing their butter shipments.
    Mr. Walkden: Will the Minister please inform, or promise to inform, Mr. LaGuardia that the one country in Europe where cheese is not rationed and is in plentiful supply is Czechoslovakia—not Britain?
    Mr. Strachey: I will look into that.

    PALESTINE (DETAINEES)
    Mr. Manningham-Buller(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make in regard to the release of leaders of the Jewish Agency from detention.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

    PERSONAL STATEMENT
    Mr. S. O. Davies: May I ask for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words? In the OFFICIAL REPORT of Monday last, in Columns 360 and 361, the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr appears four times and he is thereby held responsible for four successive interjections while the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) was addressing the House. The interjections were not made by the hon. Member for Merthyr, but by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), and the hon. Member for Merthyr is particularly anxious to dissociate himself from the sentiments expressed by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Aberavon.

DEFENCE (CENTRAL ORGANISATION)
3.34 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move,
"That this House approves the proposals in Command Paper No. 6923 for the Central Organisation for Defence."
The proposals for the central organisation of defence embodied in the White Paper which we are now about to discuss have, I think, received pretty general approval. There have been one or two points of criticism, with which I will deal, but, broadly speaking, I think the proposals are considered to be a logical development from the past and an application of the lessons learned during the war. As is usual in this country, they are essentially evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and they do not attempt to lay down the final form which our defence organisation will take. I would rather suggest that they represent a consolidation of ground already won, and a jumping-off place for the future.
It is not my intention this afternoon to paraphrase or reproduce what is contained in the White Paper. I would rather indicate the aims which we are pursuing, the steps we are taking to formulate these proposals and the general conception of Governmental organisation into which defence must fit. On this matter of defence organisation and that of a Minister of Defence, I have not infrequently spoken in the House in past years; I have even committed myself in written articles, and for many years I have been an advocate of the creation of a Minister of Defence. I sought, by discussions with officers and others, as far as possible to inform myself on these issues, and in addition to these prewar theoretical studies I had the advantage subsequently of testing them in practice. As a Member of the War Cabinet and the Defence Committee for five years, I had that opportunity and I do not find, on reflection, that I had to discard any of the main principles which I formulated in peacetime, although naturally their detailed application had to be changed.
The problem which faces us now is how to ensure for the fighting Services unity of thought, unity of supreme direction, unity of plan, unity of outlook, and, above all, unity of defence doctrine. The
618
Services are increasingly interdependent but, in obtaining this unity, we have to take care to preserve the responsibility of Ministers to this House, and, particularly, to avoid overloading one Minister with a great mass of administrative detail. In fact, we have to achieve what is the feature of all good organisations; we have to distinguish between the function of decision on broad matters of policy, and the function of detailed administration, without, at the same time, allowing the former to be divorced from the latter. In fact, in all planning, there must be an intimate connection between the people who plan and those who have to carry out the plan. We have also to consider, of course, not just the fighting Services, but the fighting Services and their supplies, and how they are related to the rest of the activities of the nation, without allowing the latter to become completely subservient to the former.
In the present age, when hostilities break out, as we are all well aware from experience, the whole energy of the nation has to be concentrated on a single objective—victory—and this objective involves every Department of Government. The Government have to take control of every phase of the nation's life, and that, of course, necessitates changes from the organisation which obtains in peace. We all remember how, in both the world wars, the function of decision was taken into the hands of a small War Cabinet. In war, the Prime Minister, of necessity, has to take the ultimate responsibility for the mobilisation and direction of the whole resources of the nation. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, on becoming Prime Minister, wisely, I think, assumed the additional title of "Minister of Defence," and he devised the machinery which functioned so successfully throughout the war. When I succeeded him, I continued to employ the same defence machinery although, necessarily, its content—the amount of work to be done—was different, and I assumed the same title.
When the war ended, I did not wish to revert to prewar practice, which I thought had various defects. At the same time, it was quite obvious that the machinery built up during the great war, and appropriate to its ends, must be adapted to fit into the peacetime organisation of Government. I had, therefore, to consider what

619
were the appropriate steps to take. I did not consider it useful to set up another Committee, as was done in 1904 under Lord Esher, because that would take time and, as a matter of fact, the decision, ultimately, has to be taken by the Government. Further, the relevant evidence was available from those who either as high ranking officers, Ministers of the Crown or members of the defence staff had a unique knowledge of the actual functioning of the machine. I, therefore, decided to conduct an inquiry myself, with two of my colleagues, to see how the machinery which had worked so well in war could be adapted to peace conditions, and this White Paper is the result.
While the Government naturally take the whole responsibility for these proposals, I should like to express my indebtedness to the wartime Chiefs of Staff, to the civil and military members of the Secretariat for their advice, and also to right hon. Gentlemen who are not of my party, but who were colleagues of mine in the wartime administration. They were so good as to give me the benefit of their views and suggestions on tentative proposals which I submitted to them in the course of my inquiry.
In the various Debates which I can recall in this House on the organisation of defence, there has always been raised the question of the exact relationship of any possible Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister. There have been those who either desired or feared that the Minister of Defence would be a kind of leviathan among all the other Ministers and would compete with the Prime Minister in authority. There have always been those who would reduce him to a mere shadow. I do not think there is any reason to fall into either of those two errors, and I hope and believe that in our present proposals, we have avoided them. I think we have to bear clearly in mind that there are two separate aspects of defence. There is the wider aspect which involves the activities of all the citizens in a nation at war, and the narrow one which covers only the problem of coordinating the three Services and their supply.
As I have already pointed out, in war, necessarily, the whole energies of the nation are concentrated on victory. Therefore, during the war these two
620
aspects did not stand out so clearly and separately as they do in peacetime. In wartime, for example, the activities of the Ministries of Food, Agriculture and Labour were harnessed to the chariot of the war machine. The Ministry of Home Security had its work supplemented by the Ministries of Work, Health, Education and War Transport I think it is perfectly obvious that, in war, this wider aspect cannot be the business of a single Minister; it must be handled by Ministers collectively. It is equally true in peace that, if preparations for defence have to be made, they cannot be entrusted to a single Minister, and, for this reason, action recommended on defence grounds in time of peace may often involve some sacrifice of immediate civil advantage. An obvious case will occur to hon. Members in the location of industry. Future defence advantages often have to be weighed against immediate disadvantages to our peace economy. Therefore, in peacetime, these decisions must be agreed to by the Ministers affected.
If we had one Defence Minister responsible for this whole field, he would obviously encroach on the responsibilities of other Ministers and, in fact, become that leviathan that has been dreaded. Our prewar organisation took account of this, and entrusted the whole business of planning defence to the Committee of Imperial Defence. It was created for that purpose, for facilitating the discussion of defence plans involving co-operation by several agencies of the Government, and in our new organisation we carry forward this principle. The Defence Committee, which will take over the functions of the old Committee of Imperial Defence, will be presided over by the Prime Minister. Its composition will be flexible.
I would here like to advert to certain criticisms that have been made in another place. While stating the fact of flexibility, we had set out in the White Paper that certain Ministers will be regular members of the Committee, and we did this in order to give the House and country a clear picture of the machine. Thus, among those permanent members, in addition to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence and the Service Ministers, mention is made of the Lord President, of the Foreign Secretary, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Labour

621
and, of course, the Minister of Supply. In setting this out so fully, we have departed from a very sound principle and practice, that of not disclosing the composition of Cabinet Committees. That is a very sound principle. We do not want to depart from the principle of departmental responsibility and there is, after all, no obligation on the Government to disclose the exact domestic arrangements for handling its collective business. But I notice that, in a Debate in another place, this departure from the normal got us into trouble, because more weight has been given to our illustration showing that there are certain regular members, than to the statement that its composition is essentially flexible. The idea, of course, is that other Ministers are called in from time to time, as happens in other Committees when there is a nucleus.
In particular, a point was made of the fact that the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs was not mentioned among the regular members. Perhaps I might deal with that point now. The Dominions Secretary will, of course, be kept in the closest possible touch with all defence matters, and will attend all meetings and discussions which involve the defence of the Commonwealth as a whole or in any way affect the interests of any part of the Commonwealth. But, of course, there is a vast number of defence matters which concern only this country, and they need not occupy the time of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. I wish to make it clear that there is no intention whatever of bypassing all those matters with which he is concerned.
Another misapprehension I noticed in the Debate in another place was that one speaker assumed that because the normal organisation of the Defence Committee had been set out in a White Paper, the Government would be precluded from making any change of structure without coming to Parliament. That again is to disregard the point I have made, namely, that, like the Committee of Imperial Defence, the Defence Committee must not be rigid but flexible and must be adapted to circumstances.
I have stated the points of likeness between the new setup and the old, and there is one important matter of difference. The old Committee of Imperial Defence was essentially an advisory body,
622
set up, hon. Members will realise, as long ago as the beginning of the century, and I think the reasons for making it advisory were largely historical. The result was that it had no powers of decision. Its recommendations took the form of advice to particular Ministers on matters for which they were individually responsible to Parliament, and to the Cabinet upon matters requiring coordinated decision. Of course, I am well aware that in practice that advice was often tantamount to a decision, but the distinction is, I think, important. Under the new scheme of organisation, the Defence Committee will not be purely advisory. As a committee of the Cabinet, it will have powers of decision to the extent to which authority is devolved upon it.
I would like to depart for a moment from what is set out in the White Paper, and say a word on the organisation of government, because there have been very great changes in the last 40 years and especially in recent years, in particular in the development of the Cabinet committee system. Let me remind the House that, in 1914, there were only 15 major Departments of State, and all the Ministers in charge of them were in the Cabinet. Today there are something like 27 Departments headed by Ministers, and that means that we have either to exclude some of them, or have an impossibly large Cabinet. Practical experience has shown that there is a limit of size in relation to the effectiveness of an instrument of decision such as the Cabinet. In the war we were as few as five, and I think we never exceeded nine. One was overseas, so that the number was really eight. Other things being equal, it is desirable to keep the Cabinet as small as is reasonably possible.
At the present moment we have 18 Cabinet Ministers, and 13 Ministers in charge of Departments outside the Cabinet. This is only possible through the development of the committee system. In our present practice, which we developed greatly during the war, we have standing committees of the Cabinet acting under authority devolved from the Cabinet. They can make decisions or they can make recommendations to the Cabinet. There always remains—and let me stress this—the right of departmental Ministers in the last resort to bring matters to the Cabinet, but, in fact, experience has

623
shown that a great many inter-departmental matters can be settled in committee and a great deal of preliminary work done, so as to free the Cabinet from an excessive amount of work over detail. Thus by bringing within that general structure the work that was formerly done by the Committee of Imperial Defence, it is possible to give the Defence Committee a power of decision which was denied to its predecessor.
I would like again to stress the point that the Prime Minister presides over the Defence Committee precisely because the wider aspects of defence with which I am now dealing must be dealt with by the authority of the Prime Minister, who has to take full account not only of the claims of defence, but also of the claims of all the other activities of the nation, and obviously that could not be handed over completely to the Minister of Defence.
So much for the wider field which must be handled by Ministers collectively. Within that wider field there is a particular group of problems which can, with advantage, be made the responsibility of a single Minister. They are the problems of the three branches of the Armed Forces and their supply. This is a sphere of responsibility which under the White Paper is assigned to the Minister of Defence. There was, I think, a certain defect in the Committee of Imperial Defence just because it was an advisory body. In effect, it may have had a fairly large measure of executive authority, but I think there always was the lack of a guiding hand to formulate a unified defence policy. This we hope to remedy by the appointment of a Minister of Defence.
Here let me say that the new Minister must not be merely a coordinator or a chairman of committees. That was tried prior to the war and found wanting. Let us see why it failed. It failed because the responsibilities and powers of the three Service Ministers and the Minister of Supply were left in all respects unchanged. The new Minister was given a coordinating responsibility over the whole field as a deputy to the Prime Minister, but as he had no power and lacked the authority that belongs to the Prime Minister, he failed to secure real unification. In fact, his scope was too wide, and his authority too small. The scope of the new Minister's
624
responsibility is defined in paragraph 26 of the White Paper. The underlying conception is that the new Minister should be directly responsible to Parliament for a defined range of subjects, subjects which are common to the three branches of the Armed Forces and supply. Those three Service Ministers will continue to he responsible to Parliament for the administration of their own Services. The new Minister of Defence has a separate responsibility for matters common to all three.
I think there are four broad headings under which a unified defence policy is to be sought. First, there is the heading of strategy and planning. The formulation of unified strategy and planning as between the three Services remains the responsibility of the Chiefs of Staff in their corporate capacity. There is in effect one Chief of Staff in commission, responsible for advising the Government on technical questions. Though the Chiefs of Staff will continue to tender their advice direct to the Defence Committee and the Cabinet, the Minister of Defence will be presiding over meetings of the Chiefs of Staff whenever they or he may desire; and the Chiefs of Staff organisation, with the Joint Staffs for planning and intelligence, will be within the organisation of the Ministry of Defence. Let me hasten to add that there is nothing to prevent—indeed it may happen on occasions—the Prime Minister consulting with the Chiefs of Staff. I say that, because sometimes an omission is thought to make a tremendous difference.
Secondly, the Minister will be responsible for correlating the production problems of the three Services. He will discharge this responsibility through a Production Committee. The members will include the Service Ministers, the Minister of Supply and the Minister of Labour; and they will be served by a Joint War Production Staff.
Thirdly, there is the Minister's responsibility in connection with scientific research and development. That will be discharged in much the same way. He will formulate general policy and apportion the available resources between the three Services, and he will be assisted by a Defence Research Policy Committee, including the Directors of Research of all the three Services.
Mr. Eden: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman a

625
question? When he spoke of the Chiefs of Staff meeting in their corporate capacity with the Minister—with which we are in entire agreement—I was not quite clear from what he said, whether the Service Ministers would normally be present on those occasions or not.
The Prime Minister: I do not think they would necessarily. There would be meetings at which there would be the Service Ministers and the Chiefs of Staff; but the Chiefs of Staff Committee meet by themselves—just the three—very often; sometimes, when they or he desire it, with the Minister of Defence, and sometimes they meet with the Prime Minister. I think it is a continuation of the present practice, with which we are both very familiar.
I am sure the House will be interested to know that the Chairman of the Research Policy Committee will be Sir Henry Tizard, the President of Magdalen College, Oxford, a gentleman of great distinction who gave great service to us in the war. I should like to add that in the field of science, there will be the closest liaison with the other scientific activities of the Government, which come under the aegis of the Lord President of the Council.
Mr. Keeling: Before leaving that question, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir Henry Tizard is leaving Magdalen College?
The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure whether that is so or not. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would wait for one of my colleagues to reply. My impression is that he is; I think so.
Fourthly, the new Minister, through a Committee of Service Ministers, will be responsible for developing in the administrative field the closest inter-Service collaboration; that is to say, he will be doing in the administrative field what is done in the operational field by the Chiefs of Staff.
I have now dealt fairly fully with the departmental functions of the Minister of Defence in relation to what I have called the narrower aspect; that is, the promotion of a unified defence policy as between the Services and their supply. However, we intend further that the Minister should also act in his personal capacity as Deputy Chairman of the Defence Committee. The responsibility of the Prime Minister for national defence as a whole must remain. He must take
626
a close and continuing interest in all the work of the Defence Committee. But in peacetime he necessarily has a great deal of other work to do, and it would be quite inappropriate that he should occupy himself continuously with the work of the Defence Committee. My conception of the Minister of Defence is that he would be acting in the closest personal contact with the Prime Minister; and, as the Minister responsible for inter-Service policy, he can ensure a close linking between the two aspects of defence. We must remember that in any organisation a great deal depends on the personal factor. There must be in this the closest possible working, in my view, between the Prime Minister and his Minister of Defence. In this respect, his position does not really differ very much from that of any other Departmental Minister who may be appointed to act as a chairman of a Cabinet committee, and, therefore, to go beyond his purely departmental functions.
It will be seen then, I think, that while in peacetime the Prime Minister will retain the supreme responsibility for defence, the Minister of Defence, without any derogation from the responsibility of the Prime Minister, will relieve him of much of the work concerning the three Services and their supply. I think many of the issues which are apt to arise between the three Services will be threshed out below the Defence Committee by the new Minister, and he will very often present to the Committee a single case on behalf of the fighting Services as a whole. In the Cabinet he will, normally, voice the defence aspect in questions which come before him; though I would stress again that where the particular departmental interests of any Services are concerned, they will naturally be summoned to attend.
The question may be asked: What about war; and how will the relationship continue? There is nothing in this organisation inconsistent with the Prime Minister taking over the office of Minister of Defence in time of war. Here again, I think we cannot lay down any hard and fast rule. As I say, much depends on the personalities of the two Ministers at the time when war breaks out. I hope I shall never come across that as a practical question in my lifetime. Below the Ministerial level the organisation is as well adapted for execution in war as for

627
preparation in peace. It is based on our wartime experience, and it is flexible.
Here may I say a few words with regard to civil defence, which, as explained in paragraph 33, is not within the jurisdiction of the new Minister? That is not because it is not an essential part of our defences, or is a matter of small importance. On the contrary, the protection of the civil population is vital. I may say that a complete review of the methods and organisation of civil defence is now in hand. But civil defence is essentially a matter for the coordination of a number of civil Departments—the Home Office, the Ministries of Health, Transport, Fuel and Power, Food, Works and Labour. Our war experience has shown that a separate Minister is required to co-ordinate the civil defence activities of their Departments. In peacetime that co-ordination, and that stimulation of defence planning, will be undertaken by the Home Office, which is the parent Department of the wartime Ministry. A small staff has, in fact, been established there for this purpose, and other Departments will be asked to make similar provision. The principle to be followed, as I have stated before, is that plans should be prepared by those who will be responsible for carrying them out; clearly, though, the Minister of Defence and his Ministry will be able to assist that staff in many ways. The civil defence planning staff will be kept in close touch with the Service staffs responsible for intelligence and research, and the production demands for civil defence must again be correlated with those of the fighting Services, and there will be a Home Defence Committee.
I turn to Part V of the White Paper. It deals with the organisation for collective defence. We have stated again and again that this country will be prepared to play its part in any measures under the United Nations organisation. These plans have not got very far yet; they have not been worked out. But we have to look to them, and I think everyone will recognise that the better our organisation here, the easier it will be to fit into any wider scheme.
I should like to say a word or two about Commonwealth cooperation, because I think there has been some criticism in another place of this section. There has also been some criticism by
628
Lord Hankey, who has had, of course, very great experience in the past of these matters. The fact is that this subject must be approached on the basis of present-day political and constitutional realities, and these are very different from what obtained in 1904. We have had the experience since them of two world wars in which major contributions were made by the great Dominions. I think Lord Hankey's regret at the passing of the old term, "Committee of Imperial Defence," is understandable, but sometimes new conditions need new phraseology. It is a matter of fact that that is a phraseology which is not very popular in all the Dominions. But the suggestion seems to have been made that there was an intent on the part of the Government to deny the Dominion Governments the opportunities which were previously available for the exchange of information and views on defence matters. I should like to assure the House that nothing could be further from the truth. Our present proposals are designed to increase those opportunities.
This subject was studied in the spring of 1946, when the general problem of cooperation between the different members of the British Commonwealth was considered at the meeting of Prime Ministers. I recollect that, prior to that meeting, there were Members in this House who were rather inclined to suggest that we needed some rather rigid and centralised machinery. In fact, there was some tendency to criticise the Government for not having created this. Well, it was my view at the time, and it was certainly confirmed when I met the Dominion Prime Ministers, that this particular point of view did not appeal to them. They preferred the methods which are now employed. There are two objectives to be achieved: there is the exchange of information, and there is the concerting of common plans. In order to bring about the exchange of information on technical matters, it has been suggested that there should be liaison officers. This is merely a suggestion, which was made in the course of discussion, and which remains to be adopted. If the Dominion Governments accept this proposal, and appoint such officers, the United Kingdom Government will make it their business to see that they are kept in the closest possible touch with the United Kingdom staff. They will receive all the

629
information which was made available to the Dominion Governments in the past—I hope even more Let me say this: The system would be reciprocal under the proposals we have made, in that there would be appointed by the United Kingdom liaison officers to the Dominions.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: Would the Prime Minister say who these officers would be? Would they be military officers, or what? Would they be of high rank?
The Prime Minister: Clearly, they would be Service officers. I cannot say exactly what their rank would be. This is a suggestion which will have to be discussed.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: But they would be of high rank?
The Prime Minister: Obviously, they would have to be very responsible officers. I cannot say exactly what rank they would have, or what elevation the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests. He and I start from different elevations. The development of the United Kingdom organisation in this White Paper is not unlike what is being developed in some of the Dominions, and that, I think, will help to make liaison effective. There is, on the other hand, the conclusion of agreements and the concerting of common plans. It is quite obvious that the exchange of liaison officers, however elevated in rank, is not enough. Decisions in these matters cannot be taken for Dominion Governments by their representatives in this country until they have been fully considered by the Dominion Cabinets. Dominion Governments, let it be remembered, are, like ourselves, member States of the United Nations, and defence arrangements will have to be considered in relation to our respective obligations to the United Nations, and within any regional schemes that may be evolved under that organisation.
I would add that it is the earnest desire of His Majesty's Government to achieve the fullest cooperation in defence, as in other matters, with the Dominion Governments. Remember, this, is not a thing we can lay down. They are equal partners in the Commonwealth. Therefore, all agreements must be done on that level, between equal partners. My right hon. Friend, who will speak later in the Debate, will reply to any of the detailed
630
points that may be raised. I have tried to give the House a general view of the conception in this White Paper. I believe that the present proposals will promote efficiency and economy in our defence organisation, and I therefore commend them to the House
4.17 p.m.
Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I think we must have it very much in our minds that we are discussing this White Paper against the background of victory. No war in which Great Britain, and the Empire, have been engaged has been conducted with so few mistakes in the higher direction, in strategy and grand tactics, than the one we have just concluded. I think that the most perfunctory study of our military history, from the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries, would show that statement to be correct. If we look at the relations of the Cabinet with the Duke of Wellington, we shall find a very different story from that of today. Perhaps I may be forgiven for reminding the House how those relations appeared in some very dramatic forms. At the battle of Vimiera in August, 1808, Sir Arthur Wellesley's pursuit of the enemy was whipped off by the commander-in-chief who superseded him that day, and the future Duke of Wellington turned to his staff and said, "Gentlemen, there is nothing for us to do but to hunt red partridges." On the following day, that commander-in-chief was himself superseded. It was not a new story, but that did not happen during the last war. Our earlier military history seems to be a story of the most successful of our commanders in the field rising above the limitations and mistakes and, indeed, the follies of Ministers in London and their officers.
In the main, the proposals of His Majesty's Government, as set forth in the White Paper and as explained by the right hon. Gentleman, are a continuation of the system of defence which stood us in good stead in the war, and which can be said to have proved itself under the most severe stresses to which any State has ever been subjected—excepting, of course, Germany towards the end of the war, but, then, she was defeated. My right hon. Friend and I are very grateful for having been taken into consultation on some aspects of this Paper. The present organisation is built up, admittedly

631
on foundations laid in the past. That is, I think, chiefly due to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
We can detect, through the official language—and the cadence of that official language is very familiar, I might almost say painfully familiar to some of us—an ungrudging admiration for his conduct of the war as Prime Minister, so it is not surprising that we on this side of the House find ourselves, in the main, in agreement with the proposals. May I also say that we welcome the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman who is at present disguised from us tinder the title of the Minister without Portfolio, and who will be the Minister of Defence when the Bill is passed? The Prime Minister, among whose difficulties and anxieties a glut of administrative talent is probably not one, is, I think, much to be congratulated and thanked by us for having spared the right hon. Gentleman for this post. We all know him for his robust patriotism, and, if I may add a personal note, I like to remind myself that through many anxious and critical years we were in very close relations on supply matters when, I also like to remind myself, our relations were always harmonious, although our political differences are not at all small. We always found the right hon. Gentleman's word as good as his bond, and either is quite good enough for me.
Turning to the main features of the White Paper, I think the most important thing to notice is that the Chiefs of Staff Committee retains its key position in the new system, as also do the Joint Staff for Planning, Intelligence and Administrative Planning. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition held firmly to the belief that a military plan, whether by sea, land or air, should be made by those who had the responsibility, and, indeed, the power, to carry it out. The Chiefs of Staff, after the plan had been agreed, themselves set in motion the forces which had to carry it into effect. If this seems obvious now, and it does seem obvious, it was not always so, even to some hon. Members of this House, and it certainly was not a principle upon which the Germans acted. I am glad to see that paragraph 16 of the White Paper mentions this point and attributes many of the failures of the higher direction of war in Germany to this fact.
632
On the other hand, I do not think that paragraph 18 of the White Paper stresses sufficiently, or does full justice to, the flexibility of the system as it was used in the war. The Prime Minister, in explaining it, has removed some of the objections that I have to the paragraph; it is only a historical one, but I think it is worth remembering that the then Prime Minister presided over innumerable meetings of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and, at other times, called the Defence Committee together, but there were very many occasions when he matured his plans with the Chiefs of Staff Committee and then presented them to the War Cabinet direct. I understood the Prime Minister to say that that flexibility is still to be retained in the new system. I want to make the point that the most important feature of all the wartime machinery, whether it was through the Defence Committee or through the Chiefs of Staff Committee, was that it enabled a purely military view, a view which was confined at that stage to a study of what was militarily desirable and possible, to be put forward. When, for example, the Defence Committee was used as one of those instruments, I think it is worth remembering that it was a very small Committee, and that nearly all the Ministers who were members of it had a practical experience of war—and by that elegant phrase I mean that they had been well shot at in the war before and had experienced some of the feeling which those engaged in war sometimes suffer. I do not think there is any better way leading to the scientific study of war than to take part in one.
Looking for a moment at the Defence Committee as it was in the last war, I think it would be true to say that it rested upon three things. First, its work was in the main military; second, the number of members of the Committee was very small—and even then they sometimes proved too big for effective working—and, third, the Defence Committee was composed of Ministers who had all had practical experience of war or who were in charge of departments solely concerned with war. None of those features have been entirely preserved in the peacetime set-up. The offices of the Lord President of the Council and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am not talking of the individuals, but the offices—appear to carry with them membership of the

633
Defence Committee, and I think that this blurs the frontier which, I believe, at this stage, and I emphasise at this stage, should divide the military from the economic and financial. In my opinion, these Ministers should exercise their influence at a later stage than this, perhaps in the Cabinet or some other body.
Then I must say that the Committee appears to have become so large as to be cumbersome. It certainly could not function in war in its present form, and I fear that even in peace its discussions will be much protracted, that military matters, which should be its prime concern, will become overlaid with others, and that its decisions may even be indistinguishable from compromises. Thirdly, there are, in my opinion, too many Ministers whose Departments are not concerned with war, and who will, therefore, have to draw entirely on their personal experience if they wish to make any contribution. I am quite aware that these objections are open to the answer that this is a Defence Committee set up in peace time, but I still believe that the Committee will suffer from being too big, from the subjects coming before it being too diverse, and from too many civilian Ministers and Ministries being concerned.
To point the criticism, I would remind the House that one of the main duties of the Defence Committee is to review all current strategy. Perhaps the most perfunctory part of the White Paper will appear to the House to be that which is headed "Organisation for Collective Defence." I see that "The Times" describes the expression Collective Defence" as a coy alternative to Imperial defence." Certainly we are becoming more genteel in these matters every day. I do not think we can necessarily impute blame to His Majesty's Government for the nebulous nature of these proposals; clearly the Dominion Governments are equally responsible, and we are all aware how the Statute of Westminster bears upon the whole subject. I hope I may say here that in criticising this particular part of the White Paper we are not talking about a system where responsibility in the Chiefs of Staff Committee would be shared at the top level by the Dominions, because I think that that would be clearly impracticable
On the other hand, when we consider that the great striking force of naval power
634
is chiefly in the hands of the people of this country, and that we are a maritime Empire, we should have expected to see emerge from the discussions something more definite than the rather flaccid statement quoted in the White Paper. We have to be content in these matters with the appointment of liaison officers. That is a phrase used in the White Paper, and, if I understand aright the meaning of the words "liaison officer," he is someone who goes from one headquarters to another and informs that headquarters what the other man is doing. The term "liaison officer" excludes specifically the idea of consultation, and it does appear that the members of the British Commonwealth and Empire should do more than merely keep themselves informed about the organisation for our defence.
The Prime Minister has touched upon the need, and upon his desire, for full consultation to take place on the highest political level, but surely even if it is without commitment there should be, as a continuous matter, a greater degree of consultation at a higher level than that which appears to be laid down in the White Paper. I do not think that that can be replaced by occasional meetings at the highest political level. The White Paper takes refuge in the anodyne of the word "flexibility." I see that Lord Chatfield said, in another place, that there is no need to have a rigid machinery, but there is a great deal of space between rigidity and no organisation at all. Nobody wants rigidity. What we want is organised, consultation and planning in peace, on a high level. I take it that the Government are making some advance on these lines. I must say that I derive a little comfort from the last words in this part of the White Paper, which reads:
"There is reason to suppose that in the main they will prove acceptable, and that they will pave the way for machinery which, while giving full play to the Member States of the Commonwealth, will be effective as a means of consultation and collaboration."
We are familiar enough with official language to have some glimpse of what is meant.
I turn to some supply matters touched upon by the White Paper, and I wish to make a point regarding the Ministry of Supply, with which is now embodied the Ministry of Aircraft Production. My point arises out of paragraphs 20 (b) and 26 (a). The Ministry of Supply is responsible

635
for the production of weapons of war for the Army and Air Force. Hon. Members must distinguish between the relations of the Admiralty with the industries which supply them, and the relationship of the Army and Force with the industries which supply them. The relationships are entirely different. The Admiralty, so to speak, do their own ordering direct, and follow the progress of the orders they place with industry. The Army and Air Force, on the other hand, have a separate and distinct Ministry to handle these matters for them. Those Services are, so to speak, one Ministry removed from the producers of weapons and implements of war. Perhaps this is not the time to argue the merits or defects of these different systems. It has always appeared to me to be a great merit that the Controller of the Navy and Third Sea Lord, after being responsible for the design of one of His Majesty's ships, may later find himself in command of it. That has actually happened within the memory of the House. Sir Bruce Fraser, as he then was, at the beginning of the war was Controller of the Navy and Third Sea Lord, and later was Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet, and subsequently Commander-in-Chief in the Pacific. Therefore, he was fighting in ships for the designs of which he had been responsible in his previous capacity.
There are, of course, defects in a system which orders separately what, for some reason, are called "common user items," such as shirts or ·303 ammunition. Whatever system is used, no one who has intimate knowledge of these problems will deny that the most obdurate trouble is to try to bring into harmony the tactical needs, the everchanging nature of battle, the kaleidoscope of war, with the technique of production in modern industry. It is a complicated, slow, cumbersome and long-term process to change the products of industry, and nowhere more so than in mass production to meet the needs of the tactical battle. Tactics change under the spur of war, almost overnight—across from the North African Desert, with almost unlimited fields of fire, to the olive groves and vineyards of Sicily or Italy, where an entirely new tactical problem presents itself, requiring entirely different weapons. The adjustment between the user of the weapons and the producer of the weapons requires the most continuous
636
study. It requires knowledge of war by those who produce the weapons, and knowledge of the mechanical possibilities of modern weapons by those who use them. All this calls for the greatest foresight and closest collaboration. It is only too easy for industry to produce weapons efficiently, in large numbers and mechanically satisfactory, which are obsolete or useless when they come off the production line. It is only too easy for admirals, generals and air marshals to make plans involving the use of weapons which we cannot produce and on which they have no right to count.
This subject is one of the crucial subjects in war organisation. I should like to remind the House that no country has ever produced an aircraft, from the drawing-board to full-scale production, in under four years. There we have an instance where the nature of the tactical battle in the air has to be judged four year; in advance of the time when we are producing the weapon to take part in it. This is one of the most terrible responsibilities and it lies chiefly on the shoulders of the Minister of Supply. If it goes wrong, it means at the very best a serious dissipation of our resources, and at the worst it means a defeat. If it is decided to set up a separate Ministry or what are really two separate Ministries, to deal with the requirements of the War Office and the Air Ministry, it is abundantly clear that they have a most vitally important, difficult and hazardous task. The Ministry should devote all its time to the study of war, and to the development of weapons of war. Even then, great mistakes are bound to be made. Offensive weapons will be produced only to be found useless against a development of defence by the enemy, or by the appearance of new conditions and new weapons, or new theatres of war. I suggest that this is a wholetime job. Yet the Ministry of Supply is now cluttered up with all sorts of other jobs connected with housing and the like.
I believe this to be a cardinal error in the organisation for defence, and that a Ministry whose prime responsibility concerns war and weapons of war, ought not to devote its time to ordering the production of peacetime requirements. The Ministry of Supply should not be ordering aluminium houses, electric cookers, baths and lavatory seats at the

637
same time as aircraft, field guns and radar equipment. I trust that the Minister of Defence will look into this point, and will consider it desirable to prevent the competition of the Ministry of Suppy with the Co-operative Wholesale Society and others, and will segregate these tasks, and allow the Ministry of Supply to concentrate more directly on the production and supply of weapons of war.
This leads me to another part of the White Paper. I notice that the Joint War Production Staff—a body of which I can claim paternity—is to be continued. I believe it to be essential to war production. I understand that it will consist of officers of the Armed Services and civilians, all being associated together in the same body. It was through this body in war that we tried to make some contribution to the practical and obdurate problems of the difficulties between the producers and users of weapons. I think that we had some success, but undoubtedly the system requires to be expanded and matured in peacetime to a greater extent than was possible during the war.
There are three other matters to which I wish to refer. The first is in reference to what the White Paper calls "the apportionment of resources," which is to be one of the responsibilities of the Minister of Defence. This delightfully simple phrase conceals, in reality, one of the most complicated, detailed, and difficult administrative functions which any Minister could have on his plate. In the last war the apportionment of manpower between the Services, the production of munitions, and civilian production, were examined by a Manpower Committee under the chairmanship of the Lord President of the Council, who was assisted by the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Production, and Lord Cherwell. That Committee submitted their recommendants to the War Cabinet. When it came to the allocation of industrial raw materials and productive resources, so far as they were used in the production of munitions, that was handled by the Ministry of Production. The Minister thus had considerable influence on what was left over for production for civilian use. Apparently, all these functions, which are complex and baffling, are to be put on the shoulders of the Minister of Defence. He will need the Ministry which he is to get for this purpose, and I express anxiety lest he should be overburdened
638
with administrative detail, whereas what the House looks and hopes for is a Minister who will have time to look at broad strategic questions, and broad matters of defence, and not become a sort of uneasy clearing house for a great mass of Departmental detail. I think it is very dangerous to dismiss a thing like apportionment of resources in the way in which it is dismissed in the White Paper. The White Paper deals with it much too glibly, and I rather suspect that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me in his heart of hearts.
Paragraph 32 of the White Paper deals with the organisation and formation of policy for research and development. It begins with the deliciously ingenuous phrase:
"The problem here is to secure the continued and complete integration of military and scientific thought at all levels …"
Well, as the Americans say, "You're telling me." Apart from the fact that such integration is manifestly impossible, I, nevertheless, welcome the attempt to tackle the problem. Again, however, I doubt whether the great extent of the task is really conveyed by that paragraph. In my opinion, when history comes to be written it will be found that by no means the least of the contributions made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to victory lies in this particular field. It is a contribution which is almost unknown to the public. My right hon. Friend succeeded in getting a hearing for any new idea. He brushed aside objections, and pulled down barriers, and encouraged the most improbable people to put forward more improbable ideas, out of which there emerged, very often, a contribution to victory. I think that the decisive result of this kind of action—and I do not use the word "decisive" loosely—will one day be recognised. So, I welcome very heartily the attempt to weld scientific and military thought together at the beginning. But, as this is going on to the shoulders of the Minister of Defence, he will have a very hard time.
Now, I wish to draw attention to a very remarkable omission from the White Paper. There is no mention of the arrangement to be set up between the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Transport. We are an island people, and availability of shipping is the limiting

639
factor of large-scale intervention in war in any part of the world. Therefore, we should have expected to see a committee or organisation maintained in peace, as well as in war, which would keep the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Transport in communication with one another from day to day. That should form an integral part of the central organisation for defence, and I hope that when the Minister comes to reply, he will deal with this point, and consider whether a committee or body is not necessary.
I conclude by saying that we on this side of the House hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is to be Minister of Defence will succeed in carrying out his heavy and hazardous tasks, although some of those tasks are, we think, too heavy. He carries our good wishes, and we hope most sincerely that if his burden becomes too detailed and too heavy, he will not hesitate to shed some of his responsibility on to others, or broaden the organisation which is outlined in the White Paper.
4.46 p.m.
Group-Captain Wilcock: I did not have the advantage of planning for war; I was merely one of the many who had to carry out the orders of the planners, and I know that we all hoped that there would, some day, be an authority to see that there would be equal and proper distribution of everything that the three Services needed in peace as well as in war. Therefore, like many other Members of this House, I am very glad to know that there is to be a Minister of Defence in future, and that the demands of the Services will be in the hands of an authority who, we know, will be quite unbiased towards any Service.
I would like to deal with something on a level lower than that which has so far been debated, namely, the manpower of the Services which, I imagine, may be a very big headache for the new Minister and will, I am sure, be one of the very first problems he will have to tackle. We know that every man in the Services requires a man in industry to keep him fed and supplied with munitions and materials. We know therefore that one man in every 10 in this country is being employed in the Services or on these duties in preparation for war. Any economy in manpower we can make will,
640
therefore, be in the best interests of the country in every possible way, and I would like to suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should give his attention to certain duplications, or triplications, that now exist in the Services. I would like him to look at the medical branches of the three Services, as well as the legal, dental, and chaplains branches of the Services. It is difficult to see why separate departments should be required for each of the Services. There could also be economy in the mechanical transport sphere, which forms a permanent part of all our fighting Services, and which is probably one of the most wasteful ways of utilising manpower. Some pooling between the Services should be possible.
There is also food and equipment. A loaf of bread is a loaf of bread, whether it is indented for by the equipment branch of the Royal Air Force, the commissariat department of the Army, or the victualling department of the Royal Navy. Why it should require three types of depot to handle the same bread I cannot imagine, unless it is that it has been so for several hundreds of years. There is no black magic in this question of rationing or the keeping of stores, and yet we find depots within a stone's throw of each other: Army and Air Force, and sometimes naval depots, all handling the same things, and all utilising men for this purpose. I was interested to see a reference in the White Paper to the future possible amalgamation of the Services. In my view, the time is rapidly approaching when this will be a feasible proposition. In the Royal Air Force, we have a Royal Air Force Regiment of foot soldiers; in the Army we have glider pilots and airborne troops; in the Navy we now have airmen, and the three Services are becoming very interrelated. I believe that if the Minister could set up a committee whose terms of reference might, I suggest, be the amalgamation of the Services, without loss of tradition or esprit de corps, on a long-term plan, it would be a very wise provision, because, here again, there is a great opportunity of economy of manpower. I make no apology for talking about economy of manpower, because we are a small nation, and the big battalions do not interest us.

641
May I say a word on the conditions of service in our various fighting Services? It is surely so unnecessary to have three different conditions of service with three pay codes; it is even curious to have three types of ranking, and I would again plead for consideration at an early date of a simplification of all these things which clutter up the three Services. There is no doubt that recruiting for the fighting Services is not a success, and it is hardly likely to be a success when there is no clear statement from any Minister as to the conditions of service in the future. No man entering the Services today knows where he is likely to serve, or how long he is likely to serve; he does not know how long he is going to be overseas, and he does not know whether he can take his wife and family. These matters may be quite small, besides the major question of defence, but they have a very great influence on recruiting.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member is talking about conditions of recruiting, which I think do not come within the purview of the White Paper. They are matters of administration.
Group-Captain Wilcock: May I turn to the question of accommodation for the Services? I would suggest to the Minister that the Army might possibly be accommodated with the Royal Air Force. I know that this may seem to be almost sacrilege, and, therefore, I have not gone so far as to suggest that the Royal Navy might also be accommodated with the R.A.F.; but I think that will come. There is a great possibility of economy in accommodation and feeding arrangements, if large air stations, which contain comparatively few men, also accommodated the regiments and depots of the Army.
In the Army, in particular, but also in the Royal Air Force, yes, and in the Royal Navy, there is the detachment habit. Detachments are set up at irregular intervals at extraordinary places. I know that from my experience of sending a man out on duty, and finding that, when I came back a week or ten days later, there were seven men there. One man could not do the job without being relieved, therefore, another man had to go out; then they had to have a telephone operator, and then someone to cook their rations, then a
642
driver to fetch the returns and finally an N.C.O. to look after them all.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: I would suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this has very little to do with the central reorganisation of defence.
Group-Captain Wilcock: I think that this relates to paragraph 26—the duties of the Minister. When I made my notes I felt that the question of economy was one of the things to which I would be quite right to refer, with your permission, of course, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It is these small matters to which I am referring and not the higher ones of central direction. Finally, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word with regard to the location of our Forces, which, I feel sure, I am within my rights to touch upon. Here again, concentration offers a great field for economy. At the present time, with our Forces spread throughout the Middle East, and the Far East—our Army, Air Force and Navy thinly spread, with apparently no conception of concentrating within strategic areas—there are waste and inefficiency. I feel that the Minister should regard this as important, because none of his three Services can possibly be considered as efficient when it is disposed in such a way that at no particular place has it the power to be fully effective.
4.58 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I think that most of us on this side of the House welcome this White Paper as being a step in the right direction. But I personally feel that there are parts of it where we do not go nearly far enough. Before dealing with the points which do not go far enough, I would refer to the paragraph which deals with the Defence Committee. Here it seems that that Committee is going to be held back by having the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a permanent member. I personally know only the financial side from a great deal lower down, but in any sort of Service committee, when one finds that there is a financial member, he always damps the project down before a proposal can ever be really got straight. In defence the Services have to put forward their united plan at what they think will be the minimum requirement for carrying out the job. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sitting on this Committee all the time, it will never be

643
possible to get the plan clearly laid out. This Committee is really almost the Cabinet. What is the point of the Defence Committee if the major Ministers of the Cabinet are sitting on it? According to the White Paper, the Defence Committee is to put forward its propositions to the Cabinet, but as the Defence Committee consists of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence, the Lord President of the Council, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is almost a question of their talking to themselves. I feel that the Defence Committee ought to be without the Foreign Secretary and the Lord President of the Council. Now to turn to paragraph 26 (a), which deals with the functions of the Minister of Defence, and which states:
"This will include the framing of a general policy to govern research and development and the correlation of production programmes."
I know from my experience of these matters during the war that we went a long way towards getting a united effort from all the Services, but we did not go nearly far enough. I was for a time at the Army experimental station where tanks and vehicles were tested. We had a great deal of trouble in getting from the Navy, for instance, things that we wanted in the Army. There was never any real coordination in the collection of data and research work, and so forth. We tested vehicles for the Royal Air Force, but we were often given vehicles to test for the Royal Air Force which had been badly, reported on by the Army, three, four or six months previously. This would not have happened if there had been real integration of the Services at that station. In the case of the equipment of tanks, as another instance, some of the equipment was very much the same as that used for ships—such as compasses—but we never had the expert data produced by the Navy, and it used to be a long and slow job trying to get it. In the matter of amphibious vehicles, there was a great deal of delay in getting the Navy to have a joint trial with us. There were no officers of all three Services working together in the establishment. When tank testing was moved to Cobham the testing of all road vehicles was left behind at Farnborough, because they came under a different Ministry. The question that then arose was whether armoured cars,
644
armoured trucks, and so on, came under the heading of "vehicles" or "tanks"; they went on wheels, but they were armoured. I think that in such matters there is a great opportunity for more co-ordination under the Ministry of Defence.
I turn now to the paragraph which deals with the administration of inter-Service organisations. The White Paper talks about the possibility of a common medical service. I think that is rather a bad example of what might be done. If we work on those lines we shall find that, before we know where we are, there will be a fourth branch of the Services. We have now the sea, air and land Services, but it now seems as if we are talking about a fourth force of all war Services—I do not quite know what to call it—which would be separate and would come as a separate Service under the Ministry of Defence. A great many people have said, and still say, that the Royal Air Force and the Army should be one. I very much hope that we shall not see a fourth Service evolving out of these proposals. But there are plenty of directions in which there could be amalgamation; it should come through the joint loaning of staff and officers from each Service, and not by having a new formation. This amalgamation could work very well in regard to such things as education, particularly education for civilian life, and depots, since the stores —barrack tables, barrack chairs, and so on—can be the same for all the Services.
Also I would like to see a much greater mixture in many of the schools and colleges. There is the Imperial Defence College, but then there is a Military College of Science, which has all Army personnel, apart from one or two members from the Royal Air Force and the Navy. There is no point in this college being an Army college. It should be a Services College of Science, staffed by officers and instructors from all three Services, and should have pupils from all three Services in equal proportions. There should also be a very good chance of getting more coordination in the Cadet Services. Could there not be a central organisation for the three organisations, working under one head, and staffed by training officers brought together from all the Services? There could then be specialist training for each of the

645
branches. By these means there would be a chance of effecting a gradual integration and a great saving of material and manpower.
Finally, I hope there will be some alteration in the title of Part V of the White Paper—"Organisation for Collective Defence." I hope that it can be called "Empire Defence" or "Imperial Defence" and not just "Collective Defence." With regard to liaison officers, I hope that, whatever they are called— "consultative or liaison officers"—they will appear at all levels from the highest ranks down to the lowest ranks, and that they will both come to this country and go from it to the Dominions and other parts of the Empire.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. William Wells: Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House I wish to join in the general welcome that has been given to this White Paper. It appears to make changes which have been long overdue, most of which should have been made before the last war, and whose necessity was proved by the course of operations. I think that the Opposition, speaking through the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), had only three criticisms of substance—if I may use that expression when dealing with such a comprehensive Paper as this. The first line of criticism, as I understood the right hon. Gentleman, was in connection with the functions and operations of the Ministry of Supply. Although I confess I was not quite clear what his argument here was, he appeared to prefer the system that obtains in the Admiralty—which both decides what kind of ships it wants and then has them manufactured by direct contact with the contractors—to that which has been found suitable for the Army, and which is now, in fact, in operation not only for the Army but also for the Royal Air Force. The argument with which the right hon. Gentleman substantiated his point was that in the Navy a position might arise in which the Third Sea Lord would be fighting in ships he had himself built. To my mind, we might get precisely the same position—except that it would not be a ship—applying now in the Ministry of Supply where an Army officer is concerned, because in the Ministry of Supply there are Service officers who do not spend all their lives in that Department. They work
646
side by side with the technicians to see that the vehicle—or whatever it may be—is produced, and they can speak from their knowledge of what kind of tank or gun, for example, is actually required by the Service.
It is true, of course, that during the early part of the last war, that position did not obtain and that many officers in the Ministry of Supply tended to have a somewhat academic experience. Disasters did ensue in consequence but that was a fault which was remedied in the course of the war, and in my judgment this argument of the right hon. Gentleman has no real force at all in considering the Ministry of Supply and Aircraft Production as it exists today. The right hon. Gentleman had a further criticism to make about the Ministry of Supply in that he said that this Department's responsibilities are so vast in connection with war that it should not have any responsibilities in connection with peace. I confess that I regard that as a very specious argument. When one considers what the Ministry of Supply really does it seems to me that a large part of that argument, if not the whole of it, falls to the ground, because a large part of the essential functions of the Ministry of Supply are in connection with the engineering industry. If we say that the Minister of Supply is to be solely concerned with production for war, then the consequence is that in peace the Minister of Supply will be concerned only with producing a very limited range of articles. If, on the other hand, we have the present position that he is responsible in the Ministerial sense for the engineering industry as a whole, then he can know or ought to know, what the potentialities of that industry are and what is needed to switch it from a peace basis to a war basis. He is, in fact, in a very much better position to carry out his duties in relation to the Defence Committee than he would be without his present responsibilities in connection with the housing programme and so forth.
The right hon. Gentleman's second line of criticism appeared to be in connection with the part of the White Paper dealing with collective defence. I am not going to argue about words, but it seems to me that, in substance, and looking at the political situation as it now exists, the organisation outlined by the White Paper does meet precisely the need of the present time. The Committee of Imperial

647
Defence, as the Prime Minister pointed out, was never intended to be a policy-making body. It sometimes over-stepped, and rightly over-stepped, its functions allotted by the Treasury Minute of 1904, but its essential function was not that. What is needed now is, clearly, in the first place a coordination of policy at the highest level. We want an exchange of opinion, and the concerting of common plans. All those things are matters for the highest political level and can only be dealt with in that way by statesmen.
The second thing needed is the correlation of forces that are effective to carry out a common policy, when there is such a common policy. We have to standardise and coordinate organisation, training and equipment. For these purposes, it seems to me that liaison officers as prescribed by the White Paper are just the kind of officers who are needed. It is necessary to know what the other man is doing and whether one thinks he is doing the right thing. If he is training people on the wrong lines or manufacturing the wrong kind of tank, one can go ahead and make political representations in that sense. While the Empire is in its present flexible, fluid state, as it will probably continue to be, it seems at least premature to try to create a high sounding organisation which could not really function without people of the standing of the Prime Minister, or at least the Foreign Secretaries of each of the Dominions, constantly in contact.
The third point made by the right hon. Gentleman was in connection with the functions of the Ministry of Transport in relation to the Defence Committee. I feel that there he put his finger on what would seem a weak spot, and the only answer is that at the present time, which is the important consideration, what we are concerned with is not moving vast masses of troops and equipment to all parts of the world, which was, unfortunately, our concern a few years ago, but transferring the Merchant Fleet and the cargoes of ships to their peace time purposes. It would be an unnecessary imposition on the time of the Minister of Transport in these present circumstances to allocate to him any further duties. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was making a very important point when he urged that the functions of the Minister of Defence should not become too cluttered up with questions of administrative detail. Looking at the White Paper
648
here, it seems to me that the Minister of Defence is to have imposed upon him two distinct kinds of duties. Take his duties under paragraph 20, which deals mainly with his strategic and planning functions; then, paragraph 25, which deals with his functions as deputy to the Prime Minister and deputy chairman over the Defence Committee; and his functions under paragraph 26(a) and (b), relating to
"the apportionment in broad outline of available resources between the three Services"
and
"The settlement of questions of general administration on which a common policy for the three Services is desirable."
All those kinds of duties fall under one general heading. They are questions of strategic planning and administration which are common in respect of these to the three Services. The Minister of Defence has not executive responsibility of any kind. Under paragraph 26 (c), on the other hand, he will deal with
"the administration of inter-Service organisations, such as Combined Operations Headquarters and the Joint Intelligence Bureau."
In paragraph 30, we read in more detail about those organisations, and the Imperial Defence College; and we finally come to the suggestion to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock) has referred, the possibility of having joint medical and other services, for which there seems to be a perfectly good case in logic. That is a perfectly different kind of function. We have to consider whether what we want is to have four Service Departments, the Ministry of Defence being a fourth; or whether we want the Ministry of Defence to be a Service Department at all; or whether, if the joint control and administration of common organisations is to be the main characteristic of Service organisations in the years ahead, the present Service Departments, as separate Service Departments, ought to cease to exist.
I wish to make only two or three further points of detail. The first is that if the Minister of Defence is to perform his function of the apportionment of resources on a sound basis, he should constantly preside over the Chiefs of Staffs Committee, in order to know the mind and the intentions of the people on it, and to exert effective Ministerial control over defence policy. The second point is

649
that to perform effectively these functions in regard to the allocation of resources, he must watch not only the allocation among the Departments but the allocation within the Departments, in order to ensure that a sufficient amount of energy and expenditure is devoted to new developments, to research, to new methods of training, and so forth. He must ensure that the old, orthodox methods do not become the predominant ones, as is always the danger shortly after a victorious war. The third point of detail I wish to make is in connection with the paragraph relating to home security. I am sure we all welcome the re-establishment of the Home Defence Committee. I wonder whether paragraph 33 implies that the Home Defence Executive has been recreated under the Home Defence Committee. It would be valuable if we could be told something about the relationship between the home defence organisations and the committee of research into defence policy. Subject to elucidation on the points I have raised, I should like, with other hon. Members, unreservedly to welcome the White Paper.
5.26 p.m.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: There is no doubt that the general principles of this White Paper will secure the support of hon. Members. One is glad to know that the Minister of Defence is to be a senior Minister of the Crown, a man of great experience and a strong man, who will back up to the full the decisions of the three Chiefs of Staff. We look forward with confidence to the manner in which the Minister of Defence will carry out his duties.
I would first express my great disappointment that the title of the old Imperial Defence Committee has been changed, and that the word "Imperial" has been left out. It is in future to be known as the Defence Committee. We cannot view our defence apart from the other units of the Empire. We stand or fall as an Empire. We are not merely concerned with the defence of this country but with the defence of the Empire as a whole in which all units of it must play their part. I, therefore, deeply regret that the word "Imperial" should have been left out.
I pass now to paragraph 27 of the White Paper, which relates to the apportionment
650
of resources. I presume that it includes the apportionment of financial resources. The paragraph is not clear, in that it does not make it clear that the old scheme of rationing for the three Services is dead and gone for ever. I refer to the practice whereby the Treasury said to the three Services, "Here is the money for the three Services. You must divide it among you, and do the best you can with it." That was a thoroughly bad system, because the Services all scrambled to get the lion's share of the money allotted. I certainly hope that that plan is gone for ever. The three Chiefs of Staff, who are the expert advisers of the Government, must be entirely free from, and unfettered by, financial considerations when they come to their decisions as to the strength of the Services and their cooperation with each other.
In no way must they be influenced by financial considerations. Their decisions must be come to purely on military grounds. In view of that fact, the appointment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a permanent Member of the Defence Committee is a mistake. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a permanent member, there is not the slightest doubt that he will bring forward the financial issues when the Chiefs of the Staffs are formulating their proposals. That is neither the time nor the place for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to express his views. Of course he must do so but I submit that the time for him to do so is when the recommendations of the Defence Committee have been sent to the Cabinet. Then is the time for him to bring forward financial considerations, and not before. I, therefore, deplore that the Chancellor should be a permanent member of the Defence Committee.
The most important point of all to my mind is coordination with the Dominions. Imperial Defence must, obviously, be recognised as a combined operation, combining all units of the Empire, an Empire which is scattered all over the world, separated by thousands of miles of ocean, vulnerable to attack by every form of weapon and very difficult to defend in modern war. Therefore, although the main responsibility for the defence of the Empire has, up to the present, depended upon the Mother Country, it cannot continue to do so to the same extent in the future. If we had lost the last war—and

651
we were not so very far from it—and had been destroyed, every single unit in the Empire would in the course of time also have been destroyed. The whole Empire would have gone The Dominions are quite aware of that fact. We depend for our security as an Empire upon the combined forces of that Empire planning together in time of peace, evolving an agreed Imperial defence plan, and acting together, should we have to face the situation of a new war. The burden on the British taxpayer is immense. It is more than the British taxpayer can bear. If we continue to bear this immense cost there are only two alternatives—to reduce the standard of living of the people of this country, or to reduce the defence forces required for Empire security throughout the world, and this last alternative would be a disastrous one.
It is, therefore, only right, natural and reasonable that the Dominions should come in on this question now and bear their share of the cost and preparation in general for the defence of the Empire. War in the future will not be national war. It will be a world war. We shall all be in it, and that has changed the defence problem. It has increased its difficulties and immensely increased its cost. The Dominions will have to depend to a far greater extent upon their own contributions than they have done in the past. All the contributions and the arrangements that are come to must be agreed to and carried out in peacetime. When war breaks out it will be too late. It is quite true that in the last two wars the Dominions have poured out every conceivable resource to help the Mother Country, but they were by no means ready, any more than we were, when war broke out. That will not do in a future war. We must have complete plans and preparations for every part of the Empire agreed in peacetime, so that in the event of war breaking out, we shall all combine to meet the situation.
I realise that, under the Statute of Westminster, the Dominions have complete freedom of action as to whether they will or will not enter a war in which we are engaged. I submit that this complete freedom of action, as to whether they shall enter a war or not in the defence of the Empire, is entirely incompatible with Imperial defence. The two things cannot possibly go together. There must be
652
no question whatever that all units of the Empire come in on this question of a general Imperial plan for the defence of the Empire, taking part in it, in every stage and to the utmost of their ability. There cannot be compulsion, I know quite well, but the Empire must come into the consultations and must know all our points of view, just as we want to know their points of view. They must shoulder their burdens, and play their part in the provision of an Army, Navy, and Air Force, dockyards, munitions, airfields, and all the rest. That must all be laid down and agreed to in peacetime, so that should war, unfortunately, break out, we shall be ready as an Empire to meet it.
What would have been the position of this country and the Empire, supposing South Africa had been neutral in the last war, as she might have been under the Statute of Westminster? For the fact that she was not, we all owe an everlasting debt of gratitude to that great Imperialist, Field-Marshal Smuts. The Mediterranean was closed to us, and the Suez Canal was mined. What would have been the position of all our forces scattered over the continents of Europe and Africa, if South Africa had remained neutral? What would have been the position of India, Australia and New Zealand? The position would have been absolutely disastrous. I put this as an example of the absolute futility of thinking that the Empire must have freedom to say whether it will come into a war or not. If all the Empire units do not come in, the Imperial defence is weakened and an Imperial defence plan an impossibility.
In the last war there was another example, the weakness of our Imperial defence in the Pacific. It was a tremendous factor in urging the Japanese to take the decision to come into the war. Japan took full advantage of it. It is quite impossible to divide up into watertight compartments the three fighting Services in this country. They have all got to work as one unit. It is equally impossible to put into watertight compartments the different units of the Empire so far as the defence plan is concerned. Could we possibly have a watertight compartment for this country, another for the Dominions and another for U.N.O.? We must have one whole unit of the Empire working out an agreed plan, with all units playing their part and, for certain, if war is declared, the whole Empire coming in.

653
I regret very much that the Dominions Secretary is not to be a member of the Defence Committee. It was stated by the Prime Minister, I think, that he was not to be a permanent member because there would be questions of defence confined to this country. I do not agree with that at all. The defence is not confined to this country. The defence is the defence of the Empire. That is no reason whatever, therefore, why the Dominions Secretary should not be a permanent member of the Defence Committee. He has continuous contact with the High Commissioners.
Surely he should be absolutely au fait with every aspect of defence. It is tremendously important, in my opinion. In addition, there is a grave and extraordinary omission from the Committee of Imperial Defence. There is no provision in the White Paper for the continuous representation, at the highest level, of our Dominions. They had free access to our Defence Committee in the past; why not today? Why are they excluded? It is a most extraordinary and very retrograde omission and will have a very bad effect. It is quite true that there are to be liaison officers. I ventured to ask the Prime Minister about them, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) gave a very good definition of them. There is no comparison whatever between having liaison officers and having contact at all times with the Dominion representatives at the highest level when desired. Why are they not as in the past to have free access to the Defence Committee? The Dominions have access to the Service Departments and to the Imperial Defence College, and I would ask for reconsideration of this matter so that, as in the past, the Dominions should have free access to the Defence Committee at the highest level.
This omission will weaken, when we should do all we possibly can to strengthen it, the machinery for the unity of thought and action which is so essential throughout the Empire. Any weakening would be disastrous. Any units of the Empire which would not come into an agreed Imperial plan for defence, would weaken that defence and would be disastrous. Any question that any unit of the Empire, if war broke out, would not come in as one unit, for the defence of the Empire would be equally disastrous. I trust that whoever replies from the Government Bench, will be able to give some assurance
654
that there will be greater cooperation than is indicated in this White Paper, that the Dominions will play a great part in Imperial defence, and that we shall revert to the name "Imperial Defence Committee."
5.43 p.m.
Mr. Richard Adams: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) right into the realm of Imperial defence, although I hope to say a few words on that subject before I sit down. I think all hon. Members will agree with the main conclusions of the White Paper, which is the subject of our discussion this afternoon, and I think the policy outlined there is a logical development. History explains why up till now the Services have developed separately. The Army and the Navy in the centuries gone by fought their battles abroad without interfering to any great degree with life at home, and when the Royal Air Force came along that was added on the same pattern. It required two great wars, and, in particular, this last war, to make us realise the need for the unified direction of a total war effort. In accepting the principle of this new Defence Ministry, I would like to say that, in my view, it requires two complementary Ministries to complete our war planning—one which is already in existence, and one which is not. Here I think I shall carry with me to some extent the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) because with much of what he said on this particular subject I agree.
The first Ministry to which I refer is, of course, the Ministry of National Service. This Ministry should be responsible, as it was during the war, for the planning and the allocation of manpower, and it should have the responsibility of allocating manpower as between the fighting Services and civilian needs at home. Therefore, I suggest that it needs to be separate from, and not subservient to, the proposed Ministry of Defence. The second Ministry, which I call, for the want of any better name, the Ministry of Material Resources, should be created to hold the balance between the Service and civilian needs as regards supplies. Again, it should be in a position to balance the need between the fighting Services and

655
the civilians at home. As part of its function—and, of course, in practice this Minister may be one of the existing Ministers without Portfolio—it would have, first of all, the task of controlling the Ministry of Service Supplies, which corresponds to the present Ministry of Supply. I would suggest that the opportunity should be taken of abolishing the anachronism mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, whereby the Admiralty orders its own supplies and the other two Services work through a Ministry. I am not suggesting here exactly what should be the relationship, but I think it is an opportunity for applying the same procedure to all three Services, and that the Minister of War Supplies should be responsible for all three. Side by side with that, the new Ministry would be responsible for overall supervision of our imports and exports and to supervise the work of the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture. I suggest that these three Ministries—the Defence Ministry, responsible for the fighting Services; the Ministry of National Service, responsible for manpower; and this proposed new Ministry, responsible for our economic resources—together will provide the nucleus of a small and compact War Cabinet.
Now I want to make a suggestion upon the organisation of the Army, since my experience has been in that Service, although the suggestion I have to make might equally apply to the other two Services. It is touched on in paragraph 15, and more particularly in paragraph 30 of the White Paper. Most hon. Members will agree that the ancillary services of the Army have grown up gradually and sporadically without any considered plan. If we go far enough back, we find that the soldier who presented himself fat service in the Army provided his own clothes and equipment, but gradually it became a service of the Army to provide these things for him. Education came in at a very late stage, and it was only during this last great war that we developed the welfare services to any extent. I suggest that the proposed reorganisation of the Defence Ministry presents an opportunity to reorganise the Army, and probably the other Services, on a fundamental conception which is this: that the soldier is, on the one hand, a fighting machine, an instrument of war, and has to be trained
656
to carry out that purpose; on the other hand—and this is a conception which has not been recognised sufficiently up to now —he is also a human being with all his civilian rights and all the entitlements to the provision of food, clothing, education and so on. I suggest, therefore, that these two conceptions should determine the organization.
If we look at the situation in the past, we find that the commanding officer of a unit has been responsible for everything. In practice, of course, he has delegated a good deal of what one might call the administrative aspect to his second-in-command. But in a period of war that, again, has presented difficulties because at one moment the second-in-command has been concerning himself with N.A.A.F.I., clothing, cigarettes and that sort of thing.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. Member seems to be getting away from the question at issue, which is, the Central Organisation for Defence.
Mr. Adams: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and must put aside the illustrations I had in mind. What I was trying to get to—and I think this brings me back to the White Paper—is that the Army, at any rate down to the battalion, should be organised in these two sides, the administrative and welfare side concerned with the care of the soldier as a human being, and the other concerned with training and instruction of the soldier as a fighting machine. That brings me into line with the suggestion made in paragraph 30 of the White Paper where it is stated that the Government have under consideration the possibility of providing certain services, such as the medical services, on a comprehensive basis for all three Services. I suggest that we would find that the operational side, the fighting side, must remain separate for all three Services. There is nothing in common in the tactical and strategical sphere in training the soldier to fight on land, the airman in the air, and the sailor on board ship. They are bound to remain separate. But, when we come to the provision of clothing, education, and welfare and so on, I suggest that all three Services are concerned with the man as a human being, and these services can be provided on a comprehensive basis for all three. The suggestion in paragraph 30 is capable of a good deal of development.
Mr. Rees-Williams: I do not know what all this has to do with the Central Organisation for Defence. My hon. Friend seems to be enunciating a very dangerous doctrine, for it is the duty of an officer to look after the welfare of his men.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be, and the hon. Member may have the opportunity of saying something about it later.
Mr. Adams: I join with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in hoping that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of developing his point. I am not disagreeing with him when it comes to the battalion level, but I suggest that above that level, when dealing with the staff, and with administration of the Army, the personal aspect is largely left out. Modern warfare has become so complex and complicated, that we should consider whether we should not create special training for those officers who are going to undertake the command of units above the battalion level. I will not take up time by giving instances which occurred in my experience during the war, and which showed the need for further training of commanders of all arms from the tactical and strategical angle. I suggest, however, that an officer should, at a fairly early stage in that career, either choose, or be selected to follow, a career in the Army either as a specialist in his own arm at all levels, or that he should be trained as a commander of groups from the battalion upwards. If this plan is followed logically I think we would find that by the time we get to general rank, a man would only hold a position of commander if he had had training in the technique and strategy of all three Services—the Army, Navy and Air Force.
On the question of Imperial defence, the communique mentioned in paragraph 37 sets out the view of the Government and, in my view, is extremely sound. I consider that within the loose and free association as definied in the Statute of Westminster a rigid centralisation is not possible. I can conceive that at some future time there may be political considerations, and that practical difficulties might occur which would prevent the operation of such a rigid system, and indeed, under the Statute of Westminster we cannot ask for any firm guarantee of common action. If each individual unit
658
within the Commonwealth group pursues a policy of efficiency, with the exchange of views and consultations at a high level —and I do not disagree with the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington when he calls for a consultation at a high level—we should find in circumstances such as this that correlation would be easy in the light of the exact situation of any war that developed.
Finally, I express the hope, with which I think all hon. Members who take part in the Debate will be in agreement, that, although we give cold and scientific consideration to this subject today, we hope our conclusions will never be tested in the stern reality of war.
5.56 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: Like all the other hon. Members who have addressed the House, I welcome this White Paper. I have been one of those who have advocated a Ministry of Defence for the last 25 years. Therefore, to see it actually coming to fruition is a matter of pleasure to me.
I think the new Ministry is based on the right lines. It is based on evolutionary rather than on revolutionary principles. That means, I take it, that the evolution is not complete. I remember what the Prime Minister said just now being said in the old days, that we could not have a Minister of Defence unless he were the Prime Minister, because, if he were not the Prime Minister, he would become far too big for his boots. I think there is some danger of that happening now if all the work that is set out somewhat casually in this White Paper is to be imposed on the shoulders of the Minister of Defence. I share the fears expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) under that head. I hope the policy of the Government will be to go as slow as possible in the working of this new machinery in order not to make mistakes, and to test it out very gradually. It seems to me extremely wise not to attempt to amalgamate the three Services, for the time being, at any rate. I congratulate the Government on having resisted that temptation to do so, which is strongly held among those who believe in a Ministry of Defence. It is wise, also, not to set up a Combined General Staff in view of the lessons of the war, although I

659
doubt whether the criticism that is made of the German General Staff in this White Paper is really justified. I do not know, and no one knows I should think at present, how far the German General Staff was hampered by the Fuehrer in the last war.
I approve the setting up of a permanent scientific committee to be part and parcel of the Ministry of Defence. It is quite obvious that war today demands more and more scientific study, and it is essential in peacetime to keep up to date. I, like so many others who have spoken, am rather surprised by some of the Ministers who are to be permanent members of the Defence Committee. I should have preferred to see, as one of its regular members, the Secretary of State for the Dominions rather than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I share the view of a speaker on the other side of the House, I think, who suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's chance should come later, and that it should be the task of the Chiefs of Staff and Defence Committee, with the approval of the Minister of Defence, to lay out the claims of defence needs and submit their whole programme to the Cabinet when the time comes.
Again, I am not quite happy with regard to the section of the White Paper which deals with Dominion defence. In another place, it was suggested that it would be better to entitle this section "Organisation for the Defence of the Dominions and the Colonies" rather than "Organisation for Collective Defence." and, in view of the unfortunate associations of the word "collective" in the past, it seems to me a pity to have revived its use for this purpose. I cannot for the life of me see why it should not be possible to carry on the practice which, I think, exists at present, of discussing defensive problems with the leading statesmen and soldiers of the Dominions in time of peace, and I doubt whether the employment of liaison officers will be satisfactory except on the highest level.
The point which I really wish to bring forward this evening has not already been alluded to. I think they are, from a constitutional point of view, of extreme importance. We learned during the interwar period that our foreign policy was weakened by lack of adequate armaments.
660
Unfortunately, in that period, we failed to provide the military resources necessary to fulfil our international obligations. As a result, we deprived ourselves of the only means by which aggression could have been prevented, and suffered imminent danger of defeat when at last we were forced into war against an enemy whose military strength was vastly superior to our own. I wish to try to consider what can be done to prevent this happening again. I do not think there is anything suggested in this White Paper to this effect. During the crucial period leading up to the outbreak of war, foreign policy in this country became acutely controversial. Indeed, political antagonism was pushed to such lengths that it made quite impossible any successful co-operation between the Government and the Opposition on vital issues of national security.
From that point of view, the situation was very different before this last war from what it was before the war of 1914–18. During the period of Liberal Government from 1906 to 1914, when the parties were deeply divided on many subjects, indeed on almost every other issue, including some aspects of foreign policy, it was none the less possible for the Government to consult the Opposition leaders at times on the international danger, and to rely upon their support in carrying into effect the necessary measures of defence. This consultation between the Government and the Opposition had become at that time almost a matter of constitutional practice. I am speaking here tonight entirely from my own personal viewpoint and not as a representative officially of the Opposition in this House at the present time. But I would like to point out that even in 1931, for instance, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, when he was Prime Minister, invited Opposition leaders to attend a subcommittee of the Committee of Imperial Defence to consider the policy the country should adopt at the Disarmament Conference at Geneva. Some years before that Mr. Asquith invited Mr. Balfour to attend the meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence.
Our object, if we are to have a really strong system of defence, is to get rid, as far as possible, of party politics in matters of national defence and of oreign policy. This is why I should like to see a continuance

661
and extension of the Opposition leaders sharing in the work of the Committee of Imperial Defence. It should be possible for the Prime Minister to be able to call in to his counsels anybody he chooses to give advice in times of need. The Opposition parties in the Parliament before the last war were fully entitled to demand a strong policy of resistance to aggression, but they defeated their own purpose by resisting every proposal to provide armaments which were essential if the policy which they were advocating was to be carried out. At that time, those responsible for the provision of national defence, were, from a constitutional and political point of view, in a weak position to resist the demands for economy that were so prevalent, even though it meant disarmament "to the edge of risk"—and beyond it. This, of course, was nothing new, because in this country, as a rule, after a war, we have gone to sleep and returned to a policy of isolation. Public opinion in foreign policy is likely to increase rather than to diminish, and the pity is that public opinion is usually ill-informed. I suggest to the House that some means should be devised by which Parliament could be advised and informed for the needs of our foreign policy, and the requirements that arise in consequence in the way of defence. How can this be done?
Suggestions have frequently been made that we should set up a Select Committee of this House which would consider the Estimates of the Defence Ministries and the Foreign Office, and decide whether the sums demanded were sufficient for the purpose in question; whether, in other words, our foreign policy was sufficiently secured by our powers of defence. In France, they have such a Committee. I do not think it would work in this Parliament, because such a Committee would be on party lines. What I am suggesting is that we should try to put aside party, as far as policy in matters of defence and foreign affairs is concerned. There would be no reason, if the leaders of the Opposition were called in by the Government, in some sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, why they should accept the policy of the Government. What they would know would be what advice was given to the Government by the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and whether, in their opinion, it was adequate for the defence of the nation.
662
In other words, I suggest that there should be some careful study of this matter. From what the Prime Minister said, I am sure that he is open to argument, and that he would give consideration to changes in this particular method of the Defence Ministry. I suggest it should become the regular practice for the leaders of the Opposition to attend a subcommittee of the Defence Committee in order to hear the views of the Chiefs of Staff and to be informed of the foreign policy pursued by the Government at the time and of our requirements for defence. In this way we should be able to get a better understanding in the House of what the needs were and whether or not the Government policy was the right one. I do not say that there should be agreement between the Government and the Opposition on matters of policy—but at any rate the Opposition would be able to judge the situation and appreciate the national dangers. In public Ministers cannot always state all the facts and they have to speak with reserve. How little Parliament or the public realised the precarious situation before the war. We cannot run such risks again. It is difficult to imagine the risks due to the complete ignorance that existed with regard to our own armaments and requirements, let alone those of other nations. It is, therefore, all the more desirable that something should be done to improve not only the knowledge of Parliament but of public opinion generally.
Foreign policy is wise or foolish in so far as it pursues ends which are not only desirable but also attainable. We have seen what danger can be done, even by such a well-intentioned body as the League of Nations Union, which in the pursuit of objects laudable in themselves, served to foster the illusion that we could preserve the peace and defeat the aggressor by strong speeches and by shaking our fists in the air without sufficient armed force behind us. The chance of establishing some wiser system of conducting our affairs seems to be very great today. If we can set up a Ministry of Defence, with wide powers to change its machinery to suit changing conditions and circumstances, I think we ought to be able to build up a better defensive policy than ever before. Remember this: We cannot possibly hold our own in the world unless we have a real defensive organisation embracing the Commonwealth as a whole and the Colonies. We

663
must in peacetime build up a system which will secure unity and a common purpose in defence if we are to survive as a great Empire and nation.
Finally, the real basis of any kind of policy of defence must be on the basis that we are supporting U.N.O. It has always been said, "Oh, you cannot expect the Dominions to share all your views or to accept all your proposals with regard to defence. It may not suit to fight your wars for you." In the past there was justification for this point of view, but if it is recognised throughout the Empire that we are supporting the principles of U.N.O., and therefore we cannot possibly make aggressive war and can only come into a war when it is a war of aggression which U.N.O. is contesting, then I cannot conceive why it should not be possible to make a policy of preparation and organisation between us and our Dominions and Colonies which should make us a powerful cohesive force should we, unfortunately, ever again be called upon to wage a great war.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. James Callaghan: Those of us who are minnows darting about in the shallows of this subject must envy the ease with which the great leviathans like the Prime Minister, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), swim calmly and majestically through these deep waters. Unfortunately, most of us who speak from the back benches have never —if I may change the metaphor—dwelt in the rarified atmosphere of Chiefs of Staff Committees. What we have to say on this subject is, therefore, inductive rather than derivative. We cannot call upon our experience: we can only use our imagination, and to the best of our ability that is what we are trying to contribute against the great experience and wealth of information which Members of the Front Benches on both sides of the House have gathered during recent years. Everything that I say is subject to that qualification at the outset and I hope that I shall not make too many elementary errors.
I welcome generally the White Paper as it is published. I am sure that, in so far as it gives the authority of constitutional machinery to the experience that we found so useful during the last war,
664
it is good. One remembers that the Chiefs of Staff Committee itself was not set up until after our experience in the 1914–18 war, and it has taken another war to persuade us to set up a Defence Ministry. In connection with the functions of the Defence Minister, there are one or two doubts which I should like to utter. The first is related to a point which hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned, and that is how far the Minister is to be concerned with administrative matters of the common services. I can see the possibility of great difficulties arising in this connection. If we are to attach to his office common services such as medical and educational services, padres, and many other matters for which he will be responsible because they have been amalgamated, surely there is the prospect, which is inevitable with anybody who sits down to a desk, that he should do the work that appears on his desk day by day—the first work that comes. But that is not the first job of the Minister of Defence. His first job is to be thinking, planning, and making a wide review of the whole subject of strategy, and I think it would be a great misfortune if, in our current passion for amalgamation of common services, we loaded the Minister of Defence with a number of administrative duties which might very well impede the major task which we want him to perform, and for which we are setting up the Ministry.
I now come to more dangerous ground. I wonder whether in fact if we amalgamate these services it would not be a good idea—if I may dare utter the heresy—to amalgamate them in one of the existing Services. I know of the inter-Service jealousies that exist. We may as well face up to them. Probably many of us have seen the difficulties occasioned in trying to get even a commonsense arrangement such as the establishment of one small hospital in one base. Each Service comes along and wants to start up its own hospital. If someone suggests that the Royal Air Force should accept an Army hospital, there are always good reasons why they should not have an Army hospital. The thought of amalgamation perhaps is just an awful heresy to any senior officer in either Service, yet I wonder, if we are to amalgamate them, whether it would not be better to amalgamate under one of the Service Ministers

665
who is responsible for administration, rather than to put them under the Minister of Defence who is to be responsible for policy. I would like a great deal more thought to be given to that subject before a final answer is made.
The question of how far amalgamation is practicable is one which I think has not been wholly answered. I suppose our experience in the last war has brought most of us to feel that there is a great case for amalgamation, but the Weir Committee of 1926, which still holds the field on this subject, produced many cogent arguments against amalgamation which I think ought to be looked at again. I must confess that on balance the situation has so changed in the last 20 years that the case for more amalgamation of common services than we have at the moment is much stronger than it was in 1926. For example, the Weir Committee said it was quite impossible to amalgamate the Intelligence Services. Well, we have seen what 20 years has done to them. It was said that it was quite impossible to amalgamate the supply services, and we have, at least, seen the strides we have made in that field in the last 20 years. There are other services which occur automatically to one's mind which were reviewed by the Weir Committee in 1926, and some arguments for amalgamation, which, I think, might well be looked at again.
The next point with which I should like to deal is the question of liaison officers. I think there is a great deal in the point that has been made about the necessity for their being of sufficiently high rank. Now that most hon. Members of this House are demobilised, when we meet other people for the first time, we can look at their faces, instead of at the shoulders, and the fact does remain that, when you are in the Service, a great deal of your approach to the man you are talking to is determined by his rank. I imagine that, possibly, when one gets into the rarified atmosphere of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, they probably sit round a table and take off their coats, so that they do not see each other's shoulder straps and really get down to the job. At least, I hope that is so.
I do suggest that the liaison officers whom we appoint to the Dominions should be of high rank, and that those we get from the Dominions should have a sufficiently high rank to be taken into
666
the confidence of the Chiefs of Staff. I was very glad to hear the Prime Minister say that these liaison officers would get as much or more information than was given to members of the old Committee of Imperial Defence, and, in so far as that is true, it is welcome. I would say to hon. Members on the other side, who express doubts about this new aspect of the organisation, that there is really no need to be too much troubled about the shadow if we have got the substance. I never expect to see hon. Members opposite particularly keen on setting up more machinery, and more rigid machinery than we have got already, and, if the thing works well, it is a good empirical answer to say "Let it go on."
So far as one can make out, the Dominions are really playing their full share in the fields in which we want co-operation. Nevertheless, I think there is a great deal in the point that the Dominions must recognise, and I am certain they do recognise, that, if we are to fight a war side by side in the future, preparations must be, as far as possible, made in common, and that, to the people of all Dominions and of all countries, it must appear that the sacrifices are common and that the demands made upon the peoples of all countries are in common. The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) seemed to be talking in the days of the old British North America act, and I am bound to remind him that the Statute of Westminster does refer to the "free association of peoples within the British Commonwealth," and that it is no use lecturing the Dominions about this sort of thing any more than one lectures any other of our Allies. The only basis upon which the Dominions are going to be on the side of this country, in the event of another war, is that they believe that it is a war that is worth fighting. That is the test—a test of policy —and, if our policy marches in step with that of the Dominions, and theirs marches in step with ours, if our common aspirations continue to be the same, then there will be no need to bother overmuch about the machinery for this purpose, because it is not the machinery that counts. In the whole of these matters, a good Minister can make a bad machine work, but a bad Minister makes bad machinery worse. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) disagrees with me. If the

667
right hon. Gentleman really means to indicate dissent, how does he imagine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer runs the Board of Inland Revenue by means of an Income Tax Act 100 years old?
Mr. Eden: I only shook my head because I do not agree at all with the idea that a good Minister can make a bad machine work. Nor would anybody else who had had experience agree with that view.
Mr. Callaghan: I defer to the right hon. Gentleman on this point, but I still claim that it is the man as much as the machinery which counts in this matter. When the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend, the present Leader of the Opposition, came to power in June, 1940, he got rid of the old Minister for Co-ordination of Defence, and I think we should be very grateful to him for having done that so swiftly and setting us on the right road.
Another point which I wish to comment on is in connection with a point made by the right hon. Member for Aldershot, and repeated by other hon. Members, about the bad effect of having the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord President of the Council on this Defence Committee. I am sure that they were not thinking of the present Chancellor or the present Lord President. I am sure that there could be no one whom they could more wish to see serving on this Committee than these right hon. Gentlemen, but, as a matter of principle, after all, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes in to a review of current strategy at a sufficiently early point in time, he may be convinced by the arguments put up so that he may well be an unexpected ally when it comes to the Cabinet and a decision has to be made. Why should we assume that, because we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer added to a committee of this sort, he is going to convince or override the chiefs of staff? Surely, the nearer we get to these defence problems, the more is it the case that the reverse is true? Fuller information given to everybody, and a fuller appreciation of the problems, often change our point of view, and to that extent, there may well be a very good case for including the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
668
As regards the Lord President of the Council, there is an overwhelming case, as this Socialist Government is developing, for leaving him there. I speak, not of the person, but of the office. Is it not increasingly clear that the Lord President is responsible for much of the economic machinery of the country, and that part of the duties of the Defence Committee is concerned, not only with strategy, but with mobilising the resources of the nation for war? I should have thought that, on that very ground, there was a good case for including the Lord President at an early stage. Hon. Members opposite may say "Leave him out until it goes to the Cabinet," but the Cabinet has many other problems to consider. Again this is a rarified atmosphere, and I shall want an astradome if I am going up there, but I can imagine that there are problems which are crowded out from a Cabinet agenda, and which are the sort of items which may be discussed at a Defence Committee charged with the defence of the country. I do not think the case has been proved on this point.
I am not very convinced by the argument that the Dominions Secretary ought to be a member of the Committee. I should have thought that with the increasing stature of the Dominions in world affairs, the voice of the Dominion Secretary was receding in importance. I should have thought that the liaison officers, if they are established, will be much more valuable on a committee of this sort than the Colonial Secretary, but I would say, and I put this to the Minister without Portfolio, is that we should have the Secretary of State for the Colonies brought to this committee fairly regularly. As the Colonies are growing in stature and coming nearer to the responsibilities of self-government, and as the Colonial Secretary has so much more responsibility for them than the Dominions Secretary can ever have for the Dominions, there is a very good case for calling him in fairly regularly, but I do not see his name mentioned anywhere in the White Paper.
The Minister without Portfolio. (Mr. A. V. Alexander): He will certainly be called in whenever necessary.
Mr. Callaghan: Finally, may I say that I am sure we all welcome the appointment of the Minister without Portfolio to this office. We shall not expect very detailed

669
replies from him in respect of an office which he has occupied for only a fortnight. His thinking cannot be very advanced in this field yet, but I am certain we all wish him well. We put these points to him at the outset of his term of office in order that he may consider them. It is, perhaps, a rather striking commentary that, within 12 months after the end of a war, we should be considering how best we are going to face the onset of another war. I must say that I begrudge the time we have to spend on such matters because I feel that there are much worthier subjects on which we should devote two days of Government time. But do not misunderstand me. If we are going to have a defence policy, let us have a good one, the best possible. I earnestly trust that, as the number of our potential enemies gets fewer, the need for these discussions will get less. We must, as the right hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir C. Headlam) said, base our policy upon the United Nations organisation. Article 63 provides that the Armed Forces shall be placed under the authority of that organisation, and I hope that our representatives on it will take an active part in endeavouring to secure that these forces shall become international as soon as possible. As long as we go on with our individual strategic planning, as we are bound to do, so much further away is that day to which I look forward and which General Eisenhower summed up as being the one to which he looked forward, when all generals and admirals would be unemployed.
6.33 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: I, like the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan), venture with some trepidation into this dangerous field. I welcome the reference in the White Paper to collective defence because I feel that the only real defence is that entailed by collective security. I look on the Armed Forces of this country as being necessary only during a transition period, the aim of which is the establishment of an international armed force. Nevertheless, while we are striving towards that object, we must devote our attention to the perfection of its machinery—collective defence, and Imperial defence within that system of collective defence. There is a strong case for the inclusion of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in the Defence Committee, but I feel that, if he is included,
670
an unanswerable case is made out for the inclusion of the Colonial Secretary as well. I do not see how one can be put in without the other, because one of the greatest tasks of the Defence Committee will be to arrange the dispersal of war potential. In the days of atomic war —and this is a lesson which we learned even during the last war—the dispersal of war potential all over the world will be a condition of our not being obliterated in the very first days of the struggle. On balance, I think that the Prime Minister's argument, that they can be called in as and when occasion requires, is a sound one.
I welcome the effect which this White Paper has on the Cabinet in that the three Service Ministers are now excluded from permanent membership of the Cabinet and one Minister of Defence is substituted. Now that we are in the period of reconstruction, it is inconsistent with the problems of that period that the three Service Ministers should be included. I think that it makes for a neater Cabinet arrangement that one Minister should speak to the Cabinet for all the defence Ministries and, in that respect, I think the White Paper is a valuable step forward. Another statement to be welcomed in the White Paper is that the Government have not entirely rejected the conception of the amalgamation of the three Services. It is, no doubt, premature to welcome that at the moment, but a greater integration, both administratively and otherwise, is, surely, a most desirable object. I suggest that that integration should not be merely at the highest levels, but at all levels. This was one of the lessons that took time and pain to learn during the war. Friction was involved when people of different Services had to work together. I remember that, during a certain combined exercise in 1941, the Army commander had one map on one wall and the Air Force commander worked on another map on the opposite wall because the one liked the Army map and the other the Air Force map. We do not want to have to learn those lessons all over again.
I suggest that much can be done by integration during training and, perhaps, at all levels. The hostility between airmen and soldiers suddenly thrown together into a new unit is quite as apparent as at higher levels, and we know that such hostility does exist at higher levels. It

671
can exist in respect to articles in common supply. During the war it was a common thing for an Army and an Air Force unit to have to draw supplies from different sources with different duplicated organisations. It would not be a bad thing if integration went even further still, and resulted in such things as the common numbering of Army, Air Force, and, perhaps, naval forms. There is much to be said for a review of military titles and ranks in all three Services. I think that administrative uniformity can best be secured, not as the hon. Member for South Cardiff suggested, but by an administrative committee working under the Minister of Defence. We are much more likely to pick out the best in each Service if the integration is done by an impartial Minister.
Another thing for which there is much to be said is a greater uniformity in the disciplinary code. At the moment, the Navy works under one court-martial system and the Army and the Air Force under another. In some important particulars, the Naval court-martial system is superior, such as in the pronouncing of the sentence at the conclusion of the trial. With due respect to the different units in which the men work, there is much to be said for having a common disciplinary code and a common court-martial system. I hope, now that the court-martial system is to be looked at, that this point will be borne in mind. It should be remembered that the men enter the Services as civilians, and it is important that their right before the law, whether it be civil, military, naval or air force, ought not to be affected by the kind of Service or tribunal which is to try them.
Finally, I want to touch on one matter which has not been mentioned so far during this Debate—the question of economic intelligence. It was perhaps one of our outstanding administrative achievements during the war that we had the Joint Planning Committee and the Joint Intelligence Committee both working under the Chiefs of Staff. In the Joint Intelligence Committee, of course, the Ministry of Economic Warfare played an important part. This was a lesson which we learned after much difficulty, just as we learned the lesson of cooperation between the Services. It was one of the
672
most vital lessons, namely, the gathering of economic intelligence and the application of economic power in negotiations with neutral countries, to make economic elements effective in warfare. Much valuable matter was amassed during the war and many valuable lessons learned. The Ministry of Economic Warfare has, of course, been disbanded and much of the wartime staff which formed that Ministry has melted away. I wonder if we are now studying the lessons of the Ministry of Economic Warfare—lessons which might be gathered from the work of the Contraband Committee, or from our negotiations with Sweden whereby we were able to prevent her contributing to the might of Germany even though she was surrounded by alien territory, or how we were able to deal with the problems of supply of coal from Germany across Switzerland to Italy. Will there be an economic intelligence section studying the lessons learned from the last war and applying them to any future emergency? Such an economic intelligence department, I think, is essential. Such activity materially affects the outcome of a war as effectively as bombing and other forms of military activity.
I do not suggest that this work should be done by the Service Departments—I do not think the soldiers, sailors and airmen always have the right kind of approach—and I do not think it can be done by the Foreign Office. I am not sure that the technique of the Foreign Office is the correct technique to apply. There is an overwhelming case for an economic intelligence department working under the Minister of Defence, and I would like the Minister in due course to say something about that.
6.43 p.m.
Mr. Scott-Elliot: In view of the humble but semi-official position I held, I propose to confine myself entirely to questions of supply. Indeed, I have only two small points to make. My remarks are concerned with the work of the Production Committee which will be advised, as we understand from the White Paper, by the Joint War Planning Staff, or the J.W.P.S., as we used to call it during the war. I am glad to see that it is being kept in being, and that it will be staffed by serving officers and officials both of the Service departments and the appropriate civilian Ministries.

673
I speak as one who helped to put into administrative effect during the war some of the decisions which were made by the J.W.P.S. About the beginning of 1943 we had built up adequate supplies of certain types of munitions. That was the time for the J.W.P.S. to step in and, on a long-term plan, to decide that those supplies were adequate and that they had to be cut. They informed the Supply departments accordingly. The Supply department concerned then undertook what we called a programme review, in which we planned to cut contracts in different areas of the country. That was a matter in which we were guided very largely by questions of labour supply. We endeavoured to cut contracts in those areas where there was a labour stringency. in order that labour could be made available for other contracts which would otherwise have fallen into arrears. Equally in those areas where the supply of labour was sufficient to meet the demand, or where there was an excess of labour, we ensured that the capacity and the labour were diverted to some new form of production which was most urgently needed in the interests of the war efforts.
I come to the two points which I have to make. During the latter part of the war it was a question of cutting contracts. From now on it will be a question of forward planning to deal with shortages which may occur in the future. In other words, the J.W.P.S. will have to go completely into reverse. The second point arises out of that, and is a question with regard to the actual placing of contracts. In the old days, I think I am right in saying, at any rate before the war, Supply departments confined themselves to a comparatively small number of contractors. That state of affairs, no doubt, was economical. They got cheaper prices and probably got more efficient service. But there is another way of looking at it, and that is to spread the amount of contracts that are needed over a rather wider field. because this makes for a wider field of industrial "know how" to go into bigger production if that production is needed. Those who were connected during the war with questions of production will realise only too well the extraordinarily slow progress that was made at first in getting the tools, jigs and so on. It was all a technical matter, and for a short time we got no supplies at all. Then, of
674
course, the supplies began to come. That is the point I want to make. Production could be stepped up more quickly if there were a wider spread in the placing of munition contracts. I commend this policy to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply since, in the event of a national emergency which, please God, will never occur, it may prove to be in the national interest.
6.47 p.m.
Colonel Ponsonby: I rather agreed with the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) when he regretted that so much time had been allotted to this Debate. Certainly we had to have one day in which to approve the White Paper, but when many of us want to talk about agriculture, the Colonies, and other matters it is a pity that two days should be set aside for a Debate of this nature, especially as in another place this matter has been very fully discussed and, if I may say so, by people who probably contributed very much more than we can.
It is pleasant to return for a day or two to the old spirit of the Coalition where nearly everybody was out to do all he could to win the war, and matters in this House in connection with the war were, generally speaking, matters on which all parties were agreed. I know that this atmosphere is particularly pleasant to the Prime Minister, because I recollect about ten years ago a most interesting intervention that he made in a non-party Debate started, I think, by Sir Murray Sueter, who was then the Member for Hertford, on this subject of defence. This certainly ought not to be a party question. Of course, this House is supposed to represent a cross section of the people of this country, and there are many ways of looking at this matter by many different types of people. There are the military type who are always interested in these questions. There are a few strategists, and there are ordinary people who are merely interested in the welfare of their country without having any special knowledge. There are a few pacifists who are quite ready to lie down and let the invader run over them; and there are a few conscientious objectors—I do not know whether there are any in this House—who object to war on principle. When I speak about conscientious objectors, I would like to pay a tribute to the Quakers. I have heard so much in the war of the bravery shown by

675
the Quaker ambulance men, often in the front line, and always unarmed. If we eliminate the people with curious notions we come down to the fact that possibly 98 per cent. of hon. Members of this House are fully agreed on one matter, namely, that however much we may dislike the idea of war, it is better to be prepared. That is the object of this preparation, which has prompted this White Paper.
A wise man once said to me, "If you wish to find the facts about a particular subject see if it was debated in the House of Lords." I have looked up the Debates of another place, and there I can find everything that could be said on this subject, stated, as I mentioned before, by experts such as Lord Chatfield, Lord Trenchard, and, on the historical side, by Lord Hankey, who, after all, was in this business for 41 years. There are only one or two points on which I wish to lay emphasis. I agree entirely with what my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir C. Headlam) said on the subject of parties. If hon. Members care to look up the records they will find that in the past Lord Balfour, when he was Leader of the Opposition, used to attend the Committee of Imperial Defence, for the promotion of which he was largely responsible. I hope that in the future the question of party will not come into it at all. If by any chance the right hon. Gentleman who will be Minister of Defence thought it necessary, I hope he would invite the greatest authority on this subject to come and confer with him, namely, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). It is absolutely essential that this organisation should not be what we are inclined to regard a Government Department, too hidebound. It must be flexible, and I think that is realised in the White Paper. Lastly, there must obviously be the frankest cooperation with the Dominions. I will say something about that in a minute. Generally speaking, of course, it does depend upon the Minister himself. He will be almost the most important Minister in the country. I would like to ask a question about finance. In the old days there was this terrible scramble between Departments when it came to the Service Estimates. I am perfectly convinced that if anyone cared to, or was
676
allowed to, see the details of Estimates in the Service Departments they would find, over the years, a number of lists cut through with a blue pencil, which represented the reductions in the Estimates of that Department. They would also know that those items which were cut through with the blue pencil probably represented many British lives, and terrible loss of time in the war, because if we had had those items we should have been much quicker off the mark, and much more efficient. I have looked at paragraph 27, and it is not clear from that whether, in the future, we are going to go through the paraphernalia of each Service Minister introducing his own Estimates. I hope not. If I understand paragraph 27 aright, I hope all these Estimates will be worked out beforehand, and that the Minister of Defence will produce the final result. I think that is borne out by the last sentence, which reads:
"With the help of this organisation, the Minister of Defence will be able to frame comprehensive defence proposals in the form of a consolidated estimate for presentation to the Defence Committee and the Cabinet."
I hope that also means to Parliament.
Mr. A. V. Alexander: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is a very old and respected Member of the House. I would like to know how he is going to provide the opportunity for hon. Members of the House to exercise their ancient privilege of a redress of grievance aright unless they can get time to discuss the administration of each detail of the Vote at the appropriate time.
Colonel Ponsonby: I am glad to hear that. I agree that it will obviously be necessary and salutary that hon. Members should exercise their old rights. I assume that when the Estimates are presented—though they may be presented separately—the Minister of Defence will have gone through them very carefully, and that they will really, in effect, be the consolidated Estimates, though presented in separate form. In connection with the Dominions, I refer to paragraph 35. It is an unsatisfactory paragraph. From it one would be inclined to gather that this organisation will be, first for our own defence, and then for collective defence, as it says:
"which may be organised under the aegis of the United Nations;"

677
and lastly:
"machinery for collaboration in the defence of the British Commonwealth and Empire."
Perhaps it may not be drawn in a way that we can understand. Surely the way to look at this is that we, the British Empire, stand together, and the whole object of this new Defence Ministry is to so mobilise the British Empire as a unit that, as a unit, it can do anything—either help in the defence of this country or, if necessary, assist the United Nations. It is absolutely essential, as has been pointed out by many hon. Members, that the closest collaboration should take place first. I am perfectly certain we shall be linked together all through the Empire for defence; but it is essential that all the links should be well and truly forged in advance.
7.0 p.m.
Wing-Commander Shackleton: I have not very much to say on the subject of this White Paper, because I feel that in it we have merely a sketch plan of what the Minister without Portfolio is going to do. The time will come, perhaps in a few months, when we shall be able to see what is being done, and then we can get down to the job of either criticising the right hon. Gentleman or, as I hope, approving what he has done. Nevertheless, some rather important points have been brought out in this Debate; one, particularly, which was made in the most interesting and thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan). He suggested that the Services should be amalgamated under one. At that moment he met, I think, some angry looks from Army Members of the House and from some of the Royal Air Force Members of the House, and he refrained from saying which was to be the one Service. Well, that is a step which, I hope, will come in time, but I also hope that it will be a true marriage of all the three Services and not subordination under one. At the moment this marriage seems to have been delayed; and instead of the three Services being united together, there seems to have been a union with the new Minister of Defence as the bridegroom. I hope that, in this case, he will not maintain his fidelity only to the Service with which he was first associated, and that he will show quite clearly in the speech which he will be making at a later stage that
678
he does realise that there is great anxiety in the Services about their position under the new set-up. I am quite convinced that he is determined to ensure that each Service does get a fair crack of the whip, and I hope he will stress that point when he comes to reply.
Another point the hon. Member for South Cardiff made was that he hoped the Minister would not be distracted from his role of dealing with broad strategic problems or from the opportunity to think about national problems, and, above all, the Imperial problems. It is quite obvious that he will have to give a great deal of thought to these, and I hope he will be free to travel a great deal, if necessary, to pay those visits throughout the Empire which will be necessary for the coordination of our defence.
Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has got a second role. It is clear that this new Ministry of Defence has two functions. One is the coordination of the broad strategy, and the second is that of dealing with the certain specialised services held in common by, but above, all the three main military organisations. There is one thing which, I think, has been omitted from the functions of the Minister of Defence as set out in paragraph 26. It says there that among other things, he is responsible for the administration of inter-Service organisations, such as Combined Operations Headquarters and the Joint Intelligence Bureau. I think the most important contribution that the Minister can make to Service coordination is not only in running those bodies specially set up to serve all three Services, but in ensuring that there is real coordination right down to the lowest level. All of us in this war have had experience of cases in which there has been a failure in liaison between the Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force. Attempts were made, and successful attempts, too, to repair that in the course of the war, but I am told that the situation is getting worse now, and that Royal Air Force men are more out of touch with their naval comrades than they were during the war. I do hope the Minister of Defence will take steps to see that there is contact, that there is liaison, that there is understanding, and that not only in those matters which are obviously of common interest, but in the rest of the Services, which is of great importance, from the point of view of bringing

679
about effective cooperation and coordination in war time. One particular example lies in the Joint Intelligence Bureaux being transferred to the Ministry of Defence. That only covers a certain section of the intelligence role. There is a certain branch of naval intelligence which is of vital importance to the Air Force; and, again, there is Air Force intelligence which is of vital importance to the Army. It is essential that we should take decisive and definite steps to see that that information is transmitted. That is an important duty which, I hope, will come under the Minister.
We all agree that it is a very good thing that we are not following the German example and setting up a sort of O.K.W. Those of us concerned with German organisations during the war know what an unfortunate piece of organisation that was to the German Army and the German Services. Nevertheless, I do find it difficult to understand the constitutional position of the Chiefs of Staff. They appear to have two masters. They appear to serve their own Ministers, and they also appear to serve the Minister of Defence. It is perfectly right that they should do that, but I hope they will not be a cause of trouble or disagreement. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will, perhaps, give an explanation of how that is going to work.
I think we are all very glad that proper attention is being paid to operational research, and I, personally, welcome the appointment of Sir Henry Tizard who, I know, will be a most admirable head of the research department. I should like to suggest now to the Minister that there is one job that can be given straight away to the research department. That is, to start collecting information about the Ministry of Defence, with a view to producing a report and producing suggestions on how it should run, after it has been running a few months. We know well that organisations set up during the war became very static after only a short time, and I hope there will be special attention paid by those scientists who will research into administrative problems as well as into operational ones into the organisation the Minister has under his care. That is all I wish to say, except again to repeat, what has already been said on all sides of the House, a welcome to this White Paper as a definite step forward towards what we
680
hope, perhaps, one day will be a proper amalgamation of the three Services. I wish, as all hon. Members of the House wish, the right hon. Gentleman the best of luck in carrying out his new duties.
7.8 p.m.
Mr. Niall Macpherson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Preston (Wing-Commander Shackleton) has spoken with great authority and force about integration. I should like to add a few words on that subject. He seems to consider that the new Minister is, as it were, going to carry out a polygamous marriage with the three Services, and, sticking to strict orthodoxy, he would prefer, I gather, that it should be a monogamous one, and that the three Services should, in the end, be united together. I do not agree with that point of view. I think it is far better that the Services should stand by their separate traditions. But it seems to me that the way to attack the problem is not to amalgamate all the Services, not even to establish common services administered by the Minister of Defence. As my hon. Friend opposite said, that would clutter up the Ministry to a very great extent, and make it very much more difficult, if and when war time came along, for the Minister of Defence, whether he was at the same time Prime Minister or not, to carry out his duties with a clear head; or, even, in peace time to plan strategy satisfactorily in advance. I should like to suggest that the best way of dealing with this subject would be rather to adopt the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts), and set up some kind of administrative coordinating committee, under the Minister of Defence. I feel that if we can get the machinery—the mechanics of the various Services, the procedure adopted by them—as like as possible, a great many of the causes for the discords and differences that arise will be eliminated. Indeed, if the procedure is made as like as possible it would be very simple ultimately to amalgamate the Services were it thought necessary.
May I give one or two examples? One is the difficulty of admitting patients belonging to one Service into a hospital belonging to another. While I do not think one single medical service should be set up, I would suggest that a similar procedure should be adopted in medical matters

681
for all the Services. Again, from the point of view of communications, I have often been astonished at the disparity of signals procedure between the different Services. It seems to me that it would be a very good plan to make signals procedure the same. I remember very well. in the early days when the Americans first came over here, that I had occasion to ring up one of their headquarters, and after a long time I managed to get through to the person I wanted to speak to. I had just got the communication when an American voice came on the air and said, "Are you through?" I said, "Yes, thanks," and he cut me off. Coordination with the Americans improved in the course of the war, but curiously enough, as between the Services, we do not seem to have got so far. Then, with regard to accommodation standards, a great deal of dissatisfaction was caused in the Army, in particular in the early days of 1941, because the accommodation standards were so much lower than in the R.A.F. That is a subject on which the Defence Minister, as a coordinating Minister, could introduce similar standards for all the Services. I fully agree with what has been said regarding the necessity for cooperation between all the Services at all levels, and I think that the only way to get it, as was demonstrated, for example, in S.E.A.C., was to put one officer clearly in charge, so that even in peace time the different Services should become accustomed to taking orders from each other, because so far as I can see that was the only way in which, in the end, full cooperation was obtained.
A good deal has already been said about Imperial cooperation and the necessity for integrating Imperial defence. Obviously it is necessary to leave to the Dominions the very greatest freedom—in fact, they have it, there is no question of leaving it to them. It is quite conceivable that, should this country by any chance go to war, the Dominions might not all come in. On the other hand, it seems to me quite inconceivable that, if any Dominion were engaged in war, this country would not also be involved. The necessary corollary is that, basing ourselves on regional defence measures such as the United Nations Charter envisages, we should have regional defence committees in various parts of the world to cover Imperial defence. A good deal of discussion has aready taken place in this
682
House around the words "liaison officer," and I hope that the Minister without Portfolio, in his reply, will have quite a lot to say about them. It seems to me that the kernel of the thing is this: is each Dominion to be responsible in a certain region for defence, and is there simply to be liaison with the United Kingdom, or is the United Kingdom to take a definite share of responsibility in the regional defences, say, of Australasia or, again, of the Pacific Canadian-U.S.A. sphere? If the latter is the case, there surely must be more integration than is envisaged in the White Paper. The White Paper seems to pose two alternatives, first, that there should be complete centralisation—which is dismissed—and, second, that there should be complete freedom, while at the same time having common doctrine, common equipment to a large extent, and consultation as to regional plans. Surely there is a middle way of decentralised planning. The whole thing depends on the extent to which the United Kingdom is to share the responsibility for the defence of the Dominions on a regional basis. As at the present time Great Britain is the only representative on the inner military committee of the Security Council, I think it is quite necessary that we should take that responsibility, and I would ask the Minister to deal with that point in replying.
There is another point which has not yet been referred to on which I hope something will be said—the way in which the defence of India is to be dealt with. I know that it is a very delicate matter at this time; we are setting up a new Defence Ministry at a time when circumstances are changing. Here again is there not a strong case for the Secretary of State for the Dominions to be represented on the Defence Committee, on the supposition that in the early stages at any rate, and so long as our military responsibilities in India remain, India will be classed as a Dominion?
Then there is the question of the Colonies. The political aspect of defence seems to be quite as important in dealing with the Colonies as the military aspect, and for that reason alone it may be necessary for the Secretary of State for the Colonies to be represented permanently on the Defence Committee. After all, the Secretary of State for the Dominions is, in a sense, himself a liaison officer, whereas the Secretary of State for the

683
Colonies is an administrator, and it is his responsibility that is being engaged by the plans which the Chiefs of Staff put up for the consideration of the Defence Committee. For that reason I feel it is very necessary for the Secretary of State for the Colonies to be a member of the Defence Committee.
Lastly, I would join with all Members of the House in expressing a general welcome to the measures set out in the White Paper. Very special qualifications are required for the Defence Minister, and I think we are fortunate at the present time in having somebody who can hold that post. I wonder very much, however, whether that will always be so. It would in my view be much better for the Prime Minister to take over the responsibilities rather than entrust them to a second-rate Defence Minister. Then when war came, if ever war does come again, and I hope it will not, it would always be a question as to whether the Prime Minister should take over the duties of the Defence Minister, or the Defence Minister take over the duties of the Prime Minister, for in time of war at any rate this job must necessarily merge with that of the Prime Minister.
7.20 p.m.
Colonel Wigg: Like all other hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate, I support the proposal in the White Paper. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should beware when he finds all men speak well, not only of the proposals but of himself. Speaking as one of the ordinary people referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby), I should like to caution him against some of the advice given him today by many of his ardent approvers. The hon. and gallant Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock) spoke very wisely on the need for economy in our manpower resources, and made various suggestions whereby economies could be made, and that theme was continued by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown). I want to warn the right hon. Gentleman against interfering with what may appear to be trivial matters, when he takes decisions on questions affecting the three Services. He may find his popularity easily lost, if, for instance, he makes a general rule about
684
the nature of socks for other ranks. Such matters are highly controversial subjects, which he may be tempted to interfere with by the logic of the case put up to him. I think he would be well advised to learn from experience and go slow.
It may well be that over the years a variety of reasons will lead the Government to push ahead in the direction of amalgamation of the Services, but I am quite sure that the time is not yet. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) spoke very wisely when he reminded us that the proposals were being produced on the morrow of victory, and that embraced in the White Paper was our experience of the war. It is perhaps a little doubtful, when that experience is seen after a few more years have elapsed, whether the Services would be quite as enthusiastic, or whether subsequent experience will be so universal as to give general acceptance to the proposals in quite the same spirit as now. I think that the Government would be well advised to go very slowly, and beware of the voice of logic in these matters. The right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that behind each of the three Services are years of tradition and experience, and if he treads on toes, although this be absent from his mind, he may put back for very many years a number of things which Members of experience would like to see introduced.
I turn to Part V, which has been criticised, and particularly paragraph 40, and I also want to say a bit about the name of the Committee. I must express a little surprise that the Prime Minister did not mention Colonial defence. I feel that this is a vital matter. I am sure I should find myself at variance with the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) if I discussed this matter in any great detail. I feel that his heart is in the right place, but that his approach to the problem from the Imperial angle is a little out-of-date; he hampers his own cause by placing such great stress on it. I am glad to see that word "Imperial" dropped. After all, it was introduced immediately after the Boer War. The use of the word "Empire" has now become a little shabby. It has been used too much by the party opposite in other ways, and it has become out of place. I think it would be more useful if we called the Committee the "Commonwealth Defence Committee."
Mr. Turton: Would that apply to the Colonies?
Colonel Wigg: Oh, yes. I think that "Commonwealth" has a meaning both in the Colonies and Dominions, and in this country, which would find general acceptance. I am one of those who believe that the future destiny of this country, and the part it has to play in the world, is tied up with the development of our Colonies. I was impressed with the argument of the right hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir C. Headlam), who stressed the importance of public opinion in these matters. That is very true, but I think public opinion is very ill-informed on Colonial matters. I think that the propaganda which the Colonies offered during the war has been very badly handled. There has been considerable over-emphasis in the Colonies, with disastrous results on political good will. Nevertheless, it is true that the Colonies and West Africa and East Africa in particular made a very great contribution to the war effort. Their strategic importance has been increased by the happenings during the war, and by what has happened since. I hope that the Minister of Defence will accept as part of his duties the need for coordination with the Colonial Office. When I say that, I have in mind that the Secretary of State should not be a member of the Defence Committee.
One of the best ways to provide for the defence of the Colonies is to raise the standard of life of the people. That brings me very near to being out of Order, and I do not propose to pursue the matter too far. But it is no good going back to the people of Nigeria and of the Gold Coast to help us if a crisis breaks out again, if meantime we have done nothing for them. During the war the Colonial Office machinery was not good enough for the job, and we had to appoint a Resident Minister to coordinate the war effort in West Africa. It seems to me that from the economic point of view, and from the point of view of manpower and the well-being of the Colonies, that we should be foolish if we did not recognise the part they have to play in the future of Commonwealth defence. The hon. and gallant Member for Sevenoaks talked about the proposals in the White Paper as being a preparation for war. With the greatest respect, I deplore that approach to defence problems. When you
686
have to provide a fire engine, or insure against fire, you do not think that a fire will break out the next day. You say. with conviction, that with reasonable care there will be no fire. Our approach to defence policy should be on similar lines
I believe our defence policy must make its contribution through the United Nations. I sometimes find myself at variance with some of my hon. Friends on this side who look on U.N.O. as an organisation from which to draw support, but not as an organisation into which it is necessary to put something. You cannot have an efficient international organisation unless you are prepared to back it, and the country and the Government must provide the resources with which to make U.N.O. effective. It also seems self-evident that we must base our defence policy on the well-being of the Dominions and the Colonies. Our relations with the Dominions are such that we can only act with them by their consent. The White Paper says that the Government have direct responsibility for the Colonies, and we have an opportunity now, while constitutions are being made, and the political and economic future of these great areas is in the melting pot, to bring them into our defence organisation so that, over the years, they will see by accepting our way of life they are making a contribution, not only to their own well-being, but to the wellbeing and peace of the world.
7.33 P.m.
Mr. Turton: Looking back on this Debate one realises how different it would have been, had it taken place 18 months ago. There would have been a stirring speech from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition; there would have been a packed House, and the tone of the Debate would have been high. Today, we have the curious position in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) gets up and says that he would rather be talking about something else. I think there is a grave danger that we might repeat the same mistake that our predecessors made after the first world war, of putting into the wrong perspective this question of defence preparations and Imperial defence.
May I deal, first, with what is called, in the White Paper, "collective defence"? I am sure that the Government

687
really mean to call it "Imperial defence," and I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg) will not want me to call it "Commonwealth defence."
Colonel Wigg: Yes, I would like the hon. Member to do that.
Mr. Turton: If the hon. and gallant Member goes round the country talking about Commonwealth defence I do not think that people will entirely understand what he means. Those who fought in the war regard Imperial defence as defence of our Empire, and that is what I would far rather call it. Anyhow, let us not quarrel about these words. As I see it, the difficulty in which the Government are placed is this: They have changed over from an advisory committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence to an executive committee, which is this Defence Committee. For many reasons there is no doubt that that is a very wise change, but, by making that change, there is a danger of leaving out the Dominions and Colonies. The old Committee of Imperial Defence, after 1926, was, I understand, regularly attended by the High Commissioners, and the sub-committees were attended by liaison officers. I would like to ask the Minister without Portfolio to make it clear whether that practice will continue with the new Defence Committee? I am not interested as to whether the Dominions Secretary will attend this Committee or not, whether he will be a member of the Defence Committee, because his job is something different. We want to see the Committee attended by men actually representing the Dominions, rather than have a Member of His Majesty's Government who tries to coordinate the Dominions.
I would also like to know whether it will be possible for Ministers of Dominions who are visiting this country to attend the meetings of the Defence Committee. I believe that has been done in the past, and that that would be a very valuable development. I appreciate that there is a danger in having too rigid centralised machinery, but we must have some machinery. It cannot be a completely spineless organisation. It is all very well looking back on the war and saying, "This Empire coordination worked out beautifully in the end." There were times when it was very difficult. My
688
right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) will no doubt remember the time when I was a little further West of him when he was in Cairo, the difficulties which some of us found in coordination. We were then a fighting Army of men from the Empire. I use the word "Empire," although the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley is somewhat ashamed of it. The Eighth Army was an Empire Army, and there were difficulties of coordination. Before the war, plans had not been made to provide for it, and the only improvisation which the then High Command used was in the form of liaison officers attached to headquarters. That is the same principle that the Government have embodied in this White Paper.
It was not enough in the Eighth Army and the Middle East force. We had to get something different. I remember that just as I left Egypt, after two years of work, an Allied liaison headquarters was started. How far it was successful or not I do not think is so material to my argument as to show that at that time further coordination between Dominion Forces was required in the Middle East. I realise that following a Statute of Westminster we cannot dictate to the Dominions as to what form of Committee of Imperial Defence we should have, but I hope that we shall evolve some firmer system of coordination between Empire countries in the defence of our interests. If there is to be a regional association for defence there must be some coordination between the regions.
I entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley about Colonial problems. The responsibility for the defence of the Colonies rests with His Majesty's Government, and I hope that it will be made clear, in the reply to this Debate, which Minister in the Defence Committee will particularly look after the interests of the Colonies and of Colonial troops. This is a matter of great importance. I do not quite take the same view as the hon. and gallant Member that the Colonial Secretary is unfitted by his office to be a member of the Defence Committee, because I cannot see who else you would have. I cannot think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Lord President of the Council, or any of the Service Ministers—
Colonel Wigg: The Colonial Secretary is quite unfitted by virtue of his office, because once the Governor of a Colony is appointed he is not only the civil head but is nominally the military head as well, and the Colonial Secretary has absolutely no control over him at all. There needs to be someone quite apart from the Colonial Secretary.
Mr. Turton: I realise that technically and legally the Governor gets his power from the King, but he is appointed and dismissed on the advice of the Colonial Secretary, and the Colonial Secretary coordinates the work of the Colonies. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman's interruption is really valid, there is no need to have a Colonial Secretary in this House at all. But we must have someone responsible for the defence of the Colonies. That is of great importance from the point of view of defence. We made a great improvement during the war by welding together Colonial and British troops and making an Empire team. That went by the unhappy name of "dilution." It meant that certain jobs in an organisation or a force for which they were specially suitable certain Colonial troops took over. We found that men from Basutoland and Bechuanaland were the best men to shoot down Italian or German planes in the whole of our Empire team. We worked on that basis, and very little credit was given to these Colonial troops for the excellent work which they did in the command at that time. There were men from Mauritius who were very good as clerks, and they were welded into the team. I hope that we will have a continuation of that plan, because it was very valuable for British and Colonial troops to work side by side on jobs for which they were particularly fitted.
Colonel Wigg: Before the war, the Colonial troops were very small in numbers, and they were under the direct control of the Colonial Office. Officers entering those Forces left the Army and entered into Colonial Office contract. When the war came, that system broke down completely, and, during the war and up to now, the War Office had direct control of Colonial troops. Under paragraph 40, we proposed to revert to the prewar practice of reviving the Overseas Defence Committee. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that this is a
690
matter for the Colonial Secretary. I think that the further he is away the better.
Mr. Turton: I am trying to evolve something new out of the lessons of the war, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to go back to the old reactionary days of before the war. There was during the war this form of dilution which made it possible for British and Colonial troops to work together in one organisation. I would ask the Government to consider embodying that as a permanent feature of the new organisation. It is, no doubt, very necessary to have, say, a West African Regiment working quite independently, but if there is an organisation in which British and Colonial troops can each play a part, they can be trained together in peacetime for those duties.
My final point deals with the question of joint inter-Service training. I saw a great deal of that during the war, and in my view the failure of our plan in peacetime is to provide for economy of manpower in the Services in wartime. Our job must be to secure an efficient fighting force in which the tail is kept as short as possible, and the teeth as long and as keen as possible. I know that it is very hard to disentangle the tail from the teeth of this animal. I remember a prominent young Minister going to Cairo with that object, and I read a confidential report which he prepared.
At the Battle of El Alamein there were 740,000 troops in the Middle East, and of that number, the actual troops in contact with the enemy were the men of the Eighth Army and the men in Malta, and numbered together 230,000. There were, at that time, seven British divisions in the Eighth Army area, either in contact or in reserve, so there were 115,000 out of 740,000 who were actually the teeth of the Army. That is one in six or seven. That is a very high and wasteful proportion, if we are going to fight with efficiency in war. I am not saying that that was unnecessary, but that tail was having to service an Army alone. I was not in the secrets of the Air Force, but I know that they had a tail and administrative service, servicing the Air Force, as also did the Navy. I became worried about this after El Alamein, and I went into the question of the camp staffs. One would think that the number of those who staff camps was an insignificant number. I found in the

691
Middle East 5,700 men on the staff of camps. Some were at prisoner-of-war camps, but most were at transit camps, reinforcement camps and leave camps. I came to the conclusion that that was very wasteful. There were camps, both transit and leave, for the R.A.F., and I was told by my senior officers that it was quite impossible to get a joint camp for the Services, but I did eventually summon up courage to go to the R.A.F. headquarters and do a deal with them. When we got to Tripolitania, we started joint transit camps for the Army and the R.A.F. I gather, from what people told me after I had left, that they were a success. That is the way, I believe, to tackle this matter. I hope that the Minister without Portfolio will look at the question of the administration of the three Services, and try to get one joint administration. I am sure that could be done.
We can train men for the Territorials, as we did in my part of the world, to make an efficient administrative side of the Territorial Army, but that was not done generally. I think that we could also do it with regard to court-martial work. I hope that there will be an exploration in this direction as to how we can cut down the tail of our fighting Forces to increase the teeth by coordination of the three Services. In general, we must congratulate the Government on this White Paper, which is a step in the right direction. I welcome the appointment of the Minister without Portfolio as Minister of Defence. I am sure that all hon. Members, on whatever side of the House they sit, recognise that he has a great knowledge, and although there may be a salty tang to his Service views, I am sure we shall be able to cure him of that in time, and that he will get an inter-Services gait as he goes about his duties.
Mr. A. V. Alexander: I did once serve in the Army.
Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman must be given a few flights in the air to make him fully fitted. War and modern inventions have drawn us much closer together and brought the dangers closer together, and for those reasons I hope that the Government will have discussions with the Prime Ministers of the Dominions, and get a far closer network for coordinating defence than is outlined in the White Paper.
7.52 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It is not my intention, nor is it within my competence, to subject the proposals before the House to that detailed and expert scrutiny which they have been given by other hon. Members who have spoken. Before I deal with one or two of the interesting points made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I wish to express some regret that the comments on the combined administration of the three Services which appear in the White Paper are not as acceptable as they might be. While it is true the Government do not wholly reject the idea, the proposal is, nevertheless, the subject of rather tepid and indecisive comment. I hope that before long the Government will perhaps be a little more forthcoming on that issue. The reason I say that is that now is the time when a courageous approach is vitally necessary, now is the time when experiment on bold lines is possible and desirable, if we are to synthesise the policies and aims of the three Services.
The Prime Minister remains, in theory, the Minister of Defence, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister without Portfolio is to be given the actual title. I do not wish to pose as a political tipster, but I cannot resist the temptation to draw attention to the fact that, when the statement relating to defence in Command Paper 6743 was before the House, I had an opportunity of making a few remarks on the subject, in the course of which I suggested that the Service Ministries should be coordinated under a Minister of Defence, who should not necessarily be the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister having already a very heavy burden. I went on to say that the job of the Minister of Defence of coordinating the three Service Departments was almost important enough to justify a separate Ministerial office for that purpose alone. To that extent I am more than satisfied with the progress which has been made in that direction, as shown in the White Paper. On page 6 of the White Paper, it is stated that the Prime Minister kept the Chiefs of Staff Committee in touch with political matters which had military implications. It is not quite clear from the White Paper whose job that is to be in future. Is it to be the job of the Prime Minister, or of the Minister of Defence, or is it to be the job of the Defence Committee? Perhaps

693
my right hon. Friend will deal with that point in his reply.
On the subject of manpower, which is fundamental to the whole problem we are trying to tackle, Cmd. Paper 6743 stated that the work was on a fully combined basis not only between the Services but also between military and civil staffs. The present White Paper is not very clear on that point. I know that paragraph 27 goes into some detail on the very important question of the apportionment of resources. It points out that the Chiefs of Staff will advise the Defence Committee on their strategic requirements from year to year, that the Service Departments will translate those requirements into terms of men, money, and supplies, and then the Minister of Defence will coordinate the results. Those of us who have had some experience of the devious methods which are applied to arrive at what should be the correct establishments for various branches of the Services know that, in the past, it has been the almost universal practice for the demands to be couched in the highest possible terms because it was known that whatever demands were put forward would be cut down. This was an inducement to the Service Ministries to ask for more than they really required in the hope that they would get perhaps 75 per cent. or 50 per cent. of what they had asked for.
That kind of process reduces the formation of correct establishments to the category of huckstering in an oriental bazaar. I hope that a new method of approach will be adopted in the new Ministry of Defence. It has struck me as being a very odd situation that, in order to arrive at what manpower resources are required, we begin at the wrong end. If we decide what our commitments are and then calculate the numbers required to implement them, we are putting the cart before the horse. It is hopeless to expect the Service Departments or the Ministry of Defence to carry out commitments for which the manpower does not exist. In connection with the apportionment of resources, some very substantial modification ought to be made in the procedure set out in paragraph 27 of the White Paper.
What I think should be done in the first instance is this. The Minister of Defence, or some other person deputed by him, should tell the Service Departments how much is available in the form of manpower
694
The Service Departments will then be able to decide to what extent and in what directions they can undertake the various commitments that they are expected to undertake. I hope, therefore, that serious consideration will be given to this particular aspect of the matter. It links up with the very interesting information given to the House by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton when he rightly stressed the necessity for a short tail and long teeth in our Armed Forces. The only way we can achieve the result desired by the hon. Member is to make sure that whatever we undertake, either in this country or abroad, shall be conditioned by the available manpower, and not to tackle the subject the other way round. It should be a great advantage that future Defence Estimates are to be considered as a whole. It has never been the case in the past that the Defence Estimates, as a whole, were subjected to expert scrutiny.
The Defence Committee will presumably formulate policy according to world events, and will prepare for the very speedy transition which will be necessary from peace to war in the unfortunate event of war breaking out. The task of the new organisation will be to create a machine which will have the capacity of virtually instantaneous action when the time for action comes. In future, there will be no opportunity whatsoever, as there has been in the past, of developing our war potential after war has broken out. Our ability to survive a devastating attack and to hit back will be very much affected by this capacity for instantaneous action which it will be the duty of the Defence Ministry to evolve. The White Paper mentions the continued and complete integration of military and scientific thought at all levels, but it is not enough to talk of integration in that particular sphere alone. The process of integration must be carried still further into other aspects of defence policy. It must be a source of satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman who is embarking upon his very arduous tasks that the proposals have met with such a degree of unanimity from most of the hon. Members who have already spoken. I hope he will not regard that unanimity, and the good will that is being shown towards him from all sides, either as an object of suspicion in itself or as a source of discouragement in the very responsible tasks that lie before him.
8.5 p.m.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: An hon. Member opposite referred to this White Paper as a sort of sketch plan for the defence organisation. I am very glad that the Government have thought fit to publish this sketch plan while it is still only a sketch plan, and I hope that in the light of this Debate and the many useful and reasonable observations which have been made, they will be prepared to consider some modification.
To the lay mind, to the armchair critic and strategist, and even to the serving soldier, of whatever rank, I believe that one of the things which was really outstanding during wartime was the success of the Commander-in-Chief system. In those days we saw a Commander-in-Chief in the West in the person of General Eisenhower, and a Commander-in-Chief in the East in Lord Louis Mountbatten. Those two men had not only to command the troops fighting in or on the three elements, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, but they had the very much more difficult job of commanding Allied troops in addition. Today there is a Commander-in-Chief in the British zone in Germany. I feel that if, in peacetime, we extended that system of a Commander-in-Chief in the various theatres where it may be necessary to have British troops stationed, and a Commander-in-Chief of Home Forces, we should perhaps see that greater unification of the Services which all hon. Members who have spoken today have suggested is necessary.
What has been such a success in time of war might well be used for the greater coordination of the three Services in time of peace. There is no doubt that in prewar days the Regular Army and the Territorial Army rarely saw an aeroplane that was not in the air. In fact they rarely met an airman at all, and there was little coordination between the three Services. If we proceed to appoint a Commander in Chief of the Home Forces he would presumably be given authority to issue operation training instructions and strategical plans for combined operations, and he would, of course, still be subject to the Chiefs of Staff Committee and the political head in the Minister of Defence.
During the crucial period before the outbreak of war there were many differences of opinion on foreign policy and an unwillingness on the part of some
696
politicians to grant the funds required to provide the necessary armament in case of war. There was also the influence of bodies like the Peace Pledge Union, and in those days I think it would have been difficult, because of the great differences of opinion, to have had that successful cooperation between the Government and the Opposition parties which I believe is desirable on defence matters. The right hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sir C. Headlam) reminded the House that in 1931 Mr. Ramsay MacDonald invited leaders of the Opposition party to attend the sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Those conversations did not continue afterwards because the gulf between the Government and the Opposition widened on matters of foreign policy and defence.
I am going to suggest that it is desirable for the Government, whatever party is in power, to take responsible and acknowledged leaders of the Opposition parties in this House into their confidence, especially if an emergency arises. Well-informed opinion in the Opposition political parties might then resist any inclination to attack either the expenditure or the administration of the Armed Forces of the Crown unnecessarily. Of course, the ordinary Member of Parliament does not command sources of information which can give him a reliable picture of the state of world affairs. Neither could he have formed any reliable judgment before the war about the difference between the armed forces of Germany and of our own country. At that time it was difficult to judge whether our Air Force was anything like that of the Germans in size or quality. Presumably the Ministers responsible knew. Had the custom prevailed of taking leaders of other parties into their confidence we might have witnessed a more vigorous and united defence policy before the war.
The third point to which I would refer is the constitutional position of the Service chiefs. If a man becomes C.I.G.S., if he becomes head of the Army, Navy or Air Force, he may feel that it is desirable to have certain weapons or to take certain action for the safety of the country, but his advice may be neglected or ignored by his political chief. His only means of protest is resignation. He cannot afterwards enlighten the general public or Parliament on the true reasons for his

697
action, and he may hesitate to resign for fear that a more complacent and less competent successor might be appointed to succeed him. Carrying forward the idea of consultation among the political parties, I feel that if there were a Select Committee of this House which was acquainted with the diplomatic and strategic situation, that Committee would be competent to hear evidence from the Chiefs of Staff. It might well be a subcommittee of the main Defence Committee, and it would be able with knowledge of the facts to give an all-party approval of estimates which had been prepared for the three Services. As a Select Committee, it would have access to extremely secret documents and information. But would the Government say that they would not trust the acknowledged leaders of the Opposition parties at the present time with national secrets? Of course they would not.
I am not satisfied about the extent to which Imperial collaboration is envisaged in the Report. If a definite proposal were made to the Dominions that an Imperial Conference should take place on defence matters in London or elsewhere especially in times of emergency, I believe the suggestion would be welcomed by them. The Colonial problem is slightly different because His Majesty's Government have the direct responsibility for the defence of the Colonial Empire.
To sum up, these are the four specific points I have mentioned. First, we should see an extension in peacetime of the wartime practice of appointing commanders-in-chief overseas and at home, including the Home Forces; secondly, the holding of joint meetings of consultation between the Government and the leaders of the Opposition parties on questions of defence and foreign policy; thirdly, the constitutional position should be examined of the Chiefs of Staff and others in the Services who may perhaps feel so strongly about the requirements of their own particular arm of Service that their only course is resignation; and fourthly, more substantial consultations should take place between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Dominions with frequent Imperial conferences on defence.
8.16 p.m.
Mr. Cobb: While reading through this White Paper and finding it a very interesting and appropriate compromise
698
one finds in between the lines a number of questions that one is induced to ask. This is particularly so in paragraph 20 (c) which states:
"The Minister of Defence will be responsible to Parliament for certain subjects … affecting the three Services and their supply."
It is in relation to the supply of the Services that I wish to direct my remarks, particularly so because that part of the White Paper has not been much mentioned in this Debate. We cannot keep men in the field without supplies. During the war I was at the industrial end of the war machine and had some experience of its defects and also of its method of operation. It has been said that war and waste go together inevitably, but I suggest that intelligent anticipation in peacetime can minimise wartime waste.
Perhaps one of the greatest examples of this is the Merchant Navy, which is one of our greatest engines for supply in peace and war. Where is there a better example of unprepared ness and lack of planning than in the Merchant Marine? In fact, as an old Merchant Navy sailor, I have often been tempted to take the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who used to sit on the Front Bench and put them in the fo'c'sle of a tramp ship armed with an old South African relic and sailing upon its own in time of war. I would have put a couple of admirals in for good weight. They would have found out what it is like sailing in an unprepared merchant ship in time of war in the circumstances which existed during the last few years. The Merchant Navy is a neglected fourth Arm. There was no preparation for these ships to put to sea under war conditions. What was the result? The losses of men, which could have been avoided, were as high as one in six, a higher proportion of men killed and wounded than in our fighting Services. Yet some foresight and planning before the war could have avoided it. We should pay tribute to those men who, after all, were civilians. Will the Defence Committee be responsible in future for seeing that the Merchant Navy is prepared for its wartime service?
The second point to which I want to call the attention of the Minister-designate is the question of the Ministry of Supply. During the war, and even up to the end of the war, the Ministry of Supply was not purchasing all the goods for all the fighting Services, and at the end of the war we had still had wicked examples

699
of waste of both labour and materials. At the end of the war I often saw goods which were absolutely identical in the three fighting Services and yet they insisted upon a separate type number and separate contract for each of them. That is quite indefensible and ought to be abolished. I would like to ask the Minister, What is the future of the Ministry of Supply in this new set up of the Ministry of Defence? Will separate buying for each of the fighting Services be continued, and what will they do about standardisation? As I see it, without a Ministry which can coordinate all the contracts for all the fighting Services, we cannot get that degree of standardisation which is so essential to the rapid growth of production once war breaks out. Paragraph 26 (c) indicates that to some extent direct contracting by all the three Ministries is to continue. It may be argued that this is a correct solution in order to give a degree of flexibility, but I question whether one agency is not necessary to ensure that this very vital point of standardisation can be cared for, because only standardisation can, I repeat, ensure rapid expansion of production in a war emergency.
Coming to paragraph 27, I welcome the setting up of a Ministerial Production Committee, and I would ask the Minister to give particular attention to this point: Will he use technical serving officers—that is, officers in the Services trained to have a proper comprehension of research, development and production? Their functions should be to explain to the military chiefs what is possible in the fields of research, development and production, and also, in turn, to explain to industry what the Services want. In the early years of the recent war it was almost impossible to get from the Service chiefs an adequate user specification for industry. I believe that by this method of having technically trained officers to perform this function, we could get a good user specification. Also, I would submit to the Minister that correct military advice through his military chiefs is dependent upon this kind of thing being done.
Coming to paragraph 32, which deals with the Committee on Defence Research Policy, the White Paper says that this Committee will be responsible for research and development. I suggest that this Committee should have on it an expert
700
production man, because committees talking about research and development cannot function properly unless they are integrated with production since their work, in the long run, flows into the production channel. Also, we cannot get these research people to do their work properly unless they have production advice, and unless the production people know what the research people are talking about. If the scientists sit down and discuss research and development—which is, after all, the gateway to production—without a real production expert there, I believe that many of their deliberations will be wasted and will go into the wrong channels.
When I ask for an expert, I mean a production expert. In this country, unfortunately, we do not produce as many production experts as we need. When I say a production expert, I do not mean an admiral, I do not mean a general, I do not mean a financier—[Laughter]. Hon. Gentlemen laugh, but I could take them now to a factory which was one of our vital war factories and was being run by an admiral. I know vital war factories which were being run by financiers, and those financiers are still there. I ask the Minister to see if he cannot put on this Committee a production expert in the best sense of the term. Another reason why I would ask for this is because, of all things, research scientists know least about production. They are very often the greatest enemies if standardisation. I hope that if my suggestion is followed these dangers may be avoided, and that this research and development Committee will be far more effective than it would otherwise be.
I want to apply to collective defence, which is dealt with in paragraph 35, the question of coordination of research, production, and development. Collective defence, surely, embraces not only national production questions, but the Commonwealth as a whole. I would like to query whether it does not involve U.N.O. The question of U.N.O. or the Commonwealth involves industrial as well as military potential, and the essential trinity underlying all defence is research, development and production. Considering the Commonwealth and U.N.O., we have to look at the question of shadow factories. In the last war it was necessary to have shadow factories in this country

701
and, to some extent, we had shadow factories in the Commonwealth, but they did not operate very effectively. Now we may have to have Commonwealth and, possibly, U.N.O. shadow organisations not only for production, but for development and research as well. If the answer to this is that it is advisable to do so, a number of questions immediately arise. If we must have national, or Commonwealth, or U.N.O. Armed Forces, they ought to have standardised equipment. Is it not essential for the economic supply of these Forces that they should have standardised equipment? Is it not necessary for their effective operation in the field that their equipment be standardised? If that is true, only coordination of research, development, and production on a Commonwealth or U.N.O. basis will ensure it.
Collective defence means the ability to continue a war whatever happens. It means we have to be able to continue the war if one or two countries have their industrial and research potential wiped out. Our ability to carry on in the event of another war means that we have to get this degree of coordination of research and development and standardised production. To all or any one of the U.N.O. countries this seems to me an absolutely prime necessity. In this connection there are three industrial truths. The shadow factory technique, applied to production potential, with which I include always research, and development, is a slow process, even in time of peace. Secondly, it is ineffective for standardised items to have a mere interchange of blue prints. If we want two factories, separated from one another, to produce standardised items, it is almost impossible to get them to do so merely by the interchange of blue prints. There has to be a closer liaison. The third truth is that the peacetime industrial layout of industry determines what industry can make quickly in time of war. I would like to give an example. Two car factories, one in England and one in Australia, can shadow one another more effectively if they are doing the same thing in peace and getting used to working with one another on a standardised peace product. I pose the question, will the U.N.O. fighting force, or the Commonwealth fighting force, be effective without standard equipment?
If the answer to this is "Yes," then not only have we got to have a shadow
702
factory arrangement for research, development and production, but we must have it at least on a Commonwealth basis, and probably on a U.N.O. basis as well. But a Commonwealth or U.N.O. shadow organisation of this description cannot start working at the click of a switch or the drop of the first atom bomb. It has to be running over a period of years, checked and kept up to date. We ought to start now on our peacetime products, so that factories that are working here, and in Australia, South Africa and Canada, say, on cars, which will make tanks in time of war, get used to working together on a peacetime basis in order that they can switch over to war production at a moment's notice.
This raises problems of industrial dispersal, not only on a Commonwealth basis, but it may be on a U.N.O. basis as well. This might also lead to the question of labour dispersal amongst these various countries, and whether the Commonwealth or U.N.O. can have a large part of its industrial war potential—plant, labour and material—concentrated in a few thousand square miles. Obviously, this leads to the question of the dispersal of these resources, possibly on a Commonwealth basis, possibly on a wider basis. I suggest that the military-industrial policy envisaged in the White Paper must be shaped during peace, while industry makes peacetime goods. Socialisation may be the only effective way of putting this into operation. Certainly it seems to me that the time for a military-industrial policy is near, the time for a Commonwealth or perhaps a U.N.O. industrial policy is near; also, that the time for decision on these basic problems is not far distant. I hope that the Minister will tell us something about it when he replies.
8.33 p.m.
Mr. Erroll: It is not the first time I have had the pleasure of following the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb), with much of whose speech I could agree, though he went too far in proposing a U.N.O. supply system when it is impossible for us to reach standardisation in this country, let alone between Empire countries. However, his starry idealism will out in his speeches. I resent his thinking that an admiral cannot run a works. If an admiral can run a battleship, he can run a factory. We do not

703
want to have too exclusive a regard for the production engineer. We are all amateurs, more or less, in one sphere or another.
Mr. Cobb: Would the hon. Member not agree that a man who runs production ought to be a real expert at it, not an amateur?
Mr. Erroll: The same doctrine might be applied to every walk of life, including that which we are pursuing here. I think we are better off for a healthy degree of amateurism.
I welcome this White Paper because I think the proposal to establish a Ministry of Defence has come about through the following of sound Conservative principles. The need for such a Minister became apparent during the evolution of the war, and thus we are now to have a Minister of Defence. That is a right and sensible empirical development, and I am glad to see that the concluding words of the White Paper say:
"The central machinery for defence may be progressively adapted to changing needs"
That again is sound Conservative doctrine, and partly explains why we are so much in agreement on both sides of the House tonight. It is especially difficult to discuss the exact functions of the Minister of Defence, because we can all indulge in the luxury of being wise after the event. We can point to examples of things that did not go quite right during the war and say, "Well, now the Minister of Defence must ensure that these things do not happen again." It is extremely difficult for us to visualise the sort of organisation required for the future. We want to leave the Minister as free as possible to develop his organisation and plans as best he may, in view of all the ideas which may occur to him and to his staff. In turning to certain matters of detail, I wish to reinforce what was said by the hon. Member for Elland in regard to merchant shipping.
I was glad to see in paragraph 27 of the White Paper that on production questions there is to be a standing Ministerial Production Committee but I feel, in view of the great importance of transport in modern warfare, that there ought to be equally a Ministerial Transport Committee with the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Civil Aviation represented. Transport was as big a problem as production
704
throughout the war. We never realised, when we started in 1939, that our shipping would have to go round by the Cape, nor did we ever envisage the tremendously long overland supply lines which ultimately became a feature of the war. Not only was this true of the Western Desert. The supply route to Burma from Eastern India was probably one of the longest overland routes in the world. We never envisaged the tremendous drain on our transport resources which the changing needs of the war would make. I stress particularly the importance of including the Minister of Civil Aviation, because we had to rely during the whole of the war almost entirely on American transport aeroplanes. As civil aviation develops, so we should be able to draw increasingly, in time of need, upon the air transport and experience gained in civil work.
I turn to the problems of design and research, which were also touched upon by the hon. Member for Elland. There are four stages to be considered. The first is that of research; then the function of the design engineer; next, production; and finally, the user. I think it is wrong, as stated in paragraph 32, for the Chairman of the Committee on Defence Research Policy to be a scientist. I agree that the scientist is very important and that scientists are coming more and more into the public eye. But the man we want as a chairman is the man who can take the all-round view, and, therefore, we want him to be somewhere nearer the centre of the chain and not merely at one end of it. After all, the design engineer is in the central position. He has to understand research and production and also he has to design something that the user can use. I suggest for very serious consideration that the chairman should be not a scientist of high standing but a design engineer of high standing. Of course, there would be scientists on the Committee just as there will be research and production experts, but I think as chairman we should get a really first class design engineer.
If possible, I would like to see some of the more important industrialists and manufacturers included in the Research Committee in a consultative capacity or, alternatively, in the Production Committee. I know it is very difficult to have to give secrets away to industrialists and

705
people outside the immediate purview of Government control. However, we suffered a great deal at the beginning of the last war from not having taken industrialists and large engineering manufacturers sufficiently into our confidence earlier. I am sure the "top men" can be trusted just as much as politicians or civil servants can be trusted. We ought to try to benefit from their experience and advice in the central organisation. The precise manner in which they would be included is a matter which I must leave to the Government. However, I make that suggestion for what it is worth.
Another point also mentioned by the hon. Member for Elland was the question of waste and the coordination of design. We both seek, in our respective spheres, for an answer to that question. I know the difficulty which arises when interchangeability problems have to be solved in a hurry. We had, for example, in the last war, four or five apparently different types of ball-bearings supplied by the makers of different lorries, but, which, in actual fact, were identical ball-bearings though from different manufacturers. We thus had four different types which were, in fact, the same. That type of duplication went on over and over again in different stores. We want to look at some of our basic designs produced within our industrial structure to see if we cannot evolve more common items of military equipment and simplify standardised designs. We only want one 30 cwt. lorry or one three-ton lorry, not a dozen different types or a dozen different sets of spares. The Americans, under a private enterprise system, succeeded much better than we did, and their spares were, to a very large extent, interchangeable.
Mr. Cobb: Would the hon. Member not agree that we were in a worse position than America, because our private industry was in a worse condition than the American?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think we can go into a discussion of this kind. Both the hon. Member who has the attention of the House, and the hon. Member who spoke before him, were getting away from the White Paper.
Mr. Erroll: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for saving me from an embarrassing question. I do hope that design
706
will be considered very fully at the meetings of both the Production Committee and the Research Committee. Now I come on to the question of what are called the tidying-up jobs which the Minister of Defence is going to do. We have all been giving him ideas about these tidying-up jobs between the Services which he might have a look at, and, although I know that he has enough on his plate already, I would like to offer some of my own suggestions.
There is, for example, the whole question of A.A. defences and the balloon barrage and defence against attacking aeroplanes. This is partly divided between the Air Force and the Army, and I think there is a strong case for making it the one or the other, particularly as regards the ground services. We had, in the Army and Navy, the question of Commandos versus Marines. There was, undoubtedly, a good deal of overlapping at one stage of the war until we could see how the Commandos were going to develop. We also want to see taken into much fuller consideration in future the whole problem of air supply. In Burma, it was developed very much more than in the Western theatre, and there, with bad communications, we evolved a very satisfactory system in the end, but it is questionable now whether the Army should not be responsible for its own air supply and not have to leave it to the Royal Air Force. On the other hand, it might be better if the Air Force was responsible for all aeroplanes, including military. There is also the matter of the unification of Base workshops. At present, in our big Bases in the Middle East or Calcutta, we must have Army Base Workshops and Royal Air Force Base Workshops, and, in some cases, Naval Base Workshops, which leads to duplication of machines, skills, and stores. These are, however, matters of detail, to which I am sure the Minister will apply himself when tidying-up as rapidly as possible.
I now come to the question of the strategic location of industry, and I think that it is here that the Minister of Defence should give a good deal of his time at a fairly early stage, if it is in Order for me to say that. I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will find that this subject occurs in paragraph 37 of the White Paper, where it is pointed out that common plans were

707
made for the coordination of munitions production. I was hoping to be able to touch upon that paragraph.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The coordination of munitions production does not necessarily involve the strategic location of munitions production, and the two things seem to me to be rather different.
Mr. Erroll: The whole problem arose many times during the war through production not being strategically located, and there was not nearly enough coordination. If I may, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, enlarge on one particular example, I am sure you would agree that it is very much an appropriate subject for the central organisation of defence to consider. It is the matter of armoured cars. We had a serious shortage of them at one stage of the war, and in the Middle East, in particular, the shortage was very acute. An urgent appeal was made to South Africa to try to make a home-made armoured car. They rallied extremely well to the cause, but it was not a very successful design. At the same time, owing to the sudden demands made by our Forces there, an attempt was made to produce another type of armoured car in railway workshops in India. This also was none too successful. I think that, if a little more coordination had been possible in London, and if an overall strategic plan for the location of industry and of designs in the principal manufacturing centres had been previously evolved, we could have avoided mistakes of that type.
Finally, I wish to take up one more remark made by the hon. Member for Elland. He referred to the question of waste, and to some of the appalling things we did. I would ask him to study, when they become available, some of the reports of German industrial organisation as arranged by the German High Command or by the German Minister of Defence. There was, obviously, very much more waste on their side than on ours, although there was room for improvement on our side during the war, as there is obviously room for improvement now.
8.47 p.m.
Commander Noble: I am sure we are all very glad that this White Paper has come so soon after the war. It was not a matter in which we could
708
afford to move slowly, and, in fact, I think that the United States have moved even quicker than we have. I believe I am right in saying that, while the war was still going on, the Americans were discussing what they called the "merger," and, despite the difference in our Constitutions, they have come to very much the same broad conclusions as those laid down in this White Paper. It was also a step to be taken quickly because I feel sure that the Dominions, and perhaps other countries, were watching to see what we were going to do as they had the same problems to settle. But, as the Prime Minister said when opening this Debate, this set-up has to be very flexible, and I think that we must accept it as an experiment which we all hope will be a great success.
The three main criticisms that have come out of this Debate, from all sides of the House, are, first, that the Defence Committee is cumbersome; secondly, that the Ministry of Defence may get congested, and, thirdly, the apparent lack of an Imperial defence policy. With reference to the proposed overloading of the Defence Committee may I first ask the Minister whether he could say tomorrow why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is on the Defence Committee? Is he there so that he can become acquainted earlier with the plans of the Chiefs of Staff, and appreciate them, or because he can become earlier acquainted with them and bring his influence to bear before they get to the Cabinet? That is rather an important point, on which we ought to be enlightened. While I am speaking about these Committees, perhaps I might refer to the Committee of Defence Research Policy. The appointment of Sir Henry Tizard to be its chairman has already been welcomed in this Debate. One might say that, in the past, science has been represented in tactics, but that this is the first time that it has really been brought into strategy. I also think it is perhaps for consideration that this chairman should be a permanent member of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. Perhaps the Minister could give us his advice on that point tomorrow.
With regard to the criticism that the Ministry of Defence may become congested, I think there is a very grave danger from that point of view. I can see it being a very easy way out for the Service Ministries,

709
when they get a docket which becomes a particular nuisance and which requires an answer, to say, "Let us send it to the Ministry of Defence," which would delay the matter for another month or two. From another point of view, I think it may become congested if too much scope is given in the administration of personnel of the three Services which may be combined under the Ministry of Defence. That may be an easy thing to suggest, but I think the strings will get very long in the event of operations, and all those strings will come back to the Ministry of Defence. I would like the Minister to give us some idea of what size this Ministry is going to be. It was run during the war by the Chief of Staff, to the Minister of Defence with a secretariat, and planners drawn from the three Service Ministries and from outside. We are now told that advantage will be taken of these joint committees of the various Ministries, but we have not been told what is visualised in regard to the size of the Ministry of Defence. I suggest there should be some sort of Service staff to provide the Minister with a means of bringing to light some of the more controversial Service subjects which, on the Chiefs of Staff level, I think are apt to become shelved. That staff would also enable a definite Service policy embracing all three Services to be produced on a great variety of subjects which, during the war, had to be settled by ad hoc methods in ad hoc committees. That, of course, is referred to in paragraph 26 of the White Paper.
Another duty of this staff would be the standardisation of material, which was so well described by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb). There is no doubt that much could be saved by standardisation of materials, and, of course, the combining of the personnel of the three different Services where a Service overlap occurred. During the war I had the privilege of serving for a time at the Admiralty in a job which entailed working on some of these inter-Service committees, and there is no doubt of their very great value. In passing, I would like to say that the directors of plans did a most wonderful job in the war, and I do not think people realise what they really did do. On no occasion was a paper produced which was not written quite impartially by a committee consisting of officers from all the three Services.
710
That brings me to my next point, which is that with the setting up of this new Ministry the opportunity should be taken by each Service Ministry to overhaul its own internal organisation. It does not seem logical to me if these inter-Service committees are to be developed and are to be the basis of the new Ministry, that the material which goes to them from each Service Ministry should go through entirely different channels and originate in an entirely different set up. During the war it was found that in the different Service Ministries there were great differerences. For example, there was nothing in the Admiralty to correspond to War Office "Movements." That has now been remedied.
I would also suggest that this opportunity should be taken to ensure that combined training and adequate liaison between the three Services starts lower down, and that it should be expanded to all ranks and ratings. I feel that much of the value which is gained at the top by these inter-Service committees will be lost if trouble is not taken to see that the same cooperation and understanding, which does exist with these committees, exists throughout the whole Services. There are definite overlaps in the three Services, both in the operational field and in the administrative field. In both those spheres I think the solving of these overlaps, and the saving of personnel and material, will be very much easier if there is real liaison and understanding right down to the bottom.
May I now say a few words on the subject of collective defence? We were very glad, I am sure, to get the assurance from the Prime Minister that increased facilities were being given to the Dominion Governments. It is stated in paragraph 36 that the basis of this at present is regional association. Now, I would be the last person to criticise that, because I feel sure this has been gone into very carefully in the last few years, and that everything possible has been done to achieve the maximum of Dominion co-operation. But I do feel that the moment is ripe, or is very soon going to be ripe, for something bigger. It has become unfashionable in this House for some reason, to discuss the atomic bomb and weapons of the future. However, I do think we have got to face the facts and realise the position of this country should we have

711
the misfortune to find ourselves in another war. It has been estimated, I think in the Government report on the atomic bombing of Japan, that about 10 well placed atomic bombs on this country would kill about a million people. Perhaps it is possible that our new Committee of Defence Research Policy may produce some method of defence which will give a high percentage of results. I very much hope that they will do so; but I do not think we should bank on it.
My point in saying I think the time is ripe for something bigger is that I think the Dominions realise the implications which arise when one considers the future defence of this country; and I think perhaps they realise it even more than we do. On my recent visit to the Pacific to see the atomic bomb tests I found that there was, of course, Dominion representation, and from discussions it struck one that they were thinking very much along those lines. An American general is reported to have said that the only defence against the atomic bomb is not to be there when it goes off. That, of course, is very true; but there is some protection against the atomic bomb, and we hope that that protection will grow. However, the words "not to be there when it goes off" imply, of course, dispersal in all its forms. I think it will be agreed by the whole House that there is not a great deal of room for dispersal in this country.
Before I sit down may I say a word or two about shipping? This has already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who opened on this side of the House. I hope it will be realised by the House what a very great part the then Minister of Transport played in the recent war. There is no mention of him at all in this White Paper. Lord Leathers, who was Minister of Transport during the war, attended all or nearly all the big conferences. He was a very frequent attender at the meetings of the Chiefs of Staff, and on the planning level the Director of Sea Transport and others played a very prominent part. I hope that they will continue to do so, and will be brought into this new inter-Service set-up.
There is one other point on shipping which I should like to raise. At the beginning of this war, there was a great deal of valuable material, labour, and dock
712
yard space wasted, due to the fact that so many conversions had to be made, and so many specialised ships were required. These types of specialised ships grew, as our amphibious operations gained in scope. This is not, necessarily, a naval problem. It is a problem for all three Services, because all their weapons of war have to be carried about the world in ships. But I think it is a job for the Minister of Defence, and he should be able to coordinate the requirements in different types of ships for the three Services, so that these ships will actually be in existence in peacetime, and so there will be only very minor conversions in the event of war. This is also another point in favour of cooperation with the Dominions. We cannot compete in the shipping world on our own.
Finally, may I say a word about the Minister himself? It is a big job that is now being produced, and it needs a very big man to fill it. I feel sure we all agree that the Prime Minister could not have made a better choice. I wish the new Minister every success.
Ordered: "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Michael Stewart.]
Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Middlesbrough, a copy of which Order was presented on 24th October, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Wisbech, a copy of which Order was presented on 24th October, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Canterbury, a copy of which Order was presented on 24th October, be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.]

  FEEDING STUFFS (RATIONING)
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. David Eccles: I beg to move,
  "That the Order, dated 5th September, 1946, amending the Feeding Stuffs (Rationing) Order, 1943, and giving Directions there-under (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1490), a copy of which amending Order was presented on 8th October be annulled
  This is a most important Order, and I trust that a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture will soon be with us to deal with it. It is an Order which enables the Minister to cut the rations of balancer meal to certain classes of pig and poultry keepers. The cuts were announced on 4th June, nearly four months ago. Even if the cuts were justified on 4th June by the then supply position of feeding stuffs, even if it was wise then to make provision that, on 1st October, certain reductions in the ration should be made, I think I can show the House that there is no justification for such reductions now. This is not a party matter; it is simply a matter of trying to find the truth about the facts and figures of the feeding stuffs position, and then asking the House to decide whether the Minister's proposals, as contained in this Order, are sound or not.
  To whom does the Order apply? It applies to 143,000 pig keepers who belong to nearly 5,000 pig clubs. It applies to 1,500,000 domestic poultry keepers, and to 21,000 small commercial poultry keepers. The House will see, therefore, that the decision we take tonight will affect 1,700,000 livestock keepers, and of course a very large additional number, it is unknown to us how many, of consumers of eggs and pig meat. Therefore, this is not at all a light matter.
  What is the effect of this Order? The rations of the pig keepers are to be cut from the present maximum of 126 lb. if two pigs are kept to a maximum of 42 lb. a month however many pigs are kept. The rations of the domestic poultry keepers—the 1,500,000 people—are to be cut 60 per cent., from 5 lb. to 2 lb., and the House will know that this is the first time that the ration of the domestic poultry keeper has ever been cut. Not at the height of the U-boat war was it cut; only now, 15 months after peace and Socialism broke out together, are these people to be penalised. The ration to the commercial
  714
  poultry keeper is to be cut 20 per cent. How much is being saved by these cuts? In round figures, the cut in the pig ration will save 40,000 tons, and the cut in the poultry ration 60,000 tons. Therefore, the total saving is 100,000 tons. What is it exactly that is being saved? It is balancer meal, and as the name implies this meal is required to balance kitchen waste, which is not a satisfactory food for pigs and poultry without the addition of this meal. Therefore, for every pound that the Minister takes off the ration of balancer meal, the effect is multiplied by the loss in the production value of the kitchen waste that would have been mixed with it. To put it in another way, the Minister could do nothing more expensive in terms of egg and pig meat production than to cut this particular ration to these particular classes of egg and pig meat producers.
  In the Debate on 18th June the Minister of Agriculture, as the House will remember, defended these cuts on two grounds. In general terms, he said that circumstances outside his control—the great world food shortage—made it absolutely necessary to effect this saving in the consumption of feeding stuffs. I will say a word or two about that in a minute. The Minister also said that the domestic poultry keepers, these 1,500,000 people, could take the cut because they were now keeping two hens for every one which it had been intended that the ration should support. In other words, the Minister was saying that these poultry keepers had done a very efficient job, had doubled their target, and therefore could now take a cut. My hon. Friends and I recognise in these words of the Minister the man who cuts the piece-rates—the man who says "The job has been speeded up, let us slash the piece-rate." Does the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food think that it makes sense for the Lord President, last Saturday, to go to Birmingham and talk like the capitalist he is about incentives and the profit motive, and then for the Minister of Food, on the following Wednesday, to come down to the House and slash the incentives and cut the piece-rate for these people? It simply does not make sense. We should give these people a fair award for pushing on so hard with their production in the war.

  715
  I have no doubt that the hon. Lady will repeat the arguments used by the Minister, that the inscrutable workings of Providence have been against this country, and that through its workings we find ourselves short of these feeding stuffs. I have been examining the workings of Providence in other countries, and I have been reading the Report of the sub-Committee of the Economic and Social Council on the Reconstruction of the Devastated Areas. This most authoritative document was issued in London, on 12th September. From that document, we can see how the livestock population of the countries across the Channel is steadily increasing. We can see that the pig population of Holland, Belgium and France was, in 1944, a larger proportion of their prewar pig population than ours was in 1944. From that level they have steadily increased their pig population to the present time.
  We can also see, in regard to poultry. that between May, 1945, and May, 1946, that poultry keepers have doubled their poultry. It is obvious how it has been done. They have fed to livestock, grain which they had imported, chiefly maize, from the Argentine, nominally for human consumption. Our Government has been made an honest fool of. We have stood out of the Argentine maize market, because we said the maize was not wanted here for human consumption. These other countries have bought the maize, and fed it to their livestock. It is clear from the Report that there is no other explanation for the growing stocks of birds and pigs across the water. I hope we shall not continue to say that the inscrutable workings of Providence have singled out this country, because it certainly is not true. It is true to say that Providence helps those who help themselves. The Governments of Denmark, Holland and France have helped themselves and their agriculture, whereas our Government have done little or nothing to ensure an adequate supply of feeding-stuffs.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does not the hon. Member agree that there is a greatly developed black market in those countries to which he has been referring, and that, generally speaking, there is a greater and fairer share of the ordinary necessaries of life in this country, as well as of the humbler luxuries?
  Mr. Eccles: I certainly agree with the hon. Member, but the point is that there is no maize in this country to share. We have deliberately denied ourselves the supply of maize, which is one of the silliest things the Government have ever done. Now, supposing that last June, when these cuts were announced, it was a fact—which I do not admit—that the feedingstuffs situation was so critical that it was right and proper to make provision for cuts in the following October. Has nothing happened in four months which changes the situation? Two great things have happened which, in my judgment, make the present cuts unnecessary. First, on 22nd September last, the extraction rate of flour was reduced from 90 to 85 per cent. That has given to the Minister an additional supply of home-produced feedingstuffs, at the rate of 300,000 tons a year. The Minister did not know that in June. Why has he not given any of these 300,000 additional tons to the domestic pig and poultry keepers? We want to know where the 300,000 tons, which has been produced by increasing the extraction rate of flour, is now going.
  A second thing has happened, which the Minister did not know in June. We have had a bad harvest and, as Members know, one of the results of a bad harvest is to increase the proportion of unmillable grain. The best estimate I can get from the grain trade is that our harvest this year will be nearly 2 million tons, and that the damaged grain, which is not millable, will yield at least 10 per cent. That means that farmers will have 200,000 tons of feeding stuffs from that source, which is more than they normally have. If farmers are to have this addition to their ration from unexpected sources, is it not all the more scandalous that none of the 300,000 tons coming from the flour mills is to be given to the small pig and poultry keepers? The argument is very strong against the Government, who ought not to treat this as a party matter, because we are here deciding the interests of a large number of people.
  I can sum up the whole of my argument in this way. The day on which the cuts were announced was 4th June. That was too early a date on which to take a sensible decision. No doubt the Minister was driven to it by the panic in food supplies, but he could have waited three months. Had he done so, he would have known that

  717
  the harvest in North America was excellent. He would have known that our own flour extraction rate was to be changed from 90 to 85 per cent., and that he would have a larger supply of feeding stuffs at his disposal. He would have known that we were to have a bad harvest, and that farmers would have a larger supply of feedingstuffs for themselves. Further, he would have had the report of the Economic and Social Council relative to Europe, which would have shown him that the livestock population of Europe is steadily building up, while ours is steadily falling. I cannot help feeling that if the Minister had had the assistance, of these facts he would not have made a cut in the ration. We ought not to treat this as a settled matter, on which we have to go into the Lobby on one side or the other. We ought to treat this matter on its merits. I am not alone in asking these questions; there are 1,700,000 people outside who are concerned and to whom an explanation is due.
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. Hurd: I beg to second the Motion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has put to the House the effects of the meagre allowances of feeding stuffs to domestic pig and poultry keepers. In my view, this action of the Government is further evidence of their lack of business acumen, which has saddled us with bread rationing. I am not trespassing beyond the bounds of this Prayer, because poultry feedingstuffs are very closely bound up with bread rationing. If the Minister of Food is saving the 20 per cent. which we hear about on flour, he is getting it by making it impossible to feed flour and oatmeal to hens and pigs. If he could have provided sufficient feeding stuffs for the small poultry flocks, we need never have had his bread rationing scheme. The only good thing that has come out of bread rationing is that it has stopped the illicit feeding of flour and oatmeal to poultry. So a steamroller was used to crack a nut.
  Could not we have done as well as other countries in looking after our pigs and poultry? Mention has been made of Belgium, Denmark and Holland, and, I would also add, Sweden. I had the pleasure of visiting Sweden in company with the Minister of Agriculture at
  718
  Whitsun. We were going over some farms, and at one farm we looked into the pig house. I said, "Tom, do you see what I see?" He looked—I am not sure if he did see it—but we finally agreed that there was flaked maize in the pig trough. I was surprised that a Swedish farmer was able to get maize at a time when I, in England, was unable to get maize. How did that come about? I inquired further, and so far as I could find out, Swedish farmers had insisted, through their Government, that feeding-stuffs should be made available for pigs and poultry. I think that their Government took a commonsense line, and used every possible endeavour to get it, and, in fact, did get it.
  In tonight's "Evening Standard," I notice that the Board of Trade take credit for having arranged for a further series of goods to be imported from the United States. Among them are such commodities as mustard, olive preserves, tinned vegetables, tinned lobster and vegetable butter colouring. If we have dollars to buy these things, cannot we get in a bit of maize, which will enable us to do away the bread rationing scheme? We are fooling about buying these luxuries, which are other people's leavings. That is our weakness as buyers in the world today. When, in September, we managed to scrounge a little more feeding stuffs, I understood that it came out of some country's allocation which had not been taken up. That is a desperate position for Britain to be in. It looks to me as if we were taking merely the leavings of other countries' trade. Cannot we go out and buy, as Denmark, Sweden, Holland and other countries are doing? I am sure that we could.
  I second this Motion because I believe that if the Government will give the trade buyers, who know this market, freedom of action, we can not only look after the interests of the small poultry keepers—who, after all, do love their hens and do want their eggs, and will go to great sacrifice to keep their hens—and also look after the interests of all of us by getting rid of bread rationing quite soon.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: The last time I spoke on a matter affecting the Ministry of Food, it was to support the Government on bread rationing. I believed that they had made

  719
  out a case for it. I remember that on that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to comment favourably on some of the remarks I had made. Therefore, I hope she will not be offended tonight if I say that I am sorry neither the Minister of Food nor the Minister of Agriculture is present. I say that, with all due deference to the hon. Lady, because this is a matter which affects a very large number of people. I believe there are about 1,300,000 domestic poultry keepers, which is a very large number of householders. This Order affects them both as poultry keepers and as egg consumers. It is a question about which very many people feel very keenly. It affects a very large number of poultry. As far as the domestic poultry keepers are concerned, I think the number of poultry involved is about 11 million out of a total number of poultry, given in the statistics of the Ministry of Agriculture, of about 36 million in this country. Therefore, the Order affects a high proportion of the poultry on which we depend for our egg supplies. For these reasons I think it is a sufficiently important matter for the Ministers concerned to be present at this Debate.
  It is also a part of the whole problem of imported feeding stuffs, which affects the farming community, who produce the food, and the whole of the consuming public. It affects the more specialised poultry industry, the small poultry farmers who are, of all classes in the agricultural community, those who have been worst hit during the war. They have had a most difficult time. I hope that the Ministry will be able to make some concession to the small poultry and pig keepers. They have had a very hard time. I cannot believe that the relatively small quantity of feeding stuffs involved cannot be found. I had hoped that between June and now the better prospects in many parts of the world would have made it possible for the Ministry of Food to find available feedingstuffs. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) that what will happen this winter is that people who have poultry now will try to make do with the feeding stuffs—the cut is a heavy one—and the result will be that their chickens will be underfed and starved, and will not produce eggs, and what feeding stuffs there are will be badly used.
  720
  This would be a thoroughly inefficient situation. They are not going to cut down their numbers but hope that they will get through with their own and their neighbours' kitchen waste, and any other very poor quality food stuffs they can "scrounge" together somehow or another. The result of that is fundamentally wasteful because the two-fifths ration which will be provided will not produce the eggs. It will be a question of maintenance—just keeping the hens alive and not producing the eggs which the extra three-fifths would have produced. Thus we shall not get value for money from the food stuffs that are available.
  I am told that if the Minister of Food could manage to purchase 10 per cent. of the American maize crop that would solve this problem and go far towards solving many other feeding stuff problems. I should like to ask, as other hon. Members have already asked, what is happening to the food stuffs which will now be at our disposal as the result of making available a larger proportion of millers' offals? I recognise that other livestock, particularly dairy cows, have a very considerable claim, but I also think that these poultry keepers have a considerable claim, too. There is another way in which this cut will affect rather different interests. The poultry industry has been hard hit during the war and the only way the specialist poultry keepers have kept going in these last few years is by supplying domestic poultry keepers with pullets. The poultry keeper producing the pullets is now going to suffer even more, and that will set back the breeding side of the industry so that when more feeding stuffs are available it will take longer for them to recover. From that point of view, too, I would press the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether this matter cannot be re-examined and whether the full rigour of the heavy cut of more than 50 per cent. cannot be avoided. While it is true that specialist poultry keepers do not now suffer as seriously as previously, there is no other class of livestock which is being as hard hit as domestic poultry. The public need more variety in their food, but, surely, it is fundamentally bad to be buying the finished product. Eggs come from abroad; we are getting them from Denmark, America, and Canada. Do we get any from Poland?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): A few.
  Mr. Roberts: We are getting a few from Poland. Surely, it is wrong to buy the finished product at high expense when it would be possible to find the raw materials to keep these enterprising small people going? We are already using kitchen waste which will be inefficiently used unless it is supplemented by proper feeding stuffs. Is it not a mistake, in those circumstances, not to make every effort to obtain, somewhere in the world, this relatively small quantity of feeding stuffs to keep these enterprising people going and capable of carrying through this difficult winter? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider this question.
  9.35 p.m.
  Mr. Collins: Hon. Members on this side of the House do not need urging in regard to the importance of maintaining, and increasing, poultry and other food rations. I am sure that the Minister will be able to give us assurances as to the efforts that are being made in that respect. I submit, however, that it is not a case of the Government fooling about in this matter—to use the expression which fell from the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd)—but that it is precisely because hon. Members opposite propose to fool about with it, that this Motion has been brought forward. Some extraordinary and utterly irresponsible statements have been made. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has told us that if the Minister of Agriculture had waited until October, he would have known that we had had bad harvests and that there was a large quantity of unmillable corn, and that there had been good harvests in America; and he could have maintained the ration. I suggest that if the Minister had been so utterly improvident as to wait another three or four months, and if things had not turned out in that way, he would most definitely have been fooling about in a heartless way with the poultry industry.
  Mr. Eccles: Does not the hon. Member realise that the cuts did not come into effect until October, and that there was plenty of time? The whole point of the charge against the Minister is that he
  722
  made his decision in June to do nothing until October.
  Mr. Collins: I do not accept the suggestion that the Minister made a decision in June to do nothing. He decided in June that cuts would have to come into operation in October. The point is not merely whether there have been good grain harvests in America or elsewhere, but Whether we get the grain into this country. Poultry cannot begin to eat the grain until we get it. The hon. Member entirely omitted to mention something stated by the Minister of Food this week, that it was because of difficulty of securing shipments from America, that the ending of bread rationing had had to be postponed. Another extraordinary statement made by the hon. Member for Newbury was that the only good thing we had got out of bread rationing was that it had stopped the feeding of bread to poultry and other livestock. That is a most amazing thing, especially since we have learned that 250,000 tons of flour were saved in ten weeks. Does the hon. Member suggest that the whole of that quantity was previously being fed to livestock? He gave an illustration from Sweden, which has secured a supply of maize. The hon. Member will know that conditions in Sweden have for a long time been very different from those in this country. It was further suggested that because the Board of Trade has been able to buy various kinds of domestic and household food we should have been able to spare the dollars for grain. It has been pointed out many times on this side of the House that it is not a question of dollars.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: What is it a question of?
  Mr. Collins: The point at issue is that an announcement had to be made, to give warning to poultry keepers and to other people interested in livestock, so that they could plan ahead. It would have been utterly wrong to leave matters until the Autumn and then to make an announcement because the cuts had become unavoidable. Until and unless the Minister of Food feels that these rations can be increased, as we all hope they will be as soon as possible, it will be completely wrong and entirely against the interests of poultry keepers to suggest or encourage the belief that the rations can be immediately increased.
  9.40 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Williams: Surely it is accepted now that bread rationing was unnecessary? [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] Hon. Members on this side of the House think that the only good it did was to prevent bread being fed to dogs and poultry and so on. The bread rationing scheme has been very upsetting to this country. The agricultural community have been promised time after time by the Minister that they shall have a long-dated policy, which will give them some form of security. In fact, he went so far as to refuse to give them an extra wheat acreage payment, for fear of giving them something they were not expecting, which might spoil their sense of security. So it is that the domestic poultry keeper and the small poultry keeper who want to feel a sense of security, are not getting it, with the cuts now being made, which will probably be cancelled along with bread rationing. The English people are prepared to make any sacrifice when it is necessary, and they are prepared to go hungry in time of war—
  Mr. Shurmer: And in time of peace.
  Mr. Williams: —but they feel now that they are being sacrificed for the trade of foreigners. Foreigners are able to get the food with which to feed their poultry, whereas we cannot, and there is a great deal of discontent in consequence—and very rightly so. It has been made clear tonight owing to the extraction rate being lowered, more offal will be freed for feeding to poultry and a great deal of unmillable wheat will be available. Many hon. Members have travelled abroad quite recently and seen an abundance of food almost wherever they have been—
  Mr. Shurmer: Rubbish.
  Mr. Williams: Service men coming back from the Continent tell the same story—
  Mr. Shurmer: We do not all stay in the best hotels on the Continent.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will the hon. Member deny that there are more fair shares of ordinary necessities in this country than in any other country in the world? I challenge him to deny that.
  Mr. Williams: We have had a share-and-share-alike system in this country but many people can go into restaurants and get what they like—
  Mr. Shurmer: Black market.
  Mr. Williams: No hon. Member opposite will deny that there is plenty of maize in the Argentine, and that the reason we cannot get the maize in this country is the shortage of shipping. We should make shipping space available as a first priority in order to keep up our poultry stocks in this country. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to realise the consequences which will follow this new Order. One of three things will happen. The poultry keeper will have to kill off many of his birds as time goes on. That is destroying capital. It is almost like pulling down a house because we have not electric light. We are destroying valuable capital and that will have a very drastic effect on the future of this country as a whole, let alone the poultry keepers. The second alternative is that the poultry keeper will have to feed his fowls on "bits and pieces." As a previous speaker has pointed out, this is entirely uneconomic. Bits and pieces from the household bit tubs are useful when balanced up with balancer meal, but without balancer meal it is like trying to ram oats into a good cow. If you have a cow giving four gallons of milk and you cram more and more oats into her, she will make very little response, but if you give her oats with some protein as well, she will probably give you—
  Mr. Shurmer: Ice cream.
  Mr. Williams: —nearly a half or one gallon extra. It is the same with balancer meal mixed with bits and pieces from the tub, but if there is no balancer meal, then the bits and pieces are wasted and the feeding is entirely uneconomic. The third alternative is for the ordinary domestic poultry keeper to buy rubbishy unrationed foods which are put on the market. At present you can buy bags of so-called poultry food at 10d. per lb. Only last June there was a firm offering meal made of grass and lucerne mixed, at the fabulous price of 40s. for one half of a cwt.
  Mr. George Thomas: Private enterprise.
  Mr. Williams: That works out at £80 a ton, and the discount allowed for selling that meal was 25 per cent., so that you were being offered £20 to sell one ton of meal made up of grass and lucerne.
  Mr. Speaker: That is interesting, but is it affected by this Order?
  Mr. Williams: I was trying to point out the consequences of this Order. If it is brought in, the ordinary domestic poultry keeper will be forced to buy these foodstuffs. However, I will not delay the House long on that subject. I was about to point out that the Government, by bringing in this Order, are deliberately driving the public into the hands of profiteers. I hope, therefore, that the House will consider very seriously tonight supporting this Prayer.
  9.48 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: Last Thursday night I was speaking at a small meeting in County Down in Northern Ireland. There were plenty of questions from the audience on such subjects as Income Tax, bread rationing and health insurance, but I was rather surprised to find that I had also a tremendous lot of questions upon the cutting down of poultry food. According to one poultry farmer in that room, by cutting down this food now we shall have only about 40 per cent. of our young chicks next January, and that will have a disastrous effect upon our poultry stocks within the next two years. I sincerely hope that the party opposite—who I expect will support us in this Prayer—will realise that it will be much better for the people, who want a little change in their diet, and also for that very hard working community, the small poultry keepers of this country, if this Prayer is accepted.
  9.50 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp: I intervene tonight as I have noticed the tremendous change in the faces opposite. Apparently the new guard have come into the Chamber.
  Mr. Shurmer: We belong to the old guard.
  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp: Some of them apparently, have to do extra duty, because I see some of the same faces tonight. I would not otherwise have intervened, because I think that most of what could be said has already been said. But, when I saw the complete change on the opposite side, I thought it would be well to review some of the remarks that have been made. We have noticed that
  726
  there has only been one speech so far from the opposite side of the House. I do not know whether the hon. Member was supporting the annulment of the Prayer, or the statutory regulation. Some of his statements were rather wild and some, as far as I could gather, completely inaccurate; but otherwise it seemed to be a most excellent speech.
  In the country districts a tremendous number of people are interested in this Prayer. They have the feeling that although this regulation may have been necessary in the past, at the moment there is absolutely no necessity for this cancellation of feeding stuffs for poultry. They feel very strongly that the Government are overdoing the question of cutting down food for livestock for no reason that can be given which they could understand. Now that I have got the full explanation over to the new guard I will sit down.
  9.51 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: The case for this Prayer has been put with great ability by my hon. Friends the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) and the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), reinforced by the arguments of the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts). Since then we have had a contribution from an hon. Member opposite which, if it does nothing else, will do much to cheer the heart of the prospective Conservative candidate for Taunton.
  Great Britain is now blessed with a Government of planners. Indeed their handiwork is evident in the situation which we are discussing tonight. In my constituency—[An HON. MEMBER: "Where is that?"]—in Holderness; the books of reference are open to hon. Members. It is the same constituency which I had the honour to represent in the last Parliament, and the same constituency which, subject to redistribution, I shall have the honour to represent in the next Parliament. Why hon. Members should seek to introduce these diversions, I do not know, unless the night shift are looking forward to overtime. In my constituency cattle cake coupons for the month of October were unduly late, and the explanation given was that the office of the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food was too busily engaged stamping the word "nil" on the poultry rations.

  727
  I understand they had borrowed the rubber stamp from the Ministry of Health housing returns of Ebbw Vale and other constituencies.
  The hens have now got to live on fresh air and water—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the cocks?"] I imagine that under Socialism, cocks will lay eggs. After all, we see in the feathered world the results of artificial nationalisation—[An HON. MEMBER: Do not crow about it."] Until 1st January, hens, which, for the benefit of hon. Members opposite, are the chief producers of eggs, have to live on air. Those which see the dawn of 1947 will view it with feelings, I imagine, rather like those of the Lord President of the Council when he went to Ireland. They will be able to have their first square meal for months, though their transport will not be paid for by the taxpayer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] Hon. Members opposite seem to think that they have a monopoly of attack in these matters. They will hear a good deal more until a considerably later hour— [Interruption.] The Tory Party is made of sterner stuff. In endeavouring to achieve solidarity in the catering world—
  Mr. Speaker: We have meandered over all sorts of things but we are actually discussing Statutory Rule and Order, 1946, No. 1490, and we should stick to that.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I apologise for having been led away by the irrelevancies of hon. Members opposite. The drastic cutting down of wheat offals has led to the wholesale use of oatmeal flour and subsidised potatoes for stock feeding. The rationing of bread and flour, the placing of oatmeal upon points, and the further unnecessary reduction in both pig and poultry rations has led feeders to employ the only cheap food left at their disposal—subsidised potatoes, which, I would submit to the hon. Lady, must, if it continues unchecked, lead to potato rationing in the near future. It may well be that the next appearance at that Box by the Minister of Food will be to announce a further fair sharing of misery—the rationing of potatoes.
  The ridiculous ration of 28 lb. of meal per month to fatten a pig for bacon, after 56 lb. has been allowed from eight weeks upward, is totally inadequate for the last two or three weeks of the fattening period,
  728
  and drives perfectly respectable citizens to all sorts of ingenious devices to complete the fattening process. The wider the area of control the wider the area of evasion. That is the lesson of the 15 months of Socialist rule in this country. I suggest that the complete failure, the abject failure, of the Government to provide sufficient food to complete the fattening process—[HON. MEMBERS: "Stop reading."]—I do not know to what hon. Members object. If I speak without referring to my notes probably I shall take longer. I am prepared to do that but I am merely trying to save the time of the House. Another hon. Member referred to the lack of variety in our diet. He pointed out that eggs would do much to vary that monotony. The House will recall that on the first occasion the Minister of Food spoke to the nation over the air he announced that as his chief objective. He gave us a charming picture of his domestic life and said how monotonous his family found the food. "I am going to do my best," he said, "to introduce variety." That did much to cheer my household. I said, "If variety is what we want the new Minister is the man for the job. He is the man—ex-Tory, ex-follower of Mosley, ex-Communist and now Labour Minister—he is the man for variety." I suggest that it will not be long before a second Minister of Food is "shot down." In the meantime the House can take a useful preliminary step by annuling this Order.
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. Drayson: To my mind this Order is the death warrant on 15 million head of poultry. Not only that, but it is equivalent to a very heavy fine on 2 million poultry keepers whose only crime would appear to be that they have struggled through six years of war and one year of Socialism, and kept alive their small stocks of poultry. These poultry keepers supply registered customers, numbering about 6 million. They are faced with a very considerable loss. I am sorry that I shall have to tell many of my constituents who have written to me on this subject that, when we discussed this important subject, neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Minister of Food found it possible to be present. The Minister of Agriculture evidently does, or did, take a serious view of this problem, because on 4th June he said that very

  729
  tragic and almost disastrous cuts would be enforced. He realised that this affected for the first time what he termed "the backyard poultry keepers." There have been other statements from time to time by the Minister of Food, and I will remind the House of them in a moment.
  These statements gave the backyard poultry keepers, and the larger ones as well, reason to believe that they could go ahead and increase their head of poultry. What was the particular encouragement? On 5th December, 1945, Sir Ben Smith, the then Minister of Food, informed this House that farmers' rations of feeding stuffs for pigs and poultry would be increased as from 1st May, 1946, from one-quarter to one-third of the 1939 supplies. Again, on 19th December, the same Minister informed Parliament that there was no need to raise the extraction rate of flour above the existing 80 per cent. Of course, the House, and the agricultural members of the community, well knew that an increase of five per cent. in the extraction rate of flour would deprive the agriculturist of at least 300,000 tons of feeding stuffs. Then, we had the first betrayal by this Government on this subject, when, on 5th February, 1946, the Minister of Food had to inform Parliament that the extraction rate would be increased up to 85 per cent., and the Minister of Agriculture, at that time, made an announcement to the effect that this would reduce from one-quarter to one-sixth the amount of feeding stuffs that farmers expected in respect of pigs and poultry.
  Finally, on 4th May, it was announced by the Minister of Food when he had to put up the extraction rate to 90 per cent., that the poultry ration would be decreased from one-sixth to one-twelfth later in the year. The background to this problem is that, before the war, in 1939, we had a poultry population of 74 million. At the end of the war, in December, 1945, that population had fallen to 45 million, and now I feel that, with the cuts that are facing the industry, the population will be little more than 30 million by the time this winter is over. I hope, and I feel confident, there will be a proportionate fall in the support throughout the country which the present Government are enjoying.
  Reference has been made to the situation overseas. Many hon. Members of
  730
  this House, and of the public, have had the opportunity recently of going abroad, either for the purpose of furthering our export trade or some other cause dearer to their hearts. What is the situation that is to be found in some of the countries which had been recently occupied by Germany?
  Mr. George Thomas: On a point of Order—
  Mr. Speaker: I was about to say that the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Dray-son) is going quite outside the scope of the Order, and that he must keep within the bounds of the Order itself.
  Mr. Drayson: I leave the question with the remark that it is possible to buy these commodities overseas—
  Mr. Speaker: But that has nothing to do with this Order. The hon. Member must confine himself to what is in the Order and nothing else.
  Mr. Drayson: The question with which I am dealing is that of feeding stuffs for pigs and poultry. We, on this side of the House, condemn the Government for not having purchased these feeding stuffs in the countries in which we all know they are available. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I am asked where they are available, and I will now read from a document which I feel sure has been sent to all hon. Members of this House from a society representing the poultry keepers in this country, though it may be that hon. Members have not read it, if they do not read the bulk of their correspondence.
  Major Cecil Poole: On a point of Order. Does the purchase of feeding stuffs from overseas arise on this Order?
  Mr. Speaker: I am not sure about that. I was not listening, I confess.
  Mr. Drayson: I was asked by hon. Members opposite in which countries feeding stuffs were available. The extract to which I refer goes as follows. The writer admits that some form of rationing is necessary, but he goes on to say:
  "From what I have seen in the Sudan, the Congo—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member continues to wander all over the place, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
  Mr. Drayson: I was trying to convey to the Government information as to where these feeding stuffs are available, so that they need not proceed with this Order, but, in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will leave that point.
  We have heard of the difficulty that householders have experienced in keeping their hens alive during the past few years. I, myself, am one of those backyard keepers. Until recently, my flock numbered seven hens, but I was sorry to find the other day that some of them had given up the unequal struggle of trying to remain alive on the available feeding stuffs, and only three are now in existence. Some time ago, I thought I would give them a treat and I threw them a handful of maize. It would appear that they had never seen this commodity before and were quite unable to deal with it. In fact, they were as disconcerted about the maize as was my own small child of six when she saw her first banana the other day. I wish it were possible for the Government to consider some form of compensation for the many poultry keepers.
  Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the hon. Member that compensation does not come within the Order at all.
  Mr. Drayson: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I content myself by saying that both classes of poultry keepers who have been discussed tonight, and who are very deeply affected by this Order, will suffer a great loss. We have recently heard a lot about the "closed shop." I suggest that by this Order the Government are imposing a "closed coop." If they cannot produce the houses, at least they can produce the chicken feed.
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. Snadden: I wish, very briefly, to put a point which might provide a solution to our problem. I support this Prayer because I think the whole feeding stuff position is quite ridiculous in the light of the knowledge which we have in regard to world opportunities. I suggest to the hon. Lady, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, that this problem could be solved if the Ministry had the courage to reduce further the extraction rate of wheat by five per cent. We all know that the high extraction rate of five per cent., up or down, means 300,000 tons of offal. This latest drastic cut,
  732
  starting from October and imposed on domestic poultry keepers for the first time, is estimated to reduce the ration by 40 per cent. as compared with 1945. At the very best, as far as I can see, the output of pig meat is likely to fall to the lowest level ever reached during the war, while the recent output of eggs will be lost and will not be regained. Further, the build-up of our livestock policy, from the point of view of agriculture in general, is going to be set back, long after the grain shortage has passed away.
  The decision taken in June was taken in a time of acute shortage. At that time, figures were produced which showed that we were up against a very difficult position. Some may have felt that there was reason then for the steps that were taken. But that state of affairs no longer persists today. What is the position? The official crop of wheat in the United States is the best since 194o; it is a record crop. Of course, the reserves in that country have to be made up—I admit that—but nevertheless, we have to take into account that in America there has been a record crop of wheat. In Canada, our principal source of supply of wheat, the crop is 44 per cent. up on 1945. Admittedly, the 1945 crop was light, but nevertheless, 44 per cent. is a very great increase. In Europe the production has been raised by 30 per cent. on 1945. What about the Far East where, I am told, the production of rice, a very important commodity, has made a very considerable recovery? I deduce from that, that because of the increase in rice production in the Far East, the consuming countries will not require to import nearly as much wheat as hitherto.
  Balancing all those facts, and putting them all together, where is this shortage of wheat about which we hear so much? I believe the Minister of Food was right when he decided to lower the extraction rate of wheat before taking off bread rationing, because by so doing he has made provision to maintain, as far as he can, our milk output during the winter, which is the time when we want it. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if bread rationing is to be continued, the extraction rate of wheat might be reduced by a further five per cent. By so doing a further 300,000 tons of offal would be freed. Not only would this Order be annulled, but we would also go

  733
  a very long way towards averting the very great difficulties which confront us. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House why our wheat extraction rate cannot be reduced in order to get these offals and feeding stuffs, and so annul this Order.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. Osborne: I notice that hon. Members opposite have treated this matter with levity. I assure them that the people in the countryside do not think it a laughing matter. North Lincolnshire, which I have the honour to represent, has in the past been regarded as "the county of three P's," in that it was famous for its pigs, potatoes and poultry. In recent years a further P has been added for its peas. The people of Lincolnshire are beginning to fear that they will lose their lead in pig and poultry production and they are alarmed at this Order, which they want annulled. I have not risen merely to provide hilarity for hon. Members opposite, but because my constituents have asked me to oppose this Order. I would remind the House that to the farm worker—and there are representatives of farm workers opposite—the pigs and poultry they keep are very important factors in their incomes, and it is very important that these should be maintained. The extra supply of food that the agricultural workers have is very important in keeping them on the land, and if that advantage of extra food is taken away they are more likely to drift to the towns which is the last thing we want. I therefore support this Prayer on behalf of the agricultural workers whom I represent.
  Also in my constituency there is a number of pig clubs. The members of those pig clubs during the war did a very good service to the country by saving their scraps and providing food for pigs. They deserve better treatment than they are getting. They feel that they are getting a raw deal. They asked me to get up in this House and say so. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), in the only speech from the other side of the House, said that this shortage of feeding stuffs was not a question of dollars Then of what is it a question? Why is it that the poultry keepers and pig keepers cannot have what they regard as a reasonable supply of feeding stuffs? We understand that in North America
  734
  there has been a record crop. Why could not we have our fair share of it?
  Reference has been made to the ample supply of feeding stuffs abroad, and various hon. Members opposite have interjected that hon. Members here got their experiences only from the luxury hotels abroad. I was in Italy for some time at Easter, and I travelled between Turin and Milan in the North and Naples in the South. I saw a good deal of Italian agriculture, and there was no shortage of feeding stuffs there. Italy lost the war and we won it, but a Socialist Government have brought us to this. The hon. Member who seemed to enjoy interrupting so much tonight, mentioned sharing equally. We are sick of sharing Socialist misery. We want work. May I just say this to the hon. Lady who is to reply? The excuse will be that there is a world shortage, that there are difficulties. Who wants to be governed by a set of Jonahs? What the people in the countryside feel is that somehow, either through incompetence or neglect, they are not getting as fair a share of the world supply as they ought to, and they have asked me to do what is my duty, and what I am very pleased to do, namely, to pray against this Order.
  10.22 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): Those hon. Members who have examined the Order will, I think, agree with me that it is a very short administrative Order. After hearing the speeches of hon. Gentleman opposite I suspect they have prayed against it, not because they feel very seriously about the plight of the people concerned—
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Frank Byers: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for a Minister at that Box to make an imputation against all hon. Members on this side of the House, many of whom feel very seriously indeed about this matter?
  Mr. Speaker: I have often heard imputations made against other sides. That is part of politics. I think perhaps I might read out this little paper, which says:
  "We should never get mealymouthed or frightened about little tiffs that occur in the course of our affairs."
  I do not need to tell the House the author of that statement.
  Mr. Turton: Further on that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may we have it quite clear? Is it in Order for a Minister to impute a base motive against a Prayer?
  Mr. Speaker: A Minister may impute a base motive against a party, but not against any individual. It may be done against a group of persons, unquestionably; that has often been done.
  Mr. Turton: Surely when a Private Members' Prayer has been put down, the imputation of a base motive against that Prayer is to impute that base motive to those hon. Members who have put down the Prayer.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not quite sure what words the Minister used. I am not quite sure whether the words "a base motive" were used. Could I ask the hon. Lady, what was the word she used?
  Dr. Summerskill: I must confess I have forgotten. I must also say, Mr. Speaker, after being in the House for eight years, I had no idea that the hon. Gentlemen opposite were so sensitive.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the hon. Lady make it perfectly clear that, if she attributed any element of insincerity to hon. Members, that imputation is now withdrawn? [HON. MEMBERS: "Certainly not."]
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order, but a question to be addressed to the hon. Lady, and not to me. If what she said was that hon. Members opposite were perhaps more interested in their constituents' affairs than she thought the Debate warranted, she was perfectly in Order.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The hon. Lady went far enough to impute to hon. Members on this side unworthy motives, to suggest that they were insincere, and that their speeches meant something different from what their words expressed. I suggest, very humbly, to you, Mr. Speaker, that that was out of Order.
  Mr. Speaker: I have often heard that said about a party by hon. Members on the other side. It is common form in this House, though, perhaps, not very desirable. To say it against an individual Member would be out of Order, but to say it against a party is, of course, done by both sides.
  Dr. Summerskill: I think that if[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Perhaps hon. Gentlemen will be quiet, and let me finish a sentence. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have probably accused women very often of not being able to hold their tongues. If, tonight, they will be a little quiet and let me finish a sentence, perhaps they will not feel it necessary to be so heated. What I was going to say—and I think I am justified in saying it—was that, judging from the speeches that have been made from the opposite Benches, hon. Gentlemen opposite are more concerned with attacking the Government, and with continuing the Debate on world food problems which was initiated in June, than with applying themselves to this particular Order. I think anybody listening to this Debate, listening to the very weak contributions that have been made, listening to hon. Members wandering from the question of the closed shop to that of their children eating bananas and to chickens in the coop, will agree with me that their speeches have shown that they have not studied this problem and that they do not know the facts. The hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) said he hoped the Ministry would be kind to the people of Northern Ireland and asked that the poultry keepers there should not suffer, and so on. But this Order does not apply to Northern Ireland.
  Sir W. Smiles: I only inform the House that at a meeting I attended last Thursday this question was raised. At any rate, the feeding of poultry there has been cut down, and there will be less chicks in Northern Ireland next year than there were last year. I think the Government there act as the agents of this Government.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making imputations against another Government.
  Dr. Summerskill: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will go back to his constituents and comfort them. Then the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts)—
  Mr. W. Roberts: Does it apply to North Cumberland?
  Dr. Summerskill: I am only proving my contention that hon. Members have not really studied the subject. Their speeches

  737
  have evoked a good deal of merriment from this side, and I think they have not been of a serious character—
  Mr. Roberts: May I ask the hon. Lady whether she considers that my speech was not of a serious character?
  Dr. Summerskill: I wish hon. Members would wait until I had finished. The hon. Member asked, for instance, why we were not getting 10 per cent. of the maize crop from the United States of America. He comes to this House and he quotes figures, and surely we have every right to believe that the hon. Member knows what he is talking about. The 1946 crop of maize in the United States of America was 8o million tons. The hon. Member says we should import 8 million tons. I want to remind him—and he should surely know this—that our average imports of maize for the five years before the war was 3 million tons, mostly from the Argentine. Those are the facts and, therefore, when the hon. Gentleman gets up and charges us with being irresponsible and asks why we did not make these vast purchases, I draw his attention to the facts.
  I must admit I find it difficult to follow the inconsistencies of the Opposition. Only a few weeks ago they were opposing bread rationing, although they must know that the more wheat there is in the world the more speedily can coarse grains return to their use as feeding stuffs. On the one hand, they oppose bread rationing which saves grain which can eventually be used for human beings. On the other hand, they come here tonight and demand that we shall use more feeding stuffs. Obviously you cannot reconcile the two things.
  Mr. Osborne: We are getting neither.
  Dr. Summerskill: Many hon. Gentlemen opposite have championed the domestic poultry keeper, and quite rightly. I, like the hon. Gentleman opposite, am a domestic poultry keeper. He has seven hens; I have eight. I want to tell the House that I bought my hens after these cuts had been announced, I have such confidence in the use of balancer meal which, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says, balances kitchen waste.
  I should like to remind the House of the history of the domestic poultry
  738
  scheme. The original monthly ration issued to domestic poultry keepers was four pounds per bird. This was later amended to four pounds per shell egg registration surrendered, because it was felt that the domestic poultry keeper was in a rather privileged position. Then, in June, 1943, the monthly allowance was increased to five pounds. In that sense, then, the domestic poultry keeper has not suffered any cut. But early this year it became necessary to divert coarse grains entering into international trade to human consumption, and also, as has been mentioned here tonight, to increase the extraction rate from 8o per cent. to 85 per cent., with consequential reductions in the rations to commercial pigs and poultry. Later, the extraction rate had to be increased from 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. All these measures, of course, reduced the available supplies of animal feeding stuffs, and further reductions had to take place not only in the rations for commercial pigs and poultry but also for almost all the important classes of stock, including domestic poultry. As time went on, it soon became apparent that the original intention to increase the rations of pigs and poultry could not be carried out. Finally, in June, when the supply position could be more accurately assessed, the Ministry of Agriculture announced their intention to reduce all rations, including the domestic poultry ration. We had to wait until June before we could accurately assess the position.
  Since these cuts came into operation, on 1st October, a slight improvement in the position has taken place. That has been mentioned by nearly every hon. Member who has spoken tonight. The improvement has been the reduction of the extraction rate from 90 per cent. to 85 per cent. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), who moved the Motion, asked me why the increase in miller offals, which of course must follow the reduction in the extraction rate, could not be used. With all respect to the hon. Member, he has forgotten one important fact, namely, that any increase of this kind has to go into the pool, and when we are being allocated feeding stuffs, our available supplies are considered before the International Emergency Food Council makes an allocation. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] Hon. Members

  739
  opposite must not disregard international organisations. We shall not have peace until hon. Members opposite learn to respect international organisations, and if they sneer at an international food organisation, then they are capable of disregarding any international organisation. Hon. Members who have mentioned the extraction rate, have forgotten one important factor. Whereas during this bad harvest there has been more unmillable wheat, our barley harvest has suffered.
  May I remind the House of the figures, in order to convince hon. Members of the seriousness of our position? On 1st September, 1946, the estimated harvest of barley was 1,964,000 tons. On 1st October the estimate had to be revised downwards, the new figure being 1,787,000 tons. This compares with a final crop figure, for 1945, of 2,108,000 tons. When hon. Members ask why we have not increased the ration in view of the fact that the extraction rate had been reduced, and in view of the fact that there is more unmillable wheat, they have forgotten the important factor of the reduction of barley.
  Mr. Snadden: What about the tremendous crops in America and Canada?
  Dr. Summerskill: I should like to say something on that, as someone accused us of not having the right kind of business people working for the Ministry. We employ business men who have spent their whole lives in doing this job. Hon. Members are not accusing some civil servants of being incapable of buying grain from another country, but are accusing business men who bought it when hon. Members opposite had a large majority in this House. I am glad to say that, in order to maintain the milk supply, it is now possible to reduce the degree of self-sufficiency of dairy cows in cereals from1¼ to 1⅛ and to reduce the self-sufficiency of dairy cows in protein foodstuffs from one gallon to a half gallon. So far as protein is concerned this puts the ration for dairy cows on the same level as in the winter of 1945. In the case of cereals the self-sufficiency is increased to one-eighth of a gallon. I give these figures to hon. Members because I think it important for them to realise that, whereas we may be saving grain and not giving perhaps a ration of cereal which they would like to see go to the poultry keepers, we are helping the dairy farmers.
  Mr. York: Is the hon. Lady talking about grain or offal, or is she muddling them?
  Dr. Summerskill: I am not muddling them, but the hon. Gentleman is. When one talks about offals, one usually specifies them. Many hon. Members have said that the housewives would like a varied diet. Of course they would. We would like to give them eggs and bacon for breakfast. But if the housewives of Britain had to decide between eggs and bacon for breakfast, and their milk ration, they would be in favour of not having the eggs and bacon. I feel that it is absolutely essential to help the dairy farmers, in order to maintain our milk supply. Further, it has been possible this year to make imports of certain commodities which have been denied us in the past. Again, hon. Gentlemen who suspect that our business men are not as efficient as they might be, would like to hear that rice bran, locust beans, and imported millers offals are coming into this country again.
  Mr. W. Roberts: Can the hon. Lady tell us how much, in tonnage, the increase in foodstuffs on milk is, and what exactly is the figure in tons saved on the domestic poultry ration?
  Dr. Summerskill: I cannot give the milk figure to-night. I think the domestic poultry keepers were getting 15,000 tons, but now they will be getting 6,000 tons. [HON. MEMBERS: "A year?-] No, a month. The ration is given monthly. Before, the domestic unit was five pounds, now it is two pounds, and 3,000 tons is saved for every pound reduction.
  Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Lady mentioned the matter of imported millers' offal. Would she say whether the Emergency Food Council allocates to this country imported flour or grain? I am not clear from her previous answer whether or not the amount saved by the bread rationing had to go hack to the central pool. If the grain had been sent back, does the Emergency Food Council reclaim on anything we save?
  Dr. Summerskill: The International Emergency Food Council allocates all grain and feeding stuffs. [An HON. MEMBER: "To whom?"] I would ask the hon. Gentleman to examine these things a little more

  741
  thoroughly, and perhaps if he goes back to the Combined Food Board and examines the composition he will have the answer to his question.
  Sir Ian Fraser: May I ask the hon. Lady a perfectly serious question? If the International Committee is to distribute this grain, and our chickens are not to get any, which nation's chickens are going to have it?
  Dr. Summerskill: Most of the nations of the world are members of the International Emergency Council today. The future ration is entirely dependent on our ability to import as there are no further home supplies which can be made available for use.
  The imports of wheat, if sufficiently high, might permit of a further reduction in the flour extraction rate of 80 per cent. This would be a great help in increasing the available supply of millers' offals. If we can import in future, if world conditions permit, which means that allocations will go up, we shall be able to reduce the extraction rate, and we shall have more millers' offals.
  We must remember that the world situation in regard to grain indicates that at least for the year 1946–7, the diversion of a considerable quantity of coarse grain from animal feeding to human consumption will have to take place. I make no secret of it. Next year, there will be food shortages throughout the world. We have now td decide how we shall allocate our available feeding stuffs. The production of milk has always been considered as having a priority claim on the supplies of animal feeding stuffs. We believe that this is essential before embarking on an increase in pig and poultry rations. Domestic poultry keepers, as a class, have been enjoying special privileges, as the cut was not made in their allowances until the introduction of this Order. The five pounds of feeding stuff for each surrendered egg registration was given in 1943, and the domestic poultry keeper has not suffered any cut since then.
  When hon. Members opposite demand that an increase should be given to this class of people, they must remember that there will be an instant demand to increase the domestic pig ration, which has also suffered a cut, and also the allowances to pig clubs. If the demand is met, this would mean that the whole level of rations would have to come under review. Any
  742
  increase in the ration for a particular type of livestock would mean a decrease for others. When the hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) addresses his constituents, I ask him to ask housewives whether they would prefer a cut in their bacon and eggs, or their milk. I am convinced that they will accept the Government's decision to maintain the milk supply. Of course, we deplore the cuts, but they are inevitable at a time of widespread food shortage, when human beings are compelled to consume grain which is normally used for feeding animals.
  Further, when hon. Members opposite ask that their pigs and poultry should be fed, I would remind them that India has prohibited completely the export of groundnuts. Are hon. Members telling the House that their pigs and poultry must be fed before Indian children? That is the isuue before them. The Government believe that human beings must have priority, and therefore, I ask the House to reject the Motion.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I can quite well understand why the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture has not seen fit to be present at this Debate to-night. He has a very special responsibility for the domestic poultry keeper and the domestic pig keeper, because, during the Coalition days when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, one of his chief tasks was to favour, help and promote, in all ways, the growth of that movement; and it was very largely as a result of the help that he gave, for example on the question of pig clubs, that Mr. Alec Hobson, the Secretary, was able to report an increase from something under 500, to something over 4,000. The same thing was true, to a very large extent, of the growth of backyard poultry. It is not by any means—I am giving no secret away—the first occasion during the last six years on which the question of the rations to be devoted to these individuals has come under discussion. Neither is this the first occasion during that period on which the country has been faced with shortage of wheat and grain. More than once during the war, our stocks got down to perilously low figures, and, on every such occasion, the question was raised whether or not a further cut should be made in the ration which had been accorded

  743
  to domestic pig and poultry keepers. No one—again giving no secret away—was stouter in his defence and his refusal to agree to those cuts than the present Minister of Agriculture. He fought inside the Government for those people. The Government, in those days, wanted to cut the rations from, for example, the increased level of 5 lbs per head but the present Minister of Agriculture fought hard to prevent that, and he succeeded.
  I believe that a large number of individuals throughout the country will regret two things: They will regret, first of all, the levity with which this Debate has been treated by hon. Members opposite, and they will regret still more the fact that the present Minister of Agriculture is not so tough as Minister of Agriculture, as he was when he was Parliamentary Secretary. If he were, we should not he having these cuts, because they are totally unnecessary.
  Mr. Alpass: What about the world situation?
  Mr. Hudson: I will tell the hon. Gentleman about that in a moment, if he will contain himself. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), and other hon. Members, mentioned 1,500,000 as the number of domestic poultry keepers. That is true. But that does not represent the families involved. The hon. Lady knows perfectly well—at least the Department know perfectly well—that well over 4 million people are actually involved, because, on the last figures published, well over 4 million shell egg registrations had been given up. Every one of those 1,500,000 domestic poultry keepers, in fact, provides eggs for two, if not three per family, or for their neighbours. Therefore, the total number of people who will be affected by the cut is very considerable. When hon. Members laugh and jeer, as they have been doing tonight, it is as well that their constituents throughout the country should realise the levity with which hon. Members opposite are treating this matter. In the considerable number of years that I have been in the House, I have very rarely heard such a miserable defence as that put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. When she was asked some questions by some of my hon. Friends about what was happening to 300,000 tons of offals that
  744
  were gained as a result of the reduction in the extraction rate of flour from 90 per cent. to 85 per cent., she said that that increase was taken into account by the Combined Food Board when they were making allocations.
  There are two answers to that statement. The hon. Lady might have used that argument some weeks ago, but for her to use it tonight, on the very morrow of our being told that the United States authorities have thrown all allocations to the winds, is hardly treating the House with the respect that it deserves. The hon. Lady went on to say "Oh, but you have to remember that although we have gained some 350,000 tons of feeding stuffs by this reduction in the extraction rate of flour, we have lost some 300,000 tons of barley." Is she seriously suggesting that when we gain feeding stuffs on extraction that is taken into account by the Combined Food Board, and when we lose by a bad crop of barley, that is not to be taken into account? Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that our representatives in Washington are so inefficient that they are prepared to accept a system under which we lose both on the swings and on the roundabouts?
  Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman says in one breath that they are not allocating, and then in the next breath says that they are going to allocate.
  Mr. Hudson: I am merely showing that the hon. Lady is convicted out of her own mouth. In one breath she says that we cannot use the additional feeding stuffs that we have gained to increase our rations, because that has already been taken into account by the Combined Food Board, and then she says that when we lose as a result of a bad harvest, we have to suffer. We are not allowed to make representations to the Food Board that we must be allowed to cancel out one against the other. I have never heard such an argument. It is very much like her suggestion that we on this side of the House are not concerned with the sufferings and hardships that will have to be undergone by the individual people. Of course, we are. I do not know about hon. Members opposite— [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen need not jeer. We have received scores of letters of protest from individuals.
  The hon. Lady made no attempt to answer the very cogent arguments that

  745
  were advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. What is the gravamen of the charge that we level against the Government, and the reason we are asking the House to agree to annul this Order? It may, on the information that the Government had, have been right, in their view, to take this precautionary measure last June, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham said, the situation has radically changed since June. We have had a very bad harvest, with the inevitable result that there has been a considerable amount available of unmillable wheat that cannot be used for human consumption. I maintain, from the information that has reached me and my hon. Friends, that a great proportion of that unmillable wheat is being wasted. A certain amount of it has been collected by the Government, but a great deal of it is still on the farms in this country, heating and rapidly deteriorating. I am told, although I naturally cannot vouch for the figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] Because I have not been right round the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not go?"] I think it would be very much better if the present Minister travelled about the country as much as I did when I was a Minister.
  The best information that reaches me is that today there is no less than 200,000 tons of unmillable wheat lying on farms in this country, rapidly deteriorating. If the hon. Lady could induce her Department to get after that, she would quite easily be able to make good the amount of cereals involved in this cut, which is, I believe, something of the order of 60,000 tons. There is, undoubtedly, some 200,000 tons available. That is an unexpected change in the situation. It is a change that no one could have foreseen last June, but the gravamen of our charge is that in spite of this changed situation, the same old programme which was laid down in June, is being adhered to when we believe it should be revised.
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) stated that dollars were not the difficulty, and he led the House to assume that something else was—possibly supply or shipping. So far as maize is concerned, I do not necessarily accept the suggestion that 10 per cent. of the crop in the United States should be bought. It is a well-known fact that maize and wheat were both record crops in the United States last year, when the
  746
  figure for maize harvested was the highest ever, not only for the United States but for any country in the world. There was every reason to fear that there would not be two bumper harvests running, but I understand that Providence has been kind and the United States has in fact had two bumper crops of maize in succession. There is no question that if the dollars are available—and I take the word of the hon. Member for Taunton that this is so—it should have been possible to have obtained from the United States, by ordinary private commercial channels, if it was not possible to do it by bulk purchase, the few tens of thousands of tons needed to avoid making this particular cut.
  The hon. Lady made no attempt to defend the actual details of this Order. She talked about the additional protein that was to be allotted to dairy cattle. Well, naturally, we are only too glad to hear that some small addition is to be made, but why single out poultry keepers as the only people who are not to benefit? We are talking tonight about what is known as "balancer meal," and it is well described by its name. It is intended to provide a balanced ration and those constituents of poultry food which are missing from the ordinary scraps from the table. One of the most important of these constituents is proteins, and one of the most important of those, vegetable and animal, is animal protein. We are enjoying today, as the result of the largely increased landings of fish, substantially greater supplies of animal protein—the most valuable we can have, contained in fish meal and so on. In the case of pigs, the proportion of animal protein has been increased, and quite rightly, from 5 per cent. to 7½ per cent. as from last Monday. I am not complaining about that; it was the right thing to do. But why single out poultry to be left in the cold? I have here an appendant to this Order we are discussing tonight, an instruction issued by the Director of National Feeding Stuffs to the manufacturers of this balancer meal which is the subject of the Order, and he says that it shall contain the following:
  "Animal protein, fish substances, 2½ per cent."
  Why make the situation, which is bad enough through the reduction of the ration, worse by not trying to improve the quality of the miserable remaining

  747
  balancer meal given to the poultry keeper? The total amount would have been very small. If you can do it for dairy cows and pigs, it should not have been beyond the wit of man, with a little good administration, to do it for poultry. That is the second reason why we object to this Order.
  The third reason is that human beings being what they are, very large numbers of people will undoubtedly do everything they can to try to save their stock—their hens and their pigs. One of the obvious ways of doing that is to feed to them increased supplies of potatoes. Now potatoes are none too plentiful. We do not yet know finally how we are going to emerge next year, after the winter, with regard to potatoes, because there has been a great deal of blight. If, as a result of this action of cutting the balancer meal for pigs, people change over to potatoes on any scale this autumn and winter, the Ministry of Food may find itself faced with a serious shortage of potatoes next spring, which is the time of maximum difficulty. Therefore, even from the Ministry's own narrow point of view, the point of view of ensuring food supplies for the people of this country, cutting down food for animals at this particular time, when people do not believe it is necessary, is really bad administration.
  Finally, I come to the question which has only been touched on very lightly, and that is the denial of rations to small poultry keepers who are rearing pullets. I am told that the ration for adult birds, and for birds for replacement, has been greatly reduced and that the ration for pullets to be sold has been cut entirely under this Order. The result is going to
  be not only the slaughter of pullets. It will also mean that in a certain comparatively short space of time, we are going to be definitely short of pullets, that is, pullets mainly sold to the small farmer, pullets which could have used a good deal of the grain which will be otherwise wasted, a good deal of the unmillable grain of various sorts, which is lying on the farms. Again, this is a piece of bad administration. It will result in a serious waste of feeding stuffs, and also of food for human consumption. For all these reasons, I beg the hon. Lady to have another look, even at this late date, at this matter. I believe that if she could get the Minister, and her colleagues and officials, to look at this matter again, to forget for a moment the prestige involved, to forget that they committed themselves last June to a statement that this would happen; if they looked at it again in the light of circumstances as they exist today, they would find it possible to get from the farms, even now, a substantial portion of the 200,000 tons of unmillable wheat which will otherwise be wasted. Then I believe it would be possible, perhaps not to cancel the Order, but to mitigate it very much indeed. It is because I hope that she will do this and bring in a new Order, that I ask the House to annul this Order.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. WILLIAM WHITELEY) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 75.

  Division No. 289.]

  AYES.

  [11.9 p.m

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Daines, P.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Deer, G.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Diamond, J.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Dedds, N. N.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Buchanan, G.

  Donovan, T.

  Austin, H. L.

  Burden, T. W.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Burke, W. A.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Baird, J.

  Champion, A. J.

  Edelman, M.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Battley, J. R.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Coldrick, W.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Collick, P.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Binns, J.

  Collins, V. J.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Boardman, H.

  Daggar, G.

  Ewart, R.

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mack, J. D.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  McLeavy, F.

  Solley, L. J.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Gibbins, J.

  Mathers, G.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Gilzean, A.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Stamford, W.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Monslow, W.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Morley, R.

  Swingler S.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Symonds, A. L.

  Grey, C. F.

  Murray, J. D.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Grierson, E.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Tiffany, S.

  Guy, W. H.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Timmons, J.

  Hale, Leslie

  Noel-Buxton, Lady.

  Titterington, M. F.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Tolley, L.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Oliver, G H.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Orbach, M.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Holman, P.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Walkden, E.

  House, G.

  Parker, J.

  Walker, G. H.

  Hoy, J.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Hubbard, T.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Perrins, W.

  Weitzman, D

  Irving, W. J

  Platts-Mills. J. F. F.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Janner, B.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  West, D. G.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Randall, H. E.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  John, W.

  Ranger, J.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Rankin, J.

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Wilkes, L

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Rhodes, H.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Robens, A.

  Willey, F T. (Sunderland)

  Keenan, W.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  King, E. M.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Sargood, R.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Kinley, J.

  Scollan, T.

  Williamson, T.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Willis, E.

  Lang, G.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Lavers, S.

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

  Woods, G. S.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Wyatt, W.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Shurmer, P.

  Yates, V. F.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  McAdam, W.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

  NOES.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Hollis, M. C

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Baldwin, A. E.

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

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hurd, A

  Scott, Lord W.

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Bowen, R.

  Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Bower, N.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Spence, H. R.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Byers, Frank

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Touche, G. C.

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

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Turton, R. H.

  Dodds-Parker A. D.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Wadsworth, G.

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Eccles, D. M.

  Nicholson, G.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

  Noble, Comdr. A H. P

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Osborne, C.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gage, C.

  Pitman, I. J.

  York, C.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Ponsonby, Col C. E.

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Grimston, R. V.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Haughton, S. G.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C

  Rayner. Brig. R.

  Mr. Drewe and Commander Agnew

  Question put accordingly,
  "That the Order, dated 5th September, 1946, amending the Feeding Stuffs (Rationing) Order, 1943, and giving Directions thereunder (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1490), a copy of which
  amending Order was presented on 8th October, be annulled."
  The House divided: Ayes, 74; Noes, 208.

  Division No. 290.]

  AYES

  [11 18 p.m

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

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

  Sanderson, Sir F

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hurd, A

  Scott, Lord W.

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

  Bowen, R.

  Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Bower, N.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Spence, H. R.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Byers, Frank

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Touche, G. C.

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

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Drewe, C.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  White, J. B (Canterbury)

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Nicholson, G.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Osborne, C.

  York, C.

  Gage, C.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Prescott, Stanley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Haughton, S. G.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Mr. Eccles and Mr. Turton.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  NOES.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  John, W

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Edelman, M.

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Austin, H. L.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Keenan, W.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  King, E. M.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Kinley, J.

  Baird, J.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Balfour, A.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Lang, G.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Ewart, R.

  Lavers, S.

  Battley, J. R

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Forman, J. C.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Binns, J.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Blenkinsop, A

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  McAdam, W.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Boardman, H.

  Gibbing, J.

  Mack, J. D.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

  Gilzean, A.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Gooch, E. G

  McLeavy, F.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Mathers, G.

  Buchanan, G.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

  Burden, T. W.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Burke, W. A.

  Grierson, E.

  Monslow, W.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Morley, R.

  Champion, A. J.

  Guy, W. H.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Cobb, F. A.

  Hale, Leslie

  Murray, J. D

  Cocks, F. S.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Coldrick, W.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Collick, P.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Collins, V. J.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Holman, P.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Holmes,H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Dagger, G.

  House, G.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Daines, P.

  Hoy, J.

  Orbach, M.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Hubbard, T

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Deer, G.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Diamond, J.

  Irving, W. J.

  Parker, J.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Janner, B.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Donovan, T.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Walker, G. H.

  Perrins, W.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamzstew, E.)

  Platte-Mills. J. F. F.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Solley, L. J.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Weitzman, D.

  Randall, H. E

  Sparks, J. A.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Ranger, J.

  Stamford, W.

  West, D. G.

  Rankin, J.

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Stubbs, A. E.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Rhodes, H.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Robens, A.

  Swingler S.

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Symonds, A. L.

  Wilkes, L.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Sargood, R.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Scollan, T.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Tiffany, S.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Timmons, J.

  Williamson, T.

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

  Titterington, M. F.

  Willis, E.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Tolley, L.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Shurmer, P.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

  Woods, G. S.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Wyatt, W.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Yates, V. F.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Viant, S. P.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Walkden, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

  Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn" [Mr. R. J. Taylor].
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY
  Prize Money
  Prize Money
  Civilian Clothes
  Civilian Clothes
  Pluto Drum, Greatstone-on-Sea (Salvage)
  Pluto Drum, Greatstone-on-Sea (Salvage)
  Shore Establishments (Messing)
  Shore Establishments (Messing)
  Dockyard, Devonport (Shipkeepers)
  Dockyard, Devonport (Shipkeepers)
  Chemists
  Chemists
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Camp Conditions, Agra
  Camp Conditions, Agra
  Airfield, Santa Cruz
  Airfield, Santa Cruz
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Herring Shipments (Germany)
  Herring Shipments (Germany)
  Biscuits
  Biscuits
  Tea
  Tea
  Barley and Maize
  Barley and Maize
  Rationing (Abolition)
  Rationing (Abolition)
  Tomatoes
  Tomatoes
  Animal Feeding Stuffs
  Animal Feeding Stuffs
  Harvest Rations
  Harvest Rations
  Slaughter Houses, Penzance
  Slaughter Houses, Penzance
  Members of Parliament (Correspondence)
  Members of Parliament (Correspondence)
  Wheat and Flour
  Wheat and Flour
  Condemned Food
  Condemned Food
  Fats (Fish Fryers)
  Fats (Fish Fryers)
  Carcase Meat (Denmark)
  Carcase Meat (Denmark)
  Canned Meat (Stocks)
  Canned Meat (Stocks)
  Foodstuffs (Bulk Purchases)
  Foodstuffs (Bulk Purchases)
  Soya Beans
  Soya Beans
  Sub-Office (Kirkcudbright)
  Sub-Office (Kirkcudbright)
  Brewers' Barley
  Brewers' Barley
  FOREIGN WINES (IMPORTS)
  FOREIGN WINES (IMPORTS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Timber Poles (Imports)
  Timber Poles (Imports)
  "Britain Can Make It" Exhibition
  "Britain Can Make It" Exhibition
  Linseed Oil
  Linseed Oil
  Clothing Coupons (Children)
  Clothing Coupons (Children)
  Clothing Industry
  Clothing Industry
  Cotton Crops
  Cotton Crops
  Sheets and Blankets
  Sheets and Blankets
  Men's Ties
  Men's Ties
  White Lead
  White Lead
  Weights and Measures
  Weights and Measures
AFRICAN COLONIES
  United Kingdom Scholarships
  United Kingdom Scholarships
  Freetown (Municipal Government)
  Freetown (Municipal Government)
  Uganda (Deportations)
  Uganda (Deportations)
  Civil Service Salaries
  Civil Service Salaries
  Diamond Prospecting, Tanganyika
  Diamond Prospecting, Tanganyika
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Publicity
  Publicity
  Labour Departments
  Labour Departments
PALESTINE
  Police (British Recruits)
  Police (British Recruits)
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Electricity Supply, Jerusalem
  Electricity Supply, Jerusalem
TRINIDAD
  Social Insurance
  Social Insurance
  Development Fund Grant
  Development Fund Grant
  Oil Industry (Revenue Contributions)
  Oil Industry (Revenue Contributions)
  Broadcasting
  Broadcasting
  Free Port
  Free Port
  MAURITIUS (SPIRITS EXPORT)
  MAURITIUS (SPIRITS EXPORT)
  ARCHBISHOP STEPINAC
  ARCHBISHOP STEPINAC
  BULGARIA (ELECTIONS)
  BULGARIA (ELECTIONS)
  WAR DECORATIONS (ALLIED CITIZENS)
  WAR DECORATIONS (ALLIED CITIZENS)
  BRITISH SEAMAN'S TRIAL, LISBON
  BRITISH SEAMAN'S TRIAL, LISBON
EDUCATION
  Children, R.A.F. Stations
  Children, R.A.F. Stations
  Industrial Occupations
  Industrial Occupations
  University Awards
  University Awards
  Statutory Order 1620
  Statutory Order 1620
  CO-PARTNERSHIP AND PROFIT-SHARING
  CO-PARTNERSHIP AND PROFIT-SHARING
  FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING (EX-SERVICEMEN)
  FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING (EX-SERVICEMEN)
  WAR GRAVES (VISITS)
  WAR GRAVES (VISITS)
  ARMED FORCES (POLISH PERSONNEL)
  ARMED FORCES (POLISH PERSONNEL)
  POLISH RESETTLEMENT CORP (ARMS)
  POLISH RESETTLEMENT CORP (ARMS)
  NATIONAL REGISTRATION (WOMEN)
  NATIONAL REGISTRATION (WOMEN)
  FINAL POSTAL DELIVERY
  FINAL POSTAL DELIVERY
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION
  GERMANY (SENTENCE REMISSIONS)
  GERMANY (SENTENCE REMISSIONS)
SHIPPING
  SS. "Tjisadane" (Conditions)
  SS. "Tjisadane" (Conditions)
  Government Control
  Government Control
ROADS
  Driving Test (Disabled Persons)
  Driving Test (Disabled Persons)
  Traffic Commissioners (Wales)
  Traffic Commissioners (Wales)
  DENTAL BENEFIT
  DENTAL BENEFIT
  ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS (CONVICTION)
  ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS (CONVICTION)
  TRAVEL FACILITIES (REFUSAL)
  TRAVEL FACILITIES (REFUSAL)
  WELSH CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  WELSH CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  ORDNANCE SURVEY (REVISION)
  ORDNANCE SURVEY (REVISION)
  FARMS (NOTICES TO QUIT)
  FARMS (NOTICES TO QUIT)
  CIVIL AVIATION (U.K.—SOUTH AFRICA)
  CIVIL AVIATION (U.K.—SOUTH AFRICA)

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

VISCOUNT HALL.
The Right Honourable George Henry Hall, First Lord of the Admiralty, having been created Viscount Hall of Cynon Valley in the County of Glamorgan—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

HILL FARMING BILL.
2.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE and FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON):My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before this Bill goes through its final stage, I think it only right to say something about it which, so far as I know, has not hither-to been said in debate. As your Lordships will remember, on the Committee stage we had a great battle over the question of the tied house. It was pointed out that three months might elapse in getting possession of a vacant cottage at the end of twenty years, and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said that we on this side of the House had rather exaggerated the difficulty. There are three persons concerned—A, B and C: A, the proprietor; B, the tenant, and C the shepherd, who is the occupant of the cottar house. If B and C quarrel—at the end of the twenty years I am talking about—then C, the shepherd, has to find a new place, and B, the farmer, has to get a new shepherd. If C, being angry with B, decides to stay on in the house, then under the Rent Restrictions Acts, according to the noble Earl, he will take three months to move.
848
The point is that A is put in this position—either he may suddenly be called upon to pay back to His Majesty's Government the whole of the grant with interest, or he may have to leave his tenant unable to get a shepherd and to put him in a house and to carry on the flock. Shepherds are not fools. They will know very well where the trouble lies because they will realize that no proprietor can be expected to put his head in a noose in that way. Some of the proprietors, weighing up the whole thing, may consent to it. Amongst the old landed proprietors of England and Scotland you will find more men whose lives are conditioned by duty than in almost any other walk of life, and some of them may consent to do that, although it is not a business proposition. One of the results, if the Bill operates as I have suggested, will be that hill farms will cease to be hill farms. The land may be used for other things, but the hill farms cannot be used for sheep. Moreover, the effects of the Bill will come into operation long before the twenty years are over, because if we cannot improve the cottages of our shepherds up in the distant regions, where they have to live by their work, then we shall not get shepherds. People will not bring up their sons to go into a business where they cannot be properly housed and looked after, and in that way the hill farming industry will be very much endangered.
I remember a long period when sheep were a very bad paying proposition in farming. It was right at the beginning of this century, and at the time when sheep began to improve it was not very easy to get the shepherds for the expanding flocks, because shepherds are particularly highly trained men. I remember going to see a shepherd passing his sheep through a gate. There were about three hundred sheep and I said: "Are they all here?" He looked and said: "I do not see the gimmer with the black spot on her nose," When Milton talks of "And every shepherd tells his tale under the hawthorn in the dale," he is not talking of an operation of counting; he is talking of an operation of recognition as the sheep pass the hawthorn tree. It is true, as is said in the Bible, that the shepherd knows his sheep. There is this about it, that shepherds can leave sheep and go to cattle; most shepherds are pretty good cattlemen. The reverse is not true, that cattlemen can become good shepherds. Shepherds

849
require a very particular training. If the supply of shepherds falls off then the hill-farming industry is bound to languish, and the land may go to other uses which none of us desire. In that case, it will certainly be His Majesty's Government who must take the responsibility for having brought that to pass, because I am sure it will be acknowledged on the other side of the House that we have made the strongest possible representations on this particular point.
2.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I am very glad that this Bill has had, on the whole, an extremely good welcome in this House. I think noble Lords have realized that we have done our best in this Bill to implement the two Reports, that of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It is very satisfactory to the Government to find that that is appreciated and that, on the whole, the Bill has had a very good reception. There are, however, one or two points on which noble Lords were not quite satisfied in the Committee stage, and which I should like to amplify.
One question concerned the Amendment dealing with draft or cast ewes. I should like to point out that the reason why we did not accept that Amendment is that it would be an impossible task for any valuer to pick out such ewes from the list of prices given to him. He would not see the animals themselves but only a list of prices and the task would really be an impossible one for him to do. In any case the landowners or farmers can make provision in their leases as these provisions will be applied only to future and not to past agreements. Also, under paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule, the general condition of the flock will be seen by the valuer and he will put the value up or down. I would like to leave this subject now, for although we realize that the provisions may not be perfect, this is a straightforward scheme; and if, later on, it does not work out as we anticipate, there is nothing to stop it being amended or modified.
The only other point is that which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has just brought up: that of the tied cottages, which I am afraid has caused a certain amount of controversy in connexion with
850
this Bill. I would like to point out that what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and other noble Lords are really asking for, when you get down to the substance of it, is that the owner should have power to turn a shepherd or worker out of his cottage in a week rather than a period which might be as long as three months. That is really the difference between us, a week as against a possible three months.
LORD SALTOUN: May I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? In the country where I come from these engagements are always for a year and the man always knows whether his engagement will be renewed or not. They generally leave at Whitsunday and they generally know, as the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, knows very well, in February or April, if they have not made arrangements.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I know about that. I was thinking more of the shepherd who might have an accident. He might die and his widow be left in the cottage; or he might be dismissed, or he might give notice and go off. In that case it would be just the difference of time. I submit to the noble Lord that in earlier Readings, it was represented that this point might wreck the whole Bill, that landowners might not go forward with building cottages in spite of the very generous grant of 50 per cent., owing to the fear of this extra time. I think that that is an exaggerated fear. I would like to say finally that we do realize the difficulties of the hill farmers as being exceptional. They have gone through an extremely wearisome and troublesome period. It is for that reason that the Government are trying to rehabilitate the industry, to give them every chance to help themselves. In view of those considerations I hope that noble Lords will give this Bill a Third Reading and finally let the Bill pass.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (in pursuance of the Resolution of October 17), Bill read 3a, and passed.

PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION.
2.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which I have placed on the Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what progress has been made with the preliminary arrangements for the holding of an international exhibition in London, if possible in 1951.]
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, extensive inquiries have been made to estimate the amount of labour and material which would be required for an international exhibition in the London area in 1951. These estimates are now under consideration to determine the effect on housing and on other projects. Other arrangements must be dependent on the decision on this point.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.
2.28 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM LORD ALTRINCHAM had given Notice that he would call attention to the international situation; and also move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure all your Lordships will share with me deep regret that our leader, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is unable to be in his place to-day to move the Motion that stands in his name. I am glad to say that he is not seriously ill and hopes to be back next week. But inasmuch as the noble Viscount cannot be here to-day I am moving the Motion in his place at his request. My sense of responsibility in doing so, which is very great, is lightened by the fact that I have been able to discuss the matter with the noble Viscount and that I at least have his approval for the selection of topics with which I shall deal out of the very varied field which is open to us, and also for the broad purport of any remarks which I may have to make.
There is much material for a debate on foreign affairs at the present moment. The Foreign Secretary has recently given a massive and exhaustive review in another place. I do not propose to follow him on that remarkable tour de raison, but to concentrate on what was really the main topic of his speech, which was Germany. But before I come to Germany
852
I would like to say a word about one or two other things which were either not mentioned by the Foreign Secretary or are raised by events which have occurred since the date of his speech. The first of those is the Egyptian negotiations, or whatever they are to be called. I must from this side of the House express the greatest anxiety about the confusion which seems to have entered into these discussions during the last few days, for reasons which we do not understand. It is difficult to grasp the distinction which is apparently drawn between conversations and negotiations, more particularly since the Egyptian Prime Minister, Sidky Pasha, does not appear to appreciate it himself. I do not quite know what that distinction means, if initialled documents have passed, as we are told they have passed; but I need hardly tell the noble Leader of the House that we accept the Prime Minister's assurances on the general purport of all these discussions absolutely.
While doing that, I desire only to emphasize two points. The first is in regard to the Sudan. It is obviously the case that the Egyptian Crown has a claim to equal status in the Sudan, which is a condominium, and it is equally true that Egypt has been responsible for very considerable expenditure in the Sudan, particularly in the original reconquest of it. Both those considerations, apart from propinquity and history, give Egypt a very solid claim to recognition as an equal partner in the condominium. But we have spent life and treasure too; we were responsible—it is true we had Egyptian help, but in the main we were responsible—for the original reconquest of the Sudan from the Mahdi. We have been responsible for its steady rehabilitation over a long period of years and we were responsible for its defence in the war from which we have just emerged—a defence which we conducted entirely at the expense of the British Empire, and not of Egypt, in treasure and in life. We are linked to the Sudan by a responsibility from which we cannot abdicate until the Sudan itself, by the wish of its inhabitants, shows its readiness for self-government. I am glad, therefore, that the Prime Minister has emphasized that responsibility. On this side, we count on no departure from that principle in whatever may be arranged.
The other point concerns what I would rather call the security of the Isthmus of Suez than the security of Egypt—at any rate, the great question of Egyptian defence which we have been, discussing with the Egyptian Government. Manifestly that can never be possible for Egypt alone. Egypt can no more guarantee her own security without the aid of friends than Britain can guarantee her own security without the aid of friends. We are in exactly the same position. Britain used to be cut off from danger by the sea, but she is no longer cut off by the sea—at any rate to the same extent. Egypt used to be cut off from danger by the sands, but she is no longer cut off by the sands—at any rate to the same extent. The position of Egypt and the position of this country are very much alike. I know that in Egypt great confidence is placed in the security given by the United Nations Organization, but I do not think responsible people at this moment need any warning that the United Nations Organization in still in its infancy. Nor, I think, do they need to be told that the ultimate value of that Organization—the security which it ultimately will give to any people—will depend upon what each people puts into it. It is not going to be an automatic safeguard for Britain in Europe, for Egypt in the Middle East, or for any other nation in any part of the earth. It will depend upon the contribution which any nation is itself prepared to make. The Charter provides for and enjoins the establishment of regional security systems, and I have always believed that that is the right method for securing the Isthmus of Suez against aggressive attack. All the Arab States share with us a vital interest in working out such a system of regional security.
I hope that in due course the negotiations may take that broader scope and provide for a regional security system in partnership between the Arab States and ourselves as well as Egypt, which would be in full conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, and indeed enjoined by it. In the meantime, I must emphasize that we rely upon the declaration made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place on May 24. May I read his words? He was speaking in Committee in another place:
854
"There is one thing on which I will give the Committee an assurance. I will be no party to leaving a vacuum. There must not be a vacuum. If the Egyptian Government try to force a situation in which there is a vacuum—meaning that we have gone and that there is nothing there for security instead, regional defence or other organization—to that: I can never agree."
That declaration of the Foreign Secretary is of great importance and a reassurance to us. We know that he is a man of his word and we are sure that there will be no departure from that.
Now a word about Palestine—not about Palestine itself or about the solution we are seeking there, because I do not think this is a convenient moment at which to discuss that. I only want to raise one point which is germane to a discussion of foreign affairs, and that is the position of the displaced persons in Europe, and particularly of the displaced Jewish population, which the Anglo-American Committee estimated amounted to 500,000 and which may indeed amount to more. I am sure you will all agree that our duty to those persons is very great. I am sure you will also agree that there is no possibility, whatever the form of the solution in Palestine, of providing for more than a small proportion of them in the Holy Land—no prospect whatever. It is, therefore, a most urgent matter, a duty incumbent upon the civilized Christian States, to see that something is done for these displaced persons who are at present for the most part languishing in what are called concentration or passage camps and who have no prospect before them—no idea of what the future holds for them.
I must say that I welcome in this respect signs of initiative by the United States Government. We have been told by the President that he is prepared to make proposals to the coming Congress, and I understand that inquiries are being made of other Governments by the State Department in America. What I would like to ask is whether we are acting vigorously too, because the responsibility on us is very great and action upon this subject has been delayed month after month. It is a terribly urgent human problem and a solution of it is essential to any workable compromise in the Middle East. In this as in everything else, Anglo-American co-operation is indispensable to peace. I will only say one other thing about the Palestine issue, which is indeed only a repetition of what was said on his

855
own behalf by the Leader of my Party in another place. On this matter all Parties are divided and, as he did, I will speak for myself. I am bound to say that if the United States continues to claim to dictate a policy for immigration into Palestine regardless of the facts while we bear the brunt, then the only course for us is to return the Mandate to the United Nations and to ask them to take action upon it. I hate abdication. I should like to see us carrying on with the great task which we undertook. I believe it still to be possible, provided we get the absolutely essential international agreement and support. But it is wrong to sacrifice British lives on what other Powers will have made an impossible task.
Now I come to Germany. I should like to say in the first place that I have no intention whatever of trenching on next week's debate. There is to be a debate on Germany next week, and I presume that in that debate there will be very full treatment of our responsibilities in the British zone in Germany and other questions relating to it. What I propose to discuss today—and it is highly germane to a debate on foreign affairs—is the international aspect of our present responsibilities in Germany. There is no doubt that the situation in Germany is deteriorating very rapidly and that our Government, our country, and our people have been losing heavily and have been sacrificing at a deplorable rate the confidence which they once held. All observers report that, and it is reported in an official document which has just been published, the Report from the Select Committee on Estimates to another place, which sent a sub-committee to Germany, who took evidence there, all of which is published and made into the most factual and impressive report. There can be no Party difference over this, since the Select Committee itself reflects the proportion of Parties in another place, and the sub-committee which went to Germany contained a majority of the supporters of His Majesty's Government.
The Committee concluded that the following problems must be immediately faced:

"(a) the economic reintegration of the zones of occupation;

(b) the formulation of a firm, long-term policy for the whole of Germany, or, in default of the reintegration of the zones, the formulation of such a policy for the British
856
zone and such other zones as may be brought within the framework of a single economy;

(c) the breaking of the present vicious circle—shortage of food, shortage of coal, shortage of consumer goods."

Now a good deal of these recommendations comes within the limitations which I have imposed upon myself, but a great part of it has an international bearing and it is that part of it which I wish to discuss.
The future of Germany is the most crucial issue facing us in international affairs. It is not only the ultimate test, but the immediate and most certain test of the possibility of a better understanding between the great Powers. Fortunately, there are many recent utterances which can be quoted to show that the need is appreciated amongst all the interested major Governments. We have had more than one remarkable statement from Mr. Byrnes, the American Secretary of State; we have had the very careful reference to the subject at considerable length in our own Secretary of State's speech, and we have now the second reply to a questionnaire which Prime Minister Stalin has put out.
In the near future the Foreign Secretary goes to represent us at a Conference of Foreign Ministers on Germany, and I need hardly say that from this side of the House we warmly wish him success. But in the meantime, and in anticipation, it is, I think, important to show on what principles and for what broad purposes and ideals we on these Benches give him our support. I would make one preliminary remark. In his speech in another place last week the Foreign Secretary protested—very rightly I think—against any courting of Germany. I should like to quote his words. He said this:
"It is extremely distasteful to see victorious nations courting a defeated enemy for ideological reasons."
I think all your Lordships will agree with that.
"The sooner we can get away from this, and consider objectively what is demanded by justice and by the long-term interests of Europe and the world, the better it will be for ourselves and for Germany as well."
Now we agree absolutely with the Foreign Secretary that there can be no question of allowing Germany to figure as a balancing factor in a line-up of military strength, and if any suspicion exists on that score we should like to see it dispelled at once.

857
Such an idea would, I think, be hateful to us all.
I think all the Powers, of Europe are agreed upon the complete disarmament of Germany. The last time that we attempted it we did net set to work with much efficiency or meet with great success, but on that occasion we had not the support of the United States, and we had not the support of Russia. This time we have the American offer, a definite undertaking, not to dissociate itself from the maintenance of disarmament in Germany and of peace in Europe, and giving an offer of forty years' guarantee. I think that that offer shows the greatness of the Administration. To put such a proposal to the people of the United States is a tremendous departure in their history, considering its past. I do not think that Russian resolve on the disarmament of Germany can be in the least questioned. There is no doubt whatever of that, and frankly, therefore, I do not understand Russian hesitation to accept the American offer of forty years' guarantee. I hope very much that that this misunderstanding, hesitation, or whatever it may be, will be cleared up. I believe the air would be cleared if that could be done. Disarmament, then, is axiomatic, and it is an indispensable condition of any political and economic framework which we attempt to set up in Germany at the present time.
There is more difficulty about the other requirement which the Foreign Secretary very rightly lays down, considering objectively what is 'demanded by justice and by the long-term interests of Europe and the world. Objectivity is hard where religious faiths clash, and we must face the fact that in Germany, as in many parts of Europe at the present moment, there is a clash of political and economic doctrines, as deep, as keenly felt, and as likely to cause division amongst men, as the old wars between religious faiths. Take our Select Committee's first recommendation, the economic reintegration of the Rhine. That is most important to us. It is from the East that the west of Europe, and more particularly the Rhineland and the Ruhr, draws its food supplies, and we should pursue any course which is likely to ease the food situation. But let us be clear as to what this involves in the international sphere. There are various considerations to be reconciled. The Com
858
mittee say produce and retain more coal in Germany. The Foreign Secretary endorses that. There is no doubt that: Russia will demand a quid pro quo if she agrees to that—other countries also who are requiring more coal, particularly France. Finally, there is the matter of exports, which can only be at the moment very largely of coal. Exports are essential to reduce the financial burden on us. All these things have to be reconciled. I think that this means—and this is really what we hope to see—a complete revision of the Potsdam Agreement, which no longer works; a revision of the coal control machinery, which is imposing very heavy expenditure upon us without giving us a corresponding voice; and a revision, too of the level for steel production in Germany. I am glad to say that the Foreign Secretary in his speech in another place last week endorsed all this.
But more coal implies more food, and I think we must face what this involves for us at the present time. The Committee give the position, so far as I know, in detail for the first time and they show that the present German ration of 1,052 calories a day costs us £100,000,000 a year. The total of our expenditure in Germany and Austria is £130,00,000. We have recovered so far £50,000,000 of that, so that the net charge to us is £80,000,000. The Commitee, prove, I think, beyond doubt, that Germany cannot recover, or begin to recover, on a diet of 1,052 calories a day. Somehow we have got to get beyond that. But if the diet is raised to 1,500 calories that, it is calculated, would involve an additional expenditure of £84,000,000 as between the United States zone and ours. If raised to 2,000 calories it would mean, I suppose, as much again. That is a terrible charge to face, and if we are going to face it we must know to what it is leading and whether we are going to get anything in the form of security, of peace in Europe, in return for what we are expending upon the maintenance and recovery of a beaten foe.
The Foreign Secretary urged us to indulge in no sloppy sentiment. Certainly there is no desire to do that on this side of the House. All we want to-do is to consider the long-term interests of Europe and the world, which are

859
certainly involved in this. If the United States and Britain are going to undertake this burden which so far as I can see, is certain to increase, we must know where we are going, and there must be no repetition of what happened after the last war, when we paid money to Germany in order that Germany should pay reparations to other Powers. On that basis, I am sure, there can be no peace. But that is actually what happened—this country and the United States paid German reparations. I do not think that there is any question about that, and we should remember it.
Premier Stalin spoke of the necessity of having economic unity in Germany. So far so good, but on what terms? We have heard of a reparation demand amounting to 10,000,000,000 dollars on the western zone. Let us be absolutely clear that if such a claim is going to be met it is going to be paid by us. It cannot be paid by anybody else except this country or the United States. It is also to be observed that Premier Stalin coupled economic with political unity. He said "political and economic unity" laying emphasis, I think, on the political side. I do not suppose that any of your Lordships have any doubt as to what that involves. He went on to speak of the liquidation of Fascists and of democratization in Germany on a really comprehensive scale.
As to that I need only quote our own Prime Minister in the speech which he made to the Trades Union Congress on October 24. As to the liquidation of Fascism, I commend this sentence:
"Every one who does not take orders from the Communists is described as a Fascist."
I am afraid that that is true, and the liquidation of Fascists in Germany would be an undertaking on a considerable scale if construed in the Communist sense. In regard to democratization, the Prime Minister said:
"If in any part of the world the Communist party, no matter by what means, is in power that is democracy."
I am afraid that we, also, on this side of the House, recognize that that is the only definition which works in the eastern part of Europe at the present date. It is no service to peace to gloze this issue. It is there and it has got to be faced. Russia means to have a Communist Germany, and she means with all the faith
860
and fervour, with all the ruthlessness and all the efficiency which she commands, to set about making Germany Communist. I do not complain of that here. If people have a faith they have every right, if they can, to spread that faith. I do not think we can object to that, provided that they do not spread it by force. I am afraid that there is considerable danger, without our intervention, of that. But we have an equal right to spread our own faith, and we must show that we hold it with equal fervour and can pursue it with equal efficiency. That seems to me to be absolutely essential in Germany and Europe at the present time.
There have been some very interesting articles in The Times in the last few days, concerning the Russians in Vienna. They throw a great light on the Russian attitude at the moment in the West. If any of your Lordships have read them, I am sure that you will agree. The Russians, undoubtedly, think of us at the present time as compromisers and cynics. I believe that firmness of purpose on our part—which they do not expect—will command their respect. I am convinced that Russia does not want war, and there is no reason for war on this ideological issue provided Germany is kept disarmed—and there can be no question of one part of Europe seeking to arm Germany against another part; that would certainly be fatal—and provided also that there is frank acceptance of the issue between us and no appeasement in a self-deceptive sense.
We all feel that the greatest danger to peace is illusion. On the one side, it creates wishful thinking—a state of mind in which people will refuse to recognize that a danger exists, and go on hoping for the best. We all remember that terrible period through which we passed before we were overtaken by the catastrophe of the second world war. The other danger corresponds to it, that where aggression is possible, it easily comes to be supposed that no opposition is to be met. Therefore, illusion is the great danger, and a general knowledge of the facts is the greatest safeguard for peace. For that reason, the country should thank Mr. Churchill for the clarity and courage with which he recently made known to the general public, to this country and to the world, his appraisement of the facts. And the facts which he stated have not been questioned. As everybody knows,

861
the question of how many soldiers are there is one which is open to argument, because the size of a division is perpetually changing. I do not believe, however, that there would be any serious difference between the experts who advise His Majesty's Government and the information which reaches us as to the real figures of Russian strength. And that, after all, is the real test.
Whatever the facts may be, I have no doubt that it is highly desirable that the United Nations should institute an inquiry, and I am glad to see that Mr. Molotov is apparently ready for such a course. If it is to be a real investigation with freedom of inquiry on every side, I think it is a thing which we for our part should welcome warmly. Apart from that, I am bound to say that I regret very greatly that Premier Stalin should have allowed himself to make the personal reflection on Mr. Churchill that he did make. It is not: merely a reflection on an individual, it is a reflection on this country, and one which we all feel very much. I am sure that it would not have been made if direct contact had been maintained between those two very great men. No one in this country wants war. It is absurd, and it is just foolishness to talk of anybody in this country, whoever he may be, as an incendiary. We in this country would be the most immediate and the worst sufferers from a war, so that accusations of that sort are absurd, and I think that; I may say that Mr. Churchill's statement in reply to Premier Stalin's remarks is worthy of the greatest living Englishman.
To return to Germany, there is very welcome evidence that British and American ideas, at any rate on the American set-up, and to some extent on the political set-up, are in broad accord. American support is indispensable and, as I say, it is a very great change. We must not forget, however, that the natural tendency of the United States is towards isolation partly because of their history and partly because of the composition of their population, which is built up so largely of people who have deliberately turned their faces away from Europe and hate its divisions and its dangers more than they hate anything else. We have no reason to criticize that isolation, because it is very largely our own tradition in the past. That tradition
862
towards isolation is certain to be renewed by disunity and conflict of purpose amongst the European States. Therefore Mr. Churchill's call to Europe for unit)' at the present time does seem far-seeing and wise. The methods by which such unity is to be pursued are open to discussion. If Western Civilization is divided against itself, if that call to Europe, so eloquently put forward by two great men is not answered, then indeed Germany will never become part of the Western Civilization, which will be in jeopardy from that date.
Yet there are hopeful signs. The German elections are a hopeful sign. We must remember that although Augustus drew the boundaries of the Roman Empire from the Danube and the Rhine, a part of Germany east of the Elbe has been part of the Western Civilization ever since Charlemagne. We must remember that the Herrenvolk mania is an absurdity without arms. It is possible that the German mind may at long last accept, under the compulsion of disarmament, a position of peaceful membership in the larger unity of the European States. If Western Civilization proves that it: has unity and efficiency, and faith in itself, why should ideological divisions necessitate war? Europe was once divided by wars of religion. Now that creeds respect each other and live at peace, why not the political religions of our time; although undoubtedly the divisions which they cause are equally deep? The real danger, I repeat, is German rearmament. It would inevitably create a struggle for the balance of power. Given German disarmament, I believe that Germany and western Europe can make the choice of peace, and achieve, as between the religions of the East and the religions of the West, a state of mutual tolerance and peace. The Russians are a great people with a new gospel which they are determined to propagate, but they are not warlike, and, given a sense of security, they share our need of peace. They are also men of faith—unquestionably, men of deep and fervent faith. If we recognize that, I am convinced that they will respect strong British leadership in Western Europe. It is that for which we from this side call—strong British leadership in Western Europe, which aims not at war, nor anything resembling it, since war would destroy the civilization which we British aim to re-create, but at practical and convincing proof that

863
Western Civilization has vitality, unity and faith in itself.
3.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, the questions on which I intend to touch differ in many ways from those mentioned by the noble Lord who introduced this Motion. Your Lordships will remember that in the last debate on foreign affairs, which took place in this House on July 29, many noble Lords who spoke—and I include the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, and whose absence we cannot but regret; we wish him a most speedy recovery—devoted a large part of their speeches to the causes of the divergencies which had arisen between the Soviet Government and the Western Democracies. I do not intend to pursue that analysis to-day. I would only note that apparently those divergencies have not become less since July, and that it is no easier to reach agreement at the present moment than it was then. But to my mind there is something even more important than reaching agreements. It is that agreements when reached should be executed; otherwise you have no stable basis whatever for international relations. You must have respect for the pledged word.
There are three important agreements which have been laboriously reached between the Governments of Soviet Russia, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, The Soviet Government, unhappily, has failed to implement them so far. The first agreement to which I would refer is the Moscow Declaration of 1943. That agreement, among other things, provided for a free and independent Austria. Yet, owing to the resistance of the Soviet Government, no discussion of the Peace Treaty with Austria has yet taken place. From what the Foreign Secretary said in another place, it is quite clear that His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the urgency and importance of the question of Austria, and I think all of us—certainly all those who care about Austria—must be extremely grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his declaration the other day. I want to refer to other questions concerning Austria in a moment or two.
The next agreement is the Crimea or Yalta Agreement. That Agreement, among other things, provided for free and
864
independent elections in Poland and Rumania. To-day it seems improbable that any such free elections will take place in either country. Yet the Soviet Government are a party 4to that Agreement, and I think if, as we might have expected, they had exercised their influence on the Governments of the two countries concerned, those Governments would have yielded and the elections would have been held. Lastly, we have the Agreement referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, the Potsdam Agreement, one of the cardinal points of which was the economic unity of Germany. I am not going to dwell on that, because my noble friend Lord Beveridge will deal with that question at a later stage. I would only again observe that it is due to Soviet resistance that delay has taken place in giving effect to what I may call the good clauses of that Agreement.
Apart from the failure of the Soviet Government to implement those Agreements, there is another point which has recently emerged and which causes me—and I think other people—considerable anxiety. The Soviet delegate to the Paris Conference stated recently—I am quoting from the Press, of course—that in his view only interested nations ought to decide matters of particular concern to them. If that theory were widely accepted, much of the progress which was made prior to the war in international morality would be lost. In what I may call the League of Nations era it had become generally accepted that no nation should be a judge in its own cause, and conciliation committees and arbitration tribunals were drawn from nationals of totally disinterested countries. The suggestion made by the Soviet delegate cuts at the whole root of international arbitration, and indeed, to my mind, at the root of the Court of International Justice. I hope therefore we shall strenuously oppose it.
On the other hand, I am completely convinced that the Soviet Government—whether they have 200 divisions or 60 divisions mobilized in Europe; personally I do not think it makes the slightest difference—are not in any way desirous of war. I am equally convinced that the United States of America, the sole possessor of the atomic bomb, does not desire war; and when I come to this country my conviction becomes an absolute certainty. It that diagnosis is at all correct,

865
it is by patience, by tolerance, accompanied by firmness on essential principles that a better relationship between the three great Powers can be established. As I have said, not one of them wants war. On the other hand, I believe that each of the Governments of all three countries must surely most earnestly desire the betterment of the social and economic conditions of the peoples living in the territories over which they have control. It may well be that political troubles cannot at present be settled by the Security Council of the United Nations. But co-operation between the nations may, in a large measure, be secured by the labours of the Social and Economic Council of the United Nations, which works quietly but continuously and without that extremely wide publicity which I think, unfortunatefy, has been given to the proceedings of the Security Council.
There are one or two specific subjects which I should like to bring before your Lordships. The first is Austria. I hear rather ominous echoes of the old propaganda against the thesis of a free and independent Austria, which said, "Austria cannot stand on her own legs." This is simply the story put forward by Goebbels that Austria was not viable. He put that forward as an excuse why Germany should invade Austria and attack her independence. It is not true. Austria is not part of Germany, and she can stand on her own legs. I find that some Austrians are rather nervous lest their country should suffer a diminution of its pre-war territory. I would venture to ask His Majesty's Government for an assurance that they will resolutely oppose any suggestion to Austria's disadvantage for an alteration of her pre-war boundaries. I hope I may be given it, particularly as, so far as I can remember, one of the arguments put forward why the South Tyrol should not be given to Austria was that the Moscow Declaration had fixed the boundaries of Austria as they were before the war, and that that decision had been confirmed later in London by the Council of Foreign Ministers. So much for Austria.
I now pass to the draft Treaty with Italy. Frankly, I am very unhappy about some of the provisions of that Treaty. I fear they are likely to endanger the economic and, therefore, the social stability of the Italian people. It is not so much the political aspects
866
that I have in mind. The question of the South Tyrol has now been happily settled owing to the good sense and spirit of compromise which animated both the Italian and the Austrian Governments. The two Governments by their negotiations have largely rectified the unhappy decision taken by the Council of Foreign Ministers when they departed from the principles of the Atlantic Charter. I think the debate on the South Tyrol in another place and in your Lordships' House did contribute to the happy settlement now reached. The problem of Trieste seems also to be on the road to a solution. There is just one point which I would like to mention and of which I would like to remind His Majesty's Government: that is the: question of the ultimate withdrawal of the troops from that area. I have no doubt that His Majesty's Government will have in mind that after the last war certain adventures took place in respect of Vilna and the State of Memel. Due precautions will, I hope, be taken against a recurrence of any such episodes; and there, I fear, we must bear in mind the existence of the right of veto in the Security Council.
It is chiefly the economic clauses of the Treaty which alarm me. The Foreign Secretary said in another place that the Foreign Ministers had made every allowance for the services rendered by Italy after the Armistice, and he added that he was ready to discuss trade and other difficulties at the earliest possible moment after the Treaty was signed. Meanwhile, the immediate economic future of Italy is extremely bleak. After the end of the U.N.R.R.A. relief programme at the end of this year Italy will have to manage entirely out of her own resources, which I fear are completely inadequate. Italy requires wheat, she requires coal, and she requires oil fuel and raw materials, and there is little sign that she will be able to obtain the foreign currency which is necessary if a serious economic and social collapse is to be averted. I hold that the reparation and restitution clauses of the Treaty are distinctly harsh. I do not believe they are capable of fulfilment.
There is one specific clause to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention—Article 66 dealing with the renunciation of claims by Italy. In Section 5 of that Article; it is stated that Italy must waive any claims or debts arising out of the Conventions on Prisoners of War now

867
in force. I should be very glad if I could be told what this implies. Does it mean that the arrears of wages earned by co-operators, and even their savings deposited in camp accounts, will be taken as reparations? If it does, that seems to me a peculiarly mean provision. Our prisoners of war benefited greatly from the Geneva Convention, but it seems that Italy is being compelled to waive the benefit accruing under the same Convention to Italian prisoners. Just think now in what state of mind these prisoners of war will go back to Italy. Will they be inspired with friendly feelings towards this country? I do not want to talk of slave labour but I would appeal to noble Lords opposite and to the members of His Majesty's Government to examine these particular provisions and see whether they can conscientiously approve of them. Finally, I do not think it is really right or wise to ask the Italian representative to sign a Treaty which contains undertakings which he has solemnly declared at the Peace Conference that Italy cannot fulfil.
I do hope very much that the Foreign Minister may be able to reconsider his attitude about intervention in favour of the release of Archbishop Stepinac. If ever proof were required of the need for a charter of human right what happened at that trial shows it is essential. Marshal Tito, who is, I understand, both head of the Yugoslav State and Prime Minister, declared, before the trial even began, that the Archbishop was guilty. The Foreign Minister has so far taken the line that the trial was an internal affair of the Yugoslav State, but I would suggest to His Majesty's Government that the spirit of the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations is being systematically violated in Yugoslavia. If that is so, it is a matter of general concern.
Just a word or two on the proposal so eloquently advocated by Field-Marshal Smuts and Mr. Churchill for a European Federation. That is certainly a magnificent idea and a magnificent ideal, but I cannot feel that it is practicable to-day, or that it is likely to be practicable for a long time to come. Let us begin by promoting a close association, economic and otherwise, of the Western Democracies. I have often pleaded for this and I have always had a sympathetic reply, but, so far as I can ascertain, no practical
868
progress has been made. Yet the French approached us on the subject many months ago. The objection is sometimes put forward that such an association would be contrary to the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. Surely this is a mere excuse for delay. I see nothing in the provisions of the Charter forbidding or even deprecating an association of this kind. It is clearly not directed against any other Power or group of Powers; it could in no way be held to be aggressive, and it cannot be held to be imperialistic. If it really were contrary to the spirit of the Charter I should not advocate it for a moment, because I hold that in the United Nations Organization lies our main hope for peace and for social and economic progress, and I am most happy that His Majesty's Government have made support of it the most prominent plank in their foreign policy.
It is true that the proceedings of the Security Council have up to now tended to disillusionment, but I do not feel too discouraged. After all, the world is still seething after seven years of devastation and destruction. No peace treaties have yet been signed, and people have not had opportunities to settle down. All this unrest and turmoil cannot but be reflected in what is happening at the Security Council. The Assembly of United Nations, which is meeting now, is tackling what is to my mind of far greater importance in international problems—namely, the control of nuclear energy. It would be futile to attempt to forecast what the result of the deliberations of the Assembly may be, but there is one sign, a very good augury, which is that all the nations have acknowledged the need for control. The only thing now is that differences exist on the methods of control. I would like to say how much I, and I think all on these Benches, appreciate what Premier Stalin said quite recently about this particular point. That is going to be most helpful and ought to make progress much easier.
Then there is the question of the veto. I am quite convinced that the veto is a bad thing in itself, but I am equally certain that it would not be advisable to-day to attempt to secure its total abolition. The origin of the veto lay in the fact that some of the great Powers feared that decisions and even actions would be taken contrary to what they neld to be their vital interests. Therefore they said they must have at their disposal the power by which

869
such decisions could be annulled or such actions averted. To secure its ultimate abandonment we mast therefore try to remove these suspicions, and that can only lie done by showing in practice that: these fears felt are unfounded and that the United Nations are working for the benefit of all the members and not for one nation or group of nations. It may take a longtime fully to give effect to that and to dissipate the atmosphere of distrust, but until that happens the Organization can never reach that full efficiency which is necessary if all the hopes which we have placed upon it are to be fulfilled.
Finally, I would like to make a concrete suggestion about the veto. Your Lordships probably realize that what are known as "procedural matters" in the Security Council—that is to say matters of procedure—can be decided by a qualified majority vote; but nothing is laid down in the Charter as to what is or is not a matter of procedure. Therefore a decision on the point, as to what is, or what is not, a matter of procedure, requires a unanimous vote of the five great Powers;; that is to say, the power of veto can be exercised. What I want to suggest is this. If the Council cannot agree as to what is a matter of procedure—and I think it very likely that it will not be able to do so—then the subject should be referred to the International Court of Justice for a definition. I assume that the decision of that Court would be respected and accepted, and the use of the veto would then be restricted, at any rate to some extent, and the possibility of its abuse would be distinctly lessened.
3.33 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I have considerable hesitation in following two speakers who have such an intimate knowledge of foreign affairs, and I cannot hope in any way to make a contribution to the debate on their level. But I start with the same views as they do—namely, that the future peace of the world depends upon friendship with the United States, a good understanding with Russia, and the restoration of a completely disarmed Germany. I have only a word or two to say about our relations with the United States. Like many of your Lordships, I from time to time read American newspapers. They are at times stimulating, sometimes surprising, and occasionally very irritating. They are
870
irritating because they from time to time express such a complete ignorance of British ideals, British policy and the British manner of life. Behind our statesmen a number of Americans still seem to see the menacing form of George III.
What I want to ask His Majesty's Government is this: What steps are being taken in Washington, New York and elsewhere to give a fair and accurate picture of British views and British policy? During the war there was an excellent secretariat—I think we called it a "Secretariat of Information"; we did not use the word "propaganda." That did disseminate throughout the United States a great deal of most valuable information about this country. I think that there is a real danger in the ignorance of us which is displayed in certain quarters in the United States at the present time. We find that we are accused of imperialism. At another time the Americans are told that we have plenty of spare food in this country and ought to help to feed starving Europe. At other times we are accused of bad faith. I have no doubt that these accusations come only from a minority, but accusations repeated time after time are very often accepted as true. Therefore, I think it is a matter of the greatest importance that we should have some accurate and popular sources of information in America to counteract the propaganda which from certain quarters is quite deliberately directed against this country. Having said that, I ought to go on to say that I am quite certain that if again there ever came a world crisis, whether there was a definite alliance or not, we and the United States of America would be standing side by side in defence of the freedom and democracy which we both value so highly.
Unfortunately the peace of Europe does not depend entirely upon our friendship with the United States. It is equally necessary that there should be a good understanding with Russia. If that fails, then in the years to come we shall drift inevitably towards war. Opinion in this country in the last two or three years has considerably changed in regard to Russia. Two years ago Russia was looked upon with admiration and enthusiasm by great masses of our fellow countrymen, particularly those in the industrial centres. Today that has been replaced by a feeling of perplexity and a considerable element of disappointment,

871
although there is still the desire for friendship and understanding. I have no doubt whatever that the great majority of people in this country are anxious for friendship with Russia, but they are perplexed over the policy which is adopted by some of the Russian leaders. We wish we could remove from the Russian people the suspicion which some of them have towards this country.
When we are talking about Russia and Russian policy, I think we must always remember not only the endurance of Russia during the war but the quite terrible way in which the Russians suffered. I shall never forget not only what I saw of Stalingrad a few weeks after the siege was raised but also what I saw within some thirty miles of Moscow of the widespread and deliberate devastation caused by the Germans. No wonder the Russians are most anxious to avoid in the future any possibility of another such invasion. I agree, of course, with all that has been said by the noble Lords who have spoken about firmness with Russia. It is useless for us to attempt to conceal our own convictions. Our ideals and our way of life are different from those which are held by the Russians. We do not wish to interfere with their ideals and their way of life and they must respect ours. It ought to be possible.
One of the hopeful signs I see in Russia to-day—and I only refer to this in passing—is the very great revival of Christianity there and the strength of the Orthodox Church. While in various directions some churches have been losing their strength and influence, in Russia the numbers belonging to the Church have been steadily increasing and the influence of the Russian Church is now felt far beyond the borders of Russia. I will only say again about our attitude to Russia that with firmness there must go conciliation. We must make it perfectly plain that although we are not going to surrender any of our principles, we are most anxious for a good understanding with Russia. We realize that without it the peace of the world will be threatened and unless it can be achieved it is very difficult to see how the German problem will be solved—and that, of course, is the greatest of all the problems before us to-day.
On the strength of a brief visit to Germany early this month, I make no
872
pretence to speak as an authority on conditions there. I would only say in passing that the position is approaching something like a catastrophe. Their hunger is evident and obvious, and if the winter is severe something like a catastrophe must occur. The reserves which were in hand last winter have gone; stocks of food, fuel and other kinds of material have all been used up. I am not going to dwell on that for there is a debate on that subject next week. I noticed something else, and I heard of this on every side. There is a widespread sense of frustration. The people feel that the outlook is hopeless, and in the younger generation this is turning into a dangerous type of nihilism; the past seems to have been meaningless, the present is black and the future is hopeless.
Where you have nihilism of that kind, it is a kind of paralysis, destroying all sense of responsibility and initiative. On all sides I heard that. The only way of removing it will be to put before the Germans some definite hope for the future; in other words, that we should state our policy for Germany. Not only did I feel that sense of frustration among the Germans themselves, but I had some suspicion that it was felt by some of our own people out there. They are doing splendid work, for which I have the greatest admiration; they have done wonders in Germany in the restoration of order since we have been in occupation, but they feel they are hampered by decisions which are taken on a level entirely beyond their reach. Until there is some policy accepted and announced for Germany as a whole we shall have this sense of frustration and hopelessness.
Very closely connected with that is another subject. There were two words which I heard again and again in Germany; one was the word "frustration" and the other was the word "coal." Those words are very closely connected. We cannot restore hope to Germany until once again the chimneys of the factories begin smoking and the wheels begin to go round, but that is impossible unless there is coal. I know there are difficulties about this problem of coal and I do not wish to underrate them. It is a very serious matter. If we withdraw coal from France or Czechoslovakia, it may mean unemployment in those countries. On the other hand, unless the factories

873
are set going in Germany and coal is provided for that purpose;, Germany will steadily and increasingly deteriorate.
I find it almost impossible to exaggerate the gravity of the position in Germany to-day. What is needed is an economic policy—if possible for the whole of the country, but at any rate for as large a part of it as can be managed. I agree with what is said; agreement must be completely realized and the Potsdam clauses dealing with the economics of the country must be carried out both in the spirit and the letter. Until that is done, Germany will go on drifting into an ever more dangerous condition. I know there are some who feel there is very little to be done, but that is a fatalistic outlook. I feel that those who are out there representing us have a most difficult task and that they are carrying their work through with great sympathy and understanding.
Perhaps I may say in passing that I sometimes wonder, although I am not competent to speak on this, whether St. James's Square is the best place from which to administer Germany. I know there are some who say that Germany has brought this upon herself and that these sufferings are due to her own actions. I entirely agree with that, but that is not sufficient. We cannot rest content with saying that all this misery has been brought upon the world through Germany. Our Christianity calls upon us to feed even our enemies; our economists know that Europe cannot ever be restored to prosperity if in the midst of it there is an impoverished slum; and the statesmen of the world know that the peace of Europe cannot be secured until a disarmed Germany is restored to some prosperity and strength.
3.48 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, it would be natural that on an occasion of this sort I also should say something about Germany, but I have noticed that there is a Motion down by two noble Lords for next week, and therefore I have decided to withhold any comments on that subject that I may possibly, but not certainly, be called upon to make until I have heard what they have to say. I do that for two reasons. First of all, I do not wish to inflict myself upon your Lordships twice on the same subject; and secondly, I wish to expend my small ration of your Lordships' time on other points.
874
The presence amongst us to-day of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel however, puts me in mind of a parenthesis, which has nothing whatever to do with next week's debate. Before the war, our difficulty was to find people who knew anything about Germany, but now everyone knows everything about Germany. Accordingly last night I listened to a Brains Trust (of which the noble Viscount was a very lucid ornament) in which he, at close quarters, and I, at a distance, heard Professor Joad explain that the Germans really do not take at all kindly to discipline. 'Therefore, I think your Lordship will understand that nowadays my innate modesty prompts me to hang about under the tree of knowledge and occasionally to give it a jolly good shaking in the hope of picking up some of the fruits of omniscience.
To-day, I shall begin with a few words about the Paris Conference and, even so, I shall not go into any details of that sad story. I wish to point out only one reason why it was a sad story. In former and more hopeful days we heard much of the vices of secret diplomacy and of the virtues of open covenants openly arrived at. We all agree on the iniquity of secret treaties, and we hope we shall see no more of them. We are all agreed on the virtues of open covenants and we wish them to be arrived at as openly as possible. But in this last respect there is a very definite limit. Look at Paris. In the jargon of to-day, "you have had it."The Paris Conference often degenerated into a platform for mere propaganda speeches, designed to show the s]eaker as the big boy of the home front, and to rap his critics with every imaginable device. That did not produce good results. I took part in nearly all the conferences after the first world war. We had plenty of publicity—I was often charged with it—but we never went to these length—never. We were more reserved and, I think, a little more efficacious. Of course, I am preaching entirely against my own interests, because as an occasional journalist I can only wish thai: the present dispensation would go on for ever. I would never be short of matter for comment or even satire, but from the public point of view I feel bound to point out that if we continue to go to the lengths of the Paris Conference we may continue to get the Paris results.

875
The mention of propaganda speeches recalls to me another subject which has been very much on my mind for the past twelve months. It is a subject of great potential gravity, but it is never treated as such and therefore to-day I shall say something about it. In my younger days I had a very young relative who used to collect moth balls and match boxes simply because nobody else wanted them, and I think this is a subject on which nobody else is likely to touch. I am referring to the mounting volume and venom of the anti-British propaganda which is put out by Moscow and its satellites. It goes all round the clock, seven days a week, and I have never heard a kind word. I have never heard anything like it in peace-time. It is indeed on the level of German propaganda in war-time. This rather dreary subject is really like Ernst Lissamer's "Hymn of Hate" without the poetry. I have heard it said by fellow-travellers in another place that we were to blame for that. That really is a servile falsehood. There are in Moscow large numbers of highly trained and skilful propagandists. I know most of them by name now, and I will say a word about them later. The Soviet broadcasters are hard put to it to find any British broadcaster to pick up, and their chief scapegoat has been Mr. Harold Nicolson. Anybody who has listened to him will do him justice and say that he is audibly anxious to avoid hurting anybody's feelings unnecessarily.
If this spate goes on unchecked it can only end badly. It is calculated to instil hatred into nearly 200,000,000 people who for ages—and never more than in the last fifty years—have been kept in Cimmerian darkness, and it is perhaps worth pointing out that that classical expression was applied precisely to Russians from the time of Homer onwards. I am very glad that the Prime Minister had the courage and the candour to refer to this Russian policy of enforced ignorance of the outside world. In return, perhaps I may offer him for future reference a passage from Disraeli's Sybil, which I hope he and your Lordships may find appropriate. Speaking from a distant memory, it runs as follows:
"Mr. Kremlin himself was distinguished for ignorance, for he had only one idea, and that was wrong."
I think it is only fair to say that so far as we are concerned Mr. Kremlin
876
has only one idea and it is wrong. Now our chief task is to get two ideas into Mr. Kremlin's head, but how? Has His Majesty's Government made any representations to Moscow on this subject? I sincerely hope not, because it would be perfectly futile. Mr. Kremlin has made up his mind to go on with this campaign regardless of facts, and in proof of that I would offer you the two latest instances.
We have now had two Press interviews from Generalissimo Stalin. These newspaper stunts are quite legitimate, but I do not think they are the best way of conducting policy. As to the second interview I shall say little, because it is too early to judge at present. I am bound to say that like the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, I do regret that in one passage Generalissimo Stalin descended from the eminence of a great statesman to the level of his own broadcasters. That was a pity, I think. On the first interview, it is fair to say something, and there I think the Generalissimo got rather less than fair treatment, because he had obviously not intended it to be taken quite so seriously as the boosters took it. If that had been his intention, of course the first thing he would have done would be to crack down on this campaign, whereas as a matter of fact it went on worse than ever—I repeat, worse—after the interview. We should of course have been entitled to reply in the well-known couplet:
"Perhaps it was wise to dissemble your love
But why did you kick me downstairs?"
Six flights a day is really a little much.
My second instance is this. About a fortnight ago, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs solemnly and officially in another place disclaimed any British part or lot in the rising in Southern Iran. Now the Iranian Government behaved very decently about that; they accepted the disclaimer, but not so the Soviet Government. In the days following that disclaimer they went on with the same campaign just as if Mr. Bevin had said nothing at all. Now like the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, and indeed like everyone here, we all desire the best possible relations with Mr. Kremlin, but we must face the fact that we are not going to get them so long as this kind of thing goes on, and we are not going to get rid of this sort of thing—this also is obvious—by the ordinary Foreign Office routine of protest and denial.

877
But there is a way in which we can at least attenuate the evil, and it is by invincible good humour combined with a much more liberal use of ridicule when the attackers lay open their flanks to it, as is so frequently the case. What I say there applies not only to Moscow but to the propaganda of the United States with which I will deal on another occasion. Britain is nobody's punchbag. Nobody wants to look silly every day, and the truth is that many of these Soviet broadcasters and Pressmen do say excessively stupid things, but nobody ever picks it up and nobody ever rubs it in. Our Press is almost as over-cautious as it was in the inter-war period, and the B.B.C. seems quite ineffective in that respect. Indeed I was very much amazed the other day when the B.B.C. were accused of being aggressive and pugnacious by Tovarich Pritt—that is the last charge you could ever lay against its door. Our task really is to save the Russians from themselves, because they really are in danger of becoming considerable bores, with their invariable imputation of every conceivable vice to others and their invariable assumption of every conceivable virtue to themselves. Take, for example, Molotov's repeated "pi-jaws" on the vices of Western Democracy. We had another only yesterday. There is absolutely no reason to get cross—not at all. We may smile, we may even yawn, but we must not frown.
Let us look at the facts. After all, up to the end of the thirties the word "democracy" was anathema in Russia. The issue was seen as a straight one between Communism and Democracy. In those days there was none of this modern rot about Eastern Democracy versus Western Democracy or Economic Democracy against Social Democracy. The adoption of the word there was an entire afterthought and you can see for yourselves that they have never really understood what it means. You had proof of that in Paris. It simply was not understood that the will of the majority should prevail. On the contrary, that was called dictation. The whole stand of the Soviet throughout has been that the will of the minority should always prevail. And that is very natural indeed because it is the will of the minority which does prevail all over Eastern Europe, and it hardly ever goes beyond ten per cent, of the population. We were told by The Times
878
a fortnight ago that the real Communists in Rumania only number a few hundreds. So that when we hear Western Democracy abused or reviled we ought never to get cross or annoyed. We ought, on the contrary, to say:" Thank you, my dear fellow, for introducing a little comic relief into these lugubrious deliberations. It is very interesting to us to see who is stealing our clothes in the cool of the evening. They do not quite fit you, the sleeves and the trousers are both a bit too long and you do not look a bit comfortable. But wear them by all means, perhaps you will grow into them as time goes by."
There are opportunities for that kind of thing every week, perhaps every day. I am not going to inflict a list of them upon your Lordships, but I will take just one more example, that of our position in Greece. We have been arraigned about this in Paris and in the United States by spokesmen of the Soviet Union and of the Ukraine. But we are there by invitation and with a very modest contingent of troops indeed. Our answer should be: "Why, my dear fellow, you have got thirty times as many troops as that outside your country—250,000 in Northern Korea alone—and not by invitation. The Koreans are dying to get rid of you. A little while ago there was a most successful American comedy produced in this country. It was called 'The Man Who Came To Dinner' and it had a record run. My dear Russian friends, you perhaps did not see that, but the man who came to dinner very nearly stayed, for every that was the whole comedy. Why do not you put it on in Korea? It would have another record run because every native would immediately see the point of it. Or try it, for instance, in Hungary or still more in Austria. We do not want to stay for ever; we have had our dinner and we are quite ready to go; why do you want to sit on?"
In short, I think out attitude towards all this—and it is really a subject of gravity—should be: "We are not going to get cross, whatever you say. We like a bit of fun. The trouble is that we like it so much better than you do." Mr. Harold Nicolson, in one of his broadcasts from Paris after the day had been occupied by a consistent Soviet tirade, ended by saying that we ought to have enough complacency for two. I do not think that he

879
put it quite right. He should have said that we ought to have enough humour for two, and if we provided it all, then half of it should be at Russian expense. That is only fair.
This is a world which even more than for lack of food is visibly dying for lack of two other things—one is good humour and the other is good faith. I hope that we shall continue to display both in the face of a campaign which shows neither. If we will adopt that attitude I think that we shall have a better chance of avoiding more scenes like those that occurred in Paris and may even attenuate the exhalations of the Moscow Radio. But again I am speaking entirely against my own interests. I have listened to the Moscow Follies for so long that I have become an addict. I do not know what I would do without them. I have even reached a stage—I confess it—when I have my favourite performers just as younger people have their favourite film stars. There are Milnikov, Belnikov, Davydov, Ivanov, Orlov, and Leontyev, and there is a very interesting gentleman who calls himself "Analyser." Then there are two delightful old ladies, Belskaya and Borisova. They are the Russian equivalent of "Arsenic and Old Lace." Indeed they murdered me only a few weeks ago, but I can assure them that the corpse bears no malice. I practise what I preach about my critics.
Above all, in this broadcasting there is Comrade Hoffmann. I am sure your Lordships have listened with pleasure to the music of Offenbach's "Tales of Hoffmann." I am thinking of making an anthology called "New Tales of Hoffman." There were echoes of some of his talks in remarks on foreign affairs in Brighton the other day. Your Lordships know the theme of the old song—how we (and that means particularly you) are intent on world domination. It is very often trotted out in the old Children's Hour, but I never listen to the "Follies" without being reminded of a scene which I once witnessed when two bridge players lost their tempers and one called the other every name under the shining stars. When the spate was over the victim took up his pencil and scoring block again and said: "Now would you mind saying that all over again? I had absolutely no idea that I was all those
880
things and I know that I shall forget them if I do not write them down."
I hope your Lordships will not think that I have approached this grave matter in any spirit of levity. On the contrary, I think that this is one of the gravest subjects that we have before us in view of its possible consequences. But my whole point is that you can handle this deadly poison if you do not try to do so in deadly earnest. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter. It is contained in a famous quotation from the most famous American novel published at the beginning of this century—The Virginian by Owen Wister. In that a stranger was admitted to play poker with a bunch of cowboys, real tough guys, in what was then the real Wild West. In the course of the game he called his neighbour a "son of a so-and-so" and the cowboy so addressed, gently toying with his gun, replied: "Stranger, when you call me that, smile."
Well, my Lords, I have spoken of Greece; I have spoken of propaganda. Now, I would like to say a further word about Greece. I am sure we should all endorse the words of the Foreign Secretary on that subject the other day. We should wish to see the Government of Greece broadened and liberalized. I am only sorry that it has not happened already. I am not sure that in that respect the faults are all on one side. We should all wish to see the administration wider and more clement, but there is one point which presents itself to my mind, and on which I would ask for a little guidance.
I thought that in the Atlantic Charter we had all pledged ourselves to allow our Allies, at least, to have a Government of their own choosing. I know that that did not apply to our enemies. Is it really open to some of us, when we get a Government of which we do not think well, to start shouting: "This is not my cup of tea. Take it away"? Or are we only entitled to do that if we repudiate our signature to the Atlantic Charter? It is true that the course of events in Eastern Europe has largely invalidated the Atlantic Charter, but I hope we shall never follow a bad example and that we shall always honour our signature, because I am profoundly convinced that there is no hope whatever of a safe new world—let alone a brave one—except in treaty observance.

881
I should like to go a little further on the subject of Greece. Again, I would fully endorse everything said by the Foreign Secretary about the withdrawal of our troops. We would wish to see them withdrawn as soon as possible. But only last week Marshal Tito said: "What is not ours to-day may be ours to-morrow." There has been a lot of that ominous talk across the Greek border for a long while past. On present form there is a distinct possibility that when our troops are withdrawn from Greece she may be infiltrated, if your Lordships prefer a euphemism, dismembered, if you do not mind plain English, by the amputation of, say, Western Thrace, to satisfy an impudent and cynical Bulgar claim. I would ask His Majesty's Government not to withdraw their troops until they have some reasonable security that there will be no such unhappy development. I think it is wise to ask that, not only in the interests of Greece but in the interests of the United Nations Organization, which at present is manifestly unable to cope with such a crisis. Premature withdrawal might prove the ruin of U.N.O. That is something of which we should be careful.
Finally, I would congratulate His Majesty's Government on the patience and moderation of their stand for more just political conditions in Eastern Europe. Surely, it is not only their right, but their duty. In the case of Poland, we are faced with a definite breach of contract, and surely we are entitled to press for its fulfilment, although I see that The Times of yesterday rather doubted the wisdom of pertinacity. Have the Government satisfied themselves that the elections in Bulgaria met their requirements? In the case of Rumania they most certainly do not. I very much hope that the Government will conclude no peace treaty with Rumania until they have at least some security that the great majority will be treated with reasonable tolerance and humanity by the minority. That, I think, is very little to ask.
I know that this is not an easy line for the Government to follow. It is rather thankless, anyhow; and they have my sympathy, more especially as they have run into a good deal of criticism from some of their ostensible followers who take their cue from the Kremlin rather than from Mr. Attlee. The line of argument of these people seems to be
882
a striking one. It comes to this: that because the people in Eastern Europe have never known liberty, therefore they must not have it. One of them said that it would be madness to allow some of these people to start thinking for themselves. That seems rather an unusual line of argument for Socialists, if they are Socialists and not camouflaged totalitarians. I hope that His Majesty's Government will not weary of welldoing, and that they will continue to stand up to the apostles of oppression, both at home and abroad.
4.18 pm.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of your Lordships in making my first speech? I shall want all the kindness you can extend to mc, because although I have been in politics for more than forty years, taking a very active part therein, my introduction to your Lordships' House marked the first occasion on which I became a member of a public assembly. I therefore come to you as a very new recruit, and one with a good deal to learn. I speak to you to-day not as an expert on foreign affairs, with which type of men your Lordships seem to be well blessed. I am, however, a student of foreign affairs, a very humble student, and it is in that character that I wish to address you. If there be one reason more than another why I should do so on this occasion, it is that the occupation that I have followed through my life has afforded me opportunities of gathering the views of great numbers of men and women who. I feel confident, would like me to let you know something of what they are thinking.
I was very pleased with the expression of good will to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is now going to America, which came from the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, and his friends. We, on this side of the House, welcome those words with a great deal of pleasure, because it is said in some places that since the present Secretary o: State for Foreign Affairs has been in office conditions in Europe have become worse and the difficulties in the world greater—the implication being that if there had been another Foreign Secretary, we should not have been in the same deep trouble that now appears to exist. We on this sick: of the House have the greatest confidence in Mr.

883
Bevin, and we are glad to know that he carries with him the best wishes of all sections in this House.
As on the last occasion, various speakers to-day have expressed some sort of doubt about the position of Russia. They have not been able to understand the moves that have been made or the moves that have been proposed. I can understand their difficulty, because as a general rule when we are discussing foreign affairs, we deal with particular cases rather than general moves. If, however, you want to know where Russia is going or what she is thinking, or what she is doing, you have only to recall to yourselves some of the decisions that have been made over a number of years. If you do that, you can be in no doubt about the future. Let me quote three. Just about the time of the outbreak of the war in Europe we endeavoured to secure an arrangement with Russia, by which she would come on the side of the Allies should a conflict ensure. Your Lordships will remember that we failed to secure that agreement and, at the same time, while declining to accept our invitation, the Russians entered into an agreement with the Germans. Your Lordships will know that, as a result of that agreement, a bargain was struck and the price was eventually paid.
The second illustration is that of Yalta, when the three statesmen of the three countries chiefly concerned met to consider the war against Japan. Up to that time Russia had not been involved in hostilities with the Japanese. An agreement was reached, as a result of which, towards the closing stage of the war with Japan, Russia came in with her forces, again as a result of a bargain, again as a result of an agreed price, and that price has been paid. The third instance that I would mention would be that surrounding San Francisco. The statesmen of the Allies were anxious to establish a United Nations Organization under a Charter that would provide for future relationships between the countries throughout the world. Your Lordships will remember that we were informed last week in another place by the right honourable gentleman the Member for Woodford that the only condition upon which we could get Russia to enter that United Nations Organization was an
884
agreement to provide a veto, a veto which would permit Russia to enter into agreements if she thought they were of advantage to her but which would safeguard her against agreements if they were likely to (militate against her interests.
With those three points in mind, I think we ought to look at the situation now existing, arising out of the Peace Conference and out of the world situation. It seems to me that there are three countries mainly concerned. There is the United States of America; there is the British Commonwealth and there is Russia. They are the three countries which, if they could reach agreement, could settle the peace of the world for a long time. But they are experiencing very great difficulties in reaching conclusions. Their difficulties do not arise out of a desire to wait. They do not arise out of a feeling that they cannot trust one another. They do, however, arise out of the knowledge that, with the present claims of these three countries, or with the present position of these three countries, there must be some give and take on a very wide scale, and, therefore, it must be something that must be very carefully looked at before it is accepted.
Let us, in the first place, take the case of Russia. Russia claims that she must have upon her boundaries in Europe a number of friendly States. Russia, however, is not prepared merely to establish good relations by cultivating friendships. She is using methods to ensure that in those countries near her borders there shall be forms of Government wielding power that will be answerable to her will. It must be admitted at once that with peace treaties making these things permanent, Great Britain and America will be met with enormous difficulties. Perhaps the matter would not be so bad if we could be sure that the momentum of aggrandisement had run down. But we know, or at least we feel, that such is not the case.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay, who spoke to the House just before the Recess, made a most valuable contribution in which he indicated the sources that prompted Russian action, the sort of views that Russians held on Socialist problems and the fear they had that, unless they could maintain something like an autocracy in their own country, by whatever name they might call it, and a

885
similar kind of organization in countries near to them, they would be in danger of being surrounded, or in danger of being beaten-up at some time. We fear that in this policy of theirs, based at it is upon principles that they have accepted, we have not yet reached the end of the demands of the Russian people. We ourselves are experiencing some difficulty in Greece, as previous speakers have said. Russia objects to our position in Greece, not because she loves the Greeks, not because she wants to see established a particular form of democracy in Greece. She does not want the British in Greece, nor does she want a strong Greece, because she is afraid of the strategical problems that may arise therefrom. Russia is now anxious to secure some control of the Dardanelles. A short time ago we had some trouble with Russia about the position in Persia. These are not isolated cases. They are all linked up, and they are an indication that there may exist in Russian minds a desire to spread southward so as to secure their entry into the warmer seas and into the oceans of the world. I do not think I am exaggerating that picture for a moment; and I believe that that is the position so far as Russia is concerned.
Now a word or two about this country. We profess ourselves to be satisfied with the limits of the Empire we now control. We are not at all anxious to take on problems for ourselves in any part of the world. There are some countries who can scarcely believe what we say about that; but whether that be the case or not, we have to ask ourselves whether, in accepting that limitation to our present Empire and in decreasing the liabilities we have in the world, we are making it easier to achieve final peace. We have, for instance, to keep our lines of communication open, and, as your Lordships know, that means keeping the Mediterranean open so that we can get right into the Indian ocean. That policy of ours may be justified. It is a policy we may have to maintain. But we must accept this point, whether we like it or not: that the Russians look upon that policy with very great suspicion, and that we may have to face, before very long, demands by the Russians that would cause us to be brought into communications or discussions in which these points would arise.
It has been said in your Lordships' House this afternoon that America has
886
been inclined to an isolationist policy. That isolationist policy has been dictated by the very size of the United States and the developments that were required there to make it a great country. America is now reaching the limit of her consuming power in relation to her great productive power, and so she will be looking to other parts of the world for markets. If she finds these markets closed to her, then international problems will certainly arise which will bring the United States into the arena of which I have been talking. There is another factor. America is now the greatest naval and military power in the world, and that power can only be exercised providing it has liberty of action. If that power were restrained in American waters, its influence on the rest of the world would be very small indeed. In consequence, during the war arrangements were made by which bases within our own Empire were provided for the Americans. The Russians now fear that America will not be content solely with the bases that she has in her possession; they think she will be looking to other parts of the world.
I have mentioned these three things, these three great interests which appear to be clashing, solely for the reason that I believe that the problems that wall arise amongst these Powers will not be settled by themselves. They have too many interests affecting others that may prevent that, and I believe that the only way in which they may ultimately be solved will be through the United Nations Organization enabling something in the nature of a World Parliament to lay down the plans that must be followed by all the nations in the world. If the United Nations Organization is to be useful, if it is to be effective, if at is to override the endless discussions that have been taking place, then certain other matters will have to receive attention. The first of these is that of sovereignty. Sovereignty to-day is not the same thing as sovereignty of a thousand years ago In those days, when peoples were small and scattered, unilateral decisions had perforce to be taken if tribes and communities were to be ruled. In these days, when population is so thickly spread on the ground, when time and space have almost been annihilated, sovereignty must mean something different, for it must have become modified-in its exercise.

887
In my view, every treaty signed by a modern nation in the years that have gone has been a modification of the sovereignty position, but I think you have got to go a bit further than most nations have been prepared to go from the idea of sovereignty as it did exist years ago. Hitherto, we have looked upon it as something dealing purely with Armies and Navies and with borderlines. It is my personal view that you would not suffer in yielding sovereignty to an international organization like the United Nations. And I think that other matters, which may appear to be purely matters of home concern, will also have to come up for consideration. Take, for instance, the question of wages in any country under an international scheme. Obviously, if the United Nations Organization gets the world into one great economic field for the maintenance of full employment and economic safety, then if any country arbitrarily were to reduce the wages of its people and thereby upset the plans that had been arranged, that would be a danger which the world at large would not tolerate. So in yielding up sovereignty, or part of sovereignty, we have to think in terms not merely of Armed Forces and the like but also of other matters which by their operation must have an effect upon the world.
The last point I want to make is this. If the United Nations Organization is to work effectively then we have to got to cease dividing the nations of the world into saints and sinners. That kind of thing is all very well between political parties at election time, but when peoples of the world, whether they are advanced or whether they are slow, have got to work together for the common good, no useful purpose is served in describing nations in that way. For instance, I was asked a question the other day at one of my meetings: "Is Germany really as black as she is painted?" My answer to the question was this: that if Germany is really as black as she has been painted then we ought to exterminate the German nation because she is a danger in those circumstances to the world at large. I do not think that the German nation is entirely black. I believe within that country, as in all countries, there are men and women good and true who are prepared to do everything they can for the world at large. At the same meeting I was asked this question: "Is Great Britain as white as
888
I she paints herself?" And I had to admit that we had somewhat of a murky past in some things. We had tried to live up to what we considered to be for the good of mankind in the main, but there were streaks in our history of which we ought rather to be ashamed than proud. If we can only get into the United Nations Organization a spirit which will admit the good things in all nations and will treat with the evil things in these nations, we can then make sure that the Organization will be effective and that these great troubles I have mentioned will be brought to a successful conclusion because the nations which now fear one another and suspect one another will begin to understand one another, and, therefore, trust one another.
4.39 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, when we started our proceedings in the House today we were discussing the Hill Farming Bill, and I heard the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, say that it took at least ten years to make a shepherd. I can only say, having listened to the delightful maiden speech which has just been made, that I am quite sure it cannot be done in ten years; and though the noble Lord says he has never before belonged to a public assembly, your Lordships will readily understand why it is that we have kept him in the background to solve for us all the difficulties which we could not solve ourselves. We are indeed fortunate in having the noble Lord to take part in our deliberations, and I very much hope that we shall often hear him. The noble Lord made in particular one interesting reference, I thought, to the conception of sovereignty. It is a very odd thing—and I dare say the noble Lord knows it—that there has been no jurist who has ever been able to define what "sovereignty" is. The reality we can understand, but the word means different things to different people. Yet many a time and oft in the world's history there has been trouble about the word, whilst so far as the realities were concerned there was no need to bother at all.
I now pass to consider briefly the various speeches that have been made. I shall be brief because His Majesty's Government to-day have had the experience of having practically no criticism at all levelled against them. Questions have been asked but it is quite obvious that

889
the policy which the Foreign Secretary has been pursuing, and the statement that the Prime Minister has made, meet with general approval in all quarters of your Lordships' House. I come, first of all, to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. He mentioned the Egyptian negotiations. They were not negotiations. The noble Lord said he did not fully realize the distinction between negotiations and conversations, but I think he will realize that there is all the difference in the world. When you come to negotiate you come to see whether you can reach an agreement, but when you come to talk things over you get to know each other, and each is able to explain to the other his point of view, in order that when negotiations do take place, you will be in a position to understand one another and arrive at some happy solution.
For myself, having been in this matter, like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was, for so long, a little behind the scenes, I would like to say this. I think it was a gallant thing of Sidky Pasha, no longer quite so young as he was—he is seventy-two years of age; and he was not very well—to come here to see that his point of view was understood by the Foreign Secretary and to learn the Foreign Secretary's point of view, and I am hopeful that as a result of the fact that they have had this opportunity, albeit under difficulties, because he was unwell, of understanding each other's point of view, those two points of view may be reconciled. But so far as the de facto position is concerned in the Sudan, so far as I know—and I do not pretend to have any complete knowledge of the discussions or conversations—there has never been any question but that Article 11 of the 1936 Treaty, which is the one which deals with the administration of the Sudan, shall continue in force. Speaking for myself, I agree with the noble Lord, that no arrangements will ever be satisfactory for the Sudan unless in due course it is plain that it is for the people of the Sudan to determine their future destination.
The next question the noble Lord asked was about Palestine.] think, in view of the fact that the conversations are for the moment delayed, but are coming on again shortly, it is desirable that we say very little about the matter at the present time; and, indeed, the noble Lord did not ask me to. The noble Lord wanted to know whether we were alive and press-
890
ing on this question of displaced persons. I think we all realize that this problem of displaced persons is a great European, indeed a world problem. It cannot possibly be solved by Palestine and Palestine alone. Consequently we have now a delegation in New York co-operating energetically in the establishment of an International Refugee Organization under the United Nations, and we are stressing the extreme importance of the resettlement side of the work of that body. We, like the United States, are members of the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees, and we are now giving full support to that Committee in its negotiations with certain Governments on the question of the absorption of displaced persons. I can, therefore, assure the noble Lord that we do realize the importance of this problem, and we are doing all we can to meet it.
The noble Lord then touched on the problem of Germany, not, as he said, in great detail, because, in view of next week's debate, it would be inappropriate for him or for me to go into the matter at any length. I am bound to say that I did not feel there was the slightest difference between the point of view which the noble Lord put forward and that which I take. I think the idea that anybody should use Germany as a kind of balancing factor is such a wicked idea that one need say no more about it. The problem, as I see it, is this. We have got to do two things. On the one hand, Germany must be disarmed and kept disarmed; she must not hereafter be a menace to the peace of Europe. That is fundamental. But, having said that, I do think we really must try to see that we establish a self-supporting Germany. It is an intolerable thing that the British taxpayer should go on paying reparations—because that is what it comes to—to Germany to the extent of £80,000,000 a year. We simply cannot afford to do it, and the only way we can avoid it is by making Germany self-supporting.
Further, if we do not make Germany self-supporting, if we treat Germany as a pariah State and a plague-spot in the middle of Europe, the whole standard of life in Europe will go down. Therefore, so long as we always preserve as the first fundamental the question of disarmament and keeping Germany disarmed, I maintain that we must do what we can to bring about a self-supporting Germany. I agree

891
that that means more coal, it means more food, it means more exports. It means that, unless we are to treat Germany as an economic whole, there must be a complete revision of the Potsdam Agreement.
So much for the views on Germany. I think I have dealt very shortly with the main topics which the noble Lord raised, and I now come to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. He, in his great experience and wisdom, gave us a word of advice which was re-echoed by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. He advised us to try to exercise patience, tolerance, and firmness in the difficulties of to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, would add "and a good sense of humour" and the noble Earl would probably agree with that too. That is all we can do. I claim that Mr. Bevin, in a time of great difficulty when there must have been a great temptation to retort, has conducted himself on our behalf with the greatest possible dignity.
As to the specific questions which the noble Earl asked me, he asked first of all whether I could give him any assurance in regard to the diminution of the Austrian territory. I can give him a complete assurance about that; this country will not stand for any diminution of the pre-war Austrian territory. Then he asked me a question about the Italian Treaty. I do not pretend, of course, that the Italian Treaty is exactly the Treaty I should have prepared had I had to consider nobody else, but I do say that on the whole it is not an unsatisfactory document. So far as we are concerned, I need hardly say that we are not asking for any reparations, subject to what I will say in a moment, although the cost to us of the Italian intervention in the war ran into thousands of millions. They are having to pay reparations to Russia, to Greece, to Yugoslavia and to Abyssinia (the total amount, I think, is $225,000,000) but we are getting nothing.
Then he asked me particularly about claims and debts arising out of prisoners of war and the conventions now in force. This is the position. We have claims against the Italians arising out of these prisoners of war and they have claims against us. I have very little doubt that
892
the claims we have against them are substantially greater than the claims which they have against us. What we are proposing to do, therefore, is to set off our claim against their claims, leaving it to each Government to settle the claims of their own nationals. In view of the fact that we are not asking for any other reparations, I think that that, is a very reasonable and sensible attitude to take up. That, at any rate, is the position. Then the noble Earl asked about the position with regard to Archbishop Stepinac. I cannot say more than that His Majesty's Government are looking at the reports which they have received, but the noble Lord must realize that this is a matter of administration of justice in Yugoslavia. I can say nothing one way or the other more than I have said.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Might I ask the noble Lord if he will ultimately put the suggestion I made—that it does involve a question of the violation of the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations—before the Foreign Secretary?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly do that. Then the noble Earl touched on the control of nuclear energy and said, I think—if he did, I agree with him, and if he did not, I agree with him also—that it was really by far the most important topic in the world. There are two courses you can take. You can either get all the nations of the world to destroy all these things and stop this experimentation, which is quite impracticable, or you can get some measure of real control. If that is not done, then I think the prospect for the future of the world is very gloomy. I was very cheered to see that in his recent speech Premier Stalin seemed to realize that in this respect, at any rate, some international action might be desirable.
As to the veto, although I have had to stand up in your Lordships' House and say it is a very desirable thing to have and so on, I have always disliked it very much indeed. Quite frankly, I think it would be very foolish to try to get rid of it at the present time. I think we have got to build up confidence and better international relationships before we try to get rid of the veto. But, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, if you could define the use of the veto, if you could at any rate ascertain what were matters of procedure and to what extent the veto should

893
be used in those matters, you would have done a great deal. I am a little doubtful about the practicability of his idea to refer this to the International Court, because if some question of procedure arose you would probably want rather a quick decision, and although international courts of justice, like our own national courts, are admirable institutions, they are rather slow in grinding out their results. But certainly the idea, coming as it does from him, is one that shall be considered.
Now I come to the speech of the most reverend Primate. He asked particularly what steps were being taken in the United States of America to disseminate our views. We do not go in for propaganda and I do not apologize for that. I believe that in the long run the best form of propaganda is truth—absolutely plain, unvarnished, reliable statements of fact. You give those to your journalists and they can dress them" up in suitable headline array if necessary. We have a service in the United States. It is called the British Information Service. Its main office is in New York, with branches in Chicago and San Francisco; it works under the Embassy, and its function is to supply information of the sort to which I have referred—reliable, truthful information—to anybody who wants it. That service is being made use of very considerably. Then the most reverend Primate talked about Russia and Germany, and I think the replies I have given already really cover what he said.
The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, in a delightfully witty speech, which had great seriousness underlying it, advised us as to the right way in which to deal with the difficulties confronting us to-day. I am sure that in these problems, just as in one's own problems, a sense of humour is a saving grace. We will take to heart what he says. I devoutly hope that this country will continue to preserve its good humour, and its good faith, and if it does that, I think in the long run it will emerge triumphant from its difficulties more certainly than if it takes any apparently clever course.
As to the withdrawal of our troops from Greece, I say again that we want to withdraw them at the earliest possible moment. We must remember that these troops abroad in Greece and elsewhere are costing our taxpayers sums of money which we can ill afford. Therefore, the
894
sooner our troops can come home the better we shall be pleased. On the other hand, however, in timing the withdrawal it will obviously be necessary to have regard to the sort of factors which the noble Lord mentioned. Then the noble Lord asked about the Bulgarian elections, which, if I remember aright, took place three or four days ago. We have not yet had time to ascertain whether they were satisfactory or not, but I should be misleading your Lordships if I did not say that such slight indications as we have at present are not encouraging. With regard to the Rumanian elections, they are still to come and our Government have indicated in a Note the sort of requirements they would deem necessary before they could consider that those elections were fair and above-board—fair that is to say, in giving the Rumanian people a fair opportunity to express their points of view. I hope I have dealt adequately, but certainly briefly, with the various points which your Lordships have raised. As always when we have a foreign affairs debate, it is most instructive to listen to it in this House, because we have so many speakers who speak with the greatest authority. Debates of this sort can only help His Majesty's Government in what I admit frankly is a difficult task and a most perplexing situation.
5.1 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, at this relatively advanced hour I am anxious to call attention simply and solely to one or two passages in the Foreign Secretary's speech of a week ago passages which, although short, were perhaps rather significantly reported even in the inevitably curtailed versions of Parliamentary business which appear in the Press, that modern sink of iniquity, as it appears we must now get accustomed to consider it. I refer to certain passages that concern a region whose past importance is amply visible from, history and whose present im-portance, so far from diminishing, increases daily—I mean the region we call the Middle East. The Foreign Secretary began by pointing out that Great Britain and the Middle East have very close ties, and that no country has done more to promote the security an I develop the independence of the people in that area than Great Britain has done He went on to say that, apart from the Suez Canal, we have other interests in that region, and it should be borne in mind that this area is

895
vital to the peace of the world and that the countries in it look to us for assistance in their development.
This is what I wish to stress in speaking to-day, and the point is amplified by a further remark of Mr. Bevin's when he said:
"The great task now is for those countries to build a healthy economy, based on a better standard of living conditions for the masses of their peoples. In this, the outlook of the new Britain particularly qualifies us to help; that is if our help is desired. We can assist by advising on labour laws and conditions, the development of agricultural and irrigation schemes, health services, and so forth, and we have said that we are prepared to put at the disposal of the Middle East countries all the experience and knowledge that we have gained of such things in the past. This is our attitude, not only to the Arab countries, but to all the Middle Eastern countries."
It seems to me that the proviso "if our help is desired" is an essential one. Even if we join, as we must, in Mr. Bevin's protest against accusations from certain quarters that we in Britain wish to oppress and exploit the people of the Middle East—after all, even if we still wanted to, it would certainly by this time be impossible—we have very definite interests there, known ones, commercial ones and, unfortunately, strategic ones. So have other people besides ourselves by this time, so that I am at a loss to see why we should bear the brunt of such accusations.
But whether we consider it our duty to pay back to these countries what we gain from them in some other sort of coinage, or whether we consider it our duty to help them because we have, owing to accidents of history and possibly accidents of climate, reached by this time a higher degree of material civilization than the countries concerned, according to twentieth-century standards—and I trust that this is our permanent attitude—we have a duty towards the Middle East. That duty should consist in just what Mr. Bevin alluded to in the last passage I quoted, although, as I say, with the essential proviso "if our help is required." Personally, I have no doubt it is required. In all my too rapid tour of the Middle East countries last spring I found everywhere the more enlightened elements of the present governing classes—and these vary from country to country—only too ready to admit that they would need practical help from the West for a very long time to come. In
896
this connexion I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to two steps which have already been taken, concerning one of which I am desirous of eliciting information from the noble Viscount who is going to reply. The first is the recent publication by His Majesty's Stationery Office of three admirable reports, originally prepared for the Middle East Supply Centre in 1944 and 1945, and compiled by two Englishmen, Messrs. Worthington and Keen and, what is not uninteresting, by one American, Mr. Allen of the Near East Foundation of New York.
These reports, called respectively Middle East Science, The Agricultural Development of the Middle East, and Rural Education and Welfare in the Middle East, give in an unexpectedly readable and, for me at least, passionately interesting form, all the details of the everyday practical problems that beset these countries in their efforts to improve the lot of their inhabitants. The publication of these reports seems to me a proof that the Foreign Secretary's observations are no mere idle promises made for selfish propaganda purposes. But more, I fancy, has been done than that. Shortly after the war, I think I am right in saying, a new section was formed in the Foreign Office which is now apparently called the Middle East Secretariat, to examine all these questions. Chatham House was, I believe, to be pressed into service for collecting and supplying information, and an organization was at the same time set up in Cairo under Sir Arnold Overton, which is called the British Middle East Office, as an opposite number to the Secretariat in the Foreign Office.
I think it would be of some interest to your Lordships' House if we could have what I might call a progress report concerning these bodies and also possibly be assured, if it is thought fit, that their work will not run a risk of becoming submerged in the general Middle East work of the Foreign Office, for the good reason that it might become sanded up in the dreary but inescapable wastes of pure politics. The political elements are gloomy and complicated enough in all conscience. But there is not only that: such a development might lead to the gradual submersion of what is potentially our most valuable contribution to the future of the Middle East in general. My own attitude, which I hope your Lordships will share, can be perfectly summed

897
up in the concluding passage of Mr. Allen's report:
"We of the West should not attempt to impose our form of government or our way of life on the East; nor should we measure their standards of living by our chosen yardsticks. In fact there are certain realms in which the slow-plodding peasant or the freedom-loving nomad has much to offer to the hurried Westerner. At the same time we believe, and they know when they have an Opportunity to express themselves freely, that a degree of literacy is the right of every man and the beginning of general enlightenment; that the tilling of one's own soil is a powerful motivating force; that widespread suffering from preventable disease is not an inseparable part of human existence. It should be the combined responsibility of the more priviledged Powers of the world, during the next era of peace, to give unfailing support to these basic concepts."
It is because I feel—and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has already given me the lead in this by one or two isolated remarks he made—very strongly that Great Britain owes it to the less privileged areas of the globe to supply them, if called on to do so, with the benefits of her sociological and technical experience, that I am desirous of extracting this information from His Majesty's Government to-day, in the form of an assurance that we shall not only be ready but be able to produce competent and properly paid technicians and advisers for this purpose if and when the time comes.
If, as is certainly the case, during all the past years, through the sulphurous fog of our political difficulties in Egypt there has glowed unextinguished the light of the perfectly amicable collaboration of Egyptian and British engineers and experts over such vital matters as Egypt's life blood, the Nile and the distribution of its waters, there should be not only no reason why such collaborations should not continue, but every reason for encouraging them in the general cause of the world peace, even if it is depressing to think that such peace can only easily be attained on the technical level.
5.10 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, the hour is late, and I do not propose to keep you for more than a very few minutes. I think that this debate this afternoon has impressed on all of us who have heard it the fact that every member of this House who has spoken has been measuring the foreign policy of the Government by how far it is contributing to the building of world peace. That is a great fact. We hear constantly that all the world wants
898
peace, that every nation wants peace, and that it is only the stupid statesmen who cannot give the world the thing that all the peoples desire. One writer, recently, wrote something to the effect that the statesmen were all possessed with such obsessive suspicion that they were obviously in need of psycho-analysis. I believe it is true that all the world wants peace. I believe it is also profoundly true that many individuals in the nations of the world and most of the national Governments desire things which are inconsistent with peace, and that is the real root of the trouble.
May I remind your Lordships that when Jesus was about to make His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, as He saw the city before Him, He wept over it and cried: "Oh that thou hadst known the things that belong unto peace." And then He went on to describe the awful fate which was going to befall the city of Jerusalem. "Oh that thou hadst known the things that belong unto peace. "I wonder—and I am afraid that the wonder has grown as I have listened to this debate—whether we know "the things that belong unto peace." We are in the midst of a profound change in the world. I think that I regard the two great world wars through which we have passed as incidents in that change. In this changing and changed world, the pursuit of exclusive privilege or advantage by any nation is anti-social and anachronistic, and I would stress this—even the maintenance of a privileged position, even the maintenance of strategic and economic advantages which have been obtained through force in the past 01: through the accidents of history, even their maintenance to-day, if it is against the public interest of the world, may be: the cause of a world war again.
The world is changing, it seems to me, in three particular ways. It is changing from a world divided into separate self-contained units, divided, inevitably, by geography in many cases; it is changing from that kind of a world to a world completely united by inter-communication and inter-transport. Those old separate divisions are being inevitably destroyed. It is changing from a world in which very few nations had world needs and world interests to a world in which all nations are awakening to demand their rights in the world as a whole; are awakening to a sense of their world needs and world interests. I began my business career by

899
selling cotton goods to Japan. It was the last order of that kind that my firm booked. That marked the beginning of a big change within my lifetime, the change from the time when Japan was a buyer of cotton goods to the days when she was a great exporter of cotton goods. That is the kind of change that has been taking place.
Lastly, the world has been changing from a world of nations governed by a few individuals for their own interests, to a world in which the whole of the manhood of the nations are uprising and demanding their share both in the government of their countries and in the fruits of their labours. It is a new world, and in it selfish national policy must lead to war. It is a world that is moving towards the world of the many for the benefit of the many, and the resistance to that movement by the retention of special exclusive privilege of any kind is going to be a cause of war in the future.
I would suggest that there are two fundamental principles which must inspire and guide our policy. The first is that the well-being of each individual unit can only be found ultimately in the well-being of the whole. It follows that we must all work for the well-being of the nations of the world. There must be co-operation and mutual helpfulness, which must be fully planned and co-ordinated so that all the nations may have equality of opportunity and a chance to develop their full capacity. We have got, somehow, to remove fear. The first fear from which the nations have suffered has been the fear of strangulation, of not being allowed to develop their industry or whatever it may have been. We have got to remove that fear of strangulation, and we can only remove it by co-operation and mutual helpfulness.
Then we have got to remove the fear of war. Nothing has yet been said in this debate about disarmament, but I believe that disarmament, while not a primary thing, is a very important secondary matter, and it is one of the things for which we, have to work, and work toward, very seriously if we are going to get world peace. We have had the great offer by M. Molotov, and I know there are many reasons why we like examining that offer very carefully. Let us remember this—there was one time in the past when Russia
900
offered disarmament and when no effect was given to that offer. I hope that this time Mr. Molotov's offer will be given a very cordial reception, and that a real effort, a serious effort, an enthusiastic effort, will be made to see if it is not possible to work out a real basis for the policy he has suggested.
The second principle that should inspire all our policy is the principle of respect for personality. In our own country we have that respect for individual human personality. It is the basis of our morality. In the international sphere we have to extend that to respect for the rights of other nations. A great deal has been said about Russia. Quite frankly, I am more afraid of America than of Russia in this changing world, because America stands in the way of the change towards which the world is moving, while Russia is moving with the change. I think our reply to the Russian challenge is to show the value of our democratic Socialism. Russia does not yet know that there was a 1945 revolution in Great Britain; I do not think the world knows it. But there was a revolution in Great Britain. Great Britain, therefore, is to-day in an outstanding position to help along this great change in the world—from the world of the few to the world of the many—to help it along to see that it does so develop as to give a rich new life for all the individuals and for all the nations of the world.
I do not want great competition with the Soviet Government to see if we can sell our ideas more readily than they can sell their's. In spite of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, I am not a camouflaged totalitarian but I do recognize the fact that there may be some countries in Europe who regard the Soviet system as a stage through which they will have to go before they can reach democratic Socialism. It is not our business to try and force them into our mould, but it is our business to let them and the world know that we are on the side of the common man everywhere; that we are seeking to build up the life of the common man everywhere; that we are seeking to help every nation to improve its standard of life and to make a great development in its national life; that we want to be helpful; and that that is the one thing we want to be. We must let the world know that this spirit of mutual helpfulness and deep respect for other

901
nations is the spirit behind our policy. I think that has been the policy of the Socialist movement in this country for a great many years. I think it is the policy of the British Government and the Foreign Secretary to-day, and I feel that the only weakness is that we do not sufficiently reiterate, again and again, the policy for which we are working, and that we do not let the world know what it is.
5.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I am entirely in agreement with the remarks on disarmament of the noble Lord who has just spoken. If Mr. Molotov is really in earnest, and shows later on that he is in earnest, then I hope that we shall take his offer with both hands. I am going to say some uncomfortable things which I think should be said. I only wish that I could echo the helpful and optimistic views which have been expressed by several noble Lords during this debate. What is it that gives rise to this uneasiness among all thinking people in this country to-day? We fought and won the war to put an end to Nazi tyranny. We fought not only for our own security, but to free Europe from the secret police. We fought for freedom of conscience, and for liberty for nations and individuals. We fought, in fact, for the democratic way of life. Now, eighteen months after the war, the world finds itself facing another tyranny, that of a Communist dictatorship which is as absolute as any in the world.
We have to face the fact—and I want to put facts before your Lordships, as far as facts can be facts—that the rulers of Russia believe their security depends upon world revolution. Their object is to establish a Communist dictatorship throughout the earth. They propose to do this by infiltration or, if that fails, by force. We have to realize that this belief of their's cannot be shaken, and that that is the reason they are unappeasable. They feel (wrongly, I think), that they will soon be strong enough to enforce their wishes on the world, and in order to prepare for that day Stalin has launched a five-year programme of rearmament. May I remind your Lordships that thirteen or fourteen men control Russia? These men are fanatical Communists, and they consider that all non-Communist States are enemies of Russia. Not one of
902
them, reports tell us, is in favour of collaboration with the capitalist world. In his book Problems of Leninism, Stalin has expressed his approval of Lenin's statement that there can be no compromise between the Soviet Union and other non-Communist States. He says:
"We are living, not only in a. State, but in a system of States, and the existence of the Soviet Republics side, by side with Imperialistic States for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end, and before that end supervenes a series of frightful collisions between the Soviet Republics and the bourgeois States is inevitable."
In the light of this, it cannot be said that the forces of civilization have not been warned. Russian policy seems obvious. The Russians know that the United States and ourselves hate the thought of another war, and they propose to take advantage of that state of mind while the going is good. Their policy is one of no concessions, and an endeavour, by the use of power politics and forceful pressure, to obtain from the Western Powers bases for goodness knows what—perhaps the conquest of the world. We should be fools not to face the possibility that, as soon as their military preparations are complete, rhey may put forward aggressive demands for territory which it would be impossible for this country to concede. Until they are ready—and they may not be ready for some time—their policy is to put every obstacle in the way of a settlement in Europe, and to prevent the ratification of the peace treaties. Tliey will keep Europe 'in a ferment with their propaganda and with their occupying forces, the most obvious example being the huge display of force by Yugoslavia, which is reported to have more than 500,000 men under arms. What is this enormous army for? Is it for aggression, or is it for the defence of Yugoslavia?
I wish here to draw the attention of the House to the lying propaganda put out against us from all countries of the Eastern bloc at the instance of Russia. This is a direct incentive; to those peoples to prepare for war. I know this matter has been brought up in the House before by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. Unfortunately, I was not present at the debate and did not hear what he said. I am given to understand that he brought it up with a considerable sense of humour. I am afraid I shall

903
not be very humorous on this question. At this moment, from Moscow and from stations throughout Slav Europe, a mass of appalling vituperation is being broadcast against this country in sixty different languages. It is propaganda of bitterness and hate, venomous and abusive. It could not be worse if we were in a state of war. I believe that this hostility is a fateful menace to the peace of the world, and that it should be brought up at the Security Council of the United Nations Organization.
I would be very grateful to the noble Lord who replies for the Government—he need not do so, but I ask for his courtesy—if he would give an answer to the following: What are we doing to counter this propaganda? I think that every lie broadcast by these people should be answered. If this is looked upon as unimportant, then we are living in a fool's paradise. No doubt I shall be told that the British Council or some other body do broadcast British propaganda or culture to Europe. But that is not good enough. As I have already said, what we want is to see that none of their plausible untruths should go unanswered. Again I may be told, as was said in another place, that this would do more harm than good. Why? This is no time, in my opinion, for dignified silence. These continued aspersions on our country will gradually have their effect all over Europe, even on those people who have always believed in the fair-mindedness and justice of the British people. Surely that is an important point.
I should also like to call the attention of the noble Lord who will reply to the reports from Eastern Europe which seems to show that Russia is preparing for war. It has been reported in the Press that the Russian authorities have seized fifty large businesses in their zone, and that a large number of these places are turning out war materials exclusively for Russia; that these plants are believed to be operating at peak capacity; and that they include the large Krupp Works at Magdeburg and the Farben plants at Bitterfeld, which are making hydrogen peroxide for rocket propulsion. Other plants are producing special jet aircraft and rockets. New plants are being seized every day, and it has been estimated that the value of this cartel, which is called the Soviet
904
Industrial Company, amounts to over £400,000,000. All this is being done with the help of German technicians and it is contrary to paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (18) of the Potsdam Agreement. I should like to know whether these reports are true or not, and, if they are true, what action have the Government taken.
In this country, owing to the reticence of the Press and the misleading statements of politicians, there is an almost despairing feeling—and I am speaking for very many people—that we are taking the easiest line and hoping for the best, and that, due to the inertia of impotence, we are drifting towards an abyss. It is time that some definite statement was made by the Government that the moment has come for the country to prepare itself for any eventuality, and that, together with the Empire and such friends as we have across the seas, we should call the bluff of those who are playing poker with us at Paris and elsewhere. If the Western Democracies have the courage for a showdown, they should put forward a clear demand for an investigation not only regarding the number of troops in the Russian-occupied areas but also as to what Russia is doing in other ways in her German and Austrian zones. If this demand is not conceded, then all conferences between East and West should be ended and the necessary counter-measures taken to meet the situation. These should include the rooting out and the political sterilization of the Quisling "fifth column" which aspire to act as the eyes and ears of the Soviet Union in all countries of the Western world.
The Government must have means of knowing what is going on. For instance, they will have some knowledge as to whether Russia is preparing for aggression or defence. What I am afraid of is that, knowing that there may be the possibility of a crisis, if not immediately, in the near future, or in the future, the Government will be afraid, for internal Party political reasons, to take the people into their confidence and tell them the truth—that the time has come again to prepare to defend the country and the Empire. In all this everyone will have considerable sympathy with the Government, because for years politicians of all Parties have been mouthing woolly sophistries about our Russian friends and the great Russian democracy, which were quite untrue and misleading.

905
The Government have rightly done their best, during the last year, to get on friendly terms with our late Allies, and have met with nothing but snubs, hostile speeches and propaganda, in spite of the efforts of one of the best Foreign Ministers this country has ever had. On several occasions he has stood up for the cause of all free peoples with vigour and decision. I suggest that the time has now come when speakers for the Government, instead of boosting Russia as a friend and Ally, should be realistic and tell the people the truth, so that they may prepare and brace themselves for whatever may come.
I want to say a word on matters which, although not quite within the scope of a foreign affairs debate, yet, considering the times we live in, do bear some relation to it. Why is it, in these dangerous times, that we are reducing the numbers of His Majesty's ships? I realize that advances in science have made certain classes of ships redundant, but why reduce our destroyer and carrier totals? It is common knowledge that a large number of ships of the war-time programmes have been cancelled in various stages of construction. Some of these, such as battleships and heavy cruisers, may not fit in with the new scheme of things. But I wonder whether, due to the policy of the Treasury, the opinion of naval experts has been disregarded on the question of keeping in the Service as many carriers, destroyers and submarines as possible. Apart from ships scrapped when building, we have been giving away good ships to foreign Powers. Again I wonder if the Admiralty are in favour of a ship like the "Colossus" being even lent to France in these unsettled times.
Apart from this fine craft, we have sold or given away many submarines, and only the other day four of the useful "Cromwell."class of destroyers were handed over to Norway. The cruiser "Orion" has gone to Holland, and the famous light cruisers "Leander," ": Ajax" and "Achilles" have been given to India. Even if it can be shown that these generous gestures are justified, it would be interesting to know when, if ever, these ships, now lost to us, will be replaced. The Admiralty have had to take up a very realistic attitude in a difficult situation. Their appropriations have been cut, they have the greatest difficulty in manning existing ships, and no one seems to know
906
what the fleets of the future will be composed of.
I am not qualified to speak about 'the Royal Air Force, but, in a recent statement, a certain gallant Marshal of the Royal Air Force said that the Force was dangerously short of recruits. I believe that most of the airfields—or a large num-bre of them—laboriously constructed during the war have been returned to their former use. Our main defence in the event of a crisis is the Royal Air Force apd the Royal Navy. Surely as many as possible of these airfields should be retained and kept in order, in case they are required. I hope they never will be required, but one never knows. In the United States they take a very different and a much more realistic view. They have not reduced their Navy. They are now spending more on the Navy than they did during the war. The United States is facing up to the serious world situation with realism, whilst we seem to be living in a land of dreams. The distinguished American diplomat, Mr. W. Bullitt, has the following to say in his latest book, words which ring true to me.
"The aim of Soviet poiicy is constant, to establish a Communist dictatorship throughout the earth. In its own eyes the Soviet Government is always engaged in warfare, open or concealed with the non-Communist States of the worjd, and when_ the Soviet Government embraces in friendship any non-Communist Government it is always with the ultimate intention of driving a dagger into its back."
That is why Stalin is non-appeasable. That is why for our own preservation we must recognize the unpleasant fact that Stalin, like Hitler, will not stop but can only be stopped. To-day, all Governments, except the Soviet and its satellites, are working for peace. The Soviet Government appear—I hope they are not—to be working for conquest.
We, on our side, are sick and tired of war, but I do not believe we have lost the instinct for self-pressrvation, and I hope that instinct will force us to bestir ourselves to build up again our national forces in such strength that all potential aggressors, including the Soviet Union, will think twice before disturbing our peace. We have two alternatives. One is, when the threat materializes, to allow the Communist Party of Great Britain to take over the country under the direction of Russia. The second is to prepare ourselves now to protect our liberty. I admit that this is a hard decision for a

907
war-worn country to take, but we must take one or the other. To drift is fatal, and the first alternative is unthinkable. In order to carry out the second, the Government must get the people behind them. There will be no difficulty in doing that if we are informed, for we are a people of great courage. Our countrymen should be made to realize that we are again existing in a world of power politics, and that unless we take similar action to that of the United States and face up to the menace and make ourselves strong again, we may find ourselves involved in a struggle for which we are totally unprepared.
This Motion has presumably been put on the paper with a view to extracting from the Government an avowal that they are well aware of the seriousness of the world situation. If that is admitted, surely it is pertinent to ask that the whole question of further demobilization, especially with regard to the Air Force and the Navy, should be reconsidered, and also that, within the bounds of the classes of ship that are advised as necessary by our naval experts, a building programme should be laid down and no more ships should be scrapped.
5.42 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, a fortnight ago I scrapped a rather full speech I had prepared about Germany. Hill farming got in the way of a debate about the German problem, and though we may have an opportunity next week of a full discussion on the German problem I hope that my speech will then have to be rather different. I have just now scrapped most of another speech which I had prepared on this Motion, but I do not apologize, even at this late hour, for rising to bring before your Lordships points that I wanted to raise on this occasion because they arise directly out of some things that were said by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, and out of what was said in the debate on foreign affairs by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place. They relate not to the general problem of Germany but to the execution of the Potsdam Agreement and the revision of the Potsdam Agreement.
In another place, the Foreign Secretary said that the Potsdam Agreement was not being carried out. He referred particularly to the failure to establish the
908
economic unity of Germany. There is also another important provision for the equal treatment of the whole German population throughout Germany which is being equally disregarded. He said "this cannot go on." The question I want to ask is: Why are we allowing it to go on? Why have we allowed it to go on for fifteen months? The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said there had been no note of criticism of the Government in this debate. I venture to say that it is a legitimate criticism of the Government that for fifteen months we have sat down under a complete failure to carry out the essential part of the Potsdam Agreement, and yet have continued to carry on certain parts of it which were greatly to our disadvantage and to the disadvantage of Germany. We are still doing that, and that is the urgency of the matter.
We are still continuing to dismantle industry, to destroy factories, and to send reparations. In some articles which I wrote in The Times recently, I referred to one particular shipyard which I went to see in Hamburg, which, for some years, has been engaged on making nothing but fishing boats and similar small craft—things which are most urgently needed in Germany. Yet that was condemned to be destroyed. Not only did I write about it, I wrote also to the Chancellor of the Duchy who is in charge of Germany and I spoke to him about it. Within the last few days I have had the answer: that the dismantling of this must proceed because not to proceed with it would demand a revision of the Potsdam Agreement. So, carrying out that Agreement, which the Foreign Secretary says cannot go on, we are still having to destroy factories which are earnestly needed not only for the prosperity but for the feeding of Germany.
The same thing arises about denazification. I will not say much about that, I will only say again that we are proceeding to prescribe and dismiss Nazi technicians on the grounds that they are Nazis and dismantling their factories. There is no doubt at all that just as many of the factories go over to the Soviet zone, so many of the technicians follow. If there are any people who have thought we were destroying German industry which might compete with us, they will find we have only been transferring it.

909
That is going on still today. These two conditions of economic unity and of equal treatment of the German population quite obviously imply a kind of friendly co-operation of all the four Powers, in the administration of Germany, which is not so today.
I want to urge that till we get that co-operation we should suspend our side of it, all the destroying and dismantling of industry. Suspend it at once and completely for reconsideration. That is the most urgent plea I make and it is an urgent question because we are still going on with this policy and destroying. The second point is as to the revision of the Potsdam Agreement. Even if it were being carried out in full, with German economic unity, I would be prepared to argue that it is quite inconsistent with the Atlantic Charter. Whether or not it is inconsistent with the Atlantic Charter, I want to go on to say that this policy of destroying and limiting German industry is entirely inconsistent with compressing the German population into a much smaller area. I believe it may be possible for the German people, who are a very able and industrious people, to contain themselves reasonably in a small area, but only on the basis of having as muchindustry as possible.
The urgency of this case is that when we are beginning to consider the German lactones on the East we ought to make it clear that any consideration of allowing Germany to be compressed in the East must depend not merely on free elections in Poland—that is comparatively unimportant—but on a drastic revision of the whole Potsdam Agreement. Our assent to the Russian and Polish factories in the East, and our assent to the French pleas for the Saar ought to follow, not precede, a complete revision of the Potsdam Agreement. Those are the two points I want to make.
I cannot but regret—and I venture to criticize the Government for—the loss of fifteen months. We have got nothing from Soviet Russia during those fifteen months, not even agreement upon the final reparations. We know that that big problem is still before us. During that fifteen months we have lost any amount of money. I do not personally regard it as reparations to Germany, because, after all, we are in control of Germany, but it is, at any rate, money which we have paid.
910
There is only one final point, and it is a difficulty which may be in your Lordships' minds. If we take, as I think we should have taken during the last fifteen months, a more positive line, on the question of whether we shall split Germany, I know there are many people who will say that we must not: do anything to split Germany. The simple answer to that is that Germany is at present completely split, not by us, although I think we have made some contribution to it, and not only by Soviet Russia. I think some of the other occupying Powers are not sufficiently co-operative. Germany is at present split. A united Germany depends upon getting other Powers to change their policies, and we shall not get them to change their policies by silting down under them. If in the last resort we cannot get them to change their policies and make a real economic unit of Germany, with complete freedom of travel and inspection by authorized agents and everybody to see that there is real economic unity, then I think we must endeavour to make a success of our own zone. I would suggest that if we make a success of our own zone, and make it as strong as it can be for peace, we can always prevent it from being strong for war. Then when it is strong unity will come with the other parts of Germany wishing to join.
5.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, with the permission of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I should like to say a word about the reference made by my noble friend Lord Altrincham to the Egyptian Treaty negotiations. As your Lordships know, I am the head, under Mr. Bevin, of course, of the British Treaty Delegation, and it would not be proper for me to deal with the matter of the negotiations. However, it might be of interest to your Lordships to know how the matter stands at the moment. I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said about Sidky Pasha. He is seventy-two years of age, and he is a sick man and went straight back to bed in Cairo. While here he carried on from his bedroom in Claridges with amazing patriotic courage. I think we all agree that that is admirable.
He did not come here to negotiate, and for this reason: that he was not authorized to negotiate. He came here as Prime Minister, as head of the Government, with

911
his Foreign Secretary. The negotiations are advised on—I suppose that is the right word—by the Royal Commission in Egypt appointed by King Farouk and consisting of twelve members including no less than five Egyptian statesmen who have held the rank of Prime Minister in their own country. What Sidky Pasha came here to do was to explain quite clearly, and face to face with Mr. Bevin, how Egypt felt; and without going into the question in detail I can at any rate, after six months' work there, bear testimony to the fact that the feeling in Egypt is very strong and unanimous. Sidky Pasha has now gone back and on Friday he is going to meet his full delegation and receive their advice on the talks which he had with Mr. Bevin.
There has in the meantime of course been a flood of Press rumour. Sidky Pasha has, I believe, issued from his office in Cairo to-day, a statement denying the authenticity of one interview that was attributed to him. Hadi Pasha has also issued a statement asking the Egyptians—and the Arabic Press is extremely imaginative; pay it that tribute—not to be too much moved by what appears in the papers. I hope that may be the general spirit and that I am not going too far in saying that from this House there should come a wish that these negotiations should succeed and build an alliance upon what is an existing friendship.
5.57 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I am sure every one of your Lordships will have heard with real pleasure and, I may say, with comfort what my noble friend behind me has just said. He consulted me beforehand. The noble Lord knew the facts much better than I did, and I felt it would be altogether to the advantage of the situation and to the satisfaction of your Lordships if he spoke on the subject, as he has done. As to the other subjects raised in the debate, I do not think myself that there are many points upon which I need add much to what was said by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, but there are a few additional comments which perhaps call for some short reply. It seems to me, my Lords, that the whole course of the debate shows that in this distracted world, torn as it is by all
912
kinds of conflicting interests and ambitions, perhaps inevitable after a destructive and widespread war such as we have had, those who are responsible for guiding our foreign policy through this maze of difficulties are charged with an immense responsibility and one as difficult as can be imagined. Therefore one has only to call to notice what was said about the work the Foreign Secretary is doing.
I am not proposing to traverse the ground; it is not my particular domain although I am intimately familiar with most of what has been going on. I would like to say, however, how much I appreciate some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, with regard to the Middle East. He emphasized the necessity of adopting a policy which will develop the resources of the Middle East. I do not think he could have said a truer word. What strikes me, when I look at some of these vast territories, is how little the people have moved in the direction of bettering their conditions of life for a very long time, almost centuries. I am also struck—and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, is more intimately aware of them than I am—with the possibilities of development in the Middle East. But that must depend on establishing confidence and friendship between ourselves and the Arab States. That only reinforces, amongst other things, the importance of the Egyptian negotiations.
The broad purpose of promoting the general development and well-being of all these territories in what we describe as the Middle East has been charged particularly as a duty to our Middle East Organization. This body has been set up and is charged to help in all matters affecting the problems of agriculture, irrigation, health services, social services and matters of that kind. I am quite sure, as the noble Lord said, that in seeking, as a more forward nation, to help to improve the lot of those less advanced, we are makings very material contribution towards the establishment of peaceful conditions. I put it no higher than that. I have said myself on more than one occasion, in other words, what the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, said, as to the necessity of Governments abating, shall I say, their conceptions of a narrow nationalism. It is perfectly evident that unless we are prepared and can persuade other people along with ourselves to abate

913
the claims and ambitions of the narrower, old-fashioned type of nationalism, we shall never secure that co-operation in the world which is absolutely vital if we are going to have a world at peace.
I do not think I will follow him—or indeed the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow—in his admonition of the Government and his reflections upon some of the campaigns (with which we are just as well acquainted as he is) which are being inaugurated, and many of which are, as he says, full of disparagement of this country. We do not take the view which he would, I fancy, like us to take—namely, that the right policy if a man shouts at you, is to shout back at him louder than he has shouted at you. Somehow or other that does not strike us as being the way to get amicability amongst the nations, and therefore we do not propose to adopt trie method which I gather he wishes us to adopt. If we were to start replying, through our organizations, to every disparagement of ourselves we should be very fully occupied. In any case, we should most of the time only be giving the other man a chance to start another hare and we would be chivvying around in all directions to nobody's advantage. That is not our method. I myself do not think it is either wise or efficacious, and so I do not propose to follow him in that way.
Our suggestion is that we should use our organizations (and they are pretty comprehensive and fairly efficient) to spread the truth and to let the facts be known, in the confident hope that in the course of time they will wear down suspicions and that these flaming distrusts will die out. Apart altogether from any question of dignity, I am perfectly certain that the right policy for us to adopt when we are exposed to various disparagements is not to squabble with the other man about everything he invents but to pursue our course, making known the facts as efficiently and as well as^ we can, being studiously fair and moderate, pursuing peace by all practical means and, above all, helping other people to improve the lot of those in the world who are at the present time rather backward. Anyhow, that is the policy of the Middle East Office. I do not think myself, speaking generally, that the recriminatory method is the right one to adopt.
914
As to what he said about ships, I can tell the noble Earl that all those considerations have been present to our minds. The British Admiralty is not proposing to scrap ships which it thinks we ought to keep. None of these decisions have been taken except upon the advice of those concerned, particularly of the Admiralty. We are fully aware of what is being done with regard to the disposal of a certain number of surplus ships and I think your Lordships will agree that on the whole the right course is being taken and that it is not unreasonable that these small ships to which the noble Lord referred should be made over to the Norwegians and others in different directions to some of whom he referred.
I am sure that I wish the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, could do all that he wants, but] am afraid that if he lectured our Allies as I rather suspected he was lecturing us, he would find it was not a very advantageous method of proceeding and that it would not get him very far. We are just as well aware as he is of the fact that the Potsdam Agreement has not been carried out. We have said so many times and the Foreign Secretary has spoken with great frankness about it. We have formally given notice that we consider' ourselves free to propose a revision of it. I am afraid that it is not so easy as the noble Lord suggests to bring about the observation of the Potsdam Agreement as to treating Germany as an economic whole. This is, what we should like to do and what we have been striving to do, and, if the noble Lord could suggest some procedure whereby we could make more effective progress in that direction, I am quite; sure that nobody would be more grateful to him than the Foreign Secretary. Merely scolding people, however, will not do it; it does not have the slightest effect.
As to what the noble Lord said about the destruction of factories in our area, I can only answer that by saying that I should be glad if at some time he would provide me with details of the cases to which he refers. Although in the early months certain factories which could make fertilizers, for instance, were being dismantled, it was quite evident that that was a foolish procedure and those factories have been brought into operation again, because if you are going to produce food

915
from the land, even in our zone in Germany, you must have fertilizers. The same policy is being applied to many other industries, particularly those industries ancillary to getting timber out of Germany. One of our biggest difficulties (it is very seriously handicapping our housing programme and will do so next year) is the delay in getting timber from Germany. But, when you come to look into the actual facts, to get timber from Germany means supplies of labour, supplies of tractors, river boats, repair shops and a hundred other things of that kind, all of which we have got in hand. It is no good the noble Lord shaking his head at me like that, because I happen to know the facts. That is so; we are making the most strenuous efforts and have been for months past with as efficient a timber organization as I should think there is anywhere. We got the very best people we could find and sent them over there, charged with this very duty. We are making very active efforts, and if the noble Lord can suggest any improvements I shall be only too glad to listen to them; but merely scolding us does not get us anywhere.
LORD BEVERIDGE: Would the noble Viscount allow me to suggest one improvement? His Majesty's Government could have got ahead more quickly with some reconstruction if they had not been expending energy on destruction. My suggestion is less destruction; stop destruction at once. That is my positive suggestion.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That does not help me very much because we stopped destruction a long time ago. As a matter of fact, some considerable time ago we refused to go on with the dismantling of certain factories, although they were more or less allied to war industries, because we did not think it served any valuable or useful purpose. We are doing everything we can to develop, for example, the production of coal in the Ruhr, the provision of timber—getting it moved to the ports, getting it shipped and getting machinery to ship it—and the provision of fertilizers for the land. I quite agree with the noble Lord that it is altogether a lop-sided business to try to run Germany in separate compartments as it is now. Nobody knows that better than we do, and that is why we should
916
like to treat Germany as an economic whole. If we could persuade all the others concerned to co-operate in that endeavour, it would be a very good thing. We have made an arrangement with our allies in the American zone and now we are beginning to get agreement on a pooling system which will operate very extensively with regard to food and many other things. I can only hope and pray that that pooling and co-operation will, as rapidly as possible, be extended to the whole of Germany.
That is the way in which to make Germany self-supporting and it is because these services have not been unified over the whole of Germany that the British taxpayer has had to pay for a lot of food to go into our zone. I think it is quite possible that if we had as much food as could have been got perhaps from the eastern side of Germany, we should not have to spend so much in sending food across the Atlantic to our zone. We are painfully aware of these facts and have been for a long time. We are striving our best to get them rectified, and we should be glad of any useful suggestions. I would only like to say, as I think the Foreign Secretary emphasized in the speech he made in another place a few days ago, that we are making special efforts in concert with our Allies to promote co-operation of the different parts of Germany and so to make it a self-supporting whole.
I quite agree with what the noble Lord said, or suggested, that it is impossible to imagine that we shall be able to make progress in the settlement of the world if we anticipate that there is going to be a sort of dependent State right in the middle of Europe, consisting of some of the most skilled people in the world. That is an impossible suggestion. It is one of the big series of questions which, as the House knows, is due to be taken up between the four Foreign Ministers after the end of the present conferences, and I only hope—and I am sure the whole House hopes—that success may attend their efforts. All I have to say is that nobody is more painfully aware of the distracted state of the world than His Majesty's Government. But we believe that the continuous practice of forbearance and patience, including firmness where required, will gradually help to allay suspicions which are plaguing the

917
world at the present time. Somebody asked me in this House some time ago what my prescription was in connexion with these matters, and on the spur of the moment I made a reply which I would venture, without egotism, to go back to. I said it seemed to me that what was wanted in the world, above all, was at least twenty years of patence and straightforward dealing, and I believe, my Lords, that that is still true.
6.12 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, I do not think I need detain your Lordships with an extensive reply upon the debate, but I should like, before withdrawing my Motion, to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the answers and assurances he gave me, and also to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for his intervention in the debate, which I thought, to say the least, a very timely one. It has removed some of our anxieties. We share with him to the full the desire that there should be nothing to cloud the complete friendliness 'between ourselves and the Egyptian people. What we want is a partnership of an equal kind. To be frank, as he knows, my heart is still very much in Egypt. The only thing I fear is that in Egypt everybody may feel—and I am talking now about the leaders of the Egyptian people—very strongly the importance of sentiment. I think we on our side have got to emphasize the importance of reality, to which sentiment is sometimes rather a stranger. That is very important at present. I think we must also emphasize the fact that there cannot be a vacuum. What we must ultimately have in future, if there is to be security in Egypt, is some broad arrangement on a regional basis, such as is contemplated in the Charter of the United Nations. I am sure we are all agreed upon that.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, introduced the subject of economic development, because that also I have very much at heart. There is only one correction I would make in what he said. That is that the Eastern Office presides over what remains of the Middle Eastern Office. It was very efficient in the past, but I am afraid it is not so at the present moment. That is the situation. The Middle Eastern Office has collapsed. I very much regret that I am
918
profoundly in disaccord with His Majesty's Government. I very much regret they have allowed it to collapse and I hope they will revive it at an early date. The three reports to which the noble Lord referred are of the utmost importance. They are brilliantly written and based on the most careful study. I may say there is a fourth report which emanated from action taken in the period when I was out there, the report of Professor Pearse. I hope that that also may be made available. I do not know why it has not, because it is one of the most interesting reports, and the fact of its existence has been public knowledge for a very long time past. I think that fourth report ought certainly to be added to the three which have already been published.
As to the controversy between the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, I think I had better not intervene, but I think I should say this to the noble Viscount opposite; forbearance is a very good thing and, of course, we have got to secure to the utmost extent possible the co-operation of the other United Powers. I referred to this international question in my speech, but I hope that in pursuing forbearance and in trying to get agreement we shall not forget that ultimately everything depends upon our leadership in Western Europe. If we do not lead the thing will collapse, and if we have a criticism to make of His Majesty's Government it is that there has not been a clear enough lead in the last fifteen months. I began to see signs of it in the Foreign Secretary's speech in another place, and I believe His Majesty's Government are going forward on the right lines. We wish them strength of purpose; we wish them clearness of statement; and in the very vital conferences in which we are engaged we warmly wish Mr. Bevin success. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BANBURY CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  COMMITTEE ON SERVICE APPEALS.
  COMMITTEE ON SERVICE APPEALS.
  LAND IN PAYMENT OF DEATH DUTIES.
  LAND IN PAYMENT OF DEATH DUTIES.