Sitting of 23 September 1948

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

MOTOR VEHICLES (OFFENCES)
Address ordered,
"for a Return showing the number of offences relating to Motor Vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, the results of the proceedings in Magistrates' Courts, and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1947."—[Mr. Ede.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PETROL SUPPLIES

    Local Authorities
    Mr. J. H. Hareasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what decision he has made regarding the issue of petrol to local authority representatives as the result of conversations he has held with the County Councils Association.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): Discussions are still taking place.
    Mr. Hare: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very considerable hardship is being imposed upon local authority representatives, particularly those of county councils and rural district councils, and, in view of the great length of time which has already elapsed, will he take steps to see that some decision is given at a reasonably early date?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am most anxious that a decision should be reached on this subject, but it has been difficult to arrange meetings during the holiday period.

    Government Departments
    Captain John Crowderasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are being taken to reduce the amount of petrol used by Government Departments.
    Mr. Gaitskell: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary informed the House on 1st July, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Sharp), arrangements have been made to treat Government Departments in the same way as certain large business firms, local authorities and other bodies which receive bulk allowances of petrol. Assessments for Government Departments are now fixed by my Ministry and no increase above the assessment is permitted unless the Department concerned has satisfied a Committee under the chairmanship of my Parliamentary Secretary that this is essential. These arrangements have retrospective effect from 1st April and have met with the approval of the Select Committee on Estimates.
    Captain Crowder: Why is it that the Minister had not attempted any specific action until the report of the Select Committee on Estimates had been published in the Press; I understood his colleague to say that some definite instructions limiting the amount of petrol by percentage means had now been given?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The decision to change the arrangement was made before the Select Committee had published its Report and, as a matter of fact, before the Select Committee had even made these proposals. As regards the percentage reduction, it is only fair to the Civil Service to point out that the issues of E coupons to Government Departments in the first and second quarters of this year show a reduction of 7 and 10 per cent., respectively, on the previous year.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by the retrospective effect of this arrangement? Does it mean that some of the Government Departments still have outstanding petrol which was issued to them last April?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No. It merely means that the period of the allocation is for the year from 1st April.

    Forged Coupons
    Commander Nobleasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much petrol has been obtained on forged coupons since 1st June and how this compares with the corresponding period for 1947 and 1946.
    Mr. Gaitskell: No exact estimate can be made, but I am satisfied that the amount of petrol obtained through forged coupons did not exceed 20 tons a week at the beginning of June last and has since decreased considerably as a result of the action taken. Comparable figures for 1946 and 1947 are not available.
    Colonel Dower: Can the Minister give an indication how many gallons there are in 20 tons?
    Mr. Gaitskell: There are 300 gallons in a ton.

    Agriculture
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the fact that a number of Regional Petroleum officers throughout the country were unable to deal with late applications by 1st September for agricultural petrol, and of the need for harvesting and increased food production, he will consider derationing the red petrol for agricultural purposes forthwith.
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. It would not be practicable to deration red petrol for agricultural purposes only, and I have come to the conclusion with regret that its general derationing would inevitably be accompanied by a substantial increase in consumption which we cannot afford.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a tremendous waste of man-hours in filling up form R.S.M.6 by farmers when they are very short-handed, and does he not realise that, owing to the time spent in filling up forms, there is a loss of food production, and will he take steps to have this form abolished?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I promised that I would consider the matter as soon as we saw what was the effect of red petrol. I have done that, and have consulted my Advisory Committee, and they are satisfied that we should not de-ration red petrol. The form has only to be filled up twice a year, and there is no evidence that it causes undue hardship to farmers.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that this last harvest would have been easier to get in if farmers had not to bother about these forms, and do not they want more food and less forms?
    Mr. Gerald Williamsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what machinery exists for considering appeals for more petrol by dissatisfied farmers.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Appeals by farmers are dealt with by a specially trained staff and, where necessary, are referred to the county agricultural executive committee for advice. Consultation also takes place between the regional petroleum officers and county secretaries of the National Farmers Union.
    Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that owing to the widespread cut in white petrol there are a great many dissatisfied farmers, and that, although many had been getting too much before, those struggling along on just a little are now extremely hard hit?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am afraid that the farmers are not the only people dissatisfied with their allocation of white petrol, but I am sure that they appreciate the benefit to the country to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently referred.
    Mr. Williams: The Minister promised the farmers that they would not go short of petrol because of the necessity of producing food, but now he is letting them down.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I was referring to white petrol; we use red petrol for producing food.

    Illegal Use (Prosecutions)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many prosecutions there have been for illegal use of petrol since the new regulations came into force; and how many have been successful to the latest available date.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member is no doubt referring to prosecutions under the Motor Spirit (Regulation) Act, 1948. Ten cases have been taken up to 15th September, all of which were successful
    Sir W. Smithers: Does not the fact that:here have been very few successful prosecutions prove that the whole thing has been a farce, and does it not also show. by imposing regulations which have no real force, the right hon. Gentleman is Compelling private people to become criminals?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Unlike the hon. Member, I am glad there have not been more prosecutions, and I am satisfied that the deterrent effect of the Act has been very considerable.

    Standard Ration
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the petrol consumption in the months of July and August; and how far the measures designed to stop the illegal use of petrol have fulfilled expectations.
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement regarding the standard petrol ration, and to what extent he is satisfied with the present system of petrol rationing.
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what the amount of the standard petrol ration is to be after the current rationing period ends in November.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Deliveries of motor spirit into consumption in July and August averaged 92,000 tons and 87,000 tons a week respectively. I am satisfied that the measures taken to stop the black market in petrol are effective, but I cannot yet give any reliable estimate of the amount saved, because of the variations in consumption from month to month, which arise partly from the flexibility allowed to motorists in using the standard ration. I hope to be able to make a statement about the future of the standard ration in about a month.
    Mr. Collins: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in the months which he has given, which are likely to be the heavy consumption months of standard petrol, the figures of consumption so far are below those anticipated?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I would prefer not to go into details at this stage, but I will say that I am satisfied that the abolition of the black market has certainly provided sufficient petrol to supply the standard ration.
    Sir I. Fraser: In regard to Question No. 21, can the Minister consider, when he is determining the winter ration, making a larger standard ration to owners of cars who live in rural areas?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I would propose, before coming to any conclusion, to consult the Advisory Committee which I have set up.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the rearmament programme, can the Minister tell us whether, during the next year, there will be any petrol for the civilian population?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The needs of defence will have to be considered in connection with this matter.
    Captain Crowder: Can the Minister say definitely whether he will be able to give some basic petrol after November?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I should prefer not to make any statement on the matter at the moment.

    Supplementary Allowances
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will reconsider the application of Mr. J. Clowes, 153, Crompton Road, Macclesfield, for an increased petrol allowance, details of which have already been sent to him, together with a medical certificate supporting his application; and if he is aware that there is no public transport available from Crewe, where Mr. Clowes works, to Macclesfield when he finishes work at 10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir, I am reconsidering this case, and will write to the hon. and gallant Member.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: As Mr. Clowes has now been waiting several months, will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Manchester office to consider these matters more sympathetically? It is quite clear that a sick man such as Mr. Clowes could not get home from work without petrol.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I could not agree that the case is as straightforward as that, but I will write to the hon. and gallant Gentleman in a day or two.
    Mr. Erroll: Does the Minister realise that the Manchester office is particularly difficult now, and far harder than other regions?
    Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why a rubber planter on leave in this country from Malaya can obtain a petrol allowance for a car

    1063
    lent to him by a near relative but not one lent by a more distant relative or a friend; and on what principle this differentiation is made.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Supplementary allowances are normally made available only for motor vehicles owned by the applicant. In the case of persons on leave from overseas, and as a special concession, allowances are also made for motor vehicles owned by close relatives. I regret that I cannot extend this concession.
    Mr. Gammans: Why should there be this differentiation? Does the Minister propose to publish a table of consanguinity such as there is at the back of the Prayer Book, and say that only near relations can loan a car? What is the sense of it?
    Mr. Gaitskell: It need not be such a long table as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but one must draw the line somewhere. It seems reasonable to draw the line round the family.
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will consider granting an additional petrol allowance for holiday purposes to those people who have not applied for the allowance of £35 for the purpose of travelling abroad for pleasure.
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider referring this suggestion to his Advisory Committee, because, surely, it is not beyond the wit of man, or his Advisory Committee, to devise a scheme on these lines?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No doubt when the Advisory Committee are consulted on this matter they will bear in mind the suggestion of the hon. Member.

    Taxicabs, Brighton
    Mr. William Teelingasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that in order to cope with the great demand for taxis during the holiday season in Brighton, the Streamline Cabs have been forced to use up almost all their allocation of petrol until next December; and whether he will consider granting a supplementary allowance especially for use to and from the railway station.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The answer to both parts of the Question is "No, Sir."
    Mr. Teeling: Does the Minister realise that during this particular Summer season in Brighton we have had particularly rainy weather; and in planning for the use of petrol during that period can he say whether that fact was taken into consideration because, as a result of it, far more people have been using taxis to and from the railway station than normally?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am afraid it is not possible to fix the allocation of petrol for taxicabs according to the weather.
    Mr. Teeling: But, surely, when this planning takes place, the meteorological question enters into it?
    Mr. Gaitskell: We are more modest than the hon. Member suggests; we do not claim to anticipate the weather.

    Private Hire Vehicles
    Mr. J. Lewisasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that as a result of the 10 per cent. cut in the allocation of petrol to private hire services, they are now getting on the average only two gallons a day as compared with five gallons a day granted for use by public hire vehicles; and, as private hire service can often be obtained at night when no public hire vehicle is available and the proprietors need petrol as a means of livelihood and not for pleasure, will he agree to the restoration of this 10 per cent. in their allocation.
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. The average allowance for private hire car services is 2¼ gallons a day compared with three gallons a day for provincial taxis and 4½ gallons a day for London taxis. The 10 per cent. cut was applied to operators of taxis and other recipients of supplementary allowances, as well as to operators of private hire car services. I have no reason to think that it bears more hardly on the latter than on other classes, and I am not prepared to restore it.
    Mr. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many ex-Service men put their gratuities into businesses of this kind and were just able to carry on with the petrol made available to them before the cut, but now that the cut has taken place some of them are going out of business?
    Mr. Gaitskell: In this matter I cannot accept the suggestion that we should make any distinction of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any interest at all in the ordinary citizen who has to use these cars, because, as far as one can see, all the petrol was used up in the summer, and they are going to be in a frightful position in the winter?
    Mr. Gaitskell: There is no reason to believe that the ordinary citizen suffers such grave hardship, as the hon. Member seems to suggest. from lack of hire car facilities.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Domestic Supplies, St. Neots
    2. Mr. David Rentonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that the coal described as Alvecote Bakers Nuts, which is being supplied to consumers in St. Neots and district, Hunts, is useless for domestic consumption; and whether he will take steps to ensure that such coal is not supplied to consumers in future, and is replaced by fuel of good quality.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I agree that Alvecote coal is of low quality but a small proportion must continue to be included in the house coal allocation in view of the need to export some of the better grades of house coal. Arrangements have made to reduce the proportion of this coal going to St. Neots and district and to substitute more suitable grades.
    Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware that this lowering of standards was never tolerated under private enterprise and, bearing in mind that so many complaints about the quality of coal have been made since nationalisation, is it not about time that the quality was improved?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member appears to have forgotten that under private enterprise there was a very large number of unemployed miners and that it was most difficult to sell the coal at that time; but, of course, continuous efforts are being made to improve quality.

    Exports to Denmark
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking under the Trade Agreement to ensure that the 870,000 tons a year of coal to be exported to Denmark shall be of good quality and free from incombustible matter.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer the hon. Member to pages 58–63 of the Annual Report of the National Coal Board for the year 1947, and would add that there have been no complaints about the quality of coal supplied to Denmark.
    Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Minister know that my information is that there have been complaints, and is he aware that the removal of competition compels domestic and foreign consumers to take what is available, and that this is very harmful to our export trade?
    Mr. Gaitskell: There is no evidence of any complaints from Denmark on this matter, and the rest of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

    Opencast Mining (Excavating Plant)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power in how many contracts for the working of opencast coal has it been stipulated by his Department as a condition that the successful contractors must purchase from or through his Department or the Ministry of Supply mechanical excavators imported from America.
    Mr. Gaitskell: No such stipulation has actually been included in any contract, but, in about 40 cases during the last 12 months, tenders were invited on the understanding that the successful tenderer would purchase excavating plant, usually American, which has been set aside for the site concerned.
    Mr. Stokes: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that there is very little difference in his answer from the views expressed in the Question? Is he aware that there are written contracts where this is stipulated, and that contractors have to order a lot more machinery, and waste hard-earned dollars in purchasing American machinery which is not required, in order to cover up a mistake by his Department?
    Mr. Gaitskell: There is no question of a mistake in my Department. The matter has been carefully considered, and we have come to the conclusion that the only way to ensure the most economical use of the machinery available is to insist on particular machines being used.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that contractors are forced to buy machinery which they have got already, and to purchase new machines from America, and does he not think that such a stipulation in a contract is highly immoral?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think it is immoral at all. We have had no complaints whatever from the contractors.

    Pit Pony, Bedlington Colliery
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the pit pony "Ned" in the Bedlington Colliery has developed illness and that a notice has been placed over his stall forbidding any one to use him for any purpose; what is the nature of the complaint; what was the cause; and whether he will permit another veterinary surgeon other than his own official to examine him.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am aware that the pony "Ned" was recently found to be suffering from a sore back and was withdrawn from work. Pending his removal to the surface for treatment, the usual notice was placed above his stall. I am informed that the most probable cause of the pony's condition is some ill-adjustment of the harness.
    The pony is being treated under the supervision of the National Coal Board's consulting veterinary surgeon. He has also been examined by His Majesty's Inspector of Horses in Mines, who reports that, apart from his sore back, the pony is in very good condition. As the inflammation is responding to treatment, I can see no good reason for an examination by another veterinary surgeon.
    Mr. Freeman: As this pony has since been removed from the colliery entirely and is now on the surface, will the Minister allow another veterinary surgeon to examine him, because the reasons of which I have been informed are not those which have been given to him?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I have already explained that this pony has been brought to the surface. As to a further examination, it might be possible, but personally, I do not think it is in the least necessary.
    Mr. Freeman: Will the Minister give permission for this to be done?
    Mr. Wilson Harris: With a view to raising this unfortunate quadruped's morale, can the Minister arrange to call him "Nye"?

    Stocks, Spilsby
    Commander Maitlandasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the reason for the decline of house coal stocks in the Spilsby district of Lincolnshire; and what steps he is taking to restore supplies to prevent hardship during the wintertime in this area.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Had coal merchants in the Spilsby district taken their full allocation of opencast coal, the stocks in that area would have been at a satisfactory level. It is hoped, however, to restore the stock position in the next few weeks by sending to Spilsby a part of the coal which is being switched from London to the North.

  FUEL AND POWER

    North Midland Fuel Efficiency Committee
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will made a statement as to the circumstances under which he dismissed Mr. E. G. Phillips, of the North Midland Fuel Efficiency Committee.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaiteasked the Minister of Fuel and Power in what circumstances Mr. E. G. Phillips, O.B.E., was called upon to resign the chairmanship of the North Midland Fuel Efficiency Committee.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The functions of Regional Fuel Efficiency Committees, as was made clear in the revised terms of reference given to them last February, are advisory. Their members are invited to give my Department expert advice on the technical problems of fuel utilisation, but not to undertake executive action in individual cases. I am

    1069
    certain that failure to maintain this distinction might gravely prejudice the work of the Ministry on fuel efficiency.
    Unfortunately, it recently became clear that there was fundamental disagreement between Mr. Phillips and myself on this point, and in particular as to what action he could appropriately take in his capacity as Chairman of an advisory committee. In these circumstances, much as I regretted losing Mr. Phillips' services, I felt that I could not agree to his continuing to occupy the position of Chairman of the North Midland Fuel Efficiency Committee.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that the Minister has broken a contract with Mr. Phillips, and is there no appeal by Mr. Phillips against these Hitlerian methods?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The answer to both questions is in the negative.
    Sir W. Smithers: May I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment as soon as possible?
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite rose—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot now ask his supplementary question.
    Sir W. Smithers: May I withdraw that notice?
    Hon. Members: No.

    Electricity Supplies
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make a statement about the electricity supply this winter for the domestic consumer.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hen. Friend the Minister of Labour to my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Mr. Lee) on the 8th July, and to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on 30th July, to which, at present, I have nothing to add.
    Sir I. Fraser: In view of the great obscurity of that answer, could the Minister make it clear whether he is going to provide enough electricity for the cold winter in view of the fact that we have had cuts in the supply when the temperature has been above 50 degrees?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I think the House generally is aware that we face a difficult problem of the gap between demand and generating capacity this winter. The cuts which have occurred during the summer are, of course, due partly to the exceptionally cold summer and, partly, to the fact that much plant is withdrawn from use at that time.

    Bankside Power Station
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will publish the results of the investigation undertaken in connection with the pledge given that the Bankside Power Station project would not be proceeded with if the oil fuel burned there was found to emit fumes harmful to nearby buildings.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. I will inform the House of the results of the tests, but they will not be available until next spring.
    Mr. Keeling: May we take it that the Dean of St. Paul's, or his representative, who is very much interested in this because of the possible effects of fumes on the fabric of the Cathedral, will be able to acquaint himself at firsthand with the results of these investigations?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I see no objection to that.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make a statement regarding the progress so far made in establishing a new power station at Bankside.
    Mr. Gaitskell: One pilot plant has been completed and is in commission, and the other should be finished by the end of next month. Work is continuing on the foundations of the main generating station.

    DR. WLADISLAW DERING
    Mr. Pagetasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any statement to make with regard to the case of Dr. Dering.
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds Dr. Wladislaw Dering has been released from British custody; and why, in view of the fact that he is on the list of war criminals in Czechoslovakia,

    1071
    Poland and France, he has not been handed over to one of those countries for proper trial.
    Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Dr. Wladislaw Dering was released from custody after His Majesty's Government had previously declared themselves satisfied that a prima facie case had been established against this man that as an assistant Medical Officer in charge of the Oswiecim concentration camp, he was responsible for the segregation and collection of Allied personnel for destruction in the gas chambers, and that in addition he participated in experiments on living human beings.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The mutual agreement between the Governments of the United Nations to which His Majesty's Government became a party in March, 1945, provided for the surrender of persons found in their respective territories for trial as war criminals whenever a prima facie case should be established. When information was received of the allegations made against Dr. Dering, he was detained in custody with a view to his deportation should such a case be established. From the information available in May last, it appeared that a prima facie case had been made out, but, subsequently, it was found that evidence which had been relied upon was based on mistaken identity, and, after a further review of all the available information, the Government were unable to hold that there was sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case. In these circumstances the deportation of Dr. Dering for trial could not be justified. The foreign Governments were so informed, and Dr. Dering was released from custody.
    Mr. Paget: Is it the fact that the Polish Government were asked to submit evidence, that they did submit an affidavit by a man who deposed that Dering had actually committed an atrocity on him, that Dering's extradition was actually ordered, and that then, on representations, the man who had signed that affidavit was brought over here and said that Dering was not the man at all, and had committed no atrocity? In these circumstances, will the Home Secretary undertake that, in future, there will be
    1072
    no extraditions without the man to be extradited being confronted with the person who is said to give evidence against him?
    Mr. Ede: I took the very greatest possible care with this case. I submitted the evidence to two eminent lawyers who are Members of this House. They differed in the first place—[Laughter.]—it is no doubt very amusing to the House, but it is very embarrassing to a layman who has to make up his mind when two men, for whose legal opinions he has a great respect, differ. Then further evidence was submitted which included a statement by a particular man—the first time that such a statement had been made—that he, in fact, had been castrated by this particular doctor. On that, I was advised that a prima facie case had been made out. The representatives of Dr. Dering then placed further evidence in front of me, and, on that, I determined to see if I could get the man who had made this definite statement into this country so that his evidence could be tested. He came, and an identification parade was arranged, and he asserted that the person who operated on him was not on the parade. His evidence was then heard by the chief magistrate for the Metropolis, and I was advised on that that no prima facie case had been established by this particular witness. I think that in a very difficult case I did my utmost to secure that British standards of justice should be applied.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Could I ask a question on one other point? Is it a fact that in this case this man was taken into custody on the allegation being made and not on the production of a prima facie case? Is it the practice, and will it be the practice in future, to take a person into custody on the mere statement that an allegation has been made? Would it not be better to wait until a prima facie case is made out?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir. The arrangement made between the foreign Governments was that where these allegations were made the persons would be detained so that if a prima facie case was established they could be handed over. We were gravely handicapped in this case by the length of time which was taken by the foreign Governments in producing the evidence on which they were going finally to ask for the extradition to take place.
    Mr. Piratin: Is the Home Secretary suggesting that the man who has been held in custody in this country for all this time is not Dr. Dering? If that is the case, then, of course, the whole suggestion falls to the ground, but is that the case? Is it not the fact that this man is Dr. Dering; is he not the man who was a surgeon at Oswiecim Camp, and is there not abundant evidence against him in addition to this particular case?
    Mr. Ede: I have no doubt that the man in question was Dr. Dering. There were statements made at second hand that this man had performed these operations. The only case where a man came forward and said, "This is the man and if I am confronted with him I can recognise him" was the case to which I have alluded. In that case, when the man saw a line of men he asserted that Dering was not there, and later when Dering was the only man in the court he asserted that he was not the man who had operated on him.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who saw him in connection with this case were most impressed by the meticulous care and impartiality which he showed?
    Mr. Henry Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who have studied this question realise the difficulty he had, and think that in the care which he has taken he has acted in the very best traditions of his Department? Having said that, may I also ask him whether he is aware that there is widespread agreement with the view expressed in the first supplementary of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)?
    Mr. Ede: These matters give me the greatest concern, and I can assure the House that if there should be another case I shall act with the most scrupulous care and I shall have learned something from this case.

    POLICE COURT, STOCKPORT (PUBLICITY)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. JOHN LEWIS:
    35. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the Chief Constable of Stockport, without
    1074
    permission from the magistrate, has recently refused to permit representatives of the Press and members of the public to enter or leave the Stockport Borough Magistrates Court during the time the Court was in session; on what authority the public and the Press were thus denied a facility which has always been available to them; and if he will give instructions that in future there shall be no violation of established Court practice.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lewis.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is it in the traditions of this House and in accordance with the courtesy between hon. Members for one hon. Member to put down a very detailed Question about another hon. Member's constituency without so informing him?
    Mr. Speaker: Usually inside a party one always does it. It is always desirable to inform the hon. Member concerned that such a Question is going to be put down, but there is nothing definite about it.
    Mr. John Lewis: Might I explain that there were connections between my own constituency and this particular matter, which was drawn to my attention during the Recess and, therefore, there was no opportunity before the Question was put down for me to contact the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport (Wing-Commander Hulbert).
    Mr. Ede: I have made inquiries and am informed that on one occasion, in consequence of complaints made from time to time by individual justices that the noise in this court was making it difficult to hear cases, a police officer was stationed at the door of the court and stopped people going in and out whilst the hearing of a case was actually in progress. I understand that the justices have decided that this arrangement should not be continued.
    Mr. Lewis: Is it not a fact that this police officer was placed at the door of the court on the specific instruction of the Chief Constable who did not consult the magistrates? Is it not further a fact that the magistrates expressed their resentment at this behaviour on the part of the Chief Constable? Will my right hon. Friend undertake that in future he will give instructions that established court practice,

    1075
    whereby members of the Press and of the public are entitled to go in and out of courts of summary jurisdiction and other courts, will not be violated?
    Mr. Ede: I think it is desirable that courts should be conducted in a seemly manner. If people drift in and out of court and about court while cases are in progress, it may make it difficult for the case to be properly conducted. The magistrates had expressed a view with regard to the noise in this court, and the Chief Constable thought he had received a hint as to what should happen. He carried out what he thought were the wishes of the bench, but they subsequently came to the conclusion that it was not necessary for the steps which he had taken to be taken.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that this Chief Constable, who is an able officer, was acting in the best interests of the court and, as he believed, in accordance with the direction of the justices?
    Mr. Ede: I do not think I have anything to add to my last answer.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the constituents of Stockport are quite satisfied with their two Members without the intervention of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis)?

    FIRE PREVENTION AUTHORITIES
    Colonel Wheatleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the fact that county councils and county boroughs are fire authorities, he will consider introducing legislation to make them also fire prevention authorities.
    Mr. Ede: The functions of district councils relating to fire prevention were expressly preserved by the proviso to Section 4 of the Fire Services Act, 1947, and, as at present advised, I do not think that any amendment of that Section is needed.
    Colonel Wheatley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the present arrangement fire officers are experiencing considerable difficulty, particularly in large areas of heathland which occasion a good deal of danger to forestry and to
    1076
    dwelling houses? Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly look into the matter again to see whether under the present arrangement fire officers are enabled to see that these dangerous places are dealt with, quite apart from merely giving advice?
    Mr. Ede: I hope that if there are particular difficulties all the authorities concerned will meet together with the fire authority to discuss the subject.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are large areas of commons and heathland, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, where fires are constantly breaking out and where there is no fire prevention service? From the point of view of saving unnecessary labour in the fire brigades and preserving the beauty of our national assets, could not some fire prevention service be instituted?
    Mr. Ede: The fire service authority, namely, the county council, has its duties; so have the district councils. They should co-operate to ensure that as little damage as possible is done.

    POLICE OFFICERS (TERMS OF SERVICE)
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were recruited between the passing of the Police Act, 1919, and the appointed day in August, 1921; of these, how many are still serving, and how many retired at the end of 25 years' service; what pension did these latter receive; for what term these men were recruited; and under what statutory authority.
    Mr. Ede: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the police officers recruited between 1st July, 1919, and 28th August, 1921. During this period 6,043 police officers joined the Metropolitan police force; of these, 738 are still serving, and 932 retired with a pension of half pay, after completing 25 years' service but before completing 26 years No figures are available for other police forces. The conditions under which the men served were governed by the Police Regulations and the police pensions enactments in force from time to time, and these did not prescribe any definite term of service.
    Sir I. Fraser: Is it not a fact that these particular police officers were recruited under Statutes prior to 1919 because the appointed day had not arrived and might they not, therefore, have thought with justice that they were subject to the older rules which would have given them a three-quarters pension at the end of 25 years' service and not a half pension?
    Mr. Ede: This subject has been brought to my notice by the Police Federation on several occasions since I have been in office. These men were enlisted and it was stated, when they were enlisted, that the final terms had not been arranged. What happened was that while the Police Act of 1921 was going through this House an Amendment was made in it which, in fact, affected these men and which has given them some sense of grievance ever since. I have tried my very utmost to find a way to remedy it, but I have been unable to find one.
    Sir I. Fraser: Were they not, in fact, recruited while the Amendment was going through this House and, therefore, under the previous Statutes?
    Mr. Ede: They were warned in the document under which they were recruited that in this respect their terms had not been settled.

    TAXICAB LICENCES, LONDON
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many metropolitan taxicabs have been licensed for service during the last 12 months; and how many it is expected will be licensed in the ensuing 12 months.
    Mr. Ede: Six thousand two hundred and twenty-four for the year ending 31st August, 1948, and probably not many more in the next 12 months.

    RURAL POLLING DISTRICTS
    Mr. Bossomasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what regulations he is making due to the conditions arising out of the Representation of the People Act, 1948, as to the approximate number of electors to be allocated to each polling district in rural areas.
    Mr. Ede: None, Sir. The rules for dividing a constituency into polling districts are laid down by Section 7 of the Act and I have no power to add to them.
    Mr. Bossom: If an election should be held during very bad weather, with the limitation on cars conveying people to the polls, would the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter to see if it could be made easier for all parties to get their constituents to the poll to vote on that occasion?
    Mr. Ede: Section 7 of the Act has been designed with that object in view.

    DISCHARGED PRISONERS (NOTEBOOKS)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the rule of the Prison Commissioners that prisoners' notebooks other than those issued for educational purposes must not be taken away on discharge will prevent the publication of any book written in gaol; and whether he will modify the rule so as to allow original compositions to be taken away subject to censorship.
    Mr. Ede: The question whether the rule relating to this matter should be amended is at present under consideration.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the Home Secretary aware that if this rule had been enforced in Bunyan's time "Pilgrim's Progress" might never have been published?
    Mr. Ede: There were times in my life when I was attending Sunday school when I would have thought that a very desirable thing.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have only today received a letter from one of his Parkhurst constituents offering no fewer than nine articles for publication? Must I wait for the gentleman's release before taking advantage of this unique opportunity?
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that one of his predecessors informed me in answer to a question I raised about a book I wrote in Wandsworth, that I could not get it out because it would mean I would have been earning money and, therefore, would have had a privilege

    1079
    over all other prisoners? Now that other prisoners are allowed to earn money, is it not possible to waive this rule?
    Mr. Ede: That is one of the considerations I have in mind.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that one of the most notable Welsh poets recently published 100 sonnets written in prison? Were Mr. Nicholas's poems suppressed by the prison governor?

    MAINTENANCE ORDERS (PAYMENT)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the hardship to many women who are separated from their husbands, caused by the non-payment to magistrates' clerks of allowances made by order of the court, if he will consider some alternative method of payment to ensure that women receive their money regularly and are not compelled to appeal for public assistance.
    Mr. Ede: On the information before me, I have no reason to think that any general alteration of the law is called for as regards the enforcement in England and Wales of wife maintenance orders made by courts of summary jurisdiction, which in the last resort have power to commit the husband to prison if satisfied that his failure to pay is due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect.

    FIREARMS (LICENCES)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he has given to chief constables regarding the issue of arms licences to responsible persons residing in isolated localities; and whether chief constables are permitted to exercise their discretion in carrying out such instructions.
    Mr. Ede: The law provides that the question whether a firearm certificate should be issued in a particular case is one for decision by the chief officer of police, subject to appeal to Quarter Sessions, and I have issued no instructions in the matter. I have, however, advised chief officers of police that in my view it should hardly ever be necessary for an
    1080
    individual to possess a firearm for the purpose of defending his person or property and that, in general, firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection in this country.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this instruction or this advice has not prevented a very large number of criminals from being in possession of firearms and using them, but it has prevented a good many law abiding and responsible persons living in isolated localities from having any means of protection?
    Mr. Ede: I am not at all sure that if I advised that the private citizens of this country should arm themselves it would lead to anything other than a considerable increase in the arming of criminals.

    FOREIGN WORKERS (EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister if he will instruct the Ministers of Labour, Agriculture, and Education to provide during the coming winter, in co-operation with the local education authorities, the Workers' Educational Association, and other appropriate bodies, educational facilities for German ex-prisoners and European Volunteer Workers similar to those formerly provided for prisoners of war at Radwinter and Trumpington Camps and the Wilton Park Training Centre.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. German ex-prisoners and European Volunteer Workers transferred from Holding Hostels to employment may take advantage of all educational facilities provided by local education authorities and voluntary organisations in the same way as ordinary British citizens. Special arrangements are made by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and National Service and the Minister of Education for European Volunteer Workers while they are in Holding Hostels, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of Ministry of Education Circular Number 150 on the subject.
    Mr. Symonds: While one sympathises with the object of this Question, is it constitutionally correct to suggest that a Prime Minister should instruct other Ministers on detailed matters of the administration of their Departments?
    Mr. Morrison: I think perhaps the word "instruct" may be a little on the harsh side in this matter, and that it might be questioned from the point of view of the spirit of Cabinet government and Parliamentary democracy.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Polish Mechanics, Angus
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Agricultural Machinery Mobile Repair Unit at Kinnell, Angus, are employing about 15 Polish ex-Servicemen as mechanics; and.what steps were taken to make sure that no British mechanics were available for employment by this Unit.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The number of Polish ex-Service men supplied to this Repair Unit is seven and these were supplied not as mechanics but for unskilled work. Before approving their engagement my local officer satisfied himself that no suitable and willing unemployed British candidates were available for the work.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Can the Minister say whether any arrangement exists in this case for consultation by other Ministers with his Department before help is given—as it was given in this case—to set up an organisation of this kind'? My information is that, in fact, British mechanics are wanting jobs at the present time in this area.
    Mr. Isaacs: The procedure we follow when application is made for the employment of foreign labour is that the books of the employment exchange and the adjoining exchanges are checked for British labour; then British labour, if available, is consulted and if it is unwilling to take the job we fall back on this other labour.

    Public Employees (Classification)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Labour if he will give the approximate number or approximate percentage of civil servants and of local government officers classified on his registers in the categories of productive and non-productive, respectively.
    Mr. Isaacs: No such classification is made in the records of my Department.
    Mr. Bossom: In the circumstances of the great demand for manpower at the present time, does the Minister think it desirable that Departments of the Government should have recruited over 20,000 new officials in the last quarter?
    Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member asked me about a classification between productive and non-productive workers. It is difficult to say what workers are nonproductive; it may be argued, is this House of Commons productive or not?
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to get similar figures for the London Stock Exchange or the Central Office of the Tory Party?

    Hours of Work
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Labour when investigations will be carried out into the effect on productivity and prices of the general shortening of hours of work during the past three years.
    Mr. Isaacs: Productivity and prices and all the factors affecting them are under constant review by the Government. Special investigations covering the period mentioned, during which industry was engaged in the changeover from wartime production, are not contemplated.
    Major Lloyd: Is it not a fact that the demand by the Government for increased production and increased output per man and the constant appeal of the workers and the trade unions for a reduction in prices could both be met to a very large extent by a lengthening of the hours?
    Mr. Isaacs: There are many other factors to be taken into consideration in a matter of this kind. I do not propose to comment further upon that supplementary question because it does not arise out of the original Question, but I may say that the situation is kept under review.

    Mining Industry (Closed Shop)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the result of the National Coal Board's consideration of the question of the institution of the closed shop throughout the mining industry.
    Mr. Isaacs: This is one of the matters which fall to be decided between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that answer that the Government disinterest themselves from a subject of this importance both as a precedent for the future and as affecting the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of men? Have the Government no attitude and no policy on this question?
    Mr. Isaacs: The Government's attitude has been stated from time to time and still remains. The Government leave negotiations as to relationship in industry to the partners in industry.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is to be the position of those men who are directed, induced, or otherwise persuaded to go into the coal industry, because it is largely his responsibility and not that of the Coal Board nor of the National Union of Mineworkers?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is a hypothetical question which, no doubt, we shall answer when it arises.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: It is a question, is it not, which the hon. Gentleman will have to face now and in the future?
    Mr. Isaacs: When it arises I will face it.

    European Volunteer Workers, Cleckheaton
    Mr. Granville Sharpasked the Minister of Labour what action has been taken by his Department to attend to the welfare of the 24 E.V.Ws. now accommodated at The Grove, Rawfolds, Cleckheaton; and, in particular, whether he is satisfied that reasonable rents are being charged, and that the sanitary conditions, including the provision of one combined bathroom and W.C. for both sexes, need not be improved.
    Mr. Isaacs: These workers took this accommodation on their own initiative. It is private accommodation for which I have no responsibility.
    Mr. Sharp: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these European voluntary workers were placed in employment and given accommodation through his Department? Is he further aware that this
    1084
    accommodation is most unsatisfactory? In view of the fact that last year his Parliamentary Secretary informed the House that the authority for dealing with the welfare of European voluntary workers had been concentrated in his Department, what is he going to do about the welfare of these European voluntary workers?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has made an accidental mistake or not. He said these voluntary workers were placed in accommodation by the Ministry of Labour. So they were. But not in this accommodation. They were placed in accommodation; then of their own free will and accord they went to this private accommodation somewhere else. I do not think they are being fairly treated, but as they went themselves of their own desire we have no power to interfere. So far as the sanitation is concerned, it is not as bad as it is stated in the Question. It is bad enough, but not as bad as that. We have made inquiries, and the attention of the local authority has been drawn to it.
    Mr. Henry Usborne: Is it the fact that the Minister has made available to them, if they will take it, alternative accommodation?
    Mr. Isaacs: They had accommodation before from the Ministry, and they themselves, of their own free will, said they wanted to go from the one place and go to the other.
    Mr. Sharp: Can my right hon. Friend say whether such accommodation is found anywhere near their place of employment?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, they were in accommodation provided for them. I am sorry my hon. Friend thinks I am trying to evade the question. I am not. They were in accommodation which was provided for them, and was satisfactory to them until somebody got hold of them and said, "Take accommodation elsewhere."

    NATIONAL SERVICE (RESERVED OCCUPATIONS)
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Minister of Labour how many of those now included in Class Z reserve would be available for immediate recall in the event of an emergency.
    Mr. Isaacs: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on Tuesday, 21st September.
    Mr. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty yesterday, that the number was approximately 2,000,000, was a guess, a leak, or just a brick?
    Mr. Isaacs: A bit of each, perhaps.
    Earl Winterton: Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer in that manner? Cannot he answer a question whether the statement is correct? Surely he can say that he has nothing to say on the subject, or that the statement of the First Lord was correct?
    Mr. Isaacs: I have answered the Question on the Order Paper. I have nothing to add to the statement I made about the numbers in this Question. I am not called upon at this moment to comment upon the statement of anybody else.
    Earl Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept any responsibility for the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty? Do this Government do their business only in Departments?
    Mr. Isaacs: I accept all the responsibility attaching to the duties for which I am responsible.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Blocked Sterling Accounts (Investment)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason blocked sterling accounts may only be invested in British Government's stocks where redemption date is more than 10 years.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): A minimum redemption date 10 years hence is designed to prevent advantage being taken, by purchase of investments maturing in the near future, of the present administrative practice of permitting non-residents to transfer the proceeds of securities which have been repaid in accordance with their terms of issue.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As the British Government's statement meant all
    1086
    these accounts are held blocked on Bank of England account at a per cent., why is it now considered necessary to allow them to earn 3 per cent. by investing them in long-dated securities?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: This has been the practice all through. It is easy to take isolated instances to point to anomalies, but, actually, it works very well, and at the moment we have no intention of changing it.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Willthe right hon. Gentleman say why he allows these accounts to earn 3 per cent? Surely that is not in the national interest?

    Sterling Balances (Releases)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the Paris agreement what is the revised estimate for the current financial year of releases from sterling balances.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): Technical arrangements for the financing of deficits out of existing sterling holdings have not yet been completed. I can, however, say that at any rate the greater part of this financing will be from unrestricted sterling accounts where no question of releases comes in.

    Official Arbitrators (Complaint)
    Mr. Frederic Harrisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to whom is an arbitrator appointed by the Reference Committee in connection with the acquisition of land answerable for his personal conduct towards a witness at an official arbitration, where the arbitrator's conduct gives grounds to the witness for complaint but is not such as to justify an application to the court for a fresh hearing.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: An arbitrator appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and has no responsibility to the Executive Government.
    Mr. Harris: Is the Financial Secretary satisfied that such a person, possibly offensive to official witnesses, should not be responsible to anybody under his direction?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: There is no responsibility in this matter to this House or to the Government. An arbitrator is appointed from a panel by the Reference Committee, and we have to leave it at that.
    Earl Winterton: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying there is no responsibility to this House or to the Government? This man is appointed by the Government, and it is open to the House of Commons to put down a Prayer for his removal, and open to the Government to remove him for misconduct. What does he mean by what he said?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The House does not appoint these arbitrators. They are appointed by the Reference Committee, which is composed of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Institute of Surveyors.
    Earl Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that these men cannot be removed for misconduct through the appropriate channel?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Not, I gather, by the Government. I have gone into this. I take it that if objection is taken the proper authority to whom to refer the matter is the Reference Committee. What the Reference Committee would then do is not for me to say.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: As my noble Friend has pointed out, is it not the case that this House can call for their dismissal by putting down a Prayer?
    Earl Winterton: Yes.

    Italian Government Loans (Repayment)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. KEELING:
    58. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that although the Italian Government agreed many weeks ago to repay forthwith with accrued interest the 7 per cent. credit consortium loan and the Royal Sardinian Railway 3 per cent. bonds, and also to pay arrears of interest under its guarantee of the Austrian guaranteed conversion loan 1934–59, none of these payments has been made; and whether he proposes to take any action to protect British interests.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Keeling.
    Mr. Keeling: In view of the offensive imputation made by the present Chancellor's predecessor, when I raised a similar matter, may I say I have no interest in these loans, except on behalf of my constituents and the public?
    Mr. Jay: Conversations are at present taking place with a special delegate of the Italian Treasury, and it is hoped to make an announcement very shortly
    Mr. Keeling: Is the Economic Secretary aware that the dilatoriness of the Italian Government in the case of the consortium loan and the railway bonds is all the more unfair to holders because, under the agreement, these loans have ceased to carry interest?
    Mr. Jay: We cannot, of course, take responsibility for the Italian Government.

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon what grounds a child's pen and pencil set in a leatherette-type holder is classified as a wallet and subject to purchase tax of 664 per cent. in view of the fact that the Purchase Tax on stationery sundries is at the rate of 33⅓ per cent.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: These leatherette pencil cases rank as wallets and are chargeable with Purchase Tax at 664 per cent.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House by what stretch of the imagination a child's pen and pencil set in a leather type of holder can be classified as a wallet? If he wanted to buy a child's pen and pencil set, would he buy a wallet?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: They come in Group 23 of the Schedule, and they come within the class of articles described as
    ' trunks, bags, wallets and similar receptacles of a kind used for personal or domestic purposes."
    Mr. Nicholson: How can it be claimed that a pen and pencil set is used for personal or domestic purposes, as is a wallet which is used for holding money?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Wallets need not necessarily be used specifically for holding money. I think that if the hon. Gentleman would turn up the definition

    1089
    in the dictionary he would find that the word "wallet" covers a larger variety of things than that.
    Mr. Nicholson: It does not cover pen and pencil holders as wallets.
    Mr. McCorquodale: In view of the extraordinary statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, would he ask his advisers to look at the matter again?

    Royal Commission on the Press
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the total cost of the Royal Commission on the Press to the last convenient date; and if an estimate can be given of its eventual total cost.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave on 21st September to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider discussing with the Lord President of the Council the question of bringing this ridiculous farce to an end and saving public money? If the Minister will not do that, will he at least ensure that the public get some reward for their money by inducing the Minister of Health to give his evidence?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that the answer to me to which the right hon. Gentleman referred my hon. and gallant Friend indicated his own inability to estimate the total amount which will be spent on this purpose?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: On the contrary, I gave the figure of cost up to date, and said that, as it was difficult to determine how long this would last, it was quite impossible to say what the total cost would be. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see that that is the correct answer to give, I feel rather sorry for him.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Does not the Financial Secretary think, whatever the cost, it was worth spending the money to get the elaborate evidence in which Lord Kemsley has convicted himself?
    Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in Order to make a reflection upon a Member of another place? Is it in Order to ask a question
    1090
    about evidence given before a Royal Commission that has not yet reported? I respectfully suggest that this Rule should be put into operation, as this is a most serious Charge against a Member of another place.
    Mr. Speaker: I think we have had this question before. This Member of another place is also the proprietor of a newspaper, and the question was not asked about him as a Member of another place but in his position as the proprietor of a newspaper. In just the same way we may have a question about a Minister who is a Member of another place, the question being asked about him, not as a Member of another place, but in his capacity as a Minister.
    Earl Winterton: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the words used by the hon. Gentleman were, "Had convicted himself"? One can hardly imagine a more serious charge made against a Member of another place than to bring a charge of guilt against him in respect of evidence given before a Royal Commission, before that Commission has reported. I do not want, in any way, to reflect upon your Ruling, and, no doubt, there must be a certain latitude allowed, but, if I may say so, with the greatest respect, if a statement of that kind is allowed to go, there is nothing which one cannot say about Members of another place in their private capacity. One can describe them as liars, scoundrels or anything else. I urge, Mr. Speaker, that the Rule of Order has some meaning.
    Mr. Speaker: I have known many references to noble Lords in another place in their capacity, for instance, as large landowners; not as Members of another place, but in a different capacity. I think that has always been allowed. As to whether it was improper for the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) to say that a noble Lord convicted himself is, I think, purely a matter of opinion.
    Earl Winterton: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the effect of your Ruling is—and it will be very useful for some of us in future who wish to attack Socialist peers—that one may call a peer in another place any name one likes if he is a landowner or anything else, provided one does not reflect upon him in his capacity as a legislator?
    Mr. Speaker: There must be some further qualification than that of a peer. A Socialist peer can certainly be attacked, supposing he is a large landowner.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Apart altogether from the question of the gentleman being a peer, is there not some rule with regard to the protection of witnesses before a Royal Commission?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know what that rule is. There is certainly protection of witnesses. I do not know whether the noble Lord has given evidence or not. I have not followed these proceedings myself, and I am quite ignorant about them.
    Earl Winterton: Further to the point of Order—which seems to create great derision on the other side—may I ask whether the words used by the hon. Member had not reference to evidence given before a Royal Commission, whether given by a peer or not; and is it not a fact that upon the point made by my hon. and learned Friend, the hon. Gentleman in his statement did describe a particular witness as having convicted himself? I suggest that there is a well-established Rule of this House that a witness should be protected by the Rules of this House from being criticised before a Commission has reported.
    Mr. Speaker: I understand that this matter has been published in the Press and, therefore, one is fully entitled to comment and form one's own opinion upon what has been published in the Press.
    Earl Winterton: The word used was "convicted." Is it your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that that is a proper comment for a Member of this House to make about a witness who has given evidence before a Royal Commission, that he has convicted himself?
    Mr. Speaker: It is entirely a matter of opinion for the hon. Member himself. He forms his own judgment from what he has seen in the Press.
    Mr. Nicholson: Would it not be wholly improper, if the witness in question had been a Member of this House, that language like that should be used about him, and is it not the rule of Parliament
    1092
    that protection is extended to another place?
    Mr. Speaker: If the matter is published in the Press, one is fully entitled to criticise it.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Is not this an effort, by points of Order, to confer a privilege on a Member of another place, not acting as a Member of another place but in a totally different capacity? Is not this an effort to protect him against all public criticism?
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Is it not a fact that this witness's evidence has not merely been published in the Press but published verbatim by the Stationery Office, and that a copy of it can be purchased for 9d., and, therefore, it is for anyone to form any opinion he likes about it?
    Mr. Speaker: That is what I was trying to convey somewhat politely.
    Wing-CommanderHulbert: May I ask the Lord President of the Council—as the Financial Secretary seems to have gone— if he will not agree that this whole series of replies on this matter of the Commission shows that the Government have no idea of saving public money?

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION (INFORMATION)
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will consider what action, if any, the Government should take to keep the House informed on the international situation during the period of Recess? We know very well that in the event of any grave development, such as we all hope will not take place, that, as we only adjourn, the House can be summoned; but from what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, and still more from what we read in the papers this morning, it seems likely that some very full statement may be made by the Western Powers, perhaps accompanied by documents; and in view of the present newsprint shortage, cannot the Government consider, if that should happen, making a White Paper available with all the relevant information and documents, so that hon. Members may be able to study them before the House resumes?
Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate from what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday that I am in some difficulty, because it is difficult to prejudge the course of events. Discussions are taking place. One does not know when they will come to a definitive conclusion, but I think that the spirit of the request of the right hon. Gentleman is not unreasonable, and while I cannot give a firm promise, we will certainly take that request into sympathetic consideration.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PLACE OF SITTING
  Message from His Majesty [22nd September] considered.
  Message again read.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr.Herbert Morrison): I beg to move,
  "That on Monday, 25th October, or such other day as may be notified as convenient for closing this Session, this House do meet in St. Stephen's Hall at Twelve o'clock and that no Questions be taken."
  The House will be aware from previous statements which I have made that we expect to adjourn tomorrow until Monday, 25th October. It is expected that on that day Prorogation will take place and that a new Session will be opened by His Majesty on Tuesday, 26th October. Next Session will be opened with some approach to pre-war ceremonial, as has been the case since 1945 except for the present special Session. But it is inconvenient for the opening to take place with ceremony in the small Chamber at present occupied by their Lordships, and accordingly, as on previous occasions, we vacate this Chamber where we now sit and sit in St. Stephen's Hall. As the House will appreciate, a great deal of work is involved in preparing this Chamber for the Lords and in preparing St. Stephen's Hall for our use, but the Ministry of Works are able to carry out their task with what is, I think hon. Members will agree, commendable rapidity.
  When Prorogation and the opening of a new Session take place on consecutive days, in view of the work which has to be done, it is more convenient for us to assemble in St. Stephen's Hall on both days. This is the purpose of His Majesty's Message and the Motion which I shall subsequently move. It will be necessary for the second Motion to be made a Standing Order so that the proposal may have validity next Session. We shall, in fact, be restoring Standing Order 113, which was repealed in the special circumstances between the end of last Session and the opening of this special Session. On Monday, 25th October, we propose to meet in St. Stephen's Hall at 12 noon. This will be a formal sitting, and, according to precedent, no Questions will be taken.

  1095
  On Tuesday, 26th October, His Majesty will open the new Session in this Chamber. Mr. Speaker will take the Chair in St. Stephen's Hall shortly before 11.0 a.m. As is customary after attending His Majesty, Mr. Speaker will not resume the Chair until four o'clock in St. Stephen's Hall to enable this Chamber to be prepared once again for our use. The House will be technically in session in St. Stephen's Hall, the Mace remaining on the Table, and when Mr. Speaker resumes the Chair in St. Stephen's Hall he will forthwith adjourn the House, without putting any Question to this Chamber. We shall, therefore, begin the business of the new Session in this Chamber shortly after four o'clock on Tuesday, 26th October. We shall, of course, occupy St. Stephen's Hall for only a short time on both days, namely on Monday, 25th October, and Tuesday, 26th October. I hope the arrangements will commend themselves generally to the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That on Monday, 25th October, or such other day as may be notified as convenient for closing this Session, this House do meet in St Stephen's Hall at Twelve o'clock and that no Questions be taken."
  Ordered,
  "That on any day to which Parliament stands prorogued this House shall meet at eleven of the clock in St. Stephen's Hall; and after the House has returned from attending His Majesty or His Majesty's Commissioners in the House of Peers, Mr. Speaker shall resume the chair at four of 'the clock and forthwith adjourn the House, without putting any question, to the chamber at present appointed for the use of this House.
  "That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

DEFENCE
3.44 p.m.
The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I beg to move,
"That this House takes note of the statement made by the Lord President of the Council on 14th September relating to Defence."
The statement made by the Lord President on 14th September was made necessary by circumstances which the House well knows, and on which I need not dwell at length. It is the fact—the sad fact which we cannot, even if we would. deny—that our hopes for the early return of peace and orderly conduct in the world have not been realised. Our goal has been and is now peace with justice and freedom. His Majesty's Government have devoted and will continue to devote, their best efforts in the support of the United Nations and the work of the Security Council. It has always been our policy that our defence must be based on the principle of collective security, and we had always hoped to be able to build such collective security through the United Nations' Organisation.
However, without going into details of the operations of the Security Council, the plain fact is that collective security has not been achieved. There has been no agreement in the Military Staff Committee on principles which must be adopted before collective forces can be established to support the decisions of the United Nations' organisation. Inability to reach agreement in the Atomic Energy Commission and in the Commission for Conventional Armaments has also contributed to the lowering of international confidence. The hopes that we built on the United Nations will evidently not see an early fulfilment.
We observe in many quarters of the globe conditions of unrest, riot and strife. I do not propose to weary the House with any long recital of these numerous trouble spots. Let me say only that in many of them, vital interests of this country are concerned, and that from none of them can we or other nations, for whom the four freedoms represent a practical object of statesmanship and policy, disclaim interest and a measure of responsibility such as falls on any country sincerely devoted to the cause of peace.
In the situation I have described—and I say this with particular reference to the

1097
speech last night of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler)—the attainment of our purpose may have to be sought by other, and perhaps less ambitious, means, by attempting to build collective security through regional security, which is expressly contemplated under the Charter of the United Nations. Therefore, the House, in looking at our defences, should do so from the point of view that our defence is bound up with others in the security circle. We have to consider the contribution which, in the light of our economic position, we can make to collective security. The House may rest assured that we shall at all times make the greatest contribution to collective security that we can possibly afford.
The Western Union Five-Power Military Committee set up under the Brussels Treaty, which was concluded within the conditions of Article 51 of the United Nations' Charter, is from this point of view a development of first importance. The Committee, consisting of representatives of the Chiefs of Staff of each country, have met regularly in London since 5th May, and a great deal of work has been done in organising the military resources of the Five Powers for our common defence. The American and the Canadian Chiefs of Staff have appointed representatives to participate in its work as non-members; these representatives attend all meetings of the Military Committee, and in many cases of its subcommittees.
The Chiefs of Staffs of the Five Powers met in London on 25th August to review the work of the Military Committee, and their joint recommendations now await consideration by the five Ministers of Defence. As has already been announced to the House, we shall meet for this purpose in Paris on Monday next, 27th September. His Majesty's Government are supporting the work of this Military Committee to the fullest extent possible, and we hope that it will contribute powerfully to building up throughout the Western European countries that confidence and faith in themselves which is so essential for both the total economic recovery of these countries and organising to met any dangers which may threaten us.
While putting our whole strength behind the development of Western Union,
1098
however, we do not forget that Great Britain has a great part to play as the heart and centre of the British Commonwealth, and we must continue to strengthen and improve the effective machinery by which common ideals are translated into common policy. The whole question of the defence of the Commonwealth will be further explored at the forthcoming meeting of Common wealth Prime Ministers.
This is the broad background against which His Majesty's Government have, in the present situation, to take decisions on our domestic defence policy. Inevitably that policy is related to—indeed forms part of—the wider policy of our hopes and aspirations in a troubled world. Our obligations to our friends and our responsibilities to ourselves have to be matched with our capacity— reduced as it must be after the sacrifices of a bitter struggle—to meet them.
In 1945, we decided upon a planned and orderly run-down of our Armed Forces. We hoped, and at the time it did not seem an unreasonable hope, that by the end of 1948 many of the problems which arose out of the war would have been resolved. We expected that peace treaties would have been signed, and we looked for a world in which conditions were at least becoming stable. It was the view of all, irrespective of party, that a primary objective, if this country was to play its proper part in world affairs, was a strong national economy, and we directed every effort to this end.
Our plan, therefore, was to have defence forces which would be sufficient to meet our anticipated commitments and at the same time would be so organised as to be capable, in due course, of rapid expansion should the need arise. This was the conception which underlay the promise that men called up for service before 1st January, 1947, would be out of the Forces by 31st December, 1948, that those called up between 1st January, 1947, and 31st December, 1948, would be released by 31st December, 1949; this was the basis on which we sought the approval of the House to the provision by which men called up from 1st January, 1949, under the National Service Act passed in 1947, would serve for 12 months with the Colours and then undertake part-time training during the subsequent six years.

1099
Nevertheless, even in May, 1946, the White Paper on Call-Up to the Forces made it clear that unforeseen developments might lead to a revision of the estimates on which the release programmes were based. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in December, 1947, also made it clear that unforeseen developments might lead to a revision of the announcement he then made as regards the release of men called up in 1947 and 1948.
We have, of course, commitments which we must fulfil. We have the obligation to maintain our Armed Forces in a condition in which should a major emergency arise they can be expanded in order to make a full contribution to collective security. We have, however, at all times to weigh very carefully the proportion of our resources which can be devoted to the Defence Services without endangering the economic stability of the country by which alone they can be sustained. I would urge all those who are taking part in the Debate to be realists and to recognise that an over-extension of our defences might destroy our economy while inadequate defences might jeopardise the safety of that economy. This is no easy problem to solve.
The military problem really divides itself into two parts: the steps necessary to meet the immediate situation, and those which may be necessary on a longer-term view. Let me deal with the former first. The difficulties have been stressed in previous White Papers of the present transitional period in which, while we have to plan for future organisation of the Forces, we have at the same time to maintain forces to meet minimum obligations. However good the planning may be, the assumptions on which the plans are made may be falsified by events. There has, therefore, to be a constant review. The suspension of demobilisation, which was reported to the House on 14th September, is an example of what has to be done owing to the trend of events. Our commitments, as the Foreign Secretary has explained in many speeches, have unfortunately not been reduced as we had hoped would be the case had it been possible to settle the good number of outstanding questions.
1100
The particular danger was that for a period there would be a lack of balance owing to the operations of the release programme including experienced N.C.O.'s and men. We therefore came to the conclusion that in present circumstances the only immediate solution lay in a deferment of the release programme. We considered whether this deferment should be general or selective. As hon. Members are aware, men have for some time been retained individually on account of military necessities, and this scheme has worked reasonably well on the scale on which it was operated.
There have been, however, from time to time some criticisms of the fact that the release programmes of the three Services were not entirely in step, and that within a particular Service some groups or categories were retained longer than others. Any extension of the selective system of retention would have been very difficult to administer and would, we are satisfied, have given rise to grave discontent. It would, I suggest, have been a most unfair arrangement if we had adopted on a large scale a policy of keeping only the more valuable men or the men who had shown themselves the best sailors, soldiers or airmen, and at the same time of releasing those of lesser skill or ability.
Accordingly, we decided that the right course would be for the deferment to be general, and that men already deferred should not be held to serve longer than three months from the date on which they were originally due for release. As hon. Members are aware, releases in Class B and on compassionate grounds will not be affected. The Government deeply regret the inconvenience, even hardship, to which this decision may give rise in individual cases, but the circumstances admitted of no other solution of the immediate problem.
As a result of the steps we have taken, the total strength of United Kingdom personnel in the Armed Forces on 1st January, 1949, will be about 825,000 and the corresponding figure for 1st April, 1949, will, on the basis of present plans, be nearly 790,000, as against the 716,000 on which the plans presented in the White Paper on Defence, 1948, were based. The cost of deferring releases for a period of three months will be about £8 million in the present financial year.

1101
The longer-term problem raises great difficulties. We must endeavour to find the right balance. It is, I hope, unnecessary for me to stress that a sound national economy is the essential basis of our defence. There is a tendency for some people who have influence, but ire happily not burdened with responsibility, to talk glibly about increasing the manpower of the Forces and turning over large sections of industry to the manufacture of warlike equipment irrespective of the consequences. No less dangerous are those who, in a world where the sanctity of treaties and the rule of international law are often mocked, would have us divest ourselves of the means by which we can make our influence felt and respected. If we are to continue to play our right part in world affairs, our Armed Forces must be strong. We must give them the best equipment we can. But at the same time we must ensure that they are backed by a national economy capable of supporting them. We must determine the kind of Forces we shall have, and the size of the Forces which our economic resources can sustain. We are reviewing the whole of these problems of manpower and equipment of the Services in the light of the changing circumstances, and we shall report further to the House as soon as possible.
The National Service Act was designed to build up a large reserve of trained men who would stand ready to take their part in our defence in an emergency without requiring lengthy training, since, under modern conditions, we can no longer count on the breathing space we had in 1939. But the plan depended upon an adequate Regular recruitment which, unfortunately, has not been up to needs. It was always realised that trained National Service men would to some extent be needed during their period of full-time service to make a contribution to the fulfilment of our current defence commitments. But they can never be a substitution for the Regular personnel, on whom must fall the main burden of providing both the immediate operation forces and the necessary training organisation for National Service men. It is on technical skill and experience that the efficiency and, indeed, the very existence of the technical branches of the Armed Forces
1102
depend. This skill and experience can best be provided by the voluntarily enlisted man who, in his Regular service, requires the experience which is needed to handle and maintain the complex equipment essential for modern defence.
I think the following recruiting figures for other ranks will be of interest to Members of the House. During the period from 1st April, 1946, to the end of June, 1948, the average quarterly intake of recruits for Regular engagements, including those under the bounty scheme, was 22,600.
Mr. Eden: For the Army?
Mr. Alexander: Taking the three Services together. This compares very favourably with the average for the years immediately following the war of 1914–18, which was 15,800 in 1920 and 13,800 in 1921. The intake which I have quoted for 1946–48 in a time of comparatively full employment is, I think, a tribute to the soundness of heart of our people. It might be questioned, therefore, why I lay such a stress on the need for Regular recruits.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is that figure now rising or falling?
Mr. Alexander: I shall be dealing with it. The fact is, of course, that the complete cessation of Regular recruiting to the Army and the Royal Air Force for a period of more than six years entailed such a reduction of Regulars as to leave a very large gap. Moreover, about 29 per cent. of the recruitment since 1946 has been for short-term bounty reengagements for periods of three, four and five years service.
This means that unless a substantial number of these men re-engage we should begin to face a new decline in Regular strengths in one or two years' time. The position in the Royal Air Force may be particularly serious since already their rate of recruitment has declined in the last few months much more sharply, for some reason or other, than those of the Army or Navy. Taking all these facts together it is vital that there should be a stepping up of our recruitment for the Regular Forces, especially during the next 12 months.
Colonel Dower: What is the strength, or is it inadvisable to give that now?
Mr. Alexander: I do not think that I ought, at this stage, to give what is the particular target of each Service in present world circumstances.
I would stress again that this recruitment is especially required for the technical branches of the Services. With the complications of modern equipment, whether it be on ship, in plane or on land, more and more technical personnel are needed. When they are trained, these Regular skilled men are called upon to exercise the full knowledge of their trades, and they need have no fear in these days that they will find themselves at a disadvantage when they return to civil life.
Just before the Recess we had a Debate on the pay of the Armed Forces, in which the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and others took part, during which the current pay scales were criticised as being inadequate to attract recruits and even, in some cases, as giving rise to hardship. In reply, I tried to give the House an indication of some of the reasons why, in my view, hasty decisions in this field were to be deprecated. I pointed out that the new pay code, published in 1945, was generally well received at the time, and that we had hoped it would provide a long-term settlement. I mentioned the need to consider pay increases in relation to total expenditure on defence, which cannot be unlimited, and in the light of competing needs such as the equipment.
I spoke of the general economic situation and the White Paper on Personal Incomes, Costs and Prices. I also drew attention to the very real advantages of Service life—paid leave, pensions, opportunities for promotion, and so on. I did, however, promise to review the whole matter with my colleagues in the light of the Debate and to consider the case sympathetically. This I have been doing, and I can promise an announcement of what we may find it possible to do as soon as this necessarily complex subject has been properly and fully examined.
Pay is not, however, the only factor which influences recruiting; there are other considerations. Some of them—for
1104
example, war weariness—must operate in present circumstances to the disadvantage of the Services, and nothing we can do or say will overcome handicaps of this kind. We are necessarily limited, too, in present economic conditions, in the provision of married quarters, and in improvements to barrack and other accommodation and amenities generally. We are, however, pressing on with all these matters, and I can assure hon. Members that the Services will get a fair share of the present housing developments of the country. The House no doubt saw the statement in another place yesterday by the First Lord that a good deal of progress has been made in married quarters in the current financial year.
Among the other possible handicaps to an improvement in recruiting is uncertainty about resettlement in civil life after discharge. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has been considering this problem with the Service Ministers, and the House will be glad to know that plans have been made which should go far, certainly further than at any time in the past, to alleviate this problem. For example, a comprehensive scheme for providing openings for ex-Regulars is being worked out with industry, with the support of the Minister of Labour's National Joint Advisory Council. In the Government service a proportion of vacancies for the clerical and executive classes will, in future, be reserved for competition among ex-Regulars, and in the entrance examination for the administrative class, also, ex-Service men will have an age allowance equivalent to their period of service with the Forces.
The trade unions have already agreed that men trained in a wide range of Service trades should be recognised as qualified for membership as skilled men, and discussions are going on with a view to recognising the status of other Service tradesmen. Special training for civil employment both within industry and in establishments set up by the Ministry of Labour will be available. There will also be schemes of training to assist selected candidates who wish to enter business or a profession. These comprehensive arrangements will, I believe, greatly enhance the attractiveness of the Services to the right type of Regular recruit that we need at the present time.

1105
From the point of view of our general preparedness, the building up of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces is one of the most necessary and urgent measures that we are undertaking. An intensive recruiting campaign for the Territorial Army and for the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces of the Navy and the Royal Air Force is about to commence. The Territorial Army is not only required as a Reserve for the Army in an emergency—to man the Anti-Aircraft defences, to help in Civil Defence and to provide a field Force ready and equipped for service—but also to be ready to receive and train the National Service reservists who will be finishing their full-time service from 1950 onwards. If this training organisation is to be ready in time, it must be recruited, so that it can itself be fully trained and organised in the near future. It is, therefore, vital over the next few months, that the strength of the Territorial Army should be increased by not less than 100,000 men and women. I am most grateful to the tens of thousands who have come forward and are in the Territorial Army and other Services already, and I hope very much that those Services will continue to expand. I am encouraged to hope for success by the spirit I already see abroad.
I had the great good fortune of being invited to go to the Tattoo of the Liverpool Territorial Association last Saturday. What struck me was the enormous interest by the ordinary population. It was the fourth performance of the Tattoo in the course of three days, and I am told that between 60,000 and 70,000 attended there. The Territorials whom I saw demonstrating were indeed to be congratulated. Whether they were manning and handling tanks or bridging equipment or partaking in the demonstration of the parachute corps their performance constituted a very great tribute not only to the men themselves but to those engaged in instructing them. Certainly that Service should be an attraction to any lively spirited young man to join the Territorial Army. I hope many will follow their example.
The Royal Auxilliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve between them want 60,000 additional volunteers. They are required to man air defence units, which form part of the early warning system, to build
1106
up the Auxiliary Flying Squadrons which now form part of the Royal Air Force Front Line, for the Auxiliary Squadrons of the Royal Air Force Regiment, and, in the case of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve to form a general reserve of qualified men to serve in the Royal Air Force in emergency. In addition, recruits are needed for the Royal Observer Corps, a vital component of the air-raid warning system and one for which scientific developments do not offer a substitute. The Royal Observer Corps showed its metal and demonstrated its indispensability in the recent exercise "Dagger" Its ranks must be augmented. The Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve, which provides a general trained reserve for the Navy, also requiries more men and is seeking to increase its strength to 7,500 ratings in the next six months, mostly from those who have already served.
I appeal to all young men who are able to do so, and women too if they are eligible, to join one of the Reserve or Auxiliary Forces. I ask employers to give their employees all possible facilities. I ask hon. Members to use their very great influence in the constituencies to back this campaign. The requirements are large; they are imposed by the obvious necessities of the present situation and to these necessities, I am confident the country will respond.
During these immediate post-war years and before our plans for building up substantial trained Reserves have matured, we have at hand, should any extreme emergency be forced upon us, the trained and battle-proved men, and women too, who carried us to victory in 1945. These represent our present real Reserve since, as the House is aware, they are still liable to recall in the event of an emergency. Plans to this end have been prepared. As a matter of common prudence, the mobilisation machinery has been overhauled and I have no doubt that if, unhappily, such machinery had to be used, it would be found to work satisfactorily. Many of these men and women are, however, prevented by circumstances from coming forward to volunteer for the Auxiliary Forces because they cannot undertake to perform Reserve training and it is our duty to ensure that effective use can be made of such persons if we should be obliged to do so.

1107
It will be appreciated that any general recall of Reservists must inevitably take time to put into operation. The sorting out of Class "Z" Reservists and allotting them to units could not be done overnight. The Armed Forces, however, would require immediately on or even before an outbreak of hostilities, the services of a considerable number of men and women, with special qualifications or previous experience. Schemes have therefore been worked out by the Service Departments to meet this need. The Army would have to bring up to strength in an emergency the Territorial Army units of Anti-Aircraft Command, and it is essential that they should he able to do this without any delay. They have accordingly prepared a registered Reservist scheme which, confined as it will be in the case of the Army for example to men and women with previous experience of anti-aircraft work, is expected to give them the reserve of manpower that they want.
Though the requirements of the Navy and Air Force will differ somewhat from those of the Army, they, too, will need men and women with previous Service experience immediately available on an emergency. Details of these various registration schemes in the three Services will be announced by my Service colleagues. The essential object of all will be to secure the registration of those who would be willing, and by reason of the work which they are now doing would be available, to come forward in advance of any more general recall if that should be necessary.
The Government attach the very greatest importance to the success of these schemes and I trust that hon. Members will do all that they can to help. I must, at the same time, emphasise that these schemes in no way diminish the need for the maximum voluntary recruitment to the Auxiliary Forces. They will, however, serve to supplement such voluntary recruitment and will provide a most valuable augmentation of our Reserve strength.
I come now to the important subject of Civil Defence. It has already been accepted that, to the extent that any military offensive operations will permit, the Army will provide, as a reserve to the Civil Defence Services, mobile columns
1108
drawn from field formations stationed in the country. In the performance of this role, as with any other military role, no distinction will be made between the employment of Regular or Territorial personnel. In war there will be one national Army. Officers and men of the Army are therefore now being trained in Civil Defence duties except fire fighting.
Exercises have been, and are being, carried out at Army training schools and colleges, to arrive at the best means of constituting and employing such military mobile columns. In these exercises officers from the Civil Defence Department of the Home Office have cooperated. Such exercises will lead up to the Civil Defence exercise already arranged by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff for high ranking Army officers next year. The problems of Civil Defence do not, however, differ in principle from the problems of the Fighting Services and they are being tackled in the same spirit and with the same regard for maintaining a balance between conflicting considerations. The Home Secretary and I are working in close association, and are proceeding in accordance with a common policy.
Like the Fighting Services, Civil Defence would, in the first instance, rely largely on the help of the thousands of men and women whose experience of blitz conditions would still be of very great value. We should also draw on the experience which local authorities had during the recent war. It is recognised on both sides that in any new conflict they will again have to discharge responsibilities in civil defence and the Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff is engaged in consultation with their representatives in working out the organisation which will enable appropriate preparatory measures to be taken. I would say that legislation for this purpose is in an advanced stage of preparation. In the meantime the Home Office is overhauling its arrangements for the training of instructors, revising the Civil Defence training manuals and taking other necessary administrative measures.
I should like to say a word on the use which is being made both by the Army and by the R.A.F. of their National Service recruits. This is a very big subject and I cannot enter into detail, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary

1109
of State for War in replying to the Debate tonight will, if necessary, give some indication of investigations which have been carried out in the Army.
I need only say here that we recognise the importance, both in the interests of the Services themselves and in the interests of the men concerned, of making the fullest possible use of their time and abilities to ensure that they get the maximum of training to fit them for service, of making them feel during their service that they are performing not only a useful but an essential and constructive task of attracting as many of them as possible to enlist for Regular Service and, for the rest, of sending them out not only as trained but as keen and enthusiastic Reservists. It is of course a difficult problem. Some of the tasks to be performed are, of necessity, rather monotonous and routine. Nevertheless we are profiting in this matter both by experience and by research.
Manpower is, however, only one aspect of our current problem. It is no use building up the manpower of the Forces if we neglect their equipment. We have not, so far, had to undertake large scale production of existing types of equipment since the war, because of the large stocks which were left over at the end of hostilities. Following our policy of building up a strong national economy behind the Armed Forces, we have been using these stocks to meet the current needs of the Forces, concentrating our resources on the development and small scale production of new types of armaments intended for the gradual re-equipment of the post-war Forces.
We have given research and development a first priority and we shall continue to do so. We must look ahead, and we shall not allow our present problems to deflect us from the vital task of ensuring that, in the many new fields, we shall be abreast with, if not ahead of, development elsewhere. Much of our stocks remaining at the end of the last war have been dispersed, some to other nations, some to industry and some to the relief of the home market. They are gradually running out. This course was right during the continued progressive reduction in the size of the Forces, but we are now faced with a new situation. What we have is becom-
1110
ing depleted and our stocks are not properly balanced.
The measures we have now taken provide partly for the increased production of certain equipment of the latest types, and partly for the reconditioning of such existing war-time equipment as is still suitable for use under modern conditions. For example, in the case of aircraft, we are stepping up the production of the latest types of jet intercepter fighters to nearly double the former planned rate. At the same time, we are accelerating the inspection and reconditioning of war-time types of other aircraft at present in store. It is hoped to achieve the extra production of new aircraft in the existing factories by overtime and additional shifts.
Other steps which are being taken to improve the air defences include the increased production of new technical equipment and apparatus, and the overhaul of the stocks of war-time apparatus which will still be required for use with the later types of aircraft and equipment.
As regards vehicles, the rate of production of new armoured fighting vehicles is being increased, while the repair of loadcarrying and other vehicles—of which large stocks are held—is being accelerated. The planned rate of production of small arms ammunition is being doubled, and the production of anti-aircraft ammunition of certain types greatly accelerated. The Navy programme for re-fitting ships in reserve is being speeded up, partly in the Royal dockyards and partly by contract.
All three Services are taking steps to improve the position in regard to essential spare parts. The clothing and general stores position in each of the three Services, which is directly affected by the increased numbers in the Forces, has been reviewed, and deficiencies are being corrected by increased production. Finally, we have reviewed the instructions about disposal of surplus stores and are retaining stores likely to be of value in the light of present requirements.
The measures which I have described will, inevitably, involve some diversion of labour and materials from other work, but we have at all times had fully in mind the importance of maintaining and developing to the greatest extent possible our economic recovery. We hope to secure what is needed without serious

1111
interference with civilian production and. in particular, without affecting the export drive. In many cases, the repair and overhaul of war-time equipments will be undertaken by the Services themselves, with the assistance of additional civilian employees.
Hon. Members will, I expect, wish to know the cost of the steps we have taken. This is a difficult question to answer, and it is really too early to make reliable estimates or to translate into terms of money what we shall actually succeed in doing in the next few months. We shall, however, in due course present such Supplementary Estimates as may be necessary to cover the additional expenditure which we are incurring under all heads.
In the Defence Debate of March last it will be recalled that the Prime Minister, as a result of representations from certain sections of the House, undertook to consider whether it would be possible to give to the House rather greater information about our defence arrangements than is at present made public, especially as regards the number of divisions in the Army and the number of squadrons in the Royal Air Force; he indicated that we would review the whole policy on the disclosure of information about the Forces.
I appreciate the very natural interest of hon. Members in all parts of the House in the question. From my own personal experience for a pretty long time now as a Parliamentarian, I can say most emphatically that my own desire, as well as the desire of the Government, would be to satisfy the interests of hon. Members, to the fullest extent compatible with national security. We have been studying this matter carefully. As soon as possible a statement will be made, but I am bound to say that the trend of recent events has not been such as to encourage us to make public more information to any very great extent than we have hitherto been able to do.
Let me emphasise, in conclusion, that the measures we are taking to meet the immediate situation and any that may result from our current review of defence policy are, and will be, undertaken in no sense of panic. Our first aim is, as I said at the beginning, to secure peace—peace with justice and freedom, but if this is not to be obtained on a basis of
1112
collective security, then we must seek the best security we can find in regional arrangements, and for that purpose we must take the most effective steps we can within our resources. This country will take now, as she has done before, whatever steps are needful to give a good account of herself in maintaining our security and our way of life.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Eden: I have listened, as we all did, with close attention to the right hon. Gentleman's account. I must confess that it was sometimes rather difficult to follow. He went with very great rapidity through that typescript. I must also add that, so far as I was able to judge, except in one or two particulars to which I shall refer, there was very little in what he had to tell us either of new information or of a kind which could reassure us as to the state of our national defences at this time
Towards the conclusion of his speech the right hon. Gentleman made some references to secrecy and to the difficulty of disclosing figures and he said that he thought he might later on tell us a little more. Nought plus nought is still nought, and so far, we have been told absolutely nothing at all. I think that I understand as well as the Minister of Defence can understand, the difficulties of disclosing information, but I must point out to him that we seem to be carrying this matter of secrecy far beyond, as I believe, any necessary bounds. At any rate, we are behaving in an entirely different way from the United States of America, and I presume there must be some consultation between the Staffs on this matter.
I hold here in my hands the Finletter Report to the President of the United States dated 30th December last year, in which the present Air Force of the United States was stated to consist of 337,000 uniformed men, with a total of 10,800 aircraft in active status, which included 580 heavy bombers and 2,300 fighters. It gives the figures which are backing up those forces, the number of men employed and how many it hopes to add to that during the year.
We have nothing remotely resembling that information. I hope the Government will give further examination to this problem. I feel that if the United States

1113
of America can tell us this—I dare say that it may be considered by the Government to be too much—there must be some degree of relationship between that and the total lack of information we have today. I do not know whether the Government realise how completely ill-informed we are, not through any demerits of our own but simply because we have not been told. We were very glad to hear the fighter squadrons flying overhead the other day. But for the exigencies of this Session, forced on us by the Lord President, we might have gone out to have a look at them ourselves. At least we should have seen that there were some fighter squadrons—that would be a comforting sight—but that is the sum total of the information which most of us possess about the Royal Air Force.
I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about pay and conditions of service. I want to say a word or two about that in a minute. I also welcome what he had to say about the new scheme for calling up the Reserves. As far as it goes it seems good, but of course it has limitations, very evident limitations. First of all, as I understand it, these men are not to undergo any kind of refresher course before they are called up. That really means that when they are called up they will not be immediately ready for service, certainly not as regards anti-aircraft, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, with the continually changing technical information which becomes available. Therefore, unless the right hon. Gentleman has got these men classified and the units arranged to which they are to go, I foresee a very considerable amount of confusion when this call-up takes place.
I should like to know whether we are to understand from what he said that the Z Reservists are now in their categories; for instance, that the vast numbers of them who are in reserved occupations and could not be called up are known and that the rest are listed and available so that they can fulfil those tasks to which they are now allotted. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to reassure us about that. If he cannot, I am bound to say that this Reserve scheme looks much better on paper than I fear it will prove to be in practice.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the international situation. It is true that
1114
this Debate is in considerable measure the continuation of the Debate we had yesterday. Whatever our reflections about yesterday's Debate and the Foreign Secretary's very grave statement, I am afraid it emerges all too clearly that the international situation continues to deteriorate, and it is against that background that we have to set these proposals. I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it requires a nice judgment to decide what is to be allotted to defence and what is to be allotted to maintain the economic life of the nation. The criticisms which I shall have to offer in a moment or two are not so much directed to the amount of manpower made available, but in many cases to the use that is made of the manpower available.
I confess that, like the right hon. Gentleman, I had hopes in the closing years of the war that these immediate post-war years would be a period of reasonably assured peace, a period when the war-scarred nations—and Soviet Russia ranks in that category—would seek to work together to restore their own and also their collective prosperities. I thought that there would be difficulties and I thought there would even be sharp disagreements at times, but I did not anticipate that our relations would have deteriorated so far and so fast. That is a melancholy fact, but it is one of which we have to take account.
I should have thought that there was another matter about which we were agreed, and that is that in existing world conditions, in the stress and strain in which we live, it is no advantage to the world that the British Commonwealth and Empire should be thought to be weak in its defences. As I said the other day, I am convinced that we can make our most constructive contribution to peace today in close collaboration with the other nations of the British Commonwealth and Empire and with Western Europe together. The third group of Powers, as I should like to call them in that sense, must make its weight felt. Today authority is too much exclusively in the hands of two great Powers. If the House agrees with that, I would like to examine these defence proposals in that context. I must say that I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say very much more about what is being done by the Five Powers in their meetings and with their General Staffs.

1115
I am convinced that this House ought not, even on account of the very gloomy statement which the Foreign Secretary gave us yesterday, to despair of reaching an understanding at a later date between West and East, but of this I am convinced, that if we are to place our relations with the East on an enduring and satisfactory footing that can only be if we are in a position to negotiate from strength, and we can only do that if our defence plans are not merely our island defence plans but the Empire defence plans and the plans of Western Europe also.
Mr. A. V. Alexander: I appreciate the point put by the right hon. Gentleman that he would have liked even more about what has happened so far, in the preparation of the plan, but I am sure that he appreciates that owing to the changes that took place one after another in Paris, the Conference of Defence Ministers, which would have been meeting in August to consider the recommendations of the Chiefs of Staffs, had to be delayed until next Monday. putting us back about a month.
Mr. Eden: All right. I will come to one or two questions about which I should like some information. For example, what is going on about equipment? Is it not true that in their army, the French have more formations by far than we have but are very short of equipment? Is there a plan for enabling the French to have that equipment from our wartime reserves or whatever it may be so that their army can be equipped, or what is happening to that wartime equipment? There are no secrets in that, surely. It would be good to know what kind of a plan, if any, exists and whether the result of that plan is to raise the existing forces to their maximum strength. I would only say that the more close one can make that integration, and the more completely one can raise that level. the better will it be for peace. However, I shall have something more to say about the Five Powers in a moment.
I must also tell the right hon. Gentleman that for quite a while past a number of us on this side of the House have felt a growing concern about our Defence position. We have asked for information from time to time but we have had very little. Our anxiety, I must also tell him.
1116
would be a good deal less if the proposals of the Government had at any time since the surrender of the right hon. Gentleman in April last year, been based on anything which could be judged to be a definite plan. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is an understatement to say that his sharp about-turn in April of last year has shaken our confidence in him and in any proposals which he may bring forward.
The right hon. Gentleman remembers what happened. He remembers the emphasis with which he and his colleagues told us that the period of 18 months had been fixed after the most careful examination, discussion with responsible authorities, and the best military advice. And he remembers that 48 hours afterwards he came and told us that the period was to be reduced to 12 months. Now, quite apart from the merits or demerits of that change, there is nobody, I suppose, in this House who would pretend that it could have been based on any clear or comprehensive plan.
Now what happens? Eighteen months later the Government come out with a further declaration, a further decision. This time they are going to keep the existing men in the Services an extra three months, however long they may have served already. Whatever the Government or the House may think of that, it is clearly only a stop-gap proposal because the Government have not really the slightest idea of what to do in the present position. So I say there is an increasing conviction, on these Benches at any rate, that the whole question of the organisation of manpower for our Services, and the question of the best use to which it can be put, is becoming increasingly confused, and that at a time when the international situation becomes more serious every month.
I must deal in passing with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford, to which the Foreign Secretary referred in the last Foreign Affairs Debate. I have spoken about this to the Foreign Secretary, who is in Paris, and he knows I am making this reference to him. The Foreign Secretary said:
"… who was more insistent for rapid demobilisation and for the destruction of the Army at the end of the war than the right

1117
hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th September, 1948; Vol. 456, c. 93.]
The Foreign Secretary would not accept the statement I made then, that what my right hon. Friend had suggested was a more rapid demobilisation to figures considerably above those to which we have now fallen. I have since looked up the figures and I find that I was right. I ought to give those figures which my right hon. Friend used—the only figures, as far as I know, which he has ever used in this connection. They were 150,000 for the Navy, very much what the figure is now; 400,000 for the Air Force, a great deal more than the figure is now; a million for the Army, more than twice what the figure is now. The total was 1,550,000. I do not know how anybody could describe a figure such as a million for the Army as involving the destruction of the Army. I thought it was only fair that I should bring those figures before the House.
Mr. Wyatt: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not his right hon. Friend and his party still stand by that estimate?
Mr. Eden: The point my right hon. Friend was making, as I tried to explain to the Foreign Secretary and as I thought I had explained now, was that he pressed for the more rapid demobilisation to certain specific figures. Those are the figures. It was the question of the rate to certain figures—
Mrs. Leah Manning: At that time.
Mr. Eden: At that time, exactly, and my right hon. Friend also entered a precise caveat on the international situation, as anybody would, of course, who had had his experience on these matters.
Now may I come to what concerns me most, which is the question of recruiting for the Regular Forces, to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly referred in his speech. As he said, the Royal Navy position is much the best—it generally is. The right hon. Gentleman, having been at the Admiralty, and I, having been at the War Office, know that to be true. However, those figures are still, I think, a little below the figure of 145,000 given in the White Paper. We were glad to hear of the progress made with the
1118
rebuilding of the Fleet in accordance with the programme which accompanied the Naval Estimates but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the demobilisation—immobilisation is perhaps the right word—of the Home Fleet during the last 12 months has entailed a loss of sea training for officers and men. Therefore it is welcome news that the Home Fleet is once more in being, and that there will be an increase in the amount of time spent at sea in the months to come, so that the training lost last year can be made good. We have also heard with satisfaction of the refitting of the ships for the Reserve Fleet.
However, we would like to be told something more about the reserves of manpower for the Royal Navy. We have heard about the new class of Naval Reserve but that, as I say, seems merely to be making use of the Class Z register. What about the Royal Naval Reserve, composed of officers and men serving in the Merchant Service? That has not yet been reconstituted, as far as I know. The Civil Lord was asked a question about this yesterday, and he told us quite frankly that unfortunately no decision had yet been reached. I think "unfortunately" is the right word, because it is the Royal Naval Reserve that contains the most highly-trained officers and men of all the Reserves. I hope we can be told, before this Debate closes, that a decision has been reached, or when it will be reached. I am not suggesting that these men should be taken off their present work, but should they not, at least, be registered, and should they not be allotted their tasks?
And what is the position with regard to the R.N.V.R.? I understand there is no shortage of officers there, but the number of ratings coming forward is very far from satisfactory. If my figures are right, there seems to have been an increase of only 200 between April and July, and the total figure today for officers and men is only 2,500. I hope the announcements of the Minister of Defence today will result in some improvement, for those figures are certainly far from comforting to this House at this time.
It is recruiting for the other two Services, which is in a really serious position, to which I have to invite the attention of the House for a few

1119
moments. The Government have never yet defined their policy in respect of our Air Force. They have not given us the target towards which they are working with regard to recruitment for the Royal Air Force. I do not know what it is. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford suggested 150–200 squadrons as a possible figure, and to that must be added the Auxiliary Reserves. He suggested that with the necessary maintenance, making generous allowance for ground staffs, that would mean about 400,000 men. If the Government cannot tell us the number of squadrons they have in the air, or are attempting to have in the air, cannot they at least give us some indication of what their manpower intentions are? All we have is the existing figure.
In the Defence Debate earlier this year the Minister told us that his object was a highly trained, well-equipped air striking force which would provide a formidable deterrent to aggression and reassure our friends. We all agree that is just the sort of Air Force at which we should aim, but that Air Force is now an immediate requirement. How near are we to realising it? How many of those aeroplanes have we got? How near is he to having a force which meets his own description? Where are the high speed, high altitude bombers which are necessary to compose such a force? Are there any jet propelled bombers in service yet, or are there any flying in the prototype stage? In the Debate last March, the right hon. Gentleman will remember that many searching questions were put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan). No answers were given.
Since then everybody will agree that the need for air defence plans co-ordinated with the overseas Dominions, America and the Western Powers has become more pressing. What is the position? Is there any such plan today? Does it exist, and is there any means to give effect to it? How far have we made progress towards integrating the Empire Air Force, even in the Staffs? To what extent are the Chiefs of Staff of the Dominions in contact on the subject? Can the Government give any reassurance before the Debate ends that we are in a position to play a part—a leading part—
1120
in the defence of the Empire or the defence of Europe in the air? The right hon. Gentleman has told us the kind of Air Force he thinks we should have; we are entitled to know, if he will not give the figures, how near we are to the realisation of such an Air Force. That seems a singularly small demand to make when we consider the information given in years gone by about squadrons in the Air Force.
The situation in regard to manpower in the Royal Air Force seems serious—indeed the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that it was so. The figure given in the White Paper is 226,000, which is barely half that which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford thought necessary for the kind of Air Force he had in mind. But that target figure, so far as I can see, is in great danger for the latter part of next year. The latest figures for the present strength in manpower of the Royal Air Force seem to me to reveal a very grave situation. I think the figures are 231,000. That is the total manpower strength of the Royal Air Force, more than half of which, I ask the House to observe—131,000—are National Service men and women.
What is going to happen? The total annual allotment—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—for the Royal Air Force is only 48,000, and that is the figure to which the National Service element will come down by the end of next year. On 1st July this year we had only 105,000 Regulars, so that, on my calculation, the Royal Air Force if it is to maintain even its present figure, will need more than 50,000 recruits for Regular engagements during next year, principally in the skilled trades. If that figure is anything like right—and I hope we may be told before the Debate ends—it is a very formidable figure indeed, and it does not include the Women's Auxiliary Air Force, which we presume is maintained at present strength. If the Minister gets these men in the year, they will be untrained and it will be some considerable time before they can fulfil their rôle.
All this is very disturbing indeed, especially if we remember that between April and July this year only 2,500 men were recruited for Regular engagements in the Air Force. If my calculations are right, 50,000 at least are required by the end of next year if we are to maintain

1121
the present figure. I must be fair to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he drew attention to this himself, although he did not give the figures, which can be corrected if they are wrong.
He drew attention to the gravity of the position, and said he was not sure why these figures were worse than the Army figures. I think it is because the rates of pay and conditions of service in the Royal Air Force are far below those which can be obtained by skilled craftsmen in civilian occupations, and unless and until the Royal Air Force are prepared to pay as much as men can get in civilian life, we cannot expect them to undertake this service. I think that is essential and I hope Ministers will give some information about that before the Debate closes. For the attention of the House I underline that, as we are proceeding now, this coming year we shall not have the minimum necessary Royal Air Force men needed to maintain our Forces in the air, even on present standards.
I now turn to the recruiting situation in the Army. The Regular Army target, as far as I know, largely culling from the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) in an earlier Debate, is 200,000 men and 20,000 women Regulars. If the Government are able to maintain the present rate of recruiting, we should reach that figure in about 18 months time; but I draw the attention of the Minister, for reasons which I will give in a moment, to the fact that even that figure is a very low one for,the task which the Regular Army will be called upon to fulfil. We must remember what the right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned that in any future outbreak of hostilities, if such an event ever occurred, we should not have the advantage of the time lag we have, always hitherto enjoyed. That applies to all Services, but perhaps most of all to the Army and the Anti-Aircraft Defence, and no one has been more emphatic about that than Field-Marshal Montgomery himself.
As I see it, there are at least five heads under which the Army can be called upon to give service and under all these five the Regular Army have to play a part. There are, first, the distant overseas commitments. It is impossible, or at any rate ludicrous, to send shortservice men to such places as Malaya;
1122
that is purely a Regular Army commitment. Then there are the troops in garrison nearer home, as in Germany, which is a commitment in which, although it can be met in part by National Service men, requires some Regulars. Then there is the need, which I presume is accepted, for some Regulars to be available at home to provide either for reinforcements overseas, or for immediate use in emergency. In the days of the Cardwell system we could reckon what the size of that force was. We should like to know whether the Government believe that there might be such a force and what kind of conception they have of its strength. Fourthly and fifthly, the Army have to ensure Anti-Aircraft Defence and to train the Territorials and National Service men.
In all those tasks I ask the House to note that these 200,000 Regulars have to play a predominant part and that applies particularly to Anti-Aircraft at the present time, which must be the responsibility of the Regular Army until such time as the Territorials can take over that commitment. If all these commitments are accepted—and I do not think what I have said can be denied—I am driven to the conclusion that the Government should reconsider the figure of 220,000 all ranks, including 20,000 women, for the Regular Army. I much fear that the figure must be raised.
I say very seriously to the Minister that it would be quite disastrous to allot a wide variety of tasks to a Regular Army and then to allot to that Regular Army a figure not large enough to enable it to fulfil those tasks. The danger is that we are laying an increasing number of burdens which were not foreseen—I am not blaming anyone—such as Malaya, on the Regular Army and it is being asked to carry through more tasks than it can do on existing numbers. Should that be the position, it would be the most fateful position of all in National Defence. My forecast is that before very long, the Government will have to come to the House and tell us that they want an increase in the size of the Regular Army. However that may be, there is no dispute today that neither the Army nor the Air Force are up to strength and if the Government want to reach these limits at the earliest possible date, they will have to improve—and considerably improve—pay

1123
and conditions of service. That is the only way in which we can increase the Army and Air Force strength in the next six months.
I have to repeat that in our view the Government made a great mistake in fixing the period of service at 12 months instead of 18 months. All the experience of everyone who has had contact with men in the Army is that 12 months will not meet the case from whatever angle or aspect it is considered.
Then there is the rôle of the Territorial Army. The Government have allotted a task of supreme importance to the Territorial Army. Once the Territorials are trained, they have to bear a large measure of responsibility for maintaining and training National Service men in their ranks. Clearly they cannot hope to do that when their strength is at its present low level. Therefore, we join with the Government in wishing all success to their campaign to recruit the Territorial Army, and we will do what we can to assist them in this. But the Government must also be continually watchful to give all the help they can to the Territorial Army in respect of conditions of service. This also applies to the Auxiliary Air Force, where conditions for the ground staff could be considerably improved.
The right hon. Gentleman has given us some information about Civil Defence, and I wish to ask only one question on that subject. As my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), who has had as much experience of this subject as anybody said in an earlier Debate, we should like to know how far the principles laid down in connection with the organisation of Civil Defence before and in the early stages of the last war are still being adhered to. If they are being departed from why is such a departure being made, and to what extent? We do not say that there may not be good reasons, but we have no information on that and we should like to know.
We should also like to have any information that can be given to us about the division of responsibility between the Home Office and the Services. While speaking about Anti-Aircraft Defence, I would like to ask whether the Government have anything to tell us about the
1124
Home Guard, which rendered such splendid service during the war, and which was the cheapest army the world has ever seen? A Minister in another place referred to the Home Guard and said that the Government were considering the position. We should be glad to know whether consideration has brought any result, or when it may be expected to do so?
I conclude with what to me is the most important consideration of this Defence discussion. How do our Defence plans, if they exist—and we have really been told little about them—fit in with the arrangements we are making with the Commonwealth and Empire overseas and our Allies on the continent of Europe? What are we doing, I repeat, to help re-equip our Allies in Western Union? Is any action being taken about that? Are the difficulties financial? If so, what attempts are being made to get over these difficulties. Surely, we cannot be short of equipment which was used in the last war. Has any examination been made, or is it being made, of the sales of war equipment still pending, and are the Government satisfied that nothing is now being sold which will be very useful in about six months time? I have a sort of feeling as the Minister of Supply goes merrily on—we read notices of his sales—that our French Allies would like to have some of the equipment which is being sold. Is that matter being looked into and co-ordinated?
I should like to see an integrated plan of defence between us, the Commonwealth and our Western Allies, and I should like that plan to cover the supply of equipment as well as the organisation of units. I confess that, still more than that, I should like to see, so far as the organisation of the forces is concerned, consideration given to the appointment of one man to bring these diverse aspects into a co-ordinated plan, much as General Eisenhower was able to do during the war years. If the Government can convince the world that there is vitality in the British Commonwealth and Western Union together, political vitality, economic vitality and also vitality which is defended by military plans, I believe that they will have made the greatest contribution to peace that is in their power.
All that each one of us in this House wants is to gain an enduring peace. I

1125
am convinced that the way to do that, as things now are, is to build up, in every sphere, the strength of the British Commonwealth and the Western European nations. Let us then seek to increase our authority and influence in the world. That means close integration between us, and more and more close contact with the United States. There we shall find the only basis upon which to win respect and improve our relations with the Soviet Union, so that East and West can live side by side in lasting peace.
5.5 p.m.
Mr. Frank Byers: I am following the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) with a feeling of satisfaction in that we have, at last, got some form of agreement in this House on what sort of a defence policy this country should pursue. I ventured in the last Debate on foreign affairs at the end of last Session to put forward this idea of integrated defence arrangements between the Commonwealth, the United States and Western Union. I am glad to see that we have recognised the necessity not merely for arguing about conscription and military service, but for a real defence policy covering the whole field. Two things occur to one at once about such a policy. First, it will cost a lot of money, and we have to face that. Secondly, it has to be based upon a realistic assumption that we can no longer for planning purposes assume that there will be no war for five years. That does not mean to say that within five years a war is inevitable; of course it does not, but it means that for planning purposes, we must put our defences into a state of readiness so that they can be ready if hostilities should, unfortunately, break out.
In all this I believe it to be essential to recognise the grand design of the Cominform. I do not wish to appear to be a "Blimp," but the grand design of the Cominform is undoubtedly a well-recognised military manoeuvre being carried out in peace-time. It is to wear down individually all the non-Communist States. We have to recognise that, because their object is to impoverish all their opponents. Hence Malaya, Burma, and the situation in Berlin. Every nation is being attacked in order that it shall react in a way which will impoverish it.
1126
The dilemma of each individual nation is that if they react as Russia wishes and embark upon rearmament, they will impoverish themselves at the expense of industrial recovery, but if they do not do so, they will not be in a position to resist aggression. That is the dilemma, and in the circumstances it is vitally necessary for all the peace-loving nations to stand together not merely to get standardisation, specialisation and integration of military effort, but to spread the financial burden of the re-armament programme of each one of them, because unless we are careful, we shall find nations crippled individually because they are not standing together financially. So far as re-organisation is concerned, I believe that we should give serious thought to some sort of mutual insurance policy or, if this phrase is preferred, a type of Marshall Aid for military effort.
After all, it is a matter of grave concern to this country that the French should be considering reducing their rearmament expenditure. It may be that industrially that is forced upon them individually, but we can no longer afford to look at these things individually. We must have a co-operative combined effort over the whole field, and I believe that we should put that proposal forward at once. In the event of hostilities our contribution will of course be very largely on the sea and in the air. We shall require a highly-efficient well-trained Air Force and Navy. I am no expert on the Air Force, but I should like an assurance that we have proper plans for providing a powerful striking force and that it will be provided with the latest up-to-date equipment.
I know that that is an expensive policy. It means scrapping equipment every year. But they have got to be kept up to date. It is expensive, I agree, but I am very worried that the Air Force should consist of 131,000 National Service men. I believe that is highly dangerous. What I have to say about the Army also applies to the Air Force. The sooner we can get an adequate Air Force on to the basis of complete voluntary service on long-term commitments, the happier I shall be. I do not propose to deal in any detail with the Navy. The same thing applies there.
It is of the Army I wish to speak in some detail. Two years ago, I opposed conscription, very largely on technical grounds. I still do. I am not going to

1127
hark back to the past, because we have to face the position as we find it today. I believe that it would have been easier to sort out the basis of long-term volunteers two years ago than it is today, but, nevertheless, the position, as I understand it, is this, and the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong. We have given the Army certain commitments. To carry out those commitments they require about 400,000 men; slightly more than in the estimate. Unless those commitments are reduced it will not be possible to reduce that number. It could be got down a little but not much.
Of those 400,000, as I understand it following on from the Debates, there must be about half as Regulars and about half as National Service men. It is time now to consider the sort of Army we want and how we are going to raise it. If we retain conscription as a permanent method of recruiting and we still keep the Regular Army target at 200,000 to 220,000, we have to have two years' conscription. We cannot get away from that; it is mathematics. The intake is 100,000 a year, and if we keep the Regular Army at 200,000 and 200,000 National Service men it is two years' intake.
I suggest that we have to make a very serious decision about that. It is a very long period, which means inevitable waste of manpower. It means that we are going to train men for the Army and that a substantial number of them are going to be wasted, not just the normal wastage. Do we realise how many of them come straight out of the Army into reserved occupations? I believe the figure is as high as 20 to 25 per cent. It is a tremendous waste in training these men and putting them through. Then there is also the high velocity of circulation of conscripts coming through, and the tremendous administrative overheads in wear and tear if we have a period of 12 months, 18 months or two years as compared with five years or 12 years. I believe that we could save 40,000 men if we could get the whole of the Regular Army on a voluntary basis.
I am going to suggest, purely from the point of view of efficiency and strength, that the sooner we can get away from the National Service principle the safer we shall be, so far as the Regular Army is concerned. The Government ought
1128
now to take the decision to abandon conscription as soon as possible, always with this safeguard, that the Army does not fall below 400,000. There is the target. Can we, in fact, replace National Service men with Regulars quickly in order to get a Regular Army which provides a career and which will be efficient, concentrating on its operational tasks instead of being turned into a sort of qualified training unit for conscription? I believe it could be done. It is a bold decision but it is the alternative to two years' conscription for the young people of this country, and it will give us far greater strength and far greater safety.
The point is how to do it. If we are going to take that decision and run the Regular Army upwards from 200,000 to 400,000, and save 40,000, making it 360,000, we have got to pay for it, and this is where we want a really bold outlook. It is no use talking about pennies a day. I believe we want nothing less than a 25 per cent. increase in pay in the Army all round. In the case of the United Kingdom troops that would be about £23 million a year. It is a lot of money, but it is better in the long run to think in those terms rather than to have an Army which is not in a proper state of readiness, as ours is today.
I do not believe that we shall get anywhere by talking in terms of expenditure of £3 million, £4 million or £5 million. I know it is a lot of money, but I think economies can be made elsewhere. Some economies will arise by virtue of reducing the number of military service people coming in. The cost is going to be high and that is one reason why, as I said in the beginning, we have to get a proper constructive system of financing our rearmament programme. I should like to see consideration given to a differential pay system, leaving the National Service man where he is at present, but giving a tremendous increase to the Regular who is going to take on a long-term commitment. As an alternative, consideration might be given to a tax free bonus to all ranks—something to make it worth while. I am tired of hearing of junior officers in debt, of people in all ranks who cannot afford to have their families living with them while they are on service in this country and yet they are going abroad in six months' time.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: That applies to the Navy too.
Mr. Byers: And to the other Armed Services too. There are the scandals that we hear about in Fayid where officers cannot afford to pay the bills presented to them by the Army because their pay is so small. I have heard of many officers in the last three years who have taken the decision to serve out their time and then the quicker they can get out the better. That is no good whatever for an efficient Force and the situation will not be saved except by a really bold approach, and the expenditure of money at a time when we ought to be thinking about economy. But it is an insurance and I believe we have to tackle it on those lines.
I have been shocked by the situation concerning the Territorial Army even in my own constituency. The recruiting campaign has been a failure. I agree with a lot of things that have already been said, and I believe it is vitally important to give priority for accommodation, particularly for equipment, so that they can put their guns and carriers and other things somewhere. It is vitally important that we should provide the necessary instructors and plenty of them. That can be done. But, above all, I do not think that we shall get results unless we give a cash incentive. There, again, that means expenditure of money. If we want 100,000 men I believe we shall have to put down something like an annual sum of £50 a head to get them. That is £5 million. I may be wrong, but I think that we shall have to think in those terms. Even 10s. a week would make a difference to the recruiting campaign, and 15s. a week would make more.
I am not suggesting that that is the only thing wrong. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about war weariness and the difficulty of other commitments and so on. But I do believe that we shall have to pay for our recruits into the Territorial Army. Our job of going round recruiting would be a lot easier if we had something more tangible to offer the people—not 9d. for two hours put in at the drill hall, for that is what they get, apart from their camp pay. Therefore, my belief is that we have to have a defence policy based on a realistic asumption. We have to admit that the cost is
1130
going to be tremendous and we must make economies elsewhere to enable us to meet it.
We shall not be able to meet the whole cost. Therefore, we must put forward the suggestion of a common financial pool of the peace-loving nations of the world so that no nation is crippled industrially or financially by the burden of arms. I do not believe that anything less than a really substantial increase in the reward to the Regular Army will bring forward the numbers required. We ought to consider now taking a decision to work away from conscription towards a really first-class Regular Army of long-term volunteers, well paid, highly equipped, mobile and in a state of readiness. Along those lines, I believe that we can secure the Defence Forces which we are compelled to have owing to the increasing international tension.
5.21 p.m.
Mr. Bellenger: It is very appropriate that this Debate on defence should follow immediately after the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday. We cannot discuss defence matters in a vacuum. Indeed, military defence is only a logical consequence of the diplomatic policy followed by His Majesty's Government and other governments. Therefore, listening as I did yesterday to the Foreign Secretary's review—or his partial review, because he did not touch on the most vital matter of Berlin—I came to the conclusion that it was obvious to anybody who could read between the lines and gather from what he did not say rather than from what he did say, that we are in a very grave situation. In view of that, and bearing in mind the events leading up to the outbreak of the last war, we ought to survey not only defence in relation to this country but defence in relation to the other countries with whom we must be associated if we are to prosecute our own defence and the defence of the western hemisphere successfully.
Nothing has been said so far—perhaps it might have been out of Order if it had been said—about what Britain intends to do in relation to the United States of America. Something has been said by my right hon. Friend of the Five-Power Treaty between the western nations. However, I am bound to make

1131
a suggestion to my right hon. Friend. I do not think that he would deny it: at any rate, he asked us to be realists and I ask him to be a realist also. I do not think that he would deny that the five nations to which he referred are very weak indeed. While I was in office I had an opportunity to see some of the work being carried out by General de Lattre, the chief of the Armed Forces in France. There is not the slightest doubt that he is putting his men through an intensive military training. I am inclined to think that the training is much more intensive than that which is given to our own Forces. But it is no secret that the military Forces of France, which used to be the most powerful on the Continent of Europe, are today something upon which we could not rely to anything near the same extent as we did in the last war, to say nothing about the first world war.
When we discuss our own defences today, what are we talking about? The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers), who spoke from the Liberal Benches, talked about recruiting 360,000 men for the Regular Army. I do not believe that that is possible. Indeed, I am not at all sure that it is desirable. It was not so in the first world war, and it was not so in the second world war. What we should concentrate on is not so much large numbers, but on those who are in the military Forces being exceptionally well trained so that their numbers can be expanded rapidly in the unfortunate event of the outbreak of war.
We all agree—the Minister of Defence, of course, not the least of us—that the Regular Army and Air Force are well under their target figures. I believe it is possible to recruit the Army up to its target strength. I should say that 220,000 or 250,000 Regulars would be the maximum that we could afford and the maximum that we could properly train. It should not be impossible to recruit those men in a comparatively short space of time—by that I mean perhaps a year. If the conditions are right so that we can appeal to the young men to come forward, I believe that they will respond. There is a vast reserve of individuals in this country who, through their fathers and, in many cases, their forefathers, have been connected
1132
with the military Services. They only need some slight persuasion to come forward.
I regret to say—and I ask the hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal Benches to note this—that no great encouragement has been given in speeches made in this House, particularly from his benches, when we have discussed these matters in the past.
Mr. Byers: I fail to understand what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. We have made our position quite clear. We have been in favour throughout the whole of this Parliament of having an efficient Regular Army. I have said that more often than anybody else.
Mr. Bellenger: I will certainly make clear what I mean. When we were discussing at a very serious time—not serious in relation to international events such as those through which we are now passing—the run down of the Armed Forces from five million or whatever it was, in an orderly fashion, and when only conscription could have achieved that, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues did all they possibly could when the National Service Bill was before this House to impede and obstruct us. Therefore I beg leave to doubt the bona fides of the hon. Gentleman when, in criticising my right hon. Friend, he says that he and his hon. Friends are behind the Government in a desire to recruit Forces which will enable us to stand up against our enemies.
Mr. Byers: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that his memory is about as good as his record at the War Office.
Mr. Bellenger: That is certainly very useful invective, but it is no argument whatever to disprove what I am now paying. How is it possible today, in the circumstances in which we are now living, with the glare of publicity focused upon our Debates, for us to examine as we ought to do the question whether the defence Forces of this country are in a proper and fit state? I do not think that they are if they should be faced with the unhappy event of an early war. I do not say that I think they could have been in a fit state, considering that we have had practically three years now of running down instead of building

1133
up. Hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House have made their contributions insisting that the Government should speed up demobilisation more than they have done. I sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence who has had to face attacks coming from behind as well as in front of him urging that we should disperse our Forces much more quickly. If hon. Members did not ask that we should disperse our Forces as quickly as the American nation dispersed theirs, at any rate they asked the Government to dissolve our Forces in a manner which would have left them in a much more inefficient state than they are in today if we should be faced with trouble abroad.
Is it possible for us to go into the vital questions, some of which have been touched upon by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), as to our anti-aircraft defences in this country? Let any hon. Gentleman who has any knowledge of anti-aircraft defences in the last war relate it to the rapid advance which has taken place in the Air Force—the attack—since the war, and let him consider whether our antiaircraft defences would be anywhere near being able to cope with an attack from the air such as we are likely to get from modern machines. We cannot possibly discuss such matters in a public Session, and I am going to suggest to the Government that it might be necessary, at no distant date, to have a Secret Session of this House, so that we can bring prominently before them some of the things of which we have knowledge. Having taken part in quite a few Secret Sessions during the war, I know that quite often they did not serve the purpose for which they were inaurgurated. Nevertheless, it is impossible under present circumstances for those of us with knowledge to say what we should like to say in public Session.
For example, there is the question of radar, and I will touch on it quite briefly. I can say that much of the radar equipment in connection with the anti-aircraft defences of this country is immobile today because there is not the trained and skilled labour to put the radar equipment even of the last war into order; and, when we consider that radar equipment has vastly improved on what it was in
1134
the last war, we can see that the anti-aircraft defences are only a facade at the present moment. Can we say anything about aeroplanes in a public Session? I could not, anyway, because I can speak with no technical knowledge, but there are hon. Gentlemen in this House who could say quite a lot on the question of attack from the air.
I was very much struck by one or two remarks which my right hon. Friend made in his speech. I thought he gave the game away, if I might use a colloquial expression, when he told us that deferment had to be general rather than specific in relation to the trades and services which the Army, and I presume also the Air Force, so badly needs. It is, indeed, true, although in a different context from that in which hon. Gentlemen sometimes use it, that there is a great wastage of manpower in the Services. When I have stood at that Box, I have attempted to argue that the wastage would be tackled, but, in a time of demobilisation, when units are all over the place and it is impossible to sort them out, it is difficult to get down to basic training such as the Regular Army needs, and I have tried to show that there has not been the wastage in the same context as that with which our critics faced us.
I will tell the House of one particular kind of wastage in the Army which I think should be remedied. I do not believe, although I can see the difficulties, that it is necessary to defer generally for three months the whole of the National Service men now in the Services. What are required are skilled tradesmen. When the Government have had to make deferments in certain branches of the Services, they have singled out certain trades, and, today, in one part of the Army alone, in R.E.M.E., there is an extraordinary shortage of skilled and trained men.
Therefore, I would suggest to the Government that, instead of relying on getting another 80,000 bodies—that is what it means, because General Staffs always like to talk of numbers—presumably, to replace some of the Guards who have had to go overseas, in order to fill the spaces left by their removal—they should concentrate more on filling the trained ranks of the Regular Army, and that, of course, applies to the Royal Air Force as well. They are not doing it, and they will not be able to do it until they

1135
change the system of recruiting completely.
I do not believe that extra pay is the only inducement. I am quite convinced, and I was convinced of this when I was in office—and I attempted to get acceptance of my views and succeeded, to a certain extent—that better housing could produce quite a number of recruits for the Army. My right hon. Friend said today that the Services will now get a fair share of the houses being built. What a commentary on the past. We put figures in our Estimates which were never met and which have never been met to this day by the Ministry of Works, who are the providers of houses for the Army. I will not attempt to apportion the blame for that, but it does not lie completely with the Ministry of Works. What I do say is that perhaps more stress has been laid on the civilian side of our life in the last three years than on those people who need consideration just as much—the married people in the Services. What are the arguments which I put forward then, and which still have considerable substance today? They are that, if we house the Services in this country—and a lot more has to be done overseas—we shall, at the same time, be housing civilians, because the people in the Services are only civilians in uniform.
When we come to the question whether 12 or 18 months is sufficient for the National Service recruits, I would say quite frankly that I do not believe that 12 months is sufficient. Certainly, 18 months would be better. Looking back, I think that the Government were right in their plans, taken in relation to the Territorial Force being the main training instrument of the National Service reservists, and I think the Government were quite right in making the period 12 months.
Colonel Dower: For the Army?
Mr. Bellenger: Yes, and for the R.A.F., too. I would not say that it will give any more than the groundwork for the further training during the years of the reserve period, and, in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, the Navy has always said that it did not want National Service conscripts. My right hon. Friend, when asked whether the Navy wanted conscripts after the war,
1136
answered "No," and he has said so today. The Navy can get all the Regular recruits it needs even under the present system.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. The point is not whether the Navy is to have voluntary recruits, and I am glad to see that the intake into the Navy is more satisfactory, but is that one year's training for a naval conscript is not enough. He must have at least 18 months.
Mr. Bellenger: I agree, but the Navy is only taking a token number of National Service men today, about 2,000, while the majority of these men go into the Army. The quality of these National Service men is of varying degree, and I was going to point out one of the directions in which I think wastage is occurring in the Army. A considerable number of the National Service recruits who go in at 18 years of age today, in many cases, have to be taught to read and write. Their education in the Army has to be brought up to a standard whereby they are able to understand the training they are getting. I suggest that is not the duty of the Army; it should be done before these young men come into the Forces. I regret to say there is something wrong with an educational system which permits this task being imposed on the military Forces, thereby necessitating a substantial part of the period of training, at any rate in the Army, being spent in teaching these recruits the three R's.
I am very glad to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence that, at long last, His Majesty's Government have recognised the duty which this country owes to those who will serve for a period of their lifetime in the Armed Forces, and that arrangements are now being made—very substantial arrangements, I am inclined to believe—for the after service career of many of these officers and men. When one considers that a large proportion of the men in the Army—and the same applies to the Air Force—will be retired at the age of 40 or thereabouts—with a pension, it is true, but with a long life of activity before them, and with the disadvantages they will have in getting jobs when they leave the Services—it is good to hear that the

1137
Government are now going to arrange for a certain number of clerical and executive posts in the Civil Service to be reserved for competition among ex-Regulars. That is something which I in my back bencher days, and even since, have urged upon the Government, and I am very glad that they are now going to put it into operation. I believe it will help recruiting considerably.
I should like to say much more about our arrangements, not only with the Commonwealth nations, but with the United States of America. However, that subject might be considered more appropriate for a Foreign Affairs Debate. I did, however, ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, when we debated this matter in the House on the last occasion, what arrangements had been made with the United States of America for them to contribute their share of manpower. I was given no answer, or, at least, only a perfunctory one. It is not sufficient that America should merely provide the dollars; she must provide some of the manpower also. But she is not doing that today. I suggest that, if that great nation were to provide a more substantial proportion of the manpower necessary for the defence of Western Europe, it would have a great effect on Moscow and those who reside in the Kremlin. They know exactly what the American Forces consist of in Europe at the present time. It is true that our own Armed Forces are not sufficiently organised on an operational basis, but the American Forces are nothing more than a gendarmerie in Europe at the present time, and if trouble comes it is likely to come in Europe to begin with.
Therefore, I would urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence, to take up that point, and not only on a General Staff level, because it is not sufficient that the General Staffs should get together in a back room and formulate plans on paper. What we want to see is greater evidence that that great nation is really with us, because we alone cannot defend ourselves and the other part of the Western Hemisphere. In all the battles that we have fought in the past we had to have allies somewhere. I venture to suggest—although there will be differences of opinion as to whether America agrees with us on
1138
all points—that the United States are the most powerful allies that can help us in this battle for freedom.
We on this side of the House, and, I believe, hon. Members opposite also, very much regret the necessity for Debates like this and the expansion of our Armed Forces, and all that stands behind them. We who lived through those evil days preceding the last war are determined, in the words of the old song which are often forgotten, that "Britons never shall be slaves."
5.46 p.m.
Brigadier Head: I am sure that the House has listened with interest and respect to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) because, with his experience of office, he speaks with authority on these matters. I should like to follow him on two of the points he mentioned. He said, as has been said before, that hon. Members on this side of the House were unhelpful with regard to demobilisation and the run-down of the Forces. I have studied this matter carefully. What has constantly been proposed from this side is that a safe figure should be decided on and that the run-down should then take place as rapidly as possible. What we complain about is, firstly, that the rundown has been too slow, and, secondly, that the figure fixed upon has never remained constant. This has made it impossible for the Services to plan on a fixed assumption. This constant whittling away and paring has usually occurred in accordance with the pressure exercised from behind. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that had he been in the War Office this three-months reduction would not have been imposed on an overall but on a selective basis.
Mr. Bellenger: I hope I was a little more modest than that; I did not say, "If I had been in the War Office." I said that I did not quite know how it could have been done, but that I thought it the proper policy.
Brigadier Head: I must say, in defence of the War Office, that to try to do it quite suddenly on a selective basis seems to be quite impossible.
I think that we all listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of Defence, and were all hoping for something which

1139
would put heart and confidence into us. To generalise, I would say that the indication was that the Minister of Defence has suddenly become aware of some of his more glaring omissions in the past. That was my interpretation of most of the action he proposed. Surely, no one in this House can consider that the foreign situation, serious though it is today, was really very rosy 18 months ago. How very much better off we should be today if adequate arrangement had then been made for calling up Reserves; and how much better the recruiting for the Regular Forces would now be had this inquiry about pay been carried out at an earlier date. It is a story of too little action too late, and it is my opinion that the present state of our Forces is a reflection of the right hon. Gentleman's failure.
I conceive it to be our duty in this Debate, not to restrict our comments to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but to consider the present state of our Forces, and our future expectation of the state of our Forces, in the light, not only of the foreign situation, but of the paramount necessity for industrial recovery. Therefore, I propose in the remarks I shall now make to consider, firstly, the present state of our Forces; secondly, to examine our expectations under existing arrangements; and, thirdly, to put forward, inadequate though it may be, my opinion of what action should now be taken.
Before I deal with the present state of our Forces I should like to say a word or two on the subject of security and secrecy. I agree that many things cannot be said, but it seems to me that if the use of security and secrecy is abused and unduly restricted, it can be used as a screen behind which failure and maladministration can shelter. Does the Minister of Defence really believe that Russia—with the number of fellow travellers they have, with the very elaborate spy organisation, as revealed in the Canadian trials, and present throughout Germany where the majority of our troops are—knows as little about our armed strength as we do in this House? This secrecy has been overdone, and in my view for a fairly obvious reason. Nor should hon. Members take assurance that the state of our Forces is all right because the Chiefs of Staff have
1140
not resigned. I can assure hon. Members that in peace-time it is the duty of the Chiefs of Staff to give military advice, and then if it is overruled for political reasons they may see it as their duty to make the best of things under the conditions allowed them.
The state of our defences today, from all that I have heard, gives cause in my view for the very gravest concern. I do not think that we should, as the Lord President said, panic because we have two great assets, a large number of trained reservists and the possession of a very large start as regards atomic warfare. Nevertheless, it is my contention that the rundown in the Forces and their present state of organisation has gone far below the safety limit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) made a very careful survey of the three Forces, and I do not wish to repeat what he has already said. As he indicated the Navy being a long service arm now embarked on a programme of re-equipment, lies to a large extent outside the matters being discussed in this Debate. It seems to me that in the paramount necessity for a high degree of preparation usually associated with the Navy has to some extent devolved on the Royal Air Force.
There has never been a time when a high state of preparedness in the Royal Air Force has been more important. Yet when we look at the Royal Air Force today we find that 53 per cent. of its strength consists of short-service National Service men, and that in the future it is to have an annual intake of 48,000 of such men. We find also serious shortages among the technical staff. That is a condition which does not in any way reflect a consciousness of the paramount necessity for retaining that Force in a high state of preparedness.
When we turn to the Army we find much the same situation. The Army has been suffering from a continually increasing number of cuts in money and man power. The present condition of the Army is not by any means inevitable, but is due to political decisions which seem to me to have entirely overstepped the safety limits. The really critical situation lies with the Regular Army. It is now spread in a way which is causing considerable strain to that Force. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and

1141
Leamington said, it has the overseas garrisons, home defence, strategic reserves, air defence, policing commitments in the whole of Europe plus the training of the National Service man to look after. That commitment is not only causing strain, but it makes it impossible for the Regular Army to train itself and thus remain in a state of adequate preparedness. Therefore, at the moment that Force is strained and not adequately prepared.
One word about the state of our Civil Defence. Last March the international situation was surely not one to give cause for complacancy. Yet when we had a Debate on this subject, at which I do not think the Minister of Defence was present, I have never heard a more alarming summing up to a Debate than that of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office. It contained indications of dilatoriness and half measures which clearly indicated that up to March this year nothing realistic had been done on the subject of Civil Defence. So much for the present situation.
What are our expectations of getting the kind of Forces we require in the future? I will admit the difficulties that lie before the right hon. Gentleman in devising the future shape of our Armed Forces, but I suggest that there are certain characteristics which to an ever increasing extent will be required. Perhaps the first and most generally recognised of these is that of a high state of preparedness. Is there any indication in present or recent policies or plans that we are going to get Forces which will be in a high state of readiness? The indications are otherwise.
There has been no effort to stimulate Regular recruiting, an essential component of any well prepared force. There has been no effort to prevent the most disturbing run-down of technicians in the Regular Forces who are so essential if we are to remain at a high state of preparedness. As a resuIt reliance has had to be placed on the call-up in the future of men who will have undergone only 12 months' training. I would ask anyone with experience of the Forces if they honestly believe that we shall have an Army or an Air Force at a high state of readiness when it is dependent on calling up Reservists with only one year's training and a period of 10 days a year on the Reserve. I fail to see that we shall achieve this important
1142
quality of preparedness by existing arrangements. It is also agreed that in any future organisation of the Army we in this country, owing to its very acute manpower situation and the great importance of industrial recovery, must use the utmost economy in the allocation of manpower.
Under the existing National Service scheme is there evidence of an economic use of manpower? Hon. Members may have forgotten that in the annual call-up of 200,000 men, 50,000 a year are being deferred. Why?—because they are not wanted by the Forces. Is that a plan which economises in manpower? Those men are being deferred and gradually the rate of deferment will increase. The truth is that under the existing scheme the Forces are calling up more men than they need, and the men are being forced into deferment. That is not a scheme which provides the essential quality of economy.
Nobody who has studied the foreign situation in the last two years could do other than think that any scheme or plan drawn up for the future organisation of our Forces must provide Forces which will be ready and at an adequate state of strength within the near future. Yet at present we have a long-term plan and it will not come to maturity for many years to come. Are all these arrangements fitting our requirements in the future? I suggest they do not. This is not a plan at all. On the contrary, I think all the evidence of the past goes to show that what the right hon. Gentleman has done is to give birth to an unwanted, distorted, ill-conceived creation which resulted from his shameless surrender to the irresponsible and improper proposals of his own back bench. If as a result of his political misconduct he is left holding the baby, I think he has no ground for complaint.
Let me now turn to the expectations we all had when the Ministry of Defence was set up. I do not wish to dwell on this subject for long, but I would like to recall the high hopes which we all had when the Ministry of Defence was set up. It was hoped that here anyway the eternal peace-time conflict between the requirements of industry and economic recovery on the one hand, and the requirement for adequate military preparedness on the other, would be watched and that there would be someone available to turn on the red light when our Forces

1143
got too low for safety. But, Sir, in effect what happened was that the right hon. Gentleman turned on the green light for further cuts when it should have been fixed red.
I think we had a right to expect that there would be some kind of plan, but all recent evidence has gone to show that the policy and action taken by the right hon. Gentleman was not based on any plan but on the contrary was based almost entirely on political expediency. I think we also had a right to expect, in order that the Service Ministries could make their plans, in order that the Ministry of Labour could make their plans and the young men who were to be called up could make their plans, that the right hon. Gentleman would think the matter out, make up his mind and stick to it. On the contrary, the reverse has almost always been the case and the House soon learned what to expect when the right hon. Gentleman came to the House full of fire and fight, to sound a series of prolonged blasts on his martial trumpet, in effect these sounds could always be interpreted, as I understand is the custom with ships at sea, as being a preliminary warning of an alteration of course or even of his intention of going full speed astern.
I do not wish to detain the House much longer, but in my concluding remarks I should like to mention what I believe could best be done now to get us out of our existing mess regarding defence. If I may, I should like to underline the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington concerning the paramount importance of this country giving a realistic lead to the organisation set up for defence within the Brussels Treaty. It seems to me that if we really set about it, work hard, give a lead and indicate we mean business, not only will the countries of Western Europe be encouraged and start to make progress, but we shall receive a far greater amount of American assistance than we could possibly hope to receive if we revealed that we are half-hearted and dilatory in this respect. Furthermore, I believe that close co-operation with Western Europe and the United States is the only means whereby we can fill the power vacuum which now exists in Western Europe itself.
1144
Every time, I think, in these Debates we have risen and pressed hon. Gentlemen opposite to do something about consultation with the Dominions on defence matters. Now, at last, after an undue delay, such consultations are to take place. I can only hope that as a result of them there will be a further sharing of the burdens and responsibilities which fall so heavily on the shoulders of this country. I believe and hope that that will be so, but let no one forget that if war comes to the Empire in the future there will be no time for consultations afterwards on plans and arrangements. If war comes it will come to the world like a flash; we shall have to have those plans ready, for the whole of the Empire will find itself in the front line on the first day of the war.
Let me now turn to the domestic steps which I believe should be taken with energy and as rapidly as possible. First, as has already been said by several hon. Members, I think we should do everything possible to stimulate recruiting into all the Regular Forces. The question of the revision of the Pay Code, with special reference to technicians, junior officers and marriage allowance, is a question which has already been mentioned. In addition, I should like to see it made easier for men to take on for a long period of service in the Army so that those who wish to do so can make it a career instead of an intermediate stage. I should like to see the ceiling for Regular recruiting raised. Until the experiment has been tried we do not know to what extent it will succeed. I personally believe that if conditions were improved and the ceiling raised Regular recruiting would slowly go up. I do not believe, as apparently does the hon. Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Byers), that it would go up rapidly enough for us to do away with National Service for the present.
Furthermore, I believe National Service should now be put back to a position where it is in effect the National Service so eloquently described to us by the Minister of Defence, that is to say, a minimum period of 18 months. I think that period should be reinstated because I do not believe the present system is anything but an embarrassment to the Services and a waste of time. Having put it back, I should watch Regular recruiting very carefully and when there

1145
is any indication of sufficient improvement and any possibility of reduction in National Service I should reduce it.
Let me say a word about the call-up. I have mentioned, previously, that there is an annual deferment of 50,000 out of 200,000—which is quite a high proportion. Supposing Regular recruiting improved and supposing the Royal Air Force wanted far fewer National Service men—as they would do if Regular recruiting improved sufficiently—and supposing more went into the Army. After a few years we might find that our requirements out of the 200,000 a year had gone down to, say, 125,000 or even 100,000. If that came about we should have a very different picture before us.
It seems to me wasteful to call up all these unwanted men just for a principle. One way I suggest should be looked into would be either that reserved occupations should be widened with a view to helping the undermanned industries, thus giving an incentive by the avoidance of National Service, or alternatively, what I believe works perfectly satisfactorily in America, that we should adopt the ballot system. It seems to me highly unsatisfactory for us to call up more men than the Services really want. I believe if what I suggest were done we might find over a period of years that National Service was disappearing and that we were getting a far higher proportion of Regular men in the Forces. It is my belief that that should be the aim, for without a higher percentage of Regular men in the Forces I do not believe we shall ever attain an adequate state of preparedness.
I should like also to mention one point about the Territorial Army. It is my belief, from what I have been told by all the people to whom I have talked, that the present scheme—and I can guarantee that all of us will do our best to stimulate and help recruiting—is not going to work. The reason is, I believe, that the burden being placed on the Territorial Army is too heavy. Of course, for the time being the scheme has to work. But it is asking a great deal for the Territorials, with the exception of a very small Regular cadre, to be responsible for all the full-time training of the National Service men, who are not going to be too keen—the Secretary of State for War shakes his head, but the responsibility lies almost entirely on
1146
the Territorial Army, and that is a fact. I say, therefore, that it is asking a great deal of the Territorial Army. I believe the plan should be gradually to increase the proportion of the Regular Army carrying out that task and, if and when that is possible, I should like to see the Territorials back on their old basis of being entirely volunteers, all together, with their customary pride in unit and training.
Finally, I would have the whole of this defence matter re-examined—all over again, from the start—and I would have that done by the best brains in the Services, and probably the younger ones. I do not think you can achieve up-to-date solutions if your conception and your ideas are fixed by having reached the top during the Great War. The trouble so often is that air marshals and generals, like experts with some special kind of tennis rackets, when they consider the shape of a new racket, naturally consider it in terms of the old one they used to such good effect. I should like to see all this re-examined, and re-examined without prejudice as to what sort of answer the Secretary of State for Air or the Secretary of State for War wants. But let none of the staffs find out the answer required and write the appreciation around it. I should like this reexamined again—I believe it has never been done—and I believe if we did that we would get a very different answer from the hotch-potch arrangements at present obtaining in our Forces.
Frankly, I believe if we are going to get out of this mess and if we are going to take these steps we must have a new Minister of Defence. I have said some hard things about the present Minister of Defence, not on personal grounds but because I feel he has failed in his task. Hard though the decision will be for him to take, I believe he has to take it and that he should make way for someone else. I believe that will be best for the country in the long run, for his task is one of supreme responsibility. Such a decision may well, in the long run, make the difference between peace and war, national survival and disaster.
As many hon. Members have already said, it is with a feeling of dismay and almost despair that we find ourselves talking in this way only three years after a great war. Nevertheless, think how you

1147
will, I can see no alternative course before us. It seems to me, although it is a saying of 1,500 years ago, that:
"Let him who desires peace prepare for war,"
is still dismally true.
6.10 p.m.
Mr. Crossman: We all listen with pleasure to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) when he speaks in our defence Debates. I cannot hope to answer him, or to make suggestions on all the points he made, but I should like to take up one or two of them. It was a great pleasure to me, and I am sure to many others over here, to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us that the fundamental difficulty was that the overseas commitments of our foreign policy were beyond the strength of the Regular Army. That is the case that has been put for two years from these benches. I have not noticed before that it has been welcomed and supported by the brigadiers on the other side. Indeed, I have noticed that they would have increased the number of commitments for the Foreign Secretary to undertake. I am relieved to find that at last they agree with us. This comes no doubt from the education of Debate after Debate on defence.
Brigadier Head: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not know whether he misunderstood me intentionally or not. What I said—I thought, quite clearly—was that the present state of the Regular Army regarding recruitment, and its present size and training commitments, meant that in carrying out its commitments it was strained. I was speaking of the size of the Forces. I was not saying we should reduce our foreign commitments.
Mr. Crossman: That brings me to the second point in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech, that of the size of the Regular Army. I am glad we are in agreement. Time after time from this side of the House the argument has been made that the Minister of Defence cannot rely on conscripts for overseas service. That was our case for saying time and again that the Regular Army was small for the job of the overseas commitments and for the job of training conscripts. That is
1148
why I am somewhat surprised to find the hon. and gallant Gentleman saying that the decision to have one year's conscribed service was a surrender to political expediency. For if we agree that the main difficulty of the Minister of Defence was the enlarging of the Regular Army, and if we agree it was not doing that side of the job, why on earth are we making such a fuss about the length of service—except in terms of training?
I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not suggesting that an extra six months' service would do more than increase the training facilities and possibly produce a few half-trained people for Germany. It is not going to help in Malaya or Cyrenaica. We are not going to send those conscripts over there. So I would suggest to him, on the whole, that curiously enough, the decision to have the service at the length of one year happens to have been a realistic decision, and due to a tardy understanding by the Minister of Defence of the fact that what we need is a larger Regular Army, not a larger conscript army.
I want to turn from that to a major point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). I entirely agree with him. I thought his definition as to what one may call the grand strategy, or grand foreign policy under which defence must work, a great deal better than the negative definition given yesterday by the Foreign Secretary. His definition was that it was our aim to keep Communism "to its present area." I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington put the more positive side, and—I believe we have here reached fundamental agreement between the two sides of the House—that the fundamental aim is to create Western Union, and secondly, to create throughout the world, and based on the Commonwealth, what we might call a "third force," or middle group, or sterling area—they are all words for the same thing—the power which stands between the two ideological alternatives; the power that can hold the balance between peace and war, guarding us from war, holding us to peaceful ways.
I believe we have fundamental understanding on that; and I believe we can say to the Minister of Defence, "You have no excuse any more for saying that

1149
the grand strategy is uncertain, for we all really know what your defence policy has to do." What it has to do is to assist that grand aim. I agree with Members opposite that it was a disappointment today that we had a defence policy outlined in purely insular terms. We did not hear enough of defence plans in relation to Western Europe and the Commonwealth. And yet our own defence must be in relation to Western Europe and the Commonwealth. And furthermore, speaking bluntly, it has to be related to the strategy of America.
I am glad to find another point of agreement in the House. The Minister of Defence, completely rightly, stressed the dilemma of military rearmament, which is, after all, only our insurance in the eventuality of a "hot" war. The problem is how to undertake military rearmament without militating against the provision of weapons for winning the "cold" war. The weapons for winning the cold war are the things required for social reconstruction in Europe. There is no other way of defeating Communism, as I have argued often enough in this House.
I feel that the Minister skated over this dilemma very easily. He said that our rearmament was not going to upset our national economy, and nothing in it was going to upset the economy of Western Union. I can tell him that if it does not, then that rearmament is of no use. It has got to hurt if it is worth having as a diplomatic weapon, and if it hurts it militates against our success in the cold war. Unless we have faced that dilemma we have not faced the real difficulty.
The real difficulty is that we cannot have the weapons both for the hot and for the cold war. The appalling difficulty of the British Government especially is that we cannot balance the Budget, we cannot bridge the gap, we cannot do any of the things we have set ourselves to do if we rearm out of our resources. It means a further unbearable burden is laid upon us. I believe that the House and everybody in the country has got to face this dilemma, a problem which is insoluble in terms of a national economy—completely insoluble.
What is the way out of the dilemma? One would be to take a line which, I admit, I advocated last March in the last defence Debate, and say, "Let the Americans rearm. We will take their
1150
dollars and spend them on peaceful things—on the cold war." But, in fact, we cannot responsibly do that, and I want to say bluntly that I believe it is necessary for some of us here to change our views. Without armaments Western Union is a social, economic unity without real diplomatic strength. In order to have the diplomatic strength we require, we must have military strength. That, at least, we have learned after three years of negotiations with the Russians. We cannot live in neutrality today, leaving all the decisions to the Americans.
We have to realise that our job in Western Europe, of fighting Communism by improving the social conditions is complicated and aggravated by the need for spending our strength on rearmament. On that I feel the Minister has not told us as straightly as he should what is the extent of the effects which rearmament will have on the recovery of this country. What we have started to do is not felt yet, and it will not be felt until rearmament gets under way. The effects will be felt in 12 months' or 18 months' time, and I believe the people of this country ought to be told that perfectly plainly. For those effects will come—unless we do one thing; or, perhaps, two things.
The first one we have already done. I think we have learned the lesson of the 1930's. We have learned the lesson of Chamberlain, who said, "I always put business interests before the defence of the League of Nations." The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has given a masterly description in his book of how business interests were deferred to national security year after year. I believe that we have learned that we cannot possibly carry on our social aims disregarding rearmament, because that is the way to war. What was wrong with Baldwin and Chamberlain was not that they failed to provide arms for the "inevitable" war, but that they made it inevitable by not rearming. They made Hitler believe that he could take the risk. We must not make that mistake again. We need not despair, because that is the thing which we have all learned. Many of us, in fact most of us, did not know it before, but I think that we are united on that now.
The second thing which we have to learn is that in the two years ahead war is certainly not inevitable; on the contrary,

1151
I would say that war is unlikely. In the two years ahead, there is going to be a colossal struggle between the two sides, both profoundly reluctant to turn a cold war into a shooting war, two sides which are going to measure up against each other and either fight it out or settle down, respecting each other's power, strength and policy. Our rearmament' policy must be designed to aid our diplomatic policy in achieving in those two years a new relationship with Russia in which there is no misunderstanding, and to ensure that they are aware of what we stand for and what we are going to do. That must be the overall aim of this defence policy—not to prepare for war but to make war not inevitable by creating sufficient strength in Western Union to prevent the Russians from drawing false conclusions about us.
Here we have the real problem. If we rearm out of our own resources then we will allow the Communists to grow in strength in France and Italy as we drive the standard of living down. If we British rearm in this way we shall have Communists in this country. The people will not take it. How do we get out of that difficulty? I will give one suggestion to the House. We have only to look at what is happening in Western Europe under the E.R.P. We found that Europe could not recover out of its own resources. We and America said to ourselves that economic recovery was impossible, and the Communists would flood over Western Europe, if we were left to our own resources. So the U.S.A. said, "Right. For the economic revival of Western Europe we will give so many dollars," though they did not give as much as the minimum which we thought necessary. Now there is the danger that these dollars, given to prevent Communism spreading in Western Europe, will be used for rearmament and not for the job for which they were given.
There is really a very simple solution. If the Americans agreed that it was necessary for the social and economic reconstruction of Europe, when they did not think that war was likely, to give dollars, they have to realise that in their own self-interest the rearmament of Western Europe, although undertaken by Western Europe with their own soldiers, must have
1152
a dollar backing. We should put it to them perfectly bluntly, that for each unit of production potential we have to allocate to rearmament and which results in losses in our export drive, we should be given as many dollars as we lose in export. That is the sole way of making any sense of the E.R.P. combined with rearmament. If we do not do that the E.R.P. will not be doing its job.
What we have learned from Chamberlain's fiasco in the '30's, the Americans have to learn from the '30's too. If they had given Lend-Lease from 1937 to 1939 there would not have been a war. If they had come in to the extent of saying, "We will assist them to look after themselves" that would have stopped Hitler. I think that we can say with perfect honesty to the Americans, "If you do not want to waste your dollars in European Recovery and see the Communists flooding Western Europe, you have to remove the financial responsibility for the existing extra armament commitments of the Western Union Governments." I would like to see, alongside O.E.E.C., a block grant allocated to the Brussels signatories as the block grant for the E.R.P. is allocated in Paris. That seems the only sane thing to do. I say solemnly to the Government that if we drift into rearmament on any other condition, we are doing no service to ourselves or to America. It would be far better to have it out 'with them now and to put the responsibility squarely there, than to drift into a rearmament programme which is going to make hay of our social recovery.
As a means of defence against Communism, it has been rightly said that we cannot have military rearmament without a sound economic basis. But we have not got a sound economic basis. We need hundreds of millions to bridge the gap. On top of that, came the extra burden. We cannot pull through with a further rearmament plan unless that plan is financed by the Americans separately from E.R.P. out of a new form of Lend-Lease. But if we have to ask the Americans to do that, we have to make sure that the money is well spent. We cannot go on having 800,000 men in the Forces and the fewest fighting soldiers on record. Unless we can have as good a report on achievement in

1153
defence as we had recently on achievement in production from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we have no chance of getting the Americans to finance us. I say that bluntly and briefly, because I think that someone from this side of the House should say it. We cannot go on squandering money on men out of indecision. But I will not go into the details of that
We come then to the still more awkward problem which I have raised before. What is the point of rearming Western Union if there is nothing to prevent the Red Army from reaching the Channel? That is a feeling very prevalent not only in this country but in Germany, France and Italy. There there is a deep feeling of disillusion and frustration, and they are saying that it is all a pretence, because if the last resort came in the next month or two, it would be all up with them. I have said that myself, and I think that one has to give a reply to it.
Reply No. 1 is "Would Stalin do it after Hitler's example?" If Stalin wished to conquer countries without causing himself trouble, would he not go to the Middle East? But that is not a satisfactory reply for Europeans. We do not know what Stalin thinks. We may be wrong. The second reply is that our aim in this defence policy is not to defeat the Russians but to deter them. That is the aim. That is what we are spending money on. The object of the policy is not to defend Europe in war but prevent war by taking the necessary steps and building up the necessary strength in Europe so that the Russians will not feel inclined to begin it. That is the answer which must be given to the people of those countries, who feel that the overwhelming strength of the Russian Army is something against which they cannot do anything at all. I believe that this rearmament, which, in a sense, is a token rearmament which we are supporting now, will in fact contribute to that diplomatic end, although I am fairly certain that it will have to go a good deal further before it is finished.
Finally, I believe that there is only one real danger today. It is a danger which I find coming out of the mouths of hon. Members on both sides of the House—the doctrine that "war is inevitable; therefore let us have it quickly." the "ultima-
1154
turn doctrine" and the loose talk of "calling their bluff." Those who say that are insane—maniacs. Time is on our side. If we hold off war for ten years we have won.
The thing which will destroy all our plans in Western Europe is war, and those who talk of the inevitability of war, or even those who talk of bluffing the Russians, or calling their bluff, as though we were not bluffing, too, are the most dangerous armchair strategists—I regret to say that they sit on this side of the House as well as on the other side. They say, "Let us have no more talk. Let us give an ultimatum." Yet the only way one can possibly get the Russians to fight is to give an ultimatum. Anybody who cares to read the secret documents about the relations between the Nazis and Stalin, in that unhappy year when they were in alliance, would be interested to see how much the Russians will concede in order to avoid a war. If they are not actually forced into it they will not fight; and certainly not when the forces arrayed against them are strong. They are realistic men who measure politics in terms of power, and when the power alignment is not in their favour they withdraw. Therefore, make it in our favour and they will withdraw; they will not fight. Why should they? They will withdraw because they believe the time will come when things will be in their favour. But I do not mind what their motives are as long as they do it.
So I come to this conclusion. We cannot achieve our Socialist objectives, as some of us hoped we could, by any policy of neutrality. That is simply shifting the responsibility on to somebody else. Perhaps the greatest danger of war today is that there are Americans who say it is inevitable, and that we may as well have it soon. If they think that—and it is perfectly legitimate for them to think so—then to prevent these irresponsible Americans from carrying it out we must have sufficient power so that we can say, "You cannot do it without us." That is the power Britain has today. We are not strong enough to start a war—thank heavens—but we are strong enough to prevent one. We are strong enough to prevent one day by day, week by week and month by month, because no one can win a war without us. But that is only so if we are strong—strong economically and strong militarily—and our job in the

1155
next five years is to retain our military strength, while keeping our military commitments to a minimum, and making the Americans pay for them. And that is possible. A year ago nobody believed the Marshall Plan was possible. Why should not this be possible, too? Why should we believe we cannot get it? If we cannot get that, there is no way out of our dilemma.
6.32 p.m.
Mr. Michael Astor: I will not follow in very great detail the interesting speech of the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman), but I would challenge one statement he made when he declared that we must stand firm against Russia and surrender nothing. In my opinion we have already surrendered a good deal, in the heavy costs to the taxpayer of the air lift to Berlin, and in surrendering the cause of allies in Eastern Europe, if we care to cast our minds back. I denote a certain change of tone in the hon. Member for East Coventry when he appears to be willing for us to hinge ourselves to the American economy. That is a change of heart, but I believe that he is fundamentally wrong in his appreciation of the United States when he starts the theory that we have to enter into power politics with the United States of America. He did not expand on that, but he implied that in order to command the power of diplomatic and strategic decisions we should possess some strong armament weapons on which to stake our claim to argument. I believe this conception of diplomacy comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the way in which the United States regard us.
It has already been pointed out that for security reasons any Defence Debate at the moment must be veiled in a good deal of obscurity; and it has already been pointed out that the Minister of Defence went a bit too far in that direction when he told the House very little more than they have already read in the newspapers. I do not ask that we should be given information vital to the enemy at this moment, or anything of a secret nature at all. That would be quite wrong. But the present state of affairs does demand that Members of this House should have a high degree of confidence in the Ministers responsible for defence matters. As
1156
far as the War Office is concerned, I believe it will be shown that the Secretary of State for War has done a good deal to redeem the reputation which he made at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and that as far as preparation of the Army goes, within the limits of conscription and our financial predicament, the professional qualities of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff have certainly left their mark.
Unfortunately, Members in this House have no reason to repose equal confidence in either the Minister of Defence or the Prime Minister. I would just make one suggestion, to which possibly the Secretary of State for War could reply this evening. In all fairness to the Minister of Defence—although we do not think he is adequate for the job—I would ask whether his Ministry is more than a Ministry in name. It seems to me that in personnel, size and strength it is inadequate for the function it has to carry out. The reason, I suppose, is that during the war the Minister of Defence was also the Prime Minister, and was also the present right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), who could obviously tap any Ministry at will, and the success of his office depended to a large extent on his own ability and personality. That is no longer the case, and one wonders whether that Ministry is adequate.
If war comes we shall find ourselves the junior partner in a military alliance with the United States against an aggressor. Well, the only possible aggressor today for as far ahead as we can see, is the Soviet Government. I say particularly the Soviet Government and not the Soviet people, because this is germane to what I have to say about political warfare. I am certain that 30 years of oppressive Communist control, with the screw being turned tighter and tighter in the Soviet Union, although it will have hardened the hearts and the sensibilities of the Russian people, will also have bred deep resentment against that régime.
Our rôle on land and sea and in the air will necessarily be a limited one, and a primary rôle will certainly be the defence of these Islands as a firm base from which to launch heavy attacks. Now, there are two weapons which we could wield equally effectively, and I think more effectively than our allies: one is that of underground

1157
warfare, and the other is that of political or psychological warfare. I do not want to expand too much on the question of underground warfare, because I should not expect a comprehensive reply from a Minister on this point. However, I would say that now is the time to see that the tentacles which give us information are set up, not only in Europe but as far afield as we can visualise war extending. I wonder whether, for instance, escape routes have been organised and set up in Europe for recovering our own prisoners of war and other friendly personnel whom we would wish to bring to this country.
I would point out that this particular branch is not like the Royal Armoured Corps or the Infantry, where one can say there are a lot of men who were trained in the war, and who can be called up sooner or later to resume their old job. A great many people who were doing this escape work in the war cannot be used again, because they are what is technically known as "blown," in that where it is known they were employed in that kind of work once, they can never, for that reason, be employed in that kind of work again. On the other hand, they can be used for training other men. I mention this because it is an essential aspect of defence. It is something we can do very well; we can contribute a great deal; and now is the time to make these preparations.
In speaking of political warfare, I mean the kind of propaganda and information which influences men's minds both at home and abroad. I do not call it psychological warfare, because it is not technically psychological warfare, as that was understood in the last war. War and defence have never in the history of war been merely a matter of arms, with trained men to wield those arms and staffs to control those men; the matter of morale has always been of paramount importance. The study of how to influence men's minds is a science which is more or less in its infancy, but we certainly know more about it than did earlier generations. Its potentialities have been very much increased as a result of the many means of communication which have come into being during the last 20 years, and also as a result of the considerable experience we gained during the war years.
1158
At home, we are not doing half enough from the point of view of morale. For instance, among perfectly patriotic people of good faith in this country there are many illusions as to what, in fact, Communism really means. It is one thing to purge the Civil Service of undesirable political characters—this may be a wise move—but far more important is to have a completely informed public both as to what domination by a potential enemy really means and in this case what his ideology looks like when carried into practice and also what our own political aims consist of. I am perfectly certain that if people knew what the Soviet experiment means to the people in Russia, in the event of war 99 per cent. would take up arms or fulfil any other rôle in the spirit of a crusade. There will always he the one per cent. who are either pacifist, or in another category, twisted or perverted people who can only give expression to their character by betraying their own country, or those few charlatans who gamble on the other side winning.
Conversely, if the people now under Communist domination knew something about life in the West and knew our intentions towards them in the event of a war, I am perfectly certain it would add greatly to the resistance that already exists to the Communist regime in the countries concerned. During the German invasion of Russia, in certain southern parts of the advance the German army were welcomed almost as liberators. It was only later, when Hitler took command of these areas away from the Army and handed it over to the Gestapo, that the people found out the true nature of the Fascist animal. That is a point which we must bear in mind. In all these respects, what we have to do is to counter the political warfare in which the Kremlin are indulging all the time and in which they are making us appear as the aggressors at every turn.
Mr. Daines: Does the hon. Member think that statements from national leaders of this country, that never has the name of this country sunk so low as now, is conducive to the type of mentality he is putting forward?
Mr. Astor: I said nothing about the country never having sunk so low. If what I have said were carried out, it would be appreciated that in a political

1159
democracy there is, and there is bound to be, public expression of violent dissensions of opinion. This is a healthy sign, and these remarks are put in their true perspective.
I believe that at home we are not doing enough to keep public opinion informed. For home propaganda there are three main channels of communication—the Press, the radio and the films. So far as the Press is concerned, certain sections of the Press, together with a great many Members of the Labour Party, have a good deal of leeway to make up, remembering that unduly sentimental view they took about the Soviet Union at the end of the war. So far as the radio is concerned, the public are in great doubt, not so much about what we are trying to defend, but what our foreign policy is in Europe today. By that I mean that no Minister ever comes to the microphone and urges the case for Western Union, which is an important factor. They do not do it, I suppose, because the Foreign Secretary is so lukewarm on that point. The United States have already used the medium of the films to inform public opinion as to the modus vivendi of a possible enemy. We have not done this and should do so.
With regard to propaganda and political warfare abroad, there are at the moment three organisations responsible for sending out information of one kind or another. There is the Central Office of Information, the B.B.C. and the British Council. Some Members are under the impression that the Central Office of Information is a policy-making body. It is nothing of the kind, but is merely a factory turning out certain material to blueprints given to them by a variety of Ministers. As far as I can determine, Ministerial responsibility for co-ordinating these three voices abroad resides in the Lord President of the Council. At the moment there are people in these organisations with ability and experience, well qualified to carry out their functions, but there is no co-ordination and no directives are going to them in regard to these matters. There is a good deal of wasted effort and a good deal of unnecessary friction. If we are to treat the matter of political warfare at all seriously, we should immediately set up once again the Ministry of Information.
Mr. Bing: Hurrah!
Mr. Astor: The Lord President of the Council could then continue with his political gymnastics while one Minister concentrated on co-ordinating the various methods for propagating information. I would caution hon. Members who believe that political warfare could further be exploited not to urge that it should be built up to the same degree and tempo to occupied countries of Eastern Europe as it was to the countries occupied by Hitler in 1944. All we have to do—and it is very ably done in the case of European broadcasts under the direction of General Jacob—is to give the impression that we speak the truth and give factual information.
In case hon. Members should think that I am being hostile to Russia, I would say that there is no question of arousing people to take any hostile action against anyone at the moment. I seriously urge the Government to exploit this weapon as far as possible. Incidentally, it is the least expensive arm we wield, and as the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) pointed out in another Debate, unlike other weapons, it immediately shows results and thereby pays dividends from the moment of its inception. We can when we try use this weapon very astutely. As a nation, we are not given to propaganda. It has in the past never been a part of our daily life. This is an attractive national characteristic. It is a tribute to ourselves. It is a mark of the degree of civilisation which we have reached, but I would remind the House that it is necessary to give up many of the more attractive facets of our civilisation in order to defend that civilisation.
6.51 p.m.
Mr. Cobb: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Astor) who has such a vast fund of expertise in the art of propaganda. He has probably said all that ought to be said on it. Only he and my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) have spoken on matters relating to defence other than what one might call the provision of manpower for the Fighting Services. That has persuaded me that this House may be in danger of having a very short memory, because surely we cannot expect these men to be of any effective use unless they are provided with equipment.

1161
Have we forgotten that it took us seven years from 1937 onwards to reach our peak production in the last war?
I listened carefully to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence. I listened just as carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). Not once, except very slightly, did they touch upon this subject. Neither did they mention the Commonwealth in that relation, and it is to that aspect that I propose to direct my remarks, namely, the organisation of industry for the equipment of the Forces both from a national and Commonwealth point of view, because I feel that both of them are inseparable. If the precautions which we are taking are necessary, one is bound to ask whether the provision of trained men for the Services is our greatest problem. I believe that the organisation of the Commonwealth's industrial potential is more urgent and more difficult.
I do not believe that we have to produce large amounts of goods for the Fighting Services immediately but we have to undertake preliminary organisation to make that possible because, as the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) said, if we are involved in a war it will come in a flash. We cannot afford seven years in which to organise industry in this country and in the Commonwealth. We have to do it more quickly than we mobilise the men. No one knows this better than the people in industry. We ought to pay more attention to this matter. When I speak of the Commonwealth, I mean this country together with all the Commonwealth countries. I have two propositions to put to my right hon. Friend. The first concerns British industrial war potential. I would like to ask whether our methods are adequate and effective and whether they are economical in manpower and material, that is for the provision of our preliminary plans to make sure that industry is mobilised as well as manpower.
Here I would particularly ask my right hon. Friend to look at what is going on in the mass production industries at the present time. I have not time this evening to list all the things that one could mention, but I should like to give my right hon. Friend a few examples. Let me take, for example, the tendering
1162
system as between the Ministry of Supply, the Admiralty and industry. This system is wasteful. Only the other day I had to fill in a tender from the Ministry of Supply. It was due to be sent in on 22nd September and it called for delivery to begin in October. It is quite impossible for industry, which up and down the country is handling these tenders at the moment, to do this without a great waste of our resources. To meet these conditions the tendering firm need spare labour, space, machines and materials standing by in case its tender is accepted. Alternatively, it must have these things locked up in the form of complete material ready to be delivered in case the tender is accepted. So we have firms up and down the country, a lot of industrial Micawbers, waiting for the acceptance of a tender possibly to turn up.
This is wasteful. Was not the wartime arrangement better? During the war we found from experience that in order to get our industry properly organised we had to throw overboard the tendering system and adopt a different system. Why was this system, which was built up during the war, scrapped? I believe it was due to a Treasury instruction. Did the Treasury know, were they properly informed on this matter? Do they know how industry forecasts, plans and produces? If they do not know—and I do not think they do—they ought to go and learn. After all, the Treasury consists of some of the best brains of the country. Industry would be more efficient if some of those brains had gone into industry. Instead those brains have goine into the Treasury. Let them go and see this system and devise a better one, one which is effective and economical on the one hand and which safeguards the public purse on the other.
Another point which I should like to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend concerns the manufacture of equipment and components for the Fighting Services. What is happening in regard to inter-Service standardisation both in regard to complete equipment and in regard to components which go into that equipment? This question was raised by myself and a number of other hon. Members in the Debate on the Navy Estimates last March. There is a further matter I should like to raise. When we look at the White Paper setting up the

1163
Ministry of Defence, it mentions a top organisation for research and production. A Committee on Defence Research Policy was set up and also a Ministerial Production Committee. It is a British habit to keep research and production separate when they are really twins. I should like to know whether the coordination between the research people, on the one hand, and the production people, on the other, is good?
I should like to recommend once more, with all the force at my command, that the research organisation ought to have at least one good production man upon it because there are very few research people—physicists—who really understand the art of production. Research people are liable to get too far away from the realities of production if they have not at least one man of first-class calibre to remind them at least of what is to happen in the long run to the result of their research. Further points on this matter were made by myself and other hon. Members in the Debate on the Ministry of Defence Act in November, 1946. I cannot see any sign yet that those have been acted upon. I believe it would be worth while for my right hon. Friend to turn them up.
Turning to my second proposition, I should first ask the question, What is our basic defence policy? Have we an agreed Commonwealth policy or is it an American defence policy, from the point of view of equipment? I am not now speaking about the organisation of manpower for the Services, but entirely about equipment. Is it an American defence policy or a Commonwealth defence policy? Until that is decided, I do not believe that the rest of what we have to do can possibly flow with any great degree of smoothness.
This raises a clear question. Is the Commonwealth today to have its own research, design and production of Service equipment? Is the Commonwealth in this to rely upon its own efforts, because there is a growing Commonwealth opinion that the U.S.A. decides the basic policy of the equipment our Armed Forces are going to use, and that America shall be the arsenal for equipping our Fighting Forces, with Britain and Japan acting as floating aerodromes and Australia acting as an advance store
1164
depot. Is it a self-contained Commonwealth policy standing on its own feet, or is it some other policy?
Until this is known and decided, Commonwealth industry cannot fit into whatever scheme we have got to adopt so that when the equipment is wanted it can he produced overnight, because if it cannot be produced overnight it will be of no use. Commonwealth and British industry cannot play its full part on research, design or production until this policy is decided and known, for from that decision flows Commonwealth military industrial policy, and that policy must react on our peacetime industrial plans. It cannot be otherwise. Do we design and produce our own equipment in the British Commonwealth, or do we copy America? This is the vital question, and if it is not decided correctly many thousand's of men's lives will be thrown away in the unhappy event of war occurring. If Commonwealth industry is to do this job, how do we set about it, because I do not believe that this decision has been taken? I can find no signs of it.
In the last war Russia survived because Russian industry was recognised as part of the military defence policy. I have the impression that we do not sufficiently recognise the fact that productive industry is essentially an integral part of our military policy, whatever it might be. Too large a part of the Russian industry was in the European part of Russia at the beginning of the last war and we all know that it was moved further away. From a defence point of view, a too large part of the British Commonwealth industry is in Great Britain and the ideal peacetime planning of Commonwealth industry may have to give way to military necessity.
Here I particularly want to talk about shadow factories. I mentioned this in the previous defence Debate. The point I made then, which I believe to be an important one, seems to me to have been ignored. Shadow factory technique, which was started in this country during the war, as a matter of necessity, took years to perfect, and if these shadow factories have got to be scattered over the British Colonial Empire and the Commonwealth it may take many more years to perfect. We cannot wait until these factories have turned over to war production to effect co-ordination. The technique must be perfected in peace time

1165
when the factories are producing peacetime goods.
Let me give an example. There may be a factory in this country producing motor cars, and it may be agreed that in war that factory has got to make tanks. We cannot afford to have all that production in this country. If it is decided that this industry should be spread abroad, branches should be established in South Africa and New Zealand. That ought to be decided and started now so that we can go on making motor cars in this country and in South Africa and New Zealand. I believe that if the production people get used to working together on a standardised basis while making peacetime goods, should war make it necessary overnight they could stop the production of motor cars and start on war production. If this is not done and if we wait until necessity is upon us, this shadow factory technique cannot be started, and I believe that in any war in which we might be involved in the foreseeable future this is going to be a vital necessity. We cannot see any signs that any steps have been taken to start it, but such co-ordination is absolutely necessary.
What is perhaps as important is that a sensible emigration policy waits on this decision, because until the overall organisation has been created we cannot decide what technical people and what organisations have to be sent overseas. We may be sending the wrong people overseas right at this moment. So we have to agree on a basic Commonwealth industrial defence policy now, so that if the need arises the Commonwealth industry can instantly mobilise to support the Services, each group of shadow factories throughout the Commonwealth knowing what its war-time job is. They ought to be capable of mobilising ahead of manpower mobilisation. The last war largely taught us this.
This is the best way to follow out the basic conditions laid down in Command Paper 6923, the Defence White Paper, which stated that for the time being we will give preference to research, keeping military stocks down to a minimum with the least interference to peace-time production. It seems to me if these basic plans were laid down, not necessarily to produce but to be ready to produce, that would be the best way to follow out
1166
what was laid down in Command Paper 6923. Thus organised, I believe the Commonwealth could reach, if necessary, peak military production perhaps in 12 months. I think that is too long, but I doubt if it could be done quicker. It would not take seven years, as happened last time.
If European factories are disabled in the system I am advocating, the sister factories in the Commonwealth could take over research and production right away. I appeal to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for War and the Minister for Defence to get such a policy started now before it is too late. Once a war starts, our essential skills may be destroyed before they can be exported. As a Socialist, I deplore the necessity to discuss this. However, I believe it is necessary to discuss it and to plan on these lines, because by so doing we may save many thousands of lives. But
"If it were done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly."
7.8 p.m.
Mr. Maude: I hope the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) will forgive me for not following the lines on which he spoke, because I want to make a very short reference to the Territorial Army campaign. In common with almost every Member of this House, with the possible exception of two from whom we heard yesterday, we are going to try to help the Secretary of State for War in his campaign for the Territorial Army. However, the time has now come when something should be said on the Floor of the House by way of criticism, in order that better efforts should be made than I fear are going to be made. When I opened the letter from the Secretary of State for War I felt considerable dismay at having to take part in such a campaign, and I believe for a very good reason.
It is about two years since we all helped in a campaign for Army recruiting, not the Territorial Army. In my constituency it was hideous. What happened was that the mayor, sheriff and high Army officers all mounted a platform in the open air. A band marched past and it all looked very good. There was an officer from the War Office, and I forbore from complaining at that time because I felt it was not in the national

1167
interest, but now the time has come to say what happened. At that time, the Press kept it out of the papers.
This officer was speaking and he explained all about the Army, but the appalling part of it was that he literally had not the slightest idea where he was. When he made his speech he was very complimentary about our city, saying it had done such honourable things, that the Marines and the Brigade of Guards were largely recruited from it, and then we were horrified when he suddenly said, "It is a great pleasure to be here speaking in Gloucester." There was absolute panic. There was a low moan from some of the aldermen sitting around. Everybody thought that the mistake was one of those slips of the tongue, but not at all. After a minute or two he again expatiated on the glories of Gloucester. He had literally forgotten that he was not in Gloucester. He had been in Gloucester. I can hardly tell the House how miserable that meeting was, and if anything like that should happen again all I can say is that somebody should be punished, because, as on this occasion, it is a very serious thing indeed.
We have promised to help, and we shall do so in the happiest spirit, but I cannot help feeling that in a few months' time it will be thought that to go ahead asking for ex-officers and N.C.O.s to come back and start training people in 1950 is really leaving matters too late. It is a ghastly misunderstanding of the urgency of the problem. I can foresee that it is going to be extremely difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to do away with the apathy which he asks us to break down. I should like to give him an example, so that he will fully understand what the difficulties are. I will tell him straight out now that one of the difficulties is the right hon. Gentleman himself. I will tell him why.
I went to a cinema the other day, and there I happened to be thinking about what we were going to do in connection with this campaign. I had been writing a long letter trying to describe the very long pamphlet which he sent us, "Notes for Speakers." I wrote the letter. Before I left the cinema I had the extremely distasteful experience of seeing the right hon. Gentleman trying to spread disunity at the Trades Union Conference. There was a lot in his speech about 30 years of
1168
Tory misrule. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman, instead of chuckling in a fatuous sort of way, does not realise that in a time of peril it would be better if he tried to encourage real respect by standing out of all that sort of thing, so that people—
Mrs. Jean Mann rose—
Mr. Maude: I am sorry. I cannot give way to the hon. Lady. The right hon. Gentleman is quite able to look after himself. I was saying that he ought to stand out of that sort of thing so that half the people who are, at any rate, very fond of him—
Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about Churchill?
Mr. Maude: If the hon. Gentleman who interrupts me kept quiet about this sort of thing and did not try to annoy us it would make matters a great deal easier. I will say something about my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). I noticed yesterday that a comparatively young Member opposite was criticising my right hon. Friend because he was not here. I noticed also that the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) was today again criticising the right hon. Member for Woodford. What I say to hon. Members about that is, and I say it passionately, that when the cat—in this case a very large and important one—is away, the mice will play. Hon. Members do not do themselves justice by making comments which they know perfectly well to be the last things they should say about my right hon. Friend.
The Minister of Defence will find very great difficulties in his campaign if he believes he is going to get people into the Territorial Army in large numbers simply and solely by improving conditions and so on. That will not be possible. I dread to think that the right hon. Gentleman may believe that. Nor do I believe that he is going to have a great success with what is set out in the pamphlet, suggesting that the National Service men's time in the Army is going to be so lovely—I think that is a reasonable word, in all the circumstances—that they are simply itching to come into the Territorial Army. That is not the way to do it.
He must understand that the ordinary fellow will want to serve, if and when

1169
the situation is explained to him in a way that he can understand, and he realises that there really is an emergency. It is going to be very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to do that, or for the other less inspiring figure who is concerned in this campaign, and who could not possibly have been cast for the part of inspiring the people in such a campaign. Neither of the right hon. Gentlemen is an inspiring or romantic figure. They know that. Do they not think that it is going to be extremely difficult to get that realisation into the heads of the kind of people whom you can get at on these matters only by being very forthright about the real reasons why there is an emergency? I have an idea—
Mr. A. V. Alexander: I have appealed tonight for the help of all sections of the House in this campaign, and I am rather waiting for the hon. and learned Gentleman to come to a point where he intends to be helpful. He really ought not to take the line, in my judgment, that he is taking at the present time, forgetting that some of the people whom he is now attacking, including myself, did a good many things for the country when we were all together. Why should the hon. and learned Member try to destroy anything of that kind now?
Mr. Maude: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I will tell him quite clearly. Of course, nothing can destroy—certainly not myself, although I feel very flattered that the right hon. Gentleman should be nettled by what I said—the achievements of the right hon. Gentleman in the past, but it would be absolutely wrong not to explain to him that persons with whom I come into contact are, in my honest opinion, going to find it extremely difficult to be inspired by the sort of speech made by the right hon. Gentleman.
I do not hesitate also to say something else. I was waiting for it, and of course it came from a Member of the Communist Party. I knew it would happen sooner or later. There was the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) at last complaining that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was making a miserable effort. That was the word he used, "an entirely miserable effort." The awful part about it was that everybody had felt the miserable tone of the
1170
right hon. Gentleman while he was making his speech. We all know him. very well. We know that he does not, in fact, make a dashing impression. He knew that sooner or later somebody would try to make capital out of that fact. There is no doubt that in order to arouse enthusiasm, one has to have the right people. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman getting up now and saying that one is trying to harm him—
Mr. Alexander: No, to harm the campaign.
Mr. Maude: Or to harm the campaign—by pointing out something which is absolutely essential before this campaign starts. It is absolutely essential that the right hon. Gentleman should not think, as I am inclined to believe he does think from what he has been saying, that he is going to have a tremendous effect. That is a mistake, if I may say so. It may well be that the Prime Minister will do so or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I am not going to find it easy to work up great enthusiasm for either of the Ministers who are most intimately connected with this campaign. It is no good burking the fact. It is actually the truth.
I should have thought it would have been very much better, instead of fiddling about with it, to get busy. There has been drift in the Territorial Army in the last few years, doing absolutely nothing. Recruiting, as we know, is not satisfactory. The moment will come between October and March when right hon. Gentlemen will have to tell the people quite bluntly what the real trouble is. They do not understand it now. Right hon. Gentlemen will find that people say: "I'm not interested in Berlin, and I don't understand it." Right hon. Gentlemen will have to explain about Russia and tell people that since 1939 there has been an accretion to the 200 million people there of 24 million people, and an accretion of a quarter of a million square miles to their land. Right hon. Gentlemen will have to tell the people what the danger is. I can assure them that I am filled with the greatest anxieties. We shall find that this campaign will not be launched unless things are said in such a way as to irritate both right hon. Gentlemen. I have managed at least to annoy one of

1171
them successfully. If I manage to annoy both, we shall have a good show put up. If I do not do that, what we may get is a miserable show, and that will not do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said that he welcomed the campaign, and he was trying to stress the fact that the Territorial Army is vitally important. We understand the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to enlist our sympathies and help.
Having tried to condense—I think that was reasonable—the arguments in the pamphlet with which the right hon. Gentleman supplied us—it is a good pamphlet but a very long one—I was met with the observation from the biggest newspaper in the West Country—hon. Members opposite may make whatever capital they like out of it against me—that owing to the shortage of paper it was not possible to print it. The refusal was by the "Western Morning News." I do not blame them; they know their own business best. However, that is the fact. If right hon. Gentlemen want us to break down the apathy, will they please do something as quickly as possible to give us the ammunition from their own mouths, showing what in their view is causing this emergency and the necessity for the people to go into the Territorial Army. It is a first-rate thing that they should go before the public, not as people who divide us but as people who for a few months or a year are bound only to the job at their Departments. In that way we will serve them.
7.23 p.m.
Mrs. Jean Mann: I have sat throughout this Debate with a feeling that life is not real and that I have been dreaming. I sometimes feel like pinching myself to try to make myself believe that I am really here. When I came here in 1945 I had read "Let us Face the Future" and I had written an election address and made various promises, but there was one promise I did not make, that in September, 1948, I should be taking part in a rearmament programme for this country. I could not envisage it. I have been surprised at the calm acceptance of the position which has been shown by those taking part in this Debate. They do not seem to think that there might be an alternative. I do not
1172
think there has been any attempt to explore alternatives—just re-arm, one nation after another racing down the steep hill, like the Gadarene swine, to the destruction of all civilisation. That is what it means if it cannot be stopped.
I wondered if there would be a petition signed by all the conscientious objectors and by those opposed to conscription, and there is none. I doubt whether those opposed to conscription on the last occasion would sign today. I would not. I was opposed to conscription. I have never felt as a mother that I had any pleasure in the making of laws or decrees that sent other mothers' sons into a fight, and I can only take part in this tonight because two of my own sons are affected by this Motion. They are by no means in easy positions. One in the Navy is at the moment in the Red Sea anticipating a great deal of work because when his ship is in the Red Sea he has a great many patients among the men. The other is in a malarial swamp jungle as far away as possible in East Africa. Both were very group happy and both were counting the days when they could come home to dear old Scotland. They said, "Even when it is raining, even when it is in storm, I love it;" and they will not come. They will be affected by the three months' deferment, and I have nothing to say.
I am not going to join with the other women in organising women throughout this country to shout for peace when there is no peace. I think it is a mistake to organise women or men in this country, shouting to them to call for peace when there is no peace. I notice that those who have been taking part in that kind of campaign are the organisers of similar "no more war" campaigns of 1940, and therefore I suspect that kind of organisation. I do not think we have exhausted the possibilities for peace. I think we could explore these possibilities still further.
The hon. Member for Eastern Surrey (Mr. Astor) very properly mentioned the psychological aspect of warfare. All around us in this campaign for volunteers we shall have a campaign going on showing the British people what a horrible country they are living in and how they are in the grasp of the landlords. They will try to feed our people on their own miseries and will try to make them flag.

1173
They will be joined—I am sorry to say they are almost joined now—by people like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) who drew down this country in derision in the eyes of people abroad for a mess of election pottage.
All hon. Members will require to be very careful about what they say. The psychological warfare is even more important than this, and I say to those friends of Generalissimo Stalin in the House—they are not all here tonight—that I think they have a contribution to make to peace. I think that they might make approaches and that the first gesture for ending this great armaments race must come from the Kremlin.
Mr. Gallacher: That is not where it started.
Mrs. Mann: I think we are entitled to a gesture of peace from the Kremlin.
Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Lady excuse me? Is it not the case that the hon. Lady got on to the Glasgow Council and into this House, by pointing out to the workers that the Tories and the capitalists were their enemies? Why has she nothing to say about her new allies the monopoly capitalists of America?
Mrs. Mann: The allies that I have witnessed last week have been those of the capitalist newspapers, who are pointing out that members of the Coal Board get £7,000 a year, without pointing out. at the same time how much we take from that £7,000 in Income Tax, and they are allied on the same propaganda as my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who would lose his seat next week if he liked to come out and fight it on this issue. Those who are so friendly I say, with Generalissimo Stalin ought to tell him the truth about the people of this country, that we await a gesture. And of all people, the people in the Labour movement deserve that gesture from the Kremlin.
Much has been said about how hard Britain has been to Russia in times past. I think it is never remembered that when Lenin signed the treaty of Brest-Litovsk he himself pledged to Germany on behalf of Russia, £300 million. Not a penny of it did he need to pay, because this little island of Britain kept on to the last and won that particular war.
Mr. Gallacher: Better not tell the Americans that.
Mrs. Mann: I shall tell the Americans that they also owe a great debt, as does the hon. Member's country, to this country for having stood with its back to the wall, having sold all its foreign assets long before we got Lend-Lease. It is time some of us started being proud of Great Britain instead of joining in the general melee to call it down for all we are worth.
The hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) "had something" when he said the people were not informed. Are we now to go round inviting people to join Civil Defence, inviting them to join up in the Volunteers, to take their places to gear up the war machine? They will ask us why. They will say, "Tell us what has occurred." Do any of us really know? I hear statements made at large meetings of women and I hear the women shouting that they want peace, but the failure of the Atomic Energy Commission, the reason why it had failed, is never pointed out to these women. It ought to be pointed out. I have heard criticisms of the amount we have spent on P.R.O., and I wonder how much we have spent in this connection. Do we really know the situation in regard to Berlin? We certainly know that someone is holding up supplies of food to certain people in Berlin, making as difficult as possible a humane act like delivering food to people, so that because we cannot get access in the ordinary way, we have to use the air.
I say that these things ought to be pointed out, hammered home, because we shall get a lot of propaganda. We shall be told that we are still under the landlords. Dear me, how differently we do things in this country from the Kremlin. We have no difficulties with the landlords. There is no landlord in Great Britain who can add a hen's shed to his estate without putting at least £30 into the Central Land Development Fund for the privilege. We do not use a steam hammer or a steam roller when a pair of tweezers will do. In this campaign about the wicked landlords there will be nothing said about the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act which nullifies all the powers of the landlord. We shall be told of the rent campaign—I know the party line—yet not a landlord in

1175
this country has been able to raise any of the rents of £90 and under. People will be whipped up into a frenzy against the proposals of the Minister on grounds like that, yet the people of this country had a Chartist movement before they had a movement against landlords. They had a movement for liberty—
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of Order. Is there anything in the statement of the Lord President of the Council of 14th September relating to rents, landlords and the Chartist movement?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady was making a point. She was referring to the conditions under which our recruiting campaign would be conducted.
Mrs. Mann: I think the noble Lord will find quickly that I have been correct when he goes to his constituency. Before there was a Labour movement there was a Chartist movement, there was a movement for freedom of speech, for freedom to vote, for the right of assembly. These things to the people of Britain matter much more than mere political parties. There are some in this House, I know, who would like us to lie down and let anyone ride roughshod over us, but the people of Britain regard some of their dearest privileges as worth more than life itself, and if we can get that fact home to the Kremlin, we shall reinforce our demand for peace.
7.38 p.m.
Commander Noble: I am sure that the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) will have the sympathy of the House that her two sons have been affected by this recent decision of the Government, and we all hope that she will soon have them returned to her. The hon. Lady asked at the beginning of her speech whether there were no alternatives to preparing for war. She mentioned some of the alternatives, and I would like to point out to her some others—what has been happening in Berlin, what has been happening in Moscow, what has been happening on the United Nations and, incidentally, what happened in Czechoslovakia. I very much want to know whether the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will accept the invitation she gave him to take a message to Russia.
1176
Perhaps after the recent medal he received, he may think that worth while.
Mr. Gallacher: I had a decoration from Czechoslovakia and one from Hungary, both from representatives of the working classes, and I am very proud of them
Mr. Vane: Where are they?
Commander Noble: I am very interested to have that information because I did not, of course, make any reference to the place from which the medal came. I am sure hon. Members will agree that we had a rather disappointing statement from the Minister of Defence today. We had many of the old clichés with which we are so familiar both in recent defence Debates from him and in the periodic defence White Papers which we have debated. One was very aptly described on another occasion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) as "ably phrased fluff." We had old clichés such as collective security, stable conditions, no easy problem to solve, and healthy economic situation.
But we did detect a most welcome sign and that was that on this occasion there was a little more sense of urgency, although we feel that is because the steps the Government are now taking are too late. I emphasise that we on this side of the House in the last defence Debate, and on previous occasions, have warned His Majesty's Government of the danger of getting involved in a "No war for a number of years" policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington made a great point of that in the defence Debate early in the year. I am not sure that His Majesty's Government are not falling into that trap, if they have not already fallen into it.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) also said he thought the steps we are taking now should have been taken before and are now too late. It seems quite clear from the personnel point of view that the Government have fallen into that trap. The build-up of our Forces, the Army in particular, is based on 1952 when the great majority of National Service men

1177
come out and go into the Special Reserves. The result is that sudden measures have to be taken and they do not in any way help the long-term position. The question of material presents a much more difficult problem. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) said in the Debate on the King's Speech, for the last three years the Defence Ministers have not given any figures, or very few figures, to this House in the Annual Estimates, with the result that their responsibility is correspondingly increased.
In regard to information about the Army and the Air Force, we find ourselves in the same position as we did in regard to the Royal Navy earlier this year when it seemed that His Majesty's Government attempted to pretend we had not a Navy when we really had one all the time. It was left to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) to tell the world on the Naval Estimates that we had a Navy. I think that if hon. Members opposite look up the facts they will see that the policy of keeping the facts of the Navy hidden caused more harm in the world than if they had told the truth.
In that connection we welcome the statements on production by the Lord President of the Council and the Minister of Defence and the rather grudging admission of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty yesterday that the refits of destroyers and escort vessels were being expedited. I was glad that the Minister of Defence quite openly confirmed that today. I am sure the people of this country are very relieved that the Royal Dockyards are not making any more dustbins or letter boxes. I hope we shall have a reassurance that progress is being made with conversion to higher speeds of some of the older escort vessels so that they can compete with the modern submarine.
I hope we shall not hear any more about selling small ships to other countries. I read in the papers this morning that two more destroyers are being sold, yet we know how short we are of destroyers. I wish to quote the words of the Minister of Defence in the last defence Debate, when he made a very true statement:
"It is well known that the intricate apparatus of modern war demands many months—
1178
even years—to get production in quantity of an accepted prototype."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1948, Vol. 448, c. 59.]
I wish to say a few words about the Naval Reserves, and in particular the new Emergency Reserve, and I hope there will be a great response in recruiting for each Service. I noticed one newspaper this morning mentioned a statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty in another place as having referred to these Reservists as "Minute men." In view of the Government policy, I think they might be called "Last minute men." I do not think this new Emergency Reserve answers the long-term problem. It serves to emphasise what we have been saying ever since the first Naval Estimates of this Parliament. What is being done to attract that large body of officers and men who formed the main proportion of the Navy at the end of the war into the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve? Many months ago, when men were being released, I inquired if they were asked by an officer whether they would join the R.N.V.R. I do not think they were. Was a record kept of their addresses, and were they asked whether they would join later when they were perhaps more susceptible? I do not think anything like that was done, but I feel it would have been a better method of contacting these men. I do not think there is any other way, except by a call-up by age groups, as in the war.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that the R.N.V.R. are short of men. He could not have spoken a truer word. It has been pointed out that three years after the end of the war, in spite of the enormous number released, the R.N.V.R. consists of about 1,300 officers and 1,400 men. Speaking of ratings alone, that is out of an establishment of nearly 13,000 and it was expected to have reached more than 3,000 this year. Yesterday we were told, although it seemed almost unbelievable, that nothing has yet been done to reorganise the Royal Naval Reserve. The First Lord hinted at differences between the Ministry of Transport and the Admiralty. I think these differences have existed for many years and they could be solved now as in the past.
If the R.N.V.R. is not increased, where are the trained Reserves to come from for the Royal Navy? I have asked this question on many occasions. We know

1179
that the Navy is only to have a token of the National Service men, and even by 1952 very few will be coming out to form this trained Reserve and the Emergency Reserve will be getting less trained every year they are out of the Service, especially in these days of modern equipment. I think it is the greatest pity that we have not taken every step in the last few years to increase the Auxiliary Services.
I have been worried about pay and Service conditions for some time, and I have asked a number of Questions on the subject. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, earlier this year, merely produced some rather irrelevant and cheap remarks about Invergordon, but I was glad the Minister of Defence in the Debate a few months ago, before we rose for the Summer Recess, and again today really applied himself to the problem. He said the Government would go into cases of hardship, and he repeated that again today. I think hon. Members on this side will support me in saying that there are many cases of hardship today in all three Services. It is well known that the Pay Code of 1945 was designed on the assumption that Income Tax would be reduced. In fact, I was told so categorically by Ministers, in letters. But it has not gone down and, at the same time, the cost of living and civilian wages have risen. To take one example, does not the Chairman of the National Coal Board draw very much more than the First Sea Lord. These things must be looked at in their proper proportion.
I would particularly ask the Minister to consider what others have already referred to, namely, the case of young married officers and other ranks. I have had some correspondence with officers and men of the lower deck, and I know that many are scraping along and would leave the Service tomorrow if they could. The Minister of Labour made a great point of this in the Debate on the National Service Bill last year, when he said that the Regular element was likely to be insufficient to meet even a fraction of our minimum defence requirements. It would be a great pity if we did not take every step we could to get Regulars into the Fighting Forces. There are questions of Purchase Tax on uniform, married quarters, the wearing of plain clothes and
1180
what the Minister himself called "a disturbance allowance." Settlement of these points would greatly assist towards recruitment.
I am very glad to hear that a Bill will be laid before the House in the near future dealing with Civil Defence. A great many Questions have been asked from this side in the last year or two about Civil Defence, and the sort of answer we have had is that considerable experience has been gained and that research is going on. The time has now come when we should be told what will happen, and on what assumption this is based. No doubt we shall hear a great deal more about this matter next Session.
I am somewhat diffident for fear of being classed as an atomic bore, but I want to refer to the Atomic Energy Commission of the United Nations. Lord Pakenham, in another place, last February, said that the prospect of reducing the differences on the Commission seemed definitely worse, that there must be some time limit to such a state of affairs, and that if we found that advance was held up we might have to reconsider our whole attitude to the problem. What has happened since then? Something far more serious, and that is that the Atomic Energy Commission, in their report to the Security Council, dated 17th May, recommended that in view of the deadlock—note the word "deadlock"—negotiations in the Commission should be suspended until such time as the sponsors of the General Assembly find, through prior consultation, that there exists a basis for agreement.
That is very depressing, and a most serious state of affairs, and I am surprised that no reference has been made to that report either by the Foreign Secretary or the Minister of Defence, although the right hon. Gentleman did refer for a moment or two today to the Commission. Six months have passed since Lord Pakenham's statement, and we have heard no more following what he said then—that we should have to reconsider our whole attitude to the problem. I hope this final point will be considered, especially after what Mr. Marshall said today about atomic warfare. It is most important and most relevant to our discussions.
7.55 p.m.
Dr. Haden Guest: I am very glad to be able to follow the hon. and gallant Member the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) because I think he was wrong in saying what he did say about the Minister of Defence, who did refer to the Atomic Energy Commission, to collective security—which the hon. and gallant Member rather "pooh-poohed"—and to certain other matters, the Military Staff Committee among them. So far, this Debate has been marked by great pessimism, quite merited by the appalling conditions which have led us even to hold the Debate at all, but I hope more emphasis will be laid, in the rest of the Debate, on ways of avoiding war rather than discussing details about immediate preparations for war.
There are many people in this country who, in a way, enjoy the prospect of war preparations, because they are dealing with a familiar mechanism and modes of thought. The whole thing appears to be merely a Service job which men of a certain kind do because it is the right thing to do. and do jolly well because they are jolly good fellows. I abominate that kind of thing entirely, and I say to the Minister of Defence—I hope he will not misunderstand me—that while I shall certainly support any measures which are necessary for the real defence of this country, I shall do my utmost to make peace by proposing alternative methods of preventing the outbreak of war. I am sure that Members on the Government Front Bench will associate themselves with that. We must avoid foolish talk, some of which was indulged in by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude), who spoke of whipping up enthusiasm for the Territorial Forces. If there is a real emergency, men will not be found unwilling to come forward in defence of their country, but they will not be led into it by statements of the kind made by the hon. and learned Member today.
On the more constructive side of this problem, I should like to ask whether it is not possible to explore further the working of the Military Staff Committee of the Security Council? If Members consult the copy of the report of that Committee which is in the Library, they will see that the differences between the two sides—largely between the Soviet
1182
Union and the other nations—about the constitution of an international police force are not very great. I believe that these differences could be bridged if we could come to a better understanding with the Soviet authorities at a higher level, and I think we should bend our efforts in that direction.
There is also the question of our relations with the British Commonwealth of Nations and our Colonies in any defence plan. My right hon. Friend, when speaking of the Five Powers today, referred to our common defence, and said that representatives of Canada and the United States attended the Committee regularly and that the next meeting was on 27th September. He showed clearly that there is most intimate co-operation between ourselves and members of the Western Union. He then went on to deal with the question of consultation with the Dominions, and pointed out that Britain was the heart and strength of the British Commonwealth and said that at the forthcoming meetings of representatives of the Commonwealth, which begin next week, defence questions would be explored. I emphasise that "explore." Did the Minister of Defence really mean that the association between ourselves and the Commonwealth is at an early stage, whereas the arrangements, with the Five Powers and arrangements in Europe have got to an advanced stage of intimate, close collaboration and the working out of an exact plan? If that is so—
Mr. A. V. Alexander: I think that my hon. Friend will find, when he reads the actual text, that I said that what we want to do is to improve the effective means we have, and we are exploring that.
Dr. Guest: I am very glad to accept that. I only hope that it will be possible to get an integrated defence plan for the whole of the Commonwealth and our Colonies. That should be the foundation on which we build, and not the foundation of Western Europe and this country with the co-operation of the United States. That from a military view point is a very unsafe foundation. The world-wide British Commonwealth is a very great foundation for anything which may be required in the way of defence, and, what is even more important, for anything that is required in the way of future constructive action to bring about peace.

1183
I believe that in the circumstances which now confront this country, we should turn to the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and to our own Colonies to discuss and to hammer out some alternative to the war which I regret to find so many hon. Members of this House apparently think is inevitable. I do not agree that it is inevitable. It can be and it must be avoided, although there is a tendency on the part of some people to regard a war as inevitable. We must hammer out an alternative, and the best place to hammer out that alternative is in the meeting of the representatives of the Commonwealth which is to be held. I believe, next week.
Mr. H. Hynd: Next month.
Dr. Guest: I am told that the preliminary meeting is next week, but I accept the correction. I believe that the British Commonwealth of Nations whose representatives meet shortly—and this is one of those apparent chances which have often played a great and important part in our history—will afford an opportunity of making a decision of the very greatest importance in world history and of the very greatest importance in avoiding war. I appeal to the Government to look at the Motion which I have placed in my name on the Order Paper dealing with the international situation.
[That, in view of the dangerous international situation, this House calls on His Majesty's Government to take immediate action to prevent "the outbreak of largescale war by bringing the following proposals before the Conference of the representatives of the British Commonwealth of Nations which is to meet in London very shortly:—

(1)The formulation of a policy, ready for implementation when necessary, for the creation of a neutral block of Nations of the Commonwealth and its Colonies.

(2) For the issue of invitations to other Nations to join this neutral block.

(3) For the making of an all-Commonwealth representation to the United Nations emphasising the urgency of the constitution of an International Police Force, under the control of the United Notions.]

1184
It contains revolutionary proposals in the name of myself and certain of my hon. Friends. I hope they will be studied by the Commonwealth representatives. It is asking them to work out the strategic implications of a policy of world wide British Commonwealth and Colonial neutrality in the case of war. May I say in passing that in the last war the United States remained neutral for quite a time—
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Until attacked.
Dr. Guest: Until attacked. The U.S.S.R. remained neutral for quite a long time and there is, I think, nothing dishonourable or defeatist in a policy of neutrality, and everything to be said for such a policy if it can, as I hold it can, if properly applied, defeat the menace of war itself. I realise that the change proposed is revolutionary and to anticipate criticism I would say that I know that this proposal would change the relations of our member-States of the British Commonwealth to the United Nations and that it would change the defence arrangements made with Western Union countries and our position vis-à-vis, the United States.
It would have one effect, for instance, that the United States would no longer have the use of some of our territory for bombing stations. The United States would no longer have the opportunity of using this country as an aircraft carrier stationed off the coast of Europe—a change which would be welcomed very heartily indeed by a very large number of people in this country. In these ways I believe that a policy of neutrality would give greater union to the British Commonwealth and greater power. If we could get an agreement on major influences and major issues and all political, economic and defence matters, I believe we should find ourselves in a position of greater power, authority and influence in the world than we have been. Above all, there would be the power not to make war but to make peace in the world.
There are objections, which I have mentioned. I do not propose to deal with those objections, nor do I propose to indicate, or attempt to indicate, in detail how a strategic plan of world neutrality of the British Commonwealth should be

1185
brought into effect. We have in our service, I suppose, some of the greatest brains in the world—members of the General Staff, men in the Navy, Army and Air Force and the Departments of Supply. If we give them the policy that General Staff could certainly work out the strategy necessary to make it a reality. Give them the policy and they will deliver the plan.
Let me say a few words on what would be the effect of the neutrality of the Commonwealth and the Colonies. Part of the Motion which I have put down on the Order Paper refers to an invitation to be issued by the British Commonwealth of Nations to other nations to join this world neutrality bloc. The first nations to be invited to join would obviously be the nations of Western Europe, not only those with whom we are at present associated in defence arrangements, but all the nations of Western Europe, and I have in mind particularly those nations with whom we must most closely integrate. A neutral bloc in Western Europe would carry with it not only the neutrality of those States themselves, but the neutrality of their Colonies. That is to say the whole of Africa, or most of it, from North to South and from East to West would become a neutral area. In the Pacific Australia and New Zealand and many islands would be neutral. India, Pakistan and Ceylon would be neutral. So would Singapore and Malaya. It is to be hoped that Canada would join, with its new province of Newfoundland, and this vast Dominion in the North, with Mexico in the South, would make a great neutral reserve in the North American Continent, to which must be added the West Indies and other islands and territories in the Atlantic Ocean.
I believe that the problems of such a vast area of neutrality joined by sea and air communications over all the seas of the world are problems which have never risen before. There are special problems in the Mediterranean, in the Near East and in the Far East. There are problems of supply, of commerce and of trade—a multitude of problems. But they are, for the first time, problems of how to keep the world at peace, and not problems of how to supply it in time of war. I believe that those problems, being problems in time of peace, would be easier to solve than problems of supply and the integration of
1186
areas and services in times of war. Above all, I believe that this policy provides the bridge from a world at present threatened by war to one which will be firmly established in peace, ready and able to restrain aggression.
One part of the Motion which I have put down is a proposal that, as part of the defence arrangements, the British Commonwealth of Nations and its Colonies should offer to place large military Forces, Naval, Army and Air Force, at the disposal of the United Nations as the foundation of an international police force if that were arranged. It would then be possible for the first time for the United Nations to proceed with a plan for making an international police force a reality, a force strong enough to restrain aggression in any part of the world. I believe that that is a practical and a possibly policy.
I have not said very much so far either of the United States or of the Soviet Union. I would just point out that if this bloc of world neutrality was formed, both those countries would be separated by immense distances. They would have very great physical difficulty in making war one against another. That would be a very great advantage to the peace of the world. But I do not believe that the peoples of the Soviet Union or the peoples of the United States want war. I think that both sides are rather terrified one of the other.
I deprecate very much the kind of anti-Communist campaign which goes on when Communism becomes not a word of description of a man's beliefs but a piece of vituperation. I do not believe that all the Communist people in the world have suddenly turned in the last three years into vipers and hyenas, to use some of the unfortunate words which the Communists themselves use. That is just not true. Neither is it true that the people of the U.S.A. are warmongering scoundrels whose only desire is to destroy the Soviet Union. I do not believe for a moment that the vast majority of the people want to destroy the Soviet Union.
Can we not look at these matters from the point of view of the young men and women in this country who we know do not want to have war? I venture to say that there is no hon. Member opposite or on this side of the House who has not been approached within the last few days by humble people who have said. "Tell me, sir, is there going to be a war?"

1187
The whole country is being made afraid by the sudden blowing up of this situation. It is abominable that this should have been allowed to happen. I appeal to our Government, I appeal to the Prime Minister, I appeal to the nation that we should turn away from the idea that war is inevitable and that we should set the whole of our efforts to finding how we can achieve peace.
8.13 p.m.
Mr. Max Aitken: The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) says that this is a pessimistic Debate and that he is an optimist. I consider that we live in pessimistic times at the moment and I do not see a great deal of optimism about, though I think that it can be brought about if we tackle our problems in the right way. The hon. Member suggested that the right way is for the British Commonwealth to declare neutrality, then he qualified that by the words "with the power to make peace." Surely, if the British Commonwealth has the power to make peace—and that is what we want on this side of the House—then there is no need to declare neutrality. Let us just have the power to make peace and then there will be no war. Surely, that is the right way.
Dr. Guest: It is precisely that declaration of neutrality, and the position strategically and geographically of the British Commonwealth of Nations in the world, that would give us the power to make peace.
Mr. Aitken: I understand that point of view, but I am afraid I disagree. In my opinion, the power to make peace is the power militarily to prevent war.
Dr. Guest: We understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view.
Mr. Aitken: I thoroughly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman). I thought that it was a fine speech in which there was a great deal of common sense. I was delighted to hear him prophesy that there would be no war for two years. That means no war this year, and no war next year. I read a prophecy like that in 1939. I hope that the hon. Member is a better prophet. The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) followed very closely a fine speech which was
1188
made some time ago by the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) stressing that it is a dreadful thing for Members of this House so soon after the war to be discussing how we can best rearm this country, how best it can be done and how quickly. It is true it is a terrible thing and I feel it strongly, as I suppose does every hon. Member who actively took part in the last war.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) said that he could not see why in this Debate we should not talk quite freely. I agree with him. If we are to discuss defence. we must do it openly. There are certain matters that obviously cannot be discussed, but I do not know about those things and neither, I suppose, do many other hon. Members. If we are to discuss defence we must do it openly and freely. We must tell the Minister of Defence and other responsible Ministers what we think should be done to make the country stronger.
I was delighted to hear the Minister of Defence discuss closer collaboration between Empire Air Forces. Thai is a theme which my hon. Friends have advocated in every recent Air Estimates Debate. We have asked that the Secretary of State for Air should examine the Empire Air Force which existed during the war. I repeat that it was really a magnificent Air Force which, in my opinion, was invincible. I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to this question most seriously. We have had several lip-service statements on the Empire from the opposite side of the House. I hope that this is not another example. I hope also that the Dominions will be rearmed with our latest aircraft before the countries of Western Europe. It is much better that the Dominions, who will, if necessary, come to our help again, should have the latest aircraft and should be able to use them, rather than that the aircraft should be pushed out to the Western European countries about whom we do not know quite so much.
A serious position has arisen in the Royal Air Force with regard to recruiting. I think that one of the reasons for this is that the R.A.F. want to recruit people who are also badly needed in industry. I refer, to young technicians, instrument makers, and other people who

1189
are mechanically minded. Industry wants those men and the R.A.F. wants them as well. Who pays the best price?—industry. Where do the men go?—industry. The R.A.F. must be treated now as an under-manned industry. It must be given the priority which will attract those men into the industry of the R.A.F. The Air Force should not necessarily be called a Service. It should be called an industry—the industry of the Royal Air Force.
At the moment I do not think that appeals to patriotism are sufficient. We must go beyond that and offer men the same amount of wages which they can get in industry. Pay in the Service at present is insufficient, absenteeism is not permitted—it is punished at once—and there is no overtime. The officers in the Service are really hard pressed. There are many officers who by the middle of the month are hard put to know how they are to pay their mess bills at the end of the month. I appreciate that the Secretary of State for Air knows the facts. It is a serious position. If he can make the Service one of the best paid industries of the country, he will get exactly the type of men he wants.
We must really consider whether we are ready if a crisis should come upon us, because the R.A.F. is considered the first line of defence. As other hon. Members have said tonight, we will not get another nine months' respite this time. During the Air Estimates Debates we have. always said that the urgency is here and now, and we believe that. The Air Force should be built up immediately. It is not a question of a long-term policy, but of building up right away. Some people think we are ready in the Royal Air Force today to deal with heavy raids with fast-flying bombers, but the recent air exercises showed that to be quite untrue. Our fighters are inadequate, and I believe that our first-line strength at the moment of jet aircraft is not half the first-line strength we had at the time of the Battle of Britain.
Mr. Platts-Mills: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how many first-line jet fighters he suggests would be necessary to shoot down a single rocket bomb?
Mr. Aitken: If I gave that explanation to the hon. Gentleman, he might pass it on, so I think I had better not. As
1190
for our bomber force, I do not think that is adequate, either, and I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Air where all our aircraft have gone, because we have not many bombers. Our bomber force is not increasing, and our fighter force is inadequate, and we have to buy American aircraft to run our civil airlines. What has happened to the great British aircraft industry? Where are our aircraft going? Is our great industry gradually shutting up shop?
There is another point which is most important in the R.A.F., and it concerns the senior personnel. It is bad luck that a senior R.A.F. officer at the age of 50 cannot fly any more, so that he cannot go on operations. I think that the ratio of senior R.A.F. officers now in the Service who have not been on operations has been carried far enough. At the moment, there are approximately 138 officers of Air rank in the R.A.F., and, of that number, only approximately 20 saw operations in the last war. I do not think that is enough, and I think the Secretary of State for Air should advance the younger men who saw the last war to Air rank. I think that is absolutely essential.
Again, no member of the Air Council was on operations in the last war. I think there ought to be at least one member of that body who was in the last war. Then we come to the Commands throughout Britain and the world and to the Commanders-in-Chief in these Commands—Bomber Command, Fighter Command, Coastal Command, Flying Training Command, Technical Training Command, Maintenance Command, Transport Command, Reserve Command, Mediterranean and Middle East Command and Headquarters, Air Command, Far East. Not one of these Commanders-in-Chief saw operations in the last war, and I suggest that many of them should be removed. I think the younger men in the Service should be brought forward and quickly.
Lastly, I would like to quote a piece of history lately written:
"This was one of those awful periods which recur in our history, when the noble British nation seems to fall from its high estate, loses all trace of sense or purpose. It appears to cower from the foreign peril frothing pious platitudes while foemen forge their arms."
I agree that, in 1938, there were a great many platitudes, but it seems to me that there has been a great deal of frothing

1191
in today's Debate and the Minister of Defence should eliminate it and get on with the job.
8.24 p.m.
Group-Captain Wilcock: I am following a very practical speech by the hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Aitken), who has considerable experience in these matters, and, in particular, I should like to endorse what he says about the shortage of aircraft, which I hope the Secretary of State for Air has noted. What has happened to our aeroplanes is a matter that puzzles everyone concerned with air matters. It is, after all, only three years since we had a very large and powerful fleet in the air. One would certainly not think so nowadays by looking at R.A.F. stations or even at maintenance units. However, I have but a short time at my disposal, and I do not propose therefore to question further this shortage of aircraft.
I feel that the Minister of Defence and the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) obviously had to avoid saying what they desired to say, but I believe that we shall get nowhere unless we get to the root of this matter and decide, when we are talking of war, who it is that we are to fight and what type of war it is to be. Well, of course, we are talking about possible war with Russia, but are we talking about a long war or a short war? If we are talking about a long war, we might just as well not go to war at all, because in the end it would be just as bad if we won as if we were defeated. We must assume then that the people who are responsible for the planning of these things must be talking, not of a long war, but of a short one.
In that case, if I am right, it is a war for the Royal Air Force. It is only a few years ago since bombs and rockets were dropping in this country and on this capital, and we were under the greatest duress in this country. It was through the medium of the air, whether by winged aircraft or unwinged aircraft. Therefore, we should not be very far wrong if we were to put the major resources of our defence into the Air arm. We have a very large reserve. It is only just over three years since the end of the war, when we had a million men in the R.A.F. as pilots, navigators, air crews and
1192
mechanics, and there has not been in that time, such a great technical advance except in the case of jets. I regard this nation and this Air Force of ours as having a good enough Reserve behind it.
The hon. Member who said that we should have done something about this 18 months ago was forgetting the fact that, 18 months ago was only 18 months after the end of the war, and that that was not the time to raise large Reserves. They were already there, and they are there now. On the question of Reserves, we already have 1,000 pilots in the Volunteer Reserve, but I should like the Secretary of State to note that these 1,000 pilots, who, three years ago, were flying operationally, are today flying tiny training machines—the same sort of thing which the boys and girls in the aero clubs are flying. The better machines seem to have disappeared. We sell Oxfords to Burma and Hurricanes and Spitfires to Portugal, and I believe that, on the ground, there are today Tempests, first-class aircraft in the absence of jets, waiting to be flown to India. What they will do there I cannot imagine, unless someone is going to use them for fighting Pakistan. I say that this situation is scandalous, and that these aircraft should be made available for our Volunteer Reserve pilots.
I should also like to suggest that this air lift which is now going on provides most useful training in control and direction. We might have some of our Reserve pilots taking part in it, or, at least, watching it. That would he one way in which we could bring them a little up to date in air operations. I would go further and ask the Minister of Defence to make a suggestion to the Foreign Secretary, and I am perfectly serious about this. The Minister of Defence is not here, but perhaps the Secretary of State for Air will convey it to him. It is that he should invite the Russians to help with the air lift. It would greatly assist us and give them some experience in co-operation too.
The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The Russians can make the air lift unnecessary by removing the blockade.
Group-Captain Wilcock: I should like to take this opportunity to pay my tribute to the Reserves. We have rather

1193
ignored these Reserves; we always do when wars are over. We owe a very heavy debt of gratitude to the Reserves of the last war—those of the R.A.F., the Army, the Territorials, and the Navy—a debt which has never been adequately expressed either in this House or anywhere else. As far as the Air Force Reserves are concerned, before the war there were in my own unit 550 aircrew, and of that number, most of whom fought in the Battle of Britain, only 204 survived. These Reserves are regarded as though they were something quite apart from the Regular troops. If they are well treated, they are no different. It is about time that the Minister of Defence paid a tribute to these men, because if we now publicly acknowledge their value, as we never recognised the Territorials after the 1914 war, or the Auxiliaries after this last war, then I think we should get more and more recruits.
With regard to the Army, I wish to put a suggestion to the Secretary of State for War. I think I have the right to do this as I was myself a Territorial at one time. The suggestion is that private firms can often do a lot, as far as recruiting is concerned, if the matter is left to them, to form their own units. I recollect that certain concerns in this country who used to man their own aircraft batteries while others used to run a troop in the Yeomanry, and so on. It was successful and it fostered a fine esprit de corps. I do not know whether that sort of thing still exists, but I think it is well worth considering. As far as our Eastern defence is concerned, I really cannot see why our Army units have to go to the Far East at all. I should have thought that our Dominions could have provided the troops for such work, and that we, at this time of stress and anxiety, could have had our own troops in this country.
One word about the Navy. I am a great friend of the Navy when it comes to small ships, but I hope we are not going to have any more of this nonsense of putting large ships into commission, be they aircraft carriers, battleships or battle cruisers. I do not think we can afford the luxury of these mighty organs of war which, when war comes, must be tied up and camouflaged along shore. The steel used in these vessels, I feel, should be used for a better purpose, and the
1194
thousands of men who man them can ill be afforded at the present time.
Finally, I wish to refer to Civil Defence. A lot has already been said on this subject, but, while one does not want to panic about this matter, I regard the question of the guided missile, or rocket, as a very serious one, and one which must now be regarded by the Minister of Defence and his officers as a first-class issue. We are 450 miles from the nearest Russian zone in Germany and 550 miles from Czechoslovakia. I do not want to speak of atom heads or atom bombs, but simply of the ordinary rocket which, three years ago, had a considerable range, which has now, no doubt, been considerably increased. This mass production article, the V.2 rocket, is something which warrants very close study.
There is a population of eight million in this Metropolis and of 16 million in the Southern area of the country. I would like arrangements made and published now, and not when there is a real crisis, for the dispersal of those people whom it is not necessary to retain in these closely populated areas. I would like to see it done on a voluntary organisation basis and for people to be advised that it is a wise provision to make arrangements for women and children who are not required, to be ready to move out of these thickly populated areas.
I suggest to the Minister of Fuel and Power that in the next allocation of petrol coupons he should arrange for a reserve of coupons available in an emergency. If that were done now, and not when an emergency arose, it would avoid panic. I do not like talking like this any more than do other hon. Members. Everybody agrees that we do not like war and do not want it. However, I think I have a right to say this because I, like other hon. Members present, have actively experienced war and in consequence I hate war. Let us support the Foreign Secretary and His Majesty's Government right up to the hilt; let us give every consideration and sympathy to Soviet aims, but, at the same time, let us say to the Minister of Defence, "Take no chance, take no chance."
8.36 p.m.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: We have certainly had some very extraordinary suggestions from hon. Members

1195
opposite in the course of this Debate. The hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) proposed that we should abandon any thought of our own defence and leave that to the Americans. Another hon. Member said that all would be well if we declared ourselves neutral.
Mr. Crossman: I would point out to the hon. Member that I said exactly the opposite. I said that we should, in fact, defend ourselves, but that it was necessary to realise that we could not do so out of our own economic resources without endangering Marshall Aid.
Mr. Stewart: If I remember rightly, the hon. Member was going to pass over to America the responsibility for either our economic recovery or our armaments, one or the other. But the hon. and gallant Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock) capped all the suggestions by proposing that the Russians might lend a hand in the air lift.
I wonder whether I might recall to the House the terms of the Motion before us. We are considering tonight the statement made by the Lord President of the Council relating to defence. That was an immensely serious statement. It was described by "The Times" as a grave and considered statement. The "Manchester Guardian" said it was a statement which was a reminder of the grave worsening of the international situation. That was how the country looked upon it. It is in the light of that statement. with all its gravity, that we are now debating the issue. The fact that in the course of that statement an announcement of this Debate on armaments was made seemed to emphasise the solemnity of the occasion, and, as the days passed and the news poured in from abroad, that view which the country had taken gained further strength, until yesterday we had that exceedingly disturbing speech from the Foreign Secretary.
In those circumstances, I think the whole nation expected from the Minister of Defence a pronouncement on policy equal to the perils which beset our country, and one in consonance with the spirit and resolution of the people. I am afraid that, again, we were greatly disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman. There were the usual "before-the-mast" tones to which we have become accustomed from
1196
the right hon. Gentleman, and the usual pompous platitudes. He told us that the hopes of an orderly return to peace had not been realised—I gathered that before—that collective security had not been achieved—a shattering piece of news, I am sure—and that, therefore, the Government would have to take a decision. That made us all sit up. I thought something was going to happen. But apart from a few relatively minor developments, any one of which could have been suggested and carried through last year without upsetting anybody's nerves or upsetting British industry, we heard no word of decision at all upon a major issue from the Minister of Defence.
We in this House begin to understand the machinations of the party opposite. It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman did not want to upset his touchy supporters whose peremptory orders he so humbly and immediately accepted last year on the issue of conscription. The fact is that the foundations of a policy in this urgent matter were evaded throughout the whole course of his speech. He deliberately avoided a decision upon the most important of all the factors affecting rearmament. Instead, on the vital question of the effect of rearmament upon industry and industrial revival, we had a demonstration of fence sitting such as the House has rarely observed. Not only did he mount the fence at the beginning, but we saw his stately progress along the fence during the whole of the Debate.
What did the right hon. Gentleman tell us? He explained the dilemma that we cannot have too big a rearmament programme because it upsets our economic revival, and that on the other hand, if we do not have some rearmament and enough national defence, we shall have no economic revival because it will all be destroyed. Of course, we knew about that; that was nothing very shattering. We had expected from the Minister some decision upon that dilemma and, whether the Government like it or not and whether it is difficult or not, the Government must decide where they stand on that dilemma. It is because they failed to indicate to us any ability to decide, that we are so greatly distressed.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that there will be some diversion, but he said there would be no serious interference

1197
with economic recovery, especially with the export drive. I think I speak for the great majority of thinking people in the country when I say that if it is true that the measures now proposed for the rearmament and defence of our nation can cause no serious interference with our recovery, those proposals are wholly and dangerously inadequate. It represents what I can only describe as a grossly inadequate appreciation of the issues involved. The right hon. Gentleman finished by saying that the situation should not be taken in any panic spirit. I wonder whether he realises the spirit of the nation. The criticism which he will find in the Press tomorrow is that there is no spirit of urgency about the approach to this problem. That is really what concerns us.
There is only one other issue that I want to raise. I do not wish to speak about manpower or the Army or the Navy. I want to speak of something about which I happen to know a little, and that is the production and supply side of this rearmament programme. I think the House is well enough versed in the history of rearmament to know that a rearmament programme does not go on a dead level; it either rises or it falls. There is no doubt that that—[Interruption.]—I am glad hon. Members appreciate the point. I think every circumstance indicates that it is going to rise, and if it is going to rise, a profound effect will be felt in all the industrial areas of the country. The figures of the men and women now employed in large factories making munitions are available. That number will be doubled and even trebled before the end of this year. How then can the right hon. Gentleman say that it will have no effect upon our economic recovery?
Had there been time, I would have read to the House extracts from last year's defence White Paper in which the right hon. Gentleman indicated in paragraph after paragraph that nothing but the most minute maintenance work was being carried on in any branch of the Service. If that work alone were recommenced, a vast programme would have to be undertaken, and we have heard some more items of it today. The truth is, to everybody's regret—and it would be far better if we were frank and admitted it to the people—that we
1198
have started a rearmament programme which will seriously and dangerously upset our whole economic revival. This policy will run quite contrary to the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as outlined riot many days ago. I give that as my considered view, and I shall be very surprised if it is not proved to be true in a matter of six months' time.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in his speech that one condition of the revival which he was so happy to tell us about was that no unusual circumstances came along. They have come along. Here I agree to some extent with the views of the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman). If the curve of our economic recovery is going down—and I am afraid that is going to be so—somehow or other we have to get aid. We ourselves cannot undertake a great rearmament programme, which indeed we cannot escape, and at the same time increase our economic recovery. It cannot be done. While, therefore, it is necessary to make the fullest arrangements with Western Europe, the truth is that without a full arrangement with America, nothing effective can be done. The hon. Member for East Coventry is quite right in that respect.
Why was nothing said about that by the Minister of Defence? That is the crux of the whole matter. I hope the Minister who is to reply will admit that fact. Unless we have the fullest measure of understanding with America upon economic revival and upon rearmament, no success will be attained and nothing but disaster will face us and the whole of Western Europe. It is not for me to suggest what steps should be taken; one does not know the facts, one has not the figures, but the picture is clear enough for anyone to see.
A long time ago the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) spoke of the inevitability of the mixing of the economies of the American and the British peoples. I shall not be surprised if this Debate tonight marks a further stage in that mixing of fates and economies and, it may well be, constitutions. This is a great historic moment, and the Government must rise to it.
8.49 p.m.
Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I think those who have listened to the Debate all through, would feel that it has

1199
been conducted with a proper sense of the very great and tense issues which are involved in the matters under discussion. This very year the right hon. Gentleman, in a Debate on defence, used these words:
"It is in the light of our economic situation that we have to decide what can be allocated to defence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 42.]
I think today, if those words were construed literally or perhaps too literally, they would show a dangerous frame of mind, because when the clouds begin to gather, as they are now gathering, it is, I fear, the economic life of the country—and this is a point to which the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) addressed the last part of his very interesting remarks—which has to be adjusted to the needs of defence and not the needs of defence which have to be adjusted to the economic life. The fire cannot be adjusted to the fire escape; you have to adjust the fire escape to the fire, or there will not be any escape at all.
I have listened to the Debate with great attention and I think I can perhaps summarise the more detailed parts of the subject best by addressing myself to three questions. I do not propose to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) on the broadest aspects of the subject, which I think he dealt with in a very comprehensive manner—namely, those aspects of defence which are related to Western Union and to the unity of the, perhaps, six or more Powers of Western Europe from a military point of view. The hon. Member for East Coventry also regarded this subject as a most important part of any Debate conducted about defence. I think it has been fully covered, however, and I want to get down to slightly more detailed matters and to take some of the points which have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Those three questions are, I think, something like this: first, is the plan or system of defence adequate; equally—and this is even more important—is it imaginative; secondly, have the necessary measures been taken to bring any plan to life by seeing that the necessary manpower and the necessary material and weapons are allotted to it; and, thirdly, whatever the plan or allocation, are the men now in the Armed Forces being properly trained
1200
or are they in a sense wasting their time? The answer to those three questions, I am sorry to say, I believe to be "No," except that I would make, and I will make later on, some large qualifications with regard to the third of those subjects—namely, whether the men are wasting their time.
My right hon. Friend laid down in much better, broader and more precise terms than any official document what are the tasks which we expect the Armed Forces to fill. The same applies to Civil Defence. When I ask whether the plan is adequate, it is the same as asking, are those tasks which my right hon. Friend described being met under the present system? I think not.
Let me turn first to the Army in this matter, because there the problem is seen at its most difficult. The reason the Army cannot carry out the task which we expect it to carry out is not very far to seek. In fact, I need go no further than an official document which has already been referred to in the Debate and which has been widely circulated, especially to hon. Members of this House. It is called "The National Army of Britain." It is issued by the War Office. On page 4 of that document we read these words:
"The new concept, therefore, is to merge whole-time, part-time and volunteer soldiers into a good, balanced, National Army of Britain."
So far so good. It goes on:
"This is planned to be in operation as from January, 1950."
This paragraph alone would suffice to show, I think, the deep error into which His Majesty's Government have fallen. They have planned an Army on the assumption that peace will be unbroken until January, 1951. I will explain the difference between that date and the date in the document. Although the formations of the Territorial Army begin to take life and vigour in January, 1950, it is not until January, 1951, that we can expect the scheme to reach its full maturity. Whether it is a right judgment or not, that peace will be unbroken until 1951, we do not know. It is beside the point I am trying to make.
I say two things are certain. First—and it is a point which has been stressed on many sides of the House—if we are strong, our diplomacy will be more successful than it has been—and certainly that is not saying much. I should find

1201
it hard to point to any successes, except in a very limited field, which our diplomacy has had since the present Government came into power. Secondly, I doubt very much if it is ever wise to plan armies or armed forces on the assumption that they will not be needed for a long time to come, but if to plan on the long-term on the assumption of unbroken peace were ever excusable, in such circumstances as those in which the Government find themselves now it is entirely inexcusable. It is not as though this storm had blown up suddenly out of a blue sky. If it had, allowances could be made. But the storm has been gathering since the early part of 1946, and everyone has seen it coming, except, perhaps. Ministers. The barometer has been there, but it is the men on the bridge who have not read it, but have continued to keep the fine weather sunshine awnings over the promenade decks.
There are about 800,000 men and women in the Armed Forces, and the cost of our Defence Services is no less than £692 million a year. I am ignoring the £600,000 voted for the Ministry of Defence, because I am not at all sure that that sum is devoted to the causes of defence. Now this sum of £692 million will have to go up. I should like to be more precise, but I am not being more precise for the reason that I do not think it would be responsible to be so, but if in terms of the Army or the Air Force the nation knew how many operational units and formations were available west of Berlin at this time, they would confirm what I said at another time, that the Ministry of Defence is a monument of incompetence and extravagance.
I will give one small example. Would the country be surprised to know that a large number—and, I think, by far the greater number—of the men in the Guards Brigade that recently was sent to Malaya had had only a few weeks' training? I think it would be true to say that a large number of them had not even completed their weapon training.
The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): Could the right hon. Gentleman produce any evidence in support of that allegation?
Mr. Lyttelton: I am asking the question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Making a
1202
statement."] I said, I think it would be true to say. Let me be perfectly frank. I should be only too glad to have the report which I have derived from serving officers in that brigade—[Interruption.] I should be only too glad to have it denied. If it is contradicted I want to know how many of the men, what percentage, are of what the right hon. Gentleman would call trained troops, half-trained troops, and of those who have not even completed their weapon training. I should be only too delighted to have from the most authoritative sources on this subject a denial of the report that serving officers in the Brigade have told me. Whilst the right hon. Gentleman is starting on his good work, perhaps he would like to add today what is the number of operational squadrons, particularly bombing squadrons, of the Royal Air Force which are available at this moment in this country.
There is always a tendency—and this has been referred to by the hon. Member for East Coventry—for democratic countries to try to keep themselves in preparation for war on a scale which does not interfere with their economic life.
Mr. Crossman: I said under Chamberlain.
Mr. Lyttelton: That was an unfortunate reference of the hon. Member, because he did not mention that the Labour Party voted against conscription in 1939. They are on record again and again before the war as having voted against all measures of rearmament. But I am not quarreling with the hon. Member. When he gets to his feet I always assume a pose of being willing to learn; and he always assumes a pose of being willing to teach. My difficulty is that he never teaches the same thing on two days running, but this is the first time, I think, that he has altered his doctrine between 7.30 and 9; it generally takes him a day or two. He may not believe me, but on this occasion I am rather agreeing with much that he said, which is no doubt a shock to his system.
I feel pretty certain that His Majesty's Government's present advisers are in the state of mind when they think that rearmament can take place without any interference with our economic life. The hon. Gentleman ought to get busy with his own Front Bench, because it was not

1203
later than this morning that the Minister of Supply, according to the Press, gave out words, something like this: "At present the increased manufacture of supplies for the services is having no significant effect on civilian industry,"—they are having no significant effect on rearmament— and later on: "The increased output was not being achieved by interrupting work on civilian orders." and so forth.
What other explanation can be offered of this state of mind when the Chancellor of the Exchequer ignored altogether the possible effects of rearmament upon his economic programme? This is where the hon. Member for East Coventry is now beginning to nod his head because he sees that I am on the same side of the fence as he is on. So far as I can remember, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made only one oblique reference to rearmament in the whole of his not unlengthy speech upon the subject of our economic position. It is, in fact, impossible to make any serious contribution to rearmament without affecting the economic recovery of the country.
The other part of my question is: Is the plan imaginative? By that, I mean has the ratio between the three Armed Forces taken proper account of our geographical position as an island, and does the ratio show any imagination or even any sensible speculation about the nature of future wars in which we may become involved? I do not think that we can from this side of the House pronounce judgment upon this without very much more information, and the policy of the Ministry of Defence is the defence of Government information from any intrusion by the Opposition or by anyone else. It is very noticable that the Royal Air Force is now far below the size which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), with all his experience of these matters, thought desirable when he gave the figures which have been quoted this afternoon to the House. I still think—and I have said it before in these Debates on many occasions—that the R.A.F. should be comparatively—I do not mean absolutely, but comparatively—the strongest of the three Forces.
When we turn to the Army, I should have expected to see a plan, the core of which would have been a numerically
1204
small but highly armoured and mechanised field force. If I may remind hon. Members of a remarkable book by General Von Seckt, he wrote in 1928:
The whole future of warfare appears to me to lie in the employment of mobile armies. relatively small, of high quality."
I still think this is the general trend of military thought today. It has a particular significance for us in these islands—
Mr. Michael Foot: I only wish that the right hon. Gentleman and his party had read that statement and understood it in 1928 instead of 1948.
Mr. Lyttleton: I do not wish to have to go back on this occasion, but perhaps the Labour Party should have understood that war was imminent when they voted against conscription in 1939. That was a time when they repeated again and again their unwillingness that the country should rearm. It comes ill from the hon. Gentleman to raise his objection.
Let me get back to what I think should be a clear conception of how our military forces should be run in this respect. We are an island with very large responsibilities and a small population, but we are the most highly industrialised country in the world. Therefore, we would expect to see military thought based on the idea of the highest possible fire power being developed per man, raised to that point by the use of the country's industries.
My last point may seem too obvious, but surely a defence plan must begin by deciding what numbers of divisions, formations, operational squadrons or ships in the Fleet we are going to maintain. I may be doing the right hon. Gentleman an injustice, although I think it would be difficult to do so, but from what we know, at any rate so far as the Army is concerned, just the other method has been pursued. Some arbitrary figures have apparently been taken, and then studies made afterwards of what formations will fit into them. If the Secretary of State wants to controvert this, perhaps he will tell us how many divisions there are on a war footing now available in this country to be sent to any part of the world. If he is so explosive and anxious to correct me, I put that question to him now, and then we will hear what he has to say.

1205
The only other question is in regard to the rôle of the Regular Army. It is largely relegated at this moment to training other troops. For example, the Second Battalion of the Grenadier Guards, in which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) and, for that matter, myself have a particular interest, is now a mere school for N.C.Os., and they are, I think, throwing themselves very heartily into that work. I do not think it will be possible to maintain a very high technical and professional standard among our Regular officers, N.C.Os. or men if they are to be relegated largely to a life of training other troops, which is more or less inherent in the right hon. Gentleman's plans. I am not a rowing man, but I understand that you cannot make a good eight unless you allow people to row in the eight—the right hon. Gentleman puts them on the bank with a megaphone and they are expected to tell other people how to do it.
I want to turn now to the question whether adequate measures have been taken to give substance to any plan by call-up of men to the Forces and by the supply of weapons. I am afraid that the answer to that question is "no." The result of having made a fundamentally unsound plan—the long-term plan which presumes unbroken peace—is that the three Services are more or less far short of what they should be in immediate value. This applies much less to the Navy than to the other two Services. In the Navy the principal shortage is in specialists, as has been described in this Debate, and no doubt some measures will have to be taken to improve their conditions of service if this is to be put right.
The Royal Air Force is an entirely distorted force. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) has said, 53 per cent. of the Royal Air Force are now short-service National Service men. The whole basis of the Royal Air Force is now distorted because no proper regard has been had to its position as a striking force, and all this on balance—[Interruption.] I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, if he does not know the figure, that I am quoting the correct one. This is all the more important because from 1st January, 1949, the Royal Air Force will have to absorb National Service men with one year's engagement. Up till now National Ser-
1206
vice men have been on a longer engagement than that. One of the reasons why I think the striking power of the Royal Air Force is so very inadequate is that they have been asked to absorb too many short-service men in relation to the task they are expected to fulfil.
It is when we come particularly to the Army that we see how difficult it is to escape from the primary and fundamental error into which the Government have fallen. At the present rate of intake the Regular Army will not be up to strength for more than 18 months. Perhaps the Secretary of State for War would like to confirm that. The Territorial Army is relying on the success of the recruiting campaign, in which we on this side of the House will give every assistance in our power. The Army will not reach its required strength until 1st January, 1950, and not until 1st January, 1951, will the Territorial Army have enough fully trained men in its ranks to be an effective force.
I can only touch on the industrial or material side of preparations for defence. Like other Members on this side of the House, I saw an article in the "Evening Standard" of 6th September which was headed, "America's war plants get phantom orders." That is not quite the same plant as shadow factories. The sub-heading was, "The U.S.A. gears up its industrial machine in a bid to 'save a year' if there is World War III." The plan which is being carried out in the United States is one by which phantom orders are placed with industries. They are expected to notify the Government of their requirements of machine tools, manpower and steel if those orders became substantive. I can say from my own experience that industry in this country has received no mobilisation plans whatever, and that no discussions have taken place whatever in the event of an emergency. There is no shadow plan. I cannot see any harm in getting on with this job as quickly as possible. Many months can be saved if industry is told what it is expected to do if war breaks out. Measures of great value can be adopted which would not interrupt the present peace-time production of our industries.
My last point—and I am particularly glad to mention it, because it will give some satisfaction to the Secretary of State for War—is whether the men being called

1207
up now are being properly trained. About a year ago, or a little more, if we had asked this question we should have been given a more gloomy answer than the one which can be given today. I expect Members read with great interest and satisfaction the two articles by General Martin in the "Daily Telegraph" recently, in which he gave a very encouraging account of present-day training. He described how the men are called up for training in the A.B.T.U. for 10 weeks, and said that accommodation was first-class, amenities well planned and training lively and well organised. The War Office arc given a great many kicks, but I think that on this point we can at least congratulate them on their achievement. General Martin also gave a further account of the next period of service with the Army of Occupation in Germany. I have been at some pains to check up on what General Martin says, and I get information from my old connections in the Army.
At the same time, I must tell the Secretary of State for War that the soldier who does not go to Germany after his 10 weeks in A.B.T.U.—about which I find very little criticism—but is drafted to a unit in England has a very different experience. I am told that, having got a good impression of the Army when drafted to another unit in England, a soldier finds that his time is largely wasted in menial duties like peeling potatoes and things of that kind. So I think that on the third of these questions the answer as far as one can see from an unofficial position in the House is that being in the Army is first rate except in this one respect.
In conclusion, I do not think that anyone on this side of the House is at all likely to under-rate the essential difficulties of the task which the Minister of Defence undertook when he assumed the office he now holds with the good wishes of the whole House. The fact is he has made very little impression upon the problems with which he was presented. It is a fundamental mistake to plan Armed Forces so that they can make little or no contribution to our present needs, to plan Armed Forces at such long term that immediate striking or field forces are allowed to run down for the benefit of organisation in the far future.
1208
The Regular Army officer cannot be expected to retain his lively interest in his profession if he is going to be relegated all his life to the role of training troops. The right hon. Gentleman will have to do something about training so that Regular Army officers will be more in command and control of their own troops. If their effort is going into training other troops than their own we shall end up with having an army of pedagogues and not soldiers. Certainly they have not got tired of it yet.
The impression left upon the House by the statement to which we listened this afternoon is that we are not getting value for the interruption of the lives of our young men—a very serious thing in a country like this which is short of labour—caused by conscription and the call-up and we are receiving very little value for the £692,600,000 per annum which this country is spending apparently on an ineffective, ill-designed and badly coordinated plan of defence.
9.19 p.m.
The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): Apart from some caustic comments about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, which were thoroughly undeserved, this Debate has been conducted in a spirit of realism. I did detect in some of the speeches to which I listened some attempt to denigrate the efforts of the Government in the sphere of national defence. As I shall be able to show the House, this country has not sunk as low as some people appear to imagine. Relative to the size of the country, to the number of people in it and to our resources, we are much stronger than we are often represented to be.
There is, undoubtedly, concern about the present international situation, and inevitably some concern about the state of our national defences. At the same time, among hon. Members there is a large measure of agreement on specific issues. For example, we agree without question in the desire to pursue a peaceful policy and to be on terms of amity with our neighbours and with the world at large. We can claim that, in that desirable direction, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, if he has met with disappointment and it may be with failure, has not done so for the want of trying.

1209
At any rate, on that matter at least there is general agreement. I suggest that there is agreement also on the need for maintaining adequate defence in the present state of international tension. Whatever our views may be on this side of the House or on that, we have no intention of being intimidated or blackmailed. It is our purpose, relative to our strength, to take whatever means are available to us, and, it may be, in concert with other peaceloving nations in order to resist aggression. On these matters there is agreement, but there we part company.
The gravamen of the charge against the Government, as I understood from the speeches made on the other side of the House, was that we had no plan and that, even if we had a plan, we refused to divulge the contents of that plan to the Opposition and to the world at large. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Further, whether we had a plan or not, the Opposition knew that it was inadequate.
Brigadier Head: No.
Mr. Shinwell: That was the case put forward by the Opposition.
Brigadier Head rose—
Mr. Shinwell: It is much too early for that kind of interruption. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I have only just risen to my feet, Mr. Speaker, and I have only uttered a few preliminary sentences. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite enough."] The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who expressed himself in censorious tones about the Government—[Interruption.] Let me state the substance of my case and then perhaps I will give way, if the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) has anything to say.
In addition to the charge presented by the generality of hon. Members opposite, the right hon. Member for Aldershot made a most astonishing, and, if I may say so, unfounded allegation. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying in that naive way he can assume on odd occasions, that he was merely posing a question. He made a specific allegation which was that the Guardsmen who were recently sent to Malaya, had among them a very large proportion who had had only a few weeks' basic training. We had better get the facts, and it would not do the right hon. Gentleman any harm if
1210
he tried to ascertain the facts before he delivered himself of accusations of that kind. I say that advisedly, because it must be obvious to all who have listened to hon. and gallant Members on that side that they have queer and devious ways of getting at what they believe are the facts, although it appears to me that sometimes they are misled.
At any rate, what are the facts? First of all I should like to say this—because the matter has been mentioned on this side of the House as well as that—that although I have the highest respect for the Guards Regiments, there is nothing sacrosanct about the Guards in comparison with other units in the Army, and why there should be such a hullabaloo about Guards Regiments being sent to Malaya I really cannot understand. At any rate, let me assure hon. Members on all sides of the House that it was done on expert military advice.
Mr. Martin Lindsay: Because there is nobody else to send.
Mr. Shinwell: Of the Brigade of Guards sent to Malaya, only 400 men were conscripts. I mean they were National Service men. Although the National Service Act has not come into operation as yet, that is a piece of information that hon. Members opposite might take note of, because they have been speaking about National Service men throughout this Debate. At any rate, the majority of the men in the Brigade of Guards despatched to Malaya were Regular members of the Forces and not a single man was sent to Malaya without having at least six months' basic training.
Mr. Lyttelton: I am sorry to obtain official confirmation of what I have said from the right hon. Gentleman. If it is thought that a trained soldier can be made in six months, perhaps he will explain why the Government originally proposed to have 18 months' training for conscripts.
Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman—I say this with the best will in the world—must understand that some of us are also accustomed to Parliamentary dialectics. It is a feeble attempt on his part to indulge in this manoeuvre, and it deceives nobody at all. The fact of the matter is that he made a definite

1211
accusation and it happened to be slightly inaccurate, and there it is.
Let us try to see the background to this national defence position. Without looking at the background, it is quite impossible to appreciate the position in which we find ourselves today. First, it was the purpose of the Government at the end of the war, quite rightly, to restore the national economy. Who would object to that? Do hon. Members opposite object to that course being undertaken by the Government? Was it not essential in the circumstances to make every effort to avail ourselves of all our resources in manpower and material in order to restore the national economy? We had to consider immediately thereafter, the conflict between civil and defence requirements, and that conflict has been maintained ever since the close of the war. That it assumes a more intense form at the present time is not due to any act on the part of this Government; it is due to international circumstances over which this Government has no control whatsoever, for the reason that we do not happen to be the Government of the United States of America or the Government of Soviet Russia, but just the Government of the United Kingdom.
We have been told by hon. Members opposite that not only do we fail to disclose a plan, but that we are not giving value for the money now being expended on the Defence Forces. I repudiate those suggestions entirely. Let us consider the position. What has been overlooked in the course of these Debates is the range of our overseas commitments. We have commitments in the Middle East. Surely it is not suggested that we should abandon those commitments? We have commitments in Malaya. Certainly nobody on the opposite side of the House would dare to suggest that we should set aside our commitments in that field. We have commitments in Trieste, we have commitments in Western Germany, and we have commitments in other parts of the world.
Those overseas commitments denote the presence of a large body of trained, and some not so well trained, troops in those theatres. It is completely beside the point to suggest that this country possesses no Army when, in face of those commitments, we are able to send our
1212
troops there and, what is more, we are able to maintain them in a self-sustained fashion such as never existed before the last war. Before the last war when two or three battalions were sent abroad, they lived on the country itself. They were able to use the civilian population, and then there was no long administrative tail to which hon. Members now object. But now troops that are sent to the Middle East, troops that are sent to Malaya, those that are sent to Trieste, Austria and B.A.O.R. are self-contained. We have not only got the teeth but the tail as well. That is the position. That is a very vital factor in the background relating to the defence position.
Moreover, account has not been taken of the rate and efficiency of our demobilisation arrangements. At the end of the war we had more than five million men in the Forces. At the beginning of this year we had round about one million men. At the beginning of this month we had round about 800,000 men. When hon. Members opposite complain that we have no plan, I would remind them that there has been a plan, a coherent plan that can be understood, a plan that can be explained and has been explained in this House, but a plan related to the rundown of the Army in relation to the then international situation. But, of course, a change has come about in the international situation—[Laughter.]—
Mr. Lyttelton: When did the right hon. Gentleman find that out?
Mr. Shinwell: Is that a subject for ribaldry? Are we to understand that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite become derisive when the subject of international tension is mentioned? Are we to understand that they find a little pleasure in the fact that there should be international tension as a result of which—
Mr. Brendan Bracken: Drop that "tinker's cuss" stuff.
Mr. Shinwell: —we may have to impair our national economy and interfere with our export drive? Would that satisfy right hon. Gentlemen opposite?
Mr. Eden: We have done our utmost on this side of the House to support the Government in their Foreign policy—[Interruption]—We have. I have done my utmost today to make constructive

1213
suggestions, and I am entitled to say that the people on this side of the House have suffered a loss in war as serious as hon. Gentlemen on that side. We have suffered as much as the right hon. Gentleman suffered, and I resent deeply the tone of his remarks.
Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. M. Lindsay: Rat.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Gentleman to call the Secretary of State for War a rat?
Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman opposite resents the tone of my remarks, I would remind him that there has been a constant effort to denigrate not only the Government but the defences of this country in the eyes of the world, and I can imagine nothing more unhelpful in the present situation.
Mr. Bracken: Drop the "tinker's cuss" stuff.
Mr. Shinwell: We have been told that this country has never sunk so low. That is the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, they must be prepared for a reply. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that he had put a constructive case, and I am going to come to that right away. What is the constructive case which the right hon. Gentleman put? He asked for detailed information about the state of our defences, and he referred me to the Finletter Report in the United States. The Finletter Report contains certain information about the state of the air defences of the United States. We are not yet in a position to furnish information of a detailed character, and, if I am asked to reply why we cannot furnish such information, my answer is that at the present moment we prefer to say as little as possible about it. Nevertheless, the Government agree that both hon. Members and the public in this country are entitled to as much information as we can furnish consistent with security, and that information will be given at the earliest possible moment.
The next point the right hon. Gentleman raised was the question of the use of manpower, particularly in the Army, which was also mentioned by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttel-
1214
ton). I want to make a confession to the House. It is just as well to be frank about it. I am far from satisfied with the use of manpower in the Army. We have recently conducted an investigation, and, although the report submitted to us contains some exaggerations, I am satisfied—and I believe my military advisers are satisfied—that much requires to be done before the men we take into the Army—and I am speaking in particular of the men under compulsion to serve in the Army—receive a high proportion of military training. That matter is being dealt with at the present time.
We had to conduct the investigation to find out how matters stood. It is perfectly true that a large number of men are employed on non-military tasks—fatigues, guard duties and work that ordinarily could be undertaken by civilian employees. But we cannot afford to employ a large body of civilian employees in the Army at the present time. We are employing a number of them, but we cannot raise that ceiling to too high a level. The country cannot afford it, and therefore many men in the Services are working on administrative and nonmilitary tasks which obviously affect their training. However, the matter is in hand and instructions have been issued to the various Commands, and I venture the opinion that, before long, we shall have this matter put right.
As regards the sale of surplus material, it is perfectly true that, after the war, we sought to dispose of a great mass of surplus material thrown up from the aftermath of war; but recently we reached the conclusion that it would be unwise to send abroad, except to the Commonwealth countries and certain other countries, material which might be better used in this country in the event of an emergency. That is the situation.
The question has been raised of the position of the Reserves. That brings me to the general question of manpower in the Defence Services. What is the actual position? A lot has been said about recruitment, and our failure to recruit an adequate body of men in the last 18 months or two years. What are the facts? As regards the Army itself, we have actually been recruiting to the Regular Army, on long and short-service engagements, at the rate of 32,000 a year That is far in excess of the figure of Regular

1215
recruitment before the war, and, on the whole, it must be regarded as satisfactory, particularly in view of full employment in this country.
As regards the Royal Navy, the position is, on the whole, satisfactory—certainly as satisfactory as it is in the Army—but I am ready to concede that in the Royal Air Force the position is very unsatisfactory indeed. Let me make the position quite clear. Something has been said about the numbers of Regulars employed in the Royal Air Force. The fact of the matter is that, at the beginning of the last war, the Royal Air Force had only 100,000 Regulars, and during the war—taking the war as a whole, the period of the war's duration—90 per cent. of the men in the Royal Air Force were under compulsion to serve during the emergency. During the war, moreover, there was practically no regular recruitment. That applies to the Army, and, to a large extent, to the Royal Navy as well. The result is that because men in the Regular Forces had served their engagements—many of them had even served their Reserve Service, had undertaken completely their Reserve liability—and because we were not recruiting to the extent we were before the war, and as we have done recently, we have not the same number of Regulars available in the Royal Air Force that we would desire.
It has been suggested that in order to step up recruitment, we should offer more desirable monetary incentives. I fully agree with those who want for the men in the Forces—I refer to the men in he three Services—the highest possible rates of remuneration and the best possible conditions. If I may say so, we have done something to reach that objective. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has done something in the Pay Code, and has recently given a promise that the whole matter will be reviewed, and that an announcement will be made next Session. In the case of the Army, at any rate, we have made a real attempt to improve the accommodation for the men. The same applies to the other Services.
I do not believe that monetary incentives alone will bring all the Regular recruits into the Army and the Royal Air Force that we desire. For example, is it
1216
suggested that, if we increased the pay of the men in the Royal Air Force in the next month or so by 1s. or 2s. a day, there would be a great rush of recruits? We do not believe anything of the sort. What we do believe, however, is that if we can improve the conditions in the Forces, many of the men who are serving under compulsion—the conscripts—and, next year, many of the National Service men, if they are satisfied that the conditions in the Forces are satisfactory, may be induced to remain in the Forces. Therefore, it will have a certain advantage. It is because of the difficulty of obtaining an adequate supply of regular recruits that we have had to turn to National Service and examine the Reserve position.
As regards National Service, it has not yet come into operation. It will commence at the beginning of next year, and all that I can say about it is that in the general review which the Government are about to undertake—indeed, they have already begun it—of the position relating to manpower in the Forces, the question of the length of National Service will not be overlooked. I cannot say any more than that; I cannot anticipate legislation before the legislation is actually prepared, but nevertheless my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, the Service Ministers and the Government as a whole are bound to take note of the submissions made by hon. Members in relation to the inadequacy of National Service. [An HON. MEMBER; "Why?"] Well, at any rate we take note of them. Whether we agree with them or not is a matter to be considered in future.
Mr. Bellenger: What does my right hon. Friend mean by that statement? This has come as a surprise to a good many of us. Does he mean that the Government are now considering the possible amendment of the National Service Act?
Mr. Shinwell: I have not said that the Government are considering a possible amendment of the National Service Act. The Government are considering the state of manpower in the Forces, and in that review obviously the National Service Act liability is bound to be considered—no more than that.
What is the position in relation to the Reserves? Every person who served in

1217
the late war until the end of the emergency, is in Class Z Reserve, and in the event of an emergency and a Proclamation, can be called up. That is the position. We have already in train the machinery for call-up. That is in the hands of the Ministry of Labour and National Service. If an emergency did arise the men would be called up by groups and, having responded, would be transferred to their units, sorted out, and transferred to particular units in which they must actually serve.
There is another Reserve to which I wish to make reference, and that is Class B Reserve. That consists of a fairly substantial body of men, particularly in the Army, who have completed their Regular service and are in receipt of a retaining fee. They can be called up under Proclamation, and it may well be that we can call them up without Proclamation in certain circumstances. That matter is now being looked at, but I do not care to make a definite pronouncement upon it. Out of that Class B Reserve, men can be transferred to Class A Reserve where they can be called up without Proclamation, but I am bound to admit that the number of men who have transferred to Class A Reserve, where they can be called up without Proclamation, is very few indeed.
In face of these facts—and some of these facts are somewhat unpleasant—we have to consider what further steps can be undertaken. First of all, what about the Territorial Army? There has been some criticism by hon. and gallant Members opposite about our Territorial Army campaign. What I say about the Territorial Army campaign applies equally to the campaign for the other auxiliary Forces. It is suggested that we shall not get the men unless we are more inspiring in our methods. All I can say is that the President of the Territorial Army campaign is Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery, and if Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery is uninspiring, I do not know of anybody in the country who is likely to be proved more suitable. In our opinion, Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery is the appropriate person who should make the appeal to the men in the country who served in the Army during the war to join the Territorial Forces of the country.
What have we done to the Territorial Army? A campaign began last year.
1218
It is true we have not been as successful as we would have liked to have been, but we have actually recruited 61,000 men and women in the Territorial Army itself. A number have gone out because of natural wastage and at the present time the numbers in the Territorial Army are 55,000 men and women. We want 150,000. Hon. Members opposite and hon. Members on this side of the House, with many influential people in the country, have responded favourably to our request to participate in the forthcoming campaign—because the campaign has not yet been started—and as a result we hope to prove successful.
We do not want the men in the Territorial Army exclusively for the purpose of training the National Service men. Much of the training of the National Service men will be undertaken by men in the Regular Services; we want the men in the Territorial Army not only to assist in the training of National Service men, but also for the purpose of being the leaders in the Territorial Army when the National Service men have to undertake their Territorial Reserve liability at the end of 1949. That is the position, and on the whole, we are not dissatisfied with the rate of progress that has already been made. I can add that only in the last few weeks we have made further progress in particular areas in connection with the Territorial campaign—that is to say, the local campaign, not the national campaign, because the local campaign has been proceeding all along.
As regards an additional Reserve, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence indicated, we have promoted a scheme which is called the Registered Reservist Scheme and the intention is to invite men to register in particular areas where they are known to local commanders, and when they have done so to call them up if and when difficulties arise, particularly in relation to the Anti-Aircraft Command. We require that this scheme should be effective because, if we have the power to call up such men—these men being willing; the fact that they have volunteered to join this Registered Reserve indicating their willingness—we save a great deal of time in the call-up. Otherwise, if we rely upon ordinary reservists, even the Class Z Reserve, we shall occupy a great deal of

1219
time in making the necessary arrangements, and that will lead to considerable delay. These steps have already been taken.
I come now to the general plan for the future. The first thing I have to say is this—and this is a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) and to others who have suggested that we must engage in conversations and, indeed, to come to arrangements with countries in Western Europe. the Commonwealth countries and the United States of America. Hon. Members may take it from me that these matters—these very important and vital matters in relation to the defence of this country and, indeed, defence against aggression as a whole—have not been overlooked. Conversations have already taken place. Conversations are proceeding at the present time. Conversations are proceeding not only in relation to strategy, but also—and this is a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb)—on the subject of equipment, particularly in relation to research and design and modernised weapons. All these matters are now being considered and, therefore, it is not for hon. Members opposite to complain that there is no plan of campaign at all. There is a plan of campaign, but that plan of campaign is being related to the situation that has developed in the last few months.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry in the course of a very interesting speech, when he presented a very interesting point of view which I will pass on to the Foreign Secretary, namely, that the United States of America should make itself financially responsible for Western European rearmament, also stated that at the present time we have the fewest fighting units on record. That is quite wrong. I am sorry he made such a statement, because it simply is not true. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] At no time during peace have we ever had more men available—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah"]—more men in mechanised units, more men highly trained, more men technically qualified than we have at the present time. But those men, as I have already indicated, are scattered all over the world. That was not the position that obtained before the war.
Brigadier Head rose—
An Hon. Member: Why not give way?
Mr. Shinwell: Simply because I have not time, and because hon. Members opposite created quite a lot of noise in their interruptions and took up a great deal of my time. I must say a word about Civil Defence in reply to the acting Leader of the Opposition, and I have obtained from the Home Secretary a considered statement in reply to his question. The question put to me was, How far are the principles laid down for the organisation of Civil Defence in the last war being adhered to? The reply is this.
There will have to be some kind of Civil Defence organisation on a local basis and the detailed organisation is being considered in consultation with representatives of local authorities. [Interruption.] I cannot understand that that is a matter for laughter, because, obviously, we must consult the local authorities. These local services will require to be supplemented by nationally organised mobile columns, and the working out of this organisation is being undertaken by the Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff. So far as the use of materials for Civil Defence purposes is concerned, the general economic consideration mentioned by the Minister of Defence will have to be taken into account.
When I am asked what is to be the division of responsibility between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, I reply; the Home Secretary is generally responsible for Civil Defence and for the co-ordination of the various services, but a number of other Ministers have some responsibility for particular measures. The Minister of Defence has no direct responsibility for the organisation of Civil Defence, but is closely associated with the other Ministers concerned in the formulation of policy and in the preparation of plans.
Many hon. and right hon. Members have asked many questions to which I am unable to reply simply because there is not time. This is a very big subject, and so many questions have been addressed to me that it would take several hours to reply to all of them in debate. I will do my very best, in association with my Service colleagues, to reply to these questions subsequently, particularly on the specific points of detail, and hon.

1221
Members can rest assured they will hear more about them.
I conclude by reminding the House of what I said at the outset. We pursue a policy of peace. At the same time we are determined, with all the power at our command, to resist aggression.
Mr. Gallacher: Where is it coming from?
Mr. Shinwell: On that subject we are completely united. Consistent with our national security we are not prepared to take steps to impair the national economy. We seek to close the gap in the balance of payments. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his heartening statement the other day, we are within reach of closing that gap. That is the first purpose of this Government. Nevertheless, we shall not overlook the needs of the country in maintaining an adequate national defence.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved:
"That this House takes note of the statement made by the Lord President of the Council on 14th September relating to Defence."

GERMANY (DISMANTLINGS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Snow.]
10.1 p.m.
Mr. Stokes: I wish to raise on the Adjournment tonight one or two glaring examples connected with the dismantling and destruction in Germany, which I have raised, not in detail, at Question Time in this House and in Debate, and on which I have received no satisfactory reply. May I say, at the outset, that I deplore very much the departure of my noble Friend Lord Pakenham, who sits in another place, from the control of Germany. I say this in no disparagement of his successor, except that I think that I should have got replies from him which might have prevented my raising these matters tonight.
The first matter which I mentioned on 30th June concerned the destruction of buildings, part factories and part offices, of the Deutsche Werke at Spandau. The Under-Secretary, when I
1222
complained about the destruction of these buildings on 14th July, said:
"I am informed that the conversion into flats of these offices which were themselves badly damaged was impracticable and that the German authorities concerned agreed with this view."
On being pressed further, in supplementary questions, which I have not time to quote, he replied concerning the question of conversion:
"On the first point, the German authorities agree with the statement I have given."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th July, 1948; Vol. 453. c. 1177.]
I was very much surprised at hearing that reply, because I have information, not only from reports of responsible people in Berlin, but from the evidence of my own eyes. I was taken to see the site by a responsible representative of the Social Democratic Party. I did the obvious thing—wrote to my friends in Berlin, and said: Here is the answer; what is the reply—because I was floored. I was not surprised to receive the answer which I got, namely: It is typical of the subterfuge which is indulged in by a certain number of junior officials of the C.C.G. Franz Neumann, whose name I have no hesitation in mentioning, and who supported the democratic cause in concentration camps and elsewhere throughout the war and was leader of the Social Democratic Party in Berlin, replied:
"The only one employed by the Deutsche Werke who had any say in the matter and who was asked about it by the British officer who rejected the second proposal was a junior."
That was the conversion into flats. I think that there was an error in my original Question that it was part offices and part factory. The idea was that these should be converted into 200 or 300 workers' flats in a completely devastated town, and the alternative measure was that the building should be converted into occupational premises for light industry for which there had already been an application on behalf of 21 firms. My friend, in his letter of 30th August said that the German expert consulted was thoroughly satisfied with the conversion, and that the conversion to either could have been satisfactorily made. All except this one junior German official, who apparently was the person on whose opinion the decision was taken, according to the Control Commission, quite rightly said that they ought to be converted. My friend went on to say

1223
"Unfortunately this verification of facts is only of historical importance for meanwhile the building has been entirely pulled down leaving only the bare foundations standing."
I submitted in my speech that it was a scandal that any lunatic should be allowed to have the building pulled down. I repeat that and I am surprised that the Under-Secretary should be palmed off with such a reply from the Control Commission. I hope he can give an assurance that no further demolition of that kind will take place.
The second and quite different matter refers to the level of industry plan, and particularly to the production of excavators. I know something about the production of excavators, as every Member is aware. There is no secret about that. I have always questioned the whole basis of calculating the level of industry plan for general mechanical engineering. I have always thought that the people who did it had not the slightest conception of what they were doing, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give me the names of these people when he comes to reply. They were not officials but people pinched from British industry in order to go out there and advise, and probably none of them is there any longer.
It was decided, among other things, that Weserhütte, one of the three factories producing excavators in the British zone of Germany, should be pulled down. I happened to visit the factory, and I saw the production engineer and talked about its capacity. In consequence, I had some correspondence with Lord Henderson. I was told that, according to the level of industry plan, the figure was 137 per cent. of 1936 production—I question that—for the total output of excavators from these factories. In 1936 the figure was 285, and yet Lord Henderson tells me in a letter that the total possible output is 144 machines. That is only 50 per cent. of the 1936 figure, and is not even the 75 per cent. permitted under the revised level of industry programme. It is certainly not 137 per cent., which was the figure given to me in the letter by Lord Henderson.
Lord Henderson used the usual silly incompetent argument. It goes like this. Here we have factories which produce excavators. We will reduce the total overall capacity of general engineering so that it is only so much per cent. com-
1224
pared with pre-war, and we will assume that within that capacity, they will produce sufficient quantities of these machines. That is where the fallacy lies.
I do not want to detain the House on this matter, but I ask that the whole of this question should be properly reexamined. The whole of Germany is knocked down. There are 56 cities in ruins—I do not want to dilate on that because, as is well known, I protested about it during the war. Undoubtedly it was not sufficient to leave 137 per cent. let alone only 50 per cent. of total excavator capacity, which should have been at least 300 per cent. of the 1936 level in order for a start to be made to rebuild these cities. It is no use my hon. Friend daring to reply that it was no use leaving these factories because they could not have used them at once.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): Perhaps my hon. Friend will make his figures slightly more clear. He has said that we claimed that the capacity remaining was 137 per cent. over 1936, and at the same time gave certain output figures—I think 144 was the figure, or only 50 per cent. of the 1936 output. The difference, of course, is not between the output now and the out-put in 1936, but in the capacity now and the capacity in 1936. The output now is only a small percentage of the capacity.
Mr. Stokes: It is no use my hon. Friend trying to trick me on that, because I know. I can assure him that they are not capable of producing more than 50 per cent. of their 1936 total capacity. These villains in the Foreign Office have so messed them about, that they are incapable of producing sufficient machines. All this talk about the difference between capacity and output, is simply an official quibble in order to get out of a jam.
If the Foreign Office like to go on with that argument, I will bring this matter up again and again next Session, and in the Session after that. It is absolute rubbish. I do not suppose that the two factories are producing 30 machines a year between them at present. My hon. Friend has not been there. I have been to these places. and I know what they are producing. They are not producing 144 machines a year, and cannot do so at present. The argument used by Lord Henderson in his

1225
letter is typical of what the Foreign Office scoundrels have been doing in Germany. He emphasises that the Demag works at Beurath alone are capable of producing 80 excavators a year. I am supposed to assume from that that if the three factories were turned on to work, they would produce 240 machines. That is rubbish.
Factories in Dusseldorf which make horizontal boring machines which, as the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) knows, are practically the yardstick of heavy engineering production, have been deliberately destroyed. There are now no means in the British zone, so far as I know, of getting more horizontal boring machines, except by getting them from Russia or buying them from America. If my hon. Friend knows where I can get them, I hope he will tell me, because I want them. It is rubbish to assume that these factories can be turned over to the production of these machines. The Foreign Office officials sit back complacently in their chairs, and say it is all O.K., and my hon. Friend accepts it. I am surprised that he does not call in somebody who really knows the job; I know it, because it is my trade.
It is impossible to rebuild Germany unless we allow her a sufficient number of mechanical excavators. The very means whereby she can clear her towns are being destroyed. The people there know the facts, and protest against all this because they know that what is being done is making the carrying out of the reconstruction programme impossible. We are spending more in buying mechanical excavators from America today than we were saving when the basic petrol ration was removed—or as much. If steel and coal is available there is all this productive capacity on our doorstep.
It is evident that my hon. Friend did not listen to the Foreign Secretary's speech yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman said that Germany had made an amazing recovery in steel production, more than was ever anticipated. I have consistently said, "Do not pull the factories down; destroy the factories which can only be used for war purposes, but do not be lunatics and deliberately destroy the only means you have of reconstructing Europe." That is what is being done to satisfy a ridiculous plan. It is being done to give sops to certain small countries of Europe. I do not care
1226
twopence about them. The situation is so serious that we must preserve every useful piece of productive capacity that can be utilised for production. I want my hon. Friend to assure the House that he will look into this matter of excavator production in Germany, and I can assure him, without any venom at all, that I will gladly place my services at his disposal. I doubt if he will accept that offhand.
Thirdly, I come to my final complaint which is the level of steel production in Germany. I agreed with my right hon. Friend when he staked out a decent claim for 10,700,000 tons of steel per annum. At that time the Russians wanted 2 million tons a year, but in the course of time, my right hon. Friend has seen his claim achieved. I am not complaining about that, but what this country does not realise or understand is that 10,700,000 tons of steel is the level of production necessary for German internal economy. There is nothing over for general European reconstruction. The Foreign Secretary said—I do not remember whether it was in this House or not—that his task would be a lot easier if only he had a few more million tons of steel per annum. But the Government are deliberately destroying the means of producing the stuff they want.
Yesterday my right hon. Friend said that 10 million tons of steel was going to be achieved far quicker than he anticipated. Yet last year, at a conference at Düsseldorf, at which there were representatives from the Ruhr and steel experts from outside who were representing people interested in British iron and steel production, it was specifically stipulated in the minutes—when I sent for the minutes that page had been removed, but fortunately I got another copy—that there was to be no production of steel in Germany for export. I will not mention the gentlemen's names, but only what they did. They are well known in the steel trade.
In consequence of what has happened, Germany is bound to import more and more food and pay for it. The only means Germany has of paying for her food is by exports, and pre-war she exported 2¼ million tons of what are known in the trade as raw materials in steel. At that conference it was stipulated that there should be no export of steel. When the Foreign Ministers met in

1227
London later, they decided probably that that was nonsense and they laid down that German steel production must be made available for European economy, though it was known that 10,700,000 tons of steel were necessary for Germany itself. if we are hoping that Germany will be rebuilt quickly, we must leave in Germany more productive capacity than is contemplated in the 1946 level of industry plan and let her export as well.
I can never get any answer to all this from the Government, and all I ask is that these points should be looked into. I know that steel magnates from this country and America have in recent weeks been roving round the Ruhr in special trains. What their decisions are I do not know, for I am not on sufficiently friendly terms with them to find out for a certainty, but no doubt those decisions will come my way in due course. They have been there for a reason entirely different from mine, but I need not go into that now. I know the effect it has had in Germany. They are saying there, "Thank God some of the productive capacity to be scrapped will now be saved." I assure my hon. Friend that if he really means that there should be sense in his assurance or in the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the question of rebuilding Europe, the Government must raise the level of steel production above the 10,700,000 mark to at least 13½ million tons a year. The sooner that is done the better. Now that the attitude of Mr. Hoffman and others has begun to change, we may get a lead on that question from the other side of the Atlantic.
In conclusion, let me tell he House what was said by a German friend of mine—if I may so call him. I have no German friends dating from before the war—only those whom I have come to know since the war. This is a man who has striven very hard for friendly relations between the two countries. He sent me a letter dated 18th September. in which he said:
"Many Germans, who, like myself, are constantly busy building bridges between the two countries, are now at a loss to understand this dismantling policy and are afraid that it will discourage the most definite friends of England."
1228
The policy is having a most deplorable effect. If I might give one word of advice to the Under-Secretary of State—I have seldom dared to give advice to people who occupy the Government Front Bench—it would be to say that the short but expeditious way of arriving at the end desired by me—and I believe the Under-Secretary of State in his heart really desires it, too—would be to sack the whole lot of the R.D. and R. boys.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): Despite the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), I do not really think there is much difference of opinion or of principle between himself and His Majesty's Government upon the whole question of dismantling. We are not arguing here about the principles involved. We have accepted, as I think he would accept, that the interests of economic recovery in Europe are over-riding in this question of dismantling. We have never taken any other view and we have held it for a very long time. If it can be shown that any plant can contribute more to E.R.P. by remaining in Germany than it would contribute in the recipient country, we have always been ready to re-examine the question in the light of this consideration.
What is between us, in spite of the vehemence of my hon. Friend, is not a matter of principle. We realise plainly the points he made about the importance of Germany's recovery. It is a question of interpretation and of fact as to whether this or that plant falls into the category I have mentioned. Therefore, so much of his tirade against the alleged stupidity and blindness of the Government is not on a point of principle but is concerned with individual plants and necessities. He produced a series of individual cases, which is reasonable, and tried to show that the Government had made mistakes. I maintain, on the contrary, that in each of the cases he has raised our decision has been a right one.
I should have liked him to be much more specific about his figures for excavators. When I challenged him to explain himself he carefully avoided a straight reply.
Mr. Stokes: No.
Mr. Mayhew: The position is, first that the level of production of excavators is a matter for the Germans themselves to

1229
decide. Within this 10.7 million tons of steel, in the sub-division of industry which includes excavators, dredgers and building and road construction machinery, they have the right to make their own allocation and to decide their own production level. My hon. Friend has constantly urged us to throw responsibility on the Germans. When we do this, and when they take a decision which my hon. Friend believes to be wrong, the Government are blamed.
Mr. Stokes rose—
Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend would not allow me to interrupt him, and he left me with very little time to reply. Perhaps he will allow me to go on. My first point is that the Germans have the right to decide their level of production of excavators. Secondly, within the capacity allowed they have power of choice. The position of the Germans is that they are comparatively generous towards the level of production of the excavator industry. Thirdly, the capacity which is to be retained is, as I have said, 37 per cent. over the output of 1936.
Mr. Stokes: That is not true.
Mr. Mayhew: The capacity to be retained is 137 per cent. of the 1936 output. My hon. Friend has got into a confused state of mind because he has not clearly distinguished between the capacity which is allowed to be retained and the annual output being achieved. He said that the output now is 50 per cent. of the 1936 output.
Mr. Stokes: No.
Mr. Mayhew: Hon. Members who are interested can check up.
Mr. Stokes: I did not say that. My hon. Friend must give way. I said that the production at the moment was ridiculously low and that the productive capacity possible was only 50 per cent. of that of 1936.
Mr. Mayhew: Accepting that my hon. Friend told us that the productive capacity possible is 50 per cent. of 1936, I have here the figures for the present capacity for excavators of the four main firms. There is Menck and Hambrock with 110, Demag with between 120 and 140, Hagenkamp with 24, and Nilsen and Korte with 24, making a total of 298 as
1230
the capacity. The present output is 161. That is the figure which my hon. Friend had in mind, and I think he mentioned the figure of 144. What he has confused is the present output compared with the present capacity, and that is our whole defence, or the main part of our defence, for the dismantling of plant which has surplus capacity. [Interruption.] If I am not clear, my hon. Friend should consider my own position when he is throwing out these very detailed points at a great speed. That is the essential point.
Mr. Stokes: Lord Henderson never mentioned two of those firms.
Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend can look that up. I assure him that those facts are correct. That being so, I think his whole case on the subject of excavators falls to the ground. As a matter of fact, one of the main limitations on output at the moment is the limitation of demand, and the firm he mentioned with the greatest output today, which is Menck and Hambrock, could increase their output were there a demand for excavators. What is holding them back at the moment is demand.
I was not left long to reply to all the points of my hon. Friend, but I think I have shown to the House that the main part of his case is based on a complete misunderstanding. I hope the House will believe me when I say that, in spite of the vehemence of my hon. Friend and the facts and figures which he adduced in other parts of his speech relative to a building which was destroyed and relevant to the level of steel production, I think I can convince the House that the Government, although my hon. Friend suggested they were full of faults, are not so stupid or blind in their administration as he suggested. He said that 10.7 million tons of steel was far too small an output and he suggested that there was a prohibition on the export of steel. There is no prohibition on the export of steel from Germany.
Mr. Stokes: It is not true.
Mr. Mayhew: Within their 10.7 million tons production the Germans are perfectly free to export steel.
Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend deny that it was laid down at Dusseldorf in October last year that there should be no export from the 10.7 million tons?
Mr. Mayhew: I deny that, as far as the occupation administration is concerned, there is any prohibition, but if the Germans have made a decision, that is a matter for the Germans, and I cannot be held responsible. My hon. Friend is one of the hon. Members who is most insistent on putting the responsibility for decisions of this kind on the Germans themselves. There is no prohibition on the export of steel; nor has there been any request, as he hinted, from Mr. Hoffman that the figure of 10.7 million tons should be raised. To reopen this question of the 10.7 million tons at the present time when production is at an annual rate of 6 million tons is to re-open all the political and security questions and the differences with our smaller allies and the French. My hon. Friend used the expression "They do not matter twopence." He should be at the Foreign Office and responsible for the conduct of our relations with the French Government and with the other members of the Western Union.
Mr. Stokes: I wish I were.
Mr. Mayhew: It is a great sacrifice to make to deal with them in the very
1232
arbitrary and cavalier way with which I am afraid they might be dealt if my hon. Friend had his wish and found himself in a position of responsibility. I have not been able to deal with all his points. I know that the House appreciates the really deep and sincere interest which my hon. Friend takes in these questions, and we appreciate that what he has done in this matter is for the best, as he thinks, for the German people. I was glad to hear him declare his interest in the excavator industry. How refreshing it is to find a man with such an interest in the excavator industry in this country lending a helping hand to his competitors in Germany in contra-distinction to some of the allegations made against British businessmen in other contexts.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

COAL INDUSTRY
  Domestic Allocations
  Domestic Allocations
  Opencast Coal
  Opencast Coal
  Merchants
  Merchants
ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES
  Breakdown, Meaford Sub-Station
  Breakdown, Meaford Sub-Station
  Consultative Councils (Chairmen)
  Consultative Councils (Chairmen)
PETROL SUPPLIES
  Government Departments
  Government Departments
  Taxicabs, London
  Taxicabs, London
  Allowances, Rural Areas
  Allowances, Rural Areas
  Supplementary Allowances
  Supplementary Allowances
  Economy
  Economy
  Hire-Car Services (Ex-Service Men)
  Hire-Car Services (Ex-Service Men)
  WOOD FUEL PRICES
  WOOD FUEL PRICES
  DEFENCE REGULATIONS (OFFENCES)
  DEFENCE REGULATIONS (OFFENCES)
  ALIENS (LABOUR PERMITS)
  ALIENS (LABOUR PERMITS)
  ANTI-FASCIST COUNCIL (RESOLUTION)
  ANTI-FASCIST COUNCIL (RESOLUTION)
  FASCIST PROPAGANDA, GERMANY
  FASCIST PROPAGANDA, GERMANY
  THEFTS
  THEFTS
  PRISONS (STATISTICS)
  PRISONS (STATISTICS)
  TAXICABS, LONDON
  TAXICABS, LONDON
  EMPLOYMENT (ABSENTEEISM)
  EMPLOYMENT (ABSENTEEISM)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (REGISTRATIONS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (REGISTRATIONS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Ex-Service Men)
  Income Tax (Ex-Service Men)
  Imports
  Imports
  Strategic Raw Materials
  Strategic Raw Materials
  Marshall Plan Expenditure
  Marshall Plan Expenditure
  Central Economic Planning Staff
  Central Economic Planning Staff
  Small Savings
  Small Savings
  Balance of Payments (Deficit)
  Balance of Payments (Deficit)
HOUSING Local
  Authorities' Loans
  Authorities' Loans
  Local Authorities (Rents)
  Local Authorities (Rents)
  Building Costs (Committee's Report)
  Building Costs (Committee's Report)
  Premises, Clapton
  Premises, Clapton
  Rents, Bolton
  Rents, Bolton
  Requisitioned House, Streatham Hill
  Requisitioned House, Streatham Hill
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Hutted Camp, Bicester
  Hutted Camp, Bicester
  Fellowship Centre, Lambeth
  Fellowship Centre, Lambeth
  Camp, Kingstone and Madley
  Camp, Kingstone and Madley
  Requisitioning Powers
  Requisitioning Powers
  Rent Control
  Rent Control
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Spectacle Lenses
  Spectacle Lenses
  Nurses (Overtime Rates)
  Nurses (Overtime Rates)
  Nurses' Salaries
  Nurses' Salaries
  Ambulances, North Lincolnshire
  Ambulances, North Lincolnshire
  Institutions (Committed Persons)
  Institutions (Committed Persons)
  Blood Transfusion Service
  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mentally Defective Children
  Mentally Defective Children
  Food Poisoning
  Food Poisoning
  Cancer Deaths
  Cancer Deaths
  Vaccination Deaths
  Vaccination Deaths
  Diphtheria Deaths
  Diphtheria Deaths
  Registrar of Deaths, Chislehurst
  Registrar of Deaths, Chislehurst
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Benefits (Foreign Nationals)
  Benefits (Foreign Nationals)
  Spectacle Frames
  Spectacle Frames
  Capitation Fees
  Capitation Fees
  Dental Services (Information)
  Dental Services (Information)
  Dentists' Fees (Payment)
  Dentists' Fees (Payment)
  Forms E.C.17 (Dentists)
  Forms E.C.17 (Dentists)
  Thoracic Surgery, South-Western Region
  Thoracic Surgery, South-Western Region
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Prescriptions (Costs)
  Prescriptions (Costs)
  Patients (Statistics)
  Patients (Statistics)
  Crepe Bandages, Shropshire
  Crepe Bandages, Shropshire
  Foot Clinics
  Foot Clinics
  Chemists' Accounts
  Chemists' Accounts
  Dental Treatment (Cost)
  Dental Treatment (Cost)
  Ophthalmic Surgeons' Fees
  Ophthalmic Surgeons' Fees
  Explanatory Leaflets
  Explanatory Leaflets
  Artificial Insemination
  Artificial Insemination
  Turkish Bath Cabinets
  Turkish Bath Cabinets
  Doctors' Prescriptions
  Doctors' Prescriptions
  Village Nurses
  Village Nurses
  IDENTITY CARDS
  IDENTITY CARDS
  BRITISH RESTAURANTS
  BRITISH RESTAURANTS
  SUNDERLAND (BOUNDARIES EXTENSION)
  SUNDERLAND (BOUNDARIES EXTENSION)
  SLAUGHTER OF HORSES
  SLAUGHTER OF HORSES
  MUNICIPAL ENTERTAINMENTS
  MUNICIPAL ENTERTAINMENTS
  WATER SUPPLY SCHEME, OXFORDSHIRE
  WATER SUPPLY SCHEME, OXFORDSHIRE
EDUCATION
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (Pamphlet)
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (Pamphlet)
  School Accommodation
  School Accommodation
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Emergency Training (Supplementary Grants)
  Emergency Training (Supplementary Grants)
  Training Courses
  Training Courses
  New School, Easingwold
  New School, Easingwold
  Dinner Plates
  Dinner Plates
  School Children (Fares)
  School Children (Fares)
INDIA AND PAKISTAN
  British Officers (Services)
  British Officers (Services)
  Non-Secretary of State's Services (Pensions)
  Non-Secretary of State's Services (Pensions)
  EIRE (DISCUSSIONS)
  EIRE (DISCUSSIONS)
  NEWFOUNDLAND (CONFEDERATION)
  NEWFOUNDLAND (CONFEDERATION)
  FAMILY PENSION FUNDS (COMMISSIONERS)
  FAMILY PENSION FUNDS (COMMISSIONERS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Handkerchiefs and Socks
  Handkerchiefs and Socks
  Factory Space, Hirwaun and Aberdare
  Factory Space, Hirwaun and Aberdare
  Grenfell Factory, Trecynon
  Grenfell Factory, Trecynon
  Economic Development, Hyderabad
  Economic Development, Hyderabad
  British Interests, Argentina
  British Interests, Argentina
  Import Licences, New Zealand
  Import Licences, New Zealand
  Factory, Blackpool
  Factory, Blackpool
  Mending Wool
  Mending Wool
  Wellington Boots
  Wellington Boots
  Tobacco Exports
  Tobacco Exports
  Russia and Argentina
  Russia and Argentina
  Anglo-Soviet Agreement
  Anglo-Soviet Agreement
BRITISH ARMY
  Manpower Economy Committee
  Manpower Economy Committee
  Soldiers' Families (Accommodation)
  Soldiers' Families (Accommodation)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Advice Centres
  Advice Centres
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Milk Distribution
  Milk Distribution
  Ministry's Imports (Cost)
  Ministry's Imports (Cost)
  Points Goods, Margate
  Points Goods, Margate
  PALESTINE TRUCE COMMISSION
  PALESTINE TRUCE COMMISSION
  Catering Establishments (Allocations)
  Catering Establishments (Allocations)
  WASHINGTON DISCUSSIONS
  WASHINGTON DISCUSSIONS
  LETTINGS (RACIAL DISCRIMINATION)
  LETTINGS (RACIAL DISCRIMINATION)
  INCITEMENT TO DISAFFECTION ACT
  INCITEMENT TO DISAFFECTION ACT
ROYAL NAVY
  Manpower Economy Committee
  Manpower Economy Committee
  Gibraltar (U.S. Ships' Visits)
  Gibraltar (U.S. Ships' Visits)
  British Personnel (Soviet Court Sentences)
  British Personnel (Soviet Court Sentences)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Hand Saws
  Hand Saws
  Medresco Hearing Aid
  Medresco Hearing Aid
  Temporary Statistician
  Temporary Statistician
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Air Crash, Manston (Inquiry)
  Air Crash, Manston (Inquiry)
  Manpower Economy Committee
  Manpower Economy Committee
  UNITED STATES AIR FORCE (OFFICIALS' VISIT)
  UNITED STATES AIR FORCE (OFFICIALS' VISIT)
  BEACHES (OIL POLLUTION)
  BEACHES (OIL POLLUTION)
  WORN-OUT HORSES (TRANSPORT)
  WORN-OUT HORSES (TRANSPORT)
MALAYA
  Dyaks
  Dyaks
  Civilian Casualties (Compensation Scheme)
  Civilian Casualties (Compensation Scheme)
  Films (Prohibition)
  Films (Prohibition)
  MAURITIUS (MR. A. G. HOBBS)
  MAURITIUS (MR. A. G. HOBBS)
  BERMUDA (JOINT COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  BERMUDA (JOINT COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  BRITISH GUIANA (DISTURBANCES)
  BRITISH GUIANA (DISTURBANCES)
  CYPRUS (CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS)
  CYPRUS (CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS)
  SCOTTISH INDUSTRY (STATISTICAL INFORMATION)
  SCOTTISH INDUSTRY (STATISTICAL INFORMATION)
POST OFFICE
  Telephone Service, Luton
  Telephone Service, Luton
  Postal Deliveries, Kent
  Postal Deliveries, Kent
  NATIONAL SERVICE (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons, Salford
  Disabled Persons, Salford
  Wages Bill
  Wages Bill
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the Clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Earl of Westmorland—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Mountgarret (V. Mountgarret)—Took the Oath.

PARLIAMENT BILL
2.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND PAYMASTER-GENERAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, the matter that is before us to-day has been discussed at great length in this House during recent months, and I do not propose to weary your Lordships by attempting even to repeat what I said myself. I will only remind you of certain leading facts, and confine myself to that. As your Lordships are aware, after several days of discussion, including an adjournment during which the leaders of the different Parties conferred on the matters referred to them, as the result of which a White Paper was provided giving the substance of their conclusions, and after further discussion, your Lordships rejected the Bill. Since that time there has been nothing new save one matter to which I will refer in a moment. The occasion of our meeting to-day is because of the provisions of the Parliament Act. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, last week described the holding of this Session as "a political manœuvre," but it is in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act that if a Bill is to be passed through Parliament under that Act it must be passed in three Sessions, and there must be two years between the time of its first Second Reading in the House of Commons and its final passage. It is in order to comply with the necessities imposed upon us by the Parliament Act that we have asked your Lordships to assemble now.
There is one new circumstance or condition attaching to our present proceedings which did not apply when we had
208
the Bill before us last—namely, that under the Parliament Act the Bill cannot come back here amended; it must be the same Bill as was passed in the first instance by the House of Commons, even, I believe, to a semi-colon, if there should be one. That, I think, must prejudice the case considerably, because it might so happen—in fact, I am sure it could so happen—that your Lordships and others might agree on some Amendments. However, when we are meeting under the provisions imposed on us by the Parliament Act, the Bill must be exactly the same Bill, and must not be altered.
There is one other consideration which is new, at all events to my mind, although of course it applied at the time we had our previous discussion. It was brought out in the interesting speech made here the other day by my noble friend behind me, Lord Shepherd. In moving the reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne my noble friend called attention to the fact that the present House of Commons are elected on a basis of franchise which represents practically the whole adult population. He reminded us (and I again remind your Lordships) that the House of Commons which passed the Parliament Act prescribing this procedure was a House of Commons elected, I believe, by about one-third of the adults of the country. I myself well remember, as will other noble Lords who went through the vicissitudes of elections in 1910 and thereabouts, how anxious Party agents were to discover whether this man or the other possessed the lodger franchise, or whether he was excluded. But all those things have gone and we now have a House of Commons elected by practically the whole adult population.
However, I am bound to remind your Lordships of a Resolution which was passed by the House of Commons elected even on the more limited franchise then prevailing in June, 1907. Although I mentioned it before, I think it is right to remind ourselves of it. This is the Resolution passed by the House of Commons:
"That in order to give effect to the will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives, it is necessary that the powers of the other House to alter or reject Bills passed by this House should be so restricted by law as to

209
ensure that within the limits of a single Parliament the final decision of the House of Commons shall prevail."
That was the Resolution of the House of Commons applying, as your Lordships see, to the life-time of a single Parliament. It is true that in the discussions which ensued a compromise of the sort to which we are all so accustomed was reached. The result was that the Parliament Act did not go so far as the Resolution, and left it open to this House to modify, alter or delay proceedings of the House of Commons after the Third Session of a Parliament. I notice that the powers of this House, as still possessed, which this Bill before us seeks to modify in a very small degree, were described by the present Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Churchill, in May, 1911, as "both formidable and menacing."
The proposals in the Bill before us, however, are much more modest than anything contemplated in the Resolution of the House of Commons which I have just read. The Bill before us goes no further than this: it really provides that for four years, instead of three, the House of Commons shall be able to pass through, within the life-time of the Parliament, the measures which they themselves deem to be necessary. It does, in fact, allow a delay to be interposed by this House for the final year—that is, for the last year of the life of the House of Commons. So it falls short, to that extent, of the powers contemplated in the Resolution. We also bear in mind, so far as the existing power to interpose a delay of two years is concerned, that its use has never been required or contemplated when there was a Conservative majority in the House of Commons. During the five years when there is such a majority there is single-Chamber government in excelsis—and it has never, in those circumstances, been anything different. We are now seeking to make a modest modification and to ensure that the House of Commons have complete authority over their legislation so that it is passed into law during at least four years of the life of a Parliament.
One of the reasons for the introduction of the Bill at this stage—and I will be quite frank about it—arises in this way. We have been asked so many times: "Was this, that or the other proposal of the Government according to the mandate
210
of the people at the General Election?" In our last debate I spoke at considerable length on this subject, and I will not now repeat all that I then said. I would again remind your Lordships, however, that so far as the majority Party in the House of Commons are concerned, we shall never agree that a non-elected Chamber shall be the final arbiter as to what is the mandate of the people. That we cannot accept. And I suggest that to try to enforce such an idea is to be blind to the drift of affairs in the world. The time has passed when a non-elected Chamber can claim and can exercise powers to decide whether a given proposal does or does not represent the wishes of the people. That must be the responsibility of the elected Chamber, without any derogation of the useful powers which this House possess—and will still possess under this Bill.
Your Lordships may remember that in the last series of discussions I, on behalf or His Majesty's Government, made a suggestion that if the Bill went to a Committee we should be prepared to consider Amendments which would make sure that this House had an adequate time for imposing delay or for consideration, subject to one condition—namely, that it should not jeopardise the authority of the House of Commons in the fourth Session. As your Lordships know, we have had lone talks at different times about the powers of delay which might be deemed necessary in order to give the people time to ascertain or judge an issue. Since then, we have had a remarkable illustration of how unnecessary it is to accept even what we suggested—that after a Bill had been read a third time in the House of Commons this House should be able to interpose a delay of up to nine months, if necessary, in order to enable the public, shall we say, to make up their minds. We had a striking illustration at the end of our last Session as to the hollowness of any demand for such delay.
Your Lordships will remember that a proposal to abolish capital punishment was carried in the House, of Commons by a large majority against the advice of the Government. I am surprised that noble Lords should laugh, because they are giving away their own case when they do that, as their case has been that the public required all these months to judge an issue. As the House are well aware,

211
there was a very vigorous expression of public opinion, so far as it could be expressed, against the proposal of the House of Commons. On two occasions this House rejected the proposal and the House of Commons accepted that decision. The point I am making is that the people of this country did not require nine months to know what the proposal was about. They ascertained it in nearly as many days, at all events, in far less than that number of weeks; and in that short period public opinion expressed itself with great emphasis. To my mind the suggestion which we made last Session, that if it could be part of an agreement we would be prepared to amend this Bill to secure that your Lordships' House would have at least that period of time before the final date arrived, was a very reasonable one. Our suggestion was rejected, I think I can fairly say, almost with scorn. However, we still remain fixedly of the opinion that it is an extremely reasonable suggestion. It was the limit to which we could go, subject to not prejudicing the fourth Session of the House of Commons.
I would remind your Lordships of one other objection which was taken last time—namely, that we should have some agreement about the composition of this House. That, as embodied in the White Paper, was a matter of discussion between the leaders of the Parties. That objection cannot be urged any longer. It was completely torpedoed, because it emerged that there was a considerable promise of agreement on this important issue of the modification of the constitution of this House. This was shown to be so in the White Paper. I want to make this observation on the very remarkable issue of the deliberations. It meant that, though for a long time past the Labour Party had said hard things about this House—a great many of its spokesmen had even gone so far as to say they wanted your Lordships' House abolished—the Labour Party were prepared to accept as a basis for discussion the proposals described in the White Paper. That was a very notable event. I say, with the greatest possible respect, that that unlooked-for opportunity may not recur. At all events, it would certainly be difficult to recall it. In my view that was a golden opportunity to deal with a great constitutional issue thrown away by a very short-
212
sighted vote. We still remain firmly of our opinion.
I am informed, through the usual channels, that a great majority of your Lordships have assembled to-day with the intention of repeating that vote. So be it. The only result will be to harden resentment and, much more important, to make more difficult than before the efforts of those who have striven earnestly to effect the settlement of this issue. I beg to move.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Addison.)
2.55 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this is the great day of the present Session—what I may call Der Tag. This is the occasion for which we have all been called together. It is perfectly true that there have been during the last week, and that there will be during the remainder of the Session, discussions on such "minor" matters as foreign affairs, the economic situation, national defence, the situation in Berlin, the negotiations in Moscow and so on, but they are not the reason why the Government have called Parliament together. They are all subsidiary to the passing of this measure, the urgency of which, apparently, in the Government view, transcends all others. In answer to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said to-day, I would say that our complaint in being here to-day is not that we have been called together to fulfil the necessary provisions of the existing law, but that the Bill has been introduced at all. The people were never consulted on it, and it could be justified only by some evidence of desperate need in its favour.
In the circumstances, I think it is perhaps unfortunate that the purpose which has made necessary the introduction of this Bill to deal, at the present juncture, with the House of Lords, is still wrapped in mystery. Apparently, like the company which I believe was formed at the time of the South Sea Bubble, it is "for a purpose later to be disclosed." Some of us have had (it appears quite unworthily) suspicions that it had something to do with a Bill to nationalise iron and steel. That was an illusion which was shared, I read, by even such a distinguished member of the Labour Party as Mr. Arthur Greenwood himself. But we have

213
it on the authority of the Lord President (though I notice that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House did not mention this particular aspect to-day) that that is "sheer moonshine" and that the Bill has nothing whatever to do with iron and steel.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that that makes it all the more queer that, of four vital questions asked of the Opposition in the debate in another place this week, one was, "Have the House of Lords been told by the Leader of the Tory Party to reject any steel legislation?" If the nationalisation of steel has nothing whatever to do with the introduction of this Bill, that question was surely entirely irrelevant and, I should have thought, almost out of Order. But as the Lord President has asked this question, I am very ready to repeat in this House the answer which has already been given by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe on behalf of the Opposition in another place. The answer, quite simply, is: No. There has been no question of any such instruction and, were it given, I assure the noble Viscount opposite, it would certainly have not the slightest effect upon such an independent body as your Lordships' House. We have received no instructions and we have reached no decision. The attitude we shall adopt on the question of an Iron and Steel Bill, if such a measure is introduced, will depend entirely upon the character of the Bill when it reaches us. But, at any rate, we are assured by the Government that the nationalisation of iron and steel has nothing whatever to do with the introduction of this Bill.
What other legislation, then, is in store for us within this Parliament which makes this Bill so necessary? It is evident that there is some measure in the Government's mind; otherwise why do they introduce what is called the retroactive clause, which applies only to the present Parliament? The retroactive clause, as your Lordships know, is a purely temporary device to ensure the passage of Bills during this Parliament, without their having to undergo the period of delay laid down by the Parliament Act of 1911. When the reduced period under the new Parliament Bill becomes effective, the retroactive clause will no longer be necessary; it will become a dead letter. We must there-
214
fore assume that the Government have some controversial measure in contemplation within the present Parliament. If not iron and steel, what is it? At one moment, I believe, the National Parks Bill was mentioned by Dr. Dalton. I do not know whether he meant that seriously or whether it was merely what we used to call "pretty Fanny's way."
It may be, however, that the Government have now in contemplation other proposals even more important than the National Parks Bill. If so, we ought to be told about them. We ought to be given some information, and the British people ought to be given some information, as to the nature of these unknown measures. What are they? Certainly we have not had much guidance to-day from the speech of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. If he will forgive me for saying so, his speech—I do not mean this in any rude sense—was a mere re-hash of the arguments with which your Lordships are already familiar. He gave us no new light, and no new guidance.
The only semblance of an attempt to justify the introduction of this Bill was that put forward by the Lord Chancellor, I think, at an earlier stage, which has since been repeated by the Lord President of the Council. As I understand it, that argument is as follows. It is perfectly true that your Lordships' House have behaved with perfect propriety and moderation throughout the List three difficult years; but, though you have shown consistent wisdom and statesmanship—under conditions of considerable embarrassment to many of us—the Government could not be absolutely certain that that situation would always continue; and to prevent the possibility of any irresponsible behaviour, however unlikely, they thought it desirable to effect a further curtailment of the powers of the Second Chamber to prevent any possible interference with the Government programme.
As I understand it, that is the argument. But that argument, as I think Mr. Eden pointed out in the earlier stages of the Bill's progress, is, in fact, the doctrine of preventive arrest, with which the world is already painfully familiar in totalitarian countries. In those countries, as your Lordships know, it is a common practice to proceed against individual citizens, not because they have committed

215
any offence but because it is conceived possible that they might become inconvenient to the Party in power. It appears that this totalitarian procedure is now being brought into operation in this country. The structure of the Constitution is to be radically altered in order to prevent any interference with the despotic power of the Executive. If that is the explanation, then it is worse even than iron and steel. In that general form it is, I suggest, an open, blatant attack upon the liberties of the British people, who are henceforth to be deprived of an essential safeguard against hasty or irresponsible action by an extremist or—what seems at the present moment far more possible—a timid or incompetent Government with a temporary majority in the House of Commons.
I had imagined that the existence of some such safeguard as a Second Chamber was universally recognised as being necessary. But now we have an entirely new doctrine. The Leader of the House expounded it in a speech which he made in your Lordships' House on June 9 of this year. I hope he will forgive me if I quote his words. He then said:
"The fact is that we have agreed in this country to live under a system whereby Governments are elected every five years; and they are expected during that time to discharge their duties as well as they are able, according to the pledges they have made to the people, or according to the principles for which they stand. Then, at the end of five years, there is a General Election and, if the people do not approve, they select somebody else. That is the system."
The noble Viscount seemed to assume that it was universally accepted that during the whole of that period of five years a Government with a majority in the House of Commons, though not necessarily in the country, should have an absolutely free hand to introduce and pass into law anything they liked, without check of any kind. The same view has been expressed, with, if I may say so, parrot-like reiteration, by the Lord President of the Council. He, too, at heart is a single-Chamber man. That is the inner meaning of the argument which he constantly repeats, and which was repeated by the Leader of the House just now, that unless this Bill is passed in its present form the Government's legislative programme will be hamstrung during the last two years of the Parliament.
216
To most of us that argument is utterly irrelevant. For if a certain period of delay is required during the first three years of a Parliament to enable the British people to make up their minds on a complicated issue, on what logical grounds should they be given a shorter period during the last two years? The only conceivable reason is that the Government fear that during the last two years the period of delay might run over into a General Election. But what is so very dreadful about that? After all, what would be the practical result? The British people, who, of course, are the rulers of this country under His Majesty the King, would have an opportunity themselves of deciding on the disputed issue. If they re-elected the Government, then the measure in question would most certainly become law. If they rejected the Government, it would be conclusive proof that they did not want the measure in question.
While I am about it I may as well deal with another question which the Lord President put to the Opposition. He said:
"What is the view of the Opposition about new, important and urgent controversial issues which arise in the fourth or fifth years of a Parliament?"
That is a perfectly simple, straightforward question, and it can be given a simple answer. The majority of urgent issues which arise at any time affecting the security of the State—which is, I imagine, what the Lord President had in mind—are not controversial. When the country in which we live is in danger there tends always to be an essential unity in all Parties. But were a vital, extremely controversial issue to arise, on which the people had never been consulted at all, then in my opinion they should be given time to form a view and to express it. Otherwise, a dominant clique in the House of Commons might well impose on the nation a course of action utterly repugnant to it.
I know that this view will not be acceptable to the Lord President, or possibly to the Government as a whole, for it conflicts with their pet theory that it is not the British people but the House of Commons which should rule the country without any check. I do not know whence the Labour Party derived that doctrine. They never advanced it when Conservative Governments were in

217
power, and, so far as I am aware, no constitutional authority would support it. Bagehot was quoted by the Lord President at one stage. But he certainly does not take that view. In his great work on the British Constitution, from which the Lord President quoted a passage, there is a long and elaborate argument explaining why an uncontrolled House of Commons might easily become a disaster to the country. I will quote only one sentence from it. This is what Bagehot said:
"A formidable sinister interest may always obtain the complete command of a dominant assembly by some chance and for a moment, and it is therefore of great use to have a Second Chamber of an opposite sort, differently composed, in which that interest in all likelihood will not rule."
That is profoundly true. And Bagehot went on to refer to the Second Chamber specifically as a "retarding Chamber." There is not the slightest doubt that he regarded the power of delay as a main function of a Second Chamber.
Nor would Burke—whom the Lord Chancellor called in to support him—accept the thesis of the present Government. Burke undoubtedly held the view, with which I think all of us would agree, that Governments and Houses of Commons, once they are elected, must exercise their own judgment as to what is good for the country, and introduce whatever legislation in their view is necessary to further that policy. I do not think any of us would disagree with that general thesis. But, so far as I am aware, Burke never lent himself to the proposition that there should be no check upon actions of the Executive or the House of Commons, to ensure in cases of doubt that they really did represent the will of the people. It should be remembered that in the days of Burke—which is now a good time ago—there was a very effective check upon the House of Commons. The Second Chamber (the House of Lords) had at that time an absolute veto. They could at will produce a situation where the Government had either to drop the legislation in question or refer back to the people for the renewal of their mandate. That was a tremendous control over the Government of the day—a far greater control than exists at the present time—yet, so far as I know, Burke never advocated that that control should be either abolished or drastically curtailed.
218
Of course, we would all agree that times have changed since Burke's day. The absolute veto of the Second Chamber was destroyed by the Parliament Act of 1911, and all that is left to this House is a certain delaying power to enable the views of the people—who, after all, are the sovereign power under the King in this country—to crystallise and express themselves upon issues of vital importance, upon which they have hitherto not been consulted or upon which their views are uncertain. We, who oppose the present Bill, do not seek, in spite of what I think the Leader of the House suggested this afternoon, to override the views of the people or even to interpret them. But we do think it vital that some machinery should exist to ensure that an adequate period should be provided to enable the British people to come to their own conclusions. Otherwise we might easily get in this country, as in so many others, pure minority rule.
Take even the present Parliament. This Government, as your Lordships know, never had a majority of votes in the country. Even at the General Election in 1945, in the full flood of their success, the votes cast against them considerably exceeded the votes cast for them; and I think it is generally admitted—and it would be true, I think, of nearly all Governments within modern history—that they have lost ground since then. They have indeed a majority in the House of Commons; they are quite safe there. Either the Back Benches follow the Front Benches, or the Front Benches follow the Back Benches. Anyway, they all stick together. But is it really argued, in such circumstance;, that a Government who represent only the minority of the nation have an absolute right, or should have an absolute right, for the whole five years of the Parliament, without any check of any kind, to pass far-reaching legislation which may never have been considered by the British people at all?—well, no effective check; I am quite prepared to amend my remark to "no effective check." The harm done by that legislation might well be irreparable. It might be quite impossible afterwards to unravel the tangle they had made. That is not democracy in the sense in which we have always understood it in this country.
In the recent conversations, to which the Leader of the House referred this

219
afternoon, we, who represented the official Opposition, went as far as we possibly could to meet the Government. Indeed, to obtain an agreement we went further than many of us would have wished. We could not go further, and we cannot go further, without, in our view, stultifying the whole purpose for which above all a Second Chamber exists. The Leader of the House seemed to fear to-day that the limited power which this House has possessed since 1911 is likely to be used in a biased fashion, on account of the present composition of your Lordships' House. I think he said that it is already single-Chamber government when the Conservative Party are in power.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is right.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think this fear is grossly exaggerated, in view of the experiences of the last two years. But if that is so, if the Government really fear that the present membership of this House acts unfairly against the Parties of the Left, if that is their real preoccupation, surely their proper course is not to reduce the powers of the House, but to reform its composition. Noble Lords on this side of the House have never opposed this. On the contrary, we have consistently pressed for it, because it is our convinced view that it is essential, in order to exercise these important powers—and they are important powers—to have a body who enjoy the confidence of the greatest possible number of their fellow citizens. Indeed, I think the Government will admit that it was owing to our continued pressure during the Spring that the Government very reluctantly agreed to enter into discussions covering the composition as well as the powers of the House; and the White Paper makes it abundantly clear that it was not on composition that those conversations broke down.
The Lord President in his speech in another place this week asked whether the Conservative Party thought it right that there should be a permanent majority for any one Party in the House of Lords. I was rather surprised that the right honourable gentleman used that argument, because he knows perfectly well—we made it abundantly clear to the Government in the conversations—that that
220
was not our view. Personally—and I believe I speak for the vast majority of the members of this House—we do not want to see a Second Chamber biased violently, either one way or the other. What we want is a wise, experienced body, able to throw in its weight against extreme action either by the Right or by the Left. That, we believe, is the only justification for having a Second Chamber at all.
But for such a purpose, the House must have certain effective powers. In a speech on the subject of the House of Lords which was delivered by my grandfather when he was leading the Conservative Party some time in the 'eighties, he used these words:
"You know that sometimes people put two locks upon their safe, and give separate keys to separate people. If they had the same keys and gave them to the same people you would think they were very absurd persons. But that would be exactly the absurdity of having two legislative assemblies which were bound to follow exactly the prescriptions of the Minister of the day. The one would be no check upon the other."
And he went on to say in the same speech:
"To my mind there is no danger to liberty greater than would be involved in leaving the House of Lords destitute of real power, but possessed of that pretence of it which would lull the people into security, and induce them to allow the Prime Minister to have sway without supervision or control."
That is exactly our case to-day.
If the Government had introduced a Bill the purpose of which was to give to the Second Chamber powers enabling them to act as a real check to ensure that the public will prevailed, and providing it with the membership best fitted to exercise those powers, they would have encountered no opposition in this House. On the contrary, we should have been very ready to co-operate to make the measure as perfect as possible. But the purpose of this measure which we are now discussing—if I may be allowed yet one more quotation—is:
"to strip the Second Chamber of all power, to deprive it of all consideration, but to leave it there as a solemn sham, a mere masquerade on legislation, in order to screen the uncontrolled power which the Government and the Caucus will exercise over all matters."
To that we can never agree. I personally would infinitely rather see the Second Chamber abolished altogether. Then people would really know where they stand. My Lords, the White Paper itself said that this was a fundamental issue.

221
We live in dangerous times. We cannot afford shams. It is for that reason, and because I believe passionately in the maintenance of the liberties of this great and ancient nation, that I have no option but to recommend your Lordships to reject this Bill.
3.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, in moving the Second Reading to-day, said that under the procedure of the Parliament Act the Bill could not be amended, and that it must be passed textually in the same form as it had been passed in the previous Session. That, no doubt, is technically correct, but it is not entirely correct. If the Government had so desired they could, under the Parliament Act, have proposed in the House of Commons on the second presentation of the Bill that that House should suggest an Amendment—not make an Amendment, but suggest an Amendment—by which the period of delay in the Bill, if not a year from the Second Reading, might be nine months from the Third Reading in the House of Commons. That was a proposal which received a large measure of assent, not only in your Lordships' House but also in the Conference, and the Government would have been prepared to accept that as part of a general settlement. It would not have been in any way contrary to their principles if, in this short Session, they had passed that proposal through the House of Commons and if the Bill had come to this House with that suggestion added to it. Had that been the case, I feel sure—or, at all events, I hope—your Lordships would have given careful and respectful consideration to the proposal. That has not been done, and the Bill now comes back to your Lordships' House in precisely the same form as it was when it was first introduced in the previous Session, before the sittings of the Conference were held.
I know there are several members of the Liberal Party, both in Parliament and in the country, who regard this Bill as a continuation of the controversy of 1911, and as carrying one step further the process of curtailing the power of the hereditary Peerage to overrule the will of the elected Chamber; and they feel that it is their duty to support a measure of that kind. That is not the view that I
222
take on this occasion. I consider that we are back now in the same position that we were in when the Bill was first introduced into this House. At that time I described it as a bad Bill in my judgment. I said that the period of two years was not an unreasonable period and that it had been sanctioned by the nation in two General Elections in 1910. I made it clear that in my view, unless there were general agreement among all Parties and in the country that it should be altered, or unless there were a fresh mandate from the people, the constitutional arrangement sanctioned at two General Elections should not subsequently be altered in any important particular; that it should not be altered except by the same authority.
Furthermore, I pointed out that the period of one year WAS not, in fact, a year and, under the provisions of the Parliament Act, might on many occasions be reduced to three or four months—as would have been the case if this proposal had been in operation at the time of the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill. I considered, moreover, that this Bill contained a retroactive clause and that there was no substantial reason to doubt that that clause had been inserted in order to ensure the passage next year and before the General Election of a steel nationalisation Bill. Indeed, I suggested that the title of this Bill ought properly to be "The Steel Nationalisation Facilities Bill." Further, I suggested that the right course to take was to endeavour to arrive at an agreement on the composition of the House; and I urged strongly that a Conference should be held to see whether such an agreement could not be arrived at.
I expressed the view at that time, speaking in this House on the Second Reading of the Bill in the previous Session, that if such a Conference were held it would be possible in present circumstances to agree on a plan for a reformed House of Lords which the nation would be ready to accept. I was very glad that both the Government and the official Opposition agreed with that suggestion. The debate was adjourned, the Conference was held, and—most surprisingly, to me—an agreement was reached on what appears to me to have been an admirable plan, which would probably have received the general approval of the nation as a whole. But

223
the Conference broke down over the question of powers—on what (again to my surprise) appeared to both the Government and the official Opposition to be a fundamental difference on a matter of principle, although it seemed to me to be a mere matter of detail and not one of principle at all. However, both sides persisted in their view, and the question came to the vote in your Lordships' House.
At that time we Liberal Peers desired to register our opinion as to what this House ought properly to do. We thought that this House ought properly to give the Bill a Second Reading in order that it could be considered in Committee and an Amendment might be insisted upon, to the effect, perhaps, that the period of delay should be a year from the time of the Third Reading in the House of Commons. We made it perfectly clear that we voted for the Second Reading only in order that there should be a Committee stage. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, speaking for all of us on these Benches, declared that we should vote for the Second Reading for that reason, but that if the Amendment were not accepted we should reserve our right to vote against the Bill on the Third Reading. To my great regret, the official Opposition refused to take that course and, by overwhelming numbers, threw out the Bill on Second Reading. I thought, and I said, that they were making a profound mistake, and I still think so; and I am convinced that the future will show that that has been so.
This is the same Bill, unamended, as we had then. Now there comes this question. The Government have said more than once—the Lord President has said it and the Lord Privy Seal has said it—that it is nonsense to say that the Bill is preparatory, or mainly preparatory, to steel nationalisation; that it has nothing to do with steel nationalisation; that it is little more than coincidence, and that the retroactive clause was of general application and had no special purpose in view. If I were to see a pair of Siamese twins joined together by what a surgeon might call a retroactive membrane, and if the Lord President told me that those twins were really no relation of one another, and that they just hap-
224
pened to have met each other fortuitously for the first time on the previous day—well, my Lords, I am not given to the use of strong language, but I should go so far as to say, "Tut-tut."
The present Government, as we all know, are supported by a Party which consists of two elements. There are some millions of trade unionists, and a great number of co-operators (by no means all co-operators), who are just ordinary common-sense persons, inclined to judge questions on their merits. But there are also many thousands of intellectuals, who get their politics from books and not from life, and who insist on a theory of Socialism through the nationalisation of the "means of production, distribution, and exchange," to quote words included in the Constitution of the Labour Party itself.
The Government have, moreover, two policies. They have a policy of social reform, most of which is quite acceptable to Liberals, and several of their measures passed through the present Parliament have been admirable—Public Health, National Insurance, Town and Country Planning and so forth. They also have the other policy of Socialism—the nationalisation of industries, through the adoption of which they have made a great breach between themselves and Liberalism. They have two names; they are the Labour Party and they are the Socialist Party. Labour gets the votes and the Socialists set the policy. They have a split purpose—one might almost say a split personality. Lately, I was reading over again Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and I thought it was something of an allegory of the present situation. We all know our "Dr. Jekyll" in this House. Dr. Jekyll, of course, is an eminent member of the medical profession. Stevenson describes him as "a well-made, smooth-faced man with every mark of capacity and kindness." But Dr. Jekyll unfortunately became an addict to a drug—the specific in this case might be called "nationalisation"—which, after he had had to undergo agonising contortions, led to the disappearance of his personality and its replacement by Mr. Hyde.
So we see now the genial, benevolent Dr. Christopher Jekyll giving place to the sinister figure of Mr. Aneurin Hyde. I

225
hasten to explain that I use the word "sinister" in its original sense, "sinister" being, of course, Latin for the "left." What happened in the story? The drug got such a hold of Dr. Jekyll that he could not recover his own form and at last he disappeared, and Hyde alone survived. Consequently, we are to have the Steel Bill in the next Session.
However, we are not discussing here to-day the Steel Bill. As the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has said, to-day and on previous occasions, we must wait and see it; and when we see it we will judge it on its merits. So far, the Government have not made any case whatsoever for the nationalisation of steel. If that industry is defective in possessing monopolistic characteristics, why do they not deal with it under the new Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act which was passed by general assent this year? But, as I say, we are not discussing that; we are discussing the Parliament Bill. It comes to us unamended, in its original form, with no prospect of being accompanied or followed by a measure of reform of the constitution of the House. It contains a retroactive clause which makes it appear that it is intended mainly as a pilot for the Steel Bill. The reasons for our attitude were expressed when the Bill was first introduced. The position is the same now as then, and my noble friends and I propose to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.
3.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I propose to keep your Lordships not longer than seven minutes. In my opinion, the Bill before the House is the most vital domestic question that this country has had before it for many years. I fear that the public do not sufficiently realise the magnitude of the disaster for them if it passes. What is the reason for it? In spite of the denials of Ministers in another place, it is just this. The Constitution of the country is to be altered because Mr. Aneurin Bevan wants the nationalisation of iron and steel. In order to satisfy the ideologies of Mr. Bevan and his fellow travellers, the Government propose to drag down the bulwark which for hundreds of years has protected the people of this country against tyranny and oppression. Your Lordships' House will become like a
226
trussed fowl, the only difference being that a fowl is trussed after it is dead. Symbolically, we are to be trussed alive and must be prepared to suffer a lingering death.
With one or two exceptions, I do not believe that, in their hearts, the leaders of the Government are in favour of the nationalisation of iron and steel, or of this Bill. I believe that few, if any, of the noble Lords opposite believe in these things. They know that it is fear, fear that the Labour Party will be torn apart, which has forced their leaders into the betrayal of the constitutional rights of a free people. The façade—a fake façade—of a united Labour Party must at all costs be shown to the world. The Prime Minister has received praise for the way he keeps his team together, but that aspect of his leadership need not present any difficulties for him if he is prepared to give way on matters which are detrimental to the country—for this Bill is not only an attack upon the Constitution, it is an assault against the principles of free democracy, which are that the will of the people shall prevail. There comes a time when the mandates from the electorate exhaust themselves. With what is practically abolition of the powers of the Second Chamber, any Left Wing demagogue with the heart of a Red Fascist and a lust for power can, by Orders in Council, change our form of government and tear to pieces everything which we hold dear; and the will of the people would be the last thing that such a man would wish to consult.
The reported statement by a responsible Minister of the Crown (to which I have already alluded) on May 17 of this year, that there was a moment when the Labour Party had to choose between revolution and constitutional government, cannot lightly be passed over. It shows more than ever the necessity for a Second Chamber with reasonable powers. Surely, the Party opposing the Government should, before the Election, explain to the voters the dangers of single-Chamber government and ask for a mandate for the protection of the people. If that were done, one of the matters which should, in my opinion, be taken into consideration is our unwritten Constitution which, in the opinion of many people, has outlived its time.

227
What is it that these planners, these intellectuals to whom the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, alluded, behind the Government, have in mind? Do they want Britain to have a general set-up and an economic plan based on the ideas of the Kremlin? Already there are 10,000 snoopers at work with powers to enter into every shop and every industrial establishment, and it is stated that a school for these people is to be established. Is this the beginning of the Secret Police? It seems that we are gradually being made to discard our own clothes and put on garments made in Russia—a hard singlet here and an iron jacket there. Soon we shall be so constricted that the only incentive to march forward will be the crack of the whip. If this Bill passes, no longer will the people of this country, when their liberty and way of life are threatened, be able to say, "Thank God, we have a House of Lords." Never before has the danger of the emasculation of the powers of this House been so apparent.
Finally, let me read to your Lordships a short extract from the letter of a Czech, which appeared in a certain review well known to some of your Lordships. This is what he says:
"You know what has happened in our country, and your worst conceptions cannot come up to the reality. All personal security is gone. There is no law to protect us. Those who are not Communists are outlaws. One is liable to arrest at any moment. Imprisonment means being buried alive, and methods are used which make a man a wreck, having nothing in common with a human being. They do exactly as they please with one, and the worst of all is that one never knows who is one's enemy."
In this reminder I do not intend for one moment to imply that such conditions will come to Britain in the immediate future, but I do wish to emphasise that that is the hell towards which we are steering if this Bill passes.
3.40 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I promise to speak for no more than a few moments, if only to reply to the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, because I think his fears are unfounded. This House will never be destroyed by an outside body. If it ever does go, it will be because it has committed hara-kiri, or suicide in some form or another. That is my belief, having been in this House for only about three years and being something of a
228
backwoodsman. I would remind your Lordships that there is another situation in which this House might pass away—namely, f it had to carry out a policy when there was a majority in another place which it did not like. In 1906 your Lordships' House did not like the majority in another place, and did its best to cripple and cramp the efforts of the other House, the predominant House in this nation. The same thing applied in 1910, and Mr. Asquith carried through the 1911 Parliament Act which, in reality, could give this House powers to frustrate any efforts of the House of Commons to introduce capital legislation.
I think of the 1945–46 Session. That programme, in my opinion as an older politician, was overcrowded, but it was overcrowded because the House of Commons could not rely upon what this House intended to do. There took place the round table Conference, at which there was not merely agreement on a subject which had baffled politicians since 1912—that is, the reform of this House (the round table Conference nearly accomplished that)—but there was only a matter of ninety days, I believe, between complete agreement on the two sides. My purpose in inflicting myself upon your Lordships is to ask, even at this eleventh hour, whether there cannot be some second thoughts and some reflection, especially when one considers the magnificent victory of British common sense that was achieved when those men, representing the different political Parties, met.
Times have changed. Up to 1940, the questions were largely political; to-day they are economic. I notice the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, continues to bring to the public eye, and to try to make a capital issue of, the question of whether or not there should be a Steel Bill. It is a mailed steel fist which he sometimes hides in a 12 oz. boxing glove; that is what it amounts to. But in regard to that policy of daring the Labour Party to introduce a Steel Bill, and when the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition says "We have no indication about it," I would ask, "Why should the Labour Government inform anybody, except the mover and seconder of the Address what is to be on the programme of the next Session of Parliament?" The Labour Party and the House of Commons majority have the right—and if it ever

229
becomes a live issue, I am certain the people will confirm that right—to put before the House of Commons, and afterwards before this House, what they believe to be in the interests of the nation. I also believe it is the right of this House to analyse, to examine and to see whether any measure can be improved. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, referred to his illustrious grandfather. I continue to think of what happened, and also what might have been, when I go along the corridors and see portrayed the debate on the Home Rule Bill. I wonder what might have been. My Lords, time marches on. On the earlier debate on the Parliament Bill a few backwoodsmen turned up, although not many. There was one man I envied. He had come from the country, and I learned afterwards that he was of a great age. He was the perfect picture of a true English gentleman. He had come to vote against the Government, as he had a right to do. Sitting there on the Back Benches, he listened with rapt attention to the speech of the noble Marquess opposite. Then he whispered to his neighbour, "Who is that speaking?" On being informed, "That is the Marquess of Salisbury," he said "Why! he has shaved his beard off." My Lords, we are speaking to-day in a different language from that of a couple of generations ago. I appeal to the House, even at this late hour, to give this Bill a Second Reading and see what happens afterwards.
3.47 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the first point to which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention is one which has no direct connection with the merits of this Bill, but which nevertheless I think is one which your Lordships will consider to be relevant—namely, that an important constitutional change is proposed without any reference whatever to the electors. To get the matter into proper perspective you have only to imagine what the situation would be if the proposal had come in the converse sense from another political Party. Supposing a Conservative Government with a majority in the House of Commons had put forward a Bill to extend the period of delay from two years to three. I can picture what the Socialists and other people would have said. There would have been a tremendous outcry—
230
and quite rightly. It would have been an outrageous proposal to make a fundamental constitutional change of that sort without reference to the electors. What is the difference between that proposal and this, except for the curious thing that the Socialists always have a conviction that they represent the voters better than does anybody else? It is a most curious conviction. It does not matter what happens. I believe it to be pathological. I think that is a really important consideration of which the electorate should take note.
Turning to the merits of the Bill, I would like to draw one or two comparisons between this Parliament Bill and the Act of 1911, and, first of all, very briefly to deal with the substance of the 1911 Act. As your Lordships know, that Act reduced the life of Parliament from seven years to five years and substituted for the veto previously exercised by the House of Lords a two years' period of delay in direct relation to the five years' life of Parliament. By that means, it definitely left with the electors the right of choosing between the two Houses of Parliament in the event of an irreconcilable dispute. There is, in support of this Bill, a lot of talk about democracy, but what the Bill really does is to take away a fundamental right from the electors without their having been told it is being done. If that right is taken away from the voters of this country (never mind whether they number 7,000,000 as in 1911 or 34,000,000 as is the case now—that was one of the points made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House) then I say that that is the end of bi-cameral government. We have a balanced Constitution, and it is vital to the welfare of our people that that balance should not be entirely upset—that would really mean single-Chamber government. I need not tell your Lordships why that would be dangerous—you all know quite well. The liberties of this people are at the mercy of an Act of Parliament. A simple Bill can change vitally the circumstances and the liberties of this people.
That is the first comparison which I wish to establish between this Bill and the 1911 Act. But there is another very important comparison, and that is with regard to the method of presentation of this Bill. All of your Lordships who are

231
old enough to remember the period will recall very well that two General Elections were held in 1910. There was a General Election in the spring and a General Election in the autumn of that year, and it resolved itself really into a simple referendum to the people on the Parliament Bill, which, in fact, had been read a first time in the House of Commons before the second General Election. After the second General Election, the Bill was re-introduced in the House of Commons and a great many Amendments were proposed, as your Lordships may well understand. There were Amendments to provide for the exclusion of all sorts and kinds of things from the operation of the measure. Altogether, twenty-three or twenty-four matters were proposed for exclusion, among them habeas corpus, trial by jury, Protestant Succession and Home Rule. Home Rule, of course, was number one on the list, but there were all kinds of things in it.
The Government of the day, under Mr. Asquith, in the House of Commons, firmly resisted every single Amendment. One Amendment, in particular, was pressed in the House of Commons but was defeated. It was to the effect that the machinery of the Act should not be used for the prolongation of the life of Parliament. Another Amendment was that no other constitutional change should be made by the operation of the Act. I was interested to see—I have been looking up reports of the debates—that in the course of resisting that Amendment Mr. Asquith did make the concession that:
"the presumption that a decision of the Commons represents the will of the electors is one which progressively weakens as time passes."
What could be more apposite than that to the suggestion that the House of Commons must have a clear run in the fourth year? When the Bill came to the House of Lords that was an Amendment which was inserted by the Lords. The Bill went back to the Commons and the Amendment about not prolonging the life of Parliament was one of the few which were accepted by the Government.
Now I want to glance briefly at the arguments which have been put forward in favour of the present Bill. A favourite one—it was used by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and was referred to by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury
232
—is that we Conservatives say that this Bill will reduce our Parliament to a single Chamber. The Labour Party say that we have always had single-Chamber government when the Conservatives were in power and that all they ask for is similar treatment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Oh no, we do not ask that at all.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Well, something like that.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Certainly not. We are not asking for anything of the kind.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: All I can say is that that is news to me. Perhaps the noble Viscount would like to intervene in order to explain.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Read the Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I know it is not in this Bill. But the argument in favour of the Bill is that when the Conservatives are in power there is single-Chamber government. That is an argument which might have some force if we were discussing the question of the composition of this House. But we are not doing so. The Government had the opportunity of discussing the composition and of putting it in the Bill. They did not take that opportunity. Consequently that argument on this Bill, which deals solely with powers, is totally irrelevant.
Then there is an argument, to which reference has also been made this afternoon, which is based on the question as to what the House of Lords intend to do. That argument on the question as to what one or other of the Houses of Parliament are likely to do, when it is examined, depends on the judgment of the individual and as to the sense of responsibility governing the proceedings of the House. I notice that Mr. Asquith, in resisting a proposal that there should also be some safeguard in the Bill against any further constitutional change, said that he was against it on the ground that you must trust either House to have a sense of responsibility. The House of Lords have given proofs of their sense of responsibility in the last three years. But what are we to say about what we are promised from another place?

233
The Lord President of the Council said, in one speech—this was before he had made up his mind that this Bill had nothing to do with the Steel Bill—that it was not only the Steel Bill, there were lots of other Bills, and he added: "They" (that is the House of Lords) "do not know what is coming to them." That was his expression. And we have had other similar expressions from some whom I might, perhaps, without offence, call the wilder members of the Labour Party. We have been practically promised that the House of Commons will take very drastic action and will bring in legislation of what I should regard as a revolutionary character. Consequently, when considering the question of the future action of either House it has to be borne in mind that we have given our proofs while they have made their threats. That particular argument of the Labour Party, I think, does not cut very much ice.
Of course, everyone knows that the real reason for this measure is the Steel Bill. The Lord President of the Council says that it is not, but others, possibly less discreet, have really let the cat out of the bag. Mr. Woodburn, the Secretary of State for Scotland, at quite an early stage in the proceedings, referred to the Steel Bill as being one of the reasons, or, indeed, the main reason, I think, why this Bill had to be passed. And the Lord Chancellor himself gave us a glimpse of that cat although he did not let it quite out of the bag. Referring to the Steel Bill he said:
"it is common knowledge that the fate and the future of such a Bill has been canvassed and discussed amongst many of your Lordships. … I think the fact that those discussions took place and that the possibility of the rejection of such a Bill had been canvassed, was one of the matters … which once more raised this old controversy, which had never been deeply interred."
I do not think there is much doubt about what that means. The fact is that the Government have given two excuses for the Bill, and they really have one reason.
We listened with the respect which we always accord to the speech of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, but I could not help wondering whether, under that unruffled exterior of urbane magnanimity which we all appreciate so much and, indeed, if I may say so, love, he really is entirely enthusiastic for this Bill. I wonder whether, when he steps
234
lightly into bed to-night for a good night's rest, as we hope he will be able to do, he will not be grateful to your Lordships for having saved him from having irrevocably committed himself to the rôle of the Kerensky of the British Revolution. Kerensky opened the door to the Revolution in Russia and enabled the revolutionaries to impose on Russia a tyranny more absolute, more brutal, and of greater interference with the liberty of the individual subject than any tyranny which ever held sway under the Czars. This Bill is presented to us with a great deal of lip service to democracy. As I have tried to explain to your Lordships, I believe it is the negation of democracy. This doctrine of a five years' run is quite a new one. The doctrine that the majority in the House of Commons has a right to do what it likes in the fourth and even in the fifth year of Parliament (though I limit my argument to the fourth year because that is the claim of the noble Viscount) seems to me to be a negation of democracy.
I would ask the noble Viscount in his reply to address himself to this question: Which process better reflects the democratic principle—the passage in the fourth year of Parliament of a Bill through a House of Commons elected with reference to totally different questions, by a Party majority with all the resources of gag and guillotine and under pressure of the Party Whips, without any reference whatever to the electors; or the reference to the electors for their consideration at a General Election of some principle brought to their notice by the action of your Lordships' House, taken with a full sense of responsibility in such circumstances as they may deem right? Which of these two processes best represents the principle of democracy in which we all fundamentally believe? I do not know what the noble Viscount will answer to that question, but it is a question which the voters of this country are quite capable of understanding. When the voters realise, as they do not yet realise, what this Bill means, their answer will be decisive.
4.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I do not expect that I shall be able to add anything that will influence any members of your Lordships' House to vote otherwise than you have previously determined. But, for all that, I have found very much

235
interest in the speeches to which we have listened. I think we may congratulate ourselves on adhering to the proposed time-table with such remarkable accuracy. I am not very clear about the question which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, asked, and which he said the electors were clearly able to answer. I understand the contention is that after the House of Commons, with a non-Conservative majority, have played their part for three years, somehow or another this House will become possessed of a greater ability than the House of Commons to form a judgment on what the people really want. That is what the contention amounts to. I understand the noble Lord to say that the way to make sure is by an Election; but that is precisely what we are objecting to. We object to an entirely non-representative, non-elected, Chamber having the right to say when the elected Chamber should have an Election.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry to interrupt—I did not want to—but the noble Viscount suggested that I said that there should be an Election. What is going to happen is that this time these issues will be the issues at the next General Election, and if the Election happens in the fourth year of any Parliament, that gives the electorate a chance to decide—a chance of which they will be deprived if this Bill is passed.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not think that advances the case very much. The contention is, and the contention can mean only, that, by some sort of mental jugglery, at the end of three years this House is a better judge than the House of Commons of what issues should be referred to the people at an Election.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount must really try to understand. It has been explained to him a hundred times. We have never claimed that we are better judges of what the public want than the House of Commons. We do not seek to make such a claim. But there are cases—I would instance the Criminal Justice Act—in which the view of the public may not be known, or where there may be indications that the majority in the House of Commons do not represent
236
public opinion. We therefore seek to preserve a breathing space to enable public opinion to be heard and the voice of the majority to make its attitude known. That is all we have in mind; and to say that we know better than the House of Commons is incorrect. We seek to provide some means by which the people may make their own view known.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure the noble Marquess would never be so inexpert as to put the matter so baldly as I put it, but I was stating the situation just as it really is.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The claim is not that this House are better able to say what the people think than the House of Commons; the claim is that this House should decide that the people should be referred to and that the existing Parliament should be brought to an end by a General Election, notwithstanding that the five years for which it has been elected have not elapsed. That is not a claim which we would accept. There is no compromise on that. While it is dressed up in the most charming phrases, the solid fact is that that claim has never emerged, and never will emerge, from the present House of Lords when there is a Conservative majority in the House of Commons. That is the plain English of it and we cannot escape it. We are really not so innocent as not to have noticed that. I am sure it is no good prolonging the argument on that trend.
I was exceedingly interested in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. It was kind of him to say those nice things about me. I know they were quite sincere, and I assure him that I shall treasure them. But I wondered about this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde business, because on June 9 the Liberal Party in this House voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, and on September 23 they are going to vote against the Second Reading. They are the same people; it is the same issue.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am wondering whether they are Dr. Jekyll at one time and Mr. Hyde at the other. But the perplexity extends beyond that. The

237
Liberal Party in the House of Commons the other day voted for the Second Reading of this Bill.
A NOBLE LORD: All four of them.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I agree that they are small in number, but still, they are the Liberal Party in the House of Commons. So that you have the Liberal Party in the House of Commons voting one way, and the Liberal Party in the House of Lords voting the other way. If there ever was a case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I think it is presented by the Liberal Party. I will leave it at that.
My Lords, we have had a very succinct and good-tempered debate on a great issue. Our claim has been stated as clearly as we can state it. There are none of those strange ulterior motives behind it. Mind you, this is a Government in the unprecedented situation that, after three years of power, in exceedingly difficult times, they have not yet lost a by-election.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: What about Camlachie?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Oh! Camlachie. I have been in politics for a long time—so has the noble Marquess opposite—and I do not remember a Government, with a large majority in the House of Commons, having been in power for three years, managing somehow or other to survive those three years without losing quite a number of by-elections. It is a remarkable fact. Therefore, to challenge the view of that House of Commons, that it is not, in what it proposes, representing the wish of the people, is a remarkable action. We want to see that the House of Commons, with a non-Conservative majority, has a fair chance. We are not claiming it for five years; we are claiming for only four years. That is the issue before your Lordships.
On Question, Whether this Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-contents, 204.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Crook, L.

Milverton, L.

Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Darwen, L.

Morrison, L.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Pakenham, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Foley, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Henderson, L.

Piercy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Holden, L.

Quibell, L.

Stansgate, V.

Kershaw, L.

Rochester, L,

Latham, L.

Rothschild, L.

Ammon, L. [Teller.]

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amwell, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Braintree, L.

Marley, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Calverley, L.

Milne, L.

Walkden, L. [Teller.]

Williams, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beaufort, D.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Rothes, E.

Devonshire, D.

Carlisle, E.

Sandwich, E.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Dartmouth, E.

Scarbrough, E.

Somerset, D.

De La Warr, E.

Selborne, E.

Sutherland, D.

Devon, E.

Selkirk, E.

Dudley, E.

Shaftesbury, E.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Spencer, E.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Stanhope, E.

Camden, M.

Halifax, E.

Westmorland, E.

Exeter, M.

Howe, E.

Ypres, E.

Reading, M.

Iddesleigh, E.

Salisbury, M.

Lindsay, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Townshend, M. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Willingdon, M.

Macclesfield, E.

Bridport, V.

Manvers, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Abingdon, E.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Camrose, V.

Airlie, E.

Minto, E.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Albemarle, E.

Munster, E.

Chaplin, V.

Amherst, E.

Onslow, E.

Cowdray, V.

Bathurst, E.

Peel, E.

Cunningham of Hyndhope, V.

Beatty, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Davidson, V.

Beauchamp, E.

Radnor, E.

Devonport, V.

Elibank, V.

Chetwode, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Falmouth, V.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Mountgarret, L. (V. Mountgarret.)

Hailsham, V.

Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

Hampden, V.

Clwyd, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Clydesmuir, L.

Newall, L.

Harcourt, V.

Cornwallis, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Hill, V.

Courthope, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Kemsley, V.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Knollys, V.

Cranworth, L.

Polwarth, L.

Long, V.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Queenborough, L.

Marchwood, V.

Denham, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Maugham, V.

Deramore, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Mersey, V.

Digby, L.

Rea, L.

Monsell, V.

Dorchester, L.

Remnant, L.

Ridley, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Rennell, L.

Samuel, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Rochdale, L.

Swinton, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Roche, L.

Templewood, V.

Forester, L.

Rockley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Rugby, L.

Wimborne, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Rushcliffe, L.

Aberconway, L.

Gifford, L.

St. Audries, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Glendyne, L.

Sandford, L.

Airedale, L.

Glentanar, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Aldenham, L.

Grantley, L.

Savile, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Greville, L.

Schuster, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hacking, L.

Selsdon, L.

Amulree, L.

Hampton, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Hankey, L.

Sinha, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Hatherton, L.

Somers, L.

Audley, L.

Hawke, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Hayter, L.

Southampton, L.

Barnby, L.

Hazlerigg, L.

Stamp, L.

Belstead, L.

Hemingford, L.

Stanmore, L.

Bicester, L.

Hindlip, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Biddulph, L.

Hylton, L.

Stranthcona and Mount Royal, L.

Blackford, L.

Iliffe, L.

Brand, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Swaythling, L.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Templemore, L.

Braye, L.

Layton, L.

Teynham, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Leathers, L.

Tovey, L.

Brocket, L.

Lloyd, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Broughshane, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Wakehurst, L.

Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.)

Meston, L.

Waleran, L.

Middleton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Carew, L.

Milford, L.

Wolverton, L.

Carrington, L.

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Woodbridge, L.

Chatfield, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Woolton, L.

Cherwell, L.

Monkswell, L.

Wright, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before five o'clock.