Sitting of 24 November 1948

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

    Airport, Northern Ireland (Buildings)
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is aware that the buildings at the civil airport terminus at Nutt's Corner in Northern Ireland are inadequate, unsuitable and unworthy of such a place; and when proper buildings will be provided.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): Yes, Sir. Passengers will, however, be using a new adequate, suitable and workmanlike interim building from the end of this week.
    Sir R. Ross: Will the Northern Ireland Advisory Council have any responsibility for the upkeep of this terminus?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, that is the responsibility of the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

    Corporations (Reorganisation Scheme)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is being consulted on the detailed scheme and its application for the reorganisation of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.C. now proceeding, in the preparation of which two members of his Department are being associated.
    Mr. Lindgren: The Deputy Chairman of British Overseas Airways Corporation has been assigned by the Board executive responsibility for carrying out the recently announced plan of reorganisation of that Corporation. British European Airways have invited the assistance of a firm of
    1216
    consultant engineers in the overhaul of their organisation. In each case the official of the Ministry appointed by my noble Friend is in close touch with the work involved, and my noble Friend is being kept informed of progress.
    Mr. Cooper: Has my hon. Friend received any representations to the effect that recruitments are taking place almost as fast as reductions of staff? Can he assure me that any long-term service agreements obtained by any members of the staff will not be allowed to stand in the way of reorganisation, for instance, those which have been obtained by the General Manager for External Affairs and the Technical Developments Officer? In the latter case great concern has been expressed about the way in which the aircraft development programme, particularly of Tudors, has been handled.
    Mr. Lindgren: I have no information about the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary. As regards the second, any group of employers must observe the legal implications of any contract; apart from that consideration, no obstacles stand in the way of reorganisation.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does the association of the hon. Gentleman's Department in the reorganisation of the Corporations mean any change in the relationship between the Minister and the Corporations, because we have been told that the Minister would not interfere with the internal organisation of the Corporations, which were to be run as business concerns?
    Mr. Lindgren: There is no alteration in the relationship, but the Minister and the Boards have their different functions and responsibilities. The closer the co-operation between the Minister and the Boards of the Corporations, the better the service is likely to be.
    Mr. Edgar Granville: As public funds are involved in the deficit of the Corporations, and as the Ministry are represented on them, is it intended to make a report to Parliament, by means of a White Paper, in connection with any reorganisation which may be involved?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, nothing other than the annual reports of the Corporations.

    Airfields, Castel Benito and Malta
    Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how much has been spent on the development of airfields at Castel Benito and Malta respectively, since 1st January, 1946.
    Mr. Lindgren: Both Castel Benito and Luqa (Malta) aerodromes are jointly used by military and civil aviation. The expenditure on combined military and civil account in developing runways and taxiways during the period from 1st January, 1946, to 31st July, 1948, was £4,100 at Castel Benito and £52,600 at Luqa.
    Commander Noble: Could the hon. Gentleman differentiate between that which was spent on behalf of B.O.A.C.?
    Mr. Lindgren: I cannot give the actual division of costs between the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Air Ministry, but it will be shown in their respective Votes.
    Commander Noble: Would it not have been better if the £4,100 had been spent in a British colony, and not in a foreign country?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, both aerodromes are jointly used by Royal Air Force and civil operators.
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, what are the sizes of the runways at Castel Benito and Luqa, Malta, respectively.
    Mr. Lindgren: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Can the Minister tell the House which of the two runways is the longer?
    Mr. Lindgren: The longest runway is at Castel Benito. The length of a runway is not the only factor governing its operational suitability. Bearing strength, over-shoots and the degree of slope are also factors to be taken into account.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the unemployment at Malta, is it not possible for Luqa to be enlarged and made suitable to receive aircraft by day and night?
    Mr. Speaker: The Question asked was about the sizes of runways and not about unemployment in Malta.
    Following is the reply:

    Airfield

    Length of runway

    Width of runway

    Feet

    Feet

    Castel Benito

    North/South

    7,275

    150

    East/West

    4,950

    150

    Northeast / Southwest

    4,950

    150

    Luqa

    Northeast / Southwest

    6,000

    150

    Northwest / Southeast

    5,528

    150

    Service, Edinburgh-London
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many passengers for London have been carried by motor from Edinburgh to Renfrew by B.E.A.C. since the suspension of the direct Edinburgh—London air service on 1st November.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am informed that 30 passengers for London were carried by motor car from Edinburgh to Renfrew by British European Airways Corporation during the period 1st to 9th November inclusive, and 36 in the reverse direction.
    Lieut. - Commander Hutchison: Does the Minister consider this arrangement is a satisfactory substitute in practice for the service between Edinburgh and London?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, it is not a satisfactory substitute, but I must point out that the load factor is almost as high as it was on the direct service.
    Mr. Willis: Does my hon. Friend intend to continue this for the whole of the time until the service is resumed?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. So long as Edinburgh requires air communication with the South, using Renfrew in default of Turnhouse, then this service will remain available.

    Turnhouse Aerodrome
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he can give an assurance that the proposed alterations and additional navigational aids at Turnhouse

    1219
    Aerodrome will provide Edinburgh with an aerodrome capable of meeting estimated future requirements all the year round; and when it is expected they will be completed.
    Mr. Lindgren: A programme of improvements specifically designed to make Turnhouse suitable for all-the-year-round Dakota services is being prepared by the Scottish Aerodromes Board. We shall aim to do whatever work is necessary before the end of summer. 1949.
    Mr. Willis: Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him if he will make sure that this promise is actually fulfilled, because we have had promises in the past?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, if my hon. Friend can make sure that the service will be adequately used when it is provided.

    B.E.A. Services (Stoppage)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances which led to the recent cessation of British European Airways services.
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir.
    Mr. Beswick: If our nationalised corporations are to be really efficient is it not essential that joint consultation machinery should work effectively and would not useful lessons for the future be learned if we examined why the machinery did not work in this recent incident? If the trade unions concerned ask for an inquiry will my hon. Friend encourage the holding of an inquiry?
    Mr. Lindgren: As to the first part of the supplementary, in this instance at least I am satisfied that the management of the British European Airways Corporation used the machinery correctly, both in spirit and in the letter. As to the latter part of the supplementary, if the application comes from the trade unions as distinct from individual trade unionists then I think it would be considered; but individual trade unionists should make their application through the correct channels of the trade union machine.
    Mr. Beswick: Yes, but if my hon. Friend is now saying that the men were
    1220
    wrong, would not an inquiry show where they went wrong so that they would act differently in the future?
    Mr. Lingdren: That may be, but surely such instruction is the function of the trade union organisation and not of my Ministry as a Ministry.

    Accidents (Inquiry)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will now make a statement about the procedure for investigating accidents to civil aircraft; and if he will reconsider the decision not to publish the report of the Newton Committee.
    Mr. Lindgren: As the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Beswick: Will this report now be made available for interested Members?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. The report is now available in the Vote Office and attached to it is a memorandum from my noble Friend setting out the new procedure for investigations and the reasons why some of the recommendations of the report are not accepted.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Has the hon. Gentleman received permission from the Belgian Government for the publication of the report on the Sabena accident at Heathrow in March, 1948.
    Mr. Lindgren: That is an entirely different question. If the hon. Gentleman will put it down I will give him an answer.
    Following is the reply:
    The procedure for investigating accidents to civil aircraft has been occupying the attention of my noble Friend and that of his predecessor for a considerable time. My noble Friend's predecessor referred the question to a sub-Committee of the National Civil Aviation Consultative Council presided over by Mr. C. M. Newton, which submitted a valuable report. Since assuming office my noble Friend has been examining the matter in the light of this report and of the wider considerations which arise. As a result, while not going so far as the Committee propose, he has decided to make a number of modifications in the present practice.
    My noble Friend's predecessor had not intended to publish the Committee's report in view of the confidential relationship between the Minister and the National Civil Aviation Consultative Council. However, after reviewing the particular circumstances and consulting the Council, my noble Friend has decided that the report should be published, though this is not to be taken as establishing any precedent for the future. The report will be accompanied by a memorandum setting out in detail the modifications which he has decided to make in the present practice, and the reasons for which he is unable to accept certain recommendations in the report. My noble Friend has arranged for publication of the report and memorandum as a Command Paper which will be available to hon. Members today.
    My noble Friend wishes to take this opportunity, in which I wish to join, to pay sincere tribute to the work of the Newton Committee. Their report is a most valuable document, and my noble Friend is much indebted to them for the care and thoroughness with which they performed their difficult task.

    Boeing Stratocruisers
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will now make a statement giving the estimated date of delivery of six Boeing Stratocruisers ordered for B.O.A.C.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am informed that, according to the latest estimate, the first of the six aircraft on order should be delivered in July of next year, and that delivery should be completed by the end of October.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: If, as it appears, these aircraft are late in delivery, is there a penalty clause which will be operated against the manufacturers for late delivery?
    Mr. Lindgren: The penalty clause in the contract is such that certain contingencies are excluded from the responsibility of the manufacturer. Amongst these are strikes, type modifications and certain rulings by the C.A.A. Boeings had a strike which lasted from April to September, 1948, and delivery dates are correspondingly bad.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: When does the hon. Gentleman expect the aircraft to be put into service.
    Mr. Lindgren: I would require notice to give a factual reply to that supplementary question, but the date originally intended when the contract was placed in May, 1947, was six months from the date of delivery.

  GREECE (BRITISH POLICE MISSION)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now prepared to withdraw the British Police Mission from Greece.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): No, Sir.
  Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the Greek police are the instruments of law and order and that we are training them through our Police Mission, does not my hon. Friend think that that conflicts with the statement that we are not responsible for the administration of Greek justice?
  Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir, I do not think there is any conflict there. We are responsible for advising on the organisation and training of the police, but that is a different matter from being responsible for the administration of justice in Greece.

  BRUSSELS TREATY
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken in accordance with Article 54 of the United Nations Charter to keep the Security Council fully informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation by the regional arrangement of the Brussels Treaty Powers for the maintenance of international peace and security.
  Mr. Mayhew: As my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, informed my hon. Friend on 15th November, the Brussels Treaty organisation rests, so far as the maintenance of international peace and security is concerned, on Article 51 of the Charter. The point raised in my hon. Friend's Question does not, therefore, arise.
  Mr. Warbey: Do I take it from my hon. Friend's reply that we do not intend to carry out the clear terms of the Charter as set down in Article 54 in reporting to the Security Council all the arrangements contemplated by the Brussels Treaty Powers in connection with the maintenance of peace and security?
  Mr. Mayhew: Certainly there is no intention of not fulfilling the Charter, but as I have explained, Article 54 does not apply in this case.
  Mr. Warbey: How can my hon. Friend say that there is no intention of not fulfilling the Charter when the Charter is quite specific on this point and lays down a definite procedure to be followed in the case of regional arrangements, and the Prime Minister has said this is a regional arrangement?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not make a speech; he may only ask a supplementary question.
  Mr. Piratin: Is it not the case that Article 51 deals specifically with the case of aggression, and in such case the individual Power or number of Powers may co-operate for protection? How then can the Prime Minister answer that this is different from Article 54, and could the hon. Gentleman say what aggression has taken place?
  Mr. Mayhew: In reply to that point, Article 51 refers to measures taken by members in the exercise of their inherent right of self-defence which must be immediately reported to the Security Council. It does not say that members must report to the Security Councils steps taken by them in order to ensure that they shall be in a position to defend themselves. In reply to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey), I would merely say that the arrangements we contemplate are not regional associations under Chapter 8 to which Article 54 refers.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Will my hon. Friend at least try to see to it that the Foreign Ministers of Britain, France and Belgium, as the chief negotiators of the Brussels Treaty, keep the Foreign Ministers of Britain, France and Belgium, as members of the Security Council, fully informed of what is going on?

  ROUMANIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements for the receipt of medical attention are available for British subjects now residing in Roumania.
  Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has carefully considered the possibility of establishing a special medical scheme, but so far this has not been found practicable. Apart from a limited supply of drugs for emergency cases held at the British Legation, British subjects needing medical attention rely on the facilities which are locally available.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the hon. Gentleman mean by that that there is no English-speaking doctor available in Bucharest for the use of the foreign service stationed out there, and has no agreement been entered into with the Americans for the provision of a doctor for their mutual convenience?
  Mr. Mayhew: In the first place, cannot say whether there is any English-speaking doctor available. As to the second part of the supplementary, we have not yet been able to reach an arrangement with the United States, but we have not given up hope of doing so.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is not one of the difficulties that Roumanian doctors who are seen going to the British Embassy are afraid of being maltreated afterwards?

  JUBALAND
  Mr. Baldwinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the future of Jubaland.
  Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. Jubaland was ceded to Italy under the Treaty signed in London on 15th July, 1924, and now forms part of former Italian Somaliland, the disposal of which is to be considered by the General Assembly of the United Nations at its present session under the terms of the Italian Peace Treaty.
  Mr. Baldwin: Before any decision is arrived at, will the hon. Gentleman consult the elected members of the Kenya Legislature, who think that Jubaland should be returned to Kenya?
  Mr. Mayhew: The restoration of Juba-land to Kenya is another question.

  GERMANY

    Extraditions
    Mr. Marloweasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, in view of the decision to stop extradition of alleged war criminals from the British zone of Germany as from 1st September, except in cases of murder, two Poles, named Lotz and Westphal, were transported from Fuhlsbüttel Gaol to Poland on 18th October, although the Extradition Court had not found a prima facie case of murder; why no action was taken in response to a telegram from the Bishop of Hamburg to his Department asking for a reprieve while further evidence was secured for the defence; and what steps he has taken to satisfy himself these men will receive a fair trial.
    Mr. Mayhew: The Military Governor's decision was to restrict acceptance of applications submitted after 1st September to those which show a clear prima facie case of murder as defined in the German Penal Code. The application for the extradition of Lots and Wetphal was submitted before 1st September. On 15th October a telegram asking that their extradition should be deferred was received from Oberkirchenrat Herntrich of Hamburg and its contents immediately communicated by telephone to the Military Government authorities. Responsibility rests upon Poland to ensure a fair trial under a United Nations Resolution and His Majesty's Government cannot undertake to enforce this Resolution.
    Mr. Marlowe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these prisoners and others similarly situated have appealed to be tried by British courts? Will he stop this senseless hypocrisy of sending extradited people to countries where he knows they will not get a fair trial?
    Mr. Mayhew: I should make it clear to the House that, as far as the trials of war criminals are concerned, we have no evidence to suggest that the Polish trials are unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Stokes: While that may very well be, does not my hon. Friend consider it about time that this thoroughly un-British practice ceased? Is he aware that nothing so calculatedly vile has ever been perpetrated on a conquered people since the days of the barbaric Assyrian kings?
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has made it clear to the House that he wishes to wind up all this business as quickly as possible. We have, therefore, since 1st September, refused to accept new applications for extradition. There are, however, some cases which have still to be cleared up.
    Mr. Marlowe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a few days after 18th October, when these two prisoners were extradited, the evidence required arrived from Brussels, and that if he had deferred trial, these men would not have been sent to their death in this way?
    Mr. Mayhew: That is not so. The evidence was carefully considered. It was considered by our legal advisers to have no bearing on the matter.
    Mr. Scollan: Are steps being taken to ensure that this country does not become the asylum for every rogue in Europe?

    Berlin (Proposed Four-Power Meeting)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Dominions were consulted before the decision to reject the proposal made by Dr. Evatt and Mr. Trygve Lie.
    Mr. Mayhew: It is incorrect to state that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom rejected the proposal made by the President of the Assembly and the Secretary-General. In their reply His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom renewed their statement that they are fully prepared to agree to a Four Power meeting to discuss Berlin and other outstanding German questions as soon as the present restrictions on communications, transport and trade between Berlin and the Western zones of Germany have been removed, but said that under existing circumstances they felt the most hopeful method of reaching a solution of this problem would be to leave it, as it stands at present, in the hands of the Security Council.

    1227
    The terms of the reply on this question were, of course, the responsibility of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, but in accordance with their normal practice in regard to questions of foreign policy, they informed other Commonwealth Governments of their views.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether in this action in regard to the proposal he had the support of the Australian Government?
    Mr. Mayhew: We had no reactions to the information we sent to the Australian Government. At the same time, of course, we are in close contact with their delegation in Paris.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Gentleman able to say whether the Security Council is making any satisfactory progress towards a solution of the Berlin deadlock?
    Mr. Mayhew: That is a different question.

  BYELO-RUSSIA
  Mr. Marplesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what form of diplomatic relations His Majesty's Government have with Byelo-Russia.
  Mr. Mayhew: His Majesty's Government have no diplomatic relations with Byelo-Russia.
  Mr. Marples: In view of the fact that Byelo-Russia is represented at U.N.O. and has voting power there, does not the hon. Gentleman consider it desirable to have a proper accredited mission to that country?
  Mr. Mayhew: When Ukraine and Byelo-Russia were admitted to the United Nations, His Majesty's Government suggested to Ukraine, as the larger of those two States, that we should exchange diplomatic representatives. The request was made through the medium of the Soviet Government, and no reply has been received. In these circumstances it was not considered worth while addressing a request to Byelo-Russia.
  Mr. Gammans: Is there any other full member of U.N.O. with whom His Majesty's Government have no direct representation? Does the hon. Gentleman
  1228
  regard Byelo-Russia as having anything except a fictional existence?
  Mr. Mayhew: I have already mentioned Ukraine as another member of the United Nations with whom we have no diplomatic relations. In reply to the last part of the supplementary question, I do note that access to the capitals of these countries by diplomats in Moscow is denied by the Soviet authorities.
  Mr. Marples: In view of the fact that the representations by His Majesty's Government were made a long time ago, will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend make representations again to Russia to see if we can possibly get a representative there?
  Mr. Mayhew: If we have any reason to believe that our representations will be more successful, we will repeat them.

  TRANSJORDAN AND PALESTINE (BRITISH TROOPS)
  Mr. George Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the letter sent by the Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs to the personal representative of the U.N. Acting Mediator in Tel Aviv regarding British troops in Transjordan and Palestine; and what reply he has made.
  Mr. Mayhew: No such letter has been brought to my notice.
  Mr. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is alleged in that letter—he appears to be the only one not to have had notice of it—that British troops have moved into Transjordan? Would he give a flat contradiction to that statement?
  Mr. Mayhew: I am aware of allegations to that effect, but I deny them.

  HONG KONG (CHINESE COMMUNISTS)
  Mr. Fitzroy Macleanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to prevent the use of Hong Kong by Chinese Communists as a safe base for their activities against the Chinese Government.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): The activities of the Chinese Communists in Hong Kong are closely watched and deportation proceed-

  1229
  ings are in train in several cases where it has been found that Communists were attempting to use Hong Kong as a base for activities against the Chinese Government.
  Sir R. Ross: What steps are taken by the Government of Hong Kong to check the entry of people from the mainland of China into Hong Kong?
  Mr. Creech Jones: That is another question, and a very difficult one. If the hon. Member will put it down, I shall be very glad to answer it.
  Mr. John Paton: Will my right hon. Friend see that the greatest care is exercised not to restrict the right of asylum for Chinese liberals and democrats as well as Communists so long as they conform to the law of the Colony?
  Mr. Creech Jones
  Mr. Gammans: In view of the fact that the Government were obviously caught napping over a similar situation in Malaya, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that they will not be caught napping in Hong Kong?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I do not at all accept the insinuation that the Government were caught napping. I would most completely repudiate the suggestion. So far as Hong Kong is concerned, the problem is very much before us, and I do not wish to add to the difficulties by making a statement now.

  MAURITIUS

    Sugar Industry
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many women and how many children are employed in the sugar industry in Mauritius; what are their rates of pay; and whether he is satisfied with the existing position.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The reply is long and contains figures. I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mrs. Middleton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any action has yet been taken to implement the recommendations in the Report of the Mauritius Economic Mission regarding the setting up of day nurseries, the provision of meals for school children, and helping
    1230
    workers to get nourishing food in view of the enhanced cost of living?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That supplementary question relates to the subject of another Question.
    Following is the reply:
    The average monthly figures for 1947 were: Women 15,260 and juveniles 3,926. The latter figure includes some children of 12–14 years of age employed on very light work. The minimum age of employment in agriculture is 12 years. I have no figures as to the number of children of 12–14 years who are so employed.
    The wage rates vary according as the person is employed by the month or by the day and in the latter case, according to task. The rates for the period 1st July to 31st December, 1948, including cost of living allowance and other bonuses, are approximately:
    Women, young persons and children employed on a monthly basis—

    Women—Rs.33–38 a month.

    Young persons—Rs.33–38 a month.

    Children—Rs.26.50 a month.

    Rates for daily workers—

    Women—Rs.1.05–1.25.

    Young persons—Rs.1.05.

    Children—70 cents.

    (1 rupee=1 s. 6d.)

    In the case of monthly workers an end of crop bonus is paid which ranges from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. of the workers' earnings during the crop period. Monthly paid workers work an 8-hour day. The task of a daily paid worker is based on 8 hours normal work but it does not in fact exceed 6 hours. The working week is one of six days, except for women and children, where it is five days.
    In 1947 the actual wages earned each month exceeded the then minimum rates. In July 1948 these rates were increased by 26 per cent. in the case of monthly workers and 16⅔ per cent. in the case of daily workers and are shown above.
    As regards the third part of the Question, the present wage rates were the result of an arbitration award which became effective from the 1st July this year. I understand that the Mauritius Economic Commission whose Report was

    1231
    published in August this year found that the employment of women and children is necessary, particularly during the harvest period and for certain field operations. It is an aim of policy of the Government of Mauritius to limit the employment of women and children, especially during the inter-crop period, to suitable types of work, and I understand that the Labour Department in co-operation with local trade unions is working towards this end.

    Economic Commission (Recommendations)
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the recommendations of the Mauritius Economic Commission have been accepted by the local Government and what action has, so far, been taken.
    Mr. Creech Jones: This is the Question to which my hon. Friend's supplementary question referred.
    The recommendations following the comprehensive inquiry of the Commission and published in September, 1948, are in course of examination by the Government of Mauritius.
    Mrs. Middleton: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his guidance, and in the circumstances I will not repeat my supplementary question for reply at this stage?

  AFRICAN COLONIES

    Press Information, Nigeria
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the result of his investigations into the circumstances in which a telegram was sent to his Department by Press Officer, Nigeria, containing a suggestion for the exclusive use of its contents by two specified newspapers.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. I have identified the telegram in question. The suggestion in this telegram that it should be exclusive for two papers was due to a local misinterpretation of a remark by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that its contents would be of
    1232
    particular interest to those papers. My hon. Friend had no intention of suggesting that circulation of the message should be limited in any way, and he had made arrangements before his tour began that all messages relating to it would be sent to Reuters Agency and to those Colonial specialist papers in London most closely concerned with West Africa. The telegram in question was sent to them at the time when copies were passed to "Reynolds News" and the "Daily Herald" and it was therefore available to the whole of the Press through Reuters and the linked agency of the Press Association.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that his officers in Colonial territories now understand that information services should be available to all newspapers and agencies, and that they are not to act as exclusive correspondents?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I answered that question a fortnight ago.
    Mr. Benn Levy: Have my right hon. Friend's investigations disclosed how it comes about that these private official communications come to have been accessible to hon. Members of this House?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I think the telegram was issued with these words on it. These words were struck out, but it was an unfortunate mistake in my own office.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman regret that this matter should have been made public and an explanation been given of it?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Cobb: Will my right hon. Friend say how it is that hon. Gentlemen opposite came to see this telegram?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have no information on that point.
    Mr. Piratin: M.I.5.

    Game-free Zone
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with the scheme for the game-free zone along the Tanganyika-

    1233
    Northern Rhodesian border; how many head of wild game have been slaughtered since its inception; and will he give an estimate of the success of the scheme.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The game-free area was closed down in May, 1947. A large number of smaller game animals was shot but I am not in possession of detailed figures. I am advised that the fence, combined with controlled shooting of game and immunization of cattle was successful in preventing the spread of rinderpest southwards.
    Mr. Baldwin: Will the Minister make other inquiries in regard to this costly experiment, where something like 200 miles of fencing were destroyed and the wild animals were just as numerous after as before the four years' shooting took place?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have been in touch with the local Governments about it, and they declare that the experiment was successful.

  JAMAICA

    Illiteracy
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the approximate percentage of illiteracy in Jamaica among adults; among young people between the ages of 14 and 21; among children under 14; and what percentage of the children now regularly attend school.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The approximate figures of illiteracy are—adults of 20 years and over, 27 per cent., persons 15 to 19 years, 16 per cent., children 7 to 14 years, 26 per cent. The percentage of regular attendance at public elementary schools of children of 7 to 14 years is 54.
    Mr. Driberg: Since this largely illiterate population has universal adult suffrage, will my right hon. Friend do all he can to encourage general education and education in citizenship such as that provided by institutions like the Institute and the new University?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, the new University has now set up an extramural Department, and Mr. Springer is actively engaged in organising adult education work.

    Housing
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the overcrowded and squalid conditions in which large numbers of people in Jamaica have to live, especially in Western Kingston, Port Royal and Spanish Town; if he can estimate approximately how many new houses will be needed to rehouse satisfactorily the bulk of these slum-dwellers, taking into account the rapid increase of population; how many new houses have been completed since 1944 by the Central Housing Authority; and how many are under construction.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Housing conditions in most of the principal towns of Jamaica are unsatisfactory. Approximately 8,000 new houses are required in West Kingston and Port Royal and 1,750 in Spanish Town to re-house the present population. Since 1944 the Central Housing Authority has completed 133 tenements, five barracks (for temporary housing) and 535 cottages. Thirty-five tenements and 121 cottages are under construction. The Authority has also completed 6,057 cottages under the hurricane rehabilitation scheme and has 741 under construction.
    Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there are any financial difficulties in the way of more extensive housing schemes?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Not at present. The local authorities are pressing on as hard as they can.
    Mr. John Lewis: Would my right hon. Friend say why it is that the scheme is so totally inadequate having regard to the numbers that are needed?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That question should be addressed to the Government of Jamaica.

    Capital Investment (Control)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the large sums of money spent on the construction of luxurious tourist hotels in Jamaica and the greater desirability of modernising sugar-growing and other forms of agriculture, of developing more productive secondary industries, and so

    1235
    of providing steadier employment for larger numbers of people, he is satisfied that the Government of Jamaica have adequate powers of controlling capital investment and directing it to socially useful purposes.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Under Regulation 9 of the Jamaica Defence (Finance) Regulations, the Government have powers of controlling capital investment. No capital issues have been made for hotel construction.
    Mr. Driberg: While fully realising the importance of the dollars involved, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that the luxury tourist industry makes no contribution at all to the social advancement of the people of the island, and is moreover an extremely unstable industry, dependent largely as it is on American booms and slumps?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, I appreciate that. There is much work to be done, and the Governor himself is taking steps to see that capital investment is properly controlled.
    Mr. Stanley: But does the right hon. Gentleman really agree with the statement that the tourist traffic is of no economic importance to the West Indies?
    An Hon. Member: He did not say that.
    Mr. Creech Jones: No, the tourist traffic has great economic importance in the case of Jamaica.
    Mr. Driberg: With respect, I did not say "economic"; I said "social"—it contributes nothing to the social advancement of the people.

  GIBRALTAR (LEGISLATURE)
  Sir R. Rossasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to set up a legislative council for Gibraltar.
  Mr. Creech Jones: His Majesty's Government had recently felt some doubt lest in a territory as small as Gibraltar the establishment of a separate legislature over and above the existing City Council might not lead to undue multiplication of
  1236
  authorities with a consequent burden of overhead expenses. I am now able to announce, however, that it has been approved that a legislature should be established as soon as the necessary constitutional instruments can be prepared and submitted to His Majesty. The separate existence of the City Council will be preserved.
  The Legislature will consist of the Governor as President, three ex-officio members, two nominated members, of whom both may and one must be unofficial, and five unofficial elected members. The constitution will contain provisions on the subject of legislation commonly found in Colonial Constitutions, including reservation to the Governor of power to pass into law any measure necessary or expedient in his opinion, in the interest of public order, public faith or good government, including defence.
  I have also proposed, and the Governor has agreed, that an expert investigation should be carried out separately into the allocation of executive responsibilities between the Central Government and the City Council with a view to securing, so far as this may not be fully achieved already, the maximum economy in the costs of administration.
  Sir R. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very distinguishable function of the municipal council, which should be an unfettered body, and the legislative body, which must be concerned with the paramount importance of Gibraltar as a strategic fortress in the Commonwealth?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, those points are very much in mind.

  MALAYA (COMPENSATION)
  Mr. Channonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to make any statement about the progress of the Committee set up in Malaya to deal with the question of what compensation should be paid to the widows of those whose lives are lost during the present disturbances in that territory.
  Sir Peter Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to make

  1237
  any statement as to what decision will be made about the compensation for the widows of those planters and other Europeans who have lost their lives as a result of recent disturbances in Malaya.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The Special Committee appointed in Malaya to consider this matter recommended a scheme which is now before the Governments of the Malay States and Settlements for their agreement prior to submission to the Federal Legislative Council.
  Mr. Channon: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a decision will be made public?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I imagine a decision will be made public. It will go before the Federated Legislative Council.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: What about those who are still suffering? What compensation or temporary compensation will be given?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Some temporary arrangements have been made in all cases of distress.
  Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if this report admits that the Government accept liability?

  CYPRUS

    Situation
    Mr. F. Macleanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement regarding the position in Cyprus.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am hoping to discuss all aspects of the position in Cyprus with the Governor during his leave in this country, and when I have done so I will consider whether any general statement is required.
    Mr. Piratin: But surely the Governor has been in this country now for three or four weeks? Has not the Minister yet been in touch with him and been able to discuss the matter?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir, I have been in touch with him.

    Mayor's Speech (Fine)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what charge, and under what law, the mayor of Famagusta, Cyprus, was recently fined £100.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The mayor of Famagusta was charged under the Assemblies, Meetings and Processions Law, about which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave information on 17th November in reply to the question by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills). The mayor had been granted a permit to address a meeting on the building workers' strike. He pleaded guilty in the court and was fined for deviating from the terms of the permit.
    Mr. Piratin: Does the Minister tell the House that a mayor was fined £100 for making a speech in his own town; and can he say what kind of law it is which exists in a Colony of the British Commonwealth which forbids a mayor to speak in his own town?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The mayor in question had already been charged and convicted nine times for similar offences.

  SINGAPORE (FILM CENSORSHIP)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what British films other than "A Tale of Two Cities," have been banned at Singapore; who is the film censor; what are his qualifications; and what kind of films has he been instructed to pass.
  Mr. Creech Jones: As regards the second and third parts of the Question, the Official Film Censor is Mr. J. Evans who, prior to his appointment had had 11 years' experience of film work in this country. As regards the first and fourth parts of the Question, I am obtaining the necessary information.
  Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister give an assurance that in the meantime, whilst he is awaiting this information, "Hamlet" will not be banned in Singapore?

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    U.S. Geologists
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why 50 U.S. geologists are being permitted to visit the Colonies; what facilities are being granted to them; why this work cannot be undertaken by British geologists; and what security measures are being taken.
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why he is asking 50 U.S. geologists to survey the coast-to-coast African railway; and why he is not inviting British geologists to do the work.
    Mr. Creech Jones: It is hoped to recruit some 25, not 50, United States geologists for attachment for three years to the Colonial Geological Service. The Service cannot obtain enough qualified British geologists, owing to the break in training during the war. It is also hoped to recruit for attachment for three years to the Directorate of Colonial Surveys 24 to 30 geodetic engineers for work in East and Central Africa, including areas where railway development is planned. The geologists and geodetic engineers will carry out the same duties and enjoy the same facilities as British members of the two Services.
    Before requesting the assistance of the American Government every effort was made to secure qualified British recruits to both these Services by advertisement and by direct contact with universities and professional bodies.
    Mr. Piratin: May I ask, first, whether in making efforts to recruit British geologists and scientists the salaries were a sufficient incentive to induce them to do the job as were, presumably, the salaries for the Americans; and, secondly, whether a reply can be given to the last part of the Question regarding security measures against these foreigners?
    Mr. Creech Jones: There is no difference in the treatment of the American geologists and our own.
    Mr. Piratin: May I have a reply to the second part of my supplementary question?
    Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say whether these United States geologists will be paid in sterling, in dollars or in convertible sterling?
    Mr. Creech Jones: They will be paid in sterling.
    Mr. Cobb: Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the American geologists will be paid exactly the same rates of pay as the British?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: With regard to the final part of the Question about security measures, are these, possibly, the same security measures as those applied to our diplomatic representatives in Moscow?
    Mr. Awbery: Can the Minister tell us how long this collaboration has been going on between the questioners who have asked Questions No. 41 and No. 72, and is it symptomatic of the future?

    Air Surveys
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many square miles of the Colonial Empire have been air-surveyed since January, 1946, by private companies; and whether he will publish details.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The air surveys by private companies have been carried out under arrangements made direct by the companies with the Colonial Governments concerned or with private firms in the Colonies, and I regret that the information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member is not available.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman know how these figures, whatever they may be, compare with those for similar work carried out by the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, sir. The private companies would not have the resources to do the large-scale work which these surveys require.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the Secretary of State say why none of the British survey companies has been asked to take part in the survey of Africa, for which Americans are being employed?
    Mr. Creech Jones: They have been doing quite a number of local schemes. It would be quite impossible for the private companies to cope with the new schemes, however, because of their size.

  SEYCHELLES (ST. ANNE'S ISLAND)
  Mr. Baldwinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the recent acquisition of the Island of St. Anne's in the Seychelles for public purposes; from whom it was bought and at what cost; and what it is proposed to do with it.
  Mr. Creech Jones: St. Anne's Island is being bought by the Seychelles Government from the War Office for £16,000. Its purchase will enable the Island's copra industry to be extended, and also the production of food for local consumption. It will provide, inter alia, 500 acres of cultivable land and a site for a model housing settlement with community centre, as well as areas for afforestation and the possible development of a fish canning industry.
  Mr. Baldwin: Will the Minister say who will be responsible for any losses which may be sustained in the course of this land nationalisation and whether those figures will be made available?
  Mr. Creech Jones: This land is very necessary for the social and economic development of these territories.
  Mr. Baldwin: That is not what I asked.

  MALTA (UNEMPLOYMENT)
  Commander Nobleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present unemployment figures for Malta.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am informed by the Government of Malta that the number of registered unemployed at the end of October was 1,818.
  Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware of the great indignation caused in Malta by the virtual closing down of B.O.A.C., and could he say whether that is in accordance with Colonial policy?
  Mr. Creech Jones: That question should be addressed to the Minister of Civil Aviation.
  Commander Noble: Could the Minister answer the latter part of my question?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Obviously, our whole policy in Colonial territories is for the extension of air facilities. A very vigorous policy has already been pursued in that direction.
  Mr. Stanley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he was consulted beforehand by the Minister of Civil Aviation and whether he agreed to the closing down of Malta Airport?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am not aware that Malta Airport has been closed down.
  1242
  Discussions are now taking place between my Department and the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

  WAR PROPAGANDA (U.N.O. RESOLUTION)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the measures which His Majesty's Government is taking in order to implement the resolution of the Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, condemning all forms of war propaganda.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No special measures are necessary since His Majesty's Government's policy entirely conforms with the request contained in the resolution referred to by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Piratin: The resolution of the United Nations Assembly special committee on this matter refers not only to the policy of Governments but to the administration of Governments in ensuring that no war-mongering was pursued by individuals within their countries and, therefore, may I ask the Prime Minister particularly whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by Bertrand Russell, in which he calls for atomic bomb warfare on Russia before they have the bomb; and what steps he has taken to prevent this war-mongering?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is mistaken. This resolution was an amendment to a resolution put forward as a Soviet draft which involved censorship measures which are not applicable in democratic countries.
  Mr. Langford-Holt: Could the Prime Minister draw his hon. Friend's attention to the fact that deeds, and not words, are the most vicious form of warmongering?
  Mr. H. D. Hughes: Is it not clear that immersion in Northern waters is not good for septuagenarians?
  Mr. Warbey: In view of the damage which can be done by such reckless statements as those referred to, will my right hon. Friend look into the possibility of making the advocacy of aggressive war a criminal offence?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot accept these statements made by my hon. Friend and I am not prepared to put in the censorship measures. I may say that some of those who are pressing this matter would probably be the first to suffer.

  ARMED FORCES

    Discharge by Purchase
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Defence what has been the average cost to those Service men who have obtained their discharge by purchase, since the reintroduction of this practice after the war, excluding all discharges that have been given free.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): About £60, Sir.
    Mr. Digby: Does not the Minister consider that this amount is rather high in view of the present rates of Service pay?
    Mr. Alexander: Certainly not in relation to today's costs of the technical training of men in the Services. I might add that the amount at present being paid on discharge seems to be no deterrent to applicants.
    Commander Noble: Would the Minister consider granting special terms to boys who joined the Navy in the early days of the war before they were able to join on short enlistment?
    Mr. Alexander: I would not like to go beyond the present practice of dealing compassionately with compassionate cases.

    Pay and Allowances
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on pay and allowances for officers and men in the Armed Forces.
    Commander Nobleasked the Minister of Defence whether he will now make a statement as a result of his inquiries into Service pay and allowances.
    Mr. Alexander: I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Co-operative Societies (Allocations)
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the strong resentment expressed by distributors and retailers in Scotland of imported turkeys, poultry, rabbits, etc., at his recent directive that co-operative societies shall receive 10 per cent. of available supplies of imported Christmas poultry; and if he will reconsider this decision.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to a number of Questions on this subject on 15th November.
    Major Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman be surprised to know that his obduracy in refusing to reverse this direction is causing great dissatisfaction in Scotland and that he is being accused throughout the length and breadth of Scotland of gross political favouritism?
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision is welcomed by millions of working class people who are members of co-operative societies and also that the poultry allocation he has decided upon might have been brought more into keeping with the 15 per cent. allocation given for meat registrations?
    Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that there is a sort of tendency not to ask questions of the Minister but to give him information, which is not really the purpose of Questions.

    Retail Managers
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Food if he will give an assurance that no retailer of any rationed food will be prosecuted under S.I., 1948, No. 2319, for employing in a managerial capacity a scheduled person, where his employment has received the consent of the Ministry of Labour in accordance with the Control of Engagement Order.
    Mr. Strachey: The possibility of such a prosecution does not arise because people taking an engagement in a managerial capacity do not need the consent of the Ministry of Labour under the Control of Engagement Order.

    Butter and Cheese
    Mr. Yorkasked the Minister of Food what element of export subsidy is contained in the prices for butter and cheese agreed with the Government of New Zealand.
    Mr. Strachey: None, Sir, so far as I am aware.

    Rations
    Mr. Yorkasked the Minister of Food whether he will consider giving preferential rations to single persons living alone and to adolescents.
    Mr. Strachey: I appreciate fully the difficulties of people living alone and of adolescents but, for the reasons which have been repeatedly given to the House, I do not think these difficulties can be met by means of preferential rations.
    Mr. York: Is the House to understand that the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary was not giving the policy of the Government when he spoke on the wireless a week or two ago and said that he was in favour of this preferential ration?
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member must call my attention to any particular words he may have in mind in that connection.

    Regional Officers (Motor Cars)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Food how many chauffeuses are employed to drive his regional officers round visiting farms to inspect potatoes; and why this inspection is not carried out by the local staff of the county agricultural executive committees.
    Mr. Strachey: Two of our potato staff regularly use cars from the Ministry of Supply Pool and others do so occasionally. The Ministry of Supply Car Pool provides common service for Government Departments and employs both men and women drivers. The responsibility for buying potatoes rests with my Department and not the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
    Mr. Hurd: Could there not be a little co-operation in the interests of public economy as there are already competent people stationed in the district?
    Mr. Strachey: We can examine that, but I think the actual potato buying must be done by the staff of the Ministry of Food.

    East African Groundnut Scheme
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Food when he intends to publish a further report on the East African Groundnut Scheme; and what acreages of groundnuts and other crops the Overseas Food Corporation expect to grow in Tanganyika for the 1949 harvest.
    Mr. Strachey: I intend to make a report on the scheme as soon as convenient after the Overseas Food Corporation have completed the review on which they are at present engaged. As to the second half of the Question, I have passed the hon. Member's inquiry to the Corporation, with whom the responsibility for providing such information rests, and they will, I understand, communicate with him direct.
    Mr. Hurd: Can the Minister say when we are likely to see this report and whether, in the meantime, drastic changes have been made under the groundnut scheme?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, no drastic changes have been made.
    Mr. Hurd: When are we likely to have the report?
    Mr. Charles Williams: May the whole House, and not only my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), have the information contained in the answer to the last part of the Question?
    Mr. Strachey: It is Government policy that these specific questions of detail should be answered by the Corporation and not answered in this House.
    Mr. Driberg: Then may I ask whether in future my right hon. Friend's Department are going to indicate to the Table that they are not responsible for matters concerned with the Overseas Food Corporation, so that we shall not be able to put down such questions as these?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, it depends on the nature of the question.
    Captain Crookshank: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an idea when the report will be available?
    Mr. Strachey: That is another question. As I have said, the Overseas Food Corporation are completing their review and at the earliest opportunity it will be made available to the House.
    Captain Crookshank: Does that mean within a month or six months or what?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot be pinned down to an exact time. I shall not hurry the Corporation in the review they are making.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the reply really mean that the Government do not know what is going on in connection with the groundnut scheme?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly not.
    Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Food whether he will now give information about the yield per acre of the groundnuts crop at Kongwa, Tanganyika, differentiating between the yields of the different types of vines where possible.
    Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Food what is the total number of acres now cleared for planting groundnuts at Kongwa and in the Southern Province of Tanganyika, respectively.
    Mr. Strachey: The responsibility for providing detailed information about the East African Groundnut Scheme rests with the Overseas Food Corporation. I have, therefore, informed the Corporation of the hon. Member's inquiries, and they will be communicating with him direct.
    Mr. Digby: Surely these two matters are absolutely fundamental to the whole of this very expensive scheme? Is it not a fact that the whole scheme will be quite unjustified unless there are much larger areas which can be cleared than have been cleared up to now?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, I can readily answer that question. It will be necessary to clear very much larger areas than have been cleared so far and, of course, that will be done.
    Mr. Stanley: Is it not a fact that in the case of some of the other nationalised industries Ministers have answered Questions directed to fundamental matters such as are contained in these Questions? Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the possibility of being able to give answers himself on matters such as these, which are absolutely vital to the success of the scheme?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I would not suggest for a moment that I would not answer Questions on this scheme, but a
    1248
    question as to the acreage to be cleared in one particular area is a question of very precise detail, which I do not think should be given.
    Mr. Keeling: Did not the Minister answer the same sort of questions when Unilever were operating the scheme which he now declines to answer when it is operated by the Overseas Food Corporation?
    Mr. Strachey: Since the passage of the Act, certainly. The Corporation has been set up and the uniform method of answering Questions has been adopted.
    Mr. Driberg: Surely the latter part of Question No. 54, on which the matter first arose, cannot be regarded as a detailed matter of day-to-day administration—the whole acreage for the whole of Tanganyika for a whole year?
    Mr. Strachey: Oh, no, that part of the Question, I think, will be covered by the review of the whole matter when it comes before the House.
    Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision, as all he is doing now is to create an atmosphere of quite unnecessary suspicion about the whole business?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, it is a question of which questions are best answered in the House and which are best answered by the Corporation and I am willing to consider any particular point.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order. Earlier this afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation dealt with questions relating to aircraft, etc., for other corporations. Why should the Minister of another Department refuse to give the information which is now sought?
    Mr. Digby: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Sugar Ration
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food whether he will now consider taking sugar off the ration altogether as from the 1st January, 1949.
    Mr. Strachey: I regret that we cannot afford the dollars necessary to buy enough sugar to end rationing.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Holland sugar has been taken off the ration; and that if the Government continue their schemes of negation against the urgent needs of this country the people will despair and turn this Government out, and a jolly good job, too?
    Commander Maitland: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot take sugar off the ration would he, at least, restore the privilege of taking sugar instead of jam the loss of which is enraging every woman in the country?
    Mr. Strachey: As we have derationed jam, we obviously cannot restore the privilege of giving up the jam ration for sugar.
    Commander Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what has been done with all the soft fruit grown under the "Grow More Scheme"?
    Mr. Strachey: The soft fruit has been made into jam, which is derationed and the consumption of it will go up.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Cannot some sugar be bought from sterling areas instead of from dollar areas?
    Mr. Strachey: There are many hundreds of thousands of tons of sugar from sterling areas which we buy and consume.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is there any sugar reserve in the country and, if so, what is the amount?
    Mr. Strachey: I can certainly tell the hon. and gallant Member that there is a sugar stock in the country—it would be quite impossible to distribute sugar without a stock—but I cannot give the amount.
    Mr. De la Bère: In view of the wholly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again.

  SOAP SUBSTITUTES (COMPOSITION)
  Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that many soap substitutes in the form of powders are highly injurious to clothing; and what steps he proposes to take to enforce his regulations governing the composition of them.
  Mr. Strachey: The formulas for soap substitutes are very carefully examined. If the hon. Member has reason to think that any particular product does not conform to the approved formula, and will send me details, I shall be glad to look into it.
  Mr. Shephard: It is not possible for me to send details, but is it not a well known fact that many of these soap substitutes are thoroughly unsatisfactory? In order to obviate the use of them, what are the chances of getting an increased soap ration?
  Mr. Strachey: Reverting to the hon. Member's Question, I can only say he must give particular examples.
  Mr. Shephard: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my supplementary question? What are the chances of a bigger soap ration?
  Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, the second part of the supplementary question does not arise and I cannot speculate on future ration changes.

  ARMED FORCES (PAY AND ALLOWANCES)
  At the end of Questions—
  Mr. Alexander: With permission, I will reply to Questions 47 and 48. The Government have carefully reviewed the financial position of officers and other ranks in the Armed Forces. As the House knows, the scales of pay and allowances of ratings and other ranks were designed to secure broad equality between Service emoluments and rates of wages for comparable civilian employment. Industrial wages have risen since 1946, and the Service man has, to some extent, shared in these increases by reason of the increased value to him of the food, clothing and accommodation which he receives in kind. Nevertheless there is evidence of hardship experienced on present emoluments, in particular by married men. It has therefore been decided to grant to other ranks increases in both pay and marriage allowance. I am circulating full details in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and in the circumstances it is not proposed to publish a further White Paper.
  I will deal first with marriage allowance. The present rates for other ranks range from 35s. to 45s. a week. In the

  1251
  case of men serving on voluntary regular engagements the revised range will be from 42s. to 56s. a week, an increase of from 7s. to 11 s.
  As regards pay there will be no increase for recruits during their first six months' service, nor for the private soldier or his equivalent without any special trade or other Service qualifications. For men with higher qualifications or higher rank however there will be increases in basic pay ranging from 3s. 6d. a week to as much as 10s. 6d. a week. These arrangements should encourage the recruitment of men with special skill, and provide general incentive to acquire higher qualifications. In all, therefore, the increases for married men will range from 7s. up to 21s. 6d. a week.
  The new rates of marriage allowance will not apply to National Service men. They will however be eligible to have their Service emoluments supplemented by a system of Natonal Service Grants, similar to the War Service Grants which were introduced, for the same purpose, during the War. Details are now being worked out. The increases in pay will apply to National Service men after their first year of service. Until they have completed this period of service no improvement in the existing rates of pay is, in our view necessary.
  As regards officers, the present rates of pay take account of the special expenses involved in Service life, we have however decided that in present circumstances some further assistance is necessary for married officers. These officers, owing to the present abnormal frequency of postings in the Services coupled with the general housing shortage are exposed to numerous exceptional expenses including, if they are not accommodated in official quarters, very high rents. The rates of officers' marriage allowance will therefore be increased by 6s. a day if they are not accommodated in married quarters, and by 3s. a day if they are so accommodated, or receive special local overseas allowances designed to protect them against high rents. These provisions are related to conditions which may prove in whole or in part to be temporary and they will be subject to review should these conditions materially improve. After full consideration we do not feel that, in present circumstances, increases in the basic pay of officers are justified.
  1252
  The improvements which I have announced, and which I feel sure will be welcomed by all Members of the House, will take effect from today, and my Service colleagues will do their best to ensure that they are put into payment as quickly as the necessary administrative arrangements can be made.
  Mr. Eden: While we on this side of the House would generally welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, since we have been pressing for some time the need for some arrangement of this kind if recruiting is to be improved, I am sure that the Leader of the House will understand if we seek an opportunity later for a fuller discussion than is possible by question and answer. I should like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what will be the total cost to the State of these increases?
  Mr. Alexander: That has been gone into as carefully as is possible at the moment. Until we have every section of the numbers involved, I cannot give a very firm figure, but I should think that the gross amount would be from £12 million to £12½ million.
  Mr. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it has taken the Government approximately nine months since the so-called "freezing" of civilian wages to appreciate that Service pay has been wholly out of line with post-war civilian earnings?
  Mr. Alexander: I should have thought that that was apparent from what I said during the Debate in July.
  Commander Noble: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House have been pointing out these defects in the pay codes for some two years?
  Mr. Bellenger: While welcoming this advance in the rates of pay and allowances in the Services, might I ask my right hon. Friend, with respect to the marriage allowances, whether any change is to be made in the principle that the marriage allowance shall be paid to a married man whether he has no children or any number of children? Is it too late to reconsider the principle which we had during the war of a special children's allowance, apart from the marriage allowance?
  Mr. Alexander: It is not proposed to interfere with the principle which is already in operation. Of course, under the new social arrangements there is a small children's allowance under the family allowances scheme for all people with families.
  Mr. Frank Byers: Is the Minister aware that on the face of it that statement will be regarded as quite inadequate and unrealistic. The Government have merely attempted to rectify certain existing hardships instead of designing a scheme which will attract more volunteers and so enable us to reduce the conscript element.
  Mr. Alexander: It would be better to examine details of the new arrangements, which apply only to particular categories to see whether or not that assumption is accurate. When Members say that this is quite inadequate, I would point out that, as I have indicated to the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, the cost is to be substantial.
  Mrs. Middleton: My right hon. Friend said nothing about the women's Services. Could he give us some information on that?
  Mr. Alexander: Yes, the women's Service rates are under active consideration. Unfortunately, there has been some little delay, but I hope to make a statement before Christmas.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether special attention has been given to the conditions in the Colonies in which British troops are serving, where there are special high costs if they are married people? I ask that question because from his statement I do not think that any particular attention has been directed to that matter.
  Mr. Alexander: That has all been taken into account in fixing the rates which I have mentioned today. The present arrangements already provide certain adjustments on account of these high costs to those who are serving overseas. There is a special system of local overseas allowances for that purpose.
  Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the additional allowances, as against the basic pay increases, are free of Income Tax?
  Mr. Alexander: No, Sir. Marriage allowances are subject to Income Tax.
  Sir R. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last time the pay of Naval officers was raised many Naval officers got less than they had been getting up to then, and can he say that no Naval officer will now receive less than he was getting before the last time the pay was raised?
  Mr. Alexander: I think that I may say that the increases will cost a lot of money already but, whereas the pay code for other ranks in 1945–1946 was definitely related to conditions outside, that was not done in the case of officers. I have meantime very carefully studied the rates of pay and allowances in the officer ranks and they do not compare unfavourably at all, when everything is taken into account, with the rates paid to people of comparable status outside the Services.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the forces will greatly appreciate this decision, which is due to constant pressure from the Labour back benches, it is exceedingly important, in view of the fact that these recommendations are properly being brought in forthwith, and certain anomalies in the marriage allowance do seem to be created, that we should have a very early opportunity of discussing this matter?
  Mr. Alexander: That is a matter for the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Grimston: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any estimate as to what is the cost after Income Tax has been reclaimed?
  Mr. Alexander: It is rather difficult to commit myself to a figure. I can give only a very rough estimate. I should think it would cost £10,500,000 to £10,600,000 net. But I do not want to be tied to that figure. It may vary a little either up or down.
  Major Gates: Can the Minister say whether skill in the art of combat and the use of offensive weapons will be one of the special skills which will attract additional rates of pay?
  Mr. Alexander: The increases which the hon. and gallant Member will find in my statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT are arranged to provide equivalents of certain ranks. We have increased the number of grade stars so as to give the equivalent of rank so that the increases will apply to skill on the military side as well as on the technical side.
  Sir Ian Fraser: May I ask the Minister if retired pay and long service pensions are to be raised pro rata, more particularly since they are traditionally regarded as deferred pay.
  Mr. Alexander: I think that is a question which should be addressed to the Minister of Pensions.
  Sir I. Fraser: No, Sir. With all respect may I say that retired pay and long service pensions are borne on the Service Votes. May I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question?
  Mr. Alexander: I beg the pardon of the hon. Member. I caught the word "pension" and did not sufficiently understand what the question was. The question of retired pay would I think be treated on the basis on which the Treasury has always treated such matters. There have been many Debates in my memory on that point over the last 25 years. With regard to the future, the operative rates when a man retires will I imagine affect his retired pay.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Under this new pay code will the grievance over the gap in pay between the higher ranks, chief petty officers, and others be wiped out?
  Mr. Alexander: In the basic pay the increase will vary from sixpence to one and sixpence per day on those rates applicable to higher ranks and also in the case of the marriage allowance the differentiation between seven shillings and eleven shillings.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the new code adversely affect the prospects under the star system in the case of private soldiers?
  Mr. Alexander: I think it is bound to improve the star system. There will be wider grades of stars and better prospects of qualifying.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: Will the Minister give an assurance that, when a decision is reached in regard to increased pay for women, it will be back-dated to the date on which these increases apply and, secondly, has he given consideration to increasing the bounty to auxiliary forces and so increase recruiting?
  Mr. Alexander: The first part of the question is a matter for consultation between myself and the Chancellor of the
  1256
  Exchequer. I cannot commit him in advance, but I sympathise with the point. With regard to the second point I would like to consider that with the Secretary of State for War.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: In his statement the Minister referred to the housing shortage. Is he aware that in Scotland we think it is better for men to replace houses than go into the Army; and would he give an assurance that he will take no more men into the Armed Forces out of the building industry?
  Mr. Alexander: I am sorry, I cannot give any such assurance.
  Mr. Drayson: Will the Minister say whether Naval officers at sea and occupying cabins will draw the higher or lower rate of increased marriage allowance?
  Mr. Alexander: That is a question that should be addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty.
  Brigadier Head: Is the Minister aware that if this step had been taken some time ago, as was constantly advocated from these benches, many members of the Regular Forces who have now left would not have done so had they known of these changes and, secondly, if data had been obtainable about the drawing power of this measure for regular recruiting, it would have been invaluable to the right hon. Gentleman in his reconsideration of National Service?
  Mr. Alexander: I hope that after the struggle there has been in the present economic circumstances to provide this large sum, we shall not think of politics in this matter, but of doing the very best we can for the Services.
  Mr. Wyatt: Is the Minister aware that, despite the fact that the Government are paying increased rates of pay to the Services far above anything ever reached by the party opposite, they have still a long way to go before they have built them up sufficiently high to attract enough recruits for the Regular services to be able to keep conscription down to the lowest level possible?
  Mr. Alexander: When we regard the actual rates which will accrue to the higher ranks or specially qualified tradesmen compared with what is paid outside the Services, especially in view of the fact that if the Service is made a career

  1257
  the man receives a service pension at an early age additional to the social pension, that statement can hardly be justified.
  Mr. Marlowe: When the right hon. Gentleman says that he thinks these rates of pay are comparable with those paid in civilian life does he mean that he takes the view that the commander of one of His Majesty's ships discharges a task equivalent in responsibility to a manager of a co-operative store?
  Mr. Alexander: I do not think there is any need to introduce satirical questions of that kind in this matter. I will say,

  REVISED SCALES OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR THE ARMED FORCES

  I.—Basic Pay

  Following are the new daily rates of basic pay for members of the Forces below officer rank, excluding National Service men of less than 12 months' service. Increases over existing rates are shown in brackets.

  ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES

  Ordinary ratings (direct entry) while under training, and R.M. recruits

  …

  4/- (Nil)

  Ordinary ratings (ex-Boy and direct entry) on completion of training

  …

  5/- (Nil)

  A.B. rates, and Marines (First Class)

  …

  6/6 (6d.)

  Leading rates, and Corporals R.M.

  …

  8/6 (1/-)

  Petty Officers and Sergeants R.M.

  …

  10/6 (1/6)

  Chief Petty Officers and Colour Sergeants R.M.

  …

  12/- (1/6)

  R.M. N.C.O's above Colour Sergeant

  …

  +1/6 on present rates

  Notes.—(i) The same increases will be applied according to the equivalent rating held, to rating pilots and aircrew (Naval Aviation).

  (ii) Incremental pay will remain as at present.

  ARMY

  At present soldiers in the rank of Corporal and below, who have completed six months service and have made satisfactory progress, are classified for pay according to one, two, or three star qualifications as described in para. 7 (ii) of Cmd. 6715. Each additional star carries 1/- a day extra pay. Limitation to three "stars" has in practice given rise to difficulties in the classification of tradesmen and made it impossible in some cases to give a man who acquires additional qualifications a higher "star" grading with a corresponding increase in pay. The increases now given if applied to the three star system would accentuate these difficulties and the opportunity has therefore been taken to introduce a more refined classification involving six "stars" which will it is hoped largely overcome them. The following pay scales result:

  Tradesmen

  Non-Tradesmen

  Group A

  Group B

  Group C

  Recruit

  …

  4/- (Nil)

  4/- (Nil)

  4/- (Nil)

  4/- (Nil)

  Private, 1 star (= present 1 star)

  …

  —

  —

  —

  5/- (Nil)

  Private, 2 star (New classification)

  …

  —

  —

  5/6 (6d.)*

  5/6 (New qualifications).

  Private, 3 star (= present 2 star)

  …

  —

  6/6 (6d.)

  6/6 (6d.)

  6/6 (6d.)

  Private, 4 star (New classification)

  …

  7/- (1/-)†

  7/- (1/-)†

  7/- (1/-)†

  —

  Private, 5 star (= present 3 star)

  …

  7/6 (6d.)

  7/6 (6d.)

  —

  7/6 (6d.)

  Private, 6 star (New classification)

  …

  8/6 (1/6)‡

  —

  —

  —

  Lance-Corporal

  As in the present system, soldiers appointed lance-corporals will receive a lead of 6d. over their existing star rate. Corporals will continue to have a lead of 2/6 over the corresponding star rates for privates.

  Corporal

  Group A (Class 1)

  Others

  Sergeant

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  13/6

  (1/6)

  12

  (1/6)

  Staff-Sergeant

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  16/-

  13/6

  Warrant Officer, Class II.

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  16/6

  14/6

  Warrant Officer, Class I.

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  18/6

  16/6

  * 6d. increase over existing 1 Star rate.

  † 1/- increase over existing 2 Star rate.

  ‡ 1/6 increase over existing 3 Star rate.

  Note.—Incremental pay will remain as at present.

  however, that a high ranking civil servant might very well be compared to the commander of a ship.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, while taking into account the new marriage allowance, that a squadron-leader or a wing-commander who is married with two children is worse off than he was two years ago under the old Pay Code?
  Mr. Alexander: I should like to see that statement on paper. I do not accept it at first sight.
  Following are the details:

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

  Aircrew

  Rank

  Pilots and Navigators

  Signallers, Engineers and Gunners

  A

  B

  Aircrew IV

  …

  12/-

  (1/6)

  11/6

  (1/6)

  10/-

  (1/-)

  Aircrew III

  …

  14/-

  13/6

  12/-

  Aircrew II

  …

  16/6

  16/-

  14/-

  (1/6)

  Aircrew I

  …

  19/-

  18/6

  15/6

  Master Aircrew

  …

  21/6

  21/-

  18/6

  Ground Airmen

  ——

  Group A

  Group B

  Group C

  Group D

  Recruit

  …

  4/-

  (Nil)

  4/-

  (Nil)

  4/-

  (Nil)

  4/-

  (Nil)

  A.C.2

  …

  8/-

  (1/6)

  6/6

  (6d.)

  5/6

  5/-

  A.C.1

  …

  8/6

  7/-

  6/6

  (6d.)

  6/-

  (6d.)

  L.A.C.

  …

  9/-

  8/-

  (1/-)

  7/-

  6/6

  Corporal

  …

  11/-

  10/-

  9/-

  (1/-)

  8/6

  (1/-)

  Sergeant

  …

  13/6

  12/-

  Flight Sergeant

  …

  16/-

  13/6

  (1/6)

  Warrant Officer

  …

  18/6

  16/6

  Note:—Incremental pay will remain as at present.

  II.—Marriage Allowances (Other ranks)

  Following are the new weekly rates of Marriage Allowances for members of the Forces below officer rank excluding National Servicemen. Increases over the existing rates are shown in brackets.

  Leading Seaman/Corporal and below

  …

  42/-

  (7/-)

  Petty Officer/Sergeant

  …

  49/-

  (9/-)

  Chief Petty Officer/Staff Sergeant/Flight Sergeant

  …

  52/6

  10/-

  Army and R.A.F. Warrant Officer/Sergeant Major/R.M. Quartermaster Sergeant

  …

  56-

  (11 -)

  III.—Marriage Allowances (Officers)

  Married officers aged 25 and over will receive (over the present rates of marriage allowance set out in para. 37 of Cmd. 6750) increases of 6s. a day if they are not accommodated in married quarters and 3s. a day if they are so accommodated. Certain officers serving overseas who receive special local allowances which are designed, among other things, to compensate them for the high rents of private accommodation will be treated for this purpose as if they were accommodated in official quarters and will receive the lower rate of increase in marriage allowance. Married officers under the age of 25 will, as at present, receive the highest "other rank" rate of marriage allowance which, as explained above, is to be increased from 45s. to 56s. a week.

  IV.—War Excess and Supplementary Marriage Allowances

  Under the arrangements described in para, 51 of Cmd. 6715 and para. 66 of Cmd. 6750:

  (a)

  Members of the Forces below officer rank whose total pay and War Service increments under the pre-1945 Code exceeded that payable under the new Code were allowed to retain the old rates, the excess being absorbed as pay under the new Code increased.

  (b)

  Similarly ratings and other ranks were allowed to retain marriage allowances on the pre-1945 basis where it exceeded that payable under the new Code, the excess being similarly reduced or absorbed as marriage allowance under the new code increased or as children ceased to be eligible under the old rules.

  (c)

  Officers of the rank of major (or equivalent) and below (and Lieutenant-Colonels in the Army) and senior N.C.O.'s with children whose then existing net emoluments were reduced on the introduction of the new code in 1946 because of the taxation of marriage allowances, were granted special supplementary marriage allowances on a diminishing scale which will disappear on the 1st April, 1950.

  The war excesses described at (a) and (b), where they still exist, will be absorbed in or offset by the increases now granted but the supplementary marriage allowances described at (c) will continue on their present basis, decreasing on 1st April, 1949, and finally disappearing on 1st April, 1950, as set out in Cmd. 6750 (para. 66).

BILL PRESENTED
  NATIONAL SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL
  "to substitute eighteen months for twelve months as the term of whole-time service under the National Service Act, 1948, and five and a half years for seven years as the aggregate of the terms of whole-time and part-time service thereunder, and to make certain other amendments in that Act," presented by Mr. Isaacs; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Bevin, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Shinwell, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Ness Edwards; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

WELSH AFFAIRS
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]
3.48 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As the House will have learned from one source and another, the Government thought it right that, at the beginning of today's Debate on Welsh affairs, a statement should be made with regard to the proposed establishment of a council for Wales and Monmouthshire. I am now making that statement on behalf of the Government, and I shall comment upon some other proposals which have been made from Welsh and other quarters. My right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance will make further comments in the light of the Debate, as it proceeds.
In my judgment this Government have an excellent record in regard to their administration of Welsh affairs and in relation to the work which they have done for the social and economic wellbeing of the Welsh people. As our record has shown, we are exceedingly anxious to do everything practicable and wise to meet Welsh aspirations. On the other hand, we think it desirable to ensure that in any new developments in Welsh affairs, the steps we take should further the interests of the Welsh people as a whole, and that we should not engage in mere window-dressing or illusory policies. The ultimate test must be the welfare of the people of Wales.
A suggestion has been made from time to time that it should be possible, without legislation, to establish a Minister who would be specially concerned with Welsh affairs. This is not the earlier proposal, on which the Government have indicated their view, to create a Secretary of State for Wales. This is another proposal, according to which there would be a Minister designated to concern himself especially with Welsh affairs. The proposal has taken various forms and has been made on and off by some elements, I think, in all political quarters. We have carefully considered this proposal, which would not involve legislation. Superficially, it has its attractions, but we had better look at it and try to estimate how it would work in actual practice.
First, we must ask ourselves what the Minister really would be, and how his

1263
functions could fairly be described. It is not proposed that he should be an executive Minister. He might be an existing Minister of the Crown—either a non-Departmental or even a Departmental Minister. It has been suggested that he should be a Welsh Member of Parliament. His function would be to receive suggestions, criticisms and complaints from Welsh quarters. He would then take up the matter with the Departmental Minister concerned and presumably, if necessary, he would take the matter to higher authority. That is the idea.
I think that it would be fair to say that the Minister would in practice be a Ministerial buffer between specific Welsh claims and dissatisfactions on the one hand, and the Departmental Minister concerned, on the other. He would receive complaints and forward them to the appropriate quarter. If he thought that a complaint was justified, he would use such persuasive powers as he could to get the matter complained of put right. It is pretty certain that nine times out of ten the suggestion, criticism or complaint would already have been made to the Departmental Minister concerned, and, in default of satisfaction, the buffer Minister would be used as a sort of ministerial court of appeal against the decision of the Departmental Minister.
What could the buffer Minister do? I do not conceive him as a super Minister. Indeed, it would be constitutionally wrong to put one Minister in a position to give specific directions to another, whose responsibility must be to the House of Commons. Although hon. Members sometimes get a bit of fun, if they can, by playing off one Minister against another—and I have to be a little careful now and again—that is perfectly legitimate fun in the course of Parliamentary business. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, the House is always insistent that there must be a Minister specifically responsible for given matters to the House of Commons. The House is never happy if that responsibility is spread all over the place, with the result that confusion ensues.
Therefore, it is quite clear that the intermediary Minister, specially charged with the duty of watching Welsh affairs, could not give orders to the Departmental Minister. Otherwise, we should get
1264
a breakdown in Parliamentary responsibility and it would become a matter for speculation who should answer Parliamentary Questions or Debates. The intermediary Minister will also be in the difficulty that he will not be fully expert upon the matters which are the subject of complaint. It is the Departmental Minister who will be the expert, with his officers behind him. Therefore, in many instances, the intervening Minister will not really be in a position either to judge of the case from his own inherent knowledge, nor will he have behind him an official hierarchy of experts who can advise him. All he can do is to go to the Departmental Minister, who in turn, of course, is advised by his officers. That seems to put the intervening or buffer Minister into an unfortunate position. But that is how this plan would work. Would it really satisfy anybody at the end of six or 12 months or whatever period one may take?
It is all very well for party political conferences, even when they are held at Llandudno, to pass resolutions on a subject about which nobody there has really given much thought. Some of us on this side have thought about it before. I think that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have also thought about it before, when they had more responsibility. They will know whether they did or not, and no doubt they will know the result. It is all very well to pass these abstract resolutions, when a conference is held in North Wales, without working out a plan. I personally have the highest respect and admiration for the people of Wales, as have my colleagues. But one thing this Government are not going to do is to lead the Welsh people up the garden and to present them with a proposal, which is really illusory window-dressing and political make-believe, and which will not work.
Mr. Price - White: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many resolutions were passed in Kent?
Mr. Morrison: What happened there? I have not been there lately. I admit that the greater the number of resolutions passed, the less quality they may have. That applies to all our conferences. But I am talking about the quality of resolutions, and how constructive they might

1265
be, and I do not think there is much constructiveness behind this one. I think that somebody thought it was a bright idea, likely to pick up Welsh votes. I do not myself think it is. The Welsh people are an intelligent people, and I am about to address observations to the House which no doubt the good people of Wales will think over with great care.
Mr. R. A. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this proposal was put forward in this House long before the Llandudno conference and that it was received with great interest in Wales? Is he also aware that, strange to relate, some of us are just as interested as he is in doing things for Wales?
Mr. Morrison: I did not know that it was put to this House, but, if it was in the days of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman and myself were Members, it was not accepted.
Mr. Butler: It was put to the House in the last Welsh Debate.
Mr. Morrison: Oh, so the Opposition waited until they were out, and then they came in with this suggestion. That is an easy thing for an Opposition which is having bad luck; but, with my understanding of the set-up and the motives behind it, I ask what it would really amount to. In my judgment, which I think is right, this is what would happen.
After six months, or 12 months, if the House so wished, the intermediary or buffer Minister would be demonstrating that he was ineffective in getting satisfaction for Welsh complaints. After all, no Minister upsets people, or does things which they do not want him to do, for fun. When a Minister comes to that conclusion, he does so for a good reason, and, therefore, it is tolerably certain that, in a large proportion of cases, the decisions could not in practice be reversed after reexamination. Therefore, the buffer Minister would not be terribly successful, and, moreover, the Departmental Minister would have heard all the arguments before, and, I am sure, will have done his best to meet the criticisms, if that was at all practicable. So, in a great many cases, it is exceedingly unlikely that the decision would be reversed.
The Departmental Minister, on the other hand, might be tempted to neglect
1266
his interest in Welsh affairs. He might feel that he need not worry about it, on the grounds that his colleague, the Minister of so-and-so, was bound to do something about it, if there was anything in it. But, at the end of the day, he has to act according to the facts of the case. Consequently, after a period, I think three things would happen. One is that the people of Wales would begin to feel that they had been sold a political make-believe—and they would be right—and would think that it was a fraud, a sham and a delusion.
Secondly, the Departmental Ministers would begin to get troubled by being pushed around by a colleague in the Government on their own Departmental business. Finally, I should think the buffer Minister himself would become so apprehensive that his own reputation was being destroyed, because the plan would not work, that it would not be surprising if he approached the Prime Minister and asked to be transferred to some more congenial activity. We may be right or wrong about this; but our judgment is that this proposal is illusory, that it will not work and that we ought not to foist on the people of Wales a proposal which is a delusion and a sham and is nothing more than make-believe.
These are the reasons which led us to think that that proposal, which we have examined with the utmost care, and, I assure the House, with great sympathy, is not one which either the House or the representatives of Welsh constituencies ought to accept. But, as I shall show later, we have better and more effective means of ensuring Ministerial association and contact with Welsh affairs and with the representatives of Wales.
I have said that the Government are most anxious to improve in any practicable way the handling of all Welsh public business. We have shown this in the actions which we have already taken. The annual Debates on Welsh affairs, it is true, started under the Coalition Government, and I myself took an active part in getting those Debates started. They have been revived and continued under the present Government, which supplemented the arrangements for these Debates by providing something which has hitherto never existed—a specific White Paper on Welsh Affairs, giving all the

1267
facts of Welsh administration, all the statistics relevant to Wales and the progress made in various fields. No previous Government had ever thought of doing this. We have done that, and I think it has been a great advantage to hon. Members from Wales, and to the people of Wales themselves to have this material available, because of the greater knowledge that was thereby placed before the House and Wales.
Further, in order that the Departments concerned with the administration of affairs in Wales, of which there are many with regional offices in the Principality, should not be isolated in their administration, we provided machinery for coordination between these activities in Wales, and we set up a quarterly conference of heads of Government offices in Wales, with an important civil servant in the chair. This has greatly improved the co-ordinating machinery of actual government within the Principality. It has worked well, and it has been a useful piece of machinery and has assisted us in the preparation of the Welsh White Papers.
Mr. Price-White: Whitewash.
Mr. Morrison: I said the White Paper. That is not whitewash, but facts. The whitewash was at Llandudno, not in the White Paper.
The economic situation in Wales, to which we have paid close and energetic attention, has greatly improved. I shall give only two facts, because I do not wish to anticipate the wider discussion that will arise. Under this Government the economic position of Wales has been better than it has ever been under any other Government in my recollection, whether Tory or Liberal. Let us take the figures of unemployment. In August, 1932, which was the peak of the pre-war figures, unemployment in Wales was registered at a figure of 244,579. In October, 1948, it was 39,647. That is to say, it has fallen from just under a quarter of a million to under 40,000. That is a great achievement. It is true that I have taken the peak figure, but, if we take 1938, the figure of Welsh unemployment was 158,700.
As regards industrial enterprises, 126 new factories and extensions have been completed by 30th September, 1948, as compared with 108 at 30th June, 1948. In
1268
addition, 145 factories are at present in course of construction; and, in all, about 4½ million square feet of new factory space in Wales has been completed since the end of the war, with a further 9¾ million square feet in course of construction. For all these reasons—the handling of these Debates, the White Papers, the quarterly conferences of Government officers, the revolutionary economic improvements in the conditions of Wales—I say that this Government deserves well of Wales, and that we have done everything we could have done to help.
We have been told that the measures so far taken with regard to the administration of Welsh affairs have not gone far enough. It is suggested that, in addition to the conference of Government officers, there should be a council, which, it is argued, would serve to focus Welsh opinion on matters affecting Government policy in Wales. Representations have been made to us in this regard by the Welsh Regional Council of the Labour Party, as well as by hon. Members from Wales who support the Government. The latter were associated with the Welsh Regional Council in this particular matter, and they came to see us about it. But others have made proposals as well.
Interest in such a proposal was naturally stimulated by the establishment of the Scottish Economic Conference, and I would remind my hon. Friends from Wales that when the Scottish Economic Conference was established—by the way, it is working very well; I saw it at work last Friday morning—there was immediately a repercussion in Wales. They said, "Why not do the same for Wales?" That was a broad general demand from Wales, which we heard voiced, and, indeed, which I expected, when the decision was taken in regard to the Scottish Economic Conference.
There are substantial differences between the circumstances of Scotland and those of Wales. But in their consideration of the problem the Government also considered how far the principles of the Scottish Economic Conference could be applied to the somewhat different circumstances of Wales. We approached the proposal for a Council for Wales and Monmouthshire sympathetically, and we thought there was a case for saying that

1269
there was scope for such a body as would be able to look at Welsh problems as a whole, to get information from Government Departments, Ministers and other organisations about the action that was being taken to meet the needs of Wales, and to make sure that Welsh points of view were effectively considered.
We have reached the conclusions which I shall now indicate to the House. I am glad to be able to tell the House that, as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made, we propose to set up a Council for Wales and Monmouthshire with the following terms of reference:
"(1) to meet from time to time, and at least quarterly, for the interchange of views and information on developments and trends in the economic and cultural fields in Wales and Monmouthshire; and (2) to secure that the Government are adequately informed of the impact of Government activities on the general life of the people of Wales and Monmouthshire."
Those terms of reference have been drafted to avoid setting the Council tasks which are already adequately dealt with by the various bodies that already exist in Wales to advise individual Ministers on specific subjects. There are, moreover, important subjects which are not within the province of the existing bodies. The job of the new Council will not be so much to advise direct on matters of detail, but the broader one of seeing that the Government are adequately informed of the trends of Welsh opinion, and how Governmental activities are affecting the lives of the Welsh people.
What I have said does not indicate that, for example, the Council could not discuss in a broad way matters which are also dealt with by the Welsh Regional Industrial Board which is under my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Board for Industry——
Mr. R. A. Butler: The National Industrial Development Council.
Mr. Morrison: I am not dealing with that; that is a distinct body. It is the Government body representing industry and work people that I am dealing with. One must beware of doing the work of that body over again, because it deals with a lot of detailed matter which would not interest the Welsh Council. On the other hand, we do not preclude the
1270
Council for Wales and Monmouthshire from dealing with problems which concern either the cultural or the industrial wellbeing of Wales. Indeed, that is one of the purposes for which it is set up. No doubt, with good sense, we can get over any possible overlapping in such matters, but, obviously, we must safeguard the proper work of existing Welsh organisations. It is proposed that the Council should be appointed by the Prime Minister, but it will be chosen on a basis which will ensure that major Welsh interests are covered. It is proposed that it should be composed of 27 members made up upon the following basis.
Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds further, I am sure he would wish to give the House as much information as he can on the terms of reference. I take it from the remarks he has made already that it is purely an advisory Council. Can he say whether there will be any report to Parliament as to what advice this Council has given to the Minister on any matter, or any report to Parliament from the Minister? Otherwise, so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, it is neither more nor less than another committee.
Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, this body will be purely advisory in character. As regards publicity of its proceedings, I am coming to that at a later point in my speech.
Sir H. Morris-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my last question.
Mr. Morrison: I know, because I am coining to it in the course of my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will let me do so.
It is proposed that 12 of the members should be selected by the Prime Minister from a panel of persons nominated by Welsh local authorities. We did consider other ways whereby the persons should be selected by local authority associations, but there are complications about that, and I think it is important that we should take into account the distribution of the members of the Council as between, for example, North and South Wales. It is important that North Wales shall be properly represented and also, taking all factors into account, South Wales.

1271
Population and industries must be taken account of. We want to be fair, taking all the factors into account, as between the various areas and classes of local authorities. Therefore, it was thought best to let every local authority freely nominate, and we shall then have to sort out and get such distribution of the 12 members as is considered to be the most equitable and fair in the public interest. We shall have a complex task, because no doubt the nominations will be numerous.
As regards industry and agriculture, it is proposed that there should be eight members, four of them representing the management or employing side of industry and agriculture, and four representing the workpeople in industry and agriculture. As to education, it is proposed that there should be two members, one nominated by the University of Wales and one by the Joint Education Committee for Wales and Monmouthshire. As to tourism and the Eisteddfod, it is proposed that there should be one member nominated by the Welsh Tourist Board, and one by the National Eisteddfod Council. It is also proposed that the Prime Minister should be empowered to select three other members, so that gaps can be filled up and suitable persons brought in who would otherwise possibly be missed. It will be seen that both in its terms of reference and in its composition, the Council will be enabled, and, I hope, competent, to deal with both economic and cultural affairs. Wales is much interested in her cultural affairs, which we thought ought to be included.
In the course of our consideration the question arose as to the position of Members of Parliament. We have come to the conclusion that it would be inadvisable for Members of Parliament to serve upon the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire, not because we have any lack of faith in Members of Parliament—not in the least—but because it is clear that it would be impossible for the great bulk of them to serve upon the Council. Indeed, it is even quite likely that the great majority of them would not be elected—[Laughter.]—The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) is not as safe as all that. I do not wonder that he did a sort of nervous laugh, but he should not try to be too cheerful about it. I
1272
meant, of course, elected for service upon the Council. They could only be few, and we think that that might result in undesirable discrimination between some hon. Members and others.
Moreover, in our judgment—and I think hon. Members from Wales will see the point—it is profoundly important that the operations of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire shall in no way prejudice the rights of hon. Members in this House to discharge their Parliamentary functions, and to shoot all the questions they want to at the Government of the day, as well as to raise all the matters they wish in the course of Debate. We think that they might conceivably be embarrassed, if they had already become committed to points of view on the Council for Wales and Monmouth. Therefore, it is suggested that Members of Parliament should not serve upon this body.
The first chairman will be appointed by the Prime Minister from among the members for a period of one year. Subsequent appointments to the chairmanship will be made annually by the Council itself from among its own members, subject to the proviso that the chairman shall come from South Wales and North Wales in alternate years, which we think is fair as between North and South Wales.
Let me try to give an indication of how the Council will work—the structure of which I believe will prove to be right—in order that the whole thing shall be a valuable experiment. We must, of course, gather experience as the months and the years go on, and there is nothing finally sacred about the composition of the Council, which can be examined from time to time. Its value will depend not so much on the machinery which we must beware of worshipping too much—it is possible to have too much machinery without getting results—as upon the spirit with which the machinery is used and the personalities of those who have to work it. That is what counts.
For myself—I express a personal opinion here—I hope that all the members of the Council will be concerned with the well-being of Wales as a whole, and that party politics will not enter into the matter too much in its deliberations. The Council should, however, be a strong body fully repre-

1273
sentative of the main strands of Welsh life, and on this day of the Welsh Debate I need not stress the importance of its task and of its opportunities. The Government, of course, will give to the Council all the assistance they can. Papers can be prepared, and information will be circulated, as required, or as is thought to be expedient, so that the Council will really know what it is talking about on the matters which appear on its agenda.
We also propose—and here we begin to meet the demand for a Minister in a way which I think is far more effective than having a Minister for Welsh Affairs, or having a Minister as the chairman of this body—that Ministers should be available to attend the meetings of the Council according to the subjects that the Council may wish to discuss with them. This will provide a two-way interchange of ideas. Ministers will learn of Welsh needs, and at the same time they will have an opportunity of explaining the policy which they are pursuing. So there will be advantage on both sides of the table.
Since it is proposed that the Council's proceedings should be private, these discussions should be all the more frank and profitable. It is proposed that the proceedings of the Council shall be private. In our opinion, the Council will be the more valuable if that is so. It will be less of a debating chamber and more of a practicable assembly for the examination of affairs. Of course, we do not wish it in any way to rival the activities of Members of Parliament in their public work. The Scottish Council has all along met in private—that is a generally acceptable view—and we think that it is right in the Welsh case also.
The suggestion may be made, as I have indicated, that instead of the chairman coming from the Council itself, he should be a Minister of Cabinet rank and a Welsh Member of Parliament as well. Quite apart from the practical difficulty that a Government representing hon. Gentlemen of the official Opposition would have to face at the moment, namely that they have only three Conservative Members from the Principality and the Prime Minister's choice would be of some difficulty—I am not putting
1274
that in any derisory spirit; it is a practical point to take into account—it seems to us that this would not be a wise proposal. The Government have carefully examined it, but we have decided that, so far from furthering the usefulness of the Council, it would have the opposite effect.
I have already given reasons against the institution of a Minister for Welsh affairs, but there are other considerations, in addition to those which I have already advanced, which lead me to say that a ministerial chairman could not very well associate himself with the Council's recommendations, at any rate in matters beyond his own departmental responsibilities. He must of course consider how far he has a duty to safeguard the rights of his departmental colleagues and, of course, there is the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility. In addition, I think the Council would be able to do its job better under its own chairman who after the first chairman would be freely elected from its own ranks. That seems to me to give the chairmanship a better Welsh status than would otherwise be the case.
We think the Council will also be more effective, if the personal contacts with the Ministers concerned take place directly—at the meetings of the Council itself—where the matters in dispute can be argued out thoroughly with those Ministers and in their presence. We think that these discussions with Ministers at the periodical meetings will be more effective than if the matters are dealt with by means of a ministerial chairman. That is the reason for the step which we propose to take, and which we believe will be of advantage to Wales. In any case, we think it is well worth trying over a period. Let us see how it works. I think it can work and can be of great advantage to the Principality.
Sir H. Morris-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman promised very kindly that he would answer the question which I asked him earlier in the Debate. I take it that he has now passed that point and he has not given me an answer. I wanted to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether Parliament will have any information of any kind in regard to the proceedings of this council. Will there be any report to Parliament?
Mr. Morrison: I have said that the proceedings of the Council will be private. I should not think that there would be a report to Parliament, but I will look into that point. We have not gone into it yet. I am eager to safeguard the rights of Parliament and of hon. Members for Wales; I do not want to compromise them, but I make no bones about the fact that the proceedings will be private. This other point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) is new to me, and I am afraid I cannot give an answer on the spur of the moment. I am not quite sure what was arranged in the case of Scotland on that point.
That is the scheme. We believe in it. We think it is of great advantage to Wales and should be acceptable to the broad mass of Welsh opinion. It is a great advance. It would be a pity to miss carrying this experiment through, but if the general body of hon. Members from the Principality were to tell us that it was not acceptable, then of course we should not propose to press on with it. I may add this, not in any bad temper or spiteful spirit. I think this scheme will prove to be acceptable to the general body of Welsh Members, but the fact is that we cannot think of anything better. We think this is the best expedient open to us and we should be most regretful if hon. Members took such an opposite view that we did not go on with this.
We are unable, as have been Governments before us, to think of anything better than this; we think this is good. We think it is sensible and we hope, therefore, that the House will give to the proposed Council a general blessing. We should propose to set it up fairly early, in the New Year, and I hope that the people of Wales and hon. Members from Wales will receive the proposal well, because the success of this new development will depend on that to a great extent. This is the first time a body of this character has been set up to consider the problems of Wales, as a whole, and we believe it can do good work for Wales, but that its work will be enormously improved and greatly encouraged if it has the good will and support of hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies.
Mr. S. O. Davies: Before the Lord President finishes his statement I
1276
should like to put a question on procedure if you, Sir, will permit me. It is this: in view of the fact that this scheme has now been sprung on Wales for the first time, would not the Lord President agree to consider adjourning the discussion on it this afternoon in order that Welsh Members of Parliament can consult their constituents on it before it becomes a fait accompli and in order that, meanwhile, the Government may become acquainted with the reactions of the Welsh people to the scheme?
Mr. Morrison: As I have said, we would not propose actually to set up the Council until the New Year, by which time we feel we should be able to pick up the reactions from Wales to the proposal. If I may say so, I do not think it would be wise to have another set Debate and a sort of oratorical referendum of Welsh Members in the House. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) that these are matters on which Members of Parliament have a duty to express themselves when the proposal is made. I do not think it would be wise for them to go back and consult their constituents so as to get some kind of unofficial or informal referendum on the matter, and I therefore urge that Members should take the responsibility, which belongs to Members of Parliament, of expressing their own views today.
Thereafter, we shall all be able to pick up the feelings of Wales on the point and if hon. Members, after the Debate, between now and Christmas, or at the beginning of the New Year, wish to communicate to me the opinions as they have experienced them in the Principality,. we shall certainly see they are taken into account. Moreover, there is this point—although it is unofficial and I may be criticised for it: the issue has been canvassed in public for some time. Various people have canvassed the idea.
Mr. S. O. Davies: On a point of Order. Is the Lord President entitled to say that this scheme, which has been presented to the country within the last few minutes, has been canvassed in public amongst the people of Wales?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am afraid that is not a point of Order. It appears to be a question of fact.
Mr. Morrison: I am sorry to delay the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), who is to follow. This idea has been discussed in Wales for some time, not by one party alone but by others. There were some leaks into one of the local newspapers, about which I am not complaining, so that the idea was known. I took the trouble also to meet hon. Members from Wales in order that they should have—which I thought was right—advance knowledge of the idea. I may say that the general proposal—and this I think I am entitled to say—and this scheme are broadly approved by the Regional Council of Labour in Wales.
Mr. R. A. Butler: We have been told by the Lord President that hon. Members sitting for Welsh constituencies were informed of this scheme. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long ago he informed them?
Mr. Morrison: I informed the Welsh Parliamentary Party yesterday of the details. They already knew a good deal of the broad outline.
4.36 p.m.
Mr. Clement Davies: Last week we were told that this day would be set aside for what has become the annual day of discussion on Welsh affairs, and the Lord President then announced, at that Box, that the day would be divided into two parts—one devoted to agriculture and one devoted to economic matters. But he has decided today, to use the words of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies), to spring upon us, upon this House, upon the country and upon Wales in particular, what is certainly a novel and startling proposal. We have also been told that it is proposed to bring this scheme into effect at a very early date, possibly early in the New Year. If that is so, it will be a matter which will be vitally important to Wales, its government and the methods of administration.
I quite agree with the Lord President that it is the duty of hon. Members of Parliament to express their opinions freely and not to regard themselves merely as delegates. Undoubtedly that is our position, but it is also true that in all matters which affect the welfare of Wales and the administration of Welsh affairs we should be well informed as
1278
to what effect the proposals will have on the Welsh people as a whole. The Welsh people are hearing the nature of these proposals for the first time—or will be hearing them tomorrow morning or tonight. I would say now to the Lord President that I am quite sure none of us will be satisfied with what takes place in today's Debate and we shall be asking that this matter—if the Government proceed with it, as the right hon. Gentleman said they propose to do—shall be discussed again. We shall want a separate, special day devoted to it.
Let us consider what is the position. The Lord President has said that this has been discussed by various parties. I can answer for the Liberal Party: this proposal came to them last night for the first time.
Mr. Nigel Birch: To the Tories, too.
Mr. Davies: I understand from an interruption above the Gangway that the official Opposition also heard for the first time last night, when the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to meet the Welsh Party. What has happened in regard to his own supporters I do not know. So far as we are concerned, yesterday was the first we heard about it.
Let me review the position with regard to Welsh affairs and what is our position today. Clearly, it is now recognised by all parties that Wales is a separate nation, with its own language, its own traditions, its own customs and its own history. In fact, without entering into any competition with those North of the Tweed and those in Ireland, I would say that we are the representatives of the oldest race in the British Isles, and that we cherish our traditions, our literature and our language. For a very long time there has been a strong agitation throughout Wales that more attention should be paid by this House to Welsh sentiment and Welsh ideas.
For a very long time there has been a claim in Wales for devolution. I have been looking at some of the older election addresses, and any number of them asked for devolution on exactly the same lines as some of us have been asking for it in this House, not only in the last Parliament but in this; stating, quite rightly, that if democracy is to main-

1279
tain its position democratic institutions must grow and spread, and that this House is so over-worked that it is incapable of attending to all matters that demand attention and at the same time deal with the greater issues that always confront us. That being so, we have been arguing, as Scotland has been arguing, for devolution and for a properly elected Parliament or council, or grand council—or whatever its name may be—that could deal with purely Welsh affairs that concern Wales and Wales alone. That is one side of the matter.
Another is—and I am only stating this, not arguing it, so that one may have a proper perspective—that for quite a long time there has been a very strong request that there should be in the Cabinet of today a Secretary of State for Wales. So much so that I doubt whether there was a single council—county council, urban district council, borough council, rural district or even parish council—that did not pass resolution after resolution asking that there should be a Secretary of State for Wales. I would go further and say that I doubt whether there was one Member of Parliament in the last Parliament who did not make similar demands. One of the strongest advocates for it was the present Minister of National Insurance. I think every colleague of his was in favour of that.
Mr. D. J. Williams: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a statement which is entirely untrue. I for one certainly never advocated, or associated myself with a demand for a Secretary of State for Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "How long have you been here?"] Three years.
Mr. Davies: Exactly. I said hon. Members of the last Parliament.
Mr. Williams: I was in the last Parliament.
Mr. Davies: Then the hon. Member was a very new Member in the last Parliament. Moreover, there has been a very strong nationalistic movement in Wales of which many of us did not approve.
That is the position, and we now see what the Government are proposing. The right hon. Gentleman says that they have given the greatest thought to this.
1280
He has told us further that he can conceive of nothing better. How long has the right hon. Gentleman been thinking over this? A whole mountain seems to have been shaken, and to have produced the smallest mouse ever presented as a substitute for a proper constitutional development. I wonder where the idea has come from. The right hon. Gentleman made play with the suggestion made public earlier than that. It seems to me that the wet nurse who has been attending the right hon. Gentleman in the production of this little white mouse is the hon. Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts). I seem to recognise some of the statements that the right hon. Gentleman reiterated today as having been made by the hon. Member for Caernarvonshire in North Wales, as reported in the papers.
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I claim no more share in promoting these proposals than any other member of the Welsh Labour group or of any other group in the Principality.
Mr. Davies: I am very glad to hear that the hon. Member dissociates himself from the parentage of such a poor, stillborn infant as this. I congratulate him upon that. Let us see what this is. If there is one people of this country that treasures democratic ideas and democratic institutions it is the Welsh people. What is proposed here? To brush democratic ideas to one side and have a nominated council to consider suggestions about Wales.
Sir H. Morris-Jones: A secret council.
Mr. Davies: The nominations must be those of the Prime Minister of the day. These are to be people sitting in secret council who are to tell the Government what is the view of Wales, democratic Wales, upon questions of the day—sitting in secret there, and sending for Ministers. It reminds me of the retort made to a very great Welshman. You may "call spirits from the vasty deep"—but will they come? This precious council, nominated in this way: this 27; this sort of Star Chamber—[Laughter.] What else is it? I can tell hon. Members who laugh that it looks as though the Government have been dipping into foreign history. It reminds me more of the Council of Ten of Venice

1281
than anything else. This secret council will exercise the duty of advising—for it is said that it is to give only advice, but that is a tremendous power—and will send for Ministers and tell them what is the view of Wales, and, moreover, tell them also of the impact that the Government's actions have had upon Welsh opinion. I should have thought that the best information as to the impact of the actions of the Government would be given during a General Election and through the ballot box. If the Government want to know what Welsh opinion is, let them ask for it and they will get it. Let them do that, instead of having this secret lot sitting there.
What else is to happen? What is to be the position of Members of Parliament and of the Welsh Party in this House? We have the right of going to Ministers and of putting before them matters concerning not only our constituents but concerning Wales as a whole. We have exercised that right over a great number of years. We have always been received courteously by the Ministers of the day. Ministers, as the Lord President did last night, have paid us the compliment of coming to meetings of the Welsh Party to be asked questions on all matters concerning Wales. What is to happen in the future? We ask the Ministers to see us or to come to see us. We shall put our case before a Minister. He will listen courteously and, perhaps, if he indulges in what the right hon. Gentleman calls "leaks," he will shake his head, and say, "It is all very well for you elected Members to say so and so, but I know better, for I have consulted the secret council of 27, and they know the opinion of Wales far better than you Members of Parliament." So Ministers will speak, and contradict the whole 36 of us, including Ministers. What kind of position will Members of Parliament have in such a system as that?
If it were not so serious for Wales, if it were not that Wales has been asking for separate consideration during all these years and even for generations, if it were not for the position of Wales in regard to its language, its traditions, and its literature, the whole proposal would be laughable. But it really is an insult to the Welsh people, and to all their tradi-
1282
tions. What is more, it is an insult to their idea of democracy and of how it should work. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should have ventured to bring forward such a flimsy scheme as this. However, it is rather in accordance with the trend of affairs in Wales today, and the trend that there has been for some considerable time. We are ruled today by a bureaucracy in Wales—a complete bureaucracy.
We are all proud of the fact that there are more Members from Wales in His Majesty's Government than there ever have been before. We are also proud of the fact that there are more people from Wales in the House of Commons than ever before; but in truth and in fact, the administration of Wales is being run by a bureaucracy, and we have less influence and less power than we have had before, for this reason: For some considerable time now there has been a tendency to create in Wales what they call regional offices of the Departments here. Welsh opinion is supposed to be satisfied and met by the creation of these offices, beginning with the Ministry of Health and going on to almost every other Department——
Mr. H. Morrison: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposed to these regional offices? Did he not ask for them?
Mr. Davies: I am telling the right hon. Gentleman what is my objection to the present position. This began with the Ministry of Health, but now nearly every other Ministry is represented. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that policy is laid down by the central Department in London. Information with regard to that policy is then sent to the local offices. The local offices give the strictest interpretation to the documents that they receive. What then happens? In the matter of administration, some injustice, as we think, arises. Thereupon, the local people or the local council or a Member of Parliament makes a protest. The protest is made to the regional office. The regional office come to a conclusion and make a decision. It may be that we, as representatives, take the matter up with the central office in London. We may even see a Minister, a Permanent Secretary or an Under-Secretary. What is the invariable

1283
answer? It is, "We really cannot interfere with this; we have left the matter in the hands of the local people, and they know far and away better than we do; we cannot do anything better." Our position is nothing like so satisfactory——
The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a single instance in which a Minister whom he has approached about a problem has told him, "I am sorry, you must go and see the regional council"?
Mr. Davies: Yes, certainly I can give one instance—agriculture. What happens there? The Minister of Agriculture has appointed his agricultural committee and the agricultural committee deal with local matters. They come to a decision. That decision, in the opinion of the people, is a wrong one. We then come to London and see the Minister. What is the reply which the Minister invariably makes? He says, "Who am I to interfere? I have done my best. I have appointed the best people I can think of, and I certainly cannot interfere." What is that but a bureaucratic form of Government? It was far and away better in the old days when we could go direct to the Minister, and he could make his own inquiries. Then he could reply to us, and we could discuss the matter again.
I want to give two or three instances of the way in which Wales has suffered in recent times. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the improved economic position. I agree that it is far better than it was a few years ago. He gave figures of unemployment. There was not one of us who was not deeply distressed about the unemployment that existed in Wales between the two wars. We know how much Wales added to the wealth of this country and, through this country, to the world, and how much Wales was forgotten during that grim period, when roughly 400,000 out of a population of 2,500,000 had to leave Wales because they could get nothing to do. I agree that there is a great improvement with regard to that. Would the right hon. Gentleman look back a little earlier than that and see the economic position when South Wales was flourishing and adding so much to our wealth?
The tragedy of rural Wales continues. There is still this terrible exodus
1284
from our rural communities. How often have I given the figures with regard to my own county which has a smaller population today than it had in 1800. A year or two ago, the death rate was exceeding the birth rate. I agree that in the bad times people went to work in South Wales. Many of the right hon. Gentleman's forebears came there from rural Wales to earn better money. What we have been anxious about is to try to stop that exodus. Little has been done by this or any other Government to stop it. What has been done by this Government is to make that exodus more certain. Consider the amount of land which they were about to take away for military purposes in Wales—a far higher proportion than from England or Scotland. I will not dilate on that. How much land are they going to take in afforestation—uprooting people from their mode of life and promising them an entirely different form of life; causing them to pursue a course of life which is utterly alien to the Welsh idea? One could give a tremendous amount of detail with regard to that but time will not permit.
May I mention one other thing? Recently, there has been a Boundary Commission which inquired into what might happen with regard to England, and they also laid down what should happen with regard to Wales. There is not a single council in Wales which has not objected to what the Boundary Commission has done.
Mr. David Jones: There were Welshmen on it.
Mr. Davies: I dare say, but they were in a minority. Nevertheless, the Boundary Commission say, "We propose to go on." Because of these matters, we have been asking for better consideration, for a Secretary of State and for a Welsh Parliament, which we demand today, to deal with our own Welsh affairs. We have been asking for devolution, and all that the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, can give us is this paltry secret chamber that no one in Wales wants.
4.58 p.m.
Major Lloyd George: In common with most of my colleagues from Wales, I recognise that we are under some disadvantage today in having had

1285
very little time to examine in detail the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. From my own experience of him as a colleague, when he says that he looks at this question with sympathy, I know that he is saying what is perfectly true, because no one has shown greater sympathy in regard to Welsh affairs than the right lion. Gentleman. I speak with some knowledge because he and I often had to consult about these questions.
I propose to occupy only a short time because there are many others who want to take part in the Debate. We have had, as I say, very little time to look into this proposal and my first reaction to it is much in accord with that of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). The right hon. Gentleman today and all his colleagues at various times have agreed that there is a special Welsh problem with regard to government. That is not in dispute. There are certain things in Wales which require special approach and treatment. There we are on common ground.
How will the proposal brought forward today by the right hon. Gentleman help us to deal with those special Welsh problems? My own view is that the proper place to deal with Welsh problems is in this House of Commons, and that the people best suited to deal with those problems are the elected representatives of the Welsh people, using the right of any Member of Parliament to deal with a Member of the Executive in this House. I am sure that is the only way to deal with a problem in a democratic State.
Mr. G. Roberts: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is, therefore, declaring, that he is opposed to the proposal made by his Liberal colleague the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) who asked for a Welsh Parliament?
Major Lloyd George: I should have said that a Parliament was the proper place as opposed to a Council outside it. Whether that Parliament be in Wales or in Westminster makes no difference to me at all.
Mr. Roberts: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees to it being in Westminster?
Major Lloyd George: Certainly, if we cannot get one anywhere else.
Mr. Roberts: That is the whole point.
Major Lloyd George: It is not the whole of the point I was making, if the hon. Member will allow me to finish. I was saying that in a democracy the proper place in which to deal with problems affecting the electorate is in the Assembly where the elected people meet. Where that particular place may be does not alter the argument in the slightest degree. I am arguing against the proposal submitted by the right hon. Gentleman today.
Surely we are the people who should handle the affairs of those who sent us here to look after them? What will happen now? What advance has there been today? We are to have a Council of 27 members; that Council is to meet quarterly to examine the economic and cultural affairs of the Principality, and is to keep the Government informed of the trend of Welsh opinion. What are we here for? It is to keep the Government informed on the effect of Government policy on Wales. Again, what are we here for? There is no need to have a Council of 27 when there are already 36 Members of this House who are far more easily accessible to their constituents than any member of this Council can ever be.
What does this Council consist of? Eight members elected by local authorities——
Mr. H. Morrison: Twelve from local authorities.
Major Lloyd George: There are to be four from each side of industry, labour and employers, one from the National Eisteddfod, one from the Tourist Board—and after hearing that I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not suggest having one from the Welsh Rugby Union in order to get a truly representative Council for the Principality; at least we might then have been able to get a few tickets for the international matches. Do the Government really suggest that this proposal will advance the case of Wales? The Council is to meet quarterly, and in private.
The right hon. Gentleman was not sure whether there was to be any report to Parliament; he said he had not thought of that, but that he would give it thought. Surely that is vital if this Council, which is representative of all thought in Wales, is to examine the industrial and cultural aspects of Welsh life, and all these other

1287
things. Nobody else can attend the meetings because they are secret, and the right hon. Gentleman is not sure whether there will be any report to us. How are we to act here if we do not get a report of what this great Council has discovered—assuming they discover anything?
The right hon. Gentleman said that the analogy was the Scottish Economic Conference, but added—I thought rather naïvely—that there was some difference in Scotland. I can assure him there is, as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will confirm. What happens in regard to Wales? Today, by the time the first two speeches are finished, we shall have speeches of about nine minutes each, supposing the same number—20—want to speak as spoke last time. Had it not been for this proposal we should be discussing the whole industrial and economic life of Wales in speeches of an average length of nine minutes. Hon. Members may want to discuss agriculture, industry and culture, all of which has to be crammed into nine minutes. That is not possible in any Debate in this House, even compared with the length of speeches on other subjects of 15 to 20 minutes. We have but one day in the year. Contrast that with what happens in Scotland. They have three Ministers; they have Debates on housing, on health, on practically every aspect of Scottish life. Reference to the index of HANSARD shows that eight columns of that index deal with Scottish affairs: there are only eight items for the whole of Wales. That is the difference.
The only way this problem can be dealt with effectively—whatever this Council reports—is to have a Minister in this House. At the moment we cannot get at a Minister who is responsible. Last time, the Lord President's place was taken by the President of the Board of Trade. This year the Lord President comes along and happens to be particularly sympathetic. But there is no Minister we can get hold of on any particular Welsh problem. The fact of the matter is we cannot get at this Council; the only person we can get at is a Minister. Frankly, I think this particular scheme is entirely useless. It may be a very good thing in helping us to get some more
1288
information; but if we want to do anything, then only in this House or in a Welsh Parliament can we do it. I repeat the complaint which we have all put forward to the right hon. Gentleman at different times: until we get somebody in this House who is responsible for Welsh affairs, and who can be questioned, and until we can have, as we are entitled to have, adequate Debates and not just one speech each, neither I nor any of my colleagues will be satisfied.
5.7 p.m.
Mr. Cove: As I listened to the two speeches from the Opposition Benches this afternoon, my mind went back over a long series of years. I have been in this House since 1923, and have joined in deputations on the question of a Secretary of State for Wales—although I have never been the spokesman—to every Prime Minister during that period. I do not want to be controversial, but I believe the matter was even considered by the father of the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), who turned it down. Every Prime Minister since the 1914–18 war has turned down the request for a Secretary of State for Wales. I thought that the Prime Minister who gave the most careful and sympathetic consideration to our request was the late Neville Chamberlain.
Mr. George Thomas: Hear, hear.
Mr. Clement Davies: Hear, hear.
Mr. Cove: I have agreement from both sides of the House. I remember very well Mr. Neville Chamberlain saying: "I have Welsh blood in me, and that Welsh blood in me is sufficiently strong to urge me to do all I can to secure a Secretary of State for Wales." We met him twice, but after he had given the proposal the most meticulous examination, he turned it down. That is the history of the last 20 years of propaganda for a Secretary of State for Wales. No Prime Minister of any party has regarded it as practical or useful for Wales.
This afternoon we have not had merely a request for a Secretary of State for Wales. I do not know where the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has jumped to. He appears to have jumped right into the camp of the Welsh Nationalists.
Mr. C. Davies: I never asked for a separation.
Mr. Cove: A properly, fully-elected representative Parliament for Wales.
Mr. G. Thomas: Parish-pump Parliament.
Mr. Cove: That is the proposal. The right hon. and learned Member knows that is a quite impracticable proposal which would be rejected by the mass of the working-class throughout Wales.
The problems of poverty and unemployment in Wales have not been imposed by the hatred and malignity of the English, although one would have thought that that was so. These problems are indigenous in the economic set-up of Wales, as in the case of Jarrow, Lancashire and other areas in England. No one knows better the problems of Wales than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery. He issued a report which was staggering in its revelations of the poverty of Wales, and of the housing conditions and the terribly bad, rotten, unhealthy temporary school buildings in Wales. But what was the reason for that report? It was not hatred or persecution by an alien Parliament, but the inherent poverty of Wales herself. He pointed out—it was burned into me, and I have used it many times—that the rateable value of Westminster was more than the whole rateable value of Wales.
Would the establishment of either a Welsh Parliament or a Secretary of State for Wales cure that indigenous poverty in Wales? The proposal for a Secretary of State for Wales has been turned down, and a Parliament for Wales is an impossible proposition. I say quite frankly that, having regard to the poverty of Wales and also in view of the fact that this proposal preserves the integrity of Members of Parliament and does not intrude upon the powers, responsibilities or privileges of Members of Parliament, I should have thought that those who have this live, dynamic interest in Wales would have said that here is a Council of Welsh people, not British aliens but a Council composed wholly of Welshmen, that will have the interests of Wales at heart.
Where, then, is the clash, assuming that we are to have good Welshmen on
1290
this Council? Why not trust them to help in stirring a Government into action where they think it is being diffident? I cannot understand why there should be this objection. The fact of the matter is that this is the first definite, concrete contribution towards making the voice of Wales effective. No other feasible proposal has been put before the House. I say to the Government: do not expect to get unanimity in Wales. I think that my Liberal friends, my Nationalist friends and my Conservative friends—I nearly said my dear Conservative friends—are a little bit jealous that here for the first time in history——
Mr. C. Davies: We are very glad.
Mr. Cove: Then let us all rejoice and sing praises unto Herbert Morrison in a unanimous voice. I say quite definitely to the Government that now that they know there are large sections of public opinion in Wales who will support them, let them go on with the job, because if they wait for unanimity they will never get anything done for Wales.
Mr. Daggar: There will be no Wales.
Mr. Cove: I hope that the Government will stand by their proposal and put it into effect, because the sooner they do that, the better they will be serving the interests of Wales.
5.17 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Birch: We have had a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). I think it is the first time that he has not attacked the Government with even greater power than he now supports it, I hope it is not a sign that he has now become a sycophant.
Mr. Cove: Oh.
Mr. Birch: I will withdraw that word and say "supporter." I think that my hon. Friends—and we have not had time to consult about this—would certainly approach the idea of a Council for Wales with sympathy. The House will remember that the Lord President of the Council said that he was approaching the question of a Minister for Wales with sympathy, but if this is his sympathetic approach I shudder to think what would be the result of his unsympathetic approach.

1291
There is certainly something to be said for a Council for Wales, although one composed and nominated like this is extremely difficult to defend. I do not believe that a Council for Wales makes any sense at all, unless there is a Minister for Wales who remits problems to the Council and to whom that Council has to report. I do not think that a Council sitting in Cardiff, or somewhere in the blue, with no one to report to and no one directing their labours really makes sense. I think the suggestion we have made many times, not for a Secretary of State for Wales, but for a Minister for Wales, that is to say, a senior Member of the Cabinet whose job it would be to look at Welsh problems as a whole and not merely from the departmental point of view, is an admirable way of cooperation with such a Council.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Does the hon. Member contemplate that this Minister would have a Civil Service set-up?
Mr. Birch: Certainly not. That is the set-up for a Secretary of State for Scotland. A Minister for Wales would be a watch-dog in the Cabinet who would look at Welsh problems as a whole and see that justice was done. If we were to have this Council, I think he would have a vital task.
What is the relationship of this Council to be with members of the Welsh Party? Suppose the Council gives secret advice and suppose that the secret advice leaks out and that we do not like the look of it. What Minister is to be asked questions about it? If there were to be some Minister for Wales, control over the Council, over the problems to be remitted to the Council, and over the reports that it made, would still remain in the hands of Members of Parliament for Wales. As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) has just said, Welsh politics make a certain impact upon Welsh Members of Parliament. Welsh constituents are by no means dumb and they can read and write. We know a bit about what is going on in our constituencies.
I cannot believe that the proposed Council, divorced from any kind of political contact or control, will give in-
1292
creased confidence in Wales about how the country is governed. How can confidence be stimulated by a body which is appointed by the Government of the day and which deliberates in secret? Secret deliberations and Government appointment do not lead to increased confidence. I fear that the whole proposal would degenerate very much into something like a Socialist caucus on a county council. That is what it would look like in the end. The people of Wales may come to look upon this body as a floating kidney in the Welsh body politic rather than as something with a healthy function. The Lord President of the Council said that our proposal for a Minister for Wales was whitewash. All I can say is that his proposal seems to me to be whitewash, and a very weak mixture at that.
Let me turn for a few minutes to the problem which was touched upon by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), that of regionalising local government in North Wales. As the House may be aware, the Boundary Commission have put up a proposal which involves the merging of the county councils of Flint, Denbigh, Anglesey, Caernarvon, Merioneth and Montgomery into one colossal local authority. This comes from the Socialist passion for symmetry and for concentration of power. It is what one usually gets under a Government which calls itself revolutionary. The Lord President will remember that after the French Revolution the Constituent Assembly destroyed all the historic units of French local government that had the will and the authority to govern themselves. All power thenceforward seeped away from local authorities in France and went to the centre.
This proposal of the Boundary Commission has been most bitterly resented in North Wales because it ignores the wishes of the people as represented by the elected councils, it ignores the history and the geography of the country and it ignores the communications of North Wales and the fact that there is no convenient administrative centre in North Wales. In fact, it ignores every local interest. Welsh county councils are efficient. They have said, very sensibly, that they are willing to have joint committees on specific subjects like police,

1293
fire, water, and technical education. In fact, they have a number of Joint Committees already and they are ready to extend them where it can be clearly shown that greater efficiency and economy will result.
The advocates of the scheme say that their situation will be better because we shall get more efficiency and better men. That is pure assumption. No calculations to prove it have in any way been put forward. This is exactly what happened over the National Coal Board. We were told that the Coal Board would reduce the costs of coal because we should get super-men on it and administrative costs would go down. The House knows that exactly the opposite effect has resulted. I believe that the same thing could happen in this case. We should simply be putting another tier of local Government upon the existing county councils and a lot of interested people would descend upon it like so many flies on a bit of meat. Far greater expense and inefficiency would result.
The Commissioners of the Boundary Commission met the county councils at Shrewsbury on 28th September last and treated them rather roughly. They showed not only the proud and overbearing manner which jumped-up officials are very apt to show, but they said that the Commissioners were very gravely disappointed by the continued absence of any constructive proposals from the Welsh counties. They added that the time was short. They did not actually add that their patience was exhausted, but they implied it.
Their attitude was typical of what is going on in this country now. Here we have institutions, historical entities, which have come about over many hundreds of years and which have been evolving and are still evolving, are efficient and have great futures in front of them. The Government then attempt to destroy these historical entities and when people object and say: "Look here, this is part of our life. We believe in it. This is how we want to work our lives," the Government say: "What is your constructive alternative?" I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite have ever realised how obscenely stupid that question is. I very much hope that this plan will not go through. It is completely opposed by the vast
1294
majority of the people in North Wales. It is supported only by one or two ambitious officials and one or two ambitious trade unionists. So far as I know, nobody else supports it at all.
I should like to add a word about the White Paper which the Lord President praised. It is a rather weak document. If it were presented by a Minister for Wales I do not believe we should get quite so much nonsense in it. For instance, in paragraph 183 the authors are trying to convey the simple information that people are drinking less orange juice. These are the words they use:
"The latest available figures showing the average uptake expressed as percentages of the potential uptake of vitamin issues"—
and so on. We really cannot seriously put up with this sort of language. It is intolerable.
Authority is seeping away from Wales owing to the progress of nationalisation. Electricity is now run from London through Liverpool. Coal is run from London through Manchester, gas from London presumably through Cardiff, and now steel from London through we do not yet know where. The dull malice of hon. Gentlemen opposite is taking away all the power and interest in North Wales. Speaking last week in the steel Debate the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) said that it was a scandal that the big steel works should be in North Wales at all and he very much hoped that the Steel Board would review such matters, have a proper plan and remove those steel works. That is the sort of sympathy that the people in North Wales are likely to get when they have their industries nationalised.
5.28 p.m.
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am sure that it will be interesting to the House to know that the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) is not at all certain that he is opposed to the idea of a National Advisory Council for Wales. I admire his frankness because it is going to be very easy indeed to criticise these proposals. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) complained that he had not been given enough time to study the Lord President's proposals. He then proceeded——
Mr. C. Davies: I did no such thing.
Mr. Roberts: He spent some time——
Mr. Davies: It does not take five minutes to understand what I said. What I complained about was that Wales had not heard about them.
Mr. Roberts: I took the right hon. and learned Member to mean that the proposal had come rather quickly and that it would be well to postpone discussion on it in this House. He then proceeded to condemn the proposal root and branch with all the authority of a man who had exhaustively examined it. The real truth is that no matter what proposal the present Government made in regard to Welsh affairs, and no matter how long hon. Members opposite had to study that proposal, they would still oppose it. I make bold to say that Welsh public opinion will agree with me and not with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that point.
The Lord President of the Council has made an extremely important announcement which will be widely discussed in the Principality. If the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery wishes to intervene in an orderly fashion I will give way, but he must not go on mumbling, after spending three-quarters of an hour in making a speech. As I say, the announcement will be widely discussed in the Principality and to a considerable extent what we as representatives of Wales say today about this proposal will colour the reactions of the people of Wales.
Mr. G. Thomas: On a point of Order. It is quite impossible for me to follow the argument of my hon. Friend because of the noise which the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is making. Is it possible for his running commentary to stop?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I hope that the whole House will so act as to enable hon. Members to make their speeches heard.
Earl Winterton: I was addressing a remark to my right hon. Friend. It ill becomes anyone on the other side of the House to complain of interruptions.
Mr. Daggar: Would it be possible to present the noble Lord with a Christmas toy?
Earl Winterton: I do not know whether that was intended to be a point of Order. If it was not a point of Order, it was an extremely insolent interruption.
Mr. Roberts: I was trying to say that what we say today about this proposal will certainly colour the reaction of the Welsh people to it. Therefore, we have a grave responsibility. We ought to examine the proposal as impartially as possible, and with a desire to give the wisest possible lead to our people.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that Wales is exercised in mind about the future of its administration and of its national status, but I hope that there will go out from this Debate today a lead to the people of the Principality to consider calmly what these proposals may mean to them and to their national future. I do not intend to dilate on the merits of the proposals. I will merely say that they have the merit that they recognise Wales as a national entity. That is quite clear, and we must not under-emphasise the importance of that. The second merit of the proposals is that they endeavour to create a consultative body composed of representatives of the chief aspects of Welsh life, which may regularly examine Welsh problems and recommend solutions to the Central Government, and possibly to the elected representatives at Westminster. That is an important step forward.
It is possible to criticise these proposals and any other proposals endlessly. In fact, that is what has happened in Wales for the past 60 or 70 years. The distinguished father of the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) made every effort to get united political action in Wales, to get one positive step forward. I think he failed, but I do not blame him for having failed. The one thing we seem to have failed to do in Wales is not to miss quite the right policy for Wales; what we have failed to do is to unite on some definite concrete step forward. These proposals, far from emanating from me, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has rather childishly suggested, do not fully meet with my desires in the matter. My views are perfectly well known to Members in all parts of the House. I am a devolutionist, a federalist, but I recognise that if we are to move ahead at all, we must get the highest common factor of agreement now in the Principality.

1297
I could make a speech along the lines of that made by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. Perhaps I could not do so as eloquently or as expertly, but I could say those things. That would not help the cause of unity in Wales, however, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is himself bound to gather from the reception given to some of his statements. I am not asking hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who represent Welsh constituencies, all of whom I can-I hope, in a personal way, refer to on Welsh days as my hon. and right hon. Friends, to commit themselves in detail to the proposal described today by the Lord President. I am most earnestly asking them not to stifle this thing before it can breathe, but to let it run; to use the words of the Lord President, to let this experiment proceed, and then, in the course of time, to watch its progress, to offer suggestions for modification and revision, to watch it carefully during the next 12 months. Then, on the next occasion on which we debate Welsh affairs, I ask that we should offer, with as much unity as we can, the most radical changes as to the composition, the terms of reference and the procedure of this Council.
Mr. David Grenfell: Why not do it now?
Mr. Roberts: We might do it in the course of this Debate. I am merely suggesting that this Debate should not be taken as conclusive on the merits of this proposal, and that during the next weeks and months we should go among our own people, think again about this proposal and fashion suggestions which might possibly improve the already practicable and reasonable proposal which the Lord President has placed before the House. Therefore, I commend to my hon. and right hon. Friends from Wales the view that we should not finally condemn this proposal today, but that we should let it proceed as an enterprise, as an experiment, and do our best to assist in its working and to improve it at the proper time.
5.39 p.m.
Mr. Price-White: We are talking tonight about Wales. The other evening, on what is always the apparently interminable journey from Wales, I was reading the autobiography of a legal luminary who
1298
once adorned—presumably—the Front Bench opposite. With a slight flavour of sour grapes he said, in a chapter on politics, that the average exposition of a back bencher was tiresome to his neighbour and not very exhilarating to himself. I say, with every respect to right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, that there are times when Debates on Welsh affairs may be tiresome to Wales and not very exhilarating to themselves.
I should like to pay a compliment to the Lord President of the Council. Wales has at least caused him to show himself in a more amiable and less mischievous mood than ever before. Let us be frank about this. We have had a proposal, which I am sure is made with a certain sense of political honesty by the Lord President, that we should have a Council for Wales. I was glad to hear him refer to Llandudno. Having experienced something of the Naples of the south, I was pleased to hear of the Naples of the north. He referred, not always in a praiseworthy way, to what happened at Llandudno recently. I would tell him that what the Tories did last month, obviously the Socialists will trapes after in two years' time. Whatever we may have done in Wales, we have at least caused the right hon. Gentleman to give hurried attention to the problem of Welsh affairs. I think that we Welsh representatives—I am speaking of those who are Welsh and not those who are representative of Wales because of the peculiar texture of the bag they carry from a political headquarters—[Laughter.] I at least have an advantage over some of the laughter-mongers in that I was born, bred and still continue to live in Wales.
Let us get down to fundamental matters. What indeed do we want? I am endeavouring to do a service to my fellow countrymen in asking them what they want. We have heard various suggestions. Anything said in this Debate—indeed, anything said at any time by a Welsh Member of Parliament—naturally will not receive full approbation in Wales, of all places. We appreciate the need for a greater understanding of the Welsh people and a more efficient administration of Welsh desires and potentialities than exist under the present Administration. It would be politically dishonest if I condemned the present proposal for a Council for Wales

1299
even if, as I suspect, it emanated from the fertile brain of my colleague the Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts). I suspect that his suggestion has received about as much unanimity among Welsh supporters of the Government as it will receive in Wales tomorrow.
What is it that we desire in Wales? It is patent that we desire something which will be an improvement upon our present administration with its complete absence of appreciation of the Welsh background and spirit and the Welsh potentiality for furthering the good of the four peoples of these islands and the world at large. We are all apt to seize upon anything which might provide a solution to our troubles. It would be wrong to condemn the present proposals, much as I dislike them, at the short notice which we have had. We cannot in equity condemn them merely because they have come from a Government whose political views we do not necessarily support. The proposals are worthy of examination. If the right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake, it is in rushing his suggestions before us at such short notice. If it is a conscientious attempt to solve this problem, then as such, it deserves examination.
Amiable scorn has been poured upon the suggested solution which came from this side of the House. It was said that we should appoint—when inevitably we return to office—a Minister who shall have the duty of appreciating the impact of Governmental policy upon Wales. I think that the phrase "appreciating the impact of Government policy" is a beautiful expression though, at present, it would appear that that policy is non-existent. I think that a better solution can be found than this anonymous Council for Wales. If a Welshman loves one thing, he loves a committee. There are more members of committees in Wales than there are inhabitants of the country, and we are now giving them another committee. That is not the answer to our problem.
For the first time in this Debate I direct the attention of the House to a subject which will inevitably be raised. I refer to Welsh culture. We are proud of our culture. Culture is indigenous to the country of its origin. No political chamber, no politcal act, can either make or kill culture. Whatever this House may approve in the way of Councils of
1300
Ministers cannot have the slightest effect for good or ill upon our culture, any more than it could effect the particular culture peculiar to any people. Should any present or future Government, be it through a Council or a Minister, think that they have the answer to this problem, I enjoin the House to remember that it is the small things which annoy and these small things, having annoyed, cause the blisters that become a nuisance. That is what we are suffering from in Wales.
I cite a few examples of the sort of nonsensical things which annoy us. There is the question of our communications. It has been acknowledged that in 1950-something we may be able to have an aeroplane flying up and down Wales and we may be allowed to get around Wales a little more quickly over the roads. There is the problem of our hill farmers who are finding that the subsidy granted under the Hill Farming Act, in its net result, amounts to nothing. The farmers are just where they were before. As the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) said, there has been an imposition on the part of the Boundary Commission which has raised the ire of the Welsh people, particularly in North Wales. I feel that the Boundary Commission's recommendations have once again illustrated a complete lack of appreciation of the background, which gives rise to a certain amount of justifiable Welsh feeling.
I wish to refer to a subject which was very exhaustively debated last Friday. We must speak particularly of the parts of the country we represent and endeavour to know, and- in North Wales we are very dependent on the tourist industry. I wish to take this opportunity of paying a compliment to a revered Member of this House, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), for the work he has done and is doing in quietening certain disruptive factors in Wales and endeavouring to put the Welsh Tourist Board on a firm basis. He has done more than most people realise towards putting the industry into a state in which it can collect dollars in the future. In North Wales, particularly, we cannot hope to continue to attract visitors and dollars so long as the present incidence of the Catering Wages Act applies. There have been difficulties about the hotel and catering industry which may mean the swift end of the tourist and catering industry in

1301
North Wales, upon which we depend very greatly.
I have tried to illustrate two or three of the small points which irritate us in Wales and the fact that no Council, or committee, or Minister for Wales may be the answer. We have to go carefully in finding the answer. It has been easy to shout, "A Secretary of State for Wales," but ask any Scotsman present and he will say that a Secretary of State for Scotland is more of a hindrance than a help. We must be careful before we adopt it as a political cry, without realising what it means.
I welcome the opportunity of discussing Welsh affairs. The Government's pro-proposal of a Council may be the answer and it may not be. I do not think it will be. The Conservative Party's suggestions, and the Liberal Party's suggestions are not very concrete upon any project whatever. But, whatever may be the eventual answer, we can only find it by an amalgamation of the appreciation of the Welsh idea, be it through a Council, which I think is the wrong idea, or through a Minister. Whatever it may be, I trust the House will find a solution and an appreciation of the Welsh background which will settle all these irritations and at long last bring into fullest life the real potentiality of a people who, after all, have been here longer than most.
5.54 p.m.
Mr. David Thomas: I realise that there are very many more Welsh Members who wish to take part in the Debate and I will endeavour to make my few remarks in the space of about ten minutes. Concerning the Council for Wales offered by the Lord President of the Council this afternoon, I am rather amazed at the reception it has had from the benches opposite. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has stated clearly that he is for a Welsh Parliament. I think that if the people of Wales were asked to decide today whether or not they wanted a government for themselves, they would bowl it over unhesitatingly.
On the question of the composition of the Council for Wales, the Lord President has made it very clear that the Government are against appointing a Minister, and I entirely agree with them. I do not think that if a Secretary for Wales or a Cabinet Minister were appointed he
1302
would be effective in any way. The Lord President said that he was afraid that if a Minister were appointed he would be pushing the other Ministers around, but I think it would be the reverse and the Minister for Wales would be pushed around by the other Ministers. It would not be of any use at all for Wales.
This Council cannot do any harm, but it can do some good. We have been told clearly that it has no executive powers, and I do not think any Member of the Welsh Parliamentary group desires that any power should be given it, apart from the power that we have in this House at present. I agree with all that was said by the Lord President, but the people of Wales are not concerned about this separate Council for Wales. They are more concerned with their conditions and the opportunities to live a full life. I will, therefore, leave the question of a Council for Wales to hon. Friends who may follow me and will deal briefly with one or two subjects, which I consider are extremely important to the people of Wales.
Reports on housing are being published quarterly and are of much interest. While I appreciate that the Minister responsible for the housing programme is doing all he can, having regard to the difficulties with which he is confronted, much has yet to be done. The individual married man and woman is more concerned about getting decent conditions in which to live. I come from the South Wales mining area and I believe the same problem confronts all my hon. Friends in divisions in South Wales and North Wales. The conditions under which some of our people continue to live are deplorable. I would like to see the Government tackle this problem as they would tackle a war problem. If war should occur again, though I hope it never will, there is no doubt the Government would be able to set up camps with adequate accommodation for each soldier, sailor or airman. I cannot see why it is not possible for the Government to handle the housing problem in the same way as a first priority.
Last weekend I was approached in my division by one who stated, "We are nine living in a small bungalow." Two of the nine were miners. There was no bath in the house, no back kitchen. I know the Minister is doing all he can, but it is possible to solve this problem,

1303
and the Government should bring in another temporary housing scheme as, unfortunately, they have brought the previous one to an end. I say that in raining valleys and in other industrial towns and villages they should restore the temporary housing scheme so that a larger number of people could be housed.
There is another serious problem confronting us throughout Wales—the leases on existing properties which are about to terminate. Those who own these houses, in the main poor working-class people, are anxious about what will happen to them in the near future. As one of the Welsh Members, I thank the Government for having set up a committee which I am told is doing all it can to issue its report.
Mr. G. Thomas: Let us have it.
Mr. D. Thomas: I say that the sooner the report is published the better. If necessary, let the Government introduce legislation so that justice can be meted out to these people who now own the houses, perhaps by giving them a chance to purchase the freeholds at a fair and reasonable price, or by extending the leases. This question is giving grave concern to the people involved, not only in Wales but throughout England as well.
While I appreciate what the Lord President said concerning employment and unemployment in Wales, we are not satisfied that the Government have tackled this question, especially unemployment amongst disabled ex-miners, ex-Service men and other disabled industrial workers. The figure of unemployment in Wales is 40,000, and if it were analysed, we should find that there is a hard core and that the majority are the disabled men I have just described. We are grateful to the employers who have come to Wales and have given employment to thousands of our workpeople, but they say, "It is hardly fair for you to expect us to employ these disabled persons when we have to compete in the open market with other employers. We ought to have some assistance from the Government." If that were forthcoming, they would be able to employ many of these disabled workmen who cannot possibly find employment in the ordinary occupation field.
1304
I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is taking a few notes, and I ask him to look at the figures in the reports which are published from time to time to the Minister. These disabled persons are recorded as being fit for ordinary employment. I have a list before me relating to Aberdare and Mountain Ash. There are 684 in Aberdare and 398 in Mountain Ash. With regard to the figure for Aberdare, diseases of the lungs except tuberculosis—that is silicosis and pneumoconiosis—account for 375, diseases of the heart 45, eye defects 41, and other disabilities make up the balance. Some 622 of these are considered to be fit for ordinary employment; of the Mountain Ash total of 398, 354 are considered to be fit for ordinary employment. Nothing of the kind. If these men are suffering from these serious disabilities, how on earth can the officials of the Ministry say that they are fit for ordinary work? They should certainly look at those lists and put the men in the proper categories, so that we in Wales will know exactly what is the unemployed problem.
6.7 p.m.
Professor Gruffydd: I am afraid I cannot emulate the moderation of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. D. Thomas) nor of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Price-White). I, for one, shall be a displaced person after this Parliament. I shall have lost my seat, and I can now say to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, moriturus te saluto. The annual Saturnalia of the Welsh Parliamentary Party and of the political life of Wales has come round once again. If I am to speak plainly as I threatened to do, I cannot see much point in it. I never have seen much point in this Welsh day, and after hearing what has been said today I am much more convinced of its uselessness than I was before.
Of course, I thoroughly understand the reason why this concession to Welsh sentiment was made by the Cabinet of three of four years ago when this institution was first established. I can imagine them saying to each other, "Let us give those loquacious Welshmen a chance to blow off steam once a year, and then perhaps they will be more amenable to reason for the rest of the year." And how

1305
right they were. All the agitation about a separate Secretary of State for Wales, all the agitation about Home Rule and other weighty matters, have now gone to join the sorry frustrations of the past—and from what I have heard today they look like remaining in the past.
On this day we are annually invited to discuss—what? To discuss as much news of Wales as can be reduced to arithmetic in a Parliamentary White Paper. The very nature of a discussion on the Adjournment prevents us, by the Rules of Order, from suggesting anything that would be helpful to Wales, namely, what would require new legislation. Now, in addition, we have had sprung upon us—to use a word which has been used already by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies)—a new proposal for a Council for Wales, which apparently is to be such a small, such an insignificant bagatelle, that it will not require any legislation or even an Order in Council. I, for one, must express surprise, if not consternation, that on an innovation like this Wales, as represented by her Members, was neither consulted beforehand nor given an adequate opportunity to discuss it after it had been made known. Heaven knows that the scheme as I heard it from the Lord President absolutely pullulates in matters for criticism. As I see it, we are getting in addition to this annual day, this bagatelle of a Council which we shall be unable to discuss in this House because we shall not know what it is doing. Every year we shall go on interminably talking about our grievances like a nagging wife who cannot get her husband to do the ordinary household repairs.
To all the complaints we have made so far in this House we always get the same answer from the Government. I am not indicting this particular Government or the Labour Government as such—I am indicting the Government of Westminster as it generally behaves whatever its complexion, whether Conservative, Liberal or Labour. The answer we have had from this Government to our complaints is, "Very well, then; you complain that your culture is dying because nobody is there to preserve it; you complain that your sons and daughters are going away to England and to other parts of the world. Very well, we will
1306
build new factories and new training estates in those parts of Wales which were once called Distressed Areas"—and where, incidentally, there are most voters. "To meet the complaint about de-population"—to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has referred—"we will import to Wales vast hordes of Czechs, Poles and displaced Jews who will make quite a nice problem-for your national future. We will, by-encouraging the excellent system of Welsh education, fit all your boys and girls for employment in England and in the Colonies, but we will do nothing"—so they say in effect—"to help to revive the life of the countryside"—which is the very home, the Mecca, the Jerusalem, the metropolis of our Welsh culture and way of life. This is something that we Welshmen of all parties hold infinitely precious, much more precious than any opportunities that may be given us of growing rich in England.
That seems to me to be the attitude of most Governments that I remember in this country. Is it to be wondered, therefore, that all our most intelligent young men and women are joining the Nationalist Party, that this has produced a lamentable cleavage in Welsh life and has added a new bitterness to a problem that is already too bitter?
I should like to make one general remark on the government of Wales as outlined in the proposals which have been put before us. I think there is a fundamental error in political thought as represented at Westminster which accounts for all this. And by "all this" I mean the wooden-headed and contemptuous way in which far too often Government Departments treat Welsh affairs. I should like to make one exception to this rule, and that is the Ministry of Education. I am glad of the opportunity of saying here that the Minister of Education has shown the way to all the other Ministries how Wales can to a very large extent govern its own affairs. I refer not only to the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister. Credit is also largely due to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). I have singled out the Minister of Education for praise, and would like to single out for dispraise the War Office as a perfectly ghastly example of the insen-

1307
sitivity of the military mind, especially when dealing with Wales. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for War is not here today to hear what I am saying. I hope that if anyone tells him what I have said, he will convey my expressions to his advisers.
If hon. Members will bear with me a little longer, I will try to point out the error I have mentioned in the Westminster conception of the government of Wales. When two countries with different cultures, history, language and ways of life such as those of England and Wales live together, when a weaker country is annexed to the stronger country, the weaker country can be treated in one of three different ways and, I think, only three. Either the weaker country can be treated as conquered territory, just as for many years we treated India and just as we are forced, I believe, to treat Germany at present. Secondly, the weaker country can be treated as an integral part of the larger one, making no political distinction whatever between the citizens of one country and those of the other. In fact, the two countries together can be made into one and the smaller made into a province of the larger and all these differences of culture, language and so on can be steam-rollered out into a hideous flatness. Lastly, the weaker country can be taken into partnership with the stronger and governed not as a province, not as a collection of counties, but as a unit in a kind of federal union, even with a single Parliament.
Already the Nationalists maintain, both in writing and in speeches, that England is governing Wales as a conquered country. I do not believe it. I do not subscribe to that doctrine. But, perhaps, it is not to be wondered at that these young men and women, in their enthusiasm and their youth, think so when they look at our railways, all of which were built to serve England and not Wales; when they look at our waterworks and waterways, all made to serve large English cities and never to serve Wales itself, and especially not to serve the most important industry in Wales from the standpoint of keeping up national culture—namely, agriculture; and when they look in particular upon what the present Government have done in the distribution of electricity supplies to England, is it really to be wondered at that they can find plenty of argument
1308
for saying that Wales is being governed as a conquered country and is, in fact, even being exploited? The Act of Union of 1535 is being decried and deprecated by growing opinion in Wales. I was very sorry to hear it suggested that Wales is not at present ripe for autonomy. I am perfectly certain that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said nothing of the kind.
Mr. G. Thomas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said "Welsh Parliament."
Professor Gruffydd: He spoke about a Welsh Parliament for Welsh affairs. I will explain to those who do not know that the Nationalist Party claims a Welsh Parliament for all affairs—foreign affairs, the Army, the Navy and everything else. The second method of government which I mentioned is the manner in which the Principality is now governed by England. It is true to say that as a far as this House of Parliament is concerned, Wales is merely a collection of counties, just as Yorkshire is a collection of Ridings. It is not recognised as a nation. Its language is actually ignored. I have heard the Welsh language sneered at on more than one occasion, from the Benches on this side, I am sorry to say. All my life I have been reading about the Welsh language being sneered at from the Front Bench. For a concrete example, I need only mention the discussion a year ago when the Minister of Transport absolutely refused to have the Highway Code translated into Welsh. He thought he had very cogent reasons for not doing it. The preservation of Welsh culture and the Welsh language must depend on voluntary efforts which would not be tolerated for a moment in England in its attempts to retain its culture and language.
Time after time in this House we hear evidence of solicitude for those things which England holds precious in her national life, but never is there a whisper or the faintest voice raised to safeguard what Wales holds precious. Yet the House of Commons is surely the House of Commons of England and of Wales. I should like it to be quite clearly understood that it ought to be the House of Commons of England and the House of Commons of Wales and not merely the

1309
House of Commons of that impossible entity, England plus Wales. Surely Wales can claim a little understanding, help and encouragement beyond the provision of new factories in the distressed areas, because the whole of Wales will culturally be a distressed area very soon unless something else is done.
Only Welshmen and Welsh women can diagnose our troubles. It is quite impossible for an Englishman to do it. The Englishmen who try to diagnose our troubles fall into two classes, those who are allergic and hostile to Wales and those who are well disposed. A hostile Englishman does not do very much harm—he has often been a very great help—but the Lord deliver us from the well-disposed Englishman who tries to meddle in Welsh affairs. I am afraid that the scheme for a Welsh Council seems to be the work of the well-disposed Englishman at his worst.
We shall not be satisfied, and there will be this kind of criticism year after year, until we have the kind of Government which I have described in my third division, the partnership government—Wales governed as a full partner in this alliance of England and Wales, with the same consciousness of nationhood and national individuality which is now found in the government of England. After all, for over 2,000 years Wales has kept alight the lamp of civilisation, religion and all those things which go to make the decencies of life, and we want to see that that lamp is not extinguished now when it is most needed, when the lights are going out all over Europe.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: All hon. Members who represent Welsh seats listened to the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) with great interest. We remember his long devotion to the Welsh Nationalist cause in the Principality of Wales. It is strange how, with the passing of the years, one goes back to one's first love. Tonight the hon. Gentleman has spoken as if there is only one thing worse than ignoring Wales and that is, to do something for Wales. He has spoken as though any well-intentioned Englishman is an enemy of Wales. I say to the hon. Gentleman that he and his sort are the real enemies of Wales by creating the antagonisms which his sort of speech is
1310
likely to create throughout the United Kingdom.
Professor Gruffydd: Would the hon. Member go into Wales and say that I am the enemy of Wales?
Mr. Thomas: With very great pleasure. I shall be doing it at the weekend. Tonight we have heard the Liberal Party commit itself, if it is united on this occasion in following the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), to a Welsh Parliament. I put it to the Committee that the people of Wales would laugh the right hon. and learned Gentleman out of court if he tried to put that forward as a policy for our people to pursue. We are far too much aware that the virtues of the Welsh people are the same as the virtues of the English, the Scots and the Irish.
Professor Gruffydd: No.
Mr. Thomas: I fear that what I regard as a virtue is regarded as a vice by the hon. Gentleman. I want to put forward the point of view that separation—and it has been advocated——
Mr. C. Davies: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I must rise to this. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to misrepresent what I have said?
Mr. Thomas: I have not done so.
Mr. Davies: Oh, yes. It looks as if it were almost deliberate.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I did not hear the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman so I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has misrepresented it.
Mr. Thomas: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to run away from what he said earlier on, far be it from me to stand in his way. The words having been spoken, the record will be there, and tomorrow Wales will know that the Leader of the Liberal Party has asked for a Welsh Parliament. If any additional blow to Liberal interests in Wales were required it has been faithfully delivered today by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
The culture of the Welsh people is unique; so is that of the Scots, Irish and English. We all contribute towards the synthesis of the culture which the United

1311
Kingdom possesses today. Our basic needs in life are exactly the same as those required by the rest of the United Kingdom. Nobody is attacking Welsh culture, unless it be the Welsh themselves. Who is preventing the furtherance of Welsh culture today? Who is menacing the Welsh language? Is it England, is it Scotland, or is it the people of Wales themselves? There is no impediment by this House to the fullest development of Welsh culture. But when we come to the question of our economic needs it is different. The agitation which has been continued by Members on this side of the House, as well as those Members opposite who sit for Welsh seats, for some form of Welsh council, sprang from economic considerations, and not from any synthetic nationalist sentiment. The Council which has been proposed by the Lord President of the Council is a vast advance on anything that any Government have hitherto offered to Wales. No Government, to my knowledge, ever offered Wales anything before——
Mr. West: Except poverty.
Mr. Thomas: Yes, I am coming to that. We shall be hearing the voice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) later in the Debate——
Mr. R. A. Butler: Quite soon.
Mr. Thomas: I am glad of that, because my words will be all the fresher in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. Before the right hon. Gentleman condemns what is offered by this Government to the people of Wales, I hope he will remember what the Conservative Party offered us in those terrible years when they were in power. I happen to live in the Rhondda Valley, although it is my privilege to represent the City of Cardiff in this House. I remember that the Conservative Party almost smashed the family life of the people in that valley. The Conservative Party reduced Wales to a shadow of what it ought to have been. Our economic life was at a standstill, and if the Conservative Party, now they are in the political wilderness, intend to pose as the friends of Wales, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Welsh people have long memories. They know the indifference with which the Conserva-
1312
tive Party heard the heart cries of our people in the years between the wars.
Now, for the first time in the history of Wales, it will be possible for a National Council, by means of which North can join with South, to express its views to the Government. Anything that will bring North Wales nearer to South Wales is, in my view, desirable and, I trust, is also desirable to Members opposite. We have suffered too long from the divisions between North and South. The spurious Welsh unity which was shown so long as we were attacking the Government on other Welsh matters, has broken down today. Now the Government have brought forward a constructive proposal for Wales, Members opposite are in full cry. Anything that this Government do for Wales is disliked by them. My time is almost at an end, so I will conclude by congratulating the Lord President of the Council not only on his opportune entrance at this moment, but on being a well-intentioned Englishman and also a Socialist who is an internationalist. I congratulate him on the understanding he has revealed of the sentiments of the Welsh people, of their legitimate aspirations, and on the efforts he has made to give us a national organisation which will present to the Government its views about the cultural and economic life of Wales.
6.36 p.m.
Mr. R. A. Butler: I have not the good fortune to sit for a Welsh constituency, but I thought it would be more deferential to Welsh Members if I delayed taking part in this Debate until several of them had spoken. I warn the House that I cannot be so brief as some speakers have been up to now, because I must speak from this Box on behalf of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Lord President of the Council, through no fault of his own, spoke for about three-quarters of an hour, and I hope the House will bear with me if I speak for not quite so long.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), whom I have often heard in the past, and whose eloquence almost masters this House, said that no aliens had imposed their will or forced poverty on the Principality of Wales. That proposition found acceptance in the Chamber, but when the alien is called the Conservative Party the hon. Member has a completely

1313
different philosophy. It has been said that it was entirely due to that alien, the Conservative Party, that poverty was forced on Wales in the past. The House must choose between one philosophy and the other, and for myself I am prepared to accept the philosophy of the hon. Member for Aberavon and follow his oratory on this occasion. I am not ready, however, to follow the Lord President in his purely political approach to this problem. Towards the end of my remarks I shall touch upon his proposal for a Consultative Council and for a Minister for Wales, but I propose for a few minutes to ask one or two questions about the contents of the White Paper.
I came to this House to discuss Welsh questions, and put forward the view of the Opposition. It has been disappointing that so little time has been able to have been given to Welsh education, industry and agriculture, because this is the only day of the year on which we can discuss purely Welsh affairs. I would like to thank the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) for his kind remarks about what I have tried to do for Welsh education in the past. I have done my best, and I am glad to see, in the White Paper, that the proposals for improving the teaching of the Welsh language are going ahead in a very satisfactory way. I realise that there are other sections of Wales which do want to take on all these facilities. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that on the next occasion they should issue a publication of this document in Welsh. That will show up some of the journalese and Civil Service slang which it contains and if that were done, I feel sure that the next version would be in very much better English.
I am very glad to see in the Report the merging of the old intermediate system in the general grid of the 1944 Education Act. I regard that as a most important development in the education of Wales. I was staggered, as usual, to see the enormously high proportion of Welsh children going to secondary schools. It can be said today, as I have said in the past, that Wales gives a lead to the whole of these islands in the manner in which she conducts her secondary education and in the standard attained. It is indeed a tragedy that as a result of this very excellence, so much
1314
of this Welsh talent is exported to England and other places as a result of the magnificent passing of examinations in these secondary schools. When I come to consider the Council, I hope that one of the matters to which they will have regard at an early date is the effect of this export of talent upon the prosperity of the Principality as a whole.
I have only one further remark to make about the education aspect. I am very glad to see that Wales has also given a lead to England in the merging of the university and the technical college provisions. This is the case not only in South Wales but in North Wales. Until, both in England and Wales, we manage to merge the facilities offered in senior technical colleges and universities, until we get rid of the wrong snob value of supposed superiority of one over the other, we shall not meet the needs of Wales in technical college improvement. I think that Wales has given a lead in this matter in making degrees interchangeable. One of the first technical colleges to be built is likely to be started in Flintshire. I should like myself to congratulate the Flintshire authority on that technical college, which I think will form one of those great new colleges of which we are so much in need in North Wales.
It is rather a pity that the Minister has clamped down on the proposed number of teachers for individual Welsh authorities, because the result of that is that if there is a predominance of women teachers in Wales this rule about authorities having a certain proportion means that many of the Welsh women teachers may be sent to England to supply deficiencies here. That is quite fair in itself but for goodness sake let us see that the primary schools in Wales are adequately staffed first. If that is the case then we can apply for these girls to come to England and help us with the teaching problem here.
I leave the question of education and come to the point of the Lord President about industrial expansion. The right hon. Gentleman gave us his figures of factory expansion. He told us of the number of square feet which had been completed, amounting to over 3 million square feet, but not all of it occupied. He went on to give us the number of square feet under construction, or projected, which in my figure, coming from the White Paper,

1315
amounts to 18 million under construction. The unemployment figure amounted, in June, to 39,000–27,000 men, 10,000 women and about 800 juveniles. When this immense factory space is contrasted with the pool of labour available and the Government assure us that the factory space can be increased in this manner to five times the pool of existing labour in Wales, we must ask are we moving from the threat of unemployment to the provision of too much factory space for the existing labour available in Wales? I ask that as a sincere question, to which I hope the Minister will give an answer.
1 wish to draw attention to the large proportion of disabled in the employment figures: 12,605 men out of the total which I gave are classed as disabled, and 1,865 are disabled and in need of shelter and employment. This question of the disabled is a very serious one. To all of us who have been in South Wales—and I have been there both as Minister of Labour and Minister of Education—the most terrible sight, to those of us who are not so closely connected with it as hon. Members from Wales, is that of the disabled. Another thing which strikes me about the factory programme is that it appears that we are getting too far ahead with all this floor space and not going fast enough with the Grenfell factories. My information is that only one has been completed, and I should like an assurance from the Minister that the Grenfell factories for the disabled are being pressed ahead much faster than has been the case hitherto.
I would like to ask a question about cold production plants, and their location at Trostre, and the location of the remaining plants which I believe are at Margam. If they are not, I should like to know where they are to go. I have some notes on the production of coal but as we are to have a coal Debate at some time—alas! not tomorrow so I understand, but at some time—I leave my remarks on that subject to another occasion. I would only remind the Lord President, who quoted figures comparing conditions now with what they were between the wars, that the figures of exported coal amount now to only a little more than in 1946–47, 2,559,100 tons. In 1938 the figure was 17,000,000 tons, in the days of the Tory misrule which we have
1316
quoted at us so often. I, therefore, trust that the export of coal may with due progress reach the previous figure.
Before I leave coal, and linking up with the question of the disabled, I would refer to the accident figures. In paragraph 22 of the White Paper an attempt is made to claim that the accident figures are better. If the figures for 1947–48 are examined we find they are, 109 killed and 358 injured, compared with 1945–46, when there were 105 killed and 447 injured. One does see a slight improvement, although the figures of killed are actually more, but I maintain that is not sufficient to meet the claim made in the White Paper that the accident rate has improved. If the right hon. Gentleman could tell us something about that, we should be much relieved.
I wish to ask a question about the slate industry at Blaenau. I visited Blaenau myself in the course of my tour in Wales, which so much entertained the Lord President, and from which I personally profited so greatly. I had some opportunity of meeting men in the slate industry and I found that there was great discontent that the Rees Report had not been properly implemented. I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman of the implementation of the Rees Report particularly in regard to slate cutters, and the equipment and machinery for the slate mines, and in particular the treatment of dust diseases and silicosis which is still prevalent. I was told when I was there that that does not seem to be the absolute responsibility of any single Ministry, but rather seems to fall between the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I promised the men there that I would ask this question and I am taking this opportunity of so doing.
Before I come to the major issues I have three further questions. The first relates to the new towns. The right hon. Gentleman, with exquisite timing, made a statement about new towns which greeted us in the morning papers on our arrival in Llandudno. We have not yet heard where the new towns are to be and if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us where the new towns are to be we should be satisfied. I should like to ask if the method of the tenure of houses in the new towns is to be leasehold tenure, because if that is so, all

1317
the evils referred to by one Member on the subject of leaseholds will remain in the minds of the Welsh people. I should like to have the assurance that the evils of the leasehold tenure as we know them today are not to be perpetuated in any new town schemes, and that present difficulties are not likely to continue.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: And ground leases?
Mr. Butler: I had better go on.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I am not surprised at that answer.
Mr. Butler: The question of communications is my next point. The right hon. Gentleman has told us about the charges on the Welsh ports. They have suffered through a difficult charge structure which was originally designed to take no traffic other than coal. I am informed that in the Welsh coal ports the consignor pays for the handling of goods between the truck and the ship's side. We wish to hear more about the facilities for the Welsh ports and particularly any improvements on them.
My final question is on the subject of agriculture. Last year when we had a Welsh Debate, I raised the question of the operation of the Hill Farming Act in Wales. It appears now from paragraph 87 of this White Paper that only 355 schemes have' been approved in principle, not in practice, out of 1,009. It appears that three seasons have been lost in putting into force the provisions of the Hill Farming Act, and we should like to hear from the Minister who is to reply whether he has any news of the operation of the Hill Farming Act and the provision of schemes for the smaller farms as well as the provision of rural roads to reach the smaller farms in difficult weather.
I come now to the main issues which were raised by the Lord President of the Council in his opening speech If I were asked what is our general attitude to Wales I should say, first and foremost, the necessity for considering the whole complex pattern of Welsh activities, social and economic, as a whole. The danger of this White Paper as we see it, is that it is entirely compartmental in its outlook. It is produced by different Departments and is not directed to showing what are the aims and aspirations of the
1318
Principality as a whole. It is put together as a string of facts by a string of Departments. We also feel that Wales needs some expression of individuality as a nation and that the economic life of Wales and England is indissolubly bound up and that fact must be faced.
At the start I must say on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that we cannot accept any suggestion of a Welsh Parliament to run Welsh affairs, because I do not believe that that is wanted by the Welsh people. My first criticism of the Council proposal made by the Lord President is that it would appear to be so sealed off from this Parliament, in order to satisfy the wishes of the M.P.s for Wales that it is doubtful if it is brought into the Parliamentary scene at all. The right hon. Gentleman had so little thought out that aspect of his scheme, that he wisely on this occasion gave us no answers as to what the relations of this Council with Parliament are going to be. I am not prepared to condemn this Council out of hand at this Box this afternoon. This Council idea was given to us without any warning, which is why I postponed speaking until later in the afternoon. I thought that more mature consideration was necessary than could be given to the suggestion if one jumps up immediately after the main speaker.
I wish the Government had taken the House and Wales more into their confidence and issued a White Paper on this suggestion, so that we could have had a Debate at a later date after mature consideration. I should like to say on behalf of the party for which I speak that, frankly, we are only interested in a scheme of reform for Wales if it is acceptable to Welsh opinion. I have no information whether this is acceptable to Welsh opinion. I wish to come now to another of its defects, which is that if the Council sits in secret, then its activities are going to be very much misunderstood. Therefore, I would like the right hon. Gentleman when he replies to give us a further indication of this body's relationship with Parliament and the secrecy of its activities.
On the question of appointments, it is going to lead to a certain amount of anxiety whether the Council eventually does represent the whole gamut of Welsh opinion, if the appointments are in the

1319
hands of a political Prime Minister. I accept at once the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that efforts will be made to make the Council representative of all opinion, but the fact is that it will be an appointed body. I am beginning to think that the right hon. Gentleman is repenting of all his evil devices with the House of Lords and is trying to create an Upper House or House of Lords for Wales. It is true he is not giving this House any delaying powers, but he probably considers that the congregation of civil servants meeting in Cardiff will provide the necessary delaying machinery. If we look at these two schemes together, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman, like Abbé Sieyès, is going through a real period of constitution-making. We have always envisaged the need for one personality in the Government to sum up the whole problem of Wales in the Cabinet, to be there as I described it before, as the watchdog for Wales and to help to coordinate the Departmental or compartmental views which we get in this document on Welsh affairs.
Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman says, "We had always contemplated a single Minister to pull Welsh things together." Will he tell us how long was that? I am in a difficulty in saying things I should like to say about right hon. Gentlemen and others in a previous existence, and I cannot do it, but how long has this been going on?
Mr. Butler: My position is absolutely clear.
Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman said "We."
Mr. Butler: I stated my views on behalf of my friends. There is no mystery about this matter. During the last Welsh Debate, after mature consideration, we put forward these views, and that was a year ago. It was a great deal of time before the right hon. Gentleman brought forward any of his ideas on his own, but I am very glad that he has been so spurred by the activity at Llandudno that he has had to rush to this Chamber with a proposal about which he has not even had time to consult Welsh opinion, and which we have to take absolutely blindly in the course of a Welsh Debate, thus depriving
1320
us of the chance of considering this matter of Welsh culture, agriculture and industry. The right hon. Gentleman had better not be mysterious but sit quietly and take his medicine.
It is a year since we came out with our proposals. We considered that there must be some personality in London in the Cabinet and in Parliament who could represent Welsh interests and help to coordinate the departmental view. We also envisaged that such a personality would preside over this meeting of civil servants which takes place at Cardiff and help them with their deliberations, bringing a little more inspiration into their activities by combining all the different points of view together. They have done excellent work but they can be helped by a man of Cabinet rank occasionally taking the chair at their deliberations.
We have not stood—I remember the time factor—for a Secretary of State for Wales. We do not propose that this Minister should have Executive power, because we believe that that must remain with the Departments, but we believe that the whole trouble of Wales—and the trouble with this document this year—is that it looks at things with too departmental and narrow a view. Unless there is this Minister, it must be the task of the whole Cabinet or of the Prime Minister to devote much more time to Wales than is done now.
What I am proposing, therefore, is that if we had a Cabinet Minister who is called the Minister for Wales—he may have other activities too—who is available in Whitehall and available to come to Parliament, he would form a very much better head to whom a Council such as is proposed by the Government could come. There is no Department in Wales today that does not overlap with another Department, and I do not believe that the Prime Minister or the Government as a whole, in the present rush of Parliamentary life, have a chance of bringing the whole Welsh picture into one mind and making it work.
The other reason is because I have found, in meetings in Wales, that such an appointment would give satisfaction to Welsh aspirations. I have found that to be the case, and, therefore, our two objectives were to try to look at Welsh problems as a whole, while, at the same

1321
time, proposing somebody who could bring departmental views together. We need somebody who will provide opportunities for Welsh aspirations and give satisfaction to the Welsh people. I believe that, in the end, the right hon. Gentleman will find that this proposal can be made to work, and that it would help us out of our difficulties.
I will say no more today, because we wish to examine this proposal of the Government and try it out as far as we can, but I do not think it will work, unless it is brought into relation with a central personality who will be associated, in the minds of the Welsh people, with the aspirations and ideals of the Principality.
7.2 p.m.
Mr. S. O. Davies: I regret to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) is not in the House at the moment, because I must express my regret at the grossly unfair attack which he made on the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd), who is also not in his place at present. It would be churlish on the part of any hon. Member, wherever he may sit in this House—and, at the same time, being a Welshman, it would be particularly churlish and contemptible on his part—if he did not express his disgust and resentment at the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff against a person who has made such a solid and splendid contribution to the cause of Wales and the Welsh people. It was one of the most unhappy episodes that I have experienced on this side of the House. This attack was utterly uncalled for. I speak not only as a supporter of the Government, but, if I may say so most respectfully and humbly, as one who has benefited considerably from the great scholarship of the hon. Member who represents my University.
We have heard extraordinary statements made here today. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) is not at the moment in the House, but I cannot allow to pass without comment one statement which he emphasised this afternoon. The hon. Member explained the past economic troubles of Wales, and referred—and I am quoting his words—to the "indigenous poverty of Wales." Of all the absurd
1322
statements that have ever been made in this House, I think that is about the limit. Wales has exported its wealth for several generations. I remember, in my younger days, being told by statisticians and economists of repute that for every £1 worth of wealth brought into Wales to keep its inhabitants alive, Wales was exporting between £17 and £19 worth. This is the first time that I have heard of the "indigenous poverty" of this little country of ours, and I am sorry that it came from an hon. Member who represents one of the Welsh constituencies.
Further—and I take very strong exception to this—he exhorted the whole House not to expect any unanimity in Wales, and I was sorry to see that my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench rather enjoyed the gibe. I should expect the members of the present Government to be the last to appreciate a gibe of that kind. Wales has shown far greater political unanimity than any other section of these Islands. Wales sends to this House now, and promises to increase the numbers it sends here, at least 70 per cent. of Members who support this Government. I am certain that the Lord President and the Minister of National Insurance will now appreciate that that gibe was not worthy and was certainly not true, from the point of view of a Socialist Government.
There is greater political unanimity in Wales than there is in any other part of the country, and I think that that fact should be borne in mind. By the way, I am satisfied that signs of this growing political unanimity in Wales have been responsible for the refusal of previous Governments to grant any measure of devolution for Wales. They could read the signs, and I hope that the present Government will understand Wales, and will not embarrass its supporters who hold Welsh constituencies, in view of the support which they accord the Government in this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts) is a devolutionist and a federalist. So am I, and it would be from that angle that I would examine, and try to reach my own conclusions on, the scheme submitted by the Lord President today. May I say that I certainly do not regard the Government's scheme as in any way satisfactory? I am positive that the Welsh people overwhelmingly will object to it and will resent

1323
it very strongly. I take exception to it, not because I am unduly nationalistic; I am not, but I can never forget that I am a Welshman. All that I owe to this world I owe to that little country. I am forced to be a devolutionist and a federalist because I am so anxious to save our Parliamentary democracy. I do not want to repeat what I have said in this House on other occasions, because I have made my position perfectly clear, though one particular point I have made has never been answered, nor has anyone ever tried to answer it from the Front Bench.
I do not wish to refer over-much to the White Paper. I appreciate its collection of data and all the facts contained in it, and I certainly regard it as being a most useful document. I think it has been presented very well indeed, but I must repeat that the only hope of saving our Parliamentary democracy is by devolving on Wales, in the first instance, the right to manage its own domestic affairs. That is my answer. With our Parliamentary machine, this old instrument which has grown up over the centuries and which is now becoming more and more congested with its work, with Members being more and more stultified by that congestion, and with back bench Members expected to be a little more than ciphers in this House, how are we to save our Parliamentary democracy unless the pressure on that machine be eased—and eased very considerably indeed? How can it be done otherwise than along the lines of devolution, and, ultimately, federalism?
There is nothing fanatical about this. Where the fanaticism comes in is in the blind belief which has been expressed here today—as it was expressed 12 months ago—that this machine can stand all this without devolving that about which we people in Wales know better than those in any other part of this island—how to deal with, and how to look after and manage, our own affairs. That is why I cannot be persuaded. I have certainly been impressed by the opinions put forward by my very close and life-long colleagues today who have expressed some faith, or at least some hope, in the scheme of the Lord President. They know as well as I do that, unfortunately, this
1324
scheme will be worse than useless in Wales. I am amazed at the pathetic ignorance revealed by Government after Government concerning Wales. It is really pathetic. At times I am almost forced to the conclusion that the country in the British Commonwealth about which the Government know least is Wales. That applies not only to the present Government, but to a succession of Governments. I am certain that if the Government knew Wales as they should, we would never have seen this emasculated, spineless kind of scheme submitted to the House today. I am forced to suggest that the Government should appoint a commission of inquiry into the affairs of Wales, into its culture, its preoccupations, its intense love of country, its characteristics, its courage, its pride, its sense of independence, and its passionate desire to live its own life as it thinks it ought to live it.
Had I the power, I would insist upon the Prime Minister being the chairman of a commission, and that that commission should be made up entirely of Members of this Government. I am certain that nothing could be more revealing and more instructive to the Government than to work on a commission of that kind. I will not attempt to anticipate the findings of such a commission; I will only refer to one of the many amazing phenomena in our Welsh life that would be discovered by the commission. I am sorry the Lord President is absent at this moment, because he is under the impression that Wales can be easily satisfied. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes, he is. Why this pettifogging, ridiculous scheme?
If I could get this commission made up of Members of this Government and presided over by the Prime Minister, it would be most interesting to see whether, among other things, they would pay some little attention to the youth of Wales As the Lord President has now come back, I ask him whether for instance he has ever heard of the organisation called Urdd Gobaith Cymru? It is only one of the many youth organisations in Wales. This organisation is composed of people who will be expressing—indeed they are already strongly expressing—their views about Wales. I know that the name of that organisation has been translated—and very badly translated—by some Anglicised individual as the "Welsh

1325
League of Youth." I regard that as a pretty rotten translation.
This organisation is based upon love of our country—Wales—and faith in international brotherhood. It is a Welsh national youth movement, and works on a national and international plane. Up to the moment—and I want to underline this—it is non-political. It can only be forced into politics by the Government of the day. One of its other ideals, and one of its passions, is to fuse together all that is best in Welsh life. Let there be no misunderstanding when I say that it is non-political. This movement is proud of its country, and is quick to take offence at every act hostile to its interest and to the wellbeing of Wales. Being a Welsh organisation, it is naturally keenly alive to the manner in which Wales is being governed, or rather misgoverned.
We had evidence of this quite recently when the youth of Wales showed such widespread resentment at the claims of the different Services to 10 per cent. of the land of Wales. This is one of the things about which, unfortunately, most hon. Members in this House are not aware. This organisation has nearly 1,000 units scattered throughout all the towns, villages and hamlets of Wales. Its members number over 80,000, all of whom are under 25 years of age. One could go on and say a good deal about this one aspect of Welsh life and activity. This organisation, with other youth organisations, is ready to take offence when the claims of Wales are treated in the manner in which they have been treated, notwithstanding all the apologising which we have heard during this Debate.
Every hon. Member who has spoken in support of this scheme knows very well that Wales will be overwhelmingly against it. Wales will resent it very strongly. This scheme will hurt its pride and injure the confidence which so many Welsh people have in this Government. The best thing that I can ask of the Lord President of the Council and the Government is to withdraw this spineless, pointless and useless, but terribly offensive, scheme. That is the best advice I can give, in the interests of this Government and of the party which supports it.
7.22 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: It is with considerable diffidence that I intervene in this Debate on Welsh affairs and
1326
take up time from Welsh Members of Parliament, but I represent a border constituency. I am within walking distance of Wales, and many of the problems confronting agriculture in my part of the world are closely akin to those of the great mass of the central area of Wales. Therefore, I thought it might not be out of place if I said a few words about agriculture as it concerns Wales.
A great number of Welsh farmers and, indeed, Welsh workers, have come over the Border to the richer lands of Shropshire and Herefordshire where I live, to find work. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was right when he said that the exodus had not yet stopped. I think there is considerable poverty in farming in central Wales. The Government's policy, and indeed the policy of all parties is to expand production from home agriculture. There is, of course, a limit to the amount by which it can be expanded in the more intensively farmed and developed areas of England. More feedingstuffs will make a great difference, but I believe that various schemes could be put into operation to assist farming in central Wales.
I have had an opportunity of studying figures produced by the University of Aberystwith, and we can see that many small hill farmers and what we regard as marginal farmers find it extremely difficult to make a living from the type of agriculture which has been followed for many years. It stands to reason that while one set of prices may suit the more fortunate areas, they may well make it difficult for people in the hills and dales to make a living.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) has already asked about the progress of the Hill Farming Act. He mentioned a number of schemes which had been applied for and considered. I should be interested to know the acreage for which schemes have been approved, and what is the expected increase in production from these areas. The amount of land covered by the Hill Farming Act is very limited, and I ask the Minister to give special consideration to all the other small farms in Wales and, indeed, in the border countries, in the hills and dales, which are generally known as marginal farms. We want some sort of scheme for the

1327
development of marginal land to make the lot of those farmers easier.
I have seen suggestions made by the N.F.U. and, indeed, by our own Shropshire hill farming committee, for various schemes which could have been put into effect to expand agriculture in these marginal farms. There was a scheme during the war—it was produced in January, 1943, I believe—called the Marginal Land Production Scheme, but I think that, except for the county of Montgomery, very little use was made of it. It was difficult of interpretation. It contained the condition that if the circumstances were such that the occupier could not carry out the operations from his own unaided resources without making the farming enterprise as a whole on the farm uneconomical, the committee should consider
"whether the expected benefit to food production would warrant assistance being given in the form of remission of part of the costs of such goods or services as the committee might consider it necessary to supply to the farmer to assist him to perform the operation in question."
That means that any farmer who wanted assistance under this scheme had to prove that he could not afford to do the job himself, and if the job was done with the assistance of Government aid, that it would increase food production to such an extent that it would make the scheme as a whole worth while. Because of that difficult condition, I think the scheme has been of very little use.
I hope new schemes will be considered. I had a letter recently from a farmer who farms almost on the top of Plynlimon. In fact, his is the last farm before one goes over the mountains and over the western side of the range towards Aberystwyth. He was very keen that the Government should sponsor schemes to increase the agistment of cattle. At present, as the House is aware, quite a number of farmers make their own arrangements with lowland farmers to summer on the hills cattle and sheep which are wintered in the valleys and in lowland or marginal farms; but a great many farmers are so preoccupied with getting a living in these small areas, that they do not go in search of hill or lowland farmers, as the case might be, with whom they might cooperate to increase the amount of cattle or sheep which are grazed on the hills.
1328
That is just an instance of one point to which attention should be given by the Government.
I should like also to mention that a great deal of this good hill land is not now available for summer grazing, because it has either been taken over by the Services or is contained in water catchment schemes. It is generally believed by a number of people in Wales that these catchment areas are restricted to a much greater extent than is really necessary, and that any pollution from grazing sheep could not possibly affect the purity of the water provided that the sheep were kept a reasonable distance from the actual reservoir from which the water was drawn. The Forestry Commission are also frequently to blame for preventing grazing on land which they have not actually planted but which they reserve for planting or from which they are not prepared to fence off animals.
There must be many other ways in which these marginal land farms could be assisted or guided by the Government. I do not want to waste time by going into them now, because I know that the Ministry of Agriculture, who have not got a representative here, have been informed of the schemes, if not by the N.F.U. as a whole, at least through the Shropshire Hill farming branch, and I do not wish to take up more time than is necessary. I feel that in this area and in central Wales as a whole, there is a great opportunity for a comprehensive scheme. No doubt some legislation would be needed. We may not address ourselves to that on the Adjournment but, for instance, they certainly need better roads. To mention one other small example, at the moment all farms which keep cows have to send all the milk they produce to milk factories, wherever they may be, whereas in former years they used to feed more young stock from the skimmed milk and they produced cream and butter for sale. They might now be allowed to return to that type of farming.
I ask the Government to apply themselves to this matter and to try to do their best to produce some scheme to assist these marginal farmers, who really find it extremely difficult to make a living and who, as is the case with their workers, are still drifting away from the high lands

1329
to seek a more remunerative form of living on the easier and richer soils of England.
7.31 p.m.
Mr. Peter Freeman: Unlike other hon. Members, I welcome the proposal of the Lord President for the formation of a Council for Wales. Whatever criticism has been made, this is the first Government which has provided us (1) with a day to discuss our Welsh affairs; (2) with a statement of proposals and statistics in which Wales is interested and the facts connected with them; and (3) with the proposal of a Council now before us where we can hear the opinions of Wales itself on the problems facing the country.
All this I welcome, although I must join in the criticism that this scheme has been brought before us at rather short notice. I think it is a pity that this statement was not issued in the form of a White Paper so as to give us an opportunity of discussing and considering the scheme before it was brought to the House for final consideration. Nevertheless, so far as I am concerned, this is not a new matter, and therefore, having already given careful consideration to it, I am able to make up my mind quickly and immediately, and to express my appreciation of it and my agreement with its general contents. In fact, I go further: I find that in the broadcast that I made on 24th January of last year, speaking from Cardiff, I made a definite proposal about the formation of a Council for Wales. Although I do not charge the Government with plagiarism, I think the statement I then made will indicate how closely I anticipated the Government's intention. On that occasion I said the Council should be:
"for debate and expression of public opinion, and not an executive legislative authority for the wider powers of Government. It would meet in Wales. … It would receive reports and petitions, and take such action as is considered advisable and practical. Individuals or delegations could appear before it and give evidence or submit proposals. It would receive all Government White Papers and other documents affecting Wales.… Any matter affecting the welfare of Wales could be brought before its notice. It would, however, be mainly advisory and consultative. It would be treated as such by Westminster. Its advice could be sought and obtained before any laws were put into operation affecting Wales, though the Government would not be bound, of course, by any decision it makes."
1330
I think that gives sufficient indication of my appreciation and approval of this proposal. Nevertheless, I would make one or two suggestions and ask one or two questions in regard to the proposal, which, so far as I am able to judge, is the most practical suggestion for dealing with the difficulties and interests of Wales yet brought before this House. I hope it will not only receive approval, but that as it develops and grows, it will be found to be of ever-increasing value to Wales as a whole.
First of all, I think every effort should be made to allow for easy changes and amendments to these proposals. It is a great danger to get a scheme like this once set so that minor Amendments and alterations cannot easily be effected. I hope that will be borne in mind, especially in the preliminary stages.
Secondly, I agree with the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, about the desirability of occasionally making the Council public. I do not say that every one of its sessions need be public, but certainly they should occasionally be public. Surely it could be left to the Council itself to decide whether a discussion should be public or private? If the whole purpose of this Council is to give effective expression to opinions in Wales, the best means would be to hear these opinions, have debates and discussions, and find out whether the opinions are reflected in Wales or whether they are not. I think it should be left to the body itself to decide on each occasion, if necessary, whether the deliberations should be in private or in public, but I do not think that discussions of the Council in public should be prohibited.
Thirdly, I am not at all satisfied—and I think others will be dissatisfied—with the representation. I do not think it is sufficiently wide. There are too few independent members associated with it. I think power of co-option might be left with the Council itself so that it could co-opt a number of other members from Wales whose opinions would be of value to such a body as this. At least, it should have an opportunity of recommending to the Prime Minister additional names to those he will already have nominated.

1331
I hope the Council will meet at different places and not at one centre. Wales is used to that peripatetic method of activity. I think it will cause great difficulties if its activities are centred on one place, one town, and the Council does not move about the country for different meetings. Although it may be necessary to have fixed headquarters, I hope provision will be made so that its meetings may be in different parts of Wales as the necessity arises.
Personally, I do not envisage this Council merely as one for receiving grievances and complaints or merely for advice and information. I think it should go further than that. Wales has always been a pioneer nation, bringing forward many great ideals and upholding many principles which have been of great help to the world. There should, therefore, be a great opportunity in such a Council as this to bring forward proposals and suggestions not only for the benefit of Wales itself but for the advantage of the Commonwealth and of value in world affairs. It should give an opportunity for expressions of opinion on national and international questions as they arise.
Generally, although I think this proposal is only a beginning, I hope it will have developments and improvements as time goes on, and that it will be a focus for Welsh expression of opinion which will be of great benefit to Wales. I take this opportunity of thanking the Government, and I hope these proposals will be given practical effect and immediate expression.
7.38 p.m.
Mr. Watkins: Had you passed through the Library of the House of Commons this morning, Sir, you would have seen Welsh Members very busy studying. I did not ask what they were studying, but I decided that I should go in for a degree in agriculture. As I do not think anyone else has done so, I desire to compliment and thank the Government for the third White Paper on Wales. Personally, I think insufficient space has been given to agriculture and to quite a number of small detailed things about which Welsh people ought to know. I hope that will be borne in mind next year. The last section of the Report deals with the Army in
1332
Wales, and I am very glad of that section. Further, I am certain the House will agree with me in thanking the Government for the concession made last week about Tregaron—made just before the Welsh Debate. It has reduced the training area in Wales to 57,500 acres from half a million acres, and I am very glad of that. Everyone, irrespective of his political views, will wish to thank the Secretary of State for War and say how amenable he has been to the Welsh Members about this matter.
I want to say something about agricultural production. First, I think encouragement should be given to those areas which have been released from the Services in recent times. If one reads the White Paper, one finds there have been very good production results in Wales. I am particularly pleased that there has been a great transformation in the two counties which I represent by comparison with pre-war times. I hope that will continue. There are certain factors which ought to be considered, however, and I will give them for the benefit of the House and the Minister who is to reply to this Debate. Greater production must be obtained so that we can have more food for this nation. We must have more regular workers in agriculture, and the prospects of a career on the land must be more substantial than they are in the rural parts of Wales at the present time. The labour problems are difficult. There has been a decrease in the number of regular workers in six of the Welsh counties since 1939. There has been an overall increase of only about 1,237 since 1939. The casual workers have increased by 5,194. Yet in this White Paper we learn that there are only 185 trainees going in for agriculture. The Ministry of Labour returns show that there are vacancies at the present time for 267 agricultual workers. That is the labour problem, an important item for consideration by the new Council for Wales.
A word about farm buildings. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) and his hon. Friends on the opposite side are not here in greater strength to hear this. During the time of the Coalition Government a Conservative Minister made a survey, the National Farm Survey, 1941 to 1943, of England and Wales. I have

1333
read that survey at least half a dozen times. I would call it the modern Domesday Book. The doom of the rural areas is described in that report. This has a bearing upon the problem of inducing people to go back to the rural districts. Consider farm buildings. According to that survey, 68 per cent. of the farm buildings in Wales are unsatisfactory, as compared with 61 per cent. in England. Yet only 186 licences were given for new farm buildings in Wales in the first quarter of 1948, compared with 4,680 in England. Is not that worth taking note of? Farm houses in Wales are supposed to be good to the extent of 52 per cent., whereas in England farmhouses are good to the extent of 59 per cent.; and only 40 per cent. of the employees' cottages are in good condition in Wales as compared with 50 per cent. of them in England.
The hill farming scheme is not working as well as I should like. In my opinion there is much too much fussy interference by Government Departments involved in it. They ask for too many details and do not get down to the core of the matter. The hill farmers suffered a great deal of loss during 1946 and have not the capital to invest and, therefore, greater consideration ought to be given to piecemeal schemes for hill farming. Seed potato growing ought to be encouraged. Here we have a type of farmer without the advantages of guaranteed prices. These farmers ought to be encouraged a great deal.
I suggest—and I am sure that the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) will support me in this—that wool ought to be considered for guaranteed prices and put into the Schedule to the Act of 1947. That would be a great blessing. I find that only 59 detailed schemes of hill farming have been passed up to the end of July, 1948—that is, out of 1,080. Only 59—It is not good enough. I join with the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) in asking for some statement to be made about the marginal land. I am not going to argue the case, for it has been argued. There has been an inter-Departmental committee inquiring into this for a long time. When are we to have its report? It is essential to have it. The results of depression are
1334
showing themselves on the marginal farms more than in anything else.
I suggest to the Advisory Council that they should consider what are the necessities for the rural villages—not amenities, but necessities. What inducement is there for the women and young people to go back there? We may get the men back, but what about the women? The figures of civil population in 1946 and 1947 tell a story. Four of the Welsh counties had less population in 1947 than they had 12 months before—four Welsh counties, and those are rural counties. What is the reason for that? I will suggest one or two reasons. The first is the lack of water supplies. It is stated in the report to which I have already alluded that piped water goes only to 32 per cent. of the holdings in Wales compared with 50 per cent. in England, and to only 23 per cent. of the farm buildings in Wales as compared with 39 per cent. of them in England.
I suggest there ought to be a greater drive to give water to farm houses. Much excellent work has been done by the county agriculture executive committees, but the problem is to link up the villages as well as the farm houses with the water supplies. It is not of much use to have a farmer in a farm house if he has no farm workers to help him, because the farm workers cannot get piped water supplies in their cottages, which would be an inducement to them to stay in the countryside. There has been a big improvement, I grant that; but more ought to be done, even if, at first, the schemes are small, for in the future they can be associated with larger water schemes.
Sewerage is also an important matter. Only two schemes have been completed since the Act of 1944 came into operation—only two outside the Development Area of Wales. I could give some examples, to be found in my own constituency, of rural district councils in Radnor which are without a sewerage scheme, a refuse collection scheme, and a number of other advantages. They have an answer to that. It is that their rate product is too low to provide a refuse collection scheme. Those are some of the things that need consideration.
I would remind my Welsh colleagues about the seasonal shortage of water.

1335
Twenty-nine English counties are better off with regard to seasonal water shortages than my own two counties of Brecon and Radnor, despite the fact that my two counties export more water than any other county in Wales. There are 29 English counties with better reserves of water for the dry seasons.
Electricity has been mentioned. Of the farm holdings in Wales, 11 per cent. have an electricity supply as compared with 30 per cent. in England. There is no mention in the Report, in the paragraph on electricity, as to what is to be done about supplying rural villages. I suggest that the public ought to be told of the details in the circular sent out by the Ministry of Agriculture, and about giving priority of supply to farms. That circular suggests that priority of electricity supply ought to be given to farms in districts where it is found that the farmers or the workers are leaving for lack of it. The electricity people ought to be told about these things. The plea for more electricity in the countryside ought to be made to the electricity people. I hope something will be done about this.
Farm roads constitute another very important and thorny problem. The Government made a big mistake last year in cutting down capital investment in and expenditure on the roads. Their action has had this result, that there is less production in agriculture. Unless the farmers can get transport for their goods, services and manures, production will fall. There must be better transport facilities, for example, for taking milk from the farms. Therefore, I suggest that the Government have a look at the mileage of unclassified roads in the rural districts, and the increase of grant towards unclassified roads. If they cannot put up a case for England, I am certain that the new Advisory Council can put up a case for Wales. Criticism has been made by some hon. Members that the Government are doing nothing. May I remind them that they were the first Government to give a grant in 1946 of 50 per cent. to 5,832 miles of unclassified roads in Wales.
Then there is the question of bus services and the conveyance of children to school, which is very important. As to telephones, I am surprised to find that there is no reference in the White Paper to the number of kiosks which have been
1336
erected in rural Wales during the last 12 months. They are being erected in my constituency; one cannot miss them because they are painted red, and thank goodess for that. We in the rural districts of Wales would like to know the policy of the Government with regard to the concession that was to be made concerning the guarantee asked for from rural parishes. No one knows where we stand on that matter, and we would like to have some definite information concerning it.
I would prefer something more definite than an Advisory Council, but I am willing to support anything so long as we get something. The more problems which we put before the Government, the more determined they will be to give us something that we want. I have already given them a good list for the first agenda of the Council. In the 1947 White Paper greater space was given to the task of Wales and of rehabilitation of the agricultural industry in rural Wales. I remember the distressed areas in South Wales, and unless something is done in the rural parts of Wales, it will be a distressed area from that point of view. If we get a distressed area in the rural areas, it will affect culture as well. We cannot have good culture and good singing at the Eisteddfod on an empty stomach. I hope that the Advisory Council will give consideration to whether we can have a rural development area in Wales, as well as a development area in the industrial districts. Then, what is to be done about the very low rate product in the counties? I hope that the Advisory Committee will consider a new formula for local government. Will the Advisory Council be asked for its opinion on the Boundary Commission for Wales?
May I endorse the question from the Opposition Front Bench as to when an announcement is to be made about new towns? That may be a way of bringing the people back to the countryside. There is supposed to be an announcement about the new towns in mid-Wales. When are we to hear something about that? I am certain that if we can look at all these matters from the Welsh Parliamentary Party standpoint, we shall come to the same conclusion as they did in 1880 during the first county council elections, when my father supported a Liberal

1337
council for Wales. The object was to get a National Council for Wales but that failed. Two great leaders emanated from that great agitation—Tom Ellis and Lloyd George. We want another Tom Ellis and another Lloyd George to put to this Government something better. We shall try the Advisory Council, and I am sure that the Minister of National Insurance will, as he has done so far, emulate that great Welsh leader, Lloyd George, and give those of us who are dubious about the Advisory Council an undertaking that he will have a look at it, and if our views about it are right, see that something better is offered.
7.55 p.m.
Lady Megan Lloyd George: I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) on his temerity in being the third Anglo-Saxon to intervene in a Welsh Debate. I can only think that he did so because he wanted to have his own back on behalf of his constituency for the highly-successful raids made on the marginal counties by our Welsh forefathers. Although I heartily agree with the final remarks made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) as to what Wales really needs, I am not going to follow him in what was a very effective "back to the land" campaign, although I sympathise with him, and think that not only Wales, but the whole of Great Britain needs such a campaign.
I would like to return to the proposals which were made by the Lord President of the Council earlier this afternoon. The first thing, and the thing we have to remember all the time in considering these proposals, is that they are alternatives to the proposals which were put forward, supported by the Welsh Parliamentary Party, and by the local authorities in Wales for a Secretary of State for Wales. The Lord President of the Council has this afternoon, as on previous occasions, advanced arguments as to the impracticability of such a proposal. All the arguments which he used this afternoon and on other occasions could equally well be advanced against a Secretary of State for Scotland—an institution which has been in force for some time, and which, though it has imperfections, I have no doubt, has certainly not resulted in the confusion of administration which the
1338
Lord President of the Council so graphically described to us earlier in the Debate.
Let us look at the alternative which the Lord President put before us. I believe that the test of this proposal, and of any other proposal is not whether it is a concession to Nationalist feeling in Wales—not whether it is a sop—but whether, in fact, it will make for better administration in Wales; whether it will make it easier for Wales to solve some of the formidable problems with which it is faced today. Do these proposals supply the pass that test or are they merely, to use the words of the Lord President "window dressing"? I should like to look this dark gift horse in the mouth. What do the proposals amount to?
First, let us look at the composition and the terms of reference of this Council. The Lord President said that it was to meet from time to time—at least quarterly; that it was to interchange views and information on developments and trends in the economic and cultural life of Wales; and to ensure that the Government were kept informed of the impact of Government activities on Wales. He told us that it was proposed that various Ministers should, from time to time, come before the Council, no doubt to discuss the policy of their Departments, the shortcomings of administration, and the possible improvements which could be effected in Wales. A good deal of concern has been expressed this afternoon as to whether, in fact, such a Council carrying out these terms of reference would not usurp the functions which can only, in a democratic country, properly belong either to the representatives of the people or to representative bodies, such as the Welsh Parliamentary Party has shown itself to be. I maintain that that party, drawn as it is from all political parties in this House, has for a considerable time been discharging those very functions which the Lord President seeks to confer on this Council—and has been discharging them, if I may say so with the modesty characteristic of our race, with very considerable success.
I further maintain that these functions are not functions which should be carried out behind closed doors in secret. The deliberations of this Council will not be reported; less than half of its mem-

1339
bers can be said to be in any way representative; 12 out of the 27 are, I understand, to be members of local authorities. How can this Council therefore be said to represent public opinion in Wales? What claim have they to do so? What are their contacts with public opinion in the Principality? The Members are not even civil servants; they are not responsible to a Minister. They are responsible to no one. This Council will be an irresponsible body which can be called to book by no one. If this Council does the job which the Lord President has outlined for it today it will undoubtedly cut across the proper functions of representative bodies and Members of this House. If it does not, then it is patently quite useless.
It has been argued: "You need have no fear. This body will not interfere with the duties of Members of Parliament. They can still interview Ministers. The Welsh Parliamentary Party can still ask Ministers to come and see them and discuss matters of policy and administration in Wales. Members can still ask Questions." Of course they can do all these things. These are the inalienable rights of Members of Parliament. But there is this to be feared—and to be feared greatly—that the Council can be used by Ministers as an alibi. In answer to questions, either by the Welsh Parliamentary Party or by individual Members, we may be told "Well, these matters are or will shortly be the subject of discussion by the Council of Wales."
Let us take the real measure of these proposals, and apply one or two other tests. We are told that this Council, which is to do such a great deal for Wales, is to meet quarterly.
Mr. Cove: At least.
Lady Megan Lloyd George: At least quarterly. It is to discuss the affairs of the Principality at least four times a year. We must remember that this proposal is not part of a whole series of proposals the Government are making for Wales. This is the alternative to a proposal for the setting up of a Secretary of State whose job it would be to devote all his time, day in and day out, to the discussion and consideration of the problems of Wales. We are offered a Council, which is to meet at least four times in a year.
1340
If we really want to get the measure of this proposal—and I think it important that we should if we are being asked to accept or reject it—let us apply another test of its effectiveness. This Council is to have, I presume, some sort of secretariat; but I understand that it is not to have a secretariat of its own. Now, I am sure that is not because of expense. The real reason, of course, is because the work the Council will be called upon to do does not justify its having a secretariat of its own. I imagine the Council will make use of the services of the Regional Officers Conference, which is really the staff of the Welsh Board of Health, who are already doing a full-time job of work for their own Ministry.
Is this Council really the body to do a job of work for Wales? However eminent the personnel, however anxious they are to fulfil their functions, they cannot under these conditions make a solid and serious contribution to tackling the problems of Wales today. The Lord President has a reputation in this House, and had a reputation over the Bridge at County Hall, of being a good administrator—a reputation which I am sure he has fully earned. I ask him to defend this proposal today on purely administrative grounds. He has criticised the proposal for a Secretary of State for Wales on those grounds. What does he make of this proposal?
What have we at the moment in Wales? Let me say at the outset that I am not criticising these bodies but simply trying to see where we have got to. We have a Welsh Board of Health, a Welsh Department of Education in London, a newly set up Joint Education Committee, regional offices for the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Supply, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of National Insurance and the Ministry of Health. On top of all that there is the Conference of Regional Officers—another quarterly meeting. What is the relationship of all these bodies to each other and to this new Council? Can the Lord President tell us? Is there anyone who will co-ordinate their activities? There is certainly to be no Minister to do so. Who will be the co-ordinator? I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman has made this proposal, either because he believes it is administratively good or efficient. I think he has made this proposal as a concession—and, if I may say so, a very half-hearted concession—to Welsh public opinion. He has done

1341
it in the hope of keeping us quiet. That is the real truth of the matter, and the Lord President knows it as well as anybody else in the House.
Mr. Cove: Even he could not do that.
Lady Megan Lloyd George: But he thinks he may. The Lord President has offered us this scraggy bone, without meat or marrow in it. I am quite sure that one sniff at it should be enough for any self-respecting or discerning Corgi—and pride and a very lively sense of discernment are characteristic of the breed.
The Lord President has said: "This Council ought to be acceptable to you. It is on the lines of the Scottish Economic Conference." He knows perfectly well that there is all the difference in the world between the Scottish Economic Conference and this proposal. In Scotland the Secretary of State for Scotland is in the chair; he is the executive head of the Conference; he is a Cabinet Minister; he can put the case for Scotland to the policy-making body in this country, namely the Cabinet. There is all the difference in the world between that and the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman makes to us. If we were to accept this impotent Council—and I am not nearly so offensive about it as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil—we shall be told afterwards that our just demands have been conceded. Can any one of us really relieve that to be true? I am sure that in spite of what tile hon. Member said, each one of us in this House wants to make his decision not on political grounds but on what he thinks is best for Wales. I am convinced of that, and I hope that he may also be convinced by the end of this Debate.
If this Council is to be set up, we in Wales may well have to reconsider whether a greater measure of devolution than even a Secretary of State for Wales with a Welsh office might provide, may be the only satisfactory solution. I believe, as other hon. Members do, and I think it is fast becoming apparent, that in the interests of this House, which is becoming cluttered up with business—[Interruption.] That is one of the arguments which the Lord President of the Council uses when he wants to take Bills upstairs. He says we must do that because we cannot carry on the business of the Government. I believe that not
1342
only in the interests of this House, but also in the interests of Wales and ultimately of Scotland, we shall have to have charge of our own affairs. I know that there are many Members opposite who have a secret hankering, and some not even a secret hankering, after such a proposal. I believe some would accept this council because they believe this is the first step towards devolution. I believe that we may have to have something analogous to Northern Ireland. What I am convinced about is that this miserable little compromise is neither administratively sound nor can it in any way make a real contribution to solving the problems of our native country.
8.12 p.m.
Mr. John Evans: We have listened to a number of speeches, some of which have condemned this proposal, but I want to congratulate the Government on having brought forward this scheme. I really think that this will be a good thing for Wales. We know that over the years, there has been a clamant demand for Home Rule for Wales and for a Secretary of State for Wales, but it is perfectly clear that without complete autonomy, a Secretary of State for Wales is an unworkable proposition—that, at any rate, is my view. The Government's proposal is that this Council shall be given a trial. I rather like the set-up, although I know that some of my colleagues differ from me. I think it is a fair cross-section of the whole of Welsh life. We have local government bodies with representation upon the Council, as well as industry and agriculture, both employers and workers, cultural institutions, such as the Council for Education, the university, the Eisteddfod Council, which is purely a Welsh institution and finds much favour with the Welsh nation generally and the Tourist Board. The Tourist Board is a new sort of institution, for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) has been mainly responsible, which is an organisation to attract tourists to Wales.
As I have said, the new Council represents a pretty fair cross-section of Welsh life. This is the first time that any Government have made any sort of devolutionary gesture to us. Previous Governments have not offered anything approaching this suggestion. I think it is a very fine gesture, and one which should be grasped

1343
by both hands. Reference has been made to culture. I am an ardent Welshman, and I believe that Welsh culture is worth preserving. Our language is certainly worth preserving. This Council will be able to stimulate interest in Welsh culture, which will be fairly safe in their keeping. Certainly this Council ought to be given a trial. It may be necessary to make amendments and modifications later on, but while the machinery is there we have the opportunity to improve on it. We certainly shall not lose anything by it, and we may stand to gain a lot.
I want to refer now to the White Paper and to the industrial development that has taken place. I congratulate the Government on what they have achieved during the 3½ years they have been in power. There has been tremendous progress and real achievement. In South Wales, however, we still have a pocket of unemployment. We have some 5½ per cent. to 6 per cent. of the working population unemployed, whereas the average for the whole country is only 2 per cent., or even less. When we bear in mind that our figure of 5 per cent. helps to make up the figure of 2 per cent., it makes us all the more uneasy, because it means that there must be some areas with less than 1 per cent., or even ½ per cent. We are very concerned about absorbing this pool of unemployment in South Wales which seems to be more or less stagnant. I am not blaming the Regional Controller of the Board of Trade, because he and his staff have been doing their best and have been endeavouring to stimulate the establishment in South Wales of industries which will absorb the partially disabled men. Our factories are going up, but I am not sure whether there are tenants for them. I hope that there will be some sort of drive in South Wales and that we shall be able to set up the proposed Council to organise and keep together all the loose ends of the various Departments and bring them to a head and not merely leave them in the air. The movement certainly has my blessing and I wish the Lord President of the Council every success in this project.
8.21 p.m.
Mr. Percy Morris: I do not share the misgivings which have been expressed about the proposed
1344
Council, nor do I fear that its activities will impinge upon the duties or the authority of Members of Parliament. It will not be surprising if the Lord President dreams about this Welsh Council tonight, and I hope that his dreams will be very happy and pleasant ones.
The Report of Government action in Wales for the year ended June, 1948, makes good reading, but not good enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. J. Evans) has pointed out, we have no fewer than 39,000 people unemployed in Wales. That is not my greatest fear. If the expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are realised, that number will be increased by approximately 10,000 to 12,000 in a very short time, when the new strip mill at Margam is functioning. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us when we were discussing the location of that mill that it would mean the redundancy of approximately that number of tinplate workers. That problem must be anticipated. We should not wait until it actually materialises. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) made a reference to the site at Margam and he inquired whether additional cold production plant was to be installed in South Wales. I hope that the Minister for National Insurance will be able to reply to that question. If he can tell us that an additional mill is to be built at Llangyfelach on the site where the Government have already spent more than £50,000, the news will be very gratifying indeed.
My next point is about the charges in the ports of South Wales. It is generally agreed that the port charges throughout Great Britain are chaotic and need revision. That is particularly true of the ports of South Wales. A representative body, The Joint Ports Committee, issued a report on the matter about 18 months ago which many members have studied carefully. The overall figure is not the hindering factor. The feature that troubles people is the apportionment of those figures at the various docks. It is not for me to eulogise the services of the dockers of South Wales or the amenities of the docks themselves, because they are perfectly well known. The Government found them invaluable during the war. I urge that some attention be given to the reorganisation and

1345
to a close examination of the facilities and the charges in the ports of South Wales.
We are not asking that any other port should be deprived of its legitimate trade but that, instead of ships waiting to go into docks that are already congested, they shall be diverted to the ports of Wales and given a much quicker turn-round. That reminds me that the Minister of Transport appointed a Committee to examine the problem of the turn-round of shipping. That Committee has made recommendations and I gather that the Minister is now examining them. I hope he will expedite his study and let us know his conclusions as early as possible. A quicker turn-round in shipping will be valuable for the economy not only of Wales but of Great Britain.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. D. Thomas) referred to housing. I would add the question of schools. That is a subject not peculiar to Wales, but I would think it markedly so in respect of the blitzed areas of Wales. We have to overtake not only the normal arrears of wartime but all the problems created by the bad blitzing. If anything can be done to overcome the problem of the supply of materials in Wales for the rebuilding of the blitzed areas and the building and rebuilding of schools, we shall be more than grateful.
Reference has already been made to the cultural development of Wales. I would refer to the activities of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The B.B.C. staff in Wales are very much in love with their work and we owe them a debt of gratitude for their team work and the efficiency they show, under tremendous handicaps working in something akin to rabbit holes. There is no decent accommodation for these people in Cardiff, Swansea, Bangor, or any other part of Wales. If there is one section catering for the culture of Wales as a whole, it is the Welsh section of the B.B.C., and I urge that some attention be given to the provision of accommodation and additional plant, so that the staff may be given a free and full opportunity.
We have endeavoured in the very few minutes at our disposal to cover the whole range of problems in Wales. We are grateful to the Lord President of the Council for the time that he has given
1346
us today throughout the whole Debate. We hope not only that he will give us time, but that the Debate will bear fruit. We hope that the proposed Council will consist of people with an immense knowledge of Wales and a wide experience of our problems, and that the expectations of the Lord President of the Council will be fully realised. If the Lord President and his colleagues will give attention to the problems that we have mentioned this Welsh day will not have been in vain.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. Richards: It is a pity that we have had so little opportunity in this Debate of discussing the very interesting White Paper dealing with Wales. It covers very wide ground indeed and touches all kinds of industries and interests. Consequently we should like to spend a great deal of time discussing the various aspects of the life of Wales as it is mirrored in the White Paper. This afternoon, as we all know, discussion has centred round the proposals that have been made by the Lord President of the Council that a Council should be set up in Wales to examine these questions and bring to the notice of the Government problems that possibly do not receive the attention which they ought to have.
I do not know whether the House realises that we are witnessing today a very simple step in the direction of devolution. It is very difficult, I know, but if we examine the history of the small country in which we are interested, it will be found to be a particularly romantic story. It is a small country; it has been overrun again and again. It has seemed as though its life, language and culture were in jeopardy, but for some reason or other it has survived, as we heard the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) say this afternoon, for over 2,000 years. As I say, it is a romantic story. First, the Romans came and almost overran the country. In medieval times Wales was subject entirely to Norman or Norman-English rule, but through all this, it has preserved its own language, and has built up an extraordinary literature which has drunk deep at the fount of the literature of Western and Eastern Europe.
It is that kind of feeling which moves Welshmen, and I think I am not exaggerating when I say they are more concerned with the preservation of their

1347
own kind of life, the life which has been lived for hundreds of years among the dales of Wales, than about any purely economic questions. The claim has been made for many years, however, for a certain measure of devolution. We feel that there are certain aspects of our life, for instance, education, that we could well manage ourselves, possibly in a better way than they are being managed today.
At the beginning of this century, and near the end of the last, Wales had no system either of secondary or higher education—we all rejoiced to hear the tribute paid to Wales by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who knows our country so well and who has paid great attention to its cultural aspirations—and the peasant people decided that they would build secondary schools in every county and set up a University of their own, the four colleges being divided between North and South Wales. In addition, Wales has made unrivalled progress in setting up its own National Library and National Museum. As a result, Wales is now one of the best equipped countries in Western Europe in the matter of cultural activities and opportunities for extending those activities.
It is very natural, therefore, when we are discussing various economic questions, that we should be primarily concerned with the preservation of a tradition which is held so strongly in Wales. Not only that, but we have, in recent years, developed it to a remarkable extent. I do not know how far the House appreciates the fact that the hon. Member for the University of Wales is one of the leading poets of Western Europe. It is an unfortunate fact but he has produced all his work in the Welsh language. Scholars who study the Welsh language will say that some of the lyrics of the hon. Member are amongst the finest that have been produced in recent years anywhere in Western Europe.
It is no wonder that we are making, as we have often made, the claim for a measure of devolution, and I, in common with my colleagues here, very warmly welcome the effort made by the Lord President of the Council this afternoon. I recognise it is a small beginning and
1348
that there will be much criticism of the constitution of this Council; but it is one of the things that we have been wanting for a long time. I appreciate the difficulty with which the Lord President was faced when he approached this question.
We all know that a Secretary of State for Wales is the ideal of the Liberal Party, and we heard that view expressed this afternoon, but I was surprised to find that the Leader of the Liberal Party went much further and claimed that what he wanted for Wales was an entirely separate Parliament. Those of us who know Wales—and I do not deny that he knows it very well—know that one party in Wales stands for that ideal, and is logical in its claim—the Nationalist Party. I do not know how soon the leader of the Liberal Party intends to join the Nationalist Party, for that would be the logical result of what he told us this afternoon. Only the Nationalists in Wales claim that they ought to have complete independence to cut themselves off entirely from this country and do the kind of thing that Eire is doing. The Nationalists want complete severance as between Wales and England.
The majority of people in this House and in Wales feel that, for economic and other reasons, that is impossible, but what we must do today is try to evolve a system under which we shall still be very closely associated, as we have been now for hundreds of years, with the great neighbour alongside whom we live, while at the same time enjoying a measure of devolution in matters that concern us alone. The Lord President made a very good case this afternoon against the scheme for a Cabinet Minister, who would be in constant conflict with his colleagues, but he suggested that we might have a Council representative of Wales meeting at regular intervals. I do not like the nomination part of it myself, but we cannot get over that difficulty very well, because if an elected body were set up, it would find itself at once in conflict with the Members of Parliament who already represent Wales. So we must, if we are to have a Council, have one that is selected by the Prime Minister and as far as possible represents the various aspects of Welsh life.
The proposal is a compromise, and every compromise is always open to

1349
criticism. I have no doubt at all that when the thing comes to be further discussed, as I hope it will be, there will be plenty of criticism. I think that the scheme can be improved upon so that eventually we shall have a Council of which the whole country of Wales can feel proud. I look forward to the day when, working through this Council, we may enjoy the measure of devolution which is enjoyed purely through historical accident by our friends, the Scots people. It is an ideal to work for, and I am very glad that the Cabinet have given us this small beginning which is capable of very considerable growth.
8.41 p.m.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I am very glad to have heard such a very sane speech as that which we have just had from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards). Those of us who know Welsh ways and Welsh representatives in this House, know well that nobody is better qualified to give a thoroughly Welsh and representative point of view than the hon. Member.
I have two long speeches which I wish to make. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] I note that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, look rather alarmed at that. The first is on the proposals brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, and the second is on the Welsh ports. I will do my best with them in the time allotted to me. First of all, with regard to the Lord President's proposals, all sides of the House start off on the footing that we all consider that Wales requires special treatment in government. This can be done in two ways. It can be done by appointing a Minister to deal with Welsh affairs, whether a Secretary of State or otherwise, or it can be done by some measure of devolution. I do not want to be misunderstood on the use of the word "devolution." I do not mean anything like Home Rule for Wales but that the administration should be brought down to regional level and that it should be dealt with within Wales itself.
As to the question of a Minister for Wales, I have always understood myself to approach Welsh affairs and Welsh problems very much in the same manner as the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George),
1350
but I find myself in complete disagreement not only with her conclusion this evening, but with a good deal of the reasoning which she applied to arrive at that conclusion. If one has a Minister for Welsh affairs, the Minister is, of course, a Minister in a British Government in a British Administration and is no more answerable to Welsh Members of Parliament or to Wales than are the separate Ministers at the head of the separate Departments in the House of Commons at present. No greater degree of control is to be obtained by a Minister for Welsh affairs or a Secretary of State for Wales than is to be obtained under the present set-up.
What, then, is the advantage of a Minister for Welsh affairs? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who does not know Wales as well as the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey, seemed to consider that it had an advantage as some kind of sop to Welsh sentiment. The noble Lady the Member for Anglesey condemned any such approach to a Minister for Welsh affairs, and I am in complete agreement with her on that. We do not want sops to Welsh sentiment from one party or another.
Mr. R. A. Butler: That is rather too simple a definition of my elaborate idea.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: It is a simple and understandable interpretation of the rather longer words which the right hon. Gentleman used, and if he will take the trouble tomorrow morning to read his own speech, and to interpret his words into simpler English, he will come to precisely the same conclusion.
The test of a Minister for Welsh Affairs is efficiency. If such an office does not give us greater efficiency, then there is no point in having a Minister for Welsh Affairs. One can argue this on the grounds of efficiency one way or the other, but one thing I am completely clear about—and I think all my colleagues in the Welsh Parliamentary party would be completely clear about it—is that it is futile to have a Minister for Welsh Affairs unless he has behind him an adequate Civil Service set-up and secretariat. I understand from the answer made by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) that it is not the intention of the Conservative Party to do anything of that kind. I

1351
myself cannot see the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, who is so notoriously entrenched in the Whitehall attitude of mind, re-shaping the Civil Service in such a way as to give a Minister for Welsh Affairs adequate Civil Service backing.
I have been in favour of a Minister for Welsh Affairs like others of my colleagues and the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey, in order to produce efficiency. It would make some contribution towards that end, but do not let us be so churlish as not to recognise that this Government have achieved an amazing degree of efficiency in dealing with Welsh affairs. They have given priority to the distressed areas, they have given consideration to Welsh affairs which no other single Government in the past has ever done.
Now let me deal with the question of devolution. A good deal has been done towards getting a more comprehensive administration within the boundaries of Wales by this Government. When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health introduced his Health Bill, he made Wales a region under the Ministry of Health. I ventured to say in that Debate, and it has been my view throughout, that it is far more important for Wales to have Wales as a region in the administration of the Department of State, which is responsible for this vast new health scheme, and for local government than it is to have any Minister for Welsh Affairs or any Secretary of State for Wales.
Secondly, the Lord President introduced during the last Welsh Debate the scheme for bringing together the regional controllers at the heads of the various Civil Service Departments in Wales. I had the advantage for a time of serving under my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham in connection with the administration of the Welsh region during the war, so I know what immense advantage there is to Wales in bringing together the heads of the Civil Service within Wales responsible for the administration of Wales. The contribution which that makes to efficient administration is quite unbelievable to anyone who has not had that experience.
Thirdly, we get to the step where it is desirable to have some kind of representative body within Wales to connect up with the administration there—the
1352
heads of the Civil Service in Wales, and so on. That step is being taken 12 months after the step for co-ordinating the heads of the Departments in Wales. It is impossible in these circumstances for any responsible hon. Member to oppose the introduction of such a scheme. We might quarrel with this particular Council, we might criticise it in detail, its functions and composition, and I am perfectly prepared to do all those things, but it still leaves unassailed the big contribution which this makes to the development of Welsh administration within the borders of Wales itself. The terms of reference are that it should report and keep the Government cognisant of the effects of Government Measures and so on upon life in Wales. What that conceives is that we should have representatives living in Wales and representatives of bodies in Wales who shall report upon the day-to-day administration of affairs in Wales, of which they have personal experience and knowledge through their own organisations—an entirely different function from the function of Members of Parliament, one that does not conflict with it in any way, but supplements it and adds greatly to the administration in Wales.
There are two aspects of this matter. One can see, first of all, that it reflects to some degree public opinion in Wales, and that is certainly true. It also to some extent gives—I do not like the term expert advice, because, perhaps, it involves technical knowledge—advice of an expert nature, on affairs in Wales. In the composition of this body, we have these two aspects of this Council reflected by means of public opinion representatives, chosen from the local government bodies in Wales, with expert knowledge of education, industry, agriculture and so on, and these other representatives, chosen from these other bodies, such as the university, the Eisteddfod, agriculture, industry and so on. It is capable of development. I myself would like to see these two aspects of this Council developed separately and grow into something really substantial in Wales. I would like to see a greater stride forward towards the establishment of this Council at this stage, but that is a criticism of timing and of detail, and, certainly, it would be a matter of irresponsibility to turn down this Council on that kind of ground. This Council is an opportunity

1353
of development, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord President would be the last to say that this is a "once for all" and final decision in this direction.
There are one or two other aspects to which I would like to refer, which have been the subject of criticism, and on which I should like to state my position. First of all, there is the question whether Members of Parliament should be Members of the Council. In my view, it would be utterly wrong to make them Members of the Council. Secondly, on the question whether the meetings should be in secret or open, if this were an elected body, merely to reflect public opinion in Wales, there would be some ground for saying that the meetings should be held in public, but it is nothing of the kind. It is a body to advise Ministers. It does not affect Ministerial responsibility or the answerability of a Minister to hon. Members in this House in any way whatever. Therefore, to make this body one which can act in public and make its pronouncements in public, perhaps contrary to the opinion of the elected representatives—[Interruption.] Certainly. Does the right hon. Gentleman opposite quarrel with that? Does he suggest that bodies appointed by the Prime Minister should be set up as bodies opposed to the elected representatives of the people in this House?
Mr. R. A. Butler: No, but I do suggest that the Government, in working out the scheme, should take the trouble to tell us what is its relation to Parliament and the public, and that was not done.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: That is an entirely different point from that which I was making when the right hon. Gentleman chose to jeer. The point I was making was that it would be quite impossible to have this body nominated as it is, hold its meetings in public, and make its pronouncements in public when those meetings and those pronouncements might be entirely contrary to the view of the elected representatives of the people. Their duty is to advise the Minister. The Minister's responsibility is to this House of Commons, and if the right hon. Gentleman jeers at that kind of doctrine, then it cuts across the whole basis of democratic representation.
Mr. Butler: I did not jeer at that kind of doctrine. I really approve of the
1354
responsibility of Ministers, but what I would like to know is what this Council, which meets in secret and reports in secret, is doing. I am certain that the country and Parliament want to know so, too.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I do not want to ride off as the right hon. Gentleman does on that point. I took up the right hon. Gentleman on his interposition at the stage when he made a reply to the observations I was making.
The advantages of this Council, it appears to me, are very great. The noble Lady the Member for Anglesey rather pooh-poohed the whole of the effect of this Council, and so on. To my mind, it is an immense advantage to have in Wales a body of this kind contributing towards uniting the different heads of the Civil Service in Wales, and contributing towards uniting the administration of all aspects of Welsh life. Doing that will mean that the various Ministries existing in Wales will develop a sense of unity, and will cease, in course of time, to consider themselves as mere outposts of Whitehall down in Wales. They will have a bond between them, and I would welcome that. I think it can do a great deal towards invigorating administration in Wales.
I had hoped to go on to the second part of my speech which I have in my hand, but I am afraid that I have exceeded my time on the first half. Perhaps I may be forgiven as this is a matter of very great importance to Wales as a whole. I would say, finally, that the choice with which we are left here, each one of us Members of Parliament, and, perhaps, Wales in particular, is whether or not, at this stage, we are going to kill this proposal rather than accept it. That is the alternative; that is the choice between us, and it is no good riding off on other proposals about Secretaries of State, and all the rest of it as though the choice were between one and the other. What Member for a Welsh constituency will go to Wales and say that he advises the people of Wales to kill this particular proposal?
Mr. Hopkin Morris: I will do that.
Mr. Cove: They will kill him.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I hope the hon. and learned Member will go down to Wales and say it. To repeat, that is the choice before this House, and I hope the House will overwhelmingly accept this proposal.
8.59 p.m.
Mr. D. J. Williams: It falls to my lot to be called at the end of a Debate which has covered a very wide field. I am afraid there is very little new that I can say on the topics that have been discussed. There seem, however, to have been two main themes: first, the new administrative set-up proposed by the Government, and, secondly—and probably far more important—the economic problems of Wales. I wish to speak briefly about each one.
I, in common with many of my colleagues, welcome the decision of the Government to set up this new Council for Wales. I am sure that the proposal will be widely acclaimed and generally approved among the people of Wales. This is the first positive proposal made by any Government in my time, and, in fact, before my time, to meet the genuine and legitimate aspirations of the Welsh people. The Tory Party have talked, still talk and no doubt will continue to talk, about doing something for Wales, but when they were in power and had the authority to do something in Wales, they gave us not a Ministry nor a Secretary of State, but mass unemployment, poverty and misery. That is the contribution of the Tory Party.
This is the first attempt to translate words into action. This is a practical and workable proposition. There is nothing spectacular or showy about it, and that indeed is its greatest virtue. The Welsh people are too mature politically to confuse statesmanship with showmanship, and I am sure that they have had enough political experience and understanding to judge this proposal on its merits. I have no doubt at all what the verdict of the overwhelming majority of the Welsh people will be on this issue.
I believe that the proposal has three very solid advantages. First, it provides a channel for the expression of Welsh opinion on matters peculiar to Wales and of vital interest to the Principality. Secondly, it provides a means of conveying this opinion directly to the responsible Ministers dealing with the matter
1356
covered by the Council. Thirdly, it will enable the Government to give first-hand information about Government policy and activity in Wales, and will provide a means for a two-way traffic of opinion and information which is bound to produce valuable long-term results for the Welsh people.
This Council will not solve all our problems. Indeed, it is not meant to do so. If I may make one comment on the speech of the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George), I thought her criticisms of the Council were most unconvincing, and it seemed to me that the gravamen of her charge against the Council was that it would not bring the millennium into Wales. It will not, and it is as well we should realise that. The real problems in Wales are not constitutional or national or structural or even administrative. We have heard a great deal about administrative co-ordination. The real problems in Wales are economic and social, and it is rendering a great disservice to the people of Wales to create the impression that their problems can be overcome by some ingenious constitutional device or by the setting up of some elaborate and complex piece of administrative machinery.
I now turn to the White Paper which provides both the occasion and the subject matter for this Debate. In common, I believe, with my colleagues, I welcome the appearance of the White Paper. It is the third we have had. In fact, it is an annual event in Wales. The people of Wales look forward to its appearance with a great deal of interest and study its contents most closely. Like its predecessors, it is a very workmanlike document; it is factual, objective and comprehensive, and it gives a detailed and clear picture of the general economic and social situation in Wales today. The outstanding impression it gives, I think, is that of a vast transformation taking place in the economy of Wales. In this respect it continues the story told by the White Papers of 1946 and 1947.
During the last three years we have seen an enormous transformation in the economic life of Wales. This is something we all welcome and something new in our experience. In the inter-war period we had very little activity. On the contrary, we had industrial paralysis, economic stagnation and social decay.

1357
During that time the people of Wales went through very grim experiences and their paramount fear today is that there will be a recurrence of those experiences. That is why they are so overwhelmingly in support of and behind this Government.
I believe Wales had great hopes in the policy of this Labour Government. All those hopes have not been fulfilled. A great deal has been done, but the problem has not been solved. More remains to be done and we are still a long way from our goal of the establishment of a balanced economy and the provision of employment for our people. I know it is not easy to build a new economy in situations such as that which existed in Wales at the end of the war. Indeed, it is more difficult in Wales than in any other part of the country. For one thing, no part of the country was so dependent as was Wales, South Wales in particular, upon one or two basic industries which were almost derelict. Secondly, no other area had such a high rate of unemployment as Wales. In 1932 unemployment reached the staggering total of 41 per cent. of the insured population. In 1937, after years of rearming, the figure still reached 21 per cent.
The problem was aggravated at the end of the war by all sorts of difficulties, which arose unavoidably and inevitably from the post-war situation—difficulties about material supplies, shortages of all kinds such as steel, timber, bricks, cement and innumerable other things, and, above all, shortage of building labour to proceed with the factory and house-building programme. At the end of the war there was no building industry in Wales and the job which the Government had to do at the beginning was not so much to build houses and factories as to create an industry to produce these things. Nothing is such a faithful barometer of the general economy of Wales as the state of the building industry. In times of economic prosperity in South Wales, in the 19th century, we had a flourishing building industry, but in the period of decline and stagnation which followed the first world war the building industry became virtually extinct. What few builders remained in Wales were not builders as such: they were builders and undertakers: they built very little and
1358
undertook a great deal; and their primary occupation was to cater for the dead rather than the living.
The real problem that faces us in Wales, as I have tried to emphasise, is economic in kind—the problem of unemployment, which is part of the problem of the rehabilitation of the Development Area of Wales. It is a problem which has deep historical roots. This unemployment problem did not start in 1945 when the Labour Government came to power. It is a problem that we inherited from years of Tory misrule during the inter-war period. There is one very serious aspect of the unemployment problem in Wales to which I particularly want to refer, and that is the problem of the very large number of disabled ex-miners who are amongst the unemployed. They have been suspended from the mining industry because they are suffering from silicosis and pneumoconiosis. They cannot return to the pits, and we have at the moment no alternative employment for them. I urge the Government to give this problem their immediate and urgent attention. It is not only an economic problem; it is a real human tragedy, and should have absolute priority in the Government's efforts to bring prosperity to Wales.
9.12 p.m.
Mr. Mort: I do not know whether it is an advantage to be at the end of the queue, but I am in that position. Certainly, at the end of the queue, one can examine the goods carried out of the shop. As far as I am concerned, there is very little left on the counter or even under it. Unlike my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas), I am not going to make two speeches, but one, and that, a short one. I should like first to make a personal observation. As I listened to his speech I came to the conclusion that he had been on the road to Damascus.
I think that rather too much stress has been laid on the Council that is to be formed, important as it is. As I sat listening to some of the speakers from the Opposition side, it appeared to me that they thought that the Government are now just beginning their treatment of the problems of Wales, and that this Council is to be the machine to carry it out. It is nothing of the kind. This

1359
machine—I am not very enthusiastic about it—is to be of assistance. It is to assist in the great work the Government are doing and have done, unsurpassed by any previous Government, for Wales.
I turn to another aspect of the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. P. Morris) referred. It is a problem that is causing me a great deal of distress, and it distresses my constituents as well. I am very pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour on the Front Bench, because it is a problem within the purview of his Department. If there is one thing that causes me great distress it is the migration from Wales of the men who have learned trades and who belong to families who have followed those trades for generations. We as a country stand to lose all that great ability, that great reservoir of ability and craftsmanship. That is, unfortunately, happening now.
There is a case in point referred to in the White Paper, the case of an industry in my constituency in which 400 men have become redundant who were making copper boilers for the Indian railways. Those men will be absorbed by the firm, but not in their particular trade, and not employing their particular skill. Then we have the labour problem at the great strip mill which is now being built at Margam. The building of that mill gives me a song in my heart when I pass it twice a week. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) had been down that way, or if he went there, he would not make those speeches about our being decadent in this country. We are doing the biggest job in the world, but it brings large and very severe problems. Reference has been made to the figure of 10,000 skilled men who will become redundant. How are they to be absorbed? I want the Government to pay attention to this problem now. We are witnessing an industrial revolution in Wales—a glorious revolution. We shall be sheltered from the economic storms of the future when this policy is developed, but it must not go too far. We must not have the father of the family sitting by the fireside and the daughter running the home. That would be wrong. It would not be progress; it would be decadence absolutely.
1360
I want to make one practical suggestion which I hope the Minister will convey to the proper quarter. I, with my knowledge of the trade, confidently predict that when this strip mill is in operation, one cold producing plant will never deal with the output. The intention was to have two. The site is in Swansea—I will not give the name because the last time I referred to it a reporter asked me to spell the name and I could not. All I hope is that the Government will prevent that site from being cut up into parcels of land. Let me make this appeal. The Government may have the power to direct big factories there, but the factory that is required is something in the big engineering line. I read about an expansion of motor car manufacturing; could not the Government offer some inducement to get the work there, because that would solve our problem of redundancy in the tinplate trade?
I say to the Government that they have done a good job of work; they have diagnosed the complaint. We get the White Papers, we can read them and examine them. I hope that the Government will go forward and that when we have the next Welsh day we shall get down to these great economic problems, if they are not already solved by the efforts of the Government.
9.19 p.m.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: If I return to the question of the proposed Council, I hope that the hon. Member for East Swansea (Mr. Mort) will not regard it as a discourtesy in regard to what he has said. I listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas). I would not take steps to bring this proposal of a Council in its present form to an end, or prevent it from going forward. The Government have made an interesting proposal. I do not, however, accept the suggestion that this is the only Government that has ever done anything for Wales. I might remind the House that it was the Liberal Party, if I wanted to make party capital out of it——
Mr. Cove: Why not?
Mr. Hopkin Morris:—that set up the Welsh Department of the Board of Education and the Welsh Department of

1361
the Board of Health. The autonomy of the Civil Service began, at any rate, with the action of the Liberal Party——
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to my remarks, as I understand he is, I never intended to cast any reflection on the very great Liberal Government of 1906.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: As long as the House bears that in mind, it brings me to a point I want to make about the action of the Government. The first time we heard about this proposal was last night. It is new to hon. Members, who are compelled to discuss it today after giving it very little consideration. Certainly Wales has had no opportunity of discussing the proposal. There is no Welsh public opinion to consult, because Wales has had no opportunity of forming an opinion. Thus, whatever be the merits or the demerits of the scheme as it stands, there is a strong case for adjourning consideration of this proposal until there is a further opportunity to debate it in this House. Whatever else the Government do, I hope they will provide an opportunity for a full Debate in this House upon this subject before coming to a final decision, so that Wales itself has time to think over the proposal.
Mr. Cove: What Wales?
Mr. Hopkin Morris: If the hon. Member, after a quarter of a century in this House, does not know what Wales. I do not intend to begin teaching him now.
Last year I criticised the proposal to set up the Joint Conference of Civil Servants in Wales. Here is something on similar lines. Let me revert to the constitutional criticism of that body. It was set up, answerable to no one—an unrepresentative body with a Civil Service chairman. I certainly make no criticism of the Civil Service, nor of the civil servants who compose that body; but they are not representative—politically anyway. The constitution of this country provides for the administration of the law, being handed over completely to the Civil Service, which should not be and cannot be criticised in this House. Politicians are responsible for the political set-up; a politician is the head of the Department; he is responsible to
1362
the country and to this House, and he must bear all the criticism or take what praise there is. He is responsible to the public and to everyone in this House; the civil servant is not.
Let us for a moment examine the setup in Wales. We have had altogether three White Papers. I venture to say that no other White Paper submitted to this House is like the Welsh White Paper. It is unique. Now, in what way is it unique? Read that White Paper from cover to cover and it is a Civil Service record of what has happened in Wales during the year, whether it be good, bad or indifferent. It is not in any sense of the word a political document; it is an administrative document. The only document I can think of which is comparable with it is the report by Empire Parliamentary delegates who go abroad, visit some Colony or another, and on their return present a report of their visit. It is an account of the industrial activity, the agricultural activity and the educational activity of the Colony, and is not a document presented to Parliament at all. I know of no document of this sort which is presented to Parliament, except in the case of Wales. The document is of necessity, because of the way it is drawn up and because of the people responsible for drawing it up, a report upon Colonial development. Now, that is a complete political departure. Why should Wales be treated as a Colony?
We are now going a step further, instead of remedying that position. The only way to remedy the position is by making someone politically responsible and not allowing only the Prime Minister to present the report to Parliament as though it were a Government paper. If this proposal made a Minister responsible, I would agree with the hon. and learned Member for Llandaff and Barry that it would be a great step forward. I hope the Government will consider this. It is no use merely setting up a Council which is, in the first place, representative indirectly of the county councils and county borough councils, and responsible to no one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) interrupted and asked what would be the relationship of this body to Parliament, but that question was not answered.

1363
There is another question which is perhaps even more important, and that is: what will be the relationship of this body to the Civil Service? The separate Ministers with responsibility for Departments in Wales—and there is a separate Board of Education and a Welsh Board of Health—must surely have confidence in their civil servants and consult with the separate divisions in regard to Wales, but how are the civil servants to be placed in regard to this nondescript body which has no responsibility at all and is a complete constitutional anomaly?
Let me put another point which is of some importance. Take the two most important Departments, the Welsh Board of Health and the Welsh Department of the Board of Education. I am not criticising the people at the head, but merely the system. In each of these two cases it has been the practice not to appoint civil servants to the chair. They are not Civil Service promotions. The reason for that is obvious. It is because the salaries are not high enough to carry a top grade civil servant. When a civil servant was appointed in the case of the Welsh Board of Health and the time came for his promotion, he was removed back to London. If the Government really want to do some service to Wales, they should alter the grades of the heads of Departments so that the appointments are such as to command the best civil servants. I am not saying that they do not command the best civil servants at the moment.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: They do.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will allow me to make my own speech. If the Government would put these Departments on a first-class level, it would be an important contribution to the development of local government in Wales. The confusing of administration with political responsibility is a great disservice, as well as being a confusion of thought. In the last resort it leads to a loss of liberty. The great protection that exists for liberty is free discussion in this House upon a public basis.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: That is not a fact.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: It is not, but it will gradually become a fact. My plea to
1364
the Government is for them to reconsider this, and to let us have a further Debate when we have had an opportunity of full discussion, and then to give Ministerial responsibility.
9.29 p.m.
The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): We have had a very interesting Debate and a number of very excellent speeches. I sympathised with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour when he came to reply to the last Welsh Debate, because so many points of detail had been put and so many questions asked that it would have taken more time than was available to him to have dealt with them all. That problem is even more pronounced in my case tonight, because in addition to the many points that have been put and questions asked there have been two main elements in this Debate.
First, there has been the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council at the beginning of the Debate; and mixed up with the question of the Consultative Council have been speeches about the problems of industry, agriculture and rural life and, perhaps what is most urgent of all, the provision of employment for the growing number of disabled men in North and South Wales. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) put a number of questions of great interest and importance, but to reply to his and all the other points which have been raised would require Departmental knowledge. Even if I were in the position of being the Minister for Wales, I should not be able to reply to the points which have been put forward without Departmental knowledge. However, note has been taken of what has been asked, and a reply will be given later.
Mr. R. A. Butler: Shall we receive letters giving the replies to the points which have been put in the Debate?
Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Members will receive replies from the appropriate Ministers.
Mr. Butler: Then we can discuss them another day?
Mr. Griffiths: Certainly. I want now to come to the major issue in this Debate—

1365
the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Government's decision—by which we stand and which we shall implement—to set up a Consultative Council for Wales. I want to make one point clear at the start: so long as England and Wales are governed together by one Parliament, by one Government, the policy for Wales, as for England, must be decided here. The Government must be responsible for policy. The Government's responsibility is to the people, through Parliament, and unless Wales accepts the view, which I do not think it will, that it ought to have a Parliament of its own, which, presumably, would mean a Government of its own as well——
Mr. C. Davies: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I began by saying that there was need for devolution for Wales as for other countries. I used the phrase "Parliament or Grand Council to deal purely with Welsh affairs."
Mr. Griffiths: If there were a Parliament of Wales, there would have to be a Government of Wales. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of the Welsh people do not want a Parliament and a Government of their own. I, as a Welshman, believe it would be disastrous for Wales if we had a Government of our own, relying on our own resources and our own finances. If that were the case no part of the country would suffer more than Montgomery, which is represented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We should be stabilising our poverty if we had to rely on our own internal resources. I am certain that the majority of the people of Wales do not take the view put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If, in the future, we go on to consider problems of devolution of Government, let no one be under any illusion. That must clearly involve the whole question of local government administration. I have only to mention that to make my hon. Friends realise what the problem is and how controversial it is. If devolution is to mean internal re-organisation both at the centre and in local government in Wales we can appreciate the kind of problem we are facing. We should not broadcast the suggestion of devolution without fully realising what it means for our people.
1366
The policy which this Government have pursued since 1945 carries with it the support of the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales. No one will deny that—neither the Liberal nor the Conservative Parties. The second thing I have to say is that the policy which the Government are pursuing in Wales is a policy in the best interests of the Welsh people, as will be apparent when we recall what we are doing in the economic field, in the reconstruction of our social services, in the development of our agricultural policy, in the rural areas and, indeed, in all fields. It may be criticised in some details, and to some hon. Members it may be inadequate in certain directions, but the action we are taking and the legislation we have carried through this House, represents a policy which is in the best interests of Wales.
I will put a very simple test. Hon. Members from Wales know that the only alternative policy to ours is that of the Conservative Party. I hope my Friends in the Liberal Party will forgive me for this, but I do not think they harbour any hope of again being a government in this country. Thus, the only alternative before England and Wales is a Conservative Government or a Labour Government. Does anyone doubt what the choice of Wales will be? Would any member for Wales of any party get up tonight and say that he would swop the Wales of 1948 for the Wales of 1938?
In 1938 Wales as a nation was disintegrating because a livelihood was being denied to its people. Its major industries were disintegrating and there was a decline in every aspect of Welsh life. We had mass unemployment and we were losing our people. Nearly half a million people were lost to Wales in 21 years, and right up to the beginning of the war we who were living in Wales knew that we were living in a nation that was dying on its feet, not because of bad machinery but because of bad policy. Let us get it quite clear—there can be the best machinery in the world, but if the policy is wrong that wrong policy will destroy a nation and its people. I begin by saying that the policy we are pursuing in every field of our activity carries with it the overwhelming support of the people of Wales and is in the best interests of Wales, for Wales is once more inhabited by people with confidence in tomorrow.

1367
The next problem is to ensure that the policy for which Government and Parliament are responsible is administered in the best way that can be devised in the interests of Wales and her people. What we are discussing really is the question of whether the administration in Wales is the best that can be devised, and if not what can be done to improve it. Since we became a Government, in the field of administration we have been responsible for a very big programme of legislation, which has had an effect upon the life of Wales, as it has on the whole community. As a Government we have been deeply concerned to ensure that in the carrying out of this new legislation as well as the old legislation the administration in Wales is the best that can be devised. So we have implemented to the full the conception that for the purpose of administration Wales should be treated as an entity. Sometimes we have had to make decisions to treat Wales as a unity against a good deal of expert opinion. Sometimes we have treated Wales as a unity when there was no unity about the matter in Wales itself.
There is an example for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health was responsible. We had to decide how to administer the hospitals in Wales and what was to be the unit of administration. Hon. Members on both sides of the House from North Wales know that there were two views about that. There were those who said that for generations the hospital and general medical service of North Wales had been linked with that of Liverpool and that it would mean severing old connections if unity for Wales was demanded. But we decided in that case to make Wales one administrative unit. In the last three years the Government have worked out and acted upon the principle that for all purposes of administration we will treat Wales as an entity.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: That was not so in the case of electricity.
Mr. Griffiths: That is true. That was an exception. The reason for that exception was explained very fully when the discussion took place about the administration of electricity. There are economic reasons in the interests of Wales for that. In all other fields we have carried out the principle.
Mr. Price-White: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman unnecessarily. He has told us about the Welsh regions in the Health Service. Would he also tell us quite briefly how the service is working?
Mr. Griffiths: The National Health Service Scheme in all its phases, despite all the threats and all the rest of it, is working out very well indeed and proving an enormous benefit to the mass of the people of the country.
To return to my main theme, we treat Wales as an entity for administrative purposes. Since there have now grown up a very large number of administrators in Wales who are responsible as heads of Departments, our second step was to bring them together to ensure that in their administrative work they worked together as a team, that they co-ordinated their work and that where their work inevitably overlapped, they could come together and discuss their mutual problems. This arrangement has only been in operation for a very short time, but there is growing up a team spirit and a cadre of Welsh administrators working in different fields but developing a very close unity in their administrative work. That is the Conference of Heads of Departments, which meets quarterly.
The question then arose: what was to be the next step? We gave a good deal of time and thought to this, and the decision of the Government is that announced by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council this afternoon. We propose to set up the Welsh Council. The Council will meet, as we have indicated, at least once every quarter in order that it may advise the Government, as was indicated in its terms of reference, on trends and developments in Wales and the impact of Government activity on Welsh life. It provides a link through which Ministers will meet those representatives from time to time to discuss with them the problems of their Departments and the impact of the activities of their Departments on Welsh life.
A good deal of scorn has been poured on its composition. I want to look at it for a moment, remembering its function. It is not a policy-making body; no one suggested it should be. That is our job. Let us look at the constitution of the Council. It has been called a sop, and other things. Whom does the Council

1369
represent? From whence will the representatives come? First, they will come from the local authorities in Wales. Twelve of the members will be selected from a panel of representatives nominated by the local authorities in Wales. Are they people far away from Welsh life? Are they not the people in day-to-day touch with the administration in Wales? Are they not the people who see the impact on the localities of Government activities and Government administration? Are they not the people who can tell us at first hand, from their own experience in their own localities, how these policies of ours are working out administratively in their areas? Our aim, therefore, is to draw upon the experience and knowledge of local government.
Secondly, we suggest eight representatives from both sides in industry and agriculture. There will be representatives of the industrialists in Wales, including representatives of what have become very important in Wales—and we are glad of it—the socialised industries, which have become the biggest single economic factor in the life of Wales. Then there will be four representatives of the trade unions. Are they to be told they are completely unrepresentative of Welsh life? Let hon. Members tell my old union, the Miners Federation, that it does not represent Welsh life in any phase, that it is alien, that it is something outside; let them tell that to an organisation which has probably played a bigger part in the life of Wales within the last 50 years than any other.
Hon. Members have said—and this is the truth—that Wales is preoccupied now, and has been for a generation and will be until we solve the problem, with its livelihood; this is the reason for bringing industry inside.
Mr. Bowen: Does the right hon. Member suggest that the trade union organisations of Wales do not make their views known to the Government at present?
Mr. Griffiths: I am not suggesting that they do not. All I say is that it will be an advantage to meet them on this Council. Industry, agriculture and education will all be represented. I give the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden credit for the Education Act, 1944, but one thing this Government have done in
1370
the last three years which has been advocated and argued about ever since I have been a Member of this House, and no Government had done it until we came to power, is to give Wales a Joint Education Authority. This authority will be represented on this Council, so that its work will be linked up with it. The University will come in, the Eisteddfod will come in. Somebody poured scorn upon our decision to bring in a representative of the Welsh Tourist Board. Is that hon. Member really serious in pouring scorn upon that suggestion? Does not everyone in Wales realise that, looking to the future, there can be an enormous development of the tourist industry of Wales, that it can be made to play a vitally important part in the economic recovery of our country? Is it not right, therefore, that this industry should be represented as well?
I say that the Council in its representation will bring together people from the various phases of Welsh life, and will thereby provide a pool of knowledge and experience of Wales unequalled by any body we can consult today. I say, therefore, that in its representation, in its combined knowledge and experience, this will be an admirable body for the purpose of noting the development of trends and policies and administration in Wales, and it will make a first-class medium for Ministers to consult in order to, discover how their policies are working out in Welsh life.
Now I come to the link with the Government, and here we have had a discussion whether or not that link should be through a Minister. If a Minister presides over this Conference, and if the problem to be discussed at any particular meeting is a problem concerning another Department and another Minister, he, as chairman of the Conference would, or could, convey the ideas of the Conference to his colleague. Do hon. Members think that the members of this Council will be content with that? I put it to them quite frankly that, if the question were put to the local authorities in Wales, they would say that, if they were to have a meeting with a Minister to discuss any particular problem, they would want to see the Minister who was responsible and not a Minister who had no responsibility for that problem I am quite certain that that idea not only

1371
would not work, but that in a very short time it would break down.
What we have provided is a very much better link with the Government, and I want to emphasise this, because it is one of the most important points of the new proposal. The Council will meet regularly, at least quarterly, as was suggested by the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George). They may indicate that, at the next meeting, they propose to discuss agriculture, and the Minister of Agriculture or his Parliamentary Secretary will attend the meeting and discuss it with them. Is not that an advantage? They might indicate that they want to discuss problems of fuel and power, and the Minister of Fuel and Power would go to this new Council and discuss the matter with them. The Council can indicate that they want to discuss any problem and, when they indicate what the problem is, the appropriate and responsible Minister will meet them, and they will be able to put their views and criticisms to him. The Minister will also be able to explain policy to them. Such a close development between the Council and Ministers responsible for policy in Wales could, I believe, be of enormous advantage to the administration of Government policy in Wales itself. I believe that this Council can and will play a very important part in the improving and perfecting of Government administration in Wales. I therefore commend it to hon. Members from Wales who belong to all parties, and I also commend it to the people of Wales.
Twelve years ago, I came to this House as the Member for Llanelly—in 1936. Wales itself was in the depths of depression. Our industries were declining, the young people were leaving, there was disintegration and decay everywhere, because for 25 years, except for two very small periods during which there was a Labour Government without adequate power to carry out its policy, Wales had been misgoverned by the Conservative and Coalition Governments. [Interruption.] Let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. At Llandudno, and again in the last Welsh Debate, the right hon. Gentleman announced that the Conservative Party had decided that, at the next General
1372
Election, if they were returned to power, they proposed to appoint a Minister for Wales. I can speak not only for myself, but for the overwhelming mass of my people, when I say that any proposal of that kind from the Conservative Party would not be regarded as a promise of good things to come, but as a threat, for the truth is that, at every stage in our life, the Conservative Party have been the opponents of the aspirations of the Welsh people and of Welsh desires.
For generations they resisted the claim of our people to religious freedom; they resisted the claim to political freedom; and they are now fighting to resist our economic freedom. Do hon. Members suppose that were we having a Welsh Debate tonight with a Conservative Government in power, we should be discussing a Welsh Council? What do hon. Members suppose we should be discussing? I will tell them. The coalmines would still be in the hands of the coalowners. What kind of Wales do hon. Members think that would be? Agriculture in Wales would still be languishing under the policy pursued by Conservative Governments. Those are the things which would have our attention. In every phase of our Welsh life we should be suffering.
In the last three years we have pursued an economic policy which has begun new growth and new development, and has created new confidence in Wales. Merthyr Tydfil has once again started to think of its future without fear because of the policy of a Labour Government. Every part of Wales is doing that. We believe that pursuing this policy as we are doing, and confident as we are that in 1950 we shall be returned to continue this policy, what we have to do is to see that in the pursuance of our policy the administration is one which brings the Welsh people into partnership, as we propose it shall be brought by this Council, and that, in that way, we shall ensure that both the policy and the administration are in the best interests of Wales.
One final word. There was one Government in 1906, a Liberal Government, which had a record that no other party has yet attained—every Welsh Member returned was a Liberal. I believe that in the not-far-distant future my party will attain a similar distinction.

1373
We have had other Governments like the Liberal Government, but at all stages when we have come to discuss what we shall do for Wales, very little or nothing has been done in the end because, when the proposal was put forward, we rejected it for something else. I ask the House not to reject this proposal tonight; I ask them to accept it. Give it a fair trial, and see how it works. I give the assurance on behalf of the Government that we intend this to be a Council which will play an effective part, and one which will provide an effective link between the Government and the people of Wales. I commend it to hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies, and to the whole of the Welsh people. I say, accept this Council, and work it to the full in the best spirit. We will co-operate with it, and every Minister will see that the policy that we as a Government are carrying out is administered in the best interests of our people. I am certain that if we do that, we shall be serving the interests of the people whom it is our proud privilege to represent.
Mr. Pearson (Treasurer of the Household): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CENSUS OF DISTRIBUTION
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to move,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 24th September, 1948, entitled the Census of Distribution (1950) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 2176), a copy of which was presented on 24th September in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled."
  I do not wish this evening—and, indeed, I feel that if I did I would he ruled out of Order—to attack the Act under which this specific order has been made. That is not the purpose of this Prayer this evening. The purpose of the Prayer is to put forward a very strong plea that 1950 is not the proper year in which to have a census of distribution. It seems that 1950 is going to be a pretty important year one way or another. The Government seem to have made a great
  1374
  many plans for 1950, and a great many other things also may happen, but even the Government's plans occasionally are unfulfilled and come to nothing.
  When this order was in draft I believe it was considered by a committee of the Board of Trade, and I believe also that certain trade organisations, including the National Chamber of Trade, were invited to send representatives to discuss the order. At that time, it was strongly put forward that 1949, which, of course, is the year during which these statistics are being gathered, was not the most convenient year for a census to be of any value. Subsequently the Autumn Conference of the National Chamber of Trade passed a resolution which they sent to the Board of Trade, and I believe they got the usual sort of acknowledgment from the President.
  The terms of the resolution of the National Chamber of Trade were:
  "The 1950 census of distribution should be postponed on the grounds that traders have not sufficient staffs to cope with the returns, that stocks held by retailers are not representative, and that the information received by the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade would be misleading and of no real value."
  That comes from the trade body which represents the traders who are going to be asked to fill in the forms for this census and whom the census is designed to help. Throughout the country at the moment there is a widespread feeling that the individual unit traders will not derive the slightest practical benefit from the census in the day-to-day needs of their businesses. The question which has been asked remains quite unanswered; namely, what useful purpose is going to be served by the census in this particular year?
  For a few moments I will deal with the reasons why we are asking for the postponement of this census. I have said that I am not attacking the idea of a census altogether. I merely wish to try to show that 1950 is not the appropriate year. In the first place, 1949—the year to which the figures will refer—promises to be no more a normal year than, for example, 1946, 1947 or 1948. Indeed, it is the view of traders in the country, and I believe that it is the view at the Board of Trade, that so far as consumer needs are concerned, particularly cotton textiles, there will be a greater shortage than ever in 1949. In

  1375
  fact, I believe that one of the arguments put forward by the Board of Trade for the continuation of clothes rationing is that there will be a great shortage in 1949.
  Secondly, we submit that a census can be of no real value during a period of rationing which is imposed because of the insufficiency of consumer goods. There is an insufficiency of food and insufficiency of clothes, and we contend that until rationing has been abolished the census will be valueless, a waste of time and a waste of money.
  Thirdly, the continued operation of Purchase Tax is, we believe, having a very restrictive effect upon, not people's purchasing power perhaps but their purchasing inclination. We believe that a great many people today are not buying goods simply because of the heavy Purchase Tax placed upon them. They are holding their hands at the moment, hoping that Purchase Tax will be removed, which in some cases will reduce the cost of these goods by something like half. If the experts are right—experts are not always right, but if they are on this occasion—it follows that in the coming year, 1949, the census figures, because of Purchase Tax, will be unreal and unreliable upon which to base any conclusions which may affect the process of distribution.
  Fourthly, we must remember that there are large food subsidies and there are subsidies affecting the clothing industry which are bound to upset the normal laws of supply and demand. Again, there is the question of Marshall aid, which must give an unreal picture in the distributive field when so many——
  Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of Order. The hon. Member tonight has moved the annulment of a Motion which has been made in pursuance of an Act passed in the life of this Parliament, after a very full Debate, which places an absolute obligation upon the Minister to make this order. He has no option whatever about this order, nor in my respectful submission has he much option about the date. It may very well be argued that he might make the date 1950 or 1951, in each case referring to the previous year, but under Section 2 of the Act:
  "The Board of Trade shall, for the purpose of providing at intervals general surveys of the
  1376
  state of trade and business, take a census of production in the year nineteen hundred and forty-nine and in every subsequent year, and a census of distribution and other services in any year … beginning not less than 12 months after the date of the order."
  This is not less than 12 months after the date of the order. This obligation on the Minister was decided after full Debate by this Parliament and in my respectful submission the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) is seeking to use the time of the House to criticise the whole state of affairs today and presumably to suggest that we should wait until after a number of Budgets before the obligation placed on the Minister, without option, by this Act is put into operation. It may be that it is just possible for him to argue that it should be 1950 or 1951. Even that may be in doubt. It may be in doubt whether this year is satisfactory, but in my respectful submission he is not entitled to raise the whole range of circumstances on the question of the date.
  Mr. Speaker: I listened to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) very carefully and I thought he was giving reasons why the year 1949 was not a good year in which to have a Census of Distribution. If I may say so, I think the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) has not read the Act quite correctly because while it says that the Board of Trade shall, for the purpose of providing at intervals general surveys, take a Census of Production, and must do that every year, a Census of Distribution and other services may be prescribed in any year. The Minister need not prescribe an order for a Census of Distribution. There seems to be an option here, and I gather that the hon. Member for Eastbourne was giving reasons—I agree they were wide reasons; he was not developing them or I should have stopped that—general reasons why the Census of Distribution would have been inconvenient in 1949. I gather that this is an option which the Board of Trade can exercise.
  Mr. Hale: Further to that point of Order, may I put it briefly that the Act imposes an obligation upon the Minister to make this order. It gives the Minister discretion to pick a date. It seems a matter of imperative obligation to exercise that discretion. The hon. Member is now moving a Prayer to annul

  1377
  this order. Annulment of the order would, of course, mean that the Minister could not exercise discretion at all. Therefore, in my respectful submission, is is not competent for the Prayer to be moved at all.
  Mr. Speaker: The Prayer itself would not annul the general census. The Motion prays against the Census of Distribution and other services. That, I gather, is an optional census, so far as the Board of Trade is concerned. The other census—that is, the Census of Production—is obligatory. Every year it has to be made. There are two different kinds of census. That is my opinion.
  Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was trying
  1378
  to explain that the Marshall Aid that we are receiving is bound to emphasise unreal conditions in the field of distribution. I understand that the estimated cost of this census is to be about £1,000,000. I submit that at this time traders throughout the country are finding things extremely difficult, and that the money could be better spent at the present time, and that there could be a saving in manpower also. In conclusion, I should like to say that many traders are in favour of the census, but many are against it——
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
  House counted, and, 40 Members not being present, the House was adjourned, at a Quarter-past Ten o'Clock, till Tomorrow.

  CIVIL AVIATION (CASTEL BENITO AIRFIELD)
  CIVIL AVIATION (CASTEL BENITO AIRFIELD)
PALESTINE
  Mr. Sylvester (Release)
  Mr. Sylvester (Release)
  Potash Works, Dead Sea
  Potash Works, Dead Sea
CYPRUS
  Strikes and Arson
  Strikes and Arson
  Tourist Industry
  Tourist Industry
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Double Taxation Relief (U.S.A.)
  Double Taxation Relief (U.S.A.)
  African Conference, London
  African Conference, London
  Police Forces
  Police Forces
  KENYA (TANA RIVER, IRRIGATION)
  KENYA (TANA RIVER, IRRIGATION)
  CIVIL SERVANTS, GOLD COAST (PETITION)
  CIVIL SERVANTS, GOLD COAST (PETITION)
  UGANDA (HYDRO-ELECTRIC SCHEME)
  UGANDA (HYDRO-ELECTRIC SCHEME)
  SIERRA LEONE (MINING COMPANY)
  SIERRA LEONE (MINING COMPANY)
  NORTHERN NYASALAND (ROADS)
  NORTHERN NYASALAND (ROADS)
  PALESTINE POLICE (DISMISSED OFFICER)
  PALESTINE POLICE (DISMISSED OFFICER)
  BRITISH HONDURAS (LOAN)
  BRITISH HONDURAS (LOAN)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Flour Allocations
  Flour Allocations
  Eggs (Storage)
  Eggs (Storage)
  Potato Crisps (Price)
  Potato Crisps (Price)
  Hard Wheat Flour
  Hard Wheat Flour
  Onion Transactions (Prosecution)
  Onion Transactions (Prosecution)
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Whisky (Grain Supplies)
  Whisky (Grain Supplies)
ROYAL NAVY
  Aircraft (Forced Landings)
  Aircraft (Forced Landings)
  Chart Sales Staff (Pay)
  Chart Sales Staff (Pay)
  Swimming Instruction (Boy's Death)
  Swimming Instruction (Boy's Death)
  Experimental Work (Animals)
  Experimental Work (Animals)
  Dock, Singapore (Sanitary Accommodation)
  Dock, Singapore (Sanitary Accommodation)
POST OFFICE
  Postal Packets (Examination)
  Postal Packets (Examination)
  Letters, Belfast (Censorship)
  Letters, Belfast (Censorship)
  Football Pools (Postings)
  Football Pools (Postings)
  Deliveries, Drayton Gardens, S.W.10
  Deliveries, Drayton Gardens, S.W.10
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Installations, Aberdeen
  Installations, Aberdeen
  Application, Haworth
  Application, Haworth
  Dial (Luminous Material)
  Dial (Luminous Material)
  Chief Constables' Numbers
  Chief Constables' Numbers
  TELEVISION SERVICE (COST)
  TELEVISION SERVICE (COST)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Civil Servants (Removal Expenses)
  Civil Servants (Removal Expenses)
  E.R.P. (Oil Supplies)
  E.R.P. (Oil Supplies)
  Football Pools (Betting Duty)
  Football Pools (Betting Duty)
  Purchase Tax (Football Pool Coupons)
  Purchase Tax (Football Pool Coupons)
  Purchase Tax (Deaf Aids)
  Purchase Tax (Deaf Aids)
  SUGAR BEET HARVEST, WEST SUSSEX
  SUGAR BEET HARVEST, WEST SUSSEX
  HOUSING (REQUISITIONING CIRCULARS)
  HOUSING (REQUISITIONING CIRCULARS)
  RIVER POLLUTION
  RIVER POLLUTION
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (OFFICERS' UNIFORMS)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (OFFICERS' UNIFORMS)
  SCHOOL FOR POLES LILFORD
  SCHOOL FOR POLES LILFORD
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Paper Consumption
  Paper Consumption
  Utility Clothing (Price Control Method)
  Utility Clothing (Price Control Method)
  NEW TOWNS (WATER AND SEWERAGE SCHEMES)
  NEW TOWNS (WATER AND SEWERAGE SCHEMES)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  2.35 p.m.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Lord Blackford be added to the panel of Lords appointed as Deputy Chairmen of Committees who shall, in the absence of the Chairman of Committees, be entitled to exercise during, the present Session all the powers vested in him.
  Moved to resolve, That the Lord Blackford be added to the panel of Lords appointed as Deputy Chairmen of Committees who shall, in the absence of the Chairman of Committees, be entitled to exercise during the present Session all the powers vested in him.—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDIAN PENSIONS FOR BRITISH NATIONALS
2.36 p.m.
EARL WAVELL: My Lords, I rise to ask the first question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to a statement in the Assembly at Delhi on August 12 last by the Indian Finance Minister, Mr. Chetty, to the effect that the responsibility for the payment of pensions to British nationals for service in India rested entirely with the Indian Government, and were payable only during good conduct and for so long as their loyalty to India continued; whether His Majesty's Government are aware that this statement has caused great anxiety to many British civilians and officers who are drawing pensions for their service in India; and whether His Majesty's Government will confirm that the guarantee given by the Prime Minister
540
in another place on July 9, 1947, and repeated in the White Paper in August, 1947, that these persons "have the assurance of His Majesty's Government that they will receive the pensions to which they are entitled" still holds good.]
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am aware that some apprehension has been felt as a result of the observation in Mr. Chetty's speech. I do not think that it necessarily carries the implications which have been put upon it by those who have felt these apprehensions. In accordance with the agreement announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place on July 15 last, the Government of India have purchased an annuity from His Majesty's Government, which is to be used to cover India's full liability for pensions payable in sterling and which will be adequate for the purpose. If difficulties arise in practice over the payment of any individual pension it will always be possible for us to take the matter up with the Government of India.
EARL WAVELL: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his reply. Will His Majesty's Government make it quite clear that they, and not the Indian Government, are the judges of the loyalty of these British subjects, and will they make an announcement to that effect which will reassure these people?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: His Majesty's Government are in correspondence with the Government of India with regard to the statement referred to in the noble Earl's question. So far as the latter part is concerned, we have no grounds for believing that the Government of India will not entertain the same honourable interpretation of their obligations as we should.
EARL WAVELL: My Lords, may I ask whether His Majesty's Government will make an announcement that they definitely are the judges of the loyalty of these British subjects?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not think I can make any announcement beyond the quite fair statement which I have already made.
EARL WAVELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, what progress has been made in the negotiations for the grant of proportionate pensions to the British personnel of the non-Secretary of State's Services in India and Pakistan; and whether His Majesty's Government have secured that any grant made shall be applicable to any persons who have retired since August 15, 1947.]
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am glad to be able to inform the noble Earl that the Governments of India and Pakistan now agree to allow European officers of non-Secretary of State's services who are not domiciled in India or Pakistan to retire on proportionate pension, if they so desire. The Government of India have reserved the right to postpone release for as long as a year from the date of application, if they think it necessary in the public interest to do so. The Government of Pakistan have made the same general condition, but for technical officers they have fixed the maximum period of postponement at two years instead of one. Details of the arrangements were published in announcements issued by the Governments of India and Pakistan on November 18. With the noble Earl's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the announcement made by the Government of India. This concession will not have retrospective effect. Those who have already resigned did so of their own volition, with a full appreciation of the consequences of their resignation.
EARL WAVELL: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his answer. I am very glad to learn that something has been done for these people. Do His Majesty's Government really not intend this to be retrospective to August 15, 1947? Are they not aware that quite a number of these servants have already been compelled to resign, and do they not agree that some pension is due to them for the services they have rendered?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I can assure the noble Earl, with regard to the retrospective class to which he refers (which is a small number of officers), that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is prepared to receive representations on
542
behalf of those who have already resigned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have not hitherto intervened in these discussions, because I have always regarded them as matters for experts, but I hope the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will make strong representations on the point of the retrospective class, on pure grounds of equity. After all, it is not the fault of these men that they are not included in the concessions; it is the fault of the protracted negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of India. The fact that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House himself says it is a very small number means that the Treasury—who are presumably the "villains of the piece" in this matter—might give that aspect still further consideration. To say that there are only a very small number of them makes the position of the Government very much worse. These men have all given faithful service, and I hope that the accident that they left the service during this interim period will not stand in their way.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure the noble Marquess will be willing to recognise the very comprehensive agreement which has already been achieved. With regard to those servants to whom the noble Marquess referred, they are not always in the same class as the men who stayed on. The man who came away on his own volition is not always in the same class as the man who stayed on. For all that, we recognise the force of what the noble Earl has said and, as I have said, my right honourable friend will be willing to receive representations in respect of those cases.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recognise that it is now one-and-a-half years since the terms of retirement for the Secretary of State's services were announced, and that, by contrast, these men of the non-Secretary of State's services have been through a period of great uncertainty and difficulty? While recognising the value of the agreement reached, will the Government take care to deal with these cases?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure we shall do everything vie can. So far we have given evidence of our good will.
[Following is the announcement by the Government of India to which Lord Addison referred:
In response to representations made to them and having regard to the constitutional changes that took place in India on August 15, 1947, the Government of India have, in consultation with the Provincial Governments and in agreement with His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, decided to extend the right of retirement before completing the service normally required for earning a retiring pension, or other retiring benefits, to European officers of Civil Services in India who were not already eligible for this concession, viz. officers other than those belonging to the Services previously under the rule-making control of the late Secretary of State for India. Officers who may prematurely retire from service pursuant to this decision will receive such proportionate pension or gratuity or Provident Fund benefits, as the case may be, as would have been admissible to them in the event of their discharge from service on the abolition of their posts, without alternative employment being provided, under the relevant service rules. Officers will also be eligible for such leave preparatory to retirement as may be admissible to them under the normal operation of the rules applicable to them. These concessions will be limited to European officers of non-Indian domicile, who are permanent employees of Government.
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have agreed to bear any extra cost that the Governments in India may have to incur on account of the grant of this concession. They have also agreed to bear the charges on account of the grant of repatriation passages to such of the European officers and their families as avail themselves of the concession of premature retirement but are not, under the service rules applicable to them, entitled to free passages. Repatriation passages for this purpose include single railway fares from last place of employment in India to the port of embarkation and from the port of disembarkation to destination.
Efforts will be made to release officers wishing to retire under this scheme as soon as possible, but the releases may be staggered where the exigencies of public service demand. In no case, however, will the release of officers who wish to retire be postponed beyond twelve months.]

RECRUITMENT TO POLICE FORCES
2.40 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I rise to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider the advisability of raising the age for recruitment to police forces in this country in the case of suitable officers who have
544
had previous service in India and elsewhere and are now without employment; and whether they are aware that such flexibility in the matter of recruitment would go some way to fulfil the obligations which His Majesty's Government have to find employment for such men, as well as make a contribution to the manpower situation.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, under the provisions of the Police Regulations, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have the power, in special circumstances, to approve the appointment of constables who are over the prescribed age limit of thirty, on the recommendation of the local appointing authority. Any such recommendations on behalf of officers who had served in India or elsewhere would naturally receive careful consideration, but in view of the need to maintain a proper balance in the age distribution of the police service and of the fact that men recruited over the age of thirty may not be able to qualify for a full pension, any widespread acceptance of such officers—most of whom are understood to be well over thirty years of age—is, I regret to say, unlikely. The United Kingdom Government, however, are doing all they can to assist those men who previously served in India and Pakistan.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I should like to ask whether he is aware that the number of these men is small and would not upset the balance of the Forces. I am sure he recognises that there is a high responsibility on His Majesty's Government to help these men to find employment.
LORD SHEPHERD: The Government, of course, recognise that responsibility and are acting upon it. As I have said in my reply, the Ministers already possess the power to sanction the employment of these men on the recommendation of the local bodies who are responsible for their employment.

THE ROYAL AIR FORCE
2.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD rose to call attention to the state of the Royal Air Force, and the vital importance of British air power to the Commonwealth, the Western Union and the United

545
Nations; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the Motion that stands in my name, I should like to make it clear at the outset that this is no Party attack upon the Government. No doubt, in the course of the debate, criticisms will be made upon this or that part of the Government's administration of the Air Force; but I feel sure that it would be the wish of every noble Lord to keep these great issues of defence outside the arena of Party battles. So far as I am concerned, therefore, I shall make the case as strongly as I can, without turning aside to any detailed criticism of the administration of the Air Ministry or the Royal Air Force.
I base my argument upon two propositions. The first is that no major military operation can succeed under modern conditions without mastery of the air; the second, that in the present condition of the world Anglo-American air power can be the most formidable military deterrent against aggression and can be the most effective military means of ensuring European and world security. It is worth while for a moment, before I deal with the present situation, to look back at the past and to see what lessons it has to teach us. It fell to me, in the years immediately after the First World War, to be Secretary of State for Air in three successive Governments. I had the great advantage of having as Chief of the Air Staff the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard—not only the father of the Air Force but also the founder of air strategy—and he had as his young assistant the noble Viscount, Lord Portal of Hungerford, to whose speech we are looking forward with great anticipation this afternoon.
It may be said that this ancient history has no bearing upon a world in which everything has conspicuously changed, particularly air forces and air tactics and strategy. At the same time, it is worth mentioning two lessons that impressed us at that time, which I believe have as much application to the present state of affairs as they had in the years immediately after the First World War. The first was the great danger of an ill-considered system of demobilisation in a highly technical service depending for its very existence upon a balance of the various forces that it contains. I am inclined to think that
546
in the last two or three years we have repeated some of the mistakes that were first made at the time of the demobilisation of the Air Force in 1918 and 1919. Be that as it may, there was another lesson that those years had to teach. In the course of time we were able to initiate a programme of Air Force expansion that was to take several years, and was to develop upon a balanced plan. I believe that the plan was a good one, but what subsequently happened was that, year after year, it was either modified by successive Governments or was diminished or delayed. I am not now apportioning blame to any particular Government, or to any particular individual, but I quote this instance to impress upon your Lordships the essential need of a continuity of policy if we are to have a consistent plan of Air Force defence.
After some years, I went back again to the Air Ministry in the early part of 1940. I was not there very long, but I was there long enough to realise the importance of two other lessons. The first was the urgent need for the future—I am afraid it was then too late for the present—to have an Air Force strong enough to strike at once. If, in 1938 and 1939, we had had such an Air Force, I believe that the momentum of the German advance could have been stayed. There was a second lesson, which was the overriding need of a strong force of bombers for air defence. Noble Lords may remember that at the outbreak of the last war we had an Air Force in which the ratio of fighters to bombers was three to one. It may well be that at that time that was the only ratio that was practicable. Certainly it should be remembered that the result of that ratio was to enable us to win the Battle of Britain. But, as the war progressed, so more and more it became evident that for purposes of defence—and long-distance defence in particular—a strong force of bombers was essential. That being so, I would urge upon the Government that in any plans that they are making for Air Force expansion they should keep that lesson constantly in their minds.
The war developed. The subsequent and predominant lesson that it taught us was the one which I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks—namely, that

547
no major military operation can succeed in modern conditions without the mastery of the air. That lesson was obvious in Poland, in Norway and in Crete. Wherever the Germans had the mastery of the air, they were able to develop a successful military operation. On the other hand, when we gained the mastery of the air, we were able to land the great Normandy expedition; we were able to immobilise the German armies, and we were able to take action that proved to be decisive in winning the war. Those are not the views of any partisan of air power in this or any other country. They were the accepted conclusions of every one of the principal German generals.
Let me remind noble Lords of two short statements that were made, first of all by Field-Marshal von Rundstedt, and secondly by Field-Marshal von Kesselring. Here is Field-Marshal von Rundstedt's conclusion as to air power—I quote his exact words:
"The collapse of Germany was due to the enemy's complete mastery of the air. The enemy's Air Force is almost unlimited in radius. It controls in numbers not only the main battlefield but also the approach and supply roads to a depth of 150 to 200 kilometres. Moreover, the enemy carries the battle right into the home battlefront with his tactical bombers, in order to destroy the large railway systems, especially railway junctions, marshalling yards, locomotive shops, bridges and important works connected with the war industry."
Field-Marshal von Kesselring told war correspondents after his capture that the chief reason for the German defeat was—and here again I quote the exact words:
"Allied strategic bombing behind the German lines."
I need say no more. Let me assume that in the present condition of the world those lessons will be taken to heart. What effect should they have on the defence of Western Europe and the maintenance of world peace? What are the dangers that we are now facing? They are certainly not naval, except to the extent that we need protection against submarines. The danger that we are facing—let me speak quite candidly—is a land danger from Russia. I speak of Russian policy as the sole military threat to the peace of the world in present conditions. Russian aggression is the only military danger that at present threatens Europe.
I wish indeed that this were not so, that Russia were prepared to play her part in the United Nations and to help the Western Powers to restore prosperity to the troubled world. Until, however, the Soviet gives proof of its intention to reverse the present policy of aggression, the only course possible for the Western Powers is to make their defences so strong that any attack on them is likely to fail. I propose to state as clearly as I can my own views as to how these defences should be strengthened. I purposely say "my own views," for I do not pretend to speak for anybody but myself. In the subsequent course of the debate, noble Lords will freely express their own individual views upon the subject. In so far as I am concerned, it is my considered view that the only military danger against which we have to protect ourselves and the countries of Western Europe, at the present moment is the Russian danger.
It is freely said that Russia has an army of 3,000,000 men that can move across Europe at will, and that the only possible obstacle in their way is the atom bomb. I fear that if we state the danger in this form we run the risk of implying that all other methods of defence except the atom bomb are ineffective. I do not question the fact that twenty atom bombs could do irretrievable damage to Russia, but for their effective use supremacy in the air is essential. Apart, however, from the question of the atom bomb, I am convinced that for the years immediately before us a dominant Allied Air Force can hold up and disorganise any Russian advance. Russia is particularly vulnerable at two points—the point of its communications and the point of its oil supplies—just those two points upon which the Air Force demonstrated its power in the later years of the war.
This is what was said upon both these points by the Joint Statement made by the United States Air Force and the Royal Air Force in Europe at the end of the war:
"The immense destruction done to all key-points on the railways of North-West Europe is well known. The effect on the mobility of the German reserves was disastrous, and the Allied build-up proved to be far more rapid than that of the enemy. The journey of two Panzer divisions from the Eastern front is a clear indication of the difficulties which the enemy had to face. The two divisions had raced across Germany in seventy-two trains,

549
each division using three lines with twelve trains on each. But when they got to Nancy, in Eastern France, it was found that they could only proceed from there to Paris at the rate of eight trains a day instead of seventy-two."
And even these eight trains did not get through to Paris!
I will quote also from this Joint Statement as to the question of oil:
"Before the campaign began, Germany had a normal monthly output of 1,344,000 tons of all oil products, and 532,000 tons of motor and aviation fuel. By September of 1944, the output of all oil products was down to 310,000 tons, 23 per cent. of the original figure, and of motor and aviation fuel down to 105,000 tons, 20 per cent, of the original figure."
My Lords, I need say no more to show the devastating effect that air power can have upon communications and upon oil supply.
It may be said that up to the present I have been dealing mainly with the past, and mainly in general terms. Let me now bring my remarks into a more concrete form, and suggest to the House the kind of Allied Air Force that I believe would be capable of acting as an effective deterrent against aggression and as an effective instrument of European security. I contemplate an Allied Air Force, to operate at the very beginning of a war, of at least 100 jet fighter squadrons, 150 latest type long-range bomber squadrons, 50 pilot-less rocket units and 150 transport squadrons. With a fully equipped and manned force of this kind I am convinced that the Allies could stop and disorganise any attempted advance across the Continent.
The next question is: How should this force be composed? Noble Lords will have noticed that I have called it an Allied Air Force. I mean it to be an Allied Air Force. It seems to me that in the initial stages it will, inevitably, be predominantly Anglo-American. I hope that in course of time the other countries of the Western Union will be able to reinforce it, and in particular that France will realise the immense importance of air power and will make an effective contribution towards it. I purposely do not to-day press the Government as to the exact extent to which the British Air Force should contribute to this Allied Air Force. I hope it will be a very big contribution.
I would, however, say this. I think the Government are making a mistake in not taking the public more into their confidence over these defence issues. I
550
have read the White Papers of the three Service Ministers, and they have left no impression whatever upon my mind as to the strengths of the three Forces. The Government may say that it would not be safe to divulge exact statistics. I can only say in reply that in the past I think we have made a mistake in not letting the public know more clearly the real state of affairs. If a particular Service is weak, the enemy will probably know of its weakness. I think it is a good thing that the public should know the real state of affairs in order to bring the necessary pressure upon the Government of the day.
That seems to be the policy of the United States Government, who make no secret of the strength of their Air Force. I have here amongst my papers the figures of the United States Air Force. They were disclosed to the American public and they were disclosed here in London at a Service meeting in the United Services Institution in the spring of this year. I do not labour this point except to say that if, as we hope, the Government are going, to embark upon a serious programme of air expansion in which the first priority will be given to the Air Force, they must carry the public with them. If the public are told nothing about the details, it is very difficult to excite public enthusiasm. As I say, I do not ask the Government here and now to disclose those details, but I do ask them to take into account what I have just said upon the subject. As it is, it seems to me that they are giving the country no lead.
We seem to be drifting back to the mistake that many of us made in the past, of refusing to face the problem of priorities in Service matters. In war time priorities are of no account; all three Services get everything they want. It is in peace time that the question of priorities becomes so urgent and so difficult. There is always a danger in peace time—anti here I speak from past experience—of a Government, for the sake of peace and as a compromise, dealing round equal shares to the three Services. I urge that, in the present dangerous state of the world, we cannot afford to fall back into that kind of error again. A definite priority must be given to the Royal Air Force. The Government's defence plans must all be tested by the question: Is this proposal (for instance,

551
the proposal for increased pay for the Services) really going to provide a sufficient attraction to get the skilled men that we require into the Air Force? So it is, again, with the question of the period of military service. I am not arguing the merits or the demerits of the plan to-day, but there again the test should be: What effect is this period of twelve months, or eighteen months, or whatever it be, going to have on priority number one, the kind of Air Force which I have just described?
I believe that the task that I have described is by no means beyond our powers. It means an intensive effort to make the Air Force career definitely more attractive than it is at present. It needs a more human understanding of the spirit and motives of the young pilots and airmen. It needs a definite priority for air force and air strategy in the Ministry of Defence and in the attitude of the Chiefs of Staff. It needs the immediate organisation of the necessary bases. I do not go into detail upon the subject of bases to-day, but I have very clearly in my mind the kind of bases that are necessary. They should be organised without further delay. It needs also a determined effort to convince the countries of Western Europe, and particularly France (who for years past has ignored the teachings of air strategy), that air force is the most effective defence against Russian military aggression. Most of all, it needs the closest possible co-operation with the United States Air Force, now the predominant air power in the world, and the constant interchange of ideas, machines, and personnel between the British and American Air Forces. By these means, provided they are adopted with resolution and without delay, we can most effectively prevent war in the years before us and give European civilisation the breathing space that it needs to recover its strength for beating off the attacks that now threaten it.
Throughout the greater part of the nineteenth century, the unchallenged supremacy of the British Navy was the most effective guarantee against a world war. It ensured the independence of the Latin-American Republics, it enabled the
552
United States to develop its great resources, and, by maintaining the command of the sea, it made a world war impossible. The British Navy has still its vital part to play in keeping open the ocean highways. But for the years immediately before us, it is upon the Anglo-American Air Force that falls the chief responsibility of preventing a world war. Let this House declare to-day that, whatever Government may be in power, the country is determined to take its full share in this great work of peace-time insurance, and, whilst ready at any time to welcome Russia into the full comity of nations, feels bound, so long as the Soviet maintains the policy of aggression, so to strengthen the Western air defences as to doom any Eastern attack to certain failure. I beg to move for Papers.
3.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am glad that this Motion has been tabled by my noble friend, Lord Templewood. He was my Chief for many long years in the past, and I am, therefore, particularly glad to follow his lead again to-day. I hope that at the end of this debate it will be shown clearly that this House is unanimous in its decision to do all it can to assist the Government in their difficult task of ensuring that everything is done to support the endeavours of the Air Ministry, both by the public and by Parliament itself, to put the Royal Air Force (in conjunction with the Air Forces of our Allies the Americans and our other friends in the world) in a position to prevent war or, if in any unfortunate circumstances war should be forced on us, to obtain a speedy and overwhelming victory.
I have listened to what the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has said and I agree with all of it. I would say that if this House, at the end of the debate, does not accept the broad principles which he outlined towards the end of his speech, then the debate will have been useless. Papers were issued not long ago by the Ministry of Defence which showed recruiting figures for the three Services. I know that this afternoon we are dealing only with the Royal Air Force, and I would ask your Lordships to consider the relevant figures very carefully. They show how few (certainly, nothing like enough) recruits are joining

553
the Royal Air Force. In fact, the numbers are not within thousands of the total figures required, and the statistics which are published naturally do not show the large numbers of men who, quarter by quarter, are leaving the Air Force, or what is the total increase or decrease in the numbers now serving. They do not show what numbers will be leaving the Air Force—I am referring, of course, to the regular Air Force only—in the next six or nine months. I will not quote figures to your Lordships—they would only weary you now—but they are in the papers that were issued.
Why are young men not joining? If I may say so, we are passing through times which are as important, if not more important, for the safety of this country as those through which we passed in the years from 1930 to 1939. If the strength of the Royal Air Force is essential to the safety of the country—and I hope to show your Lordships that it is—then surely the statement by my noble friend Lord Douglas of Kirtleside (who is not here to-day), in his speech in seconding the Address in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne is of the utmost gravity. He said:
"Unless urgent steps are taken to improve the rate of recruiting, it looks as if the Royal Air Force will before long die on its feet."
I would ask your Lordships for one moment to take a quick look at the rapid development and progress made by the Royal Air Force. It is only a quarter of a century old. The prototype of what is to-day the strategic bomber force was the independent Allied Air Force of 1918. That force dropped only 660 tons in ten months, and a quarter of a century later four times that amount was dropped in one night by the R.A.F. bombers. In 1918, 150 miles was a good range; in the Battle of the Pacific the American B-29 had ten times that range. As a young man I remember that on a 50 h.p. Bleriot monoplane I had difficulty in clearing the Hog's Back; it was a formidable obstacle; but now a machine can climb to 50,000 feet in a few minutes. The standard fighter speed to-day is 600 miles an hour. In the next ten years, certainly within the next twenty years, I look forward to 1,000 miles per hour being a matter of everyday flying for fighter aircraft, and bombers may make a still more spectacular advance. If speeds and performances continue to increase at even half the rate
554
of development of the past, what a formidable power air force is becoming! It shows the real danger to this country and to the world. We must have an Air Force in this country to save us from war, or at any rate to enable us to win any war which may be forced upon us.
Again I ask, why do young men not join the Royal Air Force in sufficient numbers? I will give four of five reasons, and I hope your Lordships will not brush them aside as trivial. After a rather long experience in different Services I am perfectly certain that these reasons have an effect on recruiting. The first is that during the last few years the Royal Air Force has not been it the public eye as it used to be. Young men will not join something which is not talked about continually. It had that great advantage when it was formed. In the early days of the 1914–18 War Field-Marshal Smuts spoke about the Air Force and Mr. Lloyd George discussed it continually. It was the first time London was bombed, and the whole public were agitated—that is the only word I can use. After the 1918 war, when we were forming the Royal Air Force, a continual controversy raged as to whether battleships were necessary, whether the Air Force was necessary, and whether it should be swallowed up by the Army or the Navy. Then, in the years 1930 to 1939, the Royal Air Force was again in the public eye, when the discussions to which the noble Viscount has referred took place about whether we should order 1,000 fighters or 1,000 bombers, or both. The noble Viscount who leads the House to-day took part in those debates and he will remember how much good they did in inducing recruits to join a Service that was looked upon as so important.
Then, in the war, there was the Battle of Britain, the great work undertaken by Bomber Command, and the work of Coastal Command, who conquered the U-boats in 1943 by aggressive air sorties carried out in the Bay of Biscay, in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean, and not merely by the defensive method of giving protective air cover to the convoys. This was followed by the vast air armada used to enable landings by the Army to be made in Normandy. That was followed by the crossing of the Rhine, the warfare in the Pacific, the taking of the Islands, and finally by the dropping of the atom

555
bomb. All those operations in the last war, carried out under the guidance of that great airman Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Lord Portal, who I understand is going to take part in the debate this afternoon, kept alive public interest. But after the war interest has seemed to wane. During the last few years, and especially during the last few months, there has not been any public discussion, or many debates in this House, on whether the Royal Air Force is strong enough to do the work required of it—this in spite of the lessons of the war we have learnt so recently.
One of those lessons surely was—and this is important because on it the whole of this debate turns—the answer to the question: Was it or was it not proved beyond a shadow of doubt that no formed bodies of troops can advance any distance by road or rail without air superiority? I am not talking about a few men, a few thousand men, or a few ships. By "formed body" I mean anything from a Division upwards, with the fifty or sixty miles of roadway it occupies when on the move. Will this House as a whole, will Parliament as a whole, and will the public themselves make it quite clear that the strength and efficiency of the Royal Air Force, coupled with that of the Air Forces of our Allies, is vital for the safety of civilisation?
I am not going deeply into the material reasons why young men are not joining the Royal Air Force—such reasons as pay and lack of quarters. I will give only one instance in regard to pay which shows what is in my mind, and I hope your Lordships will agree that this way of working must be altered. During the war a married woman received 35s. a week, plus an allowance of 12s. 6d. a week for each child. Now the woman gets 35s. a week and a compulsory allowance of 10s. 6d. from her husband, but nothing for the first child and 5s. a week for the second or any additional children. The curious thing is that in the event of her husband deserting or being absent without leave, not only is the man's 10s. 6d. compulsory allowance stopped, but also her 35s. a week, and she has to go to the public assistance board, who say that they must give her what is called by them—and rightly called
556
by them—the absolutely necessary minimum amount of 47s. 6d. a week. That is 2s. 6d. more than she gets when her husband is serving, in addition to which she receives free milk and free oranges.
These are days of full employment, I am glad to say, but how can we expect to get people to join the Royal Air Force when a wife receives more from the public assistance board when her husband is a deserter than she is paid by the Air Ministry when he is serving? Service families are bound to have to put up with more separation, in peace time as well as in war time, than is generally the case of people in other walks of life; and they have to serve in what is still a dangerous occupation. That is only one point. There are many others which I will leave to other noble Lords to introduce.
I ask your Lordships also to give serious consideration to three other points. Do not brush them aside as trivial or insignificant. I am certain that fathers, mothers, sisters, wives and fiancées of the young men are affected by these points. As I have said, to join one of the Regular services to-day means the sacrifice of much company, whether it be the Army, the Navy or the Air Force. It means sacrificing the advantage of taking up a civil profession early in life, and entails being sent to different parts of the world. That is how the position appears to the young men of to-day. In addition, there is little or no glory to be gained as a Regular front-line soldier, sailor or airman. I cannot emphasise too strongly the point with regard to the glory, prestige or whatever you may call it. That still counts for something in the minds of a large number of young men in this country to-day, and especially in the minds of the better type who will give unselfish service if it is put to them that it is vitally important.
My first point is that whenever the Navy goes to the rescue of some particular place, where there may be insurrection, or which may be stricken with plague or serious illness, or where they may be short of food, one always sees it reported—and rightly—that the Royal Navy has gone to the rescue; the names of the ships and the Admiral are, quite rightly, given. All ships bear great names that appeal to the imagination. Yet when the Royal Air Force sends its squadrons abroad, as it

557
did the other day, when a squadron with a great name in the Royal Air Force went to America (I think one of the squadrons which brought down 140 German machines in the 1914–18 war, and also claimed 600 in the Battle of Britain) I do not remember seeing any report or statement issued that such and such a squadron of the Royal Air Force (giving its name or number) had gone to America. Nobody outside knew that it was the Royal Air Force. Many people in the Royal Air Force knew, but a large number of the friends of people going could not say that their son, their fiancé or their husband was with that squadron. All that was said was that ten Vampires had gone to America. Another squadron went to Copenhagen, and then it was said that jet machines had gone. The numbers of regiments have inspired people in the past—my own regiment, the 21st, is very well known—and so it will be if the numbers of the squadrons of the Royal Air Force are announced when something occurs. I am not making an attack on anybody, and I know all about the shortage of paper.
I would like to say one other thing, at which your Lordships will laugh until I tell you of an experience I had five days ago. To-day the Royal Air Force, along with our American Allies, is doing great work in rescuing beleaguered Berlin. That operation is called the air lift and every one in this House knows of it. I met a man the other day who had served under me five years ago. He came up to me and said: "Are you Lord Trenchard?" I replied, "Yes," and he then told me: "I was with you in 1914–18." I said, "You ought to be proud of being one of the men who helped to make the Force what it is to-day. Look at what they did in the war, and look at what they are doing now." He asked, "What are they doing now?" I said: "Going in and out of Berlin every four minutes, in all weathers." He said, "I did not realise that was the Royal Air Force." Your Lordships may laugh. When ships go in and out of ports, reference is made to the Royal Navy going in and out. I hope that everything will be done to see that an announcement is made when the Royal Air Force carries out an operation.
The next point I would like to make is also on this subject. It is often said that research must have chief priority. I know
558
that it is very important. We frequently see it stated that the workers and production are as important as the front line troops; that home defence is vital, and so on. Where does the front line soldier, sailor or airman come in? He has to go away and be separated from his family, living under the conditions which I have already indicated. We must restore the little glory that we have taken away from them, in these days of machine-made warfare and the enormous importance of production and research. We must restore that sense of glory to the men who join for a longish term of service, so as to induce their mothers and fathers to say, "By jove, that's a service worth joining." I have in mind, too, the matter of pay, but I am not going into it in detail. I feel, knowing some of these young airmen, that they still like to see that their work is known. If any service or business is talked about a lot as being important, then young men flock to it. I think they should be given back a little glory in peace time.
As I said at the beginning, no formed bodies of troops can be moved by road or rail without air supremacy, and no ships can be moved at sea without air supremacy. It has been said, and many people have heard it, that our potential enemy is Russia. With her vast army of millions of men, and masses of equipment and aeroplanes, she would overwhelm any garrison that we might maintain, or are maintaining, in Berlin, or on the Elbe. They would come pouring through, right into France and across France to the coast. When does any body over a division strong advance over forty miles of road in the face of superior air power? Look at the Germans going into Poland; look at the Germans going into Norway; look at the Germans wherever they advanced. The Germans could never have advanced at the speed they did if they had not had air superiority in those countries. The same can be said of ourselves. We, in turn, could never have invaded Normandy in the way in which we did, and gone right through to the Rhine, if we had not had air supremacy. I would never have admitted that we would be beaten, but if we had not had air supremacy I believe that we should still be fighting to-day.
I cannot believe that 500,000, 1,000,000 or even 2,000,000 men could advance without being stopped by the power

559
of the Royal Air Force, backed by the power of the American Air Force. If we do not believe that, then how could we stop them? Could we stop them with 1,000,000 men on the Elbe? Is it practical, politically or economically, for ourselves and our Allies to put 1,000,000 men on the Elbe? As we know, it is not. It may be said that Russia advanced as far as Berlin in the last war with her masses of men and equipment, and that Germany could not hold her back. But why was this so? It was because Germany was completely disorganised by the attacks made by our air power, and because we had complete control of the air over Germany itself. It may be said that the Russian Air Force, which is numerically very powerful, is to be feared and that they may have thousands of aeroplanes. But we know what the Russians did with our mechanical appliances in the last war. What did they do with the Hurricanes and Spitfires, which were given to them in profusion, and the P.40s from America? Many of the machines never flew more than once. Then look at what the Russians did with their own aeroplanes. A lot of them never flew more than once. When the Russians advanced into Berlin, half their transport was horse-drawn. Why was that? With all the lorries and cars the Americans had given to them, and those which the Russians had made themselves—and they are good at making—they could not maintain them; and they never have been able to maintain them. Even to-day, Russian aeroplanes are made to fly below the clouds. Why? Because they cannot understand and make use of all the delicate instruments in their aeroplanes or maintain them properly.
Look at the pictures we saw before the war of the Russians dropping thousands of parachutists. Yet there is not one known case of the Russians ever sending and dropping parachutists in any number during the war, as we did. As I say, they can put up a show, but they cannot maintain it. It is said that the Russians now have German scientists and German engineers to help them design aeroplanes, guns and weapons of every kind. They have; and they make quite good aeroplanes, quite good guns and quite good lorries. Before the 1914–18 war they made a machine called the Sikorski. They flew it to this country,
560
and it was most effective—but it never flew again. The numbers of aeroplanes on the ground do not count; it is the machines and pilots in the air which count. The Services have often been bitterly criticised in the past for underestimating our enemy. I am getting uneasy, as an Englishman, lest we get into the habit of overestimating our enemy, as we did both in the 1914–18 war and in the last war. I think there will be disastrous consequences to England and the world if we always overestimate our enemy.
I say quite definitely that it is not beyond our means, even in peace time, to have an Air Force which, with the American Air Force and the Air Forces of our Allies, would be overwhelmingly superior in the air to anything opposed to us. The noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood, has given your Lordships some figures, and I venture to suggest that those figures be carefully examined. If I were thirty years younger and ever in the position to offer advice and take responsibility for that advice, I would say that a force of 100 squadrons of short-range fighters of our own and our American friends, 150 squadrons of long-range bombers (since we must not bomb the countries Russia is occupying), plus 150 squadrons of long-range fighters to protect our long-range bombers, and 150 squadrons of transport planes to carry the small efficient armoured armies to the point where it is necessary to use them, either to protect a country or to help a country which is rising, would be sufficient too prevent a war. And we should be ready to meet any emergency which might arise at any time in any part of the world. Such a force would inspire hope and confidence to those nations who aim at regaining their freedom, and who are willing to try to regain their freedom.
I have not referred to the Army or the Royal Navy, but I do not want any noble Lord to think that I do not realise the importance of these two great Services. The debate to-day deals only with the Royal Air Force. In conclusion, let me reiterate what I have said—that an Air Force up to full strength, equipped with the best and latest types of machines is the only way to prevent war or, if war should be forced upon us, of winning it. If your Lordships will give a lead to the Government and

561
all the different Parties by saying unanimously that you realise it is the duty of all, if they want peace, to see that the Royal Air Force has all the support that it can from everyone in this country, to fit it in every particular to carry on the great work which it did in the 1939–45 war, and which it is still carrying on in Germany to-day, then I am convinced we shall not lack for recruits.
3.46 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, as it appears on the Order Paper, and I believe there is also an overwhelming public opinion in this country which would support it. We live in very grievous and troublous times, and the need for a strong Air Force is, I think, generally accepted. I do not want to follow the noble Viscount into certain aspects of his speech, because I thought a good deal of it was suitable for one of our periodic debates on foreign affairs. I thought we were to talk about the state of the Air Force taking it, as the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has said, by itself and without bringing in other subjects.
Before making the very few remarks I propose to offer in support of the two noble Lords who have already addressed your Lordships on the subject on the Order Paper, may I make this perfectly clear? I belong to a Party in the State which does not believe that we can bring about peace merely by piling up arms, whether we are simply piling up a great Navy or a huge Army or, as is now the demand, an overwhelming Air Force. I am old enough to have lived through the days when, before the First World War, there was a tremendous agitation for strengthening the Navy. We did commence the First World War with an overwhelmingly powerful Navy. It enabled us to win that war, but it did not prevent that war. The quarrel I have with that school of thought (represented by the noble Viscount, if I understood him aright) is that the mere strengthening of the Air Force alone, and the concentration on modern and scientifically designed weapons, will not by itself prevent war. That is the business of the statesmen, of the Foreign Offices and the diplomatic services and,
562
I hope, of a British Government which has a sound policy for peace.
I must make that point clear, because the Party for which I have the honour to speak for a few moments puts its faith in bringing about a general reconciliation of the world and, above all (I say this without arty shame or hesitation; we have been saying it long enough), by strengthening the United Nations Organisation. I am very glad to see that on the Order Paper—although not one word was uttered on this by the noble Viscount—Lord Templewood does speak of the Royal Air Force being necessary "to the Commonwealth, the Western Union and the United Nations." Furthermore, I detected in both the speeches to which your Lordships have listened (with, I am sure, as much pleasure as I have) a tendency to make out that the Second World War was won exclusively by air power. I am sure that we now begin to see the fallacy of that, and I dare say that it was not the intention of the noble Viscount who opened this debate, or of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, to claim it. There was a strong body of opinion, nevertheless, during the early part of the war that we could win the war by our bombing force alone. I have heard arguments of that kind put forward in this House by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, during the war. What we do know is this: that this air arm alone will never bring about victory.
The noble Viscount suggested that the only aggressor is Russia, and that Russia might be stopped by overwhelming air power. But what do you then do if you stop her in this way? The same question arises in any discussion about the use of the atomic bomb. An argument on this subject used by Mr. Churchill at Llandudno was quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood. When you have used your atomic bomb—or the twenty bombs mentioned by the noble Viscount, or probably many more—and brought your enemy to surrender, then what do you do? Are you going to occupy the enemy's territory and, if so, how much of it and for how long? Otherwise, what have you done except kill a great many people and destroy considerable quantities of irreplaceable material?
I have to make these points because I want to support what has been said by the two noble Viscounts with regard to

563
the position of recruiting in the Air Force. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is to make a pronouncement on behalf of the Government, which I hope will be of a satisfactory nature, with regard to the question of pay in the. Services—and I presume this includes the Royal Air Force. I support the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, in what he said about the bad publicity of the Royal Air Force. It was much better between the wars. If the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, were here, as he was earlier to-day, he would bear me out. The Air Force at that time was able to defend itself against the deliberate attempts to break up and divide the Force between the Army and the Navy—a proposal made by honest men who really believed that there should be no independent Air Force. There is no doubt that at that time the propaganda of the Air Force was excellent. There were signs that the attack would be renewed after the Second World War, but my information is that the Admiralty and the Royal Navy generally are satisfied with the arrangements for a Fleet Air Arm, and the War Office have not as yet made any move, as after the First World War. But why the propaganda of the Royal Air Force was so good then and is so bad now, I fail to understand.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has pointed out, it has an effect on recruiting. I entirely agree with what has been said about the magnificent achievement in the air lift to and from Berlin. The proportion of work carried out by the R.A.F. compares most favourably with that done by the American Air Force. I am not sure of the percentages, but I believe it is something of the order of 60 and 40 per cent. The contribution of the Royal Air Force in this sphere is indeed magnificent. Not nearly enough has been made of it in this country. It is a tremendous achievement, which may have preserved Europe from a most appalling crisis. It is certainly cheaper and better to go on with this sort of operation than to start a war. Even less is known of this effort in the United States, at any rate by the ordinary American. He is proud of the part played by his own Air Force in Berlin, but he is astonished to hear that we have anything much to do with it. I support, then, what the noble
564
Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has said about the need for better propaganda. I am sure we should see the results expressed in the recruiting.
The Royal Air Force requires the entry of 100,000 men for Regular air service in the next two years. It is no use having conscripts, except for "pulling and hauling" work, who serve only for eighteen months or, still worse, twelve months; we must have long-service skilled men, and we are not getting them in sufficient numbers. At the present rate, we shall certainly not get 100,000 suitable recruits in the next two years. I was much impressed by the cogent example given by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, of the lady who got more from public assistance when her husband was a deserter than from the authorities when he was in the Service. That kind of thing really is an encouragement to desert. It pays a man better, apparently, than to stay at his duty. The present rates of pay are not attracting men into the Royal Air Force, because of the high rates which skilled tradesmen can secure in civil life. I believe it is now under consideration whether we should abandon the parity of pay between the three Services, in order to enable the more skilled men in the Royal Air Force to receive higher rates. I very much hope that that is so; I think there is a strong argument for it. And as for officers, a great many married officers with families are very hard put to it indeed, in view of the high taxation on allowances. This is a real grievance, and if something could be done in that matter it would, I believe, help a great deal.
A matter which was not dealt with by Lord Trenchard, or at any rate in any detail, was the question of married quarters. Most Air Force stations are remote—they have to be remote—and there is a lack of suitable married quarters. This is very severely felt, especially when there are no nearby towns where officers and other ranks can find quarters for their families and themselves. They are dependent upon the station quarters and these are woefully lacking at many stations. I believe that this is another reason why we are not getting sufficient recruits. I await with confidence and hope the Statement which we are to have from the Minister of Defence in another place, and from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson,

565
in this House. I understand that materially, for its size, the Royal Air Force is at present most efficient and excellent in every way. The next great development will be in jet-driven bombers, though I believe that that may be three or four years ahead. I understand we are well ahead in all jet-engine developments—though there is still a shortage of scientists for the Royal Air Force, particularly in research in such matters as long-range radar and the antidote which must exist for the rocket and other guided missiles. If we are short of scientists there must be a reason, and I should guess that it is that the conditions of service are not being made sufficiently attractive. I suggest that this should be looked into.
Generally speaking, my information is that our night bomber force is a terrible deterrent. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, thinks that we are going to maintain peace by present deterrents to would-be enemies. He should sleep quietly in his bed, because in our night bombing force we have the most awful deterrent of all at present. I am told that it is highly efficient, the most efficient in the world, and any aggressor ought to think twice before provoking us to use it. So long as we can maintain that superiority, technically and scientifically, and, above all, if we can get our recruits, then I believe that His Majesty's Government are doing their duty by the country, the Commonwealth and the United Nations in maintaining the Royal Air Force with its magnificent traditions and, we believe, its very fine service and record in the present days.
4.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT PORTAL OF HUNGERFORD: My Lords, it is no mere formality for me, on addressing this House for the first time, to ask your Lordships' indulgence, for I am deeply conscious, not only of my own inexperience in speaking, but also of the fact that my contribution, such as it is, to this debate will fall far short of the standard which the subject deserves and of what your Lordships might expect from one who has had the privilege of over thirty years' service in the Royal Air Force. Twenty-five years ago, it would have been sheer impertinence for me to say that I agreed with the words of two of the noble Lords who have moved and supported this
566
Motion, for in those days one of them was my Secretary of State and the other was the Chief of the Air Staff, while I was a poor, humble squadron leader in the Air Ministry, one of whose main duties it was to edit the memoranda and minutes of my Chief in order that, by slight alterations in the order of words or phrases, perhaps by the addition of a few stops here and there, his great ideas should be put into a form which Ministers, Generals—yes, and Admirals—could readily understand.
That was a long time ago, and I hope that to-day my friends the noble Viscounts, Lord Templewood and Lord Trenchard, will allow me to say how wholeheartedly I agree with all they have said about the supreme need for a strong and efficient Air Force. I agree that mastery of the air is indispensable to the success of any major military operation in war, but what I would like to emphasise even more than that—and it has been emphasised already—is that a really powerful Western Air Force, equipped with all the devices and weapons that Western science can give it, is the best of all deterrents to those whose policy may involve the risk of war with us. Far be it from me to speak contemptuously in any way of that great air force that might come from the other side of the iron curtain, but I am sure, nevertheless, that it is in air power and in the aids and weapons with which science furnishes a modern air force that we and our friends on this side of that curtain have the greatest potential advantage. I think that if, for any reason, the democracies fail to turn their potential advantage into an actual one by the fullest possible development of their air forces while they still have time, they will be throwing away the best chance they have, in the military field at any rate, of ensuring peace.
Having said this, and having declared my respectful agreement with the noble Lords who have preceded me, I would like, with your Lordships' permission, to come down to a rather lower level and try to emphasise three things which I regard as important in the achievement of strength and efficiency in the air. They are not original; they have been mentioned this afternoon The first concerns the recruitment of Regular officers, airmen and airwomen, on whom of course

567
almost everything in the way of operational efficiency must depend. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has said, it is perfectly true that if no steps are taken to keep the Royal Air Force in the public eye to the extent that its actual achievements and its potential importance deserves, then it may not occur to the young men in this country to make their careers in that Service. I hope that the Air Ministry will be helped, if necessary, and encouraged to publish widely full accounts of all the valuable work which the Royal Air Force does in peace time.
But I think we must go a great deal further than this, as I am sure the noble Lords who have already spoken would agree. Things must be so arranged that, when it does occur to a young man of the right type to think of joining the Royal Air Force, and when he makes inquiries about his prospects and asks questions of his relations and his friends, he will get encouraging answers instead of the kind of answers that I am afraid he too often now receives. I know very well indeed the difficulties in the way of improving conditions of service; I know particularly how difficult it is to give one Service preferential treatment. But it does seem to me that, if nothing else will give us the men and women for the powerful Air Force which is the best guarantee of peace, then the difficulties must be overcome and the price must be paid, or we shall once again live to regret that it was not paid when there was still time.
Second only in importance to the Regular officers and airmen of the Royal Air Force are the National Service men, and if your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes longer, I should like to say a few words about them. No one would wish to discourage the young men who are called up for a brief period of service in the Air Force, but it is idle to pretend that this very short service on their part is anything but a most uneconomical use of man-power. In the speeches this afternoon, we have heard some stories from the past. I remember that thirty-three years ago it took two men to look after my aeroplane. One of them was a checkweighman from a mine and the other was a young village carpenter. I do not suppose they had had six months' training between them, but
568
they managed to look after my aeroplane and engine perfectly. But those were the day of wire, wood and fabric, and not only are those days gone for ever but the days of 1939 are gone for ever too, as one instance will show. In 1939 our best bomber took into the air with it some forty or fifty wireless valves. I am told that to-day it takes no fewer than 500. That is the measure of one decade of development in only one direction.
With the enormous complication and technical refinement of modern aircraft, and the ever-increasing development of scientific equipment to enable them to do their work more and more effectively, you cannot make a competent technician and also have time to get much value out of him in a year or eighteen months. He not only has too little experience himself, but he takes up the time of other experienced people, first in training him and then in supervising the limited work which his brief training enables him to do. So, the shorter the period of National Service, the larger must be the total number of men and women required for an Air Force of a given size, and the less efficient for its size that Air Force must be.
I suggest to your Lordships that there are really only two courses open. One is to raise the number of Regular recruits by proper publicity and, above all, by improved conditions, until the National Service element is reduced to very small dimensions. The other course is to increase the term of National Service for the R.A.F.—I repeat "for the R.A.F."—to at least two, and if possible three years, perhaps by the introduction of some form of voluntary ballot which would give a fifty-fifty chance of complete exemption and would carry with it appropriate financial compensation to the men who, on the chance of the draw, had to do two or three years. I believe something of the kind could be worked out and, though I have no political experience, I also believe that the young men of this country would gladly accept it if the need for it was properly explained to them.
Finally, may I say a few words on a most important matter, again one that has been already dealt with better than I could deal with it—namely, the need for continuity in policy. To build or rebuild an Air Force to-day is a gigantic

569
task, and it demands of the Air Ministry great foresight in strategic, tactical and technical matters, and most complex and careful planning in recruiting, training, and organisation. It is not just a question of being given at the last moment what is supposed to be the right number of men. For instance, if by deferring release you give the Air Force 5,000, 6,000 or even 10,000 more men for a time, there is nothing whatever to guarantee that the men retained contain the right proportions of trades—in fact, it is long odds against it. Improvised measures of that kind, still less panic measures of the kind that might be taken in lieu of a proper plan as we appear to get nearer to war, are no substitute whatever for foresight and continuity in the framing and execution of policy.
It would be grossly unfair also to the officers charged with this enormous responsibility to expect them to produce sound and economical results if their plans are being continually chopped about in order to conform with changes in high policy. Let us have an adequate plan, as great as our resources allow, and let us stick to it. We have not only some of the finest aircraft in the world and the best airmen and the most ingenious scientific equipment, but we have also, thanks very largely to the work of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, in years gone by, the best organised Air Force in the world; and I am sure your Lordships can be confident that if the Air Ministry and the Air Staff are empowered to offer the necessary conditions, if they are given the necessary resources and do not have to keep tearing up one plan and working out another, they will see to it that the Royal Air Force does not, in the critical years to come, fall short in any way of the country's needs.
4.15 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I feel sure that I echo the feelings of every member of your Lordships' House when I say that we have been privileged and delighted to listen to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Portal of Hungerford. We know that after a distinguished career of many years in the Royal Air Force his services culminated in a position of prime responsibility, and that those services are held in esteem throughout the length and breadth of our country, throughout the
570
British Commonwealth, and also throughout the whole of the United Nations. We are fortunate in this House to possess the benefit of that knowledge and experience, an example of which we have had this afternoon, and I am certain your Lordships' wish is that we may continue to have the benefit of it extended to us on many occasions in the future.
I wish to ask your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments, to deal with one particular aspect which has been touched on in the debate this afternoon—namely, the man-power position of the Royal Air Force. My noble friend Lord Templewood painted a picture of what the strategic concept of our Air Force should be. He said that the kind of Air Force we need is one ready to strike at once. But if the present grave manpower shortages which exist in the Royal Air Force are allowed to continue, any strategic concept such as that falls right away, and it is as well that your Lordships should be aware, if any of you are not, that these grave shortages at the present time are menacing the ability of Bomber and Fighter Commands to fulfil their rôles. At the present time the deficiency in skilled tradesmen is such that our potential front line strength is being seriously depleted. One cannot talk in detail in open session on many of the matters which come to the ears of noble Lords who are in any way connected with Service matters; but I wish the Government could tell us, taking a fighter squadron with an initial equipment of sixteen aircraft, how many fighter squadrons to-day could put up six aircraft in a sustained effort of flying day after day. I wonder how many could put up live or even four. I think the answer would shock your Lordships' House.
The same remarks apply at the present time to Bomber Command. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said that we have the finest deterrent in our bomber force. Technically our aircraft, I agree, are second to none, but in fact the shortage of maintenance personnel and skilled tradesmen is such that our bomber force is very largely at the moment a force on the ground, unable to go up into the air. Personally, would like secret sessions of both Houses of Parliament to be held, so that the Government could speak freely to noble Lords here and honourable Members in another place, and members of both Houses could speak freely, not

571
with the idea of attacking the Government but in order to give them the information which often comes to members from a lower level than the departmental channels through which Ministers receive it. I believe that the result of such a secret session would be to allow the Government to obtain information which they may not have at the present time, and it would certainly do something to reassure those of us who have knowledge of the partial impotence of our operational commands at the present time as to the steps which are being taken in the way of man-power to render our Air Force capable of fulfilling its rôle.
My Lords, the future for man-power in the Royal Air Force is bleak. On the one hand, we see technical entrants at Halton Training School buying out their discharges to an alarming extent. They will not go through with the training because they see greater rewards in civil life for technical trades such as those for which they are undertaking training. On the other hand we see numbers of the middle rank of officers, on whom we so much depend, resigning their commissions to an alarming extent. In another place, the Secretary of State for Air said that 117 Regular officers had resigned their commissions in the last nine months. Of that number, sixteen were wing-commanders, twenty-four were squadron-leaders and forty-six were flight-lieutenants.
Let us look for a moment at the causes of the wastage which is going on at both ends of the scale. I believe that Service life, pay, conditions and prospects, in relation to modern life outside the Service, does not appeal. On January 31, 1946, your Lordships debated in this House the subject of pay and allowances for the men of the three Services. On March 20 of the same year your Lordships debated pay and allowances for officers, and on that occasion the Minister who replied for the Government, Lord Nathan, was reassuring. He was confident, he said, that new conditions were going to satisfy. They have not done so. Now we are about to hear of further improved conditions being introduced. Our hope is—for I believe it is a hope that is shared by your Lordships in all quarters of the House—that these conditions will be bold and big in their con-
572
ception and this time will really satisfy the needs of Service men, so that they may feel that they have a life within their ranks comparable to that which they might enjoy outside.
I hope that the Government are not going to give us merely some small additions. I know no more than what has been forecast in the Press. I see mention of 7s. 6d. a day marriage allowance for officers. That would be taxable, and would give to an officer a net increase in emoluments of about £70 a year. That will not resolve disadvantages and burdens of Service life, the disadvantages of pay, the disadvantages of housing or the education of children or the constant moving—all of which are barriers with which an officer feels he has to contend in his private life. My misgivings are that even now the Government are not going to introduce a scale of pay for other ranks which will attract the technicians who are so essential for the Royal Air Force; that they are going to introduce a scale by which rises will be related to the 1946 code, instead of to the present conditions of outside life.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, quoted the case of a wife who was better off when her husband had deserted than when he was serving. I do not wish to go into details to-day, but I would recall to your Lordships a Memorandum written for the Service Departments by the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families' Association, a body which has done magnificent work, is absolutely non-Party and to which all of us owe a great debt of gratitude for their efforts for Service wives and children. This is what was written in the Memorandum:
"Since the abolition of the Service Children's Allowance with effect from the 1st July, 1946, the position of the Service man's wife with children has been one of great hardship. Not only has her income fallen short of the standard laid down by the War Service Grants Committee, but in many cases we have examined the wife would receive more under the National Assistance Act than she gets from her Service Allowance and Family Allowance combined."
This organisation foresaw the results of the new pay code and warned the Government, but to-day we are still working under that pay code, as regards officers in the Royal Air Force.
In 1938 a squadron leader, with no family and living out, had net funds of £770 a year. In 1948 his net funds are

573
£752 a year. Actually, there has been a reduction through the introduction of the principle of taxation of allowances. I give one other example. In 1938 a wing commander with two children, living in quarters, received, by way of net receipts, £705. In 1948 his net receipts are £776—an increase of £71 between 1938 and 1948–49. When one thinks of the rise in the cost of living and the rises in salaries and wages outside the Services, coupled with the difficulties of post-war Service life, one can understand why these resignations of which I have spoken have been taking place. I want to stress one more disadvantage and that is that of the overheads, because of constant moves, which married Service personnel have to carry, and which those outside do not. One case which has been brought to my notice is that of an officer who has been to 51 stations in ten years. I know that, officially, moves are paid for by the Air Ministry, but we know that the scale granted to officers for such removals does not really cover the cost.
The last point with which I wish to deal relates to the lack of married quarters. I believe that this year the Minister of Health hopes to build approximately 200,000 houses. The Services allocation—that is, for the Army, Navy and Air Force—has been forecast by the Minister of Defence as 3,700. That is really not a fair allocation for the Services out of the total which is being built. I would like to remind your Lordships that in October, 1948, the Minister of Defence in another place said that Services' married quarters now had equal priority with other housing projects. If we are to build up post-war Services, why is it only now that there is equal priority? We cannot job backwards. If there is equal priority now, then I submit to the Government that equal priority could have been in existence for three years past. Therefore, in the interests of the Services, the only reasonable and proper thing they can do is to give greater priority for the next three years for Service than for civil housing requirements.
My Lords, I have tried to sketch briefly the reasons which I believe are responsible for the failure of the Services to attract the necessary technical personnel, and the reasons for the dangerous wastage which is going on in our first line service of the Royal Air Force. The officers and men have no unions. They
574
loyally serve the Crown, and they cannot speak with a united voice. They have to obey. If the nation wants a well-commanded flying service of contented men, skilled in their trades, the Government must give conditions for that career by raising the receipts of the men and women, by freeing their lives from the anxieties of constant moves, by a system ensuring secure employment after they have finished their Service life, and by a general uplifting which will make family life possible and happy for those in the Services (which it is certainly not at the present time) compared with what is possible for people outside.
If the Government will do that, I believe we shall be able to have an Air Force which will fulfil Lord Templewood's conception. Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Tedder recently used these words: "The time scale is altered. No longer can we count on time to build up." At the moment we are lagging against time; we are losing in the race: we are not even holding our own. We therefore press the Government to look into this need for a better and proper life for Service personnel before the time has passed beyond recall.
4.30 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, I rise with genuine diffidence to take part in this debate. Four of the noble Lords who have preceded me spoke with recognised authority, founded on intimate personal knowledge and experience, on matters concerning air strategy and the Royal Air Force. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, as he indicated, has three times been Secretary of State for Air. The noble Viscounts, Lord Trenchard and Lord Portal, are Marshals of the Royal Air Force and distinguished ex-Chiefs of the Air Staff, while the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was Under-Secretary of State for Air throughout the whole period of the last World War. They represent a formidable, indeed to me an intimidating, concentration of air power, and I can only hope that none of them has reserved a special rocket to be discharged at me during the course of the reply which it falls to me to make on behalf of His Majesty's Government. If I may do so without presumption, I would like to

575
associate all those who sit on these Benches with the sincere congratulations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, to the noble Viscount, Lord Portal of Hungerford. We all welcome his influential intervention in this debate and I am sure we all look forward to more frequent sorties by him after such a successful first flight in your Lordships' House to-day.
I now come to the reply which I have to give on behalf of His Majesty's Government. First of all, I would like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, for drawing attention this afternoon to some of our major problems of defence. He and other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have dealt in a helpful and constructive way with many of the important points concerning defence generally and the Royal Air Force in particular. I shall endeavour in my reply to deal first with the relationship of the Royal Air Force to the other Armed Forces and to the general economic strength of the country; then I will deal, so far as possible, with some of the matters concerning the Royal Air Force itself.
The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, indicated the strength in squadrons of the different types which he regarded as the necessary joint Anglo-American Air Force to be an effective deterrent to war and to provide air supremacy if a war should break out. He was good enough to say that he did not ask for an answer in figures now in regard to the Royal Air Force. I appreciate this attitude of the noble Viscount, but I think I ought to say that His Majesty's Government have regretfully come to the conclusion that in the present circumstances, and so long as similar information is not universally made available, it would not be right for them to publish figures of strength. I may say that this conclusion has been confirmed following the review of the whole subject which was held as a result of certain representations made in the defence debate in another place earlier in the year.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There is no objection, I take it, to doing it in a secret session.
LORD HENDERSON: I think that would turn on there being a secret session. If there is to be a secret session, I cannot
576
say what will be discussed in it. However, I think the course of this afternoon's debate has made it clear that much material is in fact available on which an informed public opinion and constructive criticism can be based. This brings me to the point where I should like to say that with the aim of the noble Viscount's Motion, as I see it, the policy of the Government has much in common; certainly we realise the vital importance of air power. But in translating that general conception into practical terms, we have to-day to consider what is the best balance between defence requirements and economic needs, and also the balance between the respective Armed Forces themselves. The aim of our defence policy is security, which, I submit, we cannot hope to achieve without this two-fold process of integration. These, then, are the practical issues which must be faced by those who are responsible for translating the general aim of strength and security into Armed Forces of specific size and shape.
First, their cost must not be more than the country as a whole can afford, for the Armed Forces would be useless unless backed by a national economy capable of supporting them in a sustained war. Secondly, with due regard to the possibilities of research and scientific development, we have to make a realistic assessment of the inescapable present and future commitments for each of the Services. Despite all the revolutionary advances of science, the stage has not yet been reached, nor is it in sight, when our security can be guaranteed by methods of push-button warfare, and so within the overall economic limit, each of the three Services has a part to play. There is no easy answer to these difficulties in the changing circumstances of a confused and troubled post-war world. For that very reason, His Majesty's Government are all the more determined to concentrate on these problems of security, both long-term and short-term.
It may be of interest to your Lordships if I sketch an outline picture to show something of how the Government consider the general components of security can best be pieced together. The first deployment of our strength now must be related to the "cold war" and not only to the possibility of a shooting war. The capabilities and strength of the Services in support of our policy in

577
the "cold war" is of great importance, but the requirements are different from those of a "hot war"; and other factors are equally if not more important. It is essential to remember that another war must be prevented. Modern weapons will bring ruin to both victor and vanquished alike. Equally important is that success or failure in the "cold war" might decide whether the shooting war becomes a reality. Whatever preparations are made against the event of war, our initial strength and position will be affected by the degree of the success or failure achieved in the "cold war." Our unflinching object must be to create the conditions necessary for a return to peace and by so doing to prevent war.
The world to-day is not at war, but it cannot be said to be enjoying the conditions of peace. We believe that to create these conditions our first responsibility must be to prevent the further spread of Communism. To do this, two methods of approach must be followed simultaneously—a positive and a negative. First, we must devote our major resources and energies to economic reconstruction, and to promoting a just standard of living, especially for the least developed countries of the world. This will remove the breeding grounds of Communism and provide a constructive contribution to the preservation of world peace. Secondly, and simultaneously, we must build up and create such strength as to deter and resist aggression.
The first moves to prevent the spread of Communism—since this is a "cold war"—must be political. The Western Union has been created and the Military Committee established by the Brussels Treaty for two purposes: the first, to create the confidence necessary to make economic recovery a reality, and with it to build up the political, social, cultural and psychological solidarity of the free peoples of Western Europe; and secondly, to provide the strength and security necessary to show that aggression will not pay. The Western Union Chiefs of Staff and the Commanders-in-Chief Committee have recently been established, and noble Lords will recognise the importance of these organisations. The United Kingdom Services must provide that ultimate reserve of strength which is the essential backing to our political counter offensive in the "cold war." This means commitments not
578
only in providing forces, but in organising strength. There are sufficient man-power and resources in Europe to establish its own security. The major question is to establish a sufficient degree of co-operation within the nucleus of Western Union which will organise the spiritual and material strength available.
If we could not organise the armies of Western Europe, we would agree that the principal weapon on which to rely for offence and defence would be air forces. The predominant importance of air power is assured, because air forces have become the vehicle for the most potent weapons, and because little can be achieved without air superiority. At the same time, it would be imprudent not to recognise its limitations or realise its relationship with other arms of defence. In man-power the main burden of occupational commitments falls on the Army. But these commitments affect all Services alike. In Berlin, the R.A.F. and the American Air Forces are our chief strength in the cruel game the Russians are playing with the lives of two million Germans. The Royal Navy have had innumerable duties to perform in meeting difficulties which arise all over the world, often promoted by Communists. At the present time, therefore, there is a constant demand on the Services to meet tasks established by international agreements, and incidents which may occur suddenly and anywhere.
At the same time, and because of our economic position, the man-power in the Services must be stripped to the lowest point compatible with their tasks and with retaining the essential structure on which they would have to expand if an emergency arose. Preserving the structure of the Forces to meet their present duties is a short-term problem. It is a difficult enough task in itself. On the long-term aspect, the problem resolves into what is the appropriate structure on which to build our strength to resist and deter aggression, and to be ready with overwhelming forces if war should break out. In deciding what changes there may be in the structure of the Services in future, noble Lords will recall the principles previously laid down by the Government. These were: to concentrate on defence science, research and development; to maintain the Royal Air Force at a level sufficient to conserve its essential structure and its initial striking

579
power; to enable the Royal Navy, with its air arm, to perform its réle of protecting our communications and to execute its tasks overseas; and to enable the Army to meet its overseas commitments and to provide the organisation needed for training its National Service intake.
The noble Lord has advanced the argument that the major proportion of available resources should be devoted to air forces, because overwhelming air power must be our principal means of defence. We would agree with this argument, but up to a limited point, beyond which there is a distinct danger of pressing it. It would be quite wrong to concentrate on purely defensive methods, as offence is a part of defence. But if we go to the opposite extreme and rely only on offensive means for defence, the result is ruin to both antagonists. The object must be to damage the enemy to the maximum, while reducing damage to ourselves to the minimum. We agree that it is essential for the operation of land and sea forces to obtain superiority in the air above them, but the first essential must be air superiority in our own skies. The security of our bases and communications is the first pre-requisite for the successful conduct of a war. As offensive weapons are ascendent over the defensive, naturally their use would be emphasised even in the first task of securing our bases.
The noble Lord also referred to the danger of starting a defence programme, holding it up, and then changing it. The Government agree that the danger exists if chopping and changing is carried to the extreme; but there is clearly a danger in rigid adherence to a plan laid down in circumstances which have become unreal. The pre-war ten year rule is a salutary enough lesson. Indeed, the influence of new scientific developments, whilst they do not modify the basic principles of defence policy, must profoundly influence the conduct of war. The enormous potentialities inherent in these new weapons is an emphatic reminder of the need to preserve a flexible policy, and a warning that there must be no rigidity in considerations about the future rôle of the three Services. The differing needs between the present rôle of the Services to meet to-day's requirements, and their future rôle, is the enigma of policy which has to be translated into the administrative evolution of the Forces' structure.
580
The incidents and occupational commitments of to-day—except for the major burden of the Berlin air lift—fall chiefly on the three Services. The emphasis in a future war may rest with air power. The hurly-burly difficulties of to-day blur the latent and gradual changes in the structure of the Services of the future and make the principles for future development difficult to detect. That this development is in progress—and in what we think is the correct direction—I can give full assurance.
Against this background of present commitments and general developments, I would now like to say something about the present problems of the Royal Air Force itself. Perhaps the most pressing problem to-day is that of trained manpower. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, referred to the dangers and difficulties of demobilising a highly technical force. The Royal Air Force, as your Lordships well know, includes a large number of skilled trades and occupations in great variety. To preserve a balanced force with optimum striking power, the numbers in each trade must be balanced and the training machine must be geared so that wastage is replaced at the time and at the place when replacements are needed. It was inevitable that the process of demobilisation, however conducted, should disrupt this closely integrated organisation. At V.E. Day the strength of the Royal Air Force, in round figures, was 1,110,000, but this included only 40,000 Regulars, many of whom were nearing the end of their engagements. Since V.E. Day, no fewer than 1,200,000 men and women have been released or discharged. Despite difficulties, the Regular cadre has been built up to a figure of about 120,000, but it is clear that what remains to be done in restoring balance and stability to the Force still constitutes a problem of the severest difficulty.
It was accordingly decided to put in hand a stringent overhaul of Royal Air Force structure and organisation, and to set up machinery for the examination by scientific methods of a wide range of Royal Air Force activities, whether operational, technical or administrative. In this process, we draw upon the experience gained in industry and the experience of other Air Forces, and no practice and no convention is accepted without question. What is accepted,

581
however, and what remains fundamental, is the traditional insistence of the Royal Air Force on quality and skill, a tradition so wisely inculcated in the early days by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
The consequences of this process, when they have had time to mature, will be increased efficiency and a greater economy of effort. It is by measures of this kind that we have sought to make the best possible use of the resources available to us. The Government entirely agree, however, that it is no less important that we should, at the same time, increase our man-power resources. All noble Lords have referred to pay and conditions of service, to the desirability, of "humanising" the Force, and to the need for providing an attractive career. The Government accept without hesitation the importance of these things.
The Government have carefully reviewed the financial position of officers and other ranks in the Armed Forces, and the Minister of Defence has this afternoon, in another place, given details of the changes which are to be made. I will deal first with other ranks. The present rates of marriage allowance for other ranks range from 35s. to 45s. a week.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Is this the Air Force or all three Services?
LORD HENDERSON: This applies to all three Services. In the case of men serving on voluntary Regular engagements, the revised range will be from 42s. to 56s. a week, an increase of from 7s. to 11 s. As regards pay, there will be no increase for recruits during their first six months' service, nor for the private soldier or his equivalent without any special trade or other Service qualification. For men with higher qualifications or higher rank, however, there will be increases in basic pay ranging from 3s. 6d. a week to as much as 10s. 6d. a week. These arrangements should encourage the recruitment of men with special skill, and provide general incentive to acquire higher qualifications. In all, therefore, the increases for married men will range from 7s. up to 21s. 6d. a week.
The new rates of marriage allowance will not apply to National Service men. They will, however, be eligible to have
582
their Service emoluments supplemented by a system of National Service grants, similar to the war service grants which were introduced for the same purpose during the war. Details are now being worked out. The increases in pay will apply to National Service men after their first year of service. Until they have completed this period of service, no improvement in the existing rates of pay is, in our view, necessary. In the case of officers, the rates of marriage allowance will be increased by 6s. a day, if they are not accommodated in married quarters, and by 3s. a day if they are so accommodated or receive special local overseas allowances designed to protect them against high rents. These provisions are related to conditions which may prove in whole or in part to be temporary, and they will be subject to review should these conditions materially improve.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Are these allowances taxable?
LORD HENDERSON: I am afraid that I cannot answer that off hand, but perhaps I may be able to do so before the end of the debate. After full consideration, the Government do not feel that in the present circumstances increases in the basic pay of officers are justified. The improvements, which I feel sure will be welcomed by all noble Lords, will take effect from to-day.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask whether the noble Lord would clarify one point? He will remember that I asked about the proposal of different pay for the R.A.F., in order to be able to pay the special allowance to very highly skilled technicians. Does that come into this at all?
LORD HENDERSON: The noble Lord will notice that there is a difference between the untrained man and the trained man. The skilled man gets higher pay than the unskilled man.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I mean between the three Services. There are special tradesmen required in the Air Force such as electricians, and there is a case, I believe, for giving them special pay.
LORD HENDERSON: I am afraid I cannot answer any details arising out of this. There will in clue course be oppor-

583
tunities of discussing it, and I would suggest that the noble Lord might leave his queries until the matter comes up for discussion. I come now to the question of housing. Every effort is being made, within the limits set by prevailing conditions, to speed up the provision of married quarters. In the present financial year, 1,256 quarters have been completed, and nearly 3,000 are under construction or are covered by contracts already laid.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Is this only the Air Force?
LORD HENDERSON: The Air Force. There have also been improvements in barracks and messes, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is most anxious to provide, as circumstances permit, the highest standard of accommodation for all ranks of the Service. Again, as regards careers, the Government announced in the White Paper their intention to secure in the future a larger proportion of officers by commissioning from the ranks. This policy remains in force. In these and other ways, something has been done, and more is being done along the lines indicated by noble Lords. But while pay, conditions of service and careers should be as favourable as prevailing conditions will permit, the Royal Air Force must expect to attract, not men and women looking for a comfortable life but those with the spirit of adventure, a capacity for hard work and, where necessary, rough living. What is urgently necessary is to convince men and women of that kind that they are needed, and needed quickly, in a Force in which they will find full scope for their qualities.
LORD SHERWOOD: Before the noble Lord leaves this point, may I return to the point brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, which was an important one?—whether there is to be any differentiation of pay as between the Royal Air Force, the Army and the Navy. I understood from the noble Lord that these rates of pay come into operation to-day, but the answer he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was that this may be discussed on a later occasion. I do not see how that can be so, if they come into operation to-day.
LORD HENDERSON: The point I made was that the new allowances came
584
into operation to-day, but that no doubt there will be questions raised, both in this House and in another place, on points arising out of the Statement. I assume that the noble Lord will take advantage of such an opportunity to raise the points which he may wish to raise.
The Air Minister recently announced two recruiting targets: for the Regulars, an intake of 1,000 a week for the next two years, as against a present intake of about 470 a week, and for the nonRegulars—that is, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve—the provision of 60,000 volunteers including 18,000 air crew. Unless men and women come forward in adequate numbers it is clear that the manning position will become very serious. This is a matter in which every one of us has a duty. There has been, I am glad to say, an improvement in recent weeks which is certainly encouraging, but the Royal Air Force will not be able to attract the new blood which is so urgently needed unless responsible people of good will throughout the country play their part. In this context the contribution which can be made by and through the Air Training Corps is especially important, since the A.T.C. not only provide potential recruits but also give most valuable pre-entry training.
The equipping of the Royal Air Force is very much affected by the many important projects now in the research and development stages. While the Royal Air Force must continue to have aircraft and equipment of the highest quality, we need to make sure that the new equipment is introduced at the right time, and when there is a reasonable period of useful service in front of it. We believe that our Meteors and Vampires are the best fighter aircraft in the world. All the short-range day-fighter squadrons of Fighter Command are equipped with jet aircraft, and the re-equipment of squadrons in Germany and the Middle East and of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force has begun. Jet bombers which will operate at a considerably greater height and range than the Lincoln and about twice its speed are also under development, and the production line of at least one type of jet bomber is now being laid down; but, as noble Lords will appreciate, considerations of security prevent me from

585
giving any details. The new fourengined Hastings is now in service and is playing a useful part in the Berlin air lift. I feel sure it will be generally agreed that the part which the Royal Air Force is playing in the air lift is a wonderful, practical proof that the best qualities of the Service are to be found to-day just as they were in war time.
The Service, too, has learnt its own lessons in the course of the Berlin air lift. The intensity of effort to and from Gatow has furthered the development of flying control generally and of radar aids in particular. Ideas developed from wartime practice in the concentrated servicing of aircraft have been applied and further developed by Transport Command in the last few months. And, finally, the Royal Air Force has gained by the advantage of working in the closest co-operation and harmony with the United States Air Force. Thus, from the Royal Air Force point of view, the air lift has a double significance: first, it has shown that the Royal Air Force, even in a period of admitted difficulties, can still do a good job of work; second, it has given the Service a measure of practical experience seldom obtained in peace time.
In many other ways the Royal Air Force has been carrying out its current tasks with considerable efficiency. Other examples of its work are the double flight across the Atlantic of a Vampire squadron which recently visited the United States of America and Canada; three very brief operations in the hinterland of Aden which, in the old days, would have involved what we euphemistically call "small wars" and cost many lives; joint operations with the Army in hunting out bands of brigands in the jungle clearings of Malaya; the steady unostentatious work it contributed to the peaceful evacuation of Palestine, and the air survey work which is being carried out largely to a programme laid down by the Colonial Office and which is making a big contribution to the ground-nuts scheme in. East Africa.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, pressed strongly that in the publicity given to such operations as these, the names or numbers of the air squadrons should be announced. I understand that it is already the practice to mention by name or number squadrons which are
586
sent out on good will flights and missions of that kind.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: May I interrupt for one moment? The noble Lord himself said "a Vampire squadron." I want to know what that squadron was. I think I know the number.
LORD HENDERSON: I said that it was already the practice to give numbers or names of squadrons sent on special missions, and I will now answer the noble Viscount. For example, it was announced at the time that the Vampire squadron which made the double flight across the Atlantic was No. 54 Squadron. Whether that practice might be extended is a matter upon which I am not in a position to comment in detail, but I understand there might be security difficulties. I am giving only the information with which I am supplied, and I should have thought that if the information is correct the noble Viscount, in view of his own experience, would have appreciated it.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: But that would be an argument against giving the name of a ship.
LORD HENDERSON: It might be: I do not know; but in connection with an air squadron, I understand it might involve security considerations. As regards the noble Viscount's criticism of the general publicity for the work of the Royal Air Force, I will of course bring that to the attention of the Minister.
The Government fully agree with the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, about the importance of British air power in relation to the defence of the Commonwealth and of the Western Union. The Royal Air Force is conscious of its links with Dominion and Allied Air Forces, with whom there is a constant exchange of ideas. The Dominion Air Forces are equipped to a very large degree with British types and should have no difficulty in operating with the Royal Air Force as they did during the war. Measures of collaboration between the Royal Air Force and the Dominion Air Forces include the attachment of Dominion air crews to what is now called No. 24 (Commonwealth) Squadron of Transport Command; and, more recently, additional Dominion transport crews have been

587
sent to help with the Berlin air lift. Dominion Air Force officers are serving elsewhere in executive posts in the Royal Air Force, and the Royal Air Force is filling similar posts in Dominion Air Forces. Work to a common doctrine is facilitated by periodical visits to the Dominions by aircraft of such specialist establishments as the Empire Flying School, the Central Bomber Establishment, the Empire Air Armament School, and others.
Our links with the air forces of France, Belgium and Holland are also close. Squadrons of these air forces fought alongside the Royal Air Force in World War II, and considerable numbers of British aircraft were supplied to these forces when they were reconstituted in their own countries. Collaboration with these countries has naturally become even closer in recent months, and steps are being taken to build up and strengthen arrangements for defence against air attack. Common types of equipment and a common operational procedure will be used. Arrangements have been made for the provision of aircraft and the manufacture of British fighters under licence. The three Continental air forces have sent officers and men to this country for training in association with their comrades of the Royal Air Force. In consequence, Royal Air Force operational techniques, tactical doctrines and training methods are being generally adopted by France, Holland and Belgium, so that the Allied air forces should be able to operate smoothly together in the event of war. So far as the Royal Air Force itself and the men and women who comprise it are concerned, we are all at one in our warm admiration of their high qualities and achievements.
I think I have covered most of the points which were raised, although there were one or two matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, of which I had not advance notice and therefore was not able to give him the figures, but I will see that in due course he gets the answers, if they are available and can be given. I would just like to repeat to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, that the Government are grateful to him for drawing attention so insistently and so clearly to the importance of British air power in relation to the present safety and the future
588
security, not only of our own country but of other countries besides. It is our earnest wish that what has been said will be widely read and studied by all who value freedom and peace, and that this may lead to an even greater realisation of the need for a strong Air Force as a safeguard against war and an effective deterrent to potential aggressors. In particular, it must be our hope that what has been said will come to the notice of those young men and women of spirit and adventure on whom, in truth, rests the future of this great Service and for whom there is at the moment a need scarcely less pressing than at any time in the troubled history of this country.
5.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, share profoundly one sentiment, expressed by the noble Lord who has just spoken—the diffidence which he said he felt at taking part in this debate. I confess that I also feel considerable diffidence at taking part, but it seemed to me right that one voice should be heard from those who served in the relatively junior ranks of the Royal Air Force in the Second World War. I have been associated with the Royal Air Force since I was in a university air squadron about twenty years ago, and I am very proud of my association. I am most grateful to the Royal Air Force for the opportunities with which they have supplied me, and for the consideration which they have shown me and others similar to myself at all times. But, it is owing to the consideration which I have for the importance of the Royal Air Force work that I am concerned at the position which exists at the present time.
In a recent speech, the Chief of the Air Staff said that the Royal Air Force was emerging from the slough. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has referred to the figures of recruitment. I think that even casual acquaintance with the present position of the Service, without going into all the details, makes one very anxious as to what in fact has been happening on the personnel side. And it is on the personnel side that I wish to say one or two words. This is something which has nothing to do with the present economic situation. It has nothing to do with the shortage of dollars, and other matters of that kind, but it is something which it lies within our own power to

589
put right. There are certain quite obvious points. One is pay, about which we have heard this afternoon. I will not comment upon what the noble Lord has said, except to say that I understood him to say that there is to be no change in the basic pay of officers. In view of the fact that all pilots and navigators are to be officers, and we know that there is a shortage of recruits for these two branches, it strikes me that the proposals which are made are most unsatisfactory. I will go no further on that point now, but I will move to another sphere—namely, housing.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has dealt with that and I will only say that a superficial examination of the figures seems to indicate that, however difficult it is to get a house in civil life, it is nearly ten times as difficult to get a house in Service life. After the last war, a lot of good men were allowed to slip through the fingers of the Services. I cannot help feeling that that was largely due to a lack of policy which made it difficult to make the details of a career clear to those who might otherwise have stayed in the Service. After listening very carefully to the noble Lord this evening, I am not surprised that there were difficulties in giving any clear-cut picture of what the career would be; indeed it seems perfectly apparent that there is no very definite policy as to what shape the Royal Air Force is to take.
There is one other preliminary matter I should like Ito mention. If I may venture to say so, I think the Air Ministry are making a mistake in not appreciating the value of flying clubs. It may be a small matter, but before the Second World War flying clubs were a point of contact for civilians with the R.A.F. I know of many on the Air Staff who say that it is not very important. It was surprising, however, in the early part of the late war, how quickly airfields, aeroplanes and ground engineers were gathered in by the R.A.F. It would also be interesting to know how many pilots serving in the first year of the war started their flying at clubs. I am not saying that this matter is of great importance, but it is one factor.
But I suggest that the personnel situation is something deeper and more profound. I would put it in this way. At the present time, the ordinary civilian has great difficulty in understanding the shape
590
of the Royal Air Force; in seeing exactly in what it consists; in putting his hands on one portion of it which is clear and concise. I asked someone the other day what he thought the Royal Air Force consisted of. I said: "You have four brothers in the Royal Air Force. What do you think it is?" The reply was—it is not very concrete—"It serves as a link between the parts of the Empire." I submit that, compared with other Services, that is nothing like definite enough.
To begin with, if I may suggest it, I doubt very much whether there are many of your Lordships who could tell us the story or the outline of a single squadron in the Royal Air Force at the present time. We had a little argument about this just now. It appears that there is some extraordinary security reason involved. That is nonsense; and, in any case, I must assert that nothing like enough emphasis is placed upon the units of the Royal Air Force. They must be made to stand out. I would go even further and suggest that they should be given names. To some extent, of course, there has been a comparison between the squadrons of the Royal Air Force and the regimental system. I know there has been a tendency to get right away from the regimental system, but that does not mean that all identity in the unity of the squadrons should be passed over. That it is not necessary in the Navy is entirely accounted for by the fact that the ship is a community, and a community with a captain. One cannot get away from that fact, and no amount of organisation can alter it. I submit that there is a tremendous strength in the Service which has been built up from time to time in the squadron life but which is, to a large extent, being allowed to disappear.
If I may, I will take another example. There are stations scattered over the countryside. They open and they shut; and comparatively few of them last long enough to form part of the mosaic of the civil life of the community. I would like to mention one further point in this connection. Every Service, after a war, is in great difficulty, of course, but from a personnel point of view it is interesting to note that two of the Service units which have no difficulty with regard to recruits are the Guards Brigade and the Royal Marines—two Service units

591
whose traditions are probably deeper and whose discipline is stronger than that of any other unit in the Services. That is a matter which I feel is worth remarking on.
Another example is the Auxiliary Air Force. In the early part of the war the Auxiliary Air Force received an undue amount of publicity. The reason was very simple: in each case it was because the squadrons provided a peg upon which the newspapers could hang a story. They possessed character which, frankly, the ordinary squadrons in the Royal Air Force did not possess. I am not going to pretend that there is no reason for this. I would not say it was in any way deliberate. But there are reasons which make it undesirable to put too much concentration on units on the fringe. The Air Force must be flexible, it must retain technical efficiency and it must have complete concentration of striking power in operational matters. But I do think there is a very real danger that the machine is getting the better of the man, and that is a matter which I commend very strongly to His Majesty's Government in the present extremely difficult times in which we are living in regard to the personnel side. Mr. Noel-Baker, speaking on the Air Estimates (I believe it was in 1947) described the Air Force in these words—I think I am more or less quoting his words: "Like Caesar's Gaul it consisted of three parts—the air crew, the technical ground crew and the administrative staff." To me there is no more horrible definition of the Air Force than a division of it on those lines.
We talk a very great deal to-day about the wonders of science, about guided missiles, about jet propulsion and about radar; but, with great respect, I think we sometimes forget one of the greatest miracles of the war—namely, that the bomber crews stood to their task. They knew it was horrible work, but they had the courage, and the determination which comes from it, to stand by their task.
I do not want to detain the House with any details, but it is easy to talk in general language, as I have done, without making any specific recommendation. I am, therefore, going to mention three points quite shortly. I do not expect the
592
noble Viscount the Leader of the House to reply, and I mention them to avoid the criticism of being unable to face up to detailed points. The first point I make is that there should be finance officers at the Commands, a matter which I regard as of considerable importance. The second is that there should be much wider personnel control at the units, even down to squadron level. I am aware that the answer to that second point will be that it results in an unbalanced Force. With great respect, the main criticism to-day is that the whole Force is unbalanced.
My third point is in regard to the auxiliary services. The auxiliary services to-day seem to me to be taken far too much for granted. Nothing like enough is appreciated of the difficulties and problems which had to be faced before the war in building up the organisation to its present state. I am told that at the present time, though there are plenty of recruits, there is no centre within the bounds of London itself where these people can ever meet—I am talking now not of auxiliary squadrons but of F.D.U. units, of which there are a large number. To do any work, they have to go out some twenty miles, which is quite impracticable. The reason for this is that there is nothing like the close co-operation and link between Territorial requirements, on the one side, and what the Air Ministry want, on the other. The Air Ministry must pay more attention to the immediate requirements of a particular locality, which they can learn from the Territorial associations and other organisations.
There is arising from all those points another very important one which, with respect, I would like to submit. It is understood by the other Services, but not sufficiently by the Air Force. It is in regard to officer training. There is a most urgent need for a higher standard of officer training. Such training has been fairly scanty since 1935, and very scanty indeed since 1939. There are reasons for that, but I do not think that any Air Minister has raised this matter at any time during the discussion on the Air Estimates. And it is absolutely vital to any form of decentralisation, or indeed of leadership, that officer training should receive first consideration. In my view, we are laying over-emphasis on recruit-

593
ment from the ranks. At one point the Air Minister said there will be increased recruitment from the ranks. The fact is that there cannot be increased recruitment from the ranks because, since 1939, there has been no officer created in air crew branches except from the ranks.
What I would emphasise is that, whilst an officer is probably better for having served in the ranks, it is not an essential virtue to have served in the ranks. What does matter is to select the right man and to give him the right training. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, spoke some time ago of the need for drawing officers from different sources. With respect, I would like to emphasise that to His Majesty's Government at this time. There is, I think, another difficulty and it is that the method of entering the Royal Air Force is neither clear nor attractive, and does not present to the ordinary boy leaving school an easy or a pleasant course for him to follow. I think that is a point which deserves rather more attention than it has had.
I would like to emphasise one further point, and that is that while I would not say that R.A.F. officers require to be of a higher standard than officers of the other Services, I would say that the Air Force does require a wider coincidence of qualities. By that I mean not only the physical quality, not only the willingness and the capacity to fly, or alternatively a certain standard in mathematics for navigators, but a certain mechanical knowledge and, above all, qualities of leadership. The first three qualities, physical, mathematical and mechanical, are much more easily assessed than the last, the quality of leadership, and I am very much afraid that too much attention has been paid to the first three and too little to the last one. I know it is often thrown out as a criticism of the R.A.F. by other Services that pilots do not know where their men sleep. I am afraid there is some truth in that statement. It is something which must be got over, and primarily, I suggest, by officer-training.
I wish to add very shortly, if I may, one other point. Not only do these personnel difficulties exist in the Air Force at the present time, but National Service has added another great difficulty.
594
I was profoundly interested in a remark made by Lord Portal to-day, because it is clear from the outside that, quite apart from the point he made of the uneconomical use of man-power, the normal education of the young man is being completely upset. He cannot be educated in the broad sense of the word during the period that he is on conscript service. If anyone doubts that, I ask him to read Mr. Wolfenden's letter in the Observer of last Sunday. The result is that the whole of the educational period of the young man is disturbed. Not only is there an uneconomical use of the man in the Service, but, so far as the R.A.F. is concerned, the time for training is inadequate, whether he be in the air or on the ground. At the present time the Force has plenty of men. The R.A.F. has never had so many men in peace time; it has twice as many men as in 1939. I do not know how many aircraft it can fly in comparison with those days—I would not like to say—but the number is considerably less. What is happening? It is profoundly uneconomical and we are not getting value for money.
In past history a process of ballot has been tried. I was greatly interested to hear the noble Viscount make that suggestion. As a matter of fact, it had passed through my own mind as a possible solution. At the present time we are getting too many men whom we do not want, instead of men of the type we do want. I submit, with great respect, that the whole question of National Service requires the closest possible examination in order to make sure that we are not, in fact, making, from the purely efficiency and economic point of view, a considerable mistake.
I heartily support what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, at the beginning of his speech. Especially do I wish to support his proposition that air power is a pre-condition of any successful military operation. If there was one time in history at which any of our Armed Services was prepared, it was in 1914, and the Service was the Royal Navy. I do not think anyone doubts that the man responsible for the state of preparation in that Service was Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher. It therefore is not without interest to look at what

595
he wrote at the end of the First World War. If I may, I will quote from a letter written by him and published in The Times on October 31, 1919. He wrote:
"It is as clear as daylight that future war at sea absolutely precludes the use of any vessel of war that cannot go under the water, because aircraft will compel it."
That may not have been absolutely true, but it is extremely interesting, and it is also interesting to see what another Admiral said twenty-five years later. Admiral Doenitz, on May 21, 1943, said:
"The aircraft is by reason of its speed and great height the most suitable means for forward reconnaissance against U-boats, and is also the most dangerous enemy force in attack against our U-boats."
That seems to me an extraordinary instance of coincidence of opinion on the part of two naval leaders. I would end by saying that perhaps one of the great dangers against which we must guard is that in trying to be strong everywhere we may end by being strong nowhere.
5.33 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, expressed trepidation at having to speak to-day in view of the distinguished names which preceded his on the list of speakers. I sympathise with him in that, as he knew that he would have to speak on behalf of the Government. I was also much intimidated when I saw the list of names outside the Chamber, but I have been comforting myself with the reflection that if my courage failed me or there did not seem to be anything more worth saying, I might run out at any time. But in spite of the expert knowledge and argument which has been submitted to us this afternoon, I think that, perhaps, it may be worth while for five minutes to try to describe the impact of all this upon an ordinary citizen—one not possessed of any special knowledge of the Royal Air Force but just an ordinary taxpayer.
Of course, I agree with the noble Viscount who opened the debate as to the extreme priority importance of the Royal Air Force, particularly at the beginning of a war. It is more important, to my mind, that we should have an all-powerful Air Force than to have either of the other two Services all-powerful to start with. I also agree with the noble Viscount,
596
Lord Trenchard, that the Royal Air Force does not enjoy anything like the amount of publicity which it ought to have in view of its importance. The Royal Air Force, and, indeed, we soldiers too, for that matter, ought to take a lesson in this respect from the Royal Navy. Have we not all been brought up from our cradles to look upon the Royal Navy as something that is above all other Services of the Crown? We have learnt to revere the names of famous men of the Navy and the names of famous ships. The Royal Navy have been well aware of the value of that fact, and they have taken good care to keep us up to the mark. The "Nelson touch." the "Nelson signal," spotlight on Nelson's statue, three stripes on the sailors' collars to commemorate Nelson's victories—the way they plug the fame of that little man puts Hollywood in the shade. After all, they ought to remember that some of our most resounding naval victories were gained when the ships were commanded by soldiers and the sailors played only a menial rôle. Wellington, indeed, played a greater part in the defeat of Napoleon than did Nelson.
Of course, one could not expect to find complete agreement among naval officers on these points, but they serve quite well as opening gambits. However, the result of all this is that the Navy, at present, is really the only Service in which the public take an interest. In peace time anything may happen to the Army, and no one cares. Even the youthful and glamorous Air Force is not in much better case. But if the public get any idea that there is something wrong with the Royal Navy, then they sit up and take notice at once. As a consequence, the Navy gets its way every time—or gets away with it every time, as the case may be.
From the point of view of a taxpayer, I have listened with great interest to this debate because it has been made clear by every speaker that the Royal Air Force may be said hardly to exist at all. On the one hand, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has demanded a total Air Force, between ourselves and America, of 550 squadrons. If we are to supply, say, 40 per cent. of that, it would mean that something like 200 squadrons would be needed from us. On the other hand,

597
Lord Balfour of Inchrye has given us to understand that such few squadrons as we do possess are not capable of putting more than four or five machines into the air at a time. As someone has pointed out in this debate, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, in his speech on the Address, said that the Royal Air Force was "dying on its feet," and, indeed, a young airman in another place, Mr. Max Aitken, stated in the defence debate as recently as last September that the strength of Fighter Command at the present time is less than it was at the date of the Battle of Britain.
These statements and assertions go undenied; therefore, one must assume that they are true. Yet the representatives of myself, as a taxpayer, in another place, voted, as recently as last March, £173,000,000 for the upkeep this year of 324,000 officers and men of the Royal Air Force plus half that number of civilians who will be employed in servicing duties. If it is in order, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to depart for a moment from the Royal Air Force and remark that our representatives in another place only last March voted £305,000,000 for the upkeep of 712,000 men in the Army. Yet we were told, at the time that money was voted, that we were not capable of putting two divisions in the field, and when we sent a brigade to Malaya the other day it was stated that that was the hulk of our strategic reserves. These assertions have gone undenied, and I ask myself, as a taxpayer, what value am I getting for that huge expenditure of men and money? The answer, judging from our Service debates, is that we are getting no value at all.
I cannot understand why this subject is not more widely publicised and why it does not worry the public a great deal more than it does. This is not an economic debate, but in my view—in fact, in everybody's view—one of the most serious factors to-day is the crushing burden of taxation. May I give your Lordships one more figure? This year we are paying £692,000,000 for the Armed Services, including the Navy—that is, nearly seven shillings on the income tax, or the whole of the tobacco duty and half the beer duly added together. The number of men taken by the Forces is over 1,000,000, plus half that number of civilians wholly employed in servicing them. That is not all. Recently we have been invited to embark on increased expendi-
598
ture, of an unspecified amount, to deal with the danger recently arising on the other side of the iron curtain. It seems to me that in the case of the Royal Air Force and the Army we are getting nothing like the value comparable to that huge expenditure, and it is consequently borne in upon my mind that the system of National Service is complete failure. The speeches to which I have listened this afternoon confirm that view. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, asked for a Regular long-service Air Force. Surely that is what is required.
The noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood, in his opening remarks, said he did not think there was necessity for so much secrecy about the strength of our Forces as is now enjoined upon us by the Government. I am inclined to agree with that. In 1914 everybody knew we were capable of putting six infantry divisions and one cavalry division into the field in three weeks. There was no secret about that. It took only £30,000,000 a year to do it, too. Now it costs us ten times that figure and we cannot put a corresponding number of men in the field. The same sort of remark would apply in regard to the R.A.F., had there been an R.A.F. at that time. This is a most serious question which ought to disturb the public, and the public ought to be determined to see that things are put right. We are now falling between two stools. Twelve months is not long enough to train an airman, soldier or sailor in these modern complicated days, let alone provide a striking force. And what is the use of an Army and an Air Force, if they cannot provide a striking force? The whole object of both of them is to do so; and we cannot do that on twelve months' training. It requires a minimum of two years both to train a man and to put him into a squadron or unit forming part of a striking force and give him the necessary training in those large formations. I have overstayed my five minutes and I do not wish to entrench upon your Lordships' patience a moment longer. All I have said can be summed up in one sentence: in my view the present system of National Service for the Army and Air Force is a dead failure and must be altered.
5.44 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, your Lordships are accustomed to hearing me

599
take part in defence debates from the point of view of a naval officer, but I held a commission in the Royal Air Force for ten years between the two wars, and I intend to make a few short remarks purely from the point of view of the Royal Air Force. I certainly do not intend to-day, as a naval officer, to cross swords with my noble friend Lord Blackford about the publicity value of Lord Nelson and the fountains in Trafalgar Square. We all listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson—I am sorry he is not now here—but it seemed to me that the earlier part of his speech was an extraordinary one for a debate on the Royal Air Force. It seemed much more appropriate as an address to the combined Staff College. If it had been made there, it certainly would have brought forth a barrage of questions. The noble Lord went on to tell us about the increases in the pay code. We were all glad to hear about them, and one thing we were particularly pleased about is that the pay of the skilled man is to be considered. But when he went on to tell us that officers were to receive no pay increases at all, some of us felt profoundly uneasy. Surely the most skilful man of all should be the officer.
I do not intend to go over the whole ground of pay and, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, so well put it, family life in the Royal Air Force, but I should like to pick up one point from the very interesting speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Portal—namely, whether it is possible for National Service men to do three years in the R.A.F. I am interested in that point because I have made a similar suggestion on one or two occasions in your Lordships' House, in connection with the Royal Navy. The noble Viscount said that possibly this could be brought about by a ballot. I would put to him that it could be brought about if the man who served for three years were exempted from any other Territorial or Auxiliary Service obligations at the end of his three years, unless, of course, he wished to undertake them. Three years' continuous service and then complete freedom afterwards would be an inducement. Certainly such men would be more useful to the R.A.F.
I want to turn for a moment from the material side to what I might call the spiritual side of this matter. What are
600
we aiming at? We aim to attract the flower of English manhood into this great Service, the Royal Air Force. The material side is important, but have we not to do something else? Have we not to recapture the spirit of adventure in our young men, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson said? Can we not do that by having young officers from Cranwell talking to boys in the schools, by having R.A.F. officers with fine war records talking to the headmasters and by getting it over to the parents of the present day, in some way, that they should encourage their sons to volunteer for service in this great Royal Air Force? Until we have some spirit of that kind alive and abroad in the country, I do not think we shall get all the men we want.
There are many things we can do (as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and other noble Lords have pointed out), to make the Royal Air Force a little less obscure. I think that instead of squadrons having numbers, they should have names. I think there would be tremendous competition between squadrons if there were to be a squadron called, "Lord Trenchard's Own." I am sure there would be great competition among the squadrons for that honour. Why cannot the squadrons have some distinctive flash, to be worn on the shoulder, or a special cap badge, so that when the men join they can wear the distinctive and honoured marks of that squadron? After all, it is done in the Royal Navy. If a man goes to a new ship, he is issued with the cap ribbon of that ship. Why should not this anonymity be abolished? As the airman goes about in trains and in the streets, let us know to what squadron he belongs. Then people will soon get to know the colours and flashes of the squadrons as well as they know the colours of the Black Watch and of other famous regiments of the Army. That is all I have to say. While rightly thinking of the material side, let us also think of the spiritual side, and thus attract the flower of England's manhood.
5.52 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure it will be agreed by the whole House that we owe a very real debt of gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, who initiated this debate. It has turned out, I think, in

601
the circumstances in which it is held, to be one of really outstanding importance, and it might well be one of historic importance. Personally, I intend to address your Lordships for only a few minutes in summing up the debate; indeed, it is with considerable temerity that I intervene at all. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said in his speech that he could not claim to be an expert on this subject; and I think my noble friend Lord Blackford said the same. I am in exactly the same position. We have heard speeches this afternoon from some of the greatest authorities on the air in this country, and probably in the world—men who have given their whole lives to the study of this all-important subject.
I would like to mention many of them, but perhaps I may be allowed to say a particular word about the noble Viscount, Lord Portal of Hungerford, who made his maiden speech in your Lordships' House this afternoon. The charming, the weighty and the convincing contribution which he made would have been a notable event in any debate in this House, and it was certainly listened to with that deep attention which is always afforded by your Lordships to someone who really knows his subject and who speaks with modesty and common sense. I would say to the noble Viscount, in passing, that he seems to have kept us rather at arm's length for a considerable time. I believe there are very good reasons for that. However, I hope that he will not allow so long a period to elapse in the future, because I can assure him that any words from him, on this or other subjects, will be deeply pondered by thinking men and women, not only here but throughout the country.
The noble Viscount, Lord Portal, and other noble Lords have dealt with most of the technical aspects of the problem. Into this field it would be an impertinence for me to endeavour to follow them, though I hope very much that the Government will pay full attention to what they have said. But these noble Lords have also naturally stressed the broad facts of the present situation, in the political and the strategic sense, and the bearing which air power inevitably has on the great issues of peace and war. This, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi (who I am sorry to see is not in the House at the present time), is really inevitable and right, for clearly it
602
is not the slightest use talking about an Air Force in vacuo, without also talking about the purpose for which that Air Force is needed. At any rate, here in this wider field it is possible even for a layman to follow the experts; indeed, I suggest to your Lordships it is really vital that we should all of us do so, for on the maintenance of peace everything else depends: our happiness, our prosperity, our standard of living, the maintenance of our great system of social services—indeed, our very existence.
Merely to raise our domestic standards without ensuring security from war would be rather like a man who redecorated the inside of his house without making certain that the roof was watertight. What would be the result? A storm would come and would destroy all the good work he had done, and his grand house would become merely a useless, uninhabitable ruin, a very monument to human folly. That will undoubtedly be the fate of Western civilisation if the nations of the West fail to face up to the hard realities of the present situation. This is becoming more and more generally realised by the British public, perhaps even more outside Parliament than inside. There is no doubt that to the ordinary man in the street there is to-day one vital problem which transcends all others—namely, how is peace to be preserved. That is the real thing everybody is thinking about. It is on their success or failure in handling this problem, and on their willingness to subordinate all others to it, that every statesman and politician in this country will rightly be judged.
This, as I think my noble friend Lord Templewood said, is not a Party problem. It is a national problem, and it should be faced, as I think it has been to-day, in a national spirit. We all know the broad facts of the international situation. We have a great international organisation, the United Nations, the object of which is to bring about enduring peace. But at present all its efforts in this direction are hampered, and indeed hamstrung, by the non-co-operation of one great Power, Russia, and the satellite countries which follow her. What Russia's ultimate objective is none of us knows. Does she wart war? Does she want merely to fish in troubled waters? That is a riddle to which none of us can give the answer. All we do know—and

603
it is being impressed upon us more and more with every day that passes—is that Russia presents a formidable potential danger to peace.
The main question before us is: How is that danger to be neutralised? We have got to recognise—it is impossible for us not to recognise—that Russia has one considerable advantage over other nations in this sphere; she has immense, almost inexhaustible, supplies of man-power. The question before us, which I think is vital to the future of Europe and the world, is: Is this advantage conclusive, or can it be counter-balanced by some other factor? If it can be counterbalanced, and (what is equally important) if Russia can be convinced that it can be counter-balanced, then there will be no war. Herein, as I see it, lies the very great importance of air power. If it is properly developed and properly organised, it may provide just that counterbalance.
It is for that reason that I was particularly struck by two broad statements in the speeches of Lord Templewood and Lord Trenchard. My noble friend Lord Templewood said, in effect, that if we had had mastery of the air at the beginning of the last war the German Army could never have moved. That is the broad effect of his statement. He added that the same would now be true of any great Power, and this was confirmed by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, when he said that no formed body of troops of the size of a division or upwards could advance any distance by road or rail without air supremacy. Those statements, coming from the sources they do, seem to me to be of the utmost importance. If the assessment of these two noble Lords is accurate—and, after all, it is made in the light of recent experience in the last war—it ought profoundly, I should have thought conclusively, to influence the whole of our defence policy. I would have thought that, if that policy which they have advocated were put into force, and if it were made continuous (that is to say, if there were no vacillations in it with changes of Government, for that, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Portal, is absolutely essential), it might well provide a real solution to all our present difficulties, and a detent in the situation might be brought about
604
which at present seems beyond our wildest hopes.
It is the custom nowadays, among some very great judges, to rely entirely on the atomic bomb. The last thing I wish to do would be to under-estimate the power of that bomb. It is undoubtedly by far the most terrible instrument of war that has ever been invented. We have seen what it can do at Hiroshima, and no doubt it is immensely more powerful now than it was then. As I think has been said this afternoon, the importance of the atomic bomb as a weapon, arises from the fact that it has not only an immediate, but also a long-term effect. Where it has been dropped, an area is made virtually uninhabitable for a number of months. Clearly, scattered over the main areas of production in a country, it would be capable of entirely paralysing that country's national life. But as I see it, the trouble about the atomic bomb is that it is almost too powerful. Were the enemy to launch his attack, not from his own territories, but from an occupied country friendly to us, and if we were to launch atomic bombs at that country, it would be bound to cause suffering over a long period to populations who were our potential Allies. Any civilised country must hesitate before it caused such suffering, and in any case none of us would wish to do it if it could in any way be avoided.
We are sometimes told that the aim of an aggressor in the next war, if unhappily it breaks out, will be to set up batteries in the great centres of population in countries friendly to us which he has occupied, and from there to discharge great showers of rockets and other weapons, relying upon our unwillingness to retaliate on the friendly population by which the batteries are surrounded. As I say, any of us might well revolt from the idea of perhaps utterly pulverising the national and industrial life of peoples who were traditionally our friends and our Allies. While, therefore, the atomic bomb is a weapon which might well be discharged on the territories of the aggressor itself, there are, as I see it, obvious disadvantages in using it ruthlessly once the enemy has occupied territories friendly to us. At any rate, whether that be true or not, the enemy might very well make such a calculation, and this would reduce the deterrent to his going to war. And, after all—and we cannot say this too often—it is the pre-

605
vention of war and not merely victory in war which must be our aim if civilisation is to survive.
Such considerations, however, clearly do not apply in quite the same degree to ordinary air power. That, too, of course, as we know from experience, is immensely destructive, but it has not quite the same long-term effect as the atomic bomb. Moreover, as we have been told by the noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and others this afternoon, it can be concentrated, to some extent at any rate—as in the Normandy battle—on strategic objectives in the back areas, with the object of hampering military movement rather than of strangling national life. Every bridge and every road can be destroyed. Advancing armies can be largely, if not entirely, cut off from their base. They can be denied adequate supplies of petrol, armaments and so on. No doubt it would be very unwise of us to dogmatise too confidently on any of these things; but we may say with a fair degree of certainty that air power can exercise a paralysing effect on military operations.
But, for this purpose, it is necessary to have overwhelming air superiority. I gathered from the carefully guarded speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that the Government share this view, although actually the balance of his speech was so carefully preserved that it was difficult to know quite on which side he came down. My impression, however—I agree that it was a faint, uncertain impression—after listening to his speech, was that he agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. If that is correct, and if the Government are ready not merely to say that, but to do what is necessary to put that policy into effect, I should have thought it was a policy by no means impossible of achievement. After all, as has been pointed out, Britain and the United States are the greatest industrial nations and the greatest inventive nations in the world. In inventive genius and in the quality of their products they are infinitely superior to anything, so far as we know, that the Russians can do.
I think I am right in saying—the noble Viscount, Lord Portal, will correct me if I am wrong—that in the latter
606
part of the war, three-quarters to four-fifths of the German Air Force was concentrated on the Western Front. That shows the German view of the comparative formidability of the Air Forces facing them from East and West. If we could build up a joint force of fighters, bombers, and transport planes, of size adequate to ensure our absolute superiority in the air, surely we could face the future with comparative equanimity—with an equanimity which, as I say, seems to us beyond all dreams at the present moment.
I was very sorry, if I may say so, that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was obliged to announce that the Government were unwilling to publish any further information as to the present position of our equipment in the air. As the Leader of the House will know, the United States has already given a number of comparatively detailed figures. They evidently do not rate the need for security quite so high as we do. I am much afraid that our refusal to do this will only encourage the conclusion in other countries that we cannot afford to give the facts, and that would be the most unfortunate impression which could be created. I beg, therefore, that the Government will reconsider this matter, and that the Leader of the House will be able to say in his closing speech that he will refer it again to his right honourable friend. As your Lordships know, Government Departments are always only too delighted to shelter behind the needs of national security, but it is not a propensity in which Ministers should encourage them too far. I hope this is one of the occasions upon which Ministers will take a line of their own.
In any case, we have to-day had certain figures suggested to us as our target, a target which will achieve absolute air superiority. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said we should need 100 squadrons of short-range fighters, 150 squadrons of long-range bombers, 150 squadrons of long-range fighters to protect the long-range bombers, and 150 squadrons of transport planes. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, gave comparable figures. That, with the necessary replacements both of material and crews, no doubt represents an immense expenditure of effort and money. It is no light burden that your

607
Lordships and the country are being asked to shoulder. But is it a target beyond attainment by the United States of America and the British Commonwealth of Nations? Of course, a proportionate contribution by us in this field must clearly involve severe sacrifices in other directions. We must face that fact. But if one remembers that our expenditure in the last war rose, I think, to over £13,000,000 a day—apart altogether from the dislocation of trade and the immense destruction of life and property—one may fairly inquire: Are we now being asked to pay too heavy an insurance premium to prevent a recurrence of such a disaster as that? We shall get off very much more cheaply this way, than we should from another war.
If, for a moment, I may stray a little wide of the debate, I would also say this. We must recognise that such an expansion of the Royal Air Force could be made only at the temporary expense of the other Fighting Services. We should be rather foolish if we did not face up to that. The Army and the Navy would have to sink temporarily to second place. But, after all, the essence of any strategic plan is that it should take account of who is the potential enemy. In the past, of course, we have had to face the possibility of a conflict with maritime nations or with land Powers with forces comparable to our own. To-day, except for Russian submarines—which of course must be properly guarded against—one would have thought that the maritime danger was almost negligible; and on land, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said, Russian man-power and resources are so tremendous that we could not hope to compete with them, however many divisons we managed to put in the field. I am not so foolish as to advocate the virtual extinction of the Army and Navy. That would clearly be both impossible and undesirable. What I am anxious to emphasise is that we must face the fact that if we want to find a compensating factor for preponderant Russian man-power, it can at present be provided only by the air. It is therefore, I respectfully submit, on our Air Forces that the United States of America and ourselves must concentrate. In absolute superiority in that sphere alone, do I, like other noble Lords, see any possibility
608
of completely averting the peril of a new war, with all the appalling results that that must involve for the world.
I have not tried this afternoon to approach any of the vital questions of how to encourage recruitment for the Air Force, which have—rightly—bulked so large in the debate. That is a matter on which I am not competent to speak. I would only say that I hope the Government will give full attention to what has been said by noble Lords who have spoken with such experience and such power. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that the young people of this country, as they showed in the last war, are both adventurous and brave. If they feel that they are being appreciated and that they are receiving a fair deal, I have no doubt that the Government will get the men they want for the Royal Air Force. If, on the other hand, these young people feel that the Air Force is being unfairly treated in comparison with other walks of life, they will choose other professions to which the Government appear to them to attach more importance—and one can under stand that.
We had a statement from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, at the end of his speech this afternoon, about new rates of pay and improved conditions which the Government are introducing for the Armed Services. I think we all recognise that the Government are trying to do something to improve conditions and terms of service. Whether it will be enough, none of us yet knows. The noble Lord's statement, if he will allow me to say so, was inevitably complicated and technical, and I hope the Government will allow us to give it careful study, not in a critical or captious spirit but in a realistic spirit, to see how it works. If I may make a suggestion, it would be helpful to your Lordships and to the country if the Government were able to issue a White Paper showing the detailed results of these changes in each Fighting Service separately.
It has often been my lot in this Parliament to criticise the Government; and indeed I still feel that they would have done far better to devote their attention to such vital matters as we have been discussing this afternoon than to waste their time in futile and dangerous experiments in other spheres of our national

609
life. But I hope they will believe that I have spoken in no critical spirit to-day. I fully realise the difficulties which they have to face in this matter. Moreover, the international situation is far too dangerous for anyone to attempt to make Party capital out of it. But I do beg them once more, as I did a year ago, to divulge all the facts to the people, to tell the country the truth, and not to give them only the kind of extremely wrapped-up statement that we have had to-day. I do not blame the noble Lord for so careful a statement, for I know he was speaking for another Department, and I recognise the general style of such Departmental documents! But in fact it was so elaborately balanced that even to us who are trained listeners it meant absolutely nothing. In passing, I would add that I hope we shall not have another such from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House when he winds up. He may think that he can get away with it here, because we all like him so much; but neither he nor the Government will get away with such vague generalities on this subject in the country at the present time.
Therefore let him and the Government tell the truth. And the truth, as I see it, is that only one thing, matters to-day; that is, national defence. And by national defence, I mean the prevention of war. We must do everything that is necessary and make whatever sacrifice is necessary to achieve that result. If war is prevented—not temporarily but permanently—then, whether on a Capitalist or a Socialist basis, according to the particular view one holds, this country has some chance of recovery. But if another war comes, all we are doing to-day, the whole of England as we know it, will undoubtedly be swept away in the welter and confusion which will ensue. Let the Government tell the people this; let them ask for their co-operation; and one may be sure that they will not be disappointed.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I should like to say first that I cordially associate myself with what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said in paying a tribute to the noble Viscount who initiated this debate. I should like to pay a tribute to both the style and the substance of his speech. I am quite sure that the debate will do a lot of good. The big issues behind it are so vital and so oppressive, if I may use the word, that
610
it seems almost trivial to talk of the smaller things which necessarily emerge in a discussion of this kind. But, as a matter of fact, the world is built up on small things, and these small things matter. I will try to condense what I have to say in summing up the discussion by first referring to any matter of detail and then by dealing in conclusion with some of the major issues which were spoken of by the noble Marquess just now. As is the case with the noble Marquess and some other noble Lords, I am not an expert on these matters; therefore, I speak with bated breath and much restraint on all technical subjects. I leave such details to the noble Lords whom I see before me and on the Cross Benches.
I should like to refer to one or two of the assurances which the noble Marquess has asked me to give. In the first place, he can take it from me with complete good faith that I shall, without qualification, impress upon my colleagues some of the very, the extremely, important suggestions which have been made in this debate. Whether a White Paper will be issued or not on the technical matters referred to by my noble friends, I am afraid I do not know at the moment. We issue a great many White Papers, and I suppose that in some form these technical details will have to be embodied in a printed document. Whether that will take the form of a White Paper or not, I am afraid that at the moment I do not know, but I will pass on the noble Marquess's suggestion to those concerned. We shall certainly not be afraid, so far as our advisers tell us that it is wise, to reveal (if I may use the term) the truth of the matters lying behind these issues. On the whole, I do not think that we can be accused of being shy of facing unpleasant truths. After all, we have had to face a good many in the past three or four years, and as I have already said, on the whole I do not think that we can be accused of being any too shy of facing them, if they have to be faced.
There were various matters, some of which I thought were of considerable practical importance, contained in the suggestions which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made and which I have noted, and there were other suggestions more or less on Service detail. I am afraid I am not at all equipped to reply to them now: all I can say is that I will make a

611
note of them and they shall be considered. I hope, too, that noble Lords will not overlook what seemed to be a very practically-minded contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, who has been good enough to tell me that he has been compelled to go away. I was very much impressed by the strong horse-sense of the case that he put up. We have to see whether we are getting value for our money. I must say that it causes one seriously to think when one has these sums in arithmetic presented in the mass, as the noble Lord presented them to us. I will certainly not fail to pass on his interrogations with considerable emphasis.
I cannot admit, however, that National Service is a failure. There, I think, the noble Lord is misinformed, because the system does not begin until January next, so it cannot be condemned as a failure two months in advance. That really will not fit. At the same time, it is true—and this is the grim fact of the situation—that the Air Force, which must have a strong body of experienced craftsmen and trained men not only to train newcomers but to form the basis of a great service, has not lately been attracting the number of recruits that it must have. That is true. It is a very grim fact which we have to face and we do propose to face it. I can assure noble Lords that there is no disposition on our part to shirk it. I myself do not know anything about the details of the pay schemes which have been mentioned, but I am quite sure of this: that we must work to an Air Service which attracts and keeps good men who want to make it their career. That is clearly necessary if we are to have that experienced body of men who are absolutely essential for the Air Service.
Before I pass to the major issues, may I say a word about something which the noble Marquess said just now, and which entered into one of the sentences in the early part of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood? It concerns, so to speak, the priority and demands on the public purse and otherwise of the Air Service, and the subordination of the other Services. As that was being said by the noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood, I noticed the First Sea Lord sitting on the Cross Bench. He is not there just now, but his spirit is. We have to keep
612
our balance right in these matters. However strong our Air Force is—and we know how vital it is that it should be strong—we still must keep our supply ships going to and fro across the seas, not only to feed our Forces but to feed our population, and to supply our industries and all the rest of it. I think that the developments of the submarine danger are such that I am sure we could not afford to relegate that section of our defences, apart from what is provided by the Air Services, to a secondary place.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I specifically said that, and mentioned submarines.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I, too, mentioned submarines.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I know the noble Lords did. I am merely mentioning the facts of the situation. Then there are other dangers which can be combated only by adequate naval forces and which I will not recite, but which are well known to your Lordships. Those we must not overlook. I am saying that, not in any way to minimise the importance of the claim set out by the noble Viscount opposite, but just to bear in our minds that we must not forget and lose sight of these other factors.
I was exceedingly interested by what the noble and gallant Viscount and the noble Marquess and others said about what we may perhaps call the superior propaganda methods of the other Services. I have not looked at the question like that, but still I am sure that those who are concerned with our Air Services should "read, mark, learn and inwardly digest" what some of your Lordships have said about this matter. I do not know whether it is technically possible to give a number to a squadron and for that squadron to retain it through a series of years—I know nothing about the technicalities—but I can believe that it would be a great advantage if some symbol or name could be associated with branches of the Air Service, so that in the course of time it would come to have a traditional and historical value. We have to remember that the Royal Navy has a long start in this respect. It is quite a good while since Trafalgar. The Royal Air Force is still very young. It has not had the time to build up those traditions and associations possessed by

613
the Royal Navy, but I am very glad that the Royal Air Force is willing and anxious to take a lesson from the experiences of the Royal Navy, who advertise and make much of their Service so justly and so well, so that, almost by stealth, every schoolboy and every schoolgirl has it in his or her mind. In the course of time, I expect that the Royal Air Force will do the same.
However, as to the importance of the issue raised to-day there can be no question at all. I would agree with the noble Marquess that we have to constitute an Air Force as a safeguard against war, and I would agree with him in putting it in the first place. I am not going to follow him and others in what they said as to the way an Air Force could hold up the movement of big enemy forces on land; our experiences in Normandy have already proved that and it does not require any further demonstration. But I believe myself that it is fair to contend that, so far, we have not got quite the right method of approach for attracting the right men, and in sufficient numbers, into the Royal Air Force. For that reason, account must be taken of all the suggestions that have been made to-day. The R.A.F. is, without a doubt, our greatest safeguard in war, so far as we can see, and I believe it is our greatest safeguard in peace.
There is one further matter that has not yet been referred to, which I think I ought to mention. Most of us are disappointed that the United Nations has not hitherto been able to exercise the influence we would like. We are, of course, also distressed every day by the division of the world which is represented by the attitude of Soviet Russia and her satellites, and the immense apprehension which they cause throughout the world by the perpetuation of the present position. We accept that, and I do not propose to reply at all to the comments which have been made in this debate on that subject. I only want to say that we accept the value of the estimate which has been placed generally in this debate upon the vital importance of an Air Force with the kind of overwhelming superiority of which the noble Marquess spoke.
But one great advance that is now being made has not hitherto, in the course of this debate, been referred to, and I would like to refer to it. I think it is
614
fair to claim—at all events, it is very likely—that the last war would not have broken out had there been the machinery for prompt co-operation between ourselves and some of our Allies which was developed two or three years later. In those circumstances, it very likely would not have happened at all; I put it no higher than that. Our Air Force and the American Air Force can work adequately together only if there is the joint staff work, the provision beforehand, the thought beforehand, and the organisation beforehand, which is so absolutely vital to combined effort. I am glad to tell your Lordships that efforts in that direction are making notable progress—and this is a very substantial safeguard in these times.
As your Lordships are aware, it was announced at the end of October, at the conclusion of the meeting in Paris of the consultative council of the Brussels Powers that a preliminary study was being made between us of questions affecting North Atlantic security; and the communiqué at that time went on to say that the examination had resulted in complete agreement on the principle of a defensive pact in regard to the North Atlantic and the next steps to be taken in this direction. I can now say that the Canadian Government have wholeheartedly announced their acceptance of the principle of this co-operative effort. I can also say that negotiations for the conclusion of the pact and the bringing of it into effective working form are making good progress. I cannot at the moment say how the whole preliminary consultations will be concluded, but there are arrangements for a joint military supply board to work in co-operation with the five Brussels Powers, and these include joint staff co-operative schemes embracing also the United States and Canada. This combined defensive arrangement as a safeguard for peace is at the moment, I am glad to say, making very gratifying progress, and it is a matter of great consequence. It will mean that there may be fashioned in the near future a joint working arrangement particularly affecting air-power which could be deployed and developed rapidly in the defence of peace. I conclude with that reference, while accepting without reservation the general case that has been made by your Lordships. I thought it only right to strike that rather more

615
hopeful note because we are engaged there, we trust, in concluding a combined working arrangement which will be of vital importance as a safeguard to peace.
6.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, my sensations have somewhat varied during the course of the debate. There was a moment when I was rather depressed with the large extracts that, no doubt, the Departments have produced for the noble Lord opposite. Like the noble Marquess, I know the kind of procedure that goes on for occasions of this kind. It seemed to me that their worst feature—the one they gave me, at any rate—was an impression of complacency. I may be wrong; I hope I am wrong. They also gave me the impression that we were drifting back to what ventured to refer to in my speech—namely, the balance of power between the three Services. That, in actual practice, means giving a little bit to each and not definitely facing the question of priorities.
But then the noble Viscount who has just spoken gave me two or three rays of hope. He said, as I understood him, that he gave the Air Force first priority. It is true that he said it was necessary, of course, to keep a Navy and an Army for the purposes which they would be called upon to perform. We all accept that; but I am quite sure that if the kind of programme we have been discussing this afternoon is to be carried into effect, a much more definite preference will have to be given to the Air Force than has been given in the last two or three years. I hope, as I said earlier, that this question of twelve or eighteen months National Service will be tested by the effect that it will have upon the Air Force as priority No. 1 to our defence system. I am not going to discuss the details of it to-day, but I do say to noble Lords that I am very apprehensive that it will do much more harm than good.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: What will?
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: The question of twelve or eighteen months' National Service. That we can discuss upon a later occasion. As to the details about pay, for giving which we are grateful to the noble Lord, I can only say that those matters must be judged by results.
616
I cannot at the present time express any opinion concerning them. The test will be: Will they or will they not attract the skilled men for the Royal Air Force?
Lastly, may I say that I was considerably heartened by what the noble Viscount said about co-operation between the Staffs in connection with Western Union and an Atlantic Pact. I am delighted to hear of that. I agree with him that it is one of the keys to the defence position. I venture to say, however, that no agreements that are reached by the Staffs, either of the Powers of Western Europe or of the United States and ourselves, or of the Commonwealth and ourselves, will be of any avail unless we have an effective force behind those agreements. Having made those few observations, I would only wish to thank the noble Viscount and other noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful for what has been said as to the usefulness of this debate, and I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WELLINGTON (SALOP) GAS ORDER, 1948
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petitions have been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in the Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

FURNITURE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ORDER, 1948
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; That in their opinion the provisions of the Order raise important questions of policy and principle; That the Order is founded on precedent; That in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said

617
Order: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
First Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next.
  INVESTIGATION OF CIVIL AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS
  INVESTIGATION OF CIVIL AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS