Sitting of 2 February 1949

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

    Internal Services
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when a daily scheduled air service between the Leeds-Bradford airport and London is likely to commence.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I am informed by British European Airways Corporation that their programme for the coming year does not include a service between Yeadon and London and I cannot give any indication when it will be introduced.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Does not the Minister realise that there is a very large centre of industrial population in the West Riding of Yorkshire which is not at present catered for by any air line, and will he bear in mind that there are more people within 50 miles of this airport than within 50 miles of the London Airport?
    Mr. Lindgren: The distance between Leeds and Bradford and London is comparatively short. The surface communications are good and such an air service would not be an economical proposition.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Will the Minister be willing, under arrangements recently made, to allow a private company to operate such a service if it should so wish?
    Mr. Lindgren: On 26th January, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor), I said that the Air Transport Advisory Council are willing to receive and consider such
    1646
    applications. If such an application is made, it will be considered.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Is the Minister aware that there is a civil private line which wishes to run a scheduled service, and will he use his influence with B.E.A.C. to consider such an application?
    Mr. Lindgren: There is an advisory council set up to consider such applications, and I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that it would be unwise and improper for me to use my influence one way or another.
    Mr. Vaneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what plans he has for the resumption of air services between London and the North of England.
    Mr. Lindgren: British European Airways Corporation do not propose to provide services between London and the North of England during the coming year; nor can I say when they will be in a position to do so.
    Mr. Vane: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that before his Department laid a dead hand on these airlines there was a service between London and the North of England, and will he look into this matter again and restore this service?
    Mr. Lindgren: To describe these haphazard operations which existed between London and the North of England as a service is being very kind to them. If any private company wishes to make application for such a service now, the avenue is open for them to do so.
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what services, other than the London—Edinburgh service, it is proposed to run from Edinburgh.
    Mr. Lindgren: None, Sir, but the London—Edinburgh service will be routed through to Glasgow, and seats will be available between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
    Mr. Willis: Will my hon. Friend ask the B.E.A.C. to reconsider the question of the resumption of the Edinburgh—Aberdeen—Orkney service?
    Mr. Lindgren: So far as Edinburgh and Aberdeen are concerned, these districts have had their opportunity of

    1647
    showing enthusiasm and effective demand for the service but the traffic offering was very slight indeed and did not justify the resumption of the service. The traffic flow is from Aberdeen to the Shetlands and from the Shetlands to Aberdeen, and that service is provided.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the answers to the last three Questions, can the hon. Gentleman say where the services are to be run?
    Mr. Lindgren: In the view of quite a number of people, Scotland gets far more than its share of such services.

    Flying Clubs
    Mrs. Leah Manningasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when he expects the Report of the Working Committee set up to give further consideration to the part of the report of the Whitney Straight Committee detailing the financial difficulties facing flying clubs at the present moment.
    Mr. Lindgren: My noble Friend has just received the recommendations of this Working Party and is giving them his consideration.
    Mrs. Manning: Can my hon. Friend tell me when they will be available to the House and to the clubs, and is he aware that the financial difficulties are so great that in order to meet them the fees to would-be flyers will have to be raised to such heights that it will be impossible for many people who wish to learn to fly to do so?
    Mr. Lindgren: I am afraid that they have reached that stage at the present time. So far as the report is concerned, it will not be made public because it is Departmental advice to my noble Friend and the Service Ministers. My noble Friend's decision made in conjunction with the Treasury will, of course, be made public.
    Mr. Edgar Granville: Would the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that the present position of these clubs is very serious and that many will have to close down altogether unless immediate action is taken by his Department?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, and that view has been expressed by my Department;
    1648
    but my Department is only one of a number concerned. The Government, in making a decision, have to consider all the opinions involved.
    Mr. Beswick: Will my hon. Friend suggest to the Treasury that some assistance could be given within the next two months by remission of tax payable on petrol used by these flying clubs?
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that this matter has been under consideration for nearly two years; and will he really press his noble Friend to make up his mind by the time the Service Estimates are introduced, because the clubs are about to "go bust"?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Scollan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the high costs of running are largely due to the fact that the cheaper type of plane made after the 1914—18 war has gone out of production, and no steps have been taken to see that that type of plane is made available for these flying clubs?
    Mr. Lindgren: We are interested from the point of view of the flying clubs because of the effect on the light aeroplane industry. This is one of the problems that we are considering in conjunction with the Ministry of Supply.

    B.S.A.A. (Complaints)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the numerous complaints of British South American Airways services, as regards delays en route to remedy technical troubles rendering flying unsafe; and whether early steps will be taken to effect improvement in these respects.
    Mr. Lindgren: No such complaints have been reported to my noble Friend, either from the Air Transport Advisory Council or otherwise, but I understand that some complaints of this nature have been made to the Corporation and, in all cases, have been carefully investigated.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that delays of up to as much as 48 hours have recently been caused by these technical defects; and will he look into it to see that the bad name which is being given to these services is removed as soon as possible?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. There have been delays, which are known to us, but they are not delays arising from faults in operation or maintenance. They have arisen from the equipment. For example, recently there was considerable difficulty from magnetos. There is full co-operation between the operators, the engine manufacturers and the sub-contractors to deal with the problems arising in the engines.

  GERMANY

    Control Commission (Car Services)
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the cost per head of the Control Commission in Germany for the running of its car services.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): During the second half of 1948 the cost of running car services for members of the Control Commission was just under £30 per head.
    Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied—it is not possible to ascertain from his answer—that this is a satisfactory figure, of which we need not be ashamed in any way? There are very strong rumours from those who have been in Germany recently that a great many people, including Britishers, are thoroughly dissatisfied with the extravagant cost of these services, which contrasts very strongly with that for the Armed Forces.
    Mr. Bevin: I am constantly keeping a watch on this. In fact, this evening I shall have a talk with General Robertson, who is over here. All these kinds of costs mount up, and one has to be on top of it the whole time.
    Mr. Drayson: Does it amount to a cost of approximately £1 million per annum?
    Mr. Bevin: Seven hundred and seventy-seven thousand pounds for six months.
    Mr. Nigel Birch: Is it true that the staff of the Control Commission still exceeds 15,000?
    Mr. Bevin: No, it is just under. In just over a year and a half we have brought it down from—speaking from memory—approximately 26,000 to about 14,000.

    Clubs and Hotels
    Major Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total cost of running the clubs and hotels in the British zone of Germany which are used exclusively by British personnel.
    Mr. Bevin: The clubs and hotels used by the British staff of the Control Commission for Germany are not exclusively for British personnel but are used also by Allied personnel and sponsored visitors, as well as by Germans in some cases; they involve no net cost to public funds.

  TRANSJORDAN

    British Troops
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the request to send British troops to Aqaba was made by the Emir Abdulla of Transjordan.
    Mr. Bevin: On 2nd January. Sir.
    Mr. Janner: Could my right hon. Friend say in what form the request was conveyed to him, and by whom?
    Mr. Bevin: That is not in the Question.
    Mr. Janner: Would my right non. Friend answer it. Surely he knows the answer to it and will he give it. because it is rather important?
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman was asked for a date and nothing else.

    Loans and Subsidies
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what sums have been expended in the form of loans and subsidies from the British Treasury to the State of Transjordan during each year since 1944.
    Mr. Bevin: Since the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL. REPORT
    Dr. Segal: Is it not the fact that this State is now completely bankrupt; and instead of giving subsidies to maintain its present rulers in power would it not be wiser to give loans in order to improve the conditions of its people?
    Mr. Bevin: I do not think that arises out of the Question. The hon. Member has asked me for figures, and they will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: As £2½ million was put aside in subsidies in the last financial year, and as at the end of

    Financial year, 1944–45

    £

    s.

    d.

    Grant in aid

    1,610,000

    0

    0

    Payment in order to enable the Transjordan Government to meet their share of Ottoman Public Debt.

    31,008

    13

    6

    Financial year, 1945–46

    Grant in aid

    1,750,000

    0

    0

    Payment in order to enable the Transjordan Government to meet their share of Ottoman Public Debt.

    31,008

    13

    6

    Loan to enable Transjordan to acquire Port installations at Aqaba erected by British military authorities.

    50,000

    0

    0

    Financial year, 1946–47

    Arab Legion subsidy

    1,275,000

    0

    0

    Financial year, 1947–48

    Arab Legion subsidy

    2,515,000

    0

    0

    Refund from Transjordan Government of over issue of grant in aid

    17,919

    7

    7

    Financial year, 1948–49

    Arab Legion subsidy

    2,500,000

    0

    0

    GREECE (BRITISH EMBASSY STATEMENT)
    Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British Embassy at Athens officially and publicly commended the formation of the new Greek Royalist Government; and whether he will give instructions for such interference in the internal affairs of another country to cease forthwith.
    Mr. Bevin: I take it that the hon. Member refers to a statement issued by His Majesty's Embassy in Athens wishing the new Greek Government success in its heavy tasks. I do not accept the implication that this constitutes interference in the internal affairs of a foreign country.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: As this is the 16th Government that has been set up under British-American auspices, each one of which in turn the Foreign Secretary has been able to approve of, and as each one has been set up simply to prevent the Greek people being represented in the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman stop this squalid interference?
    Mr. Bevin: It is much better to let a democracy develop its Government by trial and error. That is a much better system than another country going in and putting somebody into office irrespective of the wishes of the people.
    May last year only £840,000 had paid over, can my right hon. Friend say whether the residue of that amount has subsequently been paid?
    Mr. Bevin: That is another question, and I should like notice of it.
    Following is the answer:
    Mr. Molson: Is not the worst intervention in Greek affairs taking place from Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia?
    Mr. Bevin: That was the decision of the United Nations.
    Mr. Warbey: Is there not as much error as there is trial in the present Greek democracy?
    Mr. Platts-Mills: Why should the Greek people suffer from the Foreign's Secretary's errors?
    Mr. Bevin: I do not think they have done. The Greek people have suffered from the friends of the hon. Member.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman is contemplating issuing instructions on the lines suggested in the second part of the Question, would he consider including the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) in the distribution of those instructions?
    Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when the Greek Communist guerrillas tried abortively to set up a government in the mountains two years ago there was a good deal of commendation of that, official and otherwise, from another quarter; and would he suggest to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) that he should make representations in the proper direction about that intervention?

    CYPRUS (JEWISH DETAINEES)
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to His Majesty's Government by any of the Arab States following the release of the Jewish detainees in Cyprus.
    Mr. Bevin: Expressions of regret at His Majesty's Government's decision have been received from Arab Governments. It would not be in accordance with normal procedure to publish details of such confidential communications.
    Dr. Segal: Would my right hon. Friend say on what other ground these refugees were detained in Cyprus so long after the termination of the Mandate; and what were the changed circumstances which led to their sudden release?
    Mr. Bevin: That is another question. That is not the point put to me in this Question.
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the estimated total cost of the Jewish Detainee Camps in Cyprus; and the cost during each year of their existence.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): My reply contains many figures, and I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Dr. Segal: Would my right hon. Friend answer the last part of my Question?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I think the total figure is £5,185,000.
    Following is the reply:
    The total estimated cost of construction, equipment and maintenance of the camps, transport of immigrants to Cyprus, etc., up to the 31st March, 1949, is £5,185,000. Expenditure in 1946–47 was £1,152,000 and in 1947–48 £3,183,000. The total sum of £4,335,000 was charged to Palestine Account in the financial year 1947–48. The estimated expenditure in 1948–49 is £850,000.

    SOUTH SCHLESWIG
    Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the number of
    1654
    German refugees in South Schleswig is almost as great as that of the native population, he will now implement the assurance given by the British representatives at the conference held with the Danish delegation between 18th and 23rd October, that he would pursue active investigations into the possibility of securing the equitable distribution of refugees in Germany.
    Mr. Bevin: That assurance is already being implemented. The Military Governors of the three Western zones recently agreed to set up a tripartite committee to study the redistribution of refugees throughout Western Germany. They held their first meeting on 17th January.
    Professor Savory: Has it been pointed out to them that in certain portions of the American zone the number of refugees is only 15 to 16 per cent., and that in certain portions of the French zone it is only 3 to 7 per cent.; and why should Schleswig-Holstein have to undertake a burden of 90 per cent. of refugees who have swamped the native Danish population?
    Mr. Bevin: There is much less damage there than there is in other parts. I think that this committee is at work trying to redistribute the refugees.
    Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decision he has now come to with regard to the administrative separation of South Schleswig from Holstein, in order that better consideration may be given of the needs of the native Danish population of South Schleswig, as distinct from the German inhabitants of Holstein.
    Mr. Bevin: The question of administrative separation has been raised on a number of occasions in the past three years. It has already been made clear to the Danish authorities and to others interested that, in the view of His Majesty's Government, this expedient is neither advisable nor practicable in present circumstances. There is no Danish population of South Schleswig, and I have no reason to believe that administrative separation is essential to safeguard the rights of the Danish-minded German population.
    Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal Danish

    1655
    Government and the four Danish parties are unanimous in condemning this system, and that the whole German administration in Kiel is out of sympathy with these Danish people in Schleswig? Schleswig can no more be administered from Kiel than Ulster can from Dublin.
    Mr. Bevin: I am really averse from creating any more partitions.

    MAURITIUS (ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES)
    Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what requests have been received from the Netherlands authorities for the use by the Royal Dutch Airlines of the island of Mauritius as a base while the normal route across India is denied them by the Indian and Pakistani Governments; and what reply has been made.
    Mr. Bevin: The Netherlands Government requested permission from His Majesty's Government for the use of Mauritius by Royal Dutch Air Lines for their air service to Batavia. In accordance with their obligations under the Chicago agreements relating to Civil Aviation of 1944, to which the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are both parties, His Majesty's Government have felt bound to accede to this request. The Netherlands Government have given His Majesty's Government an undertaking that no military personnel, arms, ammunition or warlike stores will be carried by aircraft using this route.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: Does not the Foreign Secretary think it would be safer if we entirely forbade the use of this island to the Dutch, bearing in mind that our two sister members of the Commonwealth have done so, and that the British people do not like what the Dutch are doing in Indonesia?
    Mr. Bevin: International agreements are international agreements, and under the Chicago agreements His Majesty's Government could not ban the Dutch from using this route unless they also banned themselves and the French. Those are the conditions laid down in the Convention. No sanctions have been applied on this matter, and we are averse from applying unilateral sanctions.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Would not it be a friendly act to assist the Dutch Government in crushing the thugs, gangsters and Communists in Indonesia?
    Mr. Mikardo: In taking this action, did my right hon. Friend have due regard to the necessity not to offend the Moslem Powèr of Pakistan, which he took into consideration so much in another connection?
    Mr. Bevin: We informed them on this matter just as we informed them on other matters about which they felt deeply.

    STATE OF ISRAEL
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the recognition of the State of Israel.
    Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement issued by His Majesty's Government on 29th January, copies of which I am having placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Janner: Whilst appreciating the statement of my right hon. Friend may I ask what further practical steps have been taken to establish good relations between Israel and Britain?
    Bevin: That is not in the Question.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us if a British representative has been appointed, and if so, what is his name?
    Mr. Bevin: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait for a day or two.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the esteem in which the Foreign Secretary is held in Tel Aviv could he not be persuaded to go there himself?
    Mr. Bevin: I might be successful.

    FALKLAND ISLAND DEPENDENCIES
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the declaration by the United Kingdom, Argentina and Chile that they foresee no need to send warships south of latitude 60 degrees during the current Antarctic Summer except for customary routine

    1657
    movements implies any abandonment of British sovereignty or of Argentinian or Chilean claims in that region; and whether Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have concurred in the declaration.
    Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands Dependencies remains unaffected by the recent exchange of statements with Argentina and Chile. I have no information regarding any abandonment by the Argentine or Chilean Governments of their territorial claims in that region. In accordance with the customary practice of His Majesty's Government in such matters the Commonwealth Governments concerned, including the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, were informed in advance of the terms of the proposed exchange of statements.

    HUNGARY (CARDINAL MINDSZENTY, ARREST)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he has taken in protesting against the arrest of Cardinal Mindszenty, Primate of Hungary.
    Mr. Bevin: His Majesty's Government have already expressed the disapproval which they, in common with the overwhelming majority of the British people, feel at the arrest of Cardinal Mindszenty. After most careful consideration, however, we have come to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served by making a formal protest to the Hungarian Government at this stage.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to let this matter go on without putting a real protest, and will he urge his colleagues to reconsider the question and show what the British people really think about it?
    Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order. In view of the fact, of which the Foreign Secretary is well aware, that this trial will actually begin tomorrow, is it in order to discuss this matter in this House?
    Mr. Speaker: I see nothing out of Order in this Question.
    Mr. Warbey: In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, in regard to trials in other
    1658
    countries, and in view of the fact that there is no evidence so far that this particular case falls within the Human Rights Clause of the Peace Treaty with Hungary, is it in Order to debate and discuss this Question?
    Mr. Speaker: We are not debating. We are merely asking questions.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the depth of feeling in the country on this matter, and will he reconsider the decision which he has announced and make the point of view of this country more deeply felt on this occasion? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he is taking the fullest steps to be informed of the proceedings as they take place?
    Mr. Bevin: The answer to the latter part of the question is "Yes." With regard to the first part, I am not too clear as to the charges against the Cardinal. There is a suggestion of currency charges as well as of others, and I do not know whether they come exclusively within the Treaty or not. We came to the conclusion that we should not do the Cardinal any good at this stage by formally protesting.
    Mr. Austin: Whilst having regard to the necessity of a fair trial for this gentleman, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the rights of Roman Catholic subjects in Northern Ireland in the forthcoming Election?
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that irrespective of religion or politics, there is in this country a most intense feeling on this subject of the arrest of the Cardinal, and that he would have the backing of the whole population and hon. Members of this House, except the Communists and their fellow travellers, in making the strongest possible representations to prevent the murder of an innocent man?
    Mr. Platts-Mills: In view of the deliberate provocation by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) against this friendly country, would the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that the brother prelates of the Cardinal, namely, the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Hungary, have been reported as declaring that, for their part, they entirely reserve

    1659
    their judgment until they hear the evidence, and the leaders of the non-Roman Catholic Churches in Hungary have condemned the Cardinal?
    Mr. Bevin: I am extremely sorry but I have not had this information.
    Mr. Blackburn: While entirely accepting the Foreign Secretary's answer, may I ask him if he is aware of the fact that two prominent Ministers of the Crown last night attended a reception at the Hungarian Legation, no doubt with the best motives, and will he see that at a time like this his colleagues do not accept any such invitations?
    Mr. Bevin: I can assure my hon. Friend that when he becomes Foreign Secretary he will have some very difficult decisions to take.

    COUNCIL OF EUROPE
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the view of His Majesty's Government that all European countries should be invited to participate in the Council of Europe; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bevin: While the decisions taken by the Consultative Council are being further considered by the Permanent Commission, it would not be appropriate for me to add anything to the communiqué issued at the conclusion of the Council's recent meeting.
    Mr. Chamberlain: Whilst appreciating what the Foreign Secretary says, may I ask him if he will bear in mind that there are still very great psychological and moral values in initiative of this kind even though it is not accepted, and also that the Council is to be called the Council of Europe and not of Western Europe.
    Mr. Bevin: We had all that in mind, but we must let the Permanent Commission work out the details and wait until the scheme is adopted or otherwise.
    Mr. Chamberlain: Will my right hon. Friend keep an open mind on the question?
    Mr. Bevin: A friend of mine once described an open mind as being an open sewer.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Without wishing to enter into the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's observation, I should like to ask him how long this consideration is likely to take?
    Mr. Bevin: We are hoping to get the whole thing cleared up as early as possible and certainly not later than the next meeting of the Consultative Council.

    ADEN (DISTURBANCES)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, arising from the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the disturbances at Aden in December, 1947, what disciplinary action he has taken against any of the senior officials whose responsibility it was to maintain law and order which the report shows they were ineffective in carrying out.
    Mr. Creech Jones: For reasons which will be clear from the full statement that I made on 21st September last, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), I do not consider that any disciplinary action is required in consequence of the report of this Commission of Inquiry.
    Mr. Piratin: In view of the fact that, among other things, Sir Harry Trusted says in his report, in paragraph 209:
    "I do not think it can be suggested that these persons who were killed were doing anything unlawful,"
    could not the Colonial Secretary look into the matter again? The report acknowledges that many of these persons were killed by Aden levies.
    Mr. Creech Jones: All that has been looked into. I explained the reasons in my reply on 21st September, and I have nothing to add to them.
    Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people are still living there in terror and have to be barricaded in at night? Will he see to it that the officials provide proper protection for them?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Protection is provided for them; but the question my hon. Friend asks me is quite different from the one on the Order Paper.

  MALTA

    Press Ordinance
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will take steps to ensure the repeal of the Maltese Press Ordinance, and to assure full freedom of expression and opinion to the Press of Malta.
    Squadron-Leader Flemingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement on the reason for the Maltese Press Ordinance, by virtue of which the British-born editor of a Maltese newspaper has been convicted and sentenced for insulting His Excellency the Governor of Malta; and whether he is satisfied that this restriction on the freedom of the Press is necessary.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Under the present Constitution, the Press Ordinance, which was enacted in 1933, falls within the competence of Maltese Ministers, and it is therefore not a matter on which I could properly intervene. In the circumstances, the hon. and gallant Member for Withington (Squadron-Leader Fleming) will not expect me to comment on the second part of this Question. As regards the case of Mr. Scorey I would refer him to my reply today to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg).
    Mr. Blackburn: While I fully understand that this is a matter entirely for the competence of the self-governing colony of Malta, will not the Secretary of State at any rate send a representation to the Prime Minister of Malta that we do not think that this is the proper time to issue a Press ordinance in a free country?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am certain that the Prime Minister will have some regard to the observations that are made in this House regarding this ordinance.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that whatever influence he has with the government of Malta is used to the utmost to see that this ordinance is withdrawn?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Maltese Prime Minister has already said that he has set up a commission to study the Press laws.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not
    1662
    the custom for the Governor of a colony who wishes to take action under an ordinance such as this to consult the Secretary of State for the Colonies as to the advisability of doing so, and whether that happened in this case?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The answer to the last part of the question is "No."
    Mr. Driberg: Does not the occurrence of this kind of thing within the Commonwealth make it rather more difficult for us to take up a high didactic line towards those parts of the world whose standards of civil liberty do not conform with our own?
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is it not the case that this action was taken by the Prime Minister of Malta and not by the Governor of Malta?
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no Press censorship is exercised in Malta, and that the newspapers would be perfectly free to publish a photograph of children born in this country in 1936 above the caption "Bonny Socialist Babies"?

    Editor (Sentence)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the fining and imprisonment of Mr. J. J. Scorey, editor of an English newspaper in Malta, and the suspension of his newspaper for two months; and if he will cause to be reprinted in HANSARD the sentences whose publication led to the infliction of these penalties.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Mr. Scorey has asked for, and been granted, stay of execution on grounds that he is applying for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council. In the circumstances, any statement at this juncture would be inappropriate.
    Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend answer the second part of my Question, as it cannot possibly be sub judice.
    Mr. Creech Jones: It is whether I will cause to be reprinted in HANSARD the sentences whose publication led to the infliction of these penalties. I am quite prepared to do that, but I warn the

    1663
    House that it would give a most unfair and unreasonable presentation of the facts in this case.
    Hon. Members: Why?
    Mr. Drayson: Is it not a fact that the matter referred to deals with the question of the Governor losing his temper at a meeting where he is alleged to have thumped the table and said, "We are the masters now"?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I would point out that it is exceedingly unfair, if this matter is going to the Privy Council, as probably it will, for me to make any comment upon the proceedings complained of?
    Mr. Stanley: Whatever the feelings of hon. Members may be on this case, must we not always keep in mind the fact that this House has recently given Malta self-government, which entails that we should leave responsibility for matters of this kind to their elected representatives?
    Mr. Speaker: If I understand it aright, this case is going to the Privy Council and therefore it is sub judice. We ought not therefore to ask any further questions.
    Mr. Driberg: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. With all respect, the second part of my Question cannot possibly involve anything which is sub judice: it merely concerns making available to hon. Members material on which they can form their own opinion about the matter. That was all I was pressing my right hon. Friend to do.
    Mr. Creech Jones: On that point of Order. It is precisely because hon. Members cannot form a judgment that I thought it wise not to comment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If these extracts are printed, hon. Members will not be in a position to form a judgment on the case.
    Mr. Frank Byers: Further to that point of Order. Is it not a fact that the House is entitled to have information upon which hon. Members can form a judgment? The Colonial Secretary has just suggested that the House is not capable of forming a judgment. Is it not possible to have this information presented to the House?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is so. This is not a point of Order at all. I said that if this is going to the Privy
    1664
    Council it must be sub judice, and we ought to be very careful what we say about the matter.
    Mr. Driberg: With all respect—
    Mr. Speaker: I am not going to pursue this matter any further.

  MALAYA

    Chinese (Repatriation)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in repatriating the 800 Chinese during 1948 from Malaya to China, the repatriates were consulted about the political part of China to which they preferred to return; and whether these wishes were taken into consideration on their repatriation.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Chinese repatriates are consulted about the port to which they wish to be sent, and their wishes are taken into consideration.

    Military Action, Lintang
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information about the burning of Lintang, Malaya, by His Majesty's Forces; how many homes were burnt; how many people were rendered homeless; what accommodation was provided for them; and why this measure was carried out.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The bandits in this area, with the connivance and assistance of squatters from Lintang and other villages, had been responsible for the murder of three British planters, the killing and wounding of nineteen Ghurkas and other outrages. In the course of operations by the police and military against this place beginning on 20th October, over 400 squatters were removed to more settled areas together with their livestock, property and huts. The only huts destroyed were those of people known to have assisted the bandits or those which could not be removed and, if left intact, would have been used subsequently by the bandits. No one was transferred from the area who could show legal title to his land.
    Mr. Piratin: Is the Minister trying to convince the House that if there was evidence that the people in these houses had helped the bandits, the only penalty

    1665
    would have been the burning of their homes? Would they not have been actually charged? Can the Minister also explain why he did not answer the Question put down two weeks ago by my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) relating to a specific date? What is the Minister hiding?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have nothing to hide, and I am not aware of the Question having been put down before. In any case I would inform the hon. Member that not only has the Chinese Consul expressed appreciation of the way in which this operation was carried through, but a number of squatters requested that they should be moved to the new place for resettlement.
    Mr. Piratin: May I ask the Minister if he will refer to column 61 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 20th January wherein he will find the answer of which he says he has no recollection?

    GOLD COAST (LIME TREE DISEASE)
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the lime tree disease called die-back is threatening the lime industry in the Gold Coast.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Sample surveys conducted at six-monthly intervals over the last four years have shown a mortality rate from die-back of about 10 per cent. of the surviving trees every six months. Research on the disease, which is being vigorously conducted by the Gold Coast Department of Agriculture, indicates that sufficient resistance to ensure an economic crop may possibly be obtained by growing limes budded on rough lemon stock; rehabilitation measures have begun on this basis.
    Mr. Reid: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the remedy is not to cut out the trees as in the case of the coconut disease? If so, may I ask whether the trees are being cut out to save the industry?
    Mr. Creech Jones: These steps are being taken. The Agriculture Department has the matter under its most vigorous attention and a plant pathologist is actually at work on the research necessary for saving these crops.

    COLONIAL EMPIRE (CIVIL SERVICE)
    Mr. H. D. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what opportunities exist for transfer to the Colonial Administrative Service of suitable personnel from the technical and other branches of the Colonial Service; and how many such transfers took place in 1946–47 and 1947–48, respectively.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Any member of the Colonial Service may apply for a transfer to the Colonial Administrative Service and his application would be given careful consideration, in the first place by the Governor in the territory in which he is serving, and secondly by myself. The aim is, of course, to use the qualifications and experience of each officer to the best advantage of the public service. The answer to the second part of the Question is: "Four in each year." A further four transfers were approved during the latter part of 1948.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the very small numbers involved, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the avenue of promotion is sufficiently wide?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I should have thought so. Promotion in the technical grades has been speeded up in recent times largely by the withdrawal of men in the older ages and largely because of war circumstances.
    Mr. H. D. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is, taking to bring to the notice of pupils in State-aided secondary schools the opportunities existing for employment in all branches of the Colonial Service.
    Mr. Creech Jones: As the minimum age for sending candidates overseas is 20, actual recruitment literature is circulated mainly to training institutions for students above school age. As indicated, however, in my right hon. Friend's reply to the Question by the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) on 8th December general information about the Colonies is circulated to all schools and this includes material calculated to awaken interest in the Colonial Service as a future career.
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many European officers of technical branches of the Colonial Civil Service resigned their appointments and returned to this country after fewer than six years' service, between 1st January, 1946, and 31st December, 1948.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I regret that the information is not immediately available. If my hon. Friend could specify the technical branches and the Colonies in which he is most interested I would ask Colonial Governments if they could supply the figures without disproportionate labour.
    Mr. Skinnard: Will the Secretary of State make inquiries with particular reference to the Public Works Department and the Railway Department in West Africa?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent during the past three years, there has been interchange of European personnel as between the administrative and technical branches of the Civil Service in the Colonies.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Only four cases of transfer from technical branches to the administrative service have been recorded during the past three years, and no transfers from the administrative staff to technical branches. Little interchange is practicable since administrative staffs seldom have technical qualifications, and the special qualifications of technical staff are usually best employed in their own branches. They have, of course, opportunities of promotion to posts of an administrative nature mainly within their own departments.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is it not within the recollection of the Secretary of State that there have been outstanding examples of technical developments due to the work of administrative officers, and will he create a precedent where such officers have proved that they would be better employed in a higher capacity in the specialist work they have developed, thus obtaining the interchange which is desirable?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That has always been done. There are a number of
    1668
    technical departments to which we have promoted some administrative people, and even in the case of appointment of Governor we have had technical qualifications in mind.

    JAMAICA BATTALION (COMMISSIONS)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that a number of officers serving in the Jamaica Battalion are debarred from applying for regular commissions because they are not of European descent; and if he will take steps to remove this discrimination.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Since the Jamaica Battalion is not a regiment of the Regular Army its officers, whether of European descent or otherwise, except for those seconded from Regular units, hold either Governor's Commissions or War Emergency King's Commissions.
    Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend explain what that answer means?
    Mr. Creech Jones: If my hon. Friend will see me afterwards I shall be very glad to do so.
    Mr. Stanley: Is not the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to make plain that, in the case of the Jamaica Regiment, there is no discrimination in this matter between Europeans and those of African descent?
    Mr. Driberg: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman opposite for answering on behalf of my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there is discrimination in fact, and that I shall refer to this matter in a speech on the Adjournment on Friday?

    HONG KONG (DEFENCES)
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements exist for dealing with abnormally large numbers of Chinese wishing to enter Hong Kong; and whether he is satisfied that the defences of the Colony are adequate for any probable contingency.
    Mr. Creech Jones: It would not be in the public interest to detail the arrangements, which have been worked out by

    1669
    the Colonial Government in concert with the Service authorities concerned, to meet the eventuality to which the hon. Member refers. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which is being given today to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid).
    Sir R. Ross: With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, can he say whether the arrangements which have been worked out, about which he will not tell us, include a definite limitation on the number of people who will be allowed into Hong Kong in view of the danger to the Colony of the presence of large numbers of Chinese and the difficulty of feeding large numbers of people and looking after their health?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I can give the fullest assurance that that problem has been most carefully considered.

    ROYAL OBSERVATORY (NEW BUILDINGS)
    Mr. Henry Straussasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on what date an architect was appointed to design the buildings required at Herstmonceux for the use of the Royal Observatory and for the housing of the instruments removed from Greenwich; who the architect is; and when his plans will be submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission for consideration.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): The design work in connection with the transfer of the Royal Observatory from Greenwich to Herstmonceux is being undertaken by qualified architects on the staff of the Admiralty. We shall be discussing the designs with the Royal Fine Art Commission at the appropriate stage.
    Mr. Strauss: Was this architect consulted from the very beginning of this work? Is the hon. Member aware that the Royal Observatory at Greenwich was the work of Sir Christopher Wren, and does he not think it was essential to employ a first-rate architect from the very beginning of this work?
    Mr. Edwards: So far as the work done up to now is concerned, the architect is employed by the Admiralty and he holds the degree of A.R.I.B.A. We have
    1670
    a number of architects with that qualification in the Admiralty and we think that they are very well fitted to carry out this work.
    Brigadier Head: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the work so far carried out by the Admiralty architect has made this place an absolute blot on the landscape and made complete nonsense of it? If his Department think the architect is good and is on a level with architects elsewhere, they should think again.
    Mr. Edwards: I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I do not know whether he has been down to see the place—
    Brigadier Head: I have.
    Mr. Edwards: —or has seen photographs of the place. Some of the photographs which have been printed are grossly misleading.
    Hon. Members: Were they taken in 1936?
    Mrs. Leah Manning: In view of the beauty of Herstmonceux, would it not have been a good thing to put this out to competition in the ordinary way and thus get the very best that could be got in the circumstances?
    Mr. Edwards: I do not think it is necessary for a competition to be held in connection with this matter. We are quite satisfied that, with the architects at our disposal, when the scheme is completed everybody will be more or less satisfied.
    Mr. Stanley: Is it a fact that certain permanent buildings have been completed without having been submitted beforehand to the Royal Fine Art Commission and that it is only after the completion of certain buildings that the Commission have been brought into the matter at all?
    Mr. Edwards: Only one very small building has been completed. So far as the other buildings are concerned, we intend to discuss them with the Commission.
    Mr. Stanley: Would it not have been a good thing to discuss the matter with the Commission before any building started?
    Mr. Edwards: That might have been the case, but this is only a small building, 35 feet by 33 feet, and it is not a big part of the scheme.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: Was the Admiralty one of the parties to the promise that matters of this kind should be submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission?
    Mr. Edwards: The Admiralty were more or less parties to that promise. As I have said before, the greater part of the scheme will at least be discussed with the Royal Fine Art Commission.
    Mr. Driberg: When my hon. Friend says that it is only a small building, is he producing the well-known excuse of the housemaid that it was "only a little one"? Can he say whether this architect is accustomed to designing observatories, or whether he is accustomed only to designing the married quarters and the barracks which are such a pleasing feature of our dockyard towns?
    Mr. Keeling: Is the Civil Lord aware that the vandalism of the Admiralty in this matter belies the claim made last Friday that this Government is the most zealous in history in its care of historical and beautiful buildings?
    Mr. H. Strauss: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Royal Fine Art Commission were informed that they would be consulted before my Question appeared on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Edwards: I am afraid I must have notice of that question, but I can assure the House that we are getting no complaint from the Fine Art Commission. We have had correspondence with them on the subject and they are perfectly happy with the position as it stands at present.

  POST OFFICE

    Trade Unions (Consultations)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Postmaster-General if it is his practice, when any matters arise affecting staff, to consult with the appropriate trade unions on all occasions or to consult with the trade unions collectively if a number of individual employees or classes of employees are involved.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): The recognised associations which represent Post Office staff are consulted separately, collectively, or through the Whitley machinery, whichever is appropriate in the light of the chatter to be discussed.
    Mr. Cooper: Could the Postmaster-General use his power of approach to the Director-General of the B.B.C. to get him to use a similar procedure to that used by the Post Office, since the B.B.C. recently turned down an application of the trade unions, whose members are recruited from the staff of the B.B.C., when they applied for an interview with the Director-General?
    Mr. Hobson: That question does not arise out of the one on the Order Paper. It is more appropriate to the hon. Member's next Question.

    Telephone Installations (Bombed Premises)
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to give special consideration to the applications for the installation of telephones by people who were bombed out of their homes and are now returning to their restored property.
    Mr. Hobson: Priority is given to the restoration of service for telephone subscribers who were bombed out of their premises and are now returning to their restored property.
    Mr. Thomas: Does my hon. Friend mean to convey to the House that people who have been bombed out and are now returning to their homes for the first time can have a telephone installed? My experience is very different in connection with my constituents.
    Mr. Hobson: As far as Cardiff is concerned, there are no outstanding cases of this character whatever.
    Mr. Thomas: Would my hon. Friend give me an assurance that if I bring to him once again a case, which he must have in mind at this moment, of a person who was bombed out and cannot have his telephone reinstalled, he will now have it attended to?
    Mr. Hobson: I shall be only too happy to consider anything my hon. Friend sends me.

    Elderly Persons (Retirement)
    Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a number of executive officers in his Department are about to have their services terminated before reaching the age of 65; and what is his policy in this respect, having regard to the recommendation contained in the letter sent last year by the Minister of Labour to the T.U.C. and employers' organisations to the effect that elderly persons should be retained in employment wherever possible.
    Mr. Hobson: Yes, Sir. Although officers may, if they wish, retire on reaching the normal retiring age of 60, the practice is to arrange an extension of service if health and efficiency remain unimpaired, but retention beyond 62 years of age is exceptional.

  BROADCASTING

    B.B.C. Staff (Trade Unions)
    Mr. Cooperasked the Postmaster-General if he has yet completed his inquiry into the negotiations between the B.B.C. and the T.U.C. regarding the recognition of the trade unions whose members are recruited from the B.B.C. staff; and whether he is able to make a statement now with regard to the observance by the B.B.C. of Clause 8 of its Charter.
    Mr. Hobson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Cooper: Is the Postmaster-General aware of the unsatisfactory and unhappy staff relations inside the B.B.C.? Is it not about time that the continuous evasion on the part of the Director-General to get this matter cleared up was brought to a satisfactory conclusion?

    Home Service, Kent (Interference)
    Mr. Baker-Whiteasked the Postmaster-General what reply he has had from the Russian Government to his representations regarding interference with reception of the Home Service in Kent by a Russian-controlled transmitter on the Baltic coast.
    Mr. Hobson: The Soviet Ministry of Communications replied on 29th October, 1948, to our telegram dated 23rd October, 1948, saying
    1674
    "measures are being taken for the removal of the oscillations"
    on this wavelength. Subsequently it has been observed in most areas that the interference has been considerably reduced. There is, however, still some slight interference especially in the eastern part of Kent and my Department have recently communicated with the Soviet authorities again.
    Mr. Baker-White: Is the Minister aware that over quite a wide area this interference is so acute still that people cannot hear the nine o'clock news, and they are getting awfully bored with the balalaika? Will the Minister get over it by the obvious way of opening up one of the wartime relay stations to cover that part of Kent?
    Mr. Hobson: The whole matter is being considered. We made a communication to the Soviet authorities and they took action, although there is still slight interference. As recently as 28th January we made a further communication to the Soviet authorities regarding the matter.
    Mr. Henry Usborne: Is there any reason to suppose that this interference is deliberate?
    Mr. Hobson: No.

    R.A.F. CADETS (PROMOTION)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Air how long it is before passing out cadets can be promoted; whether this is a fixed time; and if knowledge, skill, experience and conduct are taken into consideration.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): Cadets are usually promoted from aircrew IV to aircrew III on the second anniversary of their beginning aircrew training. The qualities referred to in the last part of the Question are taken into consideration.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that the uncertainty as to their future prevents many first-class young men coming forward, because their previous experience is not taken into consideration, and that that fact is one of the reasons for the unsatisfactory response to recruiting?
    Mr. de Freitas: I do not follow that supplementary question, but if the hon. Member is referring to people who started their training before the beginning of 1947, the position has been changed in the last few days.
    Sir W. Smithers: A good job, too.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it not the policy of the Air Ministry to pay attention to those cadets who before joining up served in the Air Cadet Corps?
    Mr. de Freitas: Yes, certainly. I should add to my last answer that the point of this regulation is that the last stage of air crew training varies in length and we do not want to penalise the man who has a longer course in his last stage.

    ARMED FORCES (COURTS MARTIAL)
    Mr. Leslie Haleasked the Minister of Defence whether he is prepared to direct that in the trial by court martial of any person below the rank of commissioned officer at least one member of the court should be of equal rank with the accused.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): This is one of the questions arising out of the Report of the Committee on Army and Air Force Courts Martial; the Government have not yet reached a decision on the recommendations made in the Report.
    Mr. Hale: In view of the fact that that Report has been in the hands of the Government now for some months, and that this elementary Service democratic reform has been introduced in the U.S.A., would he now speed up the consideration of this matter with a view to its introduction?
    Mr. Alexander: The matters concerned are very complex, they are under active consideration and I hope that a statement will be made shortly as to the procedure to be adopted with regard to the Report.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that if only he will make it possible for the right sort of officer to go into the Army, such qualms as the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) has will be dispersed?
    Mr. Alexander: There is no obstacle at present to the right sort of officer going into the Army.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the Minister aware that a court martial is not merely a court of justice but is also a court for the administration of discipline, and that for the proper administration of discipline the members of the court should be of superior rank to anybody who is being tried?
    Mr. Pritt: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how one can possibly have discipline without justice?
    Mr. Alexander: I should say that in many respects the discipline administered in courts martial could be compared favourably with the justice elsewhere. Generally speaking, while there have been several matters to which attention has been drawn in the Lewis Report, which we have under consideration, the Report is not a great reflection upon the efficiency with which the courts martial have been conducted in the past. We are going into the matter in great detail and we shall make our recommendations to the House as early as possible.
    Mr. Churchill: While we are all in favour of the effacement of class distinctions, is it not necessary in the Armed Forces to observe distinctions of rank?
    Mr. Alexander: It is necessary to have such distinctions in rank as maintain proper discipline and also, in the other direction, an objective for each one for promotion—promotion from the ranks as well as the admission of officers direct from outside. We must give this careful consideration, but I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the majority of the Lewis Committee were against the suggestion made by the hon. Member who put the Question.
    Mr. Hale: Is it not also a fundamental thesis of all justice that a man should be tried by his peers?
    Mr. Churchill: Is it not perfectly established in all democratic armies, including even the armies of totalitarian States, that the rank which is accorded by the State to individuals at various phases in their careers should determine the relationship of those individuals in discharging their duty to the State?
    Mr. Alexander: All those matters have been under consideration by the Lewis Committee and will be carefully considered by the Government before they take their decisions.
    Mr. Churchill: Surely the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Defence, need not be so afraid of getting a little unpopularity as to be unable to express the opinion which everyone sees he has?
    Mr. Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman has no right at all to make such an imputation. He has been a Minister himself so long and he has always steered his answers to questions in the past to satisfy the needs of the moment, whatever his view of the matter, and so as not to prejudice what a particular decision of the Government of which he was a Member was going to be.
    Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman has been asked a perfectly plain question, and I say across the Floor of the House that he is afraid, for fear of incurring unpopularity, to give a plain answer.
    Mr. Alexander: The charge is untrue to start with and, in the second place, the right hon. Gentleman has never hesitated to trim his course in the past on any political question.

  BILL PRESENTED
    CONSULAR CONVENTIONS BILL
    "to confer upon the consular officers of foreign States with which consular conventions are concluded by His Majesty certain powers relating to the administration of the estates and property of deceased persons; to restrict the powers of constables and other persons to enter the consular offices of such States; and to amend sections one hundred and seventy-six and five hundred and twenty-one of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894," presented by Mr. McNeil; supported by Mr. Mayhew, Mr. Thomas Fraser and Mr. Callaghan; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 89.

Division No. 45.]

AYES

[3.31 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Batham)

Cluse, W. S.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Albu, A. H.

Cocks, F. S.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V

Collindridge, F.

Gibbins, J.

Alpass, J. H

Comyns, Dr. L.

Gibson, C. W.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Cooper, G.

Gilzean, A.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

Corlett, Dr. J

Gordon-Walker, P. C

Austin, H. Lewis

Cove, W. G.

Granville, E. (Eye)

Awbery, S. S.

Crawley, A.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Ayles, W. H.

Cullen, Miss

Grenfell, D. R

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Daines, P.

Grey, C. F.

Bacon, Miss A.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Grierson, E.

Balfour, A.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Bartlett, V.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Barton, C.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

Beohervaise, A. E

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Benson, G.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Gunter, R. J.

Berry, H.

Deer, G.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hale, Leslie

Bing, G. H. C.

Dobbie, W.

Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil

Binns, J.

Dodds, N. N.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

Blackburn, A. R.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Blyton, W. R.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Hardy, E. A.

Bowen, R.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Harrison, J.

Brooks, T, J. (Rothwell)

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Haworth, J.

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Fairhurst, F.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Fernyhough, E.

Hobson, C. R.

Burden, T. W.

Field, Capt. W. J.

Holman, P.

Burke, W. A.

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

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Byers, Frank

Follick, M.

Hoy, J.

Callaghan, James

Foot, M. M.

Hubbard, T.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Forman, J. C.

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

Champion, A. J

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Hughes, H. D. (W"lverh'pton, W)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Mort, D. L.

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

Janner, B.

Moyle, A.

Solley, L. J.

Jay, D. P. T.

Murray, J. D.

Soskice, Rt Hon. Sir Frank

Jenkins, R. H.

Nally, W.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

Naylor, T. E.

Stubbs, A. E

Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon Edith

Keenan, W.

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

Swingler, S.

Kendall, W. D.

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

Sylvester, G. O

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P J. (Derby)

Symonds, A. L.

King, E. M.

Oldfield, W. H.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Kinley, J.

Oliver, G. H.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Kirby, B. V

Orbach, M

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

Parker, J.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Lang, G.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Lavers, S.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Thurtle, Ernest

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Pearson, A.

Timmons, J

Leslie, J. R.

Peart, T. F.

Titterington, M F

Levy, B. W.

Piratin, P.

Tolley, L.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Usborne, Henry

Logan, D. G.

Pritt, D. N.

Vernon, Maj. W F

Longden, F.

Proctor, W. T.

Walker, G. H.

Lyne, A. W.

Pryde, D. J.

Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)

McAdam, W.

Randall, H. E.

Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

McEntee, V. La T.

Ranger, J.

Warbey, W. N.

McGhee, H. G.

Rankin, J.

Watkins, T. E.

Mack, J. D.

Rees-Williams, D. R

Watson, W. M.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Reeves, J.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

McKinlay, A. S.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

West, D. G.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Rhodes, H.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.

McLeavy, F.

Richards, R.

Wigg, George

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Wilkins, W A.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Willey, F T. (Sunderland)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Scollan, T.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Scott-Elliot, W.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Segal, Dr. S

Williams, W. R (Heston)

Mayhew, C. P.

Sharp, Granville

Willis, E,

Medland, H. M.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Mellish, R. J.

Shurmer, P.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Mikardo, Ian

Silverman, S. S (Nelson)

Woods, G. S.

Monslow, W.

Simmons, C. J

Yates, V. F.

Morley, R.

Skeffington, A. M.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Skinnard, F. W.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Snow and Mr. Bowdeo.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)

Raikes, H. V.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Jarvis, Sir J.

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

Assheton, Rt. Hon R

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

Barlow, Sir J.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Birch, Nigel

Keeling, E. H.

Savory, Prof. D. L

Bossom, A. C.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Scott, Lord W.

Bower, N.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Smithers, Sir W.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O

Bromley-Davenport, Lt,-Col. W.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Low, A. R. W.

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

Stuart, Rt. Hon J. (Moray)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Sutcliffe, H.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

Crowder, Capt. John E.

McFarlane, C. S.

Teeling, William

De la Bère, R.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Drayson, G. B

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Drewe, C.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Touche, G. C.

Eccles, D. M.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Turton, R. H.

Erroll, F. J.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Vane, W. M. F.

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Mellor, Sir J.

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Molson, A. H. E.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Glyn, Sir R.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

York, C.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

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

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

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Price.-White, Lt.-Col. D.

Mr. Studholme and

Hurd, A.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Mr. Wingfield Digby.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.42 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The House will recall that in the Debates on the Export Guarantees Bill. which became law in the summer, I indicated that the Government were considering the position of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, and that the Bill of last summer—an emergency measure to ensure that the work of the Department should not be restricted, because it was already approaching its legal limits of liability—was without prejudice to the introduction of a further Bill to improve still further the service available to exporters in the post-war world.
  The Bill now before the House is the result of our examination. Briefly, its purpose, in addition to raising the overall limit from £300 million to £500 million. is to enable guarantees to be given to encourage all exports, whether visible or invisible, which will help to improve our balance of payments position. Before I outline the principal provisions of the Bill and give the House the reasons for these new proposals, it might be of value if I were to recall to the House the present position of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the powers it exercises. acting on behalf of the Board of Trade to give export guarantees.
  First, under the Export Guarantees Acts of 1939, 1945 and 1948, the Department is empowered to grant commercial guarantees. These commercial guarantees are given after consultation with an Advisory Council, that is where that council considers that there is a reasonable commercial basis for offering the guarantees. The Overseas Trade Guarantees Act, 1939, empowers the Department to give guarantees, without the need for any consultation with the Advisory Council, in respect of transactions which would not normally be accepted by the council as reasonable commercial propositions but which, in the national interest, it is considered desirable to support by the aid of guarantees.
  1682
  The present financial limits of liability are, for commercial guarantees, an aggregate limit of £300 million, the figure to which the House agreed last Session, and for "special" guarantees in the national interest, limited to a total of £60 million. Within the two main group limits there are subsidiary limits. In the commercial group, there is a limit of £30 million for external trade; £15 million for re-exports, and £15 million for what are called "other matters connected with export trade." Within the group of "special guarantees" there is a subsidiary limit of £6 million for other than "home-produced" goods.
  Dealing first with commercial guarantees, the existing Acts contain restrictions both on the powers which may be exercised for giving guarantees and, as I have said, on the total limits of liability which may be undertaken on certain classes of risk. These limitations arise from the fact that the primary object of the earlier Acts was, in the main, to encourage exports from the United Kingdom as one means of guarding against large-scale unemployment after the first world war. The wording of the Acts themselves and the fixing of subsidiary limits were all in tune with this idea, and were not associated with the present-day need for encouraging overseas trade to the maximum in order to close the gap on our "balance of payments."
  Clause 1 of the new Bill broadens the whole basis on which the E.C.G.D. works, so as to give it proper scope to encourage all exports, whether visible or invisible. which will help to add to our earnings from abroad. In this respect it differs from existing powers under which guarantees may be given only in connection with the export of goods from the United Kingdom, as the 1939 Act provides, and, as provided by the 1945 Act, with the sale by United Kingdom merchants, of goods produced in one country abroad and sold to another. Under the Bill it will now be possible to give guarantees for any transaction which, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, will encourage trade with, and result in earnings from, places outside the United Kingdom.
  Under this new provision, it will be possible for guarantees to be given, for example, for the earning of foreign exchange through technical and consultant services, which is an important

  1683
  and growing invisible export, as distinct from the sale of goods. Then again—and I need not tell the House how much importance should be attached now to the overseas work of the civil engineering industry—the Department, under this Clause, can provide guarantees in connection with the use, on a rental basis, for instance, of a United Kingdom contractor's own equipment in connection with the execution of engineering works abroad.
  To help with the export drive generally, the Department could also give guarantees in connection with the financing of overseas sales agencies or the holding of stocks either abroad or in the United Kingdom in anticipation of sales to desirable countries. I shall in no sense try to disguise from the House the fact that the powers given are pretty wide and give considerable elasticity in operation to the Department, but I know the confidence of both sides of the House in this Department is such that they will be ready to give this elasticity and freedom to it.
  Clause 1 (4) of the Bill raises from £300 million to £500 million the maximum aggregate amount of liability which may be undertaken in respect of commercial guarantees. The amount of this liability has been growing rapidly with the increase of business during the last year. At the end of June last, when we were debating the 1948 Bill, the maximum liability outstanding was £172 million and at the end of December, 1948, £224.5 million. When we compare those figures with the amount outstanding at the end of 1947—only 12 months ago—we find it was £123.6 million, and we can see the extent to which traders and exporters are making use of the services of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. If I might put the figures in another way, whereas, pre-war, the average of policies issued was about £43 million and about £72 million for the war-time average, this has gone up in successive years, in 1946–47 to about £149 million, in 1947–48 to £186 million and, in the first nine months of the current financial year to £198 million.
  These maximum liability figures are a total of the estimated outstanding commitments in respect of current guarantees, of offers of guarantees awaiting acceptance, of guarantee agreements with foreign
  1684
  Governments, and of net payments under guarantees already made. This increase in cover is an indication of the growth of our export trade, and the valuable services industry recognises the Department can provide. At the same time, it is a measure of the unsettled state of the world and the risks involved in a fairly extensive proportion of our overseas trading transactions.
  In seeking the increase to £500 million of the maximum liability, I am asking the House to agree to make provision for further increases in business. This new limit should suffice for a considerable period ahead. The House will have seen that I do not propose to renew the subsidiary limits I have referred to a few moments ago. The main purpose of the Bill is to encourage the maximum earnings from overseas trade in all the forms it takes, without imposing any limitation in respect of any particular branch of trade. But I can give the House the assurance that the Board of Trade will maintain very close contact with the Export Credits Guarantee Department to make certain especially that transactions in goods of foreign manufacture which might compete with United Kingdom produced goods will not be encouraged. As I have said, the commercial guarantees are given after consultation with the Export Guarantees Advisory Council, set up by the Board of Trade under Section 1 of the Export Guarantees Act, 1939, and including representatives of banking, industry and organised labour.
  I wish to say a word about the accounting procedure which has been followed by the Department, because the House would naturally be concerned about this. The Acts of 1939 and 1945, provide that all expenses incurred, including payments under the guarantees and the administrative expenditure, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. In practice, however, the amount which Parliament is asked to vote is normally a token sum of £100. The receipts from premiums brought to account as Appropriations in Aid of the Vote, taking one year with another, have been sufficient to meet the Department's expenditure, both on claims and administration; and over the 28 years since the guarantees were first given no charge has fallen upon the Exchequer.
  As I have already suggested to the House, the Department has been a highly

  1685
  successful organ of public enterprise in a field where private enterprise did not tread and, I think, would not have trodden, in providing a valuable service, at very low rates, and with a small balance of profit for the benefit of the taxpayer. In fact, the Department is in a very satisfactory financial position. The latest annual account issued is that for the year ended 31st March, 1947, but the accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1948, about to be published, show that there was a reserve of over £4 million to meet future liabilities. The reserve at present available to meet future losses stands at about £6 million, or about 3½ per cent. of the Department's liability of about £163 millions on guarantees actually given (that is excluding guarantees offered but not taken up).
  Mr. William Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that the reserve has increased over that short period of time by nearly £2 million?
  Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir.
  While I am dealing with the financial procedure, there is one small point which I should perhaps mention to the House. Although Section 7 (1) of the 1939 Act requires the preparation of trading accounts, this provision has been omitted from the new Bill. It is in fact unnecessary because the Treasury have standing powers under Section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Department Act, 1921, to direct any Department to prepare such accounts.
  Now I come to the special guarantees. Clause 2 continues the powers given by the Overseas Trade Guarantees Act, 1939, for the giving of guarantees in the national interest. These guarantees relate to transactions which are not of a normal commercial character, and consultation with the Advisory Council is therefore not necessary or appropriate. Between 1939 and 1941 the guarantees, in the main, were given in order to make possible the purchase of arms by, and thus strengthen the resistance of, certain European countries against possible German aggression. In all, guarantees given under the Overseas Trade Guarantees Act in those years totalled to about £16 million, of which about £1½ million is at present in default, the countries concerned being Greece, £295,000, and Roumania, £1,242,000.
  1686
  Amounts owing by other countries, not yet due for repayment, total to a little over £2 million.
  Although, in existing conditions, guarantees on transactions of this particular nature may not be required, there is even more need than in the past for special guarantee facilities in order to encourage trade with very many countries, the risks, whether political or otherwise, in connection with which could not be regarded as commercially insurable and could not therefore be accepted under Clause 1 of the Bill. There is a number of types of transaction for which these special guarantees might in future be given, and anyone concerned with trade in present-day conditions will have no difficulty in imagining which they are and realising how important some of them are.
  For instance, there are "fixed price contracts for capital goods requiring a very lengthy period of manufacture, for which the United Kingdom exporter desires cover against possible substantial increases in the price of materials and cost of labour between the time of signing a contract and the delivery of the finished goods to the overseas purchaser. Then again, there may be special transactions, perhaps unorthodox in character, which might lead to increased exports to most desirable countries such as, for example, Canada and the United States. In view of the clearly accepted need to meet our dollar balance of payments, there may prove to be here a valuable adjunct to the efforts of our exporters to increase their sales in this most essential, but in many ways difficult, set of markets.
  I need not stress the possibility of possible credits to countries, for example Europe, to facilitate the conclusion of trading arrangements for which the risks might not be considered commercially acceptable to the E.C.G.D. or its Advisory Council. An example of this type of credit, which was given in 1946 under the Overseas Trade Guarantees Act, was that for £1½million to enable Austria to purchase wool from the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth sources.
  Clause 2 (2) provides for an increase from £60 million to £100 million in the maximum liability which may be assumed for these special guarantees. In the present difficult world conditions, and in view of the imperative need of encouraging

  1687
  by all possibe means trade with hard currency countries and also with certain countries capable of supplying this country with food and other essential goods where the risk may not necessarily be a commercial one, it is necessary to have latitude to give guarantees which enable the exporter to take risks which may not be commercially insurable, but which normally ought to be taken in the general interests of the United Kingdom. I am sure the House will agree that not less than £100 million should be earmarked for this purpose.
  Owing to the purely political character of the transactions which Parliament had in mind when the Overseas Trade Guarantees Act, 1939, was passed, trading accounts would have served no useful purpose. But with a possible change in the character of the guarantees, however, it may be considered desirable to have trading accounts, in which event the Treasury would be able, under their standing powers, to direct their preparation.
  I do not think I need take the time of the House in dealing with Clauses 3 and 5, which deal with the powers already held by the Board of Trade to acquire and dispose of securities. and with the publication of returns. But perhaps I should say a word about Clause 6 which sets out clearly the position of the Department in relation to the Board of Trade, about which there has been some misunderstanding. The Export Credits Guarantee Department was first set up as part of the Board of Trade in 1919, but following a report by an expert committee under Sir Otto Niemeyer in 1928 it became a separate Department under the Secretary for Overseas Trade in April, 1930. Matters of general financial policy concerning the scope of E.C.G.D. guarantees continue to be controlled by the Treasury, while on questions relating to export policy the closest collaboration is maintained with the Board of Trade.
  After that brief exposition, which can be supplemented by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury if any hon. Members wish to put questions, I hope that the House will agree to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I do not think that anyone today is under any illusions about the difficulties and risks that our exporters
  1688
  and traders are meeting in trade with many parts of the world. I have already referred to the trade with the Western Hemisphere and the measures which it might be possible to take under this Bill to assist there. Equally, I know that those who have experience or knowledge of trade with Eastern Europe at present realise how valuable the Export Credits Guarantee Department has been, and how much more valuable it might be under this new Bill, in helping trade with that part of the world.
  For instance, guarantees have already been given on capital goods for export to Russia to an amount equal to £14 million, and there are further offers in negotiation amounting to about £2½ million. In the recent trade agreement with Poland, the original £1½ million wool acceptance credit which was fully repaid at the end of last year has been renewed for £2½ million, and the original £6 million advance scheme to make possible purchases of £15 million worth of capital goods is to be extended to cover further purchases up to £20 million, subject to not more than £6 million being outstanding in respect of export credits guarantees at any one time. The Department have already undertaken commitments amounting to £4 million covering exports to Finland and has some further offers outstanding in relation to that country. With the signing of the recent trade agreement with Yugoslavia transactions on normal short-term credit are now being covered by guarantees.
  From that brief review of certain European countries, the House will appreciate the kind of transaction the Export Credits Guarantee Department is now able to facilitate. I know that the operation of this Department over a period of nearly 30 years and under successive Governments has been at all times highly successful, and that all parties and all sections of the business community have equally recognised the great value of the services which it can offer. As I have said frankly, we are proposing under this Bill a considerable widening of the powers and an increase in the freedom of the Department to operate. I hope that this House will have no reservation whatever in giving assent to this Bill and enabling the Department to extend even further the services which it is now able to operate.
  4.3 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: Export credits are recognised as a well established piece of machinery which has certainly helped exporters over these long years. As the right hon. Gentleman remarked, I think the Department was first established in its present form, in 1919. Its powers have been altered and widened by successive Governments and, personally, I am not sorry to see further extensions proposed today. I have a keen interest in the subject, for in the more respectable part of my life, before I became a politician, I sat on the Advisory Council for a great number of years and, as a Minister, I have also seen the Department working from inside. I was glad that the President of the Board of Trade devoted some time to an account of the experiences which the insurers had over this long time. I was interested to notice what he said about recent experiences which would seem to show that it is possible for a public Department to write risks which cannot be written otherwise and nevertheless come out with a reasonable profit to the taxpayer. I think that has been the experience.
  I have had two or three letters complaining that the Minister has come back to Parliament for still further sums of money a very short time after he introduced the temporary Measure which, I think, was in July of last year. He will get no criticism from me on that score. I much prefer Ministers to come back to Parliament frequently for these sums and to give us an opportunity of debating the objects for which they are to be used, rather than to go into the painful over frequent process of taking powers and getting sums voted which are sufficient in all contingencies and in all circumstances. As far as export credits are concerned, I applaud the Minister's proceeding by gentle stages and giving us an opportunity of hearing how the scheme is working from time to time rather than taking something which will keep him well covered for any conceivable life of any conceivable Government. I do not criticise in any way the extension of these sums so soon after the matter has been reviewed by the House. However, I should like to try to supplement some of the remarks he made.
  I was very glad that he remarked that the increase in the sum is partly an evidence of the extremely confused conditions
  1690
  in which exports have to be made. The increased sum is also an evidence of the general rise in prices which has taken place in sterling exports. Therefore, if last year we approved £300 million, there is nothing very surprising in our being asked to raise the sum to £500 million now, taking into account the hoped for expansion in our exports, the rise in price of sterling manufactured goods largely covered by these credits, and also the increased use which, in a confused world, is likely to be made of these facilities by exporters. I do not know if it would be worth asking whether His Majesty's Government find greater difficulties, or learn of greater difficulties, in placing our exports at this moment than they did when these matters were reviewed last July. The Economic Secretary might like to refer to that subject. I only wish to say that I was glad that the President pointed out that the extension of these sums is evidence of three things—first, the confused conditions; second, the rise in prices; and third, increasing demands from exporters.
  I also greatly applaud the Government's discovery of the invisible export market. This may be nothing new to the President of the Board of Trade, but it has been the custom of Socialists particularly to denigrate considerably the parasitic functions—those are the sort of words they use—of those who only buy and sell. The merchant interests, the middlemen and so on, have always been the object of attacks by Soclialists especially when the critics are far removed from the business world. Now we have a Socialist President of the Board of Trade saying quite openly, and I think sensibly, that the export credits facilities can be used by British nationals by merchants who are buying materials—they may be raw materials or semifinished products—in one part of the world and selling them in another.
  I have quoted to the House before, some of the curious ways in which invisible exports work. One of the most surprising to the layman is the London arbitration clause. All over the commercial world the integrity of London as an arbitration centre has always been recognised. These London arbitration terms are frequently written into international contracts, and trade—sometimes in insurance, sometimes in banking, and sometimes even in shipping—follows. But

  1691
  it does not affront me that it should be possible for the Exports Credits Department to enable trade to take place between two countries neither of which is the United Kingdom provided I understood from the President that these facilities are only available to United Kingdom nationals who are carrying on this trade—
  Mr. H. Wilson: Persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom, although the nature of the trade is entirely between foreign shores. We on this side of the House will therefore not divide against the Second Reading. I think I ought to say that our attitude at present is one of general approval, though we should appreciate any more information which can be given upon the points I have mentioned.
  There is one other thing I should like to say. In the past, it was rather disheartening to see the reserves accumulated as a result of successful insurance business disappearing into the consolidated accounts and having to be begun all over again. That, unfortunately, is inevitable under the Government's system of accounting, but I wonder if the President would make a practice of rather more frequent references to the experience which the Department is having and to the profits which it is making. I think it encourages those who have this difficult job to do if publicity is given to the successful results of their insurance. On the whole, we think that this extension of these powers, both in the sums of money involved and in the powers themselves, will be of much use to exporters in a very confused world.
  4.12 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: I should like to add to what has been said by my right hon. Friend and to give unqualified approval to this Measure. There is no doubt that this instrument is the most potent for what the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day called the "multilateralisation" of trade. There is no doubt that this is one of the best means of promoting it. I wish to refer to a form of trade which has shown the greatest increase recently—the off-shore trade; the trade which starts in a country outside the United Kingdom and finishes
  1692
  there. I should like to give an instance of what I mean.
  A great many hon. Gentlemen opposite are only just beginning to realise what invisible exports are, and an instance of the kind of trade in which I have been engaged may help them. It concerned the purchase of coal, when not available in the United Kingdom, in an Eastern European country, to be sent to Germany, processed there and made into cement, shipped from there, with a credit opened by a Swiss firm in dollars, by a Belgian firm which had the right organisation, and ending up in South America. The end product of that transaction is a very large increase in dollars, and, therefore, as the Economic Secretary will know, it has the backing of the Treasury.
  That is the sort of business which seems to hon. Gentlemen opposite to be something fantastic, but why should it not be done, because, in such cases we are exporting, with the help of the organisation which I mentioned, one of the few things in this country which has no rival outside—not a manufacturing process, because there are rivals to that throughout the world. There are very few rivals to our exports of the brains, knowledge and confidence which we can give in carrying out such business. Why do the people in other countries come to any firm in this country with such business? It is because they know that the contracts will be carried out properly, and that knowledge, brains, experience and integrity are available. That is the reason why I take this opportunity to express support of this Bill and to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to cease the campaign of denigration and crying down the merchant efforts of this country. They may not understand these efforts, but that is no reason why they should speak against them or scoff at middlemen, or try to make out, as they often do, that things which they do not understand, are a mysterious form of crookery.
  The increased figures which have been given by the President in his speech today, are proof of the success of the transactions which are being carried on through London, probably more than anywhere else, in far and away the best manner and with the greatest possible confidence from the rest of the world. There may be a few exceptions, but the main business carried on by these firms in insurance and banking, in many cases

  1693
  under contracts with the organisation I mentioned, is an immense source of revenue, without absorbing manual labour which is already heavily called upon. That is why I regret the grudging tribute which the Chancellor has paid to our invisible exports.
  There is another side to the matter which must be emphasised. In a world in which currencies no longer have the support they had before, the greater the amount of commerce and business that comes here from the rest of the world, the greater is the support that is given to sterling, and it is vitally important that sterling should remain, as far as possible, at a stable point. It is recovering, but it has a long way to go, and the more transactions from overseas that can be brought to this country through the instrumentality of this Department, properly used by the original impulse which comes from the commercial community, the greater the support that will be given to sterling in the rest of the world.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend about the need to publicise it. It is very difficult to make transactions of this sort, or even the workings of the Department, clear and plain to the general public here and elsewhere, and it cannot be done by means of the easy terms of average Government advertising. However, I think that in the trade journals that go overseas, something could possibly be done to show how smoothly this machinery actually works. A tribute should be paid to the work of this Department, because, when one goes there, one finds something very refreshing. I do not say that it is excluded from all other Government Departments, but in this Department there is a positive attitude adopted to any proposition that is put forward. That is really the best tribute that one could pay.
  It is no longer a case of saying, "How can I find a reason for not doing this?" but, instead, "How can I find a way of doing it?" With the great knowledge and skill which these officials and advisers possess, we find that, when a merchant goes to see them, he is nearly always told, "It is perhaps not quite feasible to do this in thé way you suggest, but we advise you that a possible variation, of which we had experience in another case, may possibly fit this one." It is even possible that they may say: "We will do it, even if we establish a precedent." It
  1694
  is that positive attack and the genuine desire to help which marks the way in which this Department is carrying on the tradition of over 30 years in which it has operated, and which is so very refreshing. It is because of this, that the Department has been so successful, and I hope that the example will not be lost on other Departments.
  In the transactions to which I have referred, the number of firms from different countries who were concerned and the synchronisation of the delivery of the coal to the cement works with the time when the cement from the last transaction is collected and sent overseas—all this presents difficulties which are perfectly enormous. But the merchants can undertake such business with skill, patience and a real desire to earn dollars. I hope that we shall hear no more slurs about private interests of this sort, when they are imbued with a positive outlook and when their efforts can be still further extended with benefit to the country. I should not be at all worried if, after six months or a year's time, the Government came back to the House to report further progress in this direction and ask for the amount to be doubled. That would be a fine proof of the worth of these merchants—and the title of merchant is a proud one—who are carrying on with a genuine desire to help the Government and succeeding in increasing measure, and with less misunderstanding and more support from the rank and file and from the country in general.
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. Benson: I should not have taken part in this Debate had it not been for the rather superior attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher). I strongly resent the suggestion that we on this side of the House are blatantly ignorant of economics and that wisdom resides alone on the other side of the House.
  Mr. W. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that I did not say that, I said that there were certain exceptions, but that, on the whole, there were a great many hon. Members opposite—probably those who are absent from the not very full benches opposite—who do not share with the hon. Gentleman the knowledge which I know he has.
  Mr. Benson: I am not speaking for myself. I can take care of myself in

  1695
  Debates in the House; but this assumption of wisdom on the other side of the House is not entirely justifiable. I certainly do not accept the views of my hon. Friends on this side of the House on a large number of things; but is the hon. Member for Bury prepared to accept the views of his colleagues on everything? There may be misunderstanding on this side of the House on many subjects. There is no absence of misunderstanding on the opposite side on a very large number of things. In this matter of export guarantees the hon. Gentleman is an expert and he is listened to with very great respect on this side as well as on his own side of the House, but I do not think that entitles him to the rather superior attitude which he has shown and which I must say I resent.
  On the other hand, I will thank the hon. Gentleman for the very high compliment that he has paid to the Export Credit Guarantees Scheme. As he has pointed out, it has carried on with immense advantage to the country and with very great help to the trading classes, a type of insurance which private enterprise would not touch. Not only has it done that over a period of 30 years: it has done it successfully at a profit, and has had in the meantime to carry not merely commercial risks but risks which were deliberately incurred for national interests outside the scope of mere commercial calculations.
  The President of the Board of Trade mentioned that there was something like £1,500,000 outstanding with regard to Roumania. Our experience of insuring trade with Roumania has not been happy. I think in the very inception of the scheme we ran into very bad weather with Roumania. So far as I know, the only country that has ever landed us in serious losses has been Roumania. I do not know what will be the future course of insurance with Roumania, but if I were dealing with it I should be very careful of any insurance with that country.
  Mr. Drayson: Presumably the hon. Member would not insure the lives of the bishops?
  Mr. Benson: I should require notice of that question.
  The Bill is limited to residents in this country. I am not sure, but I think it
  1696
  might be possible for us to extend these activities more widely. I see no reason why we should not earn invisible exports. Why should not we, with the consent of the Dominions, cover risks of Dominion traders? There is no reason why we should not do what every insurance company in this country does, namely, carry foreign risks. At any rate, it is a point which requires exploring.
  The President of the Board of Trade said that trading accounts would be published. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, since 1929, it has been my job to look at the trading accounts as they are published, and I must say that I am very sceptical of the value of the publication of those accounts. When it comes to the trading accounts of export credits, I have never yet been able to understand them, and I do not think any other member of the Committee has been able to understand them. We have been told by the Comptroller and Auditor-General that they are cast in the form which the best advice obtainable recommended, but they still remind me very much of hieroglyphics. However, let the accounts be published by all means. Every kind of information is possibly valuable, even if one cannot understand it, but I do not attach much importance to this concession.
  4.26 p.m.
  Mr. Erroll: This Bill affords us a valuable opportunity for a review of the work of the Export Credits Guarantee Fund. The last Bill of this description which was passed by this House a few months ago, was in the nature of an interim Measure to raise the ceiling within which the Department could work, but this Bill which, as I read it, is something of a consolidating Bill as well, extends the powers of the Department in a number of directions. I should like to join with the previous speakers who have paid tribute to the work of the Department. Admittedly, it is a striking example of public enterprise, but let us realise that only a public department could have undertaken the insurance and the guarantees which this Department has carried out, because only a public department could have access to that Governmental and political knowledge without which any sure basis of guarantee would have been quite impossible.

  1697
  I am interested to notice that in Clause 6 the Department is to come under the Secretary for Overseas Trade. Before we go any further, I should like to say that it is a great pity that the Secretary for Overseas Trade is not here this afternoon to participate in the Debate. Neither has the President of the Board of Trade consented to remain with us during the discussion of his speech, nor has the new Parliamentary Secretary. Their absence does not make it quite so easy to comment on the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade, but doubtless they will be passed on to him.
  I think we must divide the guarantees into two forms. There are the political guarantees against political risks, and the commercial guarantees against commercial risks. Dealing first with the political risks, it is obvious that only a Government Department with all its special knowledge could possibly make a proper assessment of the political risks involved in an overseas commercial transaction. It has been euphemistically described by the President of the Board of Trade as the confused world in which we live. There is much more than mere confusion in the world today. There is a worldwide tendency for governments to regard themselves as trading units, and for governments to trade with each other, to negotiate directly with each other, and to use all the bargaining power at their command, to secure better terms than their nationals might otherwise separately achieve.
  At the moment we witness the behaviour of the Argentine Government in their relations with this country over the supply of meat. I have noticed similar hold-ups of payments or deliveries on the part of other governments in an effort to extort a more favourable trade agreement with this country. Certain European countries have resorted to that method. Only a public department, having excess to the Foreign Office and the advisers of the Board of Trade, can properly recommend how much risk can be run in guaranteeing the ultimate payment in a commercial transaction taking place under the shadows of such a political risk.
  Then there are the commercial risks. I must say I was surprised to see the way in which the Department is prepared to underwrite what I should have regarded as normal commercial risks. There may
  1698
  be good reasons for it, but I should have thought the facilities of banks and other institutions would have been able to take care of a number of the normal commercial risks which it is apparently the policy of the Department to guarantee. The Minister referred, for example, to financing stocks overseas and to financing sales offices, particularly in the western hemisphere. Surely there is no need to have a Government guarantee behind an ordinary commercial venture in the United States of America? That is surely the one country where normal commercial principles still apply.
  It is a proper commercial risk for a firm wishing to export to the United States of America to assess the chances of success, to build up the sales offices, to ship the stock and to trade as best it can. If it fails, surely the full cost should fall upon the private individual or the company trading in that way. If it succeeds, correspondingly the reward of success should belong to the individual or company. I appreciate that the question is complicated by the shortage of dollars, but I should have thought that Government intervention in such cases even although asked for should have been limited to satisfying itself as to the reasonable prospects of the success of the venture and to supplying the dollars for that purpose. I cannot believe there is any case for the intervention of a public Department to underwrite a normal commercial risk in a country known to have trading principles so similar to our own best trading practices.
  The President referred to guaranteeing possible changes in the cost of labour and raw materials. Here again I should have thought that was a commercial risk which should have been taken into account either by some form of price variation or by an escalator clause or clauses designed to enable the changing prices of material or labour to be passed on to the customer or the person concerned. I understand, however, that the Department is prepared to guarantee such changes. It was not made clear whether the Department is to guarantee these changes when they take place in this country or when they take place in the country of destination. In the latter case, of course, one has in mind large public works taking place in undeveloped countries were labour is liable to fluctuate. It would be interesting to know how the guarantee is to be based and how the risk is to be calculated.

  1699
  There is also the problem of raw materials brought from overseas for processing in this country before being shipped to a third country. If the guarantee is to cover changes in prices of raw materials, can such changes in fact be guaranteed by the Department? I throw these out as one or two examples on which we on this side of the House would like further information. I think it is most dangerous if we go too far in the direction of a public Department underwriting what are normal commercial risks, which in the case of many countries in the world could reasonably be negotiated as commercial risks and which do not require Government underwriting in any shape or form.
  I turn now to what I consider to be the rather more controversial Clause. That is Clause 2, which offers economic assistance to countries outside the United Kingdom. I thought the President was far from reassuring in his remarks on this Clause. He skated over it all too briefly. As I see it, this Clause more or less gives the Government carte blanche, up to the maximum figures permitted, to underwrite anything they like, under the vague justification that it is "expedient in the national interest." That might cover almost anything. Many of the arguments which take place in this House are over differences of opinion as to what constitutes the national interest.
  Then, if you please, the President volunteered an example which struck me as singularly inappropriate. He quoted the case of guaranteeing a purchase of wool by the Austrian Government in 1946. I may not have heard him fully, but I do not think the President made it clear whether the wool was being purchased from stocks held in Britain or from stocks held outside Britain. In either case, I feel it is hardly correct for British funds to be used to guarantee a transaction of that sort, because if the wool were held in Britain, surely the operation of ordinary commercial banks could ensure that there was no irretrievable loss of the wool until the Austrians had actually paid cash into this country. If the Austrian Government were to buy the wool from Australia, surely that would be a matter between the Austrian Government and the Australian Government unless we are to extend the
  1700
  functions of this Department so as to underwrite the risks which foreign Governments and ex-enemy Governments may be taking now and may take in the future. As the Clause stands, I consider it is very elastic in its construction. We have not had nearly enough explanation of its true importance or its true intention.
  I am sure we are all glad that the field of invisible exports is at last to be included. It marks a notable step forward in the progress of a Labour Government that they should so far recognise the trade of British merchants as being so valuable to our economy as to justify a Government guarantee where necessary. There is one type of transaction which it is not clear from the terms of the Bill is covered, and that is the case of British-owned foreign patents. Quite often, British patents are taken up abroad and foreign firms allowed to use them on a royalty basis, under the terms of a privately negotiated agreement by which the foreign interest pays to this country a royalty based on production, on the number of units used or on some other basis. It is an export of British brains which surely deserves to be underwritten by the Export Credit Department like any other commercial transaction.
  I had cause to write to the Department some months ago on a matter of this sort and they replied to the effect that under the terms then existing, they could only guarantee transactions which involved the physical movement of goods. It struck me as a narrow-minded conception of our export trade that unless there was an actual movement of goods there could be no guarantee. I want to know whether the Bill will guarantee such "exports," these royalty payments due under privately negotiated commercial agreements, designed to exploit British-owned patents in foreign countries for the benefit of this country.
  Although this is an excellent Bill and is welcome in these troublous times, I regret that such a Bill should be necessary. I think it is deplorable that the normal commercial relationships of the 19th century and the earliest part of the 20th century should no longer be practicable or possible, except to a limited extent, without the intervention of Governments who underwrite what are largely political risks. The Bill itself and the Department which operates it

  1701
  show our British ability to adapt ourselves to changing world conditions, but they are changing conditions which I deplore, although I welcome the excellence of the Bill itself.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Scott-Elliot: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) I am a little disappointed by certain of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher). We on this side of the House understand fully the way in which we earn very large invisible exports by means of our shipping, our banking, our insurance, by means even of those technical services to which my right hon. Friend alluded during his speech. I am convinced we do understand these things, and I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman who normally speaks in careful, measured terms. should have said what he did say.
  I have only two points to put to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, with which, I hope, he will be able to deal. I think he will agree with me in saying that the sum total of our exports, particularly to the United States of America and Canada, to which exports are so vital, can be made up only if we bring into play every single firm that can export. That includes the small firms. Now, the small firms are a very difficult proposition. Small firms are generally not used to exporting. The idea at one time was that the small firms, particularly in the engineering industry, were more suited to sub-contracting. I think they probably are. However, many small firms in textiles, and many small firms of all kinds, can contribute to the total of our exports in markets overseas.
  I am not at all sure how far it will be possible for the small firms ever to find suitable outlets in the United States and in Canada unless some medium is provided—not necessarily a governmental one. It may be that something new is needed in addition to existing organisations, such as B.E.T.R.O., some agency which has actual establishments in the Middle West of the United States, and which will be able to guide those firms in telling them the kinds of goods which are wanted. The point I want to put to my hon. Friend is this. Will these small firms, having obtained export orders, know about what is available to them in exports credits guarantees? Will there
  1702
  be the fullest possible publicity on this matter? Will they be satisfied that the premium which they will be required to pay will be consistent with what they are able to afford?
  The second point I want to put to my hon. Friend is this. I think he will agree with me on the importance of stimulating exports to the United States and Canada and the dollar areas generally from the rest of the sterling area. How far has the rest of the sterling area some assistance such as this Bill provides for anyone who is trading within the United Kingdom? I hope my hon. Friend will be able to deal with those two points when he comes to wind up, because I think they may be of general interest.
  4.44 p.m.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: I should like very much to join with my right hon. Friend in welcoming this Bill. Let me say at once, in support of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot), that I, too, hope that the Department engaged in the exports credits guarantees will give full publicity throughout the whole trading community of the country. I am particularly interested in the smaller traders, and one of the objects of the organisation with which I am associated is the combination of small traders in groups so that they can take advantage of exports credits guarantees under the provisions of this Bill. I welcome the Bill very warmly; I think it reflects great credit on the trading community of this country that it has successfully made efforts to export and to maintain its position in markets abroad. In that it has been supported by the Board of Trade. It was an admirable record of proceedings that was presented today to the House, and it is a great tribute to the integrity, honour and honesty of the mass of the trading community of this country.
  I happen to have been familiar with the proceedings of the Exports Credits Guarantee Department almost since its inception, and I am bound to express to the House my appreciation of the skill and efficiency with which this Department has been conducted all the time during which I have been in contact with it in connection with several projects submitted to it for its consideration. Sir Frank Nixon really laid the foundations of the efficiency of this Department within

  1703
  the Board of Trade. The projects made to him from time to time on the part of organisations and on the part of firms in this country with which I was in one way or another associated were always received with courtesy, with consideration, and with that type of practical sympathy which enabled the business to be completed in the shortest possible time. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) that there are certain aspects of risks to be taken which ought, perhaps, to be borne by the private insurance corporations and not by the State, but, taking it all in all, the work of the Exports Credits Guarantee Department since its inception has been admirable in the interests of the trade of this country. I am particularly glad that the entrepôt trade is to be included in the ambit of the Bill.
  I hope very much that the Bill will be passed with the sympathy of the whole House, and that the extended facilities for the development of our export trade will be taken advantage of by the trading community. I am glad to think that, now and then, Measures are introduced here which are really commendable from every point of view, and which can be welcomed by hon. Members on this side of the House. This Measure is of that quality. We cannot say that with a clear conscience of all Measures which the Government introduce, and I am glad that on such occasions as this we can say, "Well done, Board of Trade," and so make up somewhat for our criticisms at other times.
  I am sure that hon. Members on the other side of the, House, concerned as they must be with continuity of employment amongst our people, must also be as interested in the passing of this Bill as we are on this side of the House who are concerned with finance and trading transactions. I have pleasure in supporting the Measure, and hope very much that it will have all the consequences in the way of practical help for the trading community of this country, anticipated by the President of the Board of Trade.
  4.48 p.m.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: I agree with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) who has left the Chamber, that it is a pity that the President
  1704
  of the Board of Trade was not able to stay on after making his speech to listen to the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton).
  Mr. Lyttelton: I think that, in fairness to the President of the Board of Trade, I ought to say that he wrote me a letter to say that he could not be here owing to some other appointment of great importance. I hope the hon. Member will excuse my interrupting him, but I think I ought to mention that.
  Mr. Granville: I appreciate that; but we have not all had the opportunity of receiving such a letter. However, it is a pity that the President was unable to stay, if only to receive the bouquets tendered from every part of the House on this extremely important Bill, which is an uncontroversial Bill. Perhaps, too, the right hon. Gentleman might have enjoyed listening to some of the arguments on invisible exports. The right hon. Member for Aldershot said we welcomed this Bill on all sides of the House. It is important. It is on account of rising sterling prices that this Bill is necessary. Maybe we shall have to consider, not Measures of this particular kind, but others of a similar character, as we enter the acute competitive stage in the world's markets, particularly because of the hybrid economy we have in this country, which has not yet had to face the post-war competition foreshadowed from Japan, Germany and the United States of America.
  The President of the Board of Trade referred to the part which the extension of this Measure would play in the hard currency areas. I hope that some attention will be given to the scheme which has, I believe, been started with some success whereby these facilities can be given to certain exports from this country to the hard currency areas, and export sales made from the warehouse. This will be increasingly important in the future largely because this country is finding that not only price and quality but the time of delivery in the hard currency areas is becoming increasingly important. By the time a salesman has gone from this country and sold goods in America or Canada, or wherever the hard currency area may be, and the order has been received here, a letter of credit taken out, etc., six, seven, eight or nine months may have elapsed,

  1705
  and in the meantime the customer has said, "Cancel the order and the letter of credit." The question of narrowing down that gap will be increasingly important. I believe that an interesting experiment has been begun of exporting regular lines in bulk to warehouses in the hard currency areas, with the salesmen selling from warehouse to customer, thus giving immediate delivery. This scheme has been referred to by the Secretary for Overseas Trade in a recent speech. I am sorry that he also is not here this afternoon.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): May I explain that my hon. Friend is at this moment preparing to leave the country very shortly and that has unavoidably prevented him from being here?
  Mr. Granville: I am sure that these Ministers are extremely busy and also that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give us an adequate reply on behalf of the Government. The Government are often too slow in giving support to changes in trade, and I hope that the Secretary for Overseas Trade will look at this interesting experiment which is taking place, and which may enable us considerably to increase our exports to the hard currency areas. I say that because over and over again, when Measures of this kind have been before the House, the Minister has stressed the vital importance of the hard currency areas. It is there that we shall meet strong competition in the future.
  Mr. W. Fletcher: Has the hon. Member borne in mind the considerable danger which exists of creating a stock of unsold goods in a warehouse in America? Experience shows that the final out-turn of the crop of dollars might be very much less than it would be by the other method.
  Mr. Granville: I agree that this experiment has to be watched very carefully and that we should see how it progresses. There have also been considerable losses to this country in the case of export orders which have had to wait for a long time for shipment, with the result that the orders have been cancelled and the goods left on the dockside here. The experiment will have to be confined to those regular lines which are known to be good and ready sellers, such as cotton goods in the case of the textile market.
  1706
  A reference has been made to the small producer. Many of the new ideas in design, texture and production in this country are coming, and will always come, from small, efficient production units, many of which know little about export trade. Numerous tributes have been paid to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, and I join in complimenting them. They always give the little man the best advice they can. There is a general feeling among these small exporters that they are not big enough or strong enough to tackle an important hard currency market, or indeed the export market at all. It may be that some provisions can be worked out within the terms of this Bill for some group arrangements for established well-known products which would encourage the small men to arrange a group credits scheme.
  Reverting to the question of the time lag in export orders, which will be so important in the case of our exports to certain markets, I would refer to the growing tendency to export by air freight, thereby shortening the time taken by the ordinary methods of shipping goods. It may be that this extra risk might well be looked at under this Bill. We all welcome the Measure, which is probably the first of the extraordinary Measures which will have to be taken to meet the full blast of competition in the world markets.
  4.56 p.m.
  Mr. Eccles: This is an important Bill. We are asked for £200 million more on the commercial account and a £100 million blank cheque in the other class of guarantees. The House is entitled to put questions, and while I have confidence in the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I wish we had someone here from the Department concerned, although I understand the reasons why there is no one from that Department here.
  The system of export credits is a marriage between the Government and private enterprise of which we all approve. The Government do not find the foreign buyer or make the contract, but they create conditions in which private individuals can trade more securely and widely than they otherwise could. That is a most desirable thing. The system was first introduced by Lord Swinton 25 years ago, when he was President of the Board of Trade, and it has gone on growing ever since. I wish that the

  1707
  President of the Board of Trade had said a little more about the importance of the amount of our exports which are covered by these policies relative to the whole.
  I have extracted some figures, and, so far as I can see, the total value of policies in 1945–46 was 12.8 per cent. of our exports, in 1946–47 their value was 13.5 per cent. and in 1947–48 it was 14.3 per cent. These are interesting figures. They show that while the value of our exports has doubled, the proportion of exports covered by these policies has slowly increased all the time. If one examines these figures it is obvious that the crop of bilateral agreements at the end of 1947 caused a big jump in the number of policies written by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. But we do not expect, or the Government tell us not to expect, our exports to go on increasing at the rate at which they have increased over the last two years. Therefore, unless the proportion of the total which is to be covered by these policies is rapidly to increase we do not need this additional £200 million.
  It is up to the Government to prove to us that the proportion of our total exports in the future to be covered by the policies is to be something very different from what has been the case in the past. I wonder if that will be so? In a little handbook put out by the Department called "Government Guarantees for Exporters," it is stated on page 10:
  "The service is of special value at a time like the present when exporters may be seeking business in countries where they have little or no exports."
  Elsewhere it says something to the effect that firms who are new to the export trade will naturally avail themselves of this service. I think that is true, but I wonder how many firms are likely to go into the export trade in the next year compared with the newcomers in the last two years. I may know the Government's answer as I happen to be sitting on the Standing Committee which is considering the Coal Industry Bill. There we have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power that the National Coal Board are to go into the export trade in a large way. It may well be therefore that this £200 million is to cover the National Coal Board in their bunkering, sales of mining machinery and the products of their
  1708
  ancillary businesses. The National Coal Board know nothing about the export trade. They are newcomers indeed. That may be the reason for requiring this sum. Perhaps the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will tell us.
  It may also be, as several other hon. Members have said, that the scheme could be more widely known. I am not sure that it gets the publicity that it deserves. I am not sure that all firms who would be well-advised to take up these policies are in fact doing so. I believe, if I recollect correctly, that in the Debate of last July, the President of the Board of Trade said that the Department were going to open branch offices in the provinces. We should like to know what has been done about these branch offices.
  I should also like to ask whether the Department exchanges information with the banks and merchant firms because it must be the case that, by this time, a unique volume of information about the status of foreign powers and other matters relating to export markets has been collected in the E.C.G.D. When the Department wants to get a report upon some aspect of the export business from one of the British banks or one of the merchant firms that report is always given. In that direction the information flows automatically. Does it flow in the other direction? Is the Department also open to be asked by those people, especially the people guaranteeing credit, for information, and does it give this information away—is it a two-way street?
  How are we going to improve the system of guarantees? We want something rather more flexible. When the Department started off, it began rather simply and on rather narrow lines, but today there are at least two directions in which the service could be improved. Hon. Members will know that in the majority of commercial transactions, if not in all, the exporter must underwrite with the Department all the risks. He has to take out a comprehensive policy covering the solvency of his debtor, the risk of war, the risk that a foreign country may put on exchange control, the risk that there may be some change in the import policy. All the risks must be insured against together.
  The time has come for the Department to allow the insurer to select his risk. For instance, anyone exporting to South America today—say to the Argentine—

  1709
  would obviously want to insure against a sudden shutting down of the transfer of Argentine money into sterling. On the other hand, the buyer in the Argentine may be a man whose solvency is not in question at all. Why should the trader have to take out a policy which covers a risk which does not interest him? Supposing he is exporting to Malaya, he may say, "I want to cover the risk of some Communist bandit destroying the goods on arrival." That may be the only risk he wants to insure when exporting to Malaya. Would it not assist British trade and the whole purpose of the system of guarantees to refine a little on this aspect of the business and allow the exporter a wider choice in selecting the risk which he wishes to cover?
  Following on what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Errol) said, I would add that nobody forces the exporter to take one of these policies. If he thinks that he can get the risk underwritten better by a private insurance company he goes to the company. E.C.G.D. is there to underwrite risks that the exporter finds he cannot get covered somewhere else. However the argument that the insurance would be better left to private firms may turn upon splitting up these various types of risk. So long as E.C.G.D. insists on underwriting all or none of these risks the exporter concerned may have to take out a comprehensive policy in order to insure against civil riots, which is a risk beyond the insurance company's purview, and, at the same time, insure against other risks which could be underwritten privately.
  The second improvement is this: In the past the Department has advised, if not insisted upon, an exporter covering with them the whole of his business in a certain market. Supposing that a man is exporting to Egypt and he goes to the Department. They say, "You must cover all your Egyptian business." I wonder whether there should not be a certain amount of relaxation in that respect. The exporter should be allowed to take out policies in respect of certain parts of his transactions—those which he considers peculiarly risky—and if there are some he does not consider so risky, it might be reasonable if he did not have to spend money to insure them.
  I see the point of view of E.C.G.D. They want to spread the risk and insure the largest amount of trade in order that
  1710
  any bad debts may bear a smaller proportion to the whole. As time goes on, their experience is built up, they know more about these markets, and more flexibility in this respect would be both safe and desirable.
  Mr. Benson: Was that not introduced a little time ago?
  Mr. Eccles: I think that there is more flexibility now, but I should like to see it go further than it does. Turning to this £100 million—this blank cheque—for these special guarantees, the President said quite rightly, that in this case the Advisory Committee is not brought in. There is no safeguard of business experience. When that committee says that a risk is not a good commercial risk the President of the Board of Trade steps in and writes the risk on his own. It is a serious thing to give a blank cheque for £100 million to do anything which a Minister may think to be conducive to the national interest, and I want the Economic Secretary to tell us concerning the £60 million, which was the previous limit for this kind of guarantee, how much of that sum is in use today, because if it were the case that nothing like the full £60 million is being used, the House ought not to increase that limit to £100 million. The Government must show us that there is a real need for the additional £40 million which we are giving them as a blank cheque.
  I was interested in several suggestions made by hon. Members, and by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) in particular, about expanding the use of this kind of guarantee to trade passing outside this Kingdom. I want to ask whether this form of increasing the transferability of sterling—because that is what is amounts to—has been linked up with the Marshall plan and O.E.E.C. This might be a very fruitful development and it might well assist to increase trade between the different Marshall countries if, when the principal of the business is British, a guarantee of this kind could he effected. I think that it can be under the Bill, but I am asking the Economic Secretary: Is it the policy of the Government that it should be?
  My hon. Friend the Member or Altrincham and Sale mentioned the movement of raw materials froth one country to another, processing in the second, and the sale of the finished product

  1711
  to a third, and I wish to ask a specific question about the manufacture of newsprint and paper. At the present time there is a large amount of pulp rotting in Scandinavia which if brought here could be made into paper, and the export of the finished material to Australia and South Africa is certain; they want the finished paper. Now if something is not done to assist the movement of that raw material to this country what will happen is that the Australians will buy their finished newsprint in Scandinavia and by-pass this country altogether. That cannot be in the interests of the United Kingdom. I do not know whether under this Bill an advance of sterling could be made to these countries, but is it the policy of the Government to use these guarantees to assist the movement of raw materials to the manufacturing capacity in that sort of way?
  I have been approached by some people who want the Department to extend its business in one direction relative to imports, which I think is very interesting. It appears that bilateral trade agreements made by His Majesty's Government often contain promises of, let us say, a large quantity of timber from some Eastern European country. Then those who actually have to do the cutting and shipping of the timber come to the merchant in the United Kingdom who is to buy the timber and say, "We should like an advance while we are preparing this material for export to the United Kingdom." The importer here replies, "There are many political risks. I do not understand the situation in Poland"—or the Baltic, or wherever it may be—"I cannot give you an advance against this timber," which is written into the trade agreement, "unless I can get that money guaranteed, in case the Government of the shipping country turn sour or quarrel with His Majesty's Government and cut the trade off." It would be reasonable under this £100 million special guarantee for the Department to give that sort of help, and I hope that the Economic Secretary will examine that aspect.
  I turn now to a further extension of the activities of the Department. If we are to encourage the specialised production in Europe of products which take the place of what we now have to buy
  1712
  from the dollar area, a considerable amount of capital construction and new development will have to take place. The Americans, recognising that one cannot easily persuade people to put their money into a country whose currency is fluctuating and may depreciate, have set up under the Economic Co-operation Administrator a guarantee fund for American capital, so that the rate of exchange is guaranteed to them when they put their money into one of these Western European countries.
  His Majesty's Government will have to contemplate the same sort of guarantee for British capital. If we want to set up a factory in France today, who is going to pay for it, not knowing what the francs which he gets for his £ when he is starting the business tomorrow will be worth in five years' time. That is a risk of the same kind that the E.C.G.D. have been undertaking hitherto; it is a risk which the Americans have already covered; and I suggest that we should do the same.
  I am sorry to keep the House so long, but I now come to my final point, which is about the accounts. The hon. Member for Chesterfield knows more about National Accounts than I do; but I must say that any kind of accounts we can have relative to this £100 million would be better than no accounts.
  Mr. Benson: I said that.
  Mr. Eccles: Let us have the best accounts we can get, because we must not allow such large sums of money to disappear without knowing what has happened to them.
  Mr. Benson: I said that I highly approved of accounts. I merely commented that I could not understand them.
  Mr. Eccles: I have a word to say about the actual accounts of the E.C.G.D. as we find them today. In the, I think it is called, "Trade, Accounts and Balances" is found an under-writing account of the operations of the E.C.G.D., at the bottom of which is a note which says that the number of policies outstanding is so much, and that the contingent liability on 31st March last was so much. That is merely a note on that balance sheet. When one turns to the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom—in which there is a section setting out all the contingent liabilities of His Majesty's Government; their contingent

  1713
  liability in respect of war damage payments, and all that sort of thing—there is no record at all of the contingent liability in respect of the E.C.G.D. policies. That is bad. Somewhere amongst the other contingent liabilities of the Government we ought to see the sum which is assured by these policies, and I ask the Economic Secretary to look into that.
  This is a good scheme. It is well worth refining and making still better. To those who claim it as a great example of public enterprise I would say that the real point is this: Government interference has created certain risks which private people cannot insure, and therefore the Government have had to come along and provide a means for dealing with the disturbances they and other Governments have themselves created. Well, that is all right; that is the way the world goes; and with all the policies that are brought under the £500 million, and are supervised by the Advisory Committee we have no quarrel. With regard to the £100 million, we want some more information; we particularly want to know whether the £60 million is used to date or not, and if not why the Government have asked for any more.
  5.18 p.m.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): We are very grateful for the variety of practical suggestions made this evening, and we shall take careful note of them. We have also been very pleased to notice the almost enthusiastic, and indeed unanimous support which the Opposition have today given to what has been called a successful example of public enterprise, whose activities we are seeking to expand by this Bill. Last week in the general economic Debate I was able to congratulate the Opposition on their conversion to the policy of general economic planning. Today I can congratulate them further on their conversion to support of public enterprise, at any rate in some of its forms. For of course the Export Credits Guarantee Department is entirely a Government Department; it is not even a commercially organised corporation like some of the public corporations; it is actually part of a Government Department.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to be unfair, but I think his phrase about the export credits was a little unfortunate, in that
  1714
  he said that this party had been converted to the idea. The sort of assumption he asks people to make is that this is a Socialist experiment, whereas of course quite the reverse is the case.
  Mr. Jay: I was saying that this is a successful public enterprise, and we are very glad to have general support for it. It shows from experience that an actual departmental organisation can, in fact, carry on a successful commercial and trading business. We are all agreed that the success of the Department is great, and growing and undisputed. It is operating in a field where private enterprise, for perfectly understandable reasons, had failed to function. It is building up a very large business which is benefiting our export trade, and which has been of great assistance to the more enterprising sections of private business.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), may I say that many small firms already know about this Department, because a large proportion of the business done by it is with small firms. I agree that we must do all we can to publicise the Department's activities and to bring them to the notice of small business. This pamphlet, known as "Government Guarantees for Exporters," which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), is part of the policy of making the Department known to small firms. The values of the policies issued have grown on an average from £43 million a year before the war to £72 million in 1945–46, and £198 million in the first nine months of this year. It is, of course, the growth of the Department's business, due partly to higher prices, partly to greater export trade and partly to greater risks, which has necessitated this Bill. It does not supersede or supplant private enterprise in any way. In fact, it supplements the activities of private enterprise.
  The Department does not actually make the credits, and therefore, it does not compete with any of the institutions which make the credits. It simply guarantees the repayment of the credit to the seller. The hon. Member for Chippenham gave the answer to one of the questions of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), who inquired whether the Department was not in danger of stepping in and undertaking the guarantee of normal commercial risks, which ought

  1715
  to be undertaken by ordinary business. There is no need for any firm to ask for these guarantees unless it wishes to; and if it can get insurance or credits in any other way, the question does not arise. Therefore, I do not think that that is a serious danger.
  Mr. Erroll: I had also in mind the case of credit arrangements with the United States, which was referred to by the President of the Board of Trade, and the setting up of sales offices, which is not a risk which should be underwritten by a Government Department at all.
  Mr. Jay: All this Department can do is to guarantee for the benefit of a resident in the United Kingdom a credit made for the purposes of earning foreign exchange. If that is the situation, it might have a function to perform; but I do not think it is going to overstep the mark in the way the hon. Gentleman suggested.
  All this business, has, of course, been conducted on a growing scale and without any charge falling on the taxpayer. Indeed, up to date over the whole period the income from premiums has exceeded all out payments to such an extent that a surplus of £6 million has been accumulated and invested as a reserve with the Exchequer. The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) talked about it disappearing into the Exchequer. Of course, it represents a reserve from the point of view of the Department for which it earns interest. We have, therefore, here an example of a public enterprise which has not merely been very successful, but has succeeded in earning an actual surplus for the taxpayer over a period of years.
  The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale asked me various questions about Clause 2. There is nothing sinister about it. It continues the new provision introduced in 1939 for giving guarantees where there are risks of a non-commercial character. A guarantee can only be given for the benefit of persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom, and it can only be done where it appears to the Board of Trade to be in the national interests. These are sufficient safeguards. The hon. Member asked whether the Department could operate in the case of British owned foreign patents. The answer to him is, "Yes, under the revised Bill it would be possible to bring that in."
  1716
  The hon. Member for Chippenham asked me whether the promised branch offices have now been opened. As a matter of fact, if he looks at the last page of the pamphlet, which he mentioned in his speech, he will see that nine such offices are mentioned. We have succeeded in making some progress there. He also asked me whether information is exchanged with ordinary private banks, and whether the information is a two way traffic and not one way. The answer to that is, "Yes. The Department is in the closest contact with the banks in all relevant matters involving information of that, kind." Thirdly, he asked me how much of the £60 million maximum figure is at present outstanding. As a matter of fact, there is only £8 million outstanding. We are nevertheless raising the total to £100 million because we expect a considerable expansion of business under this head.
  Not merely has the Department proved very successful in the past; but it is peculiarly well fitted in the future to contribute to the paramount job of sustaining the export drive. Exporting is not merely a vital business for this country, but it is an exceedingly risky one. That is why we are extending the maximum liability and why we are bringing in invisible exports, which I do not think hon. Members on this side of the House have been in the habit of denigrating or casting aspersions on. I do not think any one from this side of the House has cast aspersions on the Merchant Navy, and I have no intention of denigrating invisible exports.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville), I should like to say that we are proposing to relax the rule previously observed by the Department that its activities were not to be used to steer exports to hard currency countries or to any particular destinations. We have now got to use every weapon we have to direct or steer exports to the dollar countries. If we refrain from planning the direction of our exports in a world of inconvertible currencies—we must work on the assumption that many currencies are going to be incontrovertible for some time—we shall inevitably run into balance of payment difficulties. We did not, in fact, solve this problem of the switch of exports on a large scale to dollar countries in 1948; and probably the major economic task of 1949 is going to be to

  1717
  carry out such a switch, above all to the North American continent. The Export Credits Guarantee Department will be one of the weapons we shall use for that purpose. We shall not, of course, push this use of the Department for export-steering purposes to the point of endangering its commercial success; but short of that we shall do anything which our national export policy demands.
  In the future, therefore, the aim of the Department should be not merely to support our export trade generally, but to stimulate in particular our sales in hard currency markets. For all these reasons, and as a further contribution to our national recovery drive, I commend to the House this Measure for increasing the powers of this highly successful public enterprise.
  Mr. Benson: Has my hon. Friend anything to say about exploring the possibility of carrying foreign risks which are not related merely to residents in this country, with the idea of earning invisible exports?
  Mr. Jay: We shall certainly explore that possibility; but the Bill as it stands provides for the services of the Department to be confined to residents in this country. It might have been supposed that the governments of other countries, if they had wished, could have provided similar services for their nationals; but certainly we shall explore the possibility.
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: While we realise that the President of the Board of Trade may have important engagements that he should keep, I think there is a growing tendency for Ministers to accept engagements for days on which they are in charge of particular Debates. Attendance at Debates is among their primary duties, and they should be here. I think this was an opportunity for the newly-appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to be here as well. We could not expect that he would speak with Ministerial authority on the subject, but at least we should have made contact with him in his new capacity. The Minister who is here ought to convey to his colleagues the feeling of resentment which is felt in this House at this growing tendency, although we appreciate very much the way in which the hon. Gentleman has dealt with the Bill himself. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for
  1718
  Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) reminds me that the Secretary for Overseas Trade is also missing.
  Mr. Jay: I have already explained to the House that the Secretary for Overseas Trade is about to leave the country on official business, and that he is in the midst of his preparations for doing so.
  Mr. Baxter: I know, and I am aware that we had that explanation, but this adds to the Ministerial absentees. The subject of Front Bench absenteeism is something which we may have to discuss.
  There has been today a very large and almost complete measure of agreement on the Bill, but I do not think it would be wise for the Government party to misunderstand what has happened. We have been discussing the spectacle of the Government using the national credit to facilitate and encourage private enterprise in the export trade. I think we all agree on this side of the House that, under the new, developing system of economics and world trade, the Government must play an increasingly important part in enunciating the philosophy of trade and in creating facilities for trade. It has been a criticism in the past that we have never used our national credit to the extent that we ought to have done. Let us remember that this plan was initiated by the party on this side of the House 25 years ago. Where we part company is when the Government of the day makes the mistake of competing with private enterprise, ceases to assist and facilitate it, and enters into direct trade. That is something with which we can never agree. Today we have a compromise with common sense.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. J. Henderson.]

  EXPORT GUARANTEES [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 84.— [King's Recommendation signified.]
  [Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to make further provision with respect to the powers of the Board of Trade to give

  1719
  guarantees in connection with overseas transactions, it is expedient:

  A. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses of the Board of Trade under the Act in connection with arrangements—

  (i) for giving, after consultation with an Advisory Council, guarantees (up to an aggregate amount of five hundred million pounds in respect of the liability of the Board at any one time under the Act and certain other enactments) for the purpose of encouraging trade with places outside the United Kingdom (as defined in the Act), being guarantees given in connection with matters which appear to the Board of Trade conducive to the said purpose;

  (ii) for giving further guarantees (up to an aggregate amount of one hundred million pounds in respect of the liability of the Board at any one time under the Act and certain other enactments) for the purpose of encouraging trade as aforesaid or for the purpose of rendering economic assistance to countries outside the United Kingdom, being such guarantees as appear to the Board to be expedient in the national interest.

  B. To provide that in the event of any amount required for fulfilling any guarantee given under the Act not being paid out of moneys provided by Parliament it shall be charged on, and issued out of, the Consolidated Fund.

  C. To authorise the making from time to time out of the Consolidated Fund of issues of such sums as may be required to enable the Board of Trade to acquire securities guaranteed by them under the Act and certain other enactments.

  D. To authorise, for providing money for making such issues, or for replacing such sums, the raising of money in any manner in which it is authorised to be raised under the National Loans Act, 1939.

  E. To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of interest on such sums, the repayment into the Exchequer of such sums, and the payment into the Exchequer of the amount by which the receipts of the Board of Trade in respect of the securities acquired by them as aforesaid exceed the amounts required for the said payment and repayment, and to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such payments and repayments and their application in redemption or repayment of debt or, so far as they represent interest, in payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt."—[Mr. Jay.]

  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

    CLAUSE 3.—(Dates for commencing and terminating school attendance.)
    5.36 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the beginning, to insert:
    "For Section thirty-three of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following Section:— 33."
    This Amendment is necessary because a new Clause was added to the Bill, and the necessity for stating that this was a Clause substituted for Section 33 of the Act by a clerical error did not appear on the Amendment Paper.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 25, leave out "two," and insert "three."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

  SCHEDULE
  Amendment made: In page 6, line 52, at end, insert:
  "and the following Subsection shall be added at the end of the Section:
  (4) In this, Section the expression 'local authority' means a county, town or district council."—[Mr. Woodburn.]
  5.37 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  This is a short but important Bill. It tidies up a great many matters which have come to light since the passing of the original Education Act. In addition to that, in its first Clause it unfortunately postpones the starting day for junior colleges in Scotland. These were intended to start on a fixed day, but it has become quite evident that the building programme in Scotland will make it quite impossible for Scottish education authorities to comply with the terms of the Act. It is always bad to have an Act of Parliament that cannot be carried out. If the practical realities of the situation do not comply with the Act, clearly the necessity is to make the Act a practical proposition. During the discussion of the Bill, everyone has regretted this postponement of the junior colleges. Junior colleges are fairly large establishments with fairly large buildings. My calculation is that their draw on the building

  1721
  trade is equivalent to about 200 houses. I am sure that no local authority could afford to sacrifice the materials and labour necessary to build 200 houses, even for the sake of having a junior college.
  Let me admit that our country has set itself after the war to accomplish a tremendous programme of social advance. That social advance is necessarily limited by the development of our resources. If the resources are not there, the programme cannot be carried out in full. Therefore it is clear, especially in connection with junior colleges, health centres and other such matters which require to draw upon a limited building trade, that a system of priorities has to be determined, and that those priorities are definitely with the mines, factories, houses and ordinary schools for the extension of the school leaving age, and buildings for school meals, before health centres and junior colleges.
  As was explained in the Scottish Grand Committee, this postponement does not mean that it is a permanent postponement. Each of the authorities has been asked to prepare a scheme for further education and in due course those schemes will be submitted to that Department where consideration will be given to them and a programme of progressing will be determined to comply with the practical possibilities of the building trade. This Bill deals to a large extent with this aspect of further education. In some respects Scotland is not doing as well as its southern neighbour in regard to day release classes, especially in regard to technical subjects. In Scotland a great deal of reliance was placed on the old apprenticeship system which was very thorough and very good but there is just a danger that because of its goodness in the past it may still be considered adequate for the present.
  On the other hand, there are examples in Dundee, Edinburgh, Coatbridge and elsewhere of further education development where great steps forward have been taken in the kind of education which prepares a boy for his future aétivities. In Dundee there is a trade school where the boys from day release and the boys who are going into industry are able to have, as it were, a bird's eye view and a little practice in order to sample for themselves the industry which is most fitted to their capacities. I understand that the
  1722
  Army had such a sieve or clearing house by which the capacities of different people were found and they were then directed as far as possible into the channel where their activities would be most useful. In these schools boys have the best training in the shortest possible time.
  In Scotland in the past we have relied on the school of experience, and I am the last to deny the valuable training which comes from that school. Scotland has produced some very fine people from it, but it is an expensive school. It takes a long time, and the whole purpose of science is to compress the experience of the past into a shorter space of time so that everybody does not need to go through the same process of experience in order to acquire at least the elementary and fundamental principles upon which they will develop.
  Evening classes will continue. Here again, in the past, Scotland has had a very considerable proportion of her youngsters attending these evening classes, but in spite of the fact that this has been possible, there has not been anything like the attendance which we desired. On the other hand, it would be quite wrong to think that this work must necessarily wait until huge buildings are established in the form of junior colleges. The idea that a college is a building is quite fallacious. Many people have learned without a building, and the whole world is a college, provided that proper direction is given to the student as to where to seek his knowledge, and a great deal of improvisation and experimentation can be done in the meantime in order to get at least the first lines of this further education going so that when the buildings are ready there will have been a great deal of trial and error to prove what the right road is.
  I hope that in the meantime, even before we reach the point where every local authority can provide junior colleges, at least some local authorities will be able to provide prototypes and enable us to see the system at work. Clearly it would be quite impossible to make it compulsory on all local authorities if it meant diverting their energy from more fundamental things at the moment in order to deal with junior colleges. At the moment the local authorities are earmarking the sites where these junior colleges will eventually be built, and I have no doubt that by the time these schemes are submitted they

  1723
  will have surveyed the whole ground, putting the junior colleges, adult education, community centre training and all the various outlets for cultural development in those who have left school, in their proper perspective and setting, so that we shall get a balanced picture from which we can formulate our programme for the future.
  This should be available by next year, and by that time we shall be in a position to discuss where we go from there. In the meantime, the authorities are doing all they can. They cannot build until they have made their plans. At the moment they are in the stage of planning, and all that this Bill does is to postpone the date which is obligatory at the moment until such time as we can lay down a date when the colleges can start in earnest. The other Amendments are very largely of the clearing house type and for tidying up the legislation as it formerly existed.
  I want to thank the Scottish Grand Committee for the expeditious way in which they have dealt with the Bill. It ought also to be pointed out that the Bill makes history. It is the first Bill which will have passed through the House under the new arrangements whereby the Second Reading of Bills may be debated in the Scottish Grand Committee. If, as I anticipate, it passes with good will it will show that, as is not readily understood outside, a great part of the work of the House is done by the co-operation of all hon. Members and that in many of the Bills which we pass and in much of the work which we do, we deal with these matters in a practical way according to our objective understanding of the problems placed before us, and that on some of these matters there is never any question of cross-party voting. People decide these matters entirely on their merits and a great deal of the work in the House bears the contributions of back bench hon. Members who have taken their part in the discussion of Bills. In moving the Third Reading, I thank hon. Members for their co-operation in bringing the Bill to this stage.
  5.48 p.m.
  Commander Galbraith: As we are concerned with the Third Reading of the Bill, it is only in Order to deal with subjects which are actually in the Bill, and beyond that I
  1724
  will not go. As the Secretary of State said, the real importance of the Bill lies in Clause 1 and the other Clauses merely make for clarity in the principal Act and prevent hardship arising in certain cases. The Opposition welcome those other provisions but we are quite certain that no hon. Member can possibly welcome Clause 1.
  The postponement of the date on which the junior colleges shall come into being is a cause of very deep disappointment to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to all persons who are interested in education. I was rather horrified at the admission of the right hon. Gentleman that in certain respects Scotland was not now keeping pace with education in England. I hope he will see that that matter is rectified at the very earliest possible moment because hitherto we have always prided ourselves on being considerably ahead of what happens in the neighbouring country.
  We have been assured by the Secretary of State that there is no practical possibility of meeting the objective laid down in the Bill. That we must accept. It is the Government who know all the facts, and we have no access to a certain number of them. Therefore, this decision is one made on the Government's own responsibility, and in that we have no share. Everyone will hope that the appointed day will not be long postponed, and that the steps which the right hon. Gentleman is taking will be speedy. We have his further assurance that this is not a delaying matter, and that also we accept in the spirit in which it is given. All I can add is one more hope that we shall have these junior colleges in being, remembering always that they are not just buildings but something that can be carried on outwith the sphere of the large type of building altogether, and in many, different places.
  5.51 p.m.
  Mr. Rankin: While it may be true that we regret the fact that the appointed day for the commencement of the junior colleges has not been stated in Clause 1, nevertheless it must be appreciated that the Government are facing a situation of extreme difficulty. While my right hon. Friend has declared that this matter is a priority, we have to remember that there are other priorities equally significant and equally important. I share in his regret that the appointed

  1725
  day is not a possibility at the moment, but I welcome his assurance that every temporary expedient which could be undertaken by the local authorities to bridge this acknowledged gap in our educational system would have the full support of his Department.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) said that Clause 1 was the most important part of this Bill. In some ways that is true, but there are other important aspects to which one ought to devote some attention. One occurs in the Schedules. I refer to space requirements in school premises. In the Debate on the Scottish Estimates in 1947, I first raised the question of the size of school premises. In replying, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary pointed out that this was a complex matter which was engaging the close attention of his Department. Beyond that he did not venture. On the Estimates in July last year I returned to this question, and regretted that my right hon. Friend had not the power to make regulations with regard to space requirements. The Under-Secretary, in replying, stated that the Secretary of State could only make recommendation because he "had not statutory authority to make regulations," unlike his colleague the Minister of Education. It is important to note that in Section 20 (I) of the Schedule, my right hon. Friend now has power under this Bill to make regulations laying down the size of school premises. There is no argument about the necessity for space in class rooms, in playing fields, and in all the other aspects of education today, and it is most important that the Minister now has that power.
  With all respect, I suggest to him that in applying these regulations, as he will have to do, he should take three points into consideration. The first is that, in laying down the space requirements for the size of school premises, no discrimination will be exercised between rural and urban schools. In many ways, if there has to be discrimination, it ought to be in favour of the urban school, because the need for space there is more important. However, the ease with which we can get space in the rural areas is greater and, because of that, I hope that when he comes to face the need for these regulations he will make no distinction in treatment between rural and urban areas.
  1726
  Secondly, when he deals with the urban areas which, in our new development plans will be zoned into outer, intermediate and inner areas, he will be faced with the fact that the inner area, more congested, needs greater space for educational purposes. Again, I suggest that in the zoning areas he should make no discrimination in the space requirements for those different areas. It does not mean that immediately he will have to create that space. He may only be able to get an acre or two at the time he wants it, but he should consider the advisability of designating the land in the vicinity of the school premises so that, when development takes place in the town, that land will be available for use.
  In the closing part of Section 20 (I), my right hon. Friend is given power to modify these standards if he thinks fit. Again, I suggest that he only utilises that power in very exceptional circumstances and that when he does so, it should be only for a temporary period. I should like to recall to him the fact that his colleague the Minister of Education, speaking recently to an educational body in England, laid down that that was the policy he intended to follow. I should like the Secretary of State for Scotland to pay attention to the attitude of the Ministry of Education in England as far as this part of the Schedule is concerned. We have always been proud to think that in education Scotland has always set a high standard and I should not like it to be thought that we were merely following England. I hope that in this respect we shall not merely follow but will lead once again as we have always done.
  6.1 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: A short time ago we were discussing the Export Guarantees Bill which met with a great deal of acceptance and, indeed, enthusiasm on all sides of the House. But now I am afraid that we are dealing with the final stages of a Bill which is not welcome to any of us, but which, we realise, is necessary because of circumstances described by members of the Government during the earlier stages of this Measure.
  So far as the Schedule and most of the Bill is concerned, some minor administrative changes are made which are, I think, to the general advantage of our educational system, although they are not

  1727
  such as will arouse any great excitement. We are, however, all concerned about Clause 1 and to know that the date of opening of the junior colleges must be postponed indefinitely. The Secretary of State has told us today that local authorities are going ahead and earmarking sites. I understood him to say that at about the end of the year they will be able to render to him some kind of progress report on the position as it then stands. I should like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary, when he comes to reply, if he can give us any indication, however vague, when he anticipates these colleges will be ready—whether it will be in, say, three or five years' time, always assuming that no major emergency or calamity arises to upset our plans.
  In moving the Third Reading of the Bill, the Secretary of State referred to Scotland's not doing very well in the matter of day classes on technical subjects. I think that quite a number of people in Scotland are rather concerned at the present state of education. There have been a number of disquieting discussions about it. In particular, there was held in Arbroath at about the end of December a conference of the Educational Institute of Scotland. I read the Press accounts of that conference with very great interest. According to the "Glasgow Herald" of 30th December, a former president of the Educational Institute said:
  "…that never at any time in her career had things educationally in Scotland been worse than they are today."
  Those are grave—indeed, very disquieting—words, coming from a person of long experience and responsibility in the field of education. This matter, therefore, is one which must concern all Scottish Members very much indeed. For that reason, it is with a good deal of sorrow and misgiving that we have to pass this Bill tonight, knowing that it is further retarding the progress of educational development in our country.
  6.4 p.m.
  Miss Herbison: It was not my intention to take any part in this Debate. It is very clear, however, that Clause 1 is the Clause which is causing the greatest discontent. I was very interested to find the Secretary of State had said that at the end of a year local authorities are to be asked for details of
  1728
  their plans for junior colleges. The hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) has asked the Joint Under-Secretary of State if he can say whether those plans will materialise in three or five years' time.
  I can well understand the feelings of hon. Members opposite on this question, because many of the problems facing us today would not be confronting us had they been dealt with at the proper time. In 1918, for instance, a date had to be appointed for the raising of the school-leaving age. It was not a case then of three or five years, but of 21 years, before the date was introduced. Nevertheless, I support the hon. and gallant Member in trying to ascertain how long we must wait for the introduction of junior colleges.
  Having been a teacher before I came to this House and having been a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland, by whom the conference in Arbroath was held, I know many of the members who were then present. That statement in the Press was one of the very few statements carried by the Press about that conference. It gave the headlines of journalists who had attended the whole of the conference solely in an effort to find headlines. But that statement, which was made by the ex-President of the Institute, was by no means endorsed by the majority of teachers who attended the conference. That is the main reason why I have risen to speak in this Debate.
  It is completely wrong for the impression to go out to Scottish parents and children that education in Scotland is in a much worse state today than it has ever been. I keep in very close contact with my former colleagues and I know that, although many problems are facing them, they are approaching those problems in the proper way, accepting them not merely as problems but as challenges and opportunities. I am convinced that, because of the attitude of the majority of teachers in Scotland and the attempts which are being made to overcome the serious difficulties, we in this House need not worry at all about the present or the future of Scottish education.
  6.8 p.m.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) has given us, perhaps, a little

  1729
  hope that what was said by the lady at Arbroath, who, after all, had very great experience, did not represent the opinion of a large number of teachers. As I have said upstairs, however, I am one of those people who believe that the education of our country today is on thoroughly unsound lines. It makes the basis of education the passing of examinations and not the development of character. So long as we go about it in that way, I do not think we shall ever get right. I will not dwell on this question, however, because I do not think it is strictly in Order. I noticed that I was about to get into trouble, so I will pass on.
  It was with great interest and some disquiet that I heard the right hon. Gentleman explain that one of the reasons why junior colleges cannot be built is because of the effect it would have on the housing situation, which, as we all know, is a very serious one. I understood him to say that one of these colleges would represent, roughly speaking. about 200 houses—traditional houses, I presume, and not the illuminated chicken-coop type. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman's Department intends to build these junior colleges on what I would call a semi-permanent basis and not on a very permanent basis like the old ones, which are too dreadful to think of and which must be pulled right down because they cannot be adapted to modern needs.
  The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) contributed a very valuable point when he dealt with the conditions in these schools as far as their construction is concerned. I think it a great mistake to do what has been done in the past, to erect a very expensive building of a permanent nature when, in the proper order of things, what is required in schools, as in hospitals, is something which can be adapted to ever-changing needs. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary can give some assurance that this figure of 200 houses being equal to one junior college is not assuming that that college is to be of the super-permanent type, but of the modern type, seen in Sweden, Switzerland and other places, capable of modernisation as improvements come forward in educational building.
  1730
  I am entirely in favour of these junior colleges and, like other hon. Members, I am very sorry that it is not possible to give a date for them at present. I hope it will not be very long before that can be done. I also hope that the request of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) for some idea of when the Government think it likely that some of these buildings may be put in hand will be answered, although that idea must be a very rough one. I welcome the Bill in principle and very much hope it will not be long before Clause 1 becomes operative.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: While agreeing with most hon. Members who have spoken this evening that we very much regret the necessity for this Bill, we must fully appreciate that, with the passing of the main Act and the time-lag of work and preparation, there are today, many areas which, far from being ready and able to build junior colleges, wish they could put up all the necessary schools they require. In Kilmarnock we very much need primary schools and a large secondary school, and I know the difficulties which face the Secretary of State for Scotland in this respect.
  My right hon. Friend said that in this matter of adult education England was getting the lead on Scotland. We should spare no effort to make up the ground. I remind hon. Members opposite that this is not a case of our having lost the lead, because what we are proposing to do under the junior college scheme is to cater for the education of children after school-leaving age, which hitherto, I am sorry to say, has been completely neglected. Because of that, I am concerned about the postponement of the appointed day and the fact that it is left to the Secretary of State in the vague phrase:
  "as early a day as he considers practicable."
  We remember only too bitterly the fact that the 1918 Act was similarly vague and it was 28 years before the school-leaving age was raised. We do not want a repetition of that.
  Among the minor amendments in the Bill, there is one I wish to commend. I was interested in the remark of the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) that the passing of examinations is not the be-all and end-all of education. I am afraid that Scottish

  1731
  education has been too much obsessed with that idea and from the time a child started school the higher leaving certificate was continually kept before him. I welcome the Amendment to Section 70 of the principal Act, which substitutes for the words,
  "of conducting leaving certificate examinations,"
  the words,
  "incurred by the Secretary of State in conducting examinations for the award of certificates relating to secondary education."
  That foreshadows a completely changed attitude to examinations in schools. There is every possibility that with this change, we in Scotland will get away from the cribbing, cabining and confining of academic education and will give a far wider and broader education in secondary schools to those who are now getting secondary education for the first time up to age 15, and even those beyond that age. I sincerely hope that the appointed day will not be too long postponed and that the Secretary of State will use the intervening years for what is really vitally necessary in this kind of work, which is new to Scotland—experimentation and the giving of freedom to authorities to go ahead.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. McKie: I presume that the Secretary of State for Scotland will feel a measure of gratitude to the hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) for her intervention—
  Mr. Woodburn: I do.
  Mr. McKie: Yes, but only a measure of gratitude, because he must not think that the hon. Lady was giving unqualified blessing to his proposals in the Bill. She pressed him, as other hon. Members have pressed him and as I intend to press him, to give some indication of the period of time which is to elapse before the appointed day. The reason the right hon. Gentleman must feel a measure of gratitude to the hon. Lady is because, in her opening sentence, she endeavoured to import some political prejudice into the discussion.
  Mr. Woodburn: I think the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) misunderstands. The reflection was on Scottish education and not on the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think my hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark
  1732
  (Miss Herbison) rightly rebutted what is a slander on Scottish education.
  Mr. McKie: I go a little further, I was about to say that the hon. Lady did her best to import political prejudice into this discussion in her opening sentence because she asked her right hon. Friend not to be too dismayed, but to consider the sins of omission of his predecessors in office who, no doubt, in some degree, were responsible for the present state of affairs in regard to Scottish education.
  Miss Herbison: What I was taking up was the statement by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) that we had waited five years. These things are apt to be reported in the Scottish Press and it is just as well that hon. Members opposite should remember the very long time we on this side of the House had to wait. It was not three, or five years, but 21 years.
  Mr. McKie: I am very glad of that intervention. The hon. Lady has confirmed every word I have said, and not merely confirmed, but amplified her previous statement. I am delighted to have that complete assurance from her. As I listened to her originally, and again just now, I could imagine her developing that argument with considerable personal charm in Scotland.
  I felt considerable sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman when he was making his speech. He was apologetic, as he had to be—he almost appeared in a white sheet. He alluded to the very ambitious programme which the Government, of which he is such a distinguished and ornamental member, have undertaken in the three or four years he has held office and suggested that it was not possible, owing to some of the larger schemes, to attend to many of the minor ones which are at present so clamantly needing attention. The right hon. Gentleman did his best—and he has the goodwill of both sides of the House—to secure a unanimous approval for this postponement, and I for one do not intend to strike too jarring a note in that connection.
  I was particularly struck by the example given by the right hon. Gentleman of what it would have meant to Scotland in loss of houses if the appointed day had been as was originally

  1733
  intended. Two hundred houses may not seem very much, but having regard to the present housing situation in Scotland—and the right hon. Gentleman will be very well aware of that—we could not afford to lose them, and that is the reason the postponement will have to be accepted. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it was not necessary always to have the buildings of stone and lime—he did not use those words abut that is what he meant—or bricks perhaps, in this more modern age, in order that people desirous of availing themselves of those educational facilities should be able to take advantage of them. I agree. Especially in rural Scotland in the 18th century, many of our people, who were not placed in a very happy situation, as the Under-Secretary of State will agree, took ample advantage of the facilities open to them. "Sweet are the uses of adversity"—and that was a very good example of the truth of that saying.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to a falling-off in some cases in the number of people taking advantage of the day classes. I had no idea that that was the case. The right hon. Gentleman said that we were behind England in some respects. I join wholeheartedly with him in deploring that that should be the case, and I hope that we may see a very speedy improvement in this direction. I wish to refer to one other point in connection with what was said by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) in regard to the conditions prevailing in many urban and industrial areas in Scotland. I deplored his statement that if there was to be discrimination at all—I know he does not want it—then the schools in the rural areas should suffer—
  Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman has no right to distort in such a fashion the statement which I made perfectly clearly. I do not want to see any discrimination whatsoever, and I made that perfectly plain.
  Mr. McKie: And I said so.
  Mr. Rankin: Yes, maybe the hon. Member said so, but then he went on to distort what I said.
  Mr. McKie: Let me assure the hon. Member that I have no wish to distort what he said or what anyone else said.
  1734
  But we will leave it to HANSARD tomorrow; the hon. Gentleman will agree that he said that if there had to be discrimination at all, he thought it should be against the rural areas. I think he will agree that that was what he said, but I leave that point. I will, however, say to the hon. Member, that if I did distort his statement in any way, I apologise.
  I was about to say that in the rural areas there are some very bad conditions obtaining with regard to the proper housing of schoolchildren, and that is a point which I hope will be very carefully borne in mind in connection with the Second Schedule to this Bill. I can assure the hon. Member for Tradeston and the Secretary of State for Scotland that in my area and in other constituencies in Scotland there is very much to be done, particularly in regard to sanitation. Perhaps under the present Measure there is not very much provided in that way, but I hope that the point will be kept carefully in mind. I for one would not wish to do anything to impede the progress of this Bill.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. McKinlay: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie). If I did I should more than likely be hopelessly out of Order. I do no more than suggest that if some of this enthusiasm had been shown during the last 25 years, we should not be in the position today of having to postpone the provision of certain equipment.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) welcoming the Secretary of State taking power to make regulations prescribing standards applicable to the premises or equipment of schools, junior colleges, etc. If the hon. Member had had some experience of trying to administer in a local authority what all the highbrows in education prescribed for the good of the children, I do not think he would welcome the idea that the Secretary of State should have any more powers to frame regulations and lay down standards for local authorities. In any case, having framed the regulations the Secretary of State may, if after consultation with the local authorities he finds that a regulation cannot be applied, modify and alter and entirely withdraw the application of that regulation from a particular area. Surely, that is putting the cart before the horse.

  1735
  My object is to ascertain whether playing fields are included in what the Secretary of State has the power to prescribe. If we are to accept the standards which I have heard some people suggest, of seven-and-a-half, eight, and nine acres of land for the purposes of enclosing a school, including playing fields—which is very nice—where are we going to finish with school buildings? I had some trouble with the Department of Education on the question of sites for some of Glasgow's biggest housing development schemes and I say frankly and without fear of contradiction, that if the experts had had their way we should have had a beautiful development, full of school playing fields and no houses within a mile-and-a-half. Who the Secretary of State may be at a given time is such an uncertain thing; one goes to bed at night and wakes up in the morning and finds there has been a displacement over-night. The regulations to be prescribed may be prescribed by a Secretary of State over whom the idealists have no influence at all. I would suggest that, before the regulations are framed, consultations should take place with the local authorities.
  I am jealous of the rights and powers of local authorities who, after all, have to submit to the electorate, with unfailing regularity, one-third of their members each year. It is all very well for people who have no local responsibilities to frame regulations telling those who have the responsibility what to do. I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to put my mind at rest. Does this provision include playing fields? My hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston must be in the confidence of the Front Bench, for he says that it does. If eight-and-a-half or nine acres of land in Tradeston are to be taken, where will the local authority house the population? It is simple to say that that can be done, but it does not say in the Bill how we should do it. Therefore, I cannot discuss it without being out of Order.
  Mr. Rankin: In the Schedule it is specifically made clear that consultation with the education authority will take place before the Secretary of State comes to any decision on the matter.
  Mr. McKinlay: It is clear, but I have not the advantage of being an educationist.
  1736
  I can only read what is said in Section 20 of the principal Act. That states:
  "The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing standards applicable to the premises or equipment…"
  Later it says that the Secretary of State, having made the regulations, may consult local authorities if it is found that they cannot be applied in their area.
  Would it not be much better—and could not such an alteration still be made—to have the consultation before the regulations are framed? Also, could it be stated specifically that the equipment includes not only space within a building but also the open space surrounding a building? Local authorities are entitled to know in advance so that they can make preparations for future development.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. Hubbard: I share the regret of the Secretary of State at the circumstances which have caused the postponement of the appointed day and the fact that it is not practicable now to state when that day shall be. Nevertheless, I do not like the phrase: "as soon as is practicable." No matter what the good wishes of my right hon. Friend may be, who will determine what date is practicable as the appointed day? We welcome the statement that some preparatory measures are to be taken in the case of junior colleges. However, I should like to be assured that when the right hon. Gentleman has been advised what should be the appointed day so far as buildings are concerned, that day will not be further postponed to suit the convenience of the most backward authorities in the country. Education authorities have different ideas about educational progress. Fortunately, I represent an area in which there is one of the most progressive authorities in Scotland, but I recognise that there is no standard of progressive education.
  I should not like to think that the fixing of the appointed day will be delayed by the most backward local authorities. Some reasonable time ought to be fixed in which authorities must make their arrangements for the opening of junior colleges. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay), I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State now has power to make regulations in connection with education in Scotland. As not all authorities are in

  1737
  themselves progressively minded, it is right that someone should hold the measuring stick and be able to prod the more backward authorities. I do not subscribe to the idea that the extraordinary popularity of football pools has meant that the numerals 1 and 2 and the letter X have in any way superseded the importance of the alphabet, although they are in popular use. The A B C table is of great importance.
  There are some provisions which are absolutely essential so that children may take advantage of the facilities provided. It is good that the Secretary of State should have power to lay down a standard of equipment. For far too long we have found that there are good education areas and bad areas, good schools and bad schools; and it is the fortune or misfortune of a child that his education is determined by the area in which he lives. No matter how backward a rural area may be, it is satisfactory to know that, at any rate, a standard of school equipment can be available for all children in the early stages of their education. The same remarks apply to lighting, heating and sanitary arrangements. We have now ensured a high standard of efficiency from the teaching profession. No matter how high that standard may be, unless the amenities, the lighting, heating and sanitary arrangements in schools are of a high standard, the children will not get the maximum value from the system.
  I know that, in the main, members of local authorities have to go to the electorate from time to time. That does not apply in every case, because there are still some co-opted members on education committees. On the other hand, sometimes the very fact that they declare themselves as progressive educationists—which usually means the spending of money—is the rock on which some of these candidates founder. When they indicate to the electorate that they are anxious to spend the money necessary to give the highest possible standard of education, on many occasions they are rejected by the electors. From that point of view, it is useful that standards of equipment, of the size of premises, and of amenities should be laid down.
  The good authorities need not resent the powers that the Minister will hold as a result of that part of the Bill. Most of the decent type of people on local
  1738
  authorities will appreciate the value of those powers. I welcome the fact that great interest is shown in this Measure by Members in all parts of the House. As was the case when its predecessor and the main Measure, passed during the "Caretaker" Government, were approved, there is a general opinion in Scotland that only the highest and best type of education is good enough for our people. Therefore, I hope for an absolute assurance from my right hon. Friend that the fixing of an appointed day will not be determined by the most backward schools in Scotland.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: Like other hon. Members who have spoken on this Bill, I naturally deplore the effect of the provisions contained in Clause 1, but I cannot help feeling that there is a different manner in which we should approach this matter. We frequently have to do many things which we consider to be rather tragic at the time, and it is certainly unfortunate that we have to postpone the date for introducing the system of junior colleges. It seems to me, however, that the situation has certain redeeming features.
  There are many jobs which are absolutely essential and which we can get on with now, without having our resources spread over too wide a field. When I look around our schools and examine our educational system, I see hundreds of tasks which want tackling. For instance, we want to reduce the size of classes and to make our schools good schools. I have schools in my Division of which I am ashamed, even in the City of Edinburgh. I am not so much concerned with this appointed day, or whether it should be next year or the year after. What I am concerned with is that, having rid ourselves of this date which was set—which it was almost impossible to keep, because of circumstances which I should think could have been foreseen at the end of the war, and which, in many fields, were foreseen, namely, the acute shortages which arose—having rid ourselves of it, let us determine that we are going to put in order the system we already possess. It is all very well having a great education scheme embodied in Acts of Parliament, or, for that matter, having the organisation for carrying it out, but we want something more. It is the content that matters, not the structure,

  1739
  and it seems to me that we can get down to the task of clearing up some of these jobs waiting for us at the present time.
  I hope the Secretary of State will pursue this matter vigorously and will try to make the best of the provisions we already have. In my view, it is far better to educate a child properly, as it should be educated and under the conditions in which it should be educated, up to the age of 15, than it is to part-educate it until 20, and I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will act on those lines. If he does, I am confident that the enthusiasm for education will be so great that there will be no anxiety about getting him to appoint a date. I appeal to him, from that point of view, to make the best of the present provisions, and to try to rectify many of the bad characteristics of our system.
  6.44 p.m.
  Mr. Gilzean: I would like to say that I have a very considerable sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in all the problems which confront him and particularly with regard to education. I am perfectly sure that, as soon as they can be solved, all the things which we visualise in connection with education will come to pass, but we have to recognise some truths.
  In our generation, we have had two wars, and if there is anything that is devastating to education it is war. The consequence of those two wars is that many things that require to be done simply cannot be accomplished except through the processes of time. During the last seven or eight years, we have seen buildings deteriorating, and we have had to realise that it has been almost impossible to get the normal material for carrying on our educational purposes. We have lacked equipment to a tremendous extent, and our staff falls far short in numbers of the needs of the processes of education. Apart altogether from all other considerations, we have raised the age to 15, which means that we require extra staff at a time when staff is not to be had, although that situation has, in some measure, been met by the admission of thousands of people who have not gone through any normal course to fit themselves for education.
  They have gone through an emergency course, and I want to say that these people
  1740
  who have passed through courses other than the normal ones are proving themselves of very great value to our schools at the present time. We cannot, however, produce specialist teachers by any emergency course, and the consequence is that all our schools are suffering from a lack of specialist teachers. As a matter of fact, among education committtees there is a very high competition to obtain these specialist teachers, and, taking all these facts together, one must frankly face the position that it would be utterly impossible adequately to meet the demands that would be made upon the whole structure of education if, at the present moment, we sought to impinge on it something that would have the effect of choking up the whole organization.
  When we turn to buildings, I admit that they constitute a problem, because, in the days before the war, there was, not a complete indifference to the need for new buildings, but a lack of appreciation in that direction, with the result that, when the war came, we found ourselves in a position in which it was utterly impossible to provide the buildings that were necessary. The clamour on the part of the population, quite rightly, is for places to live in, and there are still tens of thousands of our people who are living in houses which, to say the least, are deplorable. Although schools are very necessary, I would even give place to the immediate living needs of the population as against the claims for schools, and, inasmuch as, under present conditions, we are not in a position to house the people decently, it follows as a matter of course that we cannot hope to provide the schools that we would like to provide. The consequence is that, up and down the country, children are still being educated in schools 60 and 70 years old, without any possible hope of replacing them at present.
  So acute has the position become in my district that there are hundreds of children now being educated in temporary huts. When we remember all these facts, it seems to me to be out of the question to hope that we may be able to meet the situation in the way we would have liked to have done. For that reason, I think the Secretary of State is undoubtedly taking the wise course in delaying further education until such time as we can get the teachers, the equipment and the schools. But when we consider that there are hundreds of schools with the dirt of

  1741
  years on them, which it is not possible even to paint at the moment, we must call a halt and decide what is our immediate pressing responsibility. So far as possible, we must provide the best possible education which the circumstances permit, without seeking to embark on further education, because otherwise I am convinced we shall only make the condition chaotic in the extreme. For that reason, I support the line of action which the Secretary of State is taking.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: There has been too much fatalism in this Debate, and the Secretary of State for Scotland needs no encouragement from the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Gilzean) in the line which he is taking in this Bill. The Secretary of State enunciated a theory of social values in his opening speech to the effect that one of these junior colleges was equal to 200 houses. The slogan used to he "Guns before butter," but now it has become "Colleges before houses." I do not accept the fatalistic attitude that we need have all these priorities and that education should be sacrificed without putting up a much more strenuous fight than there has been on this issue.
  I want, first, to refer to the possibilities in the countryside. I do not accept the theory that in rural Scotland there are no buildings available for use as junior colleges. In Ayrshire we had a little tussle with the Department of Education over the question of acquiring a mansion house, Glaisnock House, in the Cumnock district, for the purpose of a college. At first we met with very lukewarm support, if not active opposition, from the Department of Education for Scotland. Then the Ayrshire Education Committee said, "We want this building; it is important. We regard education as a very important sphere of our activities," and indicated that they did not agree with the attitude of the Department of Education, and they wrote and asked me to raise the matter in the House. I am very glad to say that the Department capitulated, so that there was no reason to raise the matter, and the building was acquired for use as a residential school.
  In the same area, however, I know of a very large country mansion which could be used as a junior college to cater for the educational needs of this agricultural area. I am safe in saying that, as
  1742
  far as rural Scotland is concerned, whether it be Ayrshire, Inverness-shire or any of our rural areas, if the Secretary of State for Scotland would say "We are determined to have this building," if he were prepared to say in the Cabinet "This is one of our commitments, we are not sacrificing education," we should have had in the agricultural and rural areas these junior colleges, and these educational opportunities would have been developed. If the Secretary of State looked round some of our big cities, he would be able to find large suitable houses. I shall not particularise, but I saw one in Edinburgh which could be used as a junior college, at least temporarily, if the Secretary of State were as enthusiastic about education as some of his colleagues are about the Services.
  Mr. Gilzean: Where would the hon. Gentleman get the staff for these places?
  Mr. Hughes: I am now dealing with buildings. I will deal with staff later. In his introductory speech, the Secretary of State, referring to Clause 1, stressed that it was the buildings which were the trouble.
  Mr. Woodburn: I made it quite clear that a great deal of this work could go on without the buildings. All I was saying, when dealing with the question of making this matter compulsory, was that it should not be made compulsory in areas where the accommodation could not be provided. In areas where accommodation can be provided, there is not the slightest objection to local authorities going ahead; they will get every support.
  Mr. Hughes: I am glad to note a new spirit of optimism in this Debate. We shall evidently have the local authorities showing their determination by acquiring properties for this purpose. I hope that the local education authorities will observe what the Secretary of State has said, and that we will not hear so much of the argument that it is necessary to delay the establishment of junior colleges through lack of buildings.
  What of the future? The Secretary of State said that the building programme in Scotland hampered the scheme. I presume that he is looking forward to the time when new buildings will have to be built, and that the time will then come when the junior colleges will receive his support. If so, he has not only to think in terms of education, but he must consider

  1743
  where to get the building labour to build these new colleges. It is not only a question of housing. The problem of where to get the labour to build these new schools is important, and it is problem number one. If the Secretary of State is prepared to stand by and let the labour force in Scotland be dissipated as is happening at present, and if he does not insist that the building industry shall get the same priority as the mining and agricultural industries, he will find the building force will disappear, and he will have great difficulty in building the colleges.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, the provision of staffs for schools should also be a priority. The Secretary of State should propose to his colleagues that no person who is able to be trained as a tutor in these colleges should be taken into the Forces. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State does not appear to realise that this Government's commitments are primarily on the home front, and that education is one of them. When the Secretary of State takes the same stand as an eminent Conservative, Lord Randolph Churchill, did in years gone by, and declares that there is too much yielding to the other sections of the Government who are always demanding money and men for the Forces; when he realises that our commitments are primarily on the home front, we shall have more optimism and not so much fatalism so far as our social services are concerned.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. McAllister: I want to intervene very briefly to say that I think this Bill performs a most valuable service in that it lifts the gun sights of Scottish education—if I may use that phrase without offending the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)— and permits us to see an horizon which opens up great prospects for the children of Scotland. Of course, we all share with the Secretary of State for Scotland, regret that there is to be delay in the fulfilment of the idea behind this Bill.
  The Cambridgeshire village colleges were perhaps the most significant educational experiment made in England in the period between the wars and the project which Dr. Henry Morris started in
  1744
  Impington has had world-wide repercussions. We want to see the spirit of Impington translated to Scotland, and particularly—and here I agree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshirle—to the Scottish rural areas. It was not merely as a device for education in the scholastic field that Impington stood out as a great social experiment; it was because Impington provided a real sense of community for scattered rural villages that it was a great contribution both to the theory and practice of education.
  Mention has been made of the space difficulties in Glasgow. Obviously there are space difficulties in the heart of any great city and even in the heart of many smaller industrial towns. It is true that Glasgow is a great sprawling, pent up city of a million people, with fantastic densities of population to the acre, where space is almost an unknown quantity, but even in my small though royal burgh of Rutherglen, on the outskirts of Glasgow, we have densities of population almost as bad as those in the worst areas of the city itself.
  Unless we start some time—and this Bill does make a start—to lay down standards of space and equipment which at the moment are not obtainable, we shall never obtain them, not even in the distant future. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut. - Commander Hutchison) that there are real difficulties of staffing and in finding the necessary buildings. I would not deny that at all. On the other hand, I would join with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire in pleading with the Secretary of State for Scotland not merely to give a benevolent blessing to any education authority which says it intends to start a junior college but to give direct encouragement to a number of education authorities and committees to go ahead as soon as possible with the creation of one or two experimental colleges which could be a model for more spacious times when material, labour and staffing problems will not be so acute as they are at the moment.
  I think Scotland ought not to lag too far behind in time in connection with junior colleges. We have had the benefit of the experience and the experiments which Cambridgeshire carried out. We have in Glasgow today a junior college in Langside which I believe is doing very valuable work and which has been a

  1745
  considerable success, but until we have the new buildings, the new surroundings and the new environments the junior college cannot be all that inherently it promises to be. If we could get one or two first-rate junior colleges started soon on the initiative of the local education committees and with the backing of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that would be an excellent thing for the young people of Scotland today and tomorrow.
  7.5 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): The discussion on Third Reading of this Bill has centred very largely on Clause I. I must say, however, that I was a little surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) appeal to us to look upwards and to honour our commitments. These are commitments which were entered into by the Coalition and "Caretaker" Parliaments, not by the present Parliament or the present Government. The Bill we are here amending is a Bill which was introduced by Mr. Thomas Johnston when he was Secretary of State and was put on the Statute Book by the Coalition Government. The Minister in this House who handled the Bill at that time was the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith).
  I feel that all we should do this afternoon is to regret that that Parliament, of which I was a Member, was so shortsighted as to imagine that it could provide the buildings and the teachers required for the raising of the school-leaving age within one year or two years after the end of the war and that it could then provide all the buildings and the teachers necessary to make it possible to have compulsory attendances at junior colleges within a period of another three years.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman was here.
  Mr. Fraser: Yes, I was here. I am saying to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire that it is just nonsense to talk about our failing to honour our commitments, and I was saying that all we should do is to regret that the last Parliament, of which many of us were Members, was not sufficiently appreciative of the magnitude of the task and that it thought we could have compulsory attendances not later than 1st April, 1950.
  Commander Galbraith: Is there anything to regret in setting one's target high? Is that not something which causes people to get a move on and to keep busy?
  Mr. Fraser: There were many other educational developments which were foreshadowed in the Act of 1945 and to which no date was given.
  Mr. Willis: Does not my hon. Friend think that this date was given by the "Caretaker" Government in view of the fact that an election was imminent?
  Mr. Fraser: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), but the date was given in the first place in 1944 when the English Bill was put on the Statute Book and it was repeated in the Scottish Bill in the summer of 1945.
  What I want to emphasise this evening is that my right hon. Friend is doing everything he can to encourage the establishment of junior colleges. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) has mentioned the enterprise of the Glasgow Education Authority at Langside college. A few other authorities—I do not want to say too many—including Edinburgh, have already found buildings and are experimenting. I think it is good that education authorities should experiment with a kind of further education for people between 15 and 18 years of age who have left day school and have gone into industry and into employment, so that these young people should go from their industries and occupations into schools provided by the education authorities on one day in the week, or eight weeks in the year. We can thus get to know what the shape of the junior college of the future should be, what sort of curriculum it should have, what sort of education and what sort of training it should give to the young people. It is a good thing that education authorities should have some experience of junior colleges before they have to provide all the buildings and all the teachers necessary to enable us to have compulsory attendance from 15 to 18 years of age.
  Commander Galbraith: Does the hon. Member think the authorities would have gone ahead in that way but for the lead given in the Act?
  Mr. Fraser: I am not objecting to the lead. I think it might have been better to have given the lead in the Act without

  1747
  saying that compulsory attendance would be in force not later than 1st April, 1950. It was, however, not a serious mistake for the Coalition Government or the "Caretaker" Government to make Since we have seen that it is utterly impossible to have compulsory attendance, my right hon. Friend has done the only thing he could have done—he has come to Parliament to say, "Let us amend the Act of 1945." When he does that, I do not think any of us should address ourselves to the question in a despairing way, regretting that nothing is being done. In fact, very much is being done in Scottish education.
  I ask hon. Members on all sides of the House to get in touch with the conveners of education authorities and to go to see some of the new educational establishments. They will be surprised, because the school is today very different from what it was yesterday. We still have far too many schools physically the same today as they were yesterday, however, and that is one reason why we cannot have the junior colleges now, because we have to replace the old schools with modern schools for primary school children and children in the secondary division: Let us encourage Glasgow and Edinburgh to experiment with the junior colleges. Let them have as many as they can.
  As soon as we can reduce the size of the schools, and some of those unsatisfactory school buildings are replaced, then—not until then—will it be possible for the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, to name the date by which compulsory attendance at the junior colleges will be possible. I have been asked when we think compulsory attendance will be possible. For the reasons that I have just been giving, it is really impossible to say. My right hon. Friend did indicate, however, that we had asked the local authorities to submit schemes for further education. We asked them to do so in September last year, and we asked them to have schemes submitted to us not later than the end of this year.
  I was also asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) what kind of buildings they would be—whether they would be all-too-permanent buildings or adaptable buildings. I think local education authorities, who will be putting
  1748
  up the buildings, will tend in these days to put up buildings of a slightly less permanent character than the school buildings put up 100 years ago, and which are still being used; but we must leave it to the local education authorities to make their proposals. The function of the Secretary of State will be merely to examine them and approve them unless he has some reason to object to them. Inasmuch as we can give a lead to education authorities we shall give them some lead, as we are doing just now in the erection of temporary secondary schools which are much less permanent than some of the solid, barrack-like buildings that were erected some 80 or some 100 years ago, but which, nevertheless, are substantial and which, I think, will serve long enough for the purpose for which they are being provided.
  Mr. W. Ross: I wonder if the Under-Secretary of State will tell me how that statement does not conflict with the new Section 20 to be inserted in the principal Act, by which the Secretary of State "may make regulations prescribing standards applicable to the premises"? He says this is to be left to the local education authorities.
  Mr. Fraser: No. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked if we were to put up buildings of bricks and mortar with walls two feet thick, as they did 80 years ago. We have powers to prescribe standards. I will say a word about that, since there has been some little discussion about it. My right hon. Friend has the power to prescribe standards for premises, and it relates also to playing fields. It is also provided in this Bill that when he has prescribed standards, if the authorities—if the Glasgow authority, to take an example—were to say, "It is impossible in respect of this school which we propose to build in such an area to observe the high standards you have set, because we have not the space because of the congestion in the city," then by power in the Bill my right hon. Friend will consult with them about the difficulties and may prescribe modified standards for that particular school. I think that is a sensible provision to make.
  Mr. Rankin: May I urge upon my hon. Friend to keep in mind my suggestion, and that was that the modification should be only temporary?
  Mr. Fraser: We shall give some thought to what my hon. Friend suggested, but I should not like to give an undertaking that any such modification would be temporary. We shall have to look at the circumstances obtaining in the area that make necessary the modified standards.
  Now I come to the point about Scotland's lagging behind in day release education. Some 7,000 apprentices attend day release schools at the present time. Generally speaking, England and Wales are doing very much better than we are. I was very glad to hear the Opposition express their support for this educational development and their hope that the Secretary of State will be able to bring about some improvement in the position. We, for our part, are most anxious to see the development of day release education. Most of the education authorities have now been won over, and are doing their best to promote day release education for apprentices, but those young people can be made available only if their employers are willing to free them and to pay them their wages whilst they are at school.
  Quite recently I visited some of these technical schools where day release courses are given. I found in my own constituency a school of engineering that was opened only last year, and which is already full to overflowing, because most of the employers in the engineering industry in Lanarkshire and over a wide area seem to have accepted the fact that this sort of education confers undoubted benefits upon their apprentices. Lanarkshire Education Authority, after only six months' experience of this school, have had to begin to give thought to the possibility of expanding the provision they have made there for this sort of education. Near by, however, in Cambuslang, I visited a school of building where I found there had not been the same good response. I am perfectly certain it was not because the apprentices did not want to go there, but because the employers could not or would not spare them.
  There is usually provision in the wages agreements now in industry, certainly in the building and engineering industries, for apprentices to get the time off necessary to enable them to attend these schools, without suffering any diminution in their wages as a result. I have before now appealed to the employers to cooperate to the utmost. I repeat the appeal
  1750
  to employers all over Scotland to cooperate to the utmost with the education authorities in ensuring that this new development in education shall be a success. If we do not do it then it will be, I was going to say, a disgrace to Scottish education; it would certainly not be of good to Scottish education if we did not have the same development in this sphere of education as has been experienced south of the Border.
  I think I need say nothing more in reply to the discussion. Many points have been made to which we shall have to give much consideration. The contributions made by Members from all parts of the House today have made it quite clear that Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies are concerned to see that the young people of Scotland are given the best possible education in these difficult times.

  TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Woodburn.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

  SPAIN
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: Tonight I wish to speak about Spain. First, in case anybody should get the wrong impression, let me say that I have no sympathy with the regime of dictatorship in Spain. I say this now in case any Communist, or Communist sympathiser or fellow-traveller or the like should accuse me of being a "Fascist beast," an epithet which I believe is quite commonly applied to those people who do not agree with Communists.
  In order to get the present situation which has arisen between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Spain in the right perspective it is necessary to refresh our memories about the history of this very unhappy affair. We must first remember that as a result of the Spanish civil war, in which a million lives were lost, Franco and his followers seized power in Spain. Since that date there has

  1751
  been peace in Spain, even though it has been perhaps an enforced peace. I have always taken the view that we should not interfere in the internal politics of another nation. Their politics are not our affair, and unless we find that the peace of the world is threatened, unless we find that there is a threat of aggression or intrigue, we should not interfere in the internal politics of any other country.
  I have already said that I do not like the present Administration in Spain. I think I can go so far as to say that I like it as little as I like the present Administration in this country. But I am not trying to stir up civil war here; neither are the Spaniards. I should be one of the first people to resent any interference by Spain in our internal politics if they showed a dislike of our Administration here. The Spaniards have to work out their own salvation and we have to work out ours.
  I wish to refer to a Question asked by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) on 5th December, 1945. The House will remember that this hon. Member disguised himself with a beard or false moustache or whatever it was, and, either with false papers or no papers at all, visited Spain on a sort of schoolboy spying expedition of which very few people would be proud. The Foreign Secretary in reply to his question, said:
  "we detest the regime."
  The late Mr. Jimmy Maxton asked:
  "Is it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer in that way to the head of a State with which His Majesty's Government seem to be on reasonable terms?"
  The Foreign Secretary replied:
  "You can be friendly with a person and frank with a person. In this case it is the regime, it is not merely the man, the whole regime is one with which His Majesty's Government have no sympathy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 2315.]
  At the end of the same year, in December, 1945, the present Minister of State informed the House, when he was asked whether His Majesty's Government were intending to break off diplomatic relations with Spain, that the matter was being actively considered. That is very significant. It was said in December, 1945, a considerable time before the question was even raised before the United Nations Assembly. It was not until 1946 that
  1752
  Poland, supported by Russia, moved that direct action be taken against Spain.
  On 23rd January, 1946, the Foreign Secretary said:
  "His Majesty's Government have on all relevant occasions displayed their dislike of the present regime which abetted our enemies,…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 142.]
  In fact, if Spain had actively abetted our our enemies during the war, if she had gone in wholeheartedly with Hitler and Mussolini, if she had given free passage to German troops going through Spain, Gibraltar would have been untenable. Not only that, for enemy troops would have gone through Gibraltar to North Africa.
  In addition, one remembers Operation Torch, which hon. Members will recall was the landing of troops in North Africa. During that operation there were masses of British and American transport ships off the coasts of Spain, in the Algeciras anchorage and off Gibraltar. If the Spaniards had then passed on that information to our enemies, the operation might not have been concluded in the grand and successful way in which it was.
  Mr. Austin: If the hon. Member does not agree that Spain aided and abetted our enemies in the recent war, is he not aware that Spain gave refuge and actually helped to refuel German submarines in Spanish harbours?
  Mr. Taylor: That may be so, but surely we have to look at these things in their proper perspective? Spain was neutral at the time. She could have been actively offensive against us. I know that some hon. Member may say, "What about the Blue Division on the Eastern front?" What about it? What about the time when the Russians were negotiating with the Germans behind our backs when we were fighting the Germans alone? I do not want to go into these bitter things of the past.
  In March, 1946, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) asked:
  "Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling in the Labour Party and the T.U.C. that the British Ambassador in Madrid should be withdrawn.…?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 19.]
  To this there was no reply. But I wonder how those in the Labour Party and those in the T.U.C.—excluding the Communists, of course—now feel about

  1753
  the withdrawal of diplomatic representatives from Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and even Russia, because although I will admit that Franco and his followers seized power in Spain, can any hon. Member give me a single instance in which the Communists have set up a regime in any country through democratic elections? We know perfectly well that in every country where there is Communist dictatorship power has been seized by force or intrigue or both. On 5th June, 1946, the Prime Minister himself made this astonishing statement:
  "…I am sure that we have to take action which will be best calculated to make the Spaniards get rid of their present Government, and also get a decent Government in its place."
  I wonder what he would say if such action were taken against the Government in this country, and what he would say, for example, if the Americans said "We will not give you any Marshall Aid until you get rid of your present Government." I know what hon. Members on this side of the House would say. They would bitterly resent any dictating by the Americans to this country about what form of Government we should or should not have. The Prime Minister went on to say:
  "Because you get rid of one Government, it does not necessarily follow that you get a better one, or that you even get one at all in some countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1946; Vol. 423. c. 2035.]
  Today we know how true that remark is. From that date onwards however—June, 1946—one finds an increasing pressure on the part of His Majesty's Government against Spain, a pressure which, I submit, could only lead and can only lead to insurrection in Spain and the ghastly consequences of another possible civil war.
  In spite of this pressure, it is interesting to note that in October, 1946, the Minister of State said:
  "I doubt if there is an alternative Government available for Spain just now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th October, 1946; Vol. 427. c. 757.]
  The House will recollect that on 25th December, 1946—Christmas Day—the United Nations, supported by His Majesty's Government, recommended that ambassadors should be withdrawn from Madrid. Christmas Day—what a day to do it of all days, when we are meant to be thinking of peace and good will to all
  1754
  mankind. On Christmas Day this recommendation is made effective, in spite of the fact that the Under-Secretary of State said in the following year that we had the friendliest feelings towards the Spanish people. The curious thing about this Spanish impasse at the present time is that, although, I think, it is true to say that every Member of this House dislikes the present regime in Spain, there is a very acute difference of opinion, not confined to parties, between individual Members whether we should or should not have diplomatic representation in Madrid. I do not think that this is altogether a party matter. For example, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) said in The Debate in 1946
  "…to suggest that the Spaniards want intervention of any kind is pure moonshine. I talked to people in all quarters, to Communists, to Trotskyists and Socialists, but in not one case was the wish expressed to risk the horrors of a further civil war."
  This was said from the other side of the House. The hon. Member had said previously about the regime:
  "I want to say quite clearly that it is quite untrue to say that it is brutal and tyranical."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1946; Vol. 427, c. 1606.]
  There are Spaniards we know, and many of them, who dislike the regime probably as much as we do. They dislike the lack of political freedom in Spain, but I am certain which they would choose if they were given the alternative of their present regime or a Communist regime. I know also that there have been political trials and probably assassinations, and that a number of the enemies of the regime have been put into prison. But has that not happened in exactly the same way in all the Communist countries? Has it not happened in Hungary, in Russia, in Yugoslavia and in Czechoslovakia? We have seen ruthless murders and assassinations in all those countries, and is it not utterly inconsistent of the present Government, and complete humbug, to keep ambassadors and diplomatic representatives in these other countries when we have no ambassador in Madrid?
  To make our political intervention complete, on the 19th February, 1947, in reply to Questions, the Foreign Secretary told the House that we were in touch with the Spanish Republican Administration who, after all, are a number of men, however admirable they may be,

  1755
  in exile, plotting their own return to Spain and the return of their administration. I believe that if that administration. went back, except under general agreement, it must herald further bloodshed and repercussions both inside and outside Spain. The Foreign Secretary even received a representative of the Spanish Republicans in London at that time. Only last October, when I was in Spain, a statement appeared in the Spanish Press that agreement had been reached between the Spanish Republicans and the Monarchists. The rumour, I believe, afterwards turned out to be untrue, but before the rumour was proved or not the statement was issued—I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong—which was reported in the Spanish Press, that His Majesty's Government welcomed and approved this agreement. Various Spaniards with whom I discussed this matter, whether they liked Franco or not, were extremely annoyed by what they called unwarranted meddling on the part of Britain in their internal affairs.
  I come to the question of trade with Spain. Our trade with Spain is very valuable. We get many things from Spain, from iron-ore to oranges. We also get sherry, although I must admit that the shipments of sherry to this country have not been as good as they used to be before the war. This may be due to Government buying, or it may be that there is a shortage of casks. On 23rd April, 1947, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, quoting the President of the Board of Trade:
  "It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to develop and expand their export trade with all foreign countries. Notwithstanding the character of the present Spanish regime, on which the views of His Majesty's Government have been made known, this policy holds for Spain also."
  I would ask hon. Members particularly to pay attention to this statement. The Financial Secretary went on to say in the quotation:
  "We import from Spain a quantity of foodstuffs and other commodities which are essential"—
  I underline the word "essential"—
  "to our economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 1206]
  What a curious way to do business. Here we say with one breath that we want to trade with the Spaniards and that certain of their commodities are essential
  1756
  to our economy, and, at the same time, we say that we are not going to have diplomatic representation in Madrid. That seems to me to be a sort of black market trade. One does not want to see it done openly and therefore it has to be done in a sort of "under the cloak" fashion. The potential tourist trade from Spain is very considerable and I believe it might be very valuable, but such organisations as the Travel Association have not dared to encourage tourists to come to this country from Spain because of the general attitude of His Majesty's Government. It would be a good plan to encourage Spanish tourists to come over here; we might get to know the Spanish a little better, and perhaps some of the misunderstandings that there are between our two countries might be swept away and a more democratic regime established.
  I ask the Government to be consistent in these matters. In the first place, I say that they should either withdraw their Ambassadors from all the totalitarian countries or restore our Ambassador to Madrid. Secondly, I believe, and believe very firmly, in view of the fact that we have made a great many enemies throughout the world, that we should take a lead in advising the United Nations' organisation to admit Spain as a member. There is no danger of an aggressive war by Spain. If we are honest we must admit that the only danger of an aggressive war comes from Soviet Russia; and if one came—which God forbid—it might well be that our two great bulwarks of defence would be the English Channel and the Pyrenees.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. Follick: I think that my attitude to the Spanish question is very well known in this House. I have been uncompromising in this respect. Once, nobody on this side of the House understood my way of putting over the Spanish question. Today, quite a number of hon. Members on this side are coming round to my way of thinking. Quite a number have approached me and said: "I think, Follick, after all, that there is a lot to be said for your attitude and your constant attention to this Spanish question." I believe in the restoration of the Spanish monarchy; I always have done so because I believe in a monarchy. I believe in a constitutional monarchy; I think it is the finest system of government in the world, and I should

  1757
  like to see a constitutional monarchy restored in Spain.
  I have done a great deal of spadework in bringing together Franco and Prince Juan. Two years ago I went to see the Prince and succeeded in changing his point of view to a certain extent. I have been to see Franco and had a long talk with him: we were together for an hour and a half with only the two of us in the room. Franco has met the Spanish Prince. Franco has told me himself that it is his intention to restore the monarchy to Spain.
  Mr. Orbach: He cannot restore the people of Guernica, can he?
  Mr. Follick: I will come to that. Recently the Spanish Foreign Secretary in Buenos Aires said quite openly that he was a monarchist. The majority of the people surrounding Franco have this monarchist tendency, because only under a monarchy has Spain ever been happy. Now, nobody in this House knows as much about Spain as I do.
  Dr. Morgan: Nonsense.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Follick: It is no good saying "nonsense," and it is no good jeering. It is an accepted fact. It is no good hon. Members showing ignorance by adding to their ignorance. I know the Spanish people; I know most of their politicians; I speak their language.
  Dr. Morgan: Through phonetics.
  Mr. Follick: We are debating a serious question; we are talking about a world subject.
  Dr. Morgan: But you are not serious.
  Mr. Follick: I am perfectly serious.
  Mr. W. Griffiths: The hon. Member says he knows all the Spanish politicians.
  Mr. Follick: I did not say all: I said most of them.
  Mr. Griffiths: I wonder if he could reconcile the views of del Vayo, or some of the Spanish émigré politicians with those of Franco and the monarchy?
  Mr. Follick: A good many of the people who formed the first Spanish Republic have returned to Spain and are living in Spain. I have been to see them
  1758
  in Spain. Dr. Marañon, who was one of the heads of the first Spanish Republic, is living in Spain; I spoke to him when I was there: Yanguas is still in Spain; Romanones is still in Spain; he was arrested, but he is still living there.
  There has been no more loyal supporter of the Foreign Secretary than myself; I still am, and I bring this question to the attention of the House, not in any criticism of the Foreign Secretary's handling of the Spanish problem. What I am trying to do is to put a point of view to him—a point of view which I believe is the true one, and the one most acceptable to the majority of Spaniards. If there is one thing no Spaniard wants it is another civil war. In the civil war that Spain went through they lost two million inhabitants out of a population of 25 million; that is to say, over double the total losses of the British Empire and Commonwealth in the first world war—
  Mr. Scollan: Who caused the Spanish war?
  Mr. Follick: —and about six times the total losses of the British Empire and Commonwealth in the second world war.
  Mr. Scollan: Thanks to Franco.
  Mr. Follick: Now, the Spaniards will not go through that again. Rather than go through it again they would put up with Franco.
  Mr. Scollan: They have to.
  Mr. Follick: But I do not believe in putting up with Franco. I should like to see the Franco system removed; but it will not be removed by trying to push it out.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Or by sending it ambassadors.
  Mr. Follick: The only way to put out Franco is to bring in the monarchy
  Mr. W. Griffiths: With his permission.
  Mr. Scollan: Another civil war.
  Mr. Follick: The strength of Franco lies in the Church, the Army and the Party. Whoever holds the support of the Church and the Army rules Spain. If anything, Prince Juan has more support from the Church and the Army than Franco himself. And, what is more, Franco knows that. If we could bring the Prince and Franco together for a period of time, it would be up to the Prince

  1759
  himself to take the reins of government and rule his country properly, because he is sure of having behind him at least 60 per cent. of the Church and the Army.
  Mr. Scollan: What about the people? Have they no say in it?
  Mr. Follick: In my conversation with Franco he was certainly bitter about the attitude of the Western nations to him. We laugh at that. He explained to me exactly what Hitler promised him to come into the war. We do know that Hitler went to Hendaye. We know that he went back from Hendaye. He would not have gone there for nothing. He went there to try to bring Franco into the war. Franco told me that he told Hitler that if any nation, no matter which it was attempted to go into Spain, Spain would resist. I have no reason for doubting the truth of that statement.
  We have to understand one thing and it is that we have under-rated Franco's astuteness. Franco is not the fool that some people, including Members on both sides of the House, think he is. He is a very astute man. Being such, he is watching his own position in history. I told him: "Hitler in his day was the greatest German who had ever lived. On the following day, so to speak, he had lost all his greatness. The same applies to Mussolini, and the same will apply to you. Although today you may be the greatest Spaniard, if for any reason whatsoever you are forced out of Spain, you will be no better than the others." Franco would be receptive to persuasion but he would not tolerate violent interference.
  Therefore, I do appeal to the Foreign Secretary, through his representative here, to give some indication that if the monarchy is restored to Spain we will recognise Spain and resume diplomatic relations with that country. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) mentioned words that the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke a few days ago with regard to the ores and food that are essential to us and that come from Spain. I have heard it said that if we stop the supply of cotton and oil to Spain we could topple Franco. If Franco stopped ore coming to Britain he could interfere with our export trade and with our food. There is no chance whatsoever of getting at Franco that way.
  1760
  It is only fair, in speaking of Spain as a totalitarian country, that we should make a comparison with the other totalitarian countries. There is less severity and much less ruthlessness on one side than there is on the other. I wanted to go to Russia this year. I applied to the Russian Embassy for a visa. For a whole month I got no reply. Then I wrote again to say that it was generally a matter of courtesy at least to acknowledge a letter. I received this letter from the Russian Embassy:
  "I have been instructed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 27th May and to inform you that with regard to your letter of 27th April an application for a visa to the Soviet Union has been made for you but so far we have no news from Moscow."
  So that they have to get news from Moscow before letting me into Russia. When I wanted to go to Spain I went to the Consulate and asked for a visa and they gave me one. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) got one, and he is nowhere near as broad minded as I am in these matters. The hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) not only had a visa to go to Spain but went to Spain with her own interpreter, and examined prisoners in Spanish gaols. When I was last in Spain there were British tennis teams going round playing with Spanish teams. There was a Welsh choir touring and receiving a very warm welcome all over Spain. That does not look like a ruthless way of behaving.
  The House knows of my activity on the question of the Russian wives married to British citizens who cannot come from Russia to this country. I have a notice here saying we are bringing women from Spain to help in our hotel industry. We have found it not only possible to do so but comparatively easy, yet we have all the difficulty in the world in bringing legally married wives from Russia to join their husbands.
  There are others who wish to speak in this Debate. There are people who want to put forward totally opposite ideas from mine. I assure them I shall not treat their remarks with the ridicule which some Members on this side of the House have tried to treat my remarks. I assure those hon. Members though they treat my remarks with ridicule the country and my division do not. We can get good feeling and understanding with Spain. It is essential that we should.

  1761
  Our people like the Spanish people. I have never yet heard of anybody in this country who did not like the Spanish.
  Mr. Scollan: What about Drake?
  Mr. Follick: I do ask hon. Members not to talk nonsense. If the hon. Member has a sensible word to utter I am sure that the House will like to listen to it. The Spaniards like the British and it is a pity that because we do not like the head of their country, the Spanish people should be penalised by the rupture of diplomatic relations. I am asking the Foreign Secretary to make a declaration that it the monarchy is restored to Spain this country will resume diplomatic relations with Spain. That will give the Spaniards encouragement to restore the monarchy to their country. It would be a gesture from this country to Spain that we want to see her back on a normal footing of understanding with us. It would be a message to the Spaniards to restore their monarchy and we would restore diplomatic relations.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. William Teeling: I have listened with very great interest to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick), but I cannot agree with him on one point. I also am a very keen monarchist but I would not like it to go out from this House that we shall recognise Franco only if he restores the monarchy. The whole sense of the Debate from this side of the House is that we have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of another country unless what is going on in that country is likely to break the peace and cause war in other parts of the world. For that reason we feel it is high time that we recognised the present régime in Spain and allowed it to carry on with its own affairs.
  This Debate will undoubtedly be read and followed in Spain. It should be realised there that this is in a sense a private Debate and not a completely official one, in that it is an Adjournment Debate. That is why the Spaniards will not find as many hon. Members speaking in it as they might expect. However, this Debate gives a few of us an opportunity to say what we feel. I am particularly happy because at a by-election in which I was helping as far back as 1944, in Chelmsford, and frequently since then, it has been brought
  1762
  against me that I am an ardent supporter of Franco and that I fought on his side in the civil war. I frequently deny it and point out that not only do I not know Franco, but that I have never been to Spain in my life, except once when I went over from St. Jean de Luz in a motor car and saw a bull fight in San Sebastian one evening about 20 years ago.
  Sometimes in the House I try to watch what is going on, especially with regard to foreign affairs. I cannot help remembering that it is only a week since the Foreign Secretary was explaining the situation about Israel. One cannot help remembering that he gave way very reluctantly. One cannot help feeling that when the Government recognised Israel, they did so in a most half-hearted way and that the Foreign Secretary was being very pig-headed about it. I believe that he is being pig-headed today about Spain. In the long run he will probably have to give way again. He gave way over Israel because, I am sure, of considerable pressure from his own back benchers.
  I notice that no representative of the Foreign Office is present at the moment. The Under-Secretary was here, but he has gone. He ought to have remained, because this is only a short Debate. However, as no representative of the Foreign Office is present, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Air will pass on what we are saying. With regard to Israel, the Foreign Secretary gave way because of pressure from the back benchers, and he probably feels that by not giving way today he will be regaining the support of a considerable number of those back benchers. Would that he had gone the other way about it, and had been the first to recognise Israel before there was pressure from behind him.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that last Wednesday the Conservative Party were not in favour of the recognition of Israel and that pressure has come only from the back benches on this side?
  Mr. Teeling: Not in the least. The hon. Gentleman must have heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). I was suggesting that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is more likely to be

  1763
  influenced by his own back benchers than by the Opposition.
  Mr. Fernyhough: No.
  Mr. Teeling: It is very interesting to know that that is not the case. The Foreign Secretary was forced to give way about Israel, but in the case of Spain, if he only had the courage of his convictions and was able to see ahead, he would realise that this is a country which has been very friendly to us in years gone by. Since the days of Napoleon we have had very friendly relations with Spain. In the middle of the last century when the Liberal régime was in power and the monarchy came back, we were very friendly with Spain. When Alfonso XIII was reigning, we were still friendly with Spain. With regard to the civil war, if it had not been for our strict neutrality during that period, we would not have had neutrality, which I considered was quite strict, on the part of the Spaniards during the last war. From 1939 to 1944 we had great difficulties over the Spanish situation. Everybody knows that we could never have got through to North Africa if it had not been for the at least benevolent neutrality of the Spaniards with regard to Gibraltar and the areas around Gibraltar. The Royal Air Force knows that as well as anybody.
  Think what might happen in the future if we made enemies of Spain. We might make a second Israel out of the present situation with Spain, by going on as we are at present ignoring Spain and insulting her at nearly every turn. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has returned. We must realise that during the first world war Russia was particularly antagonistic to us, and today she is particularly insulting to us, but Spain is not. The Spanish Government does not insult us at every turn; on the other hand, it asks for our friendship. The Spanish Government, and almost all the world, wonders what is the logic of the attitude we adopt and why we are behaving in this manner. Again, it is rather like the Israeli situation.
  We are particularly anxious to trade with Spain, and we do so as much as we can. The other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we were getting iron and steel and oranges and
  1764
  such things from Spain because we needed them.
  Mr. Orbach: Is our action in not recognising Spain completely unilateral?
  Mr. Teeling: I will come to that in a moment. We want her products for our people and are willing to trade with her. We are frightfully idealistic and refuse to recognise Spain, but at the same time we are not really all that idealistic because we are trying to get everything we can out of Spain. That is what angers the Spaniards at present. Five members of the United Nations have already sent ambassadors back to Spain. It was only in the middle of last year that the Assembly said that they would not renew the instructions that ambassadors must not be restored to Spain. Five have returned their ambassadors and others are meditating it. It is generally felt in Spain now that the main reason why other countries are not doing it yet is that pressure is being brought to bear by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of this country, and, in a sense, the Socialist Party behind him, so that Spain under Franco shall not be recognised. If the hon. Member feels that that is wrong, I hope he will say so.
  Mr. Scollan: Is it not the case that the United Nations Organisation refused to recognise Franco Spain? Is the hon. Member advocating that we should go against the decision of the United Nations Organisation?
  Mr. Teeling: Is the hon. Member aware that it was decided by the Assembly that ambassadors can now be sent back to Spain and, if that is the case. that means recognising Spain.
  Mr. Scollan: No.
  Mr. Warbey: The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) is quite incorrect.
  Mr. Teeling: Hon. Members opposite might like to know that Peru, which was one of the countries, like the Argentine and the others, which have recognised Spain, has made some rather interesting statements which I propose to read. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were not influenced by the Foreign Secretary."] These statements were sent to our Foreign Office and to the Foreign Offices of other countries. One of these statements says:

  1765
  "Peru has invariably maintained a resolute attitude favouring the principle of non-intervention, which it considers basic in American international law and a guarantee of the independence and sovereignty of small countries, without prejudice to the cases in which collective action may be necessary to keep the international peace when it has been threatened or broken."
  That is how this statement begins; it explains Peru's resumption of full diplomatic relations with Spain. It continues:
  "Therefore, the Chancellery of Peru, within its firm and constant fidelity to the letter and spirit of the Potsdam and San Francisco declarations, took up an attitude favourable to non-intervention in the internal affairs of Spain, which it considered to be within the exclusive competence of the Spanish people, traditionally so jealous of their independence."
  They agreed to withdraw their ambassador because of the pressure brought to bear upon them by other countries, but:
  "This attitude, however, was subject to the maintenance of that measure by the consensus of the countries represented in the United Nations, and to the identification by the Executive Committee of a latent threat to the peace."
  They found later that that was no longer so and the statement records that:
  "The self-same agencies of the United Nations have had to recognise these new circumstances, and the Spanish case is no longer a cause of constant preoccupation for the United Nations, since the Assembly decided, in December, 1947, not to ratify the recommendation of the previous year vetoing the appointment of Ambassadors in Madrid, and the Security Council, in its Session of 25th June last, eliminated the Spanish problem from the list of matters endangering the peace of the world. Thus, the obligation which existed, merely of a moral nature, disappeared, while, on the other hand, the United Nations agreement at no moment had an imperative character."
  I quote that as an example of one country alone. The Argentine also is very anxious that other countries should recognise Spain. Slowly but surely, all South American countries are once again resuming relations with Spain. I warn the Foreign Secretary that once again we shall be left in the position of being one of the last countries to recognise a position that is already de facto. We badly need trade with Spain. If there is any question of difficulty in the future defence of Western Europe, the contribution of Spain will be vital to it.
  Mr. Parkin: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Blue Division is likely to be neutral towards Russia next time?
  Mr. Teeling: Franco is quite likely to be on the same side as ourselves in whatever troubles take place, if they do, in the near future—more so, in fact, than last time, when Spain was of considerable help to us. If we are to defend Western Europe, if that is to be at all possible, it is inevitable that Spain comes in with us. But it is equally unfair to ask Spain to prepare herself to be ready for such defence needs if at the same time we do not even recognise her or treat her as our equal. Other countries are already doing so.
  It is the conviction of the people of Spain that the reason why the whole of Western Europe and the American States are not doing so is because, once again, of the influence being used by the British Foreign Office, and especially the Secretary of State, as it has been solidly and definitely used over the question of Israel. It is the influence of the Foreign Secretary especially that is causing this hold up. The day will come when we must recognise Spain. That day will probably be too late for real friendship. If, however, as the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary seemed to be about to say a little while ago, that is not so, and the Foreign Secretary is not using his influence throughout Europe and elsewhere to keep Spain from being recognised, then I look forward to hearing that I am wrong.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) and should like to make just two comments upon it. The first is that in his plea that this country should follow the leadership of the Peruvian government, and of Colonel Peron of the Argentine, he has overlooked, or has been misinformed about, the position of the United Nations ruling. The last decision taken by the United Nations was quite definite and categorical and was not changed or discussed at the last meeting of the Assembly. That ruling was that Governments should withdraw ambassadors and heads of missions from Madrid. Secondly, in his plea for the admission of Spain into more cordial relations with this country and with Western Europe, the hon. Gentleman has overlooked, I think, the very strong case that was made in a letter

  1767
  sent to General Franco in October, 1944. The writer of that letter recalled that
  "…throughout the War German influence has been consistently allowed to hinder the war effort of Great Britain and her Allies"
  and added that,
  "…a Spanish division was sent to help our German enemies against our Russian Allies."
  The writer noted that: Spain's policy—General Franco's policy—
  "…had been one not of neutrality but of non-belligerence."
  He reminded General Franco—and I think the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) will be particularly interested in this, in view of what he said about the Spanish Government's attitude to this country—the writer of that letter in 1944 reminded General Franco
  "…of speeches in which your Excellency contemptuously referred to this country and other members of the United Nations and spoke of their defeat as desirable and unavoidable."
  The writer of that letter drew the conclusion that Franco Spain could take no part in the peace settlements of the future nor join the future world organisation. I give the hon. Member three guesses as to who wrote that letter. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill).
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Member will recall also that in 1948, on 10th December, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford, said this:
  "I agreed at Potsdam that Spain should not be invited to join the United Nations and I am not going to shirk any of the facts. I did so in the hope of inducing Soviet Russia to give this world instrument generous and friendly aid in support. But time has passed since Potsdam; three and a half years have passed; and I am sorry we have a different relationship with Russia from that for which we all hoped. I certainly see no reason why Spain should be excluded from the United Nations any longer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 723.]
  Mr. Orbach: That was two months ago. He has changed his mind since then.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I was hoping to refer to the possible reasons for a change of attitude by the right hon. Gentleman a little later. I would recall that this letter was written a year before Potsdam. There seems to be some conflict between this letter and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on 10th December.
  1768
  Profoundly though I disagree with everything the hon. Member for Eastbourne has said, and although I hope most urgently that my hon. Friend will give a sharp and prompt rebuff to Spanish serenadings coming from the Benches opposite, I should like to thank the hon. Member for raising this subject tonight. Had he not done so, I should myself have started the sometimes lengthy process of trying to get time on an Adjournment for discussing Spain in this House. My motives and reasons for doing so, however, would have been very different, I am glad to say, from those of the hon. Member.
  I think none of us on this side can forget our own support of, and the help we gave to, the legal Democratic Spanish Republican Government during the Spanish Civil War. Nor have we forgotten the disastrous policy of non-intervention and appeasement followed by hon. Members opposite during those years. Those policies brought much shame and ridicule to this country. Alas, they are still remembered by many people in Europe. They are a part of the record of the Conservative Party between the wars, which I think hon. Members opposite would be well advised not to remind us too much about. It is quite clear that that old spirit of appeasing Fascist dictators is not yet dead in the ranks of the Conservative Party. Those who in other countries watch our Debates will, I am sure, take note of that fact.
  There is one other reason, if I may just mention it, why I am glad that this subject has been raised: it is because it was my good fortune in 1946, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne has said, to go to Spain as a visitor to the democratic underground resistance movement there. I have not forgotten the kindness, courage and endurance shown by those Spanish democrats—and Basque and Catalan democrats—I visited; and I know they have not entirely forgotten my visit, because I am still able to get direct and regular communications and messages from them and reports from the Spanish underground movement. Their task in the past 10 years has been very hard, very dangerous and sometimes almost heartbreaking, but they have not given up hope and in the past few months, as my hon. Friend knows, they have intensified their activity. At this moment they are putting into effect a new agreement

  1769
  to consolidate the unity of all antitotalitarian forces in the country—monarchists, republicans, Basques and Catalans—
  Mr. Taylor: And Communists?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: —excluding Communists and Fascists—who are opposed to General Franco and wish to put a democratic government in his place. My hon. Friend knows all about this agreement and knows that anything he says tonight could have a great effect, not only here, but among the Spanish democrats as well.
  As the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, it was in the Debate of 10th December that the right hon. Member for Woodford first raised the question of the inclusion of Fascist Spain in the United Nations. I noticed that in the same Debate—and other hon. Members also noticed it—he made his first attack on the Palestine policy of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and ever since then I have speculated about the possible connection between those two things.
  I should like to ask the hon. Member for Eastbourne a question. Has it perhaps occurred to him, or to the Conservative Central Office, or Lord Woolton, that there is a big Jewish vote in this country and that if it were possible to present the Conservative Party, ignoring their past record, as the champions of a Jewish State, that might have a big electoral effect? Has it also perhaps occurred to the hon. Member, and the tacticians of his party, that there is a big Catholic vote in this country and that to present the Conservative Party as the champions of the so-called "Christian gentleman" of Spain might likewise have a strong electoral appeal? Is it perhaps electioneering and vote-catching that is the real motive behind these sudden new moves and the "Let us be friends with Franco," campaign which the hon. Member launched this evening? I would like to ask that question.
  Mr. Taylor: It will not be answered. It will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am sorry that the hon. Member and his friends are not able to think of a more convincing answer than that. Of course, the hon. Member has been very unlucky in a number of things
  1770
  and especially in the timing of this particular campaign. Today he appealed for the establishment of normal diplomatic relations with General Franco. Two months ago the right hon. Member for Woodford appealed for Spain's inclusion in the United Nations. He has overlooked the fact that we have an Embassy and a large Embassy staff working in Madrid and that the only person missing is the Ambassador. The re-establishment of normal diplomatic relations would mean nothing, except as part of a general "get-together" policy with General Franco leading to Fascist Spain's inclusion, not only in the United Nations, but also in Western Union, E.R.P., the Atlantic Pact and, in general, in the community of democratic Western European Nations.
  As luck would have it, yesterday General Franco gave his own views on these questions in an interview with the "Daily Telegraph." He
  "stated categorically"—
  I quote from the report—
  "that he did not consider it a propitious moment for Spain either to join the United Nations, or to take part in Western Union."
  He went on to describe the United Nations as "an abortion." He then described Parliamentary democracy in Spain as
  "a disastrous balance sheet, sufficient to discredit the Parliamentary system in the eyes of the Spanish peoples,"
  and held out "small hopes" of the slightest relaxation of his own Fascist dictatorship. He finished up by describing Gibraltar as a
  "thorn embedded in the heart of Spain,"
  and in asking Britain to give it up. I do not know if the hon. Member for Eastbourne is prepared to endorse this last point and to ask my right hon. Friend to scuttle our base at Gribraltar in the interests of General Franco's nationalistic ambitions, but it seems that, as far as closer relations with the Western democracies are concerned, whatever the hon. Member may say, the Spanish dictator has himself given his own answer, a blunt, peevish and ill-mannered "No" to proposals never made to him, and has given a very good exhibition of a bad-mannered refusal to attend a party to which he had never been invited.
  I do not want to spend many minutes in recalling the background and characteristics

  1771
  of the Fascist dictatorship which now rules Spain, and the contacts of General Franco with Hitler and Mussolini and his intimate associations with the Axis Powers right up to the moment when it became clear that they had lost the war. Enough was said by General Franco himself when he wrote this personal message to Hitler in 1941:
  "I consider, as you yourself do, that the destiny of history has united you with myself and with the Duce in an indissoluble way. I have never needed to be convinced of this and, as I have told you more than once, our civil war, since its very inception, and during its entire course, is more than proof."
  Then General Franco added:
  "I stand at your side entirely, and decidedly at your disposal, united in a common historical destiny, desertion from which would mean my suicide and that of the cause which I have led and represent in Spain."
  Mr. Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Member will also tell us what the Russians did with the Germans when we were fighting the Germans alone?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am still waiting to hear from the hon. Member what the Blue Division did in Russia when we were fighting as allies of that country. That quotation is what General Franco him- self had to say about his common destiny with Hitler and Mussolini. But that destiny, three years after the end of the war, is still unfulfilled. There is still a Fascist Government in Spain, and now the hon. Member for Eastbourne is asking us to welcome Hitler's last surviving ally into the fold of the democratic nations. The hon. Member knows that in these three years General Franco has done nothing to move his Government in the direction of democracy. He knows quite well that political persecution, with all the usual barbarities of the police state, has, if anything, intensified in the last three years; and he knows equally well that religious persecution, particularly of non-Catholics, has also ruthlessly continued in Spain.
  Mr. Teeling: Will the hon. Member explain that religious persecution?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I could go into some detail. There has been very intensive persecution of Protestants and I can give full details, but I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and will be able to give
  1772
  some details. Among the other things which the hon. Member for Eastbourne knows—
  Mr. Taylor: I must really draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member keeps on referring to me and saying "he knows" this, that and the other. Would it not be more appropriate if he said "I will tell the hon. Member for Eastbourne," or "I will tell the House"?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I was assuming that the hon. Member was in possession of information about the current state of affairs in Spain. I am sorry if I am doing him an injustice. I should be glad to have the opportunity of informing him, if I may put it that way—
  Mr. Taylor: That is better.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: —that Spanish gaols are still full of thousands of political prisoners, whose only offence is that they share the democratic views of the vast majority of their Western European neighbours. I would like to inform the hon. Member that, proud and boasting though the Spanish dictator may now seem, he is at this moment very much tortured by two fears for the survival of his régime. The first fear is the danger of economic collapse which under the present corrupt and chaotic administration in Spain—and with the running out of the Argentine agreement—has grown very much more immediate and more desperate than it was last year. The second fear is the growing unity of his democratic opponents inside Spain. However insistently he may use that familiar Hitler technique of describing all opposition as Communist inspired, he cannot obscure the fact that, now monarchists, republicans, trade unionists, Basques and Catalans are more effectively united against him than ever before.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) had something to say about the monarchists just now. I wish that time allowed me to give details of some of the recent arrests of monarchists, for being monarchists, that have been carried out very recently by the Spanish Government. I would recommend the hon. Member to read what General Franco had to say about monarchists in the report in the "Daily Telegraph" yesterday. These democratic forces, fighting in all the ways that they can against the Franco dictatorship, have nothing whatever in common with Communism or

  1773
  with the small Communist Party inside Spain. They are working not for civil war, not for the substitution of one dictatorship by another, but for the peaceful restoration of real free democracy and the re-inclusion of democratic Spain in the family of Western European nations where the Spaniards rightly belong.
  I agree that it is a sad and harmful thing that 25 million or 26 million hardworking citizens of a great and ancient Western European Power should be kept indefinitely in international quarantine, isolated and despised as they are at the present time by the rest of the world. The cure for that situation rests with Spain herself. Let her throw off her present Fascist Government and her people will I am sure be immediately welcomed into the United Nations and into all the arrangements in Western Europe with which this country is associated. I am certain that this Government will welcome her when that change comes.
  In present circumstances, however, what the hon. Member for Eastbourne asks is clearly out of the question. First, because the relations between this country and Spain are subject to decisions of the United Nations, and a series of other allied agreements on which the Government have no right and no power to take unilateral action. Second, to admit Fascist Spain into Western Union—which is in effect what hon. Members are asking—would at one blow destroy the whole moral and democratic basis of Western Union itself. Third, because under her present medieval, corrupt and inefficient administration, Spain could only be a source of weakness and instability to any democratic country who associated with her.
  There axe two points of view about the most effective way of fighting Communism and totalitarianism in the world today. The first view, so far as I understand it, is the view of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, and he is entitled to it. He believes that Communism can best be fought by turning Fascist or at last by allying oneself as closely as possible with Fascist countries on the ground that a Fascist dictator is likely to be the most effective bulwark against a dictatorship of the proletariat. I believe that that is a disastrous point of view. One has only to look at what has happened to country after country in Eastern Europe to see how hopelessly ineffective is a Government
  1774
  of the extreme Right in preventing the dictatorship of the extreme Left.
  The other point of view—in which I believe—is this, and it seems to me to be the whole lesson of recent years: one cannot fight totalitarianism whether left or right by totalitarianism, or dictatorship by dictatorship or reaction by reaction. If the democratic states of Europe are to win through they can only do so by offering the peoples of the world something better than their opponents can give, by offering them political freedom coupled with economic freedom, by achieving in fact, whatever the party or political labels may be, the objectives of democratic Socialism for which this Government is working in this country.
  Mr. Teeling: May I ask the hon. Member what he feels about trade with Spain? If he feels so strongly as this, what does he feel about our trade with Spain?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I think my views are fairly well known in this House on that subject. I have long believed it would have been easy and possible in the years immediately after the end of the second world war for effective pressure and if necessary, economic pressure to be applied of the kind that this country and the United States did apply to Franco right at the end of the second world war in order to detach him finally from his Nazi and Fascist allegiance. If that pressure had been applied in the years immediately after the war, it would have been effective.
  Mr. Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Eccleshall): What about the Spanish people?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I believe, as I was saying, in this alternative way of dealing with Communism. I do not believe that one can deal with that kind of totalitarianism by associating with or supporting Fascist dictatorships. I hope that my hon. Friend in his reply will give a sharp, prompt and very definite rebuff to the hon. Member and I hope he will also remember that his words here may have a big effect on the work of the democratic forces inside Spain, who are our real and faithful allies, and could do much to speed their work for the removal of the Spanish Fascist dictatorship and the restoration of freedom and democracy in that unhappy country.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: I do not intend to be lengthy. I do not intend to be controversial and for that reason I will not attempt to take up point by point the speech of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Chiswick (Mr. F. Noel-Baker). I shall not make any extensive excursion into history because what I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us tonight is why in this month of February, 1949, we are pursuing a provocative and, what is perhaps worse, an entirely ineffective policy in regard to Spain.
  In the matter of history we can argue to and fro across this Floor until the moment of Adjournment comes. I understand to the full the feelings of hon. Members opposite about many of the horrors of the civil war. Of course, there were horrors on both sides. My own view is that the greater horrors were committed by the followers of General Franco. But it is no use attempting to balance horrors against one another just now. It is no use asking whether the rather absurd Blue Division gave more help to the Germans than the Russians, whom we recognise and count as Allies, gave to the Germans. throughout the whole period from August. 1939, to June, 1941.
  It is not much use talking about Spanish neutrality during the war. If we are going to talk about neutrality and its observance, may I refer hon. Members to the record, so fortunate for us, of American neutrality in the year 1940. It was the most unneutral neutrality the world has ever known and it certainly outdid the unneutral neutrality which the Franco régime exhibited the other way in regard to us. But all that is part of past history, and so much past history of the last 10 years has had to be wiped out in regard to this country and that, that surely we may be content to deal with the situation as it is today. One cannot deny the logic implied in speeches of hon. Members on this side who have pointed out that we are recognising régimes just as totalitarian as the régime in Spain. The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick scouted the idea of our receiving Spain into the company of democratic nations. Does he really think that the republics of South America are democratic nations? They are no more democratic than Spain—
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: May I explain myself on that point? I was talking only
  1776
  of admission to the United Nations. Nobody is suggesting that the South American countries should be included in Western Union.
  Mr. Scollan: Before the hon. Gentleman replies to that question, would he not agree that one cannot draw an analogy between the South American countries and Spain, because there was a legally elected democratic Government in Spain which was overthrown by force, whereas that never happened in South America?
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Plenty of democratic governments in South America have been overthrown by force. But I do not want to press that point. I ask the Under Secretary to tell us what is really being achieved by the policy we are pursuing today. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick), about whose speech I should have said more if he were still present, drew some analogy between Spain and another totalitarian country in the East of Europe. I would draw some analogy between Spain and her nearest neighbour, Portugal. Portugal is under a dictatorship, under a totalitarianism which has proved much more successful and more beneficial to the people, but complete totalitarianism none the less. But Portugal is our oldest Ally and we are on the most cordial terms with her today. What are we achieving by this policy which we have pursued so long?
  The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick looks forward to a day when we will have a republican government again in Spain. Is there any foundation for that expectation? Nobody would be happier than I should be, if we had such a government, but I do not want to see it come by civil war and I do not want to encourage the Republican exiles in what I believe are false hopes. Exiled governments have an unfortunate record for themselves since the last war. None of those who went back to their own countries lasted, and there is no reason, as we survey the facts, to imagine for a moment that the exiled government of Spain are capable of going back and forming a successful government.
  How long is our attitude towards Spain to continue? General Franco has been in his present position for ten years. In spite of the remarks of the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick, he is as

  1777
  firmly entrenched as ever he was. There is no sign whatever of his overthrow. He is 52 years old and he has a reasonable expectation of another 20 years of life. Are we to keep up this petty, ineffective, semi-ostracism for another 20 years? Will it really do any good? Have we so little faith in our own principles and our own democracy that we cannot believe that Spain would be affected if we could get much more in touch with the Spaniards, if we could travel there and mix and talk with them? If I wanted to overthrow Franco, as I should like to do if there was a better régime in view, the first thing I should want to do would be to tear down the iron curtain which we are trying to construct, let in some air, communicate with the people and try to tell them of the better political doctrines which we follow.
  Along those lines there may be some possibilities. The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick is most anxious that Spain should not be admitted to the Atlantic Pact and to O.E.E.C. I cannot imagine anything more likely to overthrow General Franco than for Spain to be offered all the privileges of Marshall Aid and for General Franco to oppose them. If he is going to do that, then I think there is really a chance of overthrowing him. For that reason, I should like Spain brought into Western Union, into O.E.E.C. and the Atlantic Pact. If we worked for that, it would be a far more realistic policy than that which we are pursuing today.
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman want Spain admitted to all these things with or without Franco? If he wants them without him, I should be with him. One of the most effective ways of getting a change of régime would be to say that as soon as Franco goes Spain shall be included.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Surely the hon. Member, with his knowledge of Spain, cannot believe that that would have any effect on the people of Spain. The one effect that it would have would be that the people would say, "Oh, you are trying to change our government from outside." That is the very last thing to do.
  I want Spain brought in, with Franco, as an effective way of getting rid of Franco. I believe it would be a most effective way. Those are the reasons why it seems to me that the policy we
  1778
  are pursuing is ineffective and most undesirable. If Spain were any danger to us externally, if she were a danger to peace externally, there might be some reason for the policy we are following. But once we ostracise countries because we do not like their particular shade of government—and I admit this is a pretty dark shade—we are entering upon a campaign of discrimination in which it is very difficult to draw lines. We shall be thrown into endless difficulties and we shall be transgressing all the principles which we have always followed in foreign policy. I realise that the Under-Secretary has come here with a good brief and he will duly say his piece. But I ask him to convey to the Foreign Secretary the very cogent arguments which speakers like myself have been laying before the House tonight.
  8.45 p.m.
  Dr. Morgan: Tonight we have heard some most extraordinary views from alleged democrats in a democratic country. It was most amusing to hear the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) telling us how grandly, in secret conclave, General Franco penetrated into his heart, with all the secrets of his democratic love for Great Britain and Spain, and also his great democratic love for the Church and the monarchy. I have been in touch with people in Spain since I was chairman of a well-known committee, the Spanish Medical Aid Committee, during the civil war. I have been in touch with Catholic democrats in Spain, particularly in the Basque country and Catalonia. I tell the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) that I get my letters by ordinary post after they have reached France. I could narrate tale upon tale of drastic, brutal methods employed by Franco against the people in the Basque country and the Catalonians. [An HON. MEMBER: "And against Catholic priests."] I have been reminded by an hon. Member that these methods have been used not only against the ordinary common or garden people but against the Catholic priests, who, in many cases, are opposed to Franco.
  Franco ordered the bishop of a certain city in Spain to do a number of things in connection with a memorial service. The bishop replied that Franco had no right to tell a churchman what to do.

  1779
  Franco approached a higher bishop and attempted to tell him to instruct the bishop what to do in his church. The first bishop faced disruption from his church to fight for his democratic principles, and refused to do what was instructed. There are still people in Spain—Catholic democrats, Basques, Catalonians and others—who hate Franco with greater hatred than that with which many of the Germans hated Hitler. The hon. Member for Eastbourne, and the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling), whose faith is the same as mine, come here and want to pretend that Franco wants a monarchy. I have heard recently from a celebrated countess, whom I have never met and who has been in gaol for speaking in favour of the monarchy.
  Franco only wants the monarchy to protect himself. He knows perfectly well that there are some men in the Church who would prefer a monarchy to Franco. He wants to buttress himself by pretending that he could be the statesman who will move under the cover of religion in order to retain some of his power. I speak feelingly, because I was brought up in a cosmopolitan Catholic democracy without distinction of race, sex or colour. I find that in Spain time and again Franco deliberately selects religious people in order to wreak his vengeance on them.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: What about Hungary? Is it not the same there? Why be inconsistent?
  Dr. Morgan: I am against the same kind of thing being done in Hungary or Poland. I am not taking sides against a particular country. I am taking sides against the principle of totalitarianism wherever it shows its head. After all, Franco is nearest to us, occupying a dominant position on our trade route to India. Franco got his power by a civil war, in which I witnessed some of the things he did. I saw men who had been tortured and ruined for life, after treatment by his troops.
  One of my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick), an old-new recruit to the party, is now trying to teach the old veterans the principles of the Labour Party. Only the other day, Dr. Halliday Sutherland said that Spain has got everything except political freedom. The Labour candidate
  1780
  for the Scottish Universities in the 1935 election had the effrontery to say, in a democratic country like this, that Spain had everything but political freedom. Everybody knows that political freedom is the pivot of all our democratic institutions in this country.
  I want to tell the Foreign Secretary that we support him in every way in his antagonism to Franco; we, who know the facts and know the sufferings of all classes in Spain, but particularly the democrats, irrespective of religion or whether they were Monarchists of Republicans. We know how they have been treated. We know about the spies, the torture and the imprisonment for years without trial or justice. We, who know these facts, can say that Spain should be treated with a very strong hand and with an aloofness which is only justified by our dislike of their regime.
  I do not wish to say much more, because my voice is croaking and the subject is very emotional to me. I have had many friends in Spain, and have had many friends among the priests whom I have lost. I implore the Foreign Office having regard to the situation in Europe, to Franco's behaviour during the war and to his hypocrisy and his pretence to want to come in with us now for trade purposes, to stand firm. I think the Foreign Secretary should be congratulated on the firm stand he has so far taken on this point, and I hope he will continue his policy and win the respect of democrats throughout the world.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Roberts: I would like to take up two arguments which have been put from the other side of the House; first of all, those about the Monarchy and the Republican cause. I would tell the House that I have been to Spain on one occasion each year for the last three years in order to watch what was happening there, and I hope I shall be able to give the House a fair and objective view.
  Three years ago, when I went there, the position was that the Spanish Government were afraid. The war had just been won by us, and they did not know what we were going to do with their regime. Everybody was looking for a way out, a "hedge"; they were considering a monarchy, which at that time was popular. The next year, sanctions

  1781
  had been imposed, the Ambassadors had been taken away and there was more or less a battle of isolation going on. This year when I went to Spain, the position was changed. The Spanish people had begun to realise that their regime had withstood the attacks of the Foreign Secretary and the Americans; the people were no longer looking for a "hedge" or to the monarchy. They were saying "We recognise that Franco is here." His position was actually very much stronger than it was three years ago, and I think the House should realise that fact at the outset.
  I think it will be very helpful if hon. Members understand that point and accept the idea that Franco is stronger in his seat now than he was three years ago. This I believe is the result of the policy of the Foreign Secretary. I believe that this is the almost exact result of what the Foreign Secretary has done. He has shown the Spanish people that the Franco regime can get along quite well without the assistance of Western Europe, and that may be the reason for some of the remarks in a speech by General Franco which were quoted by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. F. Noel-Baker).
  On this third occasion when I went to Spain, I considered that the standard of living of the people there was higher than it had been three years earlier, or at any rate as far as the poor people were concerned. There was more rice, more oil and more wheat available, and there was a great deal of social security for the working people. I believe that, as long as a working man is not a Communist, he is better off in Spain today than he was three years ago. Those are facts which I want to put before the Foreign Secretary, and I want to base my argument upon them.
  What have we heard tonight? We have heard three main arguments. First of all, hon. Gentlemen opposite oppose the Franco régime on political grounds. We have heard that argument before, but I cannot understand how, if we say that, we can also have diplomatic relations with the Communist countries. It does not seem logical to me as a Yorkshire-man, and I cannot understand that difference. The second argument is based on social grounds, and I consider that the social position of the non-political working man in Spain is as good as, if
  1782
  not better than, that to be found in Eastern Europe. The third argument was that of past history and all the events of before and during the civil war. Foreign policy has always been changing. In the past, we have had battles with France, Holland and Denmark, but we cannot keep up those enmities indefinitely. Foreign policy must change, and we cannot say that, once an enemy, always an enemy.
  Behind it all, the whole crux of the matter is the fact that Russia at present does not want Western Union or a strong Western European combination. If one looks at all the propaganda which comes out against Spain at the moment, we see that it emanates from Russia and from the Russian satellite countries. I understand why there was a move to take the Ambassadors away from Spain, and why it came from Poland, because it was supported by Russia with the whole idea of keeping Spain—and I am not now talking about politics so much as from the strategic point of view—away from Western Union. If one looks at the resolutions passed by the trade unions, one finds that they nearly always come from the Communist-dominated unions.
  Mr. Scollan: Nothing of the kind.
  Mr. Roberts: With respect, in my pan of the world, it is so.
  Dr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman says that Communist resolutions come from his part of the country, but the trade union branches do not decide trade union or Labour Party policy. If any body does, it is the central body of the T.U.C.
  Mr. Roberts: I am sorry, but trade union branches do pass resolutions and send them to me. I have read them. I believe it is the Communists who are pressing the idea of keeping Spain away from Western Union.
  Mr. Scollan: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is trying to make the House believe that everybody who opposes Franco Spain is a Communist or a fellow-traveller. Would he say that of the American Government?
  Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has misquoted me. I say that the propaganda stir is coming from Moscow. It has been stirred up by Moscow. Hon. Members opposite, who have a past history in this matter and who made statements during

  1783
  the civil war, are very easy material to stir up. The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick is himself very easy material to stir up. I suggest, although they may not like it, that the propaganda which is stirring up hon. Members opposite is emanating from Moscow. Hon. Members opposite take sides in this matter. I have come in rather late in the day on this political issue, and I am trying to deal with it objectively. I cannot say what I saw in the civil war and use that sort of argument. I cannot take a prejudiced attitude one way or the other, and I hope that will be understood.
  I want to make this observation on Spanish political life. Politically the Spaniard has not got the same idea as we have of conducting affairs. I would like to relate one story of an anarchist to whom I spoke down in the south. When the revolution broke out he and his friends took some dynamite and blew up three of the managers of their mine. When the Franco troops came along and over-ran that site, they took 103 of the workers and shot them. The people in the village said, "That was not fair. If they had shot three we should have understood it, but 103 are too much. We now know where those soldiers are and, given the chance, we will get our own back." That is politics in Spain, and I hope hon. Members will take note of it.
  Mr. Scollan: I understood the hon. Member to say that he could not quote with the same authority as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan). The hon. Member is now quoting some Fictional anarchist, and is telling a secondhand story.
  Mr. Roberts: I said that I have not the prejudices of the past one way or the other. I am telling the House a story of a man I met and spoke to, which I hope is relevant.
  My second point is that the prisons at least are clean. It was suggested that when there is a political change, usually the members of the party in power go to the prisons, so that there is a vested interest in keeping the prisons in a clean and healthy state. That is politics in Spain—politics by the bullet. Earlier in the Debate it was said that the civil war was started by Franco. At that time the people in power, the so-called Government—
  Mr. Scollan: The elected Government.
  Mr. Roberts:—had been taken over by the Communists.
  Mr. Scollan: Nonsense.
  Mr. Roberts: I have spoken to people—mainly British subjects who were in Spain at the time—who definitely said that a few weeks before the revolution took place there was a great deal of force politics, to put it mildly.
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker rose—
  Mr. Roberts: I cannot give way to the hon. Member now.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I was interrupted a great deal by the hon. Gentleman when I was speaking. I only wanted to point out to the hon. Member that at the time the Fascist rebellion broke out there was not a single Communist in the Spanish Government.
  Mr. Roberts: I am not talking about the Government; I am talking about the people in the streets. If hon. Members really think they can go back and set up again that form of Government, they will find that they will come up against a great deal of resentment in Spain itself, because, as has already been stated, the one thing of which the Spanish people are frightened is another civil war. That seems to be the big factor which must be borne in mind. I feel that our interference in Spain is resented. It has not been successful in the way that the Foreign Secretary thought it would be. The policy of the Foreign Secretary has been bad and full of misunderstanding. I also think that the isolation tactics have already failed. We must have another approach.
  I suggest that the right method of approach is for us to open the gate from our side; we should send back our Ambassador and try to get our way of political thinking over to the Spaniards. That seems to be the only answer—apart from going back to revolution and civil war all over again. I suggest very seriously that the Minister should bear in mind the position of Spain as it is today, and I hope that he will realise that he will not get the result he wants by following his present policy. I hope that he will also realise that the only way to get a freer understanding between Spain and this country is by having freer intercourse both diplomatically and through trade and other methods of communication.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. George Jeger: In the very few moments left to me, I cannot go very far over the ground covered by previous speakers, although I should have liked to reply particularly to the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts). In common with every other speaker, I resent any meddling and interference in Spanish internal affairs, but the difference between myself, together with my hon. Friends on this side, and the hon. Member for Ecclesall, is that I started resenting it in 1936 when Hitler and Mussolini started interfering and meddling in Spanish affairs and when, with their help, Franco was enabled to seize power by force. Of course, the Spanish people resent that meddling and interference in their affairs. We on this side of the House do not suggest that there should be interference. What we do suggest is that by our giving a helping hand to Spanish democrats in Spain today, they would be enabled to get in Spain a democratic form of government and allowed to choose what sort of government they wanted to rule them.
  I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) who wanted to impose arbitrarily a monarchist system in Spain, without any mention of a democratic election or of allowing the Spanish people to choose for themselves what sort of government they want. I find this pro-Fascist attitude of some of the Conservative Party very strange. I can only conclude that their hatred of this Government makes anyone who is hostile to Britain and to this Government acceptable to the Conservative Party, or to some sections of it, as a friend and an ally. I consider that attitude on the part of some of the Conservative Party deplorable. It is a continuation of the appeasement policy which has been condemned by the country over and over again. If they come out into the open and confess that policy, they are certain of that sound licking at the next election which they deserve to have on home policy, too.
  There is no doubt that Franco Spain has always been the enemy of Britain. It has been the enemy of all that we stand for and all that we fought the last war for. Democracy and freedom, which mean everything to us, mean nothing to Spain, and the contempt and sneers with which Franco refers to this country
  1786
  have been going on since 1936 and have continued even up to yesterday, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) quoted. Franco's attitude in the recent war was shown quite clearly by his behaviour with the Blue Division and his attitude in allowing German submarines to use Spanish ports. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) denied that Spain had aided and abetted our enemies.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: I never did anything of the sort.
  Mr. Jeger: I have written down the hon. Member's exact words.
  Mr. Taylor: I never said anything of the sort. I said that Spain was neutral during the war and that she could have been very much against us in letting German troops through Spain into Gibraltar.
  Mr. Jeger: I accept the correction of the hon. Member for Eastbourne. Perhaps I erred in putting down a wrong word or two, although I have written down "denied Spain aided and abetted our enemies."
  Mr. Taylor: I said nothing of the sort.
  Mr. Jeger: The hon. Member said that Spain was neutral. Spain was neutral against us. Franco himself said that he was not neutral but had adopted a policy of non-belligerence, which is very different indeed. It is on record in documents which have been issued by the State Department in Washington that Franco pledged his aid and loyalty to Hitler. If our words of condemnation of Franco are suspect—if, as the hon. Member said, we are suspected of having Communist leanings or of being fellow travellers because we attack the Franco régime, what about the quotations which have been referred to from his right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), who condemned Franco in terms just as strong as any which we on this side of the House have used? What about Lord Templewood, whose book "Ambassador on Special Mission" contains a number of very useful quotations which I regret I have not the time to read to the House?
  Mr. P. Roberts: There is the essential difference that for three years we have seen that one policy has failed and I

  1787
  am suggesting that we should try another one.
  Mr. Jeger: There is an essential difference of three years in time but no essential difference in the attitude of Franco towards this country. If Franco were the enemy of this country during the war and after the war, he is still the same enemy of this country, as instanced by the interview he gave to the "Daily Telegraph," which was published only yesterday. I would particularly refer the hon. Member to Lord Templewood who during the war had intimate contact with Franco and disclosed the whole of his relationship with him in his book "Ambassador on Special Mission." In April, 1947, in an article in the "Evening Standard," Lord Templewood said this about Franco—discussing Franco's spurious offer to restore the Monarchy after his discussions with Don Juan—
  "He himself has no constitutional right even to call himself Chief of the Spanish State."
  Lord Templewood, who is a member of the Conservative Party and very high up in their hierarchy, has strong and informed views on this and I would suggest that the Conservative Party has an internal discussion on the question of Spain to decide what exactly is its policy on this matter.
  I have exceeded my time, but I want to remind hon. Members that the majority of people of this country are against any friendship whatever with the Franco regime in Spain, although we are very friendly in heart and mind with the Spanish people. Unlike the hon. Member for Eastbourne we differentiate between the Spanish people and the Spanish Government. The people who feel this enmity towards Franco and all he stands for include large numbers of people who were fighting Fascism when some of the hon. Members opposite were flirting and fraternising with Hitler and Fascism. They contain a large number of people who are even, as I am myself, against continuing our trade relations with Franco and who regard with pleasure the Foreign Secretary's statement that he detests the Franco régime. We hope he continues with that view. I hope the Government will do nothing to encourage General Franco, but encourages our real friends, who are the democrats in Spain, those who are still struggling for
  1788
  democracy underground in conditions of great personal danger in the hope that one day they will reach their day of liberation.
  9.14 p.m.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: My right hon. and hon. Friends on these benches do not regard this Debate as an occasion for a pronunciamento on the Spanish problem. If the problem is to be settled in any way it would have to be done at the most suitable moment. Diplomacy, like everything else, is an art and I am not convinced that the ingredients for settling this problem exist at the present time.
  I do not underestimate the passions which the Spanish question always arouses in the House. I have had plenty of experience of that myself and, unlike the Bourbons, I have learned something about this matter. I am aware also not only of the differences between parties on this matter, but also that there are differences on the opposite benches between the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) and some of his hon. Friends. Incidentally, I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. G. Jeger).
  I do not want to use any words which will make the political situation more difficult either on that side of the House or on this side of the House. I am aware of the great difficulties which have recently been excited in Norway and France by the raising of this issue of the recognition of Franco, and so forth. I have little doubt that the Under-Secretary, who is well informed, will be aware of the recent ructions in Norway on that subject. Therefore, I think it would be very wrong for any hon. Member to underestimate the difficulties of the question we are facing.
  I did not like the tone of General Franco's interview in the newspaper which has been mentioned, the "Daily Telegraph," extracts from which have been quoted in the House and which most of us have read. I draw the Government's attention to his remarks about Gibraltar. To a certain extent I am afraid I am old-fashioned; I sometimes talk about the British Empire, and I am extremely interested in our lines of communication in the Empire. If I can excite the Government to memories of the past greatness of Britain, I would like them to pay some attention to these remarks

  1789
  about Gibraltar, which was described by Franco as "the single evident wound." It is vital to Great Britain and her world position that we should regard Gibraltar as an integral part of our Empire defences.
  I did not like the tone of this interview on the subject of U.N.O. or our general approach to unity in the West. In fact, I have material here which would astonish the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) on the subject of the views of Dr. Negrin, who had himself called for Spanish inclusion within E.R.P. on the grounds that the Republic can never be restored by means of poverty and starvation. We have on both sides different views on Spain which makes the situation even more confounded. I have personal knowledge of Dr. Negrin, as well as Señor Del Vayo, and I was interested to see him make so intelligent a remark about the value of E.R.P. to his country.
  I did not notice quite the right tone in the article to which I have referred and therefore I cannot see at the present time that any solution to this problem can easily be made. I would like to say a few words, however, on behalf of the Opposition. We desire to see at the earliest possible moment the resumption of normal diplomatic contact with Spain for the very good reason that I think it is always easier to understand a country if you have diplomatic relations with that country and if you have a diplomat of a high level in the capital city of that country. I am aware that the Government are at present bound by the decisions of U.N.O., but I am also aware of the language, of which I have full particulars here, used by the British Delegation on three occasions when this matter has come before the Security Council, or has come before the sub-committee appointed by the Security Council, or has come before the Assembly as a whole. On each occasion the British Delegation, in my view, used temperate and sensible language.
  On the first occasion the British Delegate maintained that before taking action the Council must be quite certain that it was not impinging upon the domestic affairs of a sovereign State, and that is the cardinal view of the Opposition. In this we are in agreement with the Government and their original remarks as put by the British Delegate in 1946. On the second occasion the British Delegate
  1790
  added that Spain was not a potential danger to international stability. With that view we also agree. On the third occasion, after attempting to reach a compromise, the United Kingdom agreed with the other nations on the present situation as it is.
  All I ask is that every opportunity be taken, whether in U.N.O. or elsewhere, to restore normal diplomatic contact. It is not the desire of the Opposition or of any of my right hon. Friends or hon. Friends to invite Spain to enter Western Union at the present time. Some confusion arose on that matter on the last occasion when this was debated and I have been authorised to make that statement. Hon. Members may ask what are the advantages of diplomatic contact. I can only say that during my recent visit to Rome among the many personalities I met was a prominent Spaniard whom I met by chance. He took me aback by coming up to me and saying, "I have here the Order of the Golden Fleece; I am asking you to take it back for your Foreign Secretary and to give it him on my behalf." I said, "Thank you very much," and added that I had not much room in my luggage but I would do my best to take it back. I asked him for his reasons. He said that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary had done so much by his attitude to consolidate General Franco at home that he was extremely grateful to him. That little story indicates the effect of the Government's present policy. No doubt owing to the pride of the Spanish people, the more one takes an attitude antagonistic to their present ruler the more they are likely to consolidate behind him.
  Every time I have mentioned the Spanish problem I have stated my view, which I believe is shared by hon. Members on this side of the House, that we are against dictators and dictatorships. We do not sympathise with the present type of government which is holding its sway in Spain. We do not believe that by action in this House alone we can overthrow that Government but we believe that we consolidate such a Government if we adopt the sort of attitude we are adopting now. We realise that it is quite reasonable that the Under-Secretary is at present bound by the decisions of U.N.O., but we ask him to take the earliest possible opportunity

  1791
  to try to restore those contacts which may lead, one way or the other—we do not say which today—to a different situation in Spain and at any rate to a drawing closer of the Iberian Peninsula to us and our interests.
  I conclude by saying that I have not entered into the political argument or tried to make the political atmosphere any more difficult, because I am intensely anxious, as the hon. Member himself must be, as all patriotic Britons and all Members of this House must be today, at the lowering clouds of the international situation. The Iberian Peninsula has played a great part in history. It has played a great part in the history of the British race. It is situated in a vitally strategic position today. Heaven knows how things will develop in the world, but one thing is certain, if we have any knowledge of history and of our great history, that if things get worse we shall have need in one way or another of the Iberian Peninsula. We have been close friends for centuries with Portugal. It may well be that that is the entrance door to the problem of Spain. But if we can make relations better with Spain, I ask the Government to look for the way and to find it if they can.
  9.21 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): The speech we have just heard by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), though it contained some constructive criticisms of the Government, I believe must have impressed the House by being in refreshing contrast to the other speeches we heard from the other side of the House tonight. It showed a very welcome understanding of principle and good judgment in relation to the Spanish question—
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: It was not there in 1936.
  Mr. Mayhew: —which was not there in the Conservative ranks in 1936; and certainly was an answer to all the other speeches we have heard from the other side of the House tonight. The right hon. Gentleman said it might be that the problem is not soluble at the present time, and I think it is fair to say that that attitude is shared by my right hon.
  1792
  Friend. He stated that he did not like the views which General Franco had given to a correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph," especially on Gibraltar and on the United Nations, and there again, I am sure, my right hon. Friend would find himself in agreement. As to me point of disagreement and criticism, on that concerning our diplomatic representation in Spain, I hope to say a word later.
  There are few subjects on which the British Conservative Party has a worse record of lack of judgment and principle than it has in relation to Franco Spain. I am bound to say that hon. Members opposite have managed tonight to add a few more blots to an already dirty copybook. They have tried to make out a case against the attitude of the Government by a series of quite extraordinary arguments. We started with the good tempered argument of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) that the way to get rid of Franco was to embrace him and consolidate him. It seemed to me so simple a theory as to be almost a contradiction in terms.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: I did not say we should embrace Franco but the Spanish people, and that we should give them a better economic life, and that if Franco opposed that he would fall.
  Mr. Mayhew: I think that that is a slightly different emphasis, and certainly a more realistic and objective attitude to the problem we are facing. The hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) showed a completely unrealistic attitude to our problems at the present time. He said constantly that Franco's attitude in the war had been strictly neutral. He was partly supported by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor), who began by saying he detested the Spanish régime, and for the rest of his speech did all he could to defend the record of Franco during the war.
  This theory of the neutrality of Franco during the war cannot be held for a moment. The simple facts are wholly against it, as my hon. Friends frequently pointed out tonight. As far as I can judge, their assertions were entirely correct about the use of the Blue Division, about the refuelling of German submarines, about the facilities given to German intelligence agents, about the propaganda gestures such as the Hitler-

  1793
  Franco correspondence. All these things can be considered un-neutral, and all of them are difficult to forget for those who, for six long years, fought in the war.
  Spain is unique in certain respects. It is unique in being the only country whose régime has constantly supported our enemies in the war. This factor was fully recognised by the Opposition and by the Powers in the early days when the United Nations organisation was being established. It was considered and is considered a sufficient disqualification of Franco's Spain for membership of the United Nations. Feeling throughout the world against the Franco régime are still deep, natural and intelligible. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden referred to Norway and France. His information, I think, is accurate, and I think we have to take into consideration not the views of the British people alone, which, I think, are plain enough, but the views of our associates in Western Union and in Western Europe on this problem. It is hard to expect those people to take kindly to a régime which was helped to power by our enemies, a régime which helped our enemies during the war, a totalitarian régime on our enemies' own detested pattern.
  I come now to the question of our diplomatic representation. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden correctly pointed out, we are bound here by a United Nations resolution.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Am I right in thinking it was a recommendation from which we could free ourselves if we chose, although we supported it at the time? It is not right to call it a decision, I think.
  Mr. Mayhew: It was a resolution which recommended action by certain Governments and is as binding as any resolution of the Assembly can be. Of course, no resolution of the Assembly is binding on Governments, since resolutions are merely recommendations to action by them. This recommendation recommended to members of the United Nations the immediate recall from Madrid of their ambassadors and ministers plenipotentiary accredited there.
  The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) constantly used the word "recognition." I think it is the wrong use of the word, since we still have diplomatic
  1794
  relations with Spain. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the speeches we made at the United Nations on this subject, and correctly gave the impression to the House that the United Kingdom delegation was doubtful about the value and efficacy of this move. We made our view clear then and have done so often since, that there are practical advantages, in our view, in having an ambassador in Madrid. We still feel that, whatever value the gesture of withdrawal may have, there are practical advantages in having a channel of information and a possible means of humanitarian representation in the form of an ambassador in Madrid.
  I do not want to mislead my hon. Friends into thinking that the Government attach great importance to this question. I think, indeed, that in this debate there has been an over-emphasis of these two points. For the moment we consider ourselves bound by the United Nations' resolution, but I am bound to say that I am not prepared to commit the Government to opposing a move to annul this part of the United Nations' resolution if it comes up again.
  There were not, in fact, a large number of criticisms of His Majesty's Government in the Debate to-night. It is true that it was a lengthy Debate and several hon. Members spoke, but I think that there was only criticisms on two questions—the sending of ambassadors to Madrid and membership of the United Nations by Spain. On the subject of membership of the United Nations, which was not, I think, advocated by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, we feel, first of all, that it is an extremely academic subject. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) quite correctly pointed out, General Franco's own attitude, as expressed recently to a journalist, makes clear that he is not considering himself as a candidate for the United Nations; and certainly if he were considering himself a candidate, the language of the interview and his various suggestions make it an extremely unfortunate overture for an invitation to join the United Nations.
  Mr. Teeling: Surely in that interview General Franco pointed out that he had not been asked, and when it came to a question of Marshall Aid he pointed out that, of course, Spain wanted it. A starving people would naturally want it.
  Mr. Mayhew: I do not think that what I said is inconsistent with the view that, if General Franco really wished to join the United Nations, he showed it in a remarkably surprising way.
  Secondly, when one considers the whole question of the admission of members to the United Nations at the present time, and when one realises that Ceylon, Eire and Italy have been refused admission by the Soviet veto, it seems to me to be slightly academic, apart from any other consideration, to consider at this time the application, if it occurs, of Spain. Let me make quite clear that, whether academic or not, His Majesty's Government are not prepared to support the application of Spain to the United Nations. We have made our view quite plain on this matter before, and I am afraid that in what I am now saying I am covering ground that has already been covered.
  I associate myself with the views of my hon. Friends in many respects. On the general problem of our attitude to Franco Spain, we have been told by hon. Members opposite that Franco Spain would be an ally in the defence of Western democracy against Communism. It seems to me that, as an ally against Communism, Franco Spain is an extremely doubtful asset. I agree with much that the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick said on this subject. It would be fatal to regard the defence of Western democracy too much in military and strategic terms and too little in terms of politics and moral principle. The defence of Western democracy implies the maintenance of the integrity of Western democracy, and not merely military considerations about the Pyrenees, and so on, to which reference has been made today. I believe that the growing force of Western democracy means that we do not have to run after such a doubtful ally as this. We must not divert the energy of this growing force and not risk loss of integrity by Western democracy by pursuing such extremely dubious allies.

  BRITISH STUDENT, HUNGARY (EXPULSION)
  9.35 p.m.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Perhaps I should apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for making it necessary for him to reply to a second Adjournment Debate this evening over a matter which concerns his Department. But I think that it would be an ill omen if we in this House at any time became disinterested in the fate of a British subject at the hands of a foreign government, and this evening I desire to raise the question of the expulsion from Hungary of a British subject named Mr. Palgrave Brown, whose details I have already given to the Under-Secretary.
  Briefly, the facts are as follows. Mr. Palgrave Brown was awarded an Hungarian State scholarship for the academic year 1948–49. The selection of candidates took place under the auspices of the British Council and the Director of the Hungarian Cultural Institute. The scholarship was awarded for agricultural study, including a survey of the production of oilseed. Mr. Brown had no difficulty whatever in obtaining a visa to go to Hungary; he arrived in Budapest early in November, and, so far as I can discover, about a week later he made ordinary application to the Hungarian authorities for a permit to reside in Hungary until June, 1949, by which date his scholarship expired. On 20th November Mr. Brown was summoned to the headquarters of the Hungarian Security Police in Budapest and told that his permit would not be granted, and that an expulsion order to take effect from 12th December would be served on him; he was further informed by the police official who interviewed him that there was no appeal against this expulsion order, and that no explanation would be tendered to him as to why the expulsion order had been made.
  This put Mr. Brown in a very awkward situation, because by this time he had been admitted into the University of Agriculture in Budapest; he had already started his studies. During the ensuing fortnight he made repeated attempts, both through the British Legation and the British Consulate, and with various Hungarian Government Departments, to discover the reasons for the expulsion order, and to endeavour to get it rescinded,

  1797
  but without success. Finally, he left Budapest on 11th December.
  Of course, it is useless to speculate as to the reasons which lay behind the expulsion order; since Hungary was enveloped in the folds of the "Iron Curtain" all freedom in that country has disappeared. The fact that Mr. Palgrave Brown had an agricultural scholarship certainly entailed his travelling about the country a good deal, and it may well be that those in control of the "police State" were most anxious that any firsthand knowledge of conditions in that country should not become known in this country, or indeed outside Hungary's own frontiers. Whatever our speculations may be, the fact remains that an expulsion order was made, and no explanation was given.
  This is the first point I want to make. Mr. Palgrave Brown naturally sought assistance from the British Legation and the British Consulate in his troubles; he naturally asked that they should make inquiries to discover the reasons for the expulsion order, and when no reasons were forthcoming he naturally asked that a very strongly worded protest should be delivered. From the information I have received, and according to the answer given by the Minister of State to a Question put down by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) on 19th January, I have the impression that the British Legation were no more than courteous about the whole affair. They said that they would make a few formal inquiries, but that these would be quite fruitless; that not much could be done about this kind of thing; that questions of this sort were always arising; that the Hungarian Government being a Communist-controlled Government which was a law unto itself, within the meaning of those words behind the "Iron Curtain"; and that they were perfectly entitled to expel any British subject from Hungary without giving any reason, still less any proof of the charges brought against him. That attitude was confirmed in a letter which the Under-Secretary of State wrote to me about this case. I certainly cannot accept the view that there was no reason why a protest should be lodged merely because after 11th December Mr. Brown had left Hungary.
  1798
  I do not wish to underestimate the difficulties under which our representatives behind the "Iron Curtain" are asked to function. Anybody who has been abroad since the war, and especially to South Eastern Europe, will know how immense those difficulties are. I do not under-estimate these difficulties, but, have we really reached the stage when a British subject can be expelled from a foreign country without redress, appeal, or reason; having a year's planned study abroad turned completely upside down; having lost the chance of spending a post-graduate year in an English University for which he would have received financial assistance from his own Government, merely because he was awarded a scholarship for study abroad, incidentally incurring travelling expenses to the tune of £60 or £70 in the process?
  There were days when the possession of a British passport entitled the holder to some protection; to expect at least that the British authorities in the country concerned would, under instructions from His Majesty's Government, lodge a very strongly-worded protest in this sort of case, and demand compensation coupled with the threat that unless satisfaction were given some sanctions might be taken against Hungarian nationals in a comparable capacity in the United Kingdom. Could we be told by the hon. Gentleman why no protest has been made and why his Department is not of the opinion that Mr. Palgrave Brown has a claim for compensation against the Hungarian Government; and why the case of the expulsion of this entirely innocent British subject in possession of a Hungarian scholarship was not considered of sufficient importance for the Foreign Office to know about it on 3rd January although the incident happened towards the end of November?
  If you will look at your passport, Mr. Speaker, you will see that the Foreign Secretary requires, in the name of His Majesty's Government,
  "all whom it may concern, to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford him or her every assistance or protection of which he may stand in need."
  If those words are meaningless, if His Majesty's Government cannot even protest when the holder of a British passport is subjected to this kind of treatment, is it not time that those words were altered?
  9.44 p.m.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Some Members of the House should express the appreciation of back bench Members at the decision of Mr. Speaker to allocate the time in the way that it has been allocated during the last few weeks, when time has been available for discussions of this character. We are living in times when events move quickly and situations develop and change at a quicker rate than ever they did in the history of the world. I have sat here during most of this afternoon and have heard hon. Members speak who have not spoken for a long time. They have had an opportunity. They have utilised it to the best advantage.
  While we have a representative of the Foreign Office here I want to make some observations on another matter which is receiving great consideration outside this House. Travelling on the Underground about three hours ago, I saw practically everyone reading their newspapers, and others were in deep conversation. It was obvious that world affairs were arousing deep interest. I listen to conversations in order to learn from them and I derive great pleasure from the welcome which the average man and woman have given to the impact now being made on world affairs by President Truman and Premier Stalin. This matter has aroused world interest, and from this House should go out a message expressing the aspirations of those of us who claim to belong to the common people. If anyone has any doubt about this, he should listen to the Wilfred Pickles item in the B.B.C. programmes. There we get right to the heart of the common people. When Wilfred Pickles asks, "What is your greatest desire in the world?" person after person, especially the women, answers, "We hope that there will be no more war." Wherever there is a ray of hope, a message ought to go out from the common people of the country that they want to be involved in any move which is taking place in the world to bring about reconciliation.
  To the great credit of both sides of the House, in spite of the fact that there is a deep political cleavage on the issue being discussed, the main idea in the speeches tonight has been the need to bring about a reconciliation between the peoples of every country in the world. I am therefore very pleased to see that Mr. Trygve Lie, the General Secretary of the
  1800
  United Nations, has taken the initiative, a courageous act for a civil servant. When such a thing occurs, we ought to let it be known that we have noticed it and will give credit for it. He is prepared to place the organising services of his staff at the disposal of the leaders of the countries concerned so that they may meet together in order to try to bring about a reconciliation. Mr. Warren Austin, of the United States of America, and other senators have made their attitude quite clear on this issue. It is time the British Government took the initiative more in affairs of this kind. I know of the responsibility which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has and I do not expect a reply from him tonight. I am satisfied as long as someone in this House is placing this subject on record and stimulating further thought on it. I would add that the House was very gratified at his last reply.
  With regard to the war, it was Russia, Britain and America who made the greatest sacrifices in order to save all that was best in the world. Therefore, these are the three countries who are entitled to take the initiative in the world and should have the biggest say in the world. Therefore, if any move is being made, Great Britain should be in on it along with the two other countries who made the greatest sacrifices. We have exerted great influence recently in regard to trade pacts, which have been welcomed by all the people of this country. I was speaking in Bolton with three other hon. Members of this House when the announcement about the new trading agreement between this country and Poland was made. When speakers made reference to that agreement the large audience immediately and spontaneously gave it a great welcome. I believe this is laying the basis of economic cooperation and by building economic cooperation we are going a long way towards bringing about reconciliation between peoples.
  I very closely followed the Presidential campaign in the United States. That great Liberal, that generous, magnanimous Liberal, the elected President of the United States, made speech after speech containing the same sentiments as I am expressing tonight. I believe the great vote he got, in spite of the fact that nearly all the world thought he would not be re-elected, was a vote for peace

  1801
  and for a move of the kind which is being made in the world tonight. Because of that, people are now shedding their pessimism and, listening to them on the Underground, and in other places where we move among the people, we find that that is so. An hon. Member talked about pulling down the Iron Curtain and other hon. Members associated themselves with him. They were appealing for a new start in world affairs and for a reconciliation. If one goes to the Library one will find a book called "The Challenge of Our Time, Will There be Another War?" Those of us who have passed through two world wars and, by the way in which things are drifting may see another, ought to make it clear before we reach that situation that, on behalf of the common people of this country, we welcome every move to bring about a reconciliation between the peoples of the world.
  9.53 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower: In a very brief fashion, I wish to support the question which has been raised by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe). In doing so and confining myself to that issue, I hope I shall not be accused of any disrespect of the wider issue raised by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith).
  Time was, and you will have personal remembrance of it, Sir, when a British passport carried the right of entry and respect throughout the world, and, although there are great difficulties in modern days between two ideologies, which, unfortunately, appear to be splitting the world, I would ask the Foreign Office to stand up for the British passport. Surely the words written on it, which we all know, mean something, or nothing. If a British citizen can be expelled from a country without charge and without redress, when he has a scholarship at a university, the Foreign Office are failing in their duty if they are not prepared to press the issue to the utmost. I well remember in youth being very grateful to having been born a British citizen and feeling that it was something akin to the Roman Empire which carried respect. When a man said, as the Bible tells us, "I am a Roman," he felt the same as we do about being British.
  On the wider issue, I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke
  1802
  for using this Adjournment Debate to repeat with truth that the nation is today weighing the offer of Premier Stalin to visit President Truman and trying with honesty to decide, if it is made sincerely—which I pray God is true, because who could wish for another holocaust of horror descending on this world—whether ideologies can be matched together with patience. Never again must this country be caught napping.
  Not only this House, but all outside it will sympathise with the hon. Gentleman who is about to reply to this Motion, for no Department of His Majesty's Government carries greater responsibility today than does the Foreign Office. I shall, therefore, listen to his reply with very great interest.
  9.56 p.m.
  Mr. Mayhew: I reply by leave of the House. I am sure that hon. Members appreciated the spirit in which the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) and Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Gandar Dower) were made. I appreciate very much their suggestion that they were not expecting a reply from me tonight on the substance of what they discussed. They raised the higher issues of policy based upon a newspaper report which I have not seen. Therefore, I take the liberty of not replying to the speeches which they made.
  On the subject of the Adjournment I cannot accept all the implications of the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe). The greater part of his facts as I could follow them were accurate, but the implied criticism of His Majesty's Legation in Budapest is not, I think, quite just. I would like, if I may, briefly to give our version of the facts. It is as follows: Mr. Palgrave Brown, who is an Oxford agricultural student, was awarded a Hungarian State scholarship for the year 1948–49 to study agriculture in Hungary. He proceeded to Budapest on 7th November and on 16th November he applied for his permis de séjour to be extended in accordance with local regulations. On 20th November he was summoned to police headquarters, where he was told it would not be possible for him to receive an extension and that he must leave the country by 12th December. No reasons were given by the police for this action. Subsequently

  1803
  an expulsion order was issued giving the grounds that Mr. Palgrave Brown was undesirable.
  Mr. Palgrave Brown referred his case to His Majesty's Legation, who took it up immediately together with the case of another British subject holding a Hungarian State scholarship who had been similarly ordered to leave Hungary. The Legation took up the matter with the head of the cultural section of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who undertook to make inquiries and to assist if he could. Meanwhile, Mr. Brown stated that, unless there were a reasonable certainty that he would be allowed to stay, he would rather leave at once and so avoid additional, and possibly pointless, expenditure by remaining in Hungary. That is rather an important point.
  Since experience of the arbitrary methods only too often adopted in police States naturally precluded the giving of any firm assurance on this point, Mr. Palgrave Brown decided to leave Hungary on or about 9th December, by which date repeated attempts by His Majesty's Legation to elicit a reply from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had failed to produce any reply. However, a few days later the Ministry stated—after Mr. Brown had left—that the expulsion order had been rescinded in the case of the second student. She had remained in Budapest and is, I believe, still there. Nothing was said about Mr. Brown, but since he had already left Hungary the matter was not pursued with the Ministry.
  It being Ten o'Clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]
  Mr. Mayhew: In view of the fact that Mr. Palgrave Brown had to pay his own fare to Hungary and back, the Hungarian State scholarship proved a somewhat expensive business for him, and it has been suggested that he should approach the Hungarian Legation in London and claim reimbursement on the ground that the Hungarian Government defaulted on a specific undertaking.
  That is the sum total of my information on this typical piece of pin-pricking.
  1804
  Whatever may be the true explanation of the action of the Hungarian authorities I am satisfied that His Majesty's Legation did what was appropriate and in their power to have the decision rescinded, and it only remains for me to express sympathy with yet one more victim of police state methods.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down could he explain why the mere fact that Mr. Palgrave Brown left Budapest for Austria, giving his address to the British Legation before his departure should be an excuse for failure to deliver a very forcible protest? Why cannot a protest be made after the individual has left the country?
  Mr. Mayhew: It is not clear that the expulsion order would have been applied to Mr. Brown, had he not left at the time he did leave. In the case of the other student, it was rescinded as a result of our inquiries. I cannot say that the order would not have been rescinded had Mr. Brown not left the country, and therefore it did not seem appropriate to put a protest forward as suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Will the hon. Gentleman now do something with the Hungarian authorities in Budapest to pay compensation for Mr. Brown having been interrupted in his post-graduate course, and not merely leave it to Mr. Brown himself to do something with the Hungarian Legation in London?
  Mr. Mayhew: No, on this story our judgment is that it would be appropriate for Mr. Brown to make these inquiries, and if he wishes to approach us again later we shall, of course, be ready to receive him, and to listen to what he has to say.
  Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower: I would like to ask one question because I think it would be beneficial to place on the record the contrast between British methods and the methods of other countries. May I ask if in all cases of expulsion from Great Britain reasons are in fact given?
  Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes past Ten o'Clock.

  AIR SERVICES (NAIROBI-ADEN)
  AIR SERVICES (NAIROBI-ADEN)
  ROYAL OBSERVATORY, HERSTMONCEUX
  ROYAL OBSERVATORY, HERSTMONCEUX
  SUB-POST OFFICE, SWANNINGTON
  SUB-POST OFFICE, SWANNINGTON
ARMED FORCES
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Admiral Carney (Visit)
  Admiral Carney (Visit)
  Field-Marshal Montgomery (Visit, The Hague)
  Field-Marshal Montgomery (Visit, The Hague)
  Missions, Greece (Cost)
  Missions, Greece (Cost)
  Reserves
  Reserves
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Fish Friers (Licences)
  Fish Friers (Licences)
  Cornflour
  Cornflour
  Alleged Black Market (Inquiries)
  Alleged Black Market (Inquiries)
  Sows (Slaughter)
  Sows (Slaughter)
  Poultry and Rabbits
  Poultry and Rabbits
  Sweets
  Sweets
  Imported Jellied Beef
  Imported Jellied Beef
  Gift Parcels
  Gift Parcels
  Professional Societies (Refreshments)
  Professional Societies (Refreshments)
  Committee, Penmaenmawr
  Committee, Penmaenmawr
  Ministry's Stocks
  Ministry's Stocks
  Feedingstuffs (Price Increases)
  Feedingstuffs (Price Increases)
  Suet
  Suet
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Pilot Officer Sayers (Burial)
  Pilot Officer Sayers (Burial)
  Poles
  Poles
  Swift Training Rifles
  Swift Training Rifles
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Training Flights, Middle East
  Training Flights, Middle East
  Aden Levies (Colonel Jones)
  Aden Levies (Colonel Jones)
  METAL PRICES
  METAL PRICES
EDUCATION
  Visual Aids
  Visual Aids
  Ex-Service Students (Grants)
  Ex-Service Students (Grants)
  B.E.A.C. BOARD (SALARIES)
  B.E.A.C. BOARD (SALARIES)
  AREA GAS BOARDS
  AREA GAS BOARDS
  BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES)
  BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES)
  CLOSED ROAD, SHILLINGSTONE
  CLOSED ROAD, SHILLINGSTONE
  MOTOR CARS (HIRE PURCHASE)
  MOTOR CARS (HIRE PURCHASE)
  BOTTLE PARTIES, LONDON
  BOTTLE PARTIES, LONDON
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MEDICAL INFORMATION)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MEDICAL INFORMATION)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  QUALITY OF DOMESTIC COAL
  2.36 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the coal sold to domestic consumers contains large quantities of rock and other uninflammable material, and whether this is the result of nationalisation.]
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, there has been a steady deterioration in the quality of house coal since before the war, mainly due to the increase in the proportion of coal mined mechanically without a corresponding increase in the amount of cleaning plant. The position is aggravated by the fact that a number of our best and cleanest seams are becoming exhausted, and others of inferior quality are having to be worked. Moreover, the need to export as much high-class coal as possible inevitably influences the quality available for the home market. In their Annual Report for 1947 (paragraphs 261–277), the National Coal Board have dealt at length with the problem of dirty coal, and with the short-term and long-term measures they are taking to improve the quality. This shows that for some years before the mines were nationalised the quality of the output had deteriorated steadily. The answer to the last part of the noble Viscount's question, therefore, is in the negative.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Is the noble Lord aware that the defects of which we complain are not just casual bits of dirt but lumps of stone of considerable size? These are sold with a thin layer of coal on them so that they are not perceived immediately, although they are the moment they are put into the fire.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask whether, since the rocks of which the noble Viscount speaks are now sold to the country for cash, His Majesty's Government will consider accepting the rocks back for cash in payment of income tax or other taxes?
  LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lords will both appreciate, I am sure, that this is one of the results of the drive towards additional mechanised cutting, which everyone agrees is necessary in order that as large a quantity of coal as possible may be produced. In fact, merchants have been instructed to take particular care in respect of these large pieces, to which the noble Viscount refers, and to call in the Coal Board's officer on any occasion when a truck load is delivered which is not of reasonably good quality. If they are able to prove that the amount of dirt present is substantial, a due allowance will be made.

  DEATH SENTENCE ON GENERAL PIKA
  LORD VANSITTARThad the following question on the Order Paper:
  [To ask whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the sentence of death passed on the Czechoslovak General Pika on account of alleged sympathies and connections with the West, and whether any steps can be taken in the matter.]
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose for the present to put the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

  SOLICITORS, PUBLIC NOTARIES, &c., BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
  BOROUGH OF TENTERDEN ORDER;
  URBAN DISTRICT OF NANTWICH ORDER.
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
  Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL AVIATION
  2.42 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON rose to call attention to the administration of Civil Aviation and the Reports of the Corporations; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Motion standing in my name gives us the opportunity to consider the Reports of the three Corporations charged with the operation of air lines, but I think your Lordships will agree that we ought also to embrace in our review the general policy and administration of civil aviation, and not confine ourselves to what is in the Reports. I have, therefore, framed the Motion in wide general terms.
  The first question I would like to put to the Minister—and I have given him ample notice of this—is one which I do not think has ever been answered, although it is of fundamental importance. It is this': What is it all costing? It seems often to be assumed that the cost to the taxpayer of civil aviation can be measured by the deficits on the working of the Corporations and the consequent subsidies which have to be given to them. If that were true it would be serious enough. The deficit of these Corporations in the past year is very nearly £11,000,000—I think, to be exact, it is £10,820,000, though I am not sure whether that figure covers all the losses of associated companies. If it does not, then some other sum has to be added. That is the figure in the Reports which have been presented to Parliament for the year ending March 31, 1948.
  Just before Christmas, the Minister—and I am grateful to him for this, because we have asked in the past that we should be kept up to date as to how these matters progress—gave to the Press a statement of the results of the working in the first half of the current year. On that period, the deficit is down to £4,000,000, but the Minister warned us that the spring and summer half of the year was much the better half, because of the summer seasonal traffic, and that the loss would be far greater in the second half of the year. Indeed, he warned us that it was certain that the loss would exceed the statutory limit of £8,000,000 which, your Lordships will remember, is the limit of loss which Parliament imposed under the Civil Aviation Act.
  But that heavy loss of £11,000,000 in the accounts which we are now considering is only part of the cost, and before I come to the much larger items of cost I would put one small point. There appears to be a concealed subsidy in the Corporations' accounts. Your Lordships will see that there is an item of loaned or leased aircraft against which no sum is put. Your Lordships will also see from the accounts, and it is familiar knowledge, that the life of an aircraft is five or six years. When a Corporation buy an aircraft, they write it off in five or six years, making allowance in the accounts for that depreciation; hut, obviously, if an aircraft is not bought by them, and is merely on loan to them, they do not write off anything, and the depreciation must be borne by somebody else, presumably by the Ministry. Similarly, if the aircraft is on loan to one of the Corporations, unless the rent which the Corporation pay is more than the annual depreciation which ought to be allowed, then the deficit must be carried by the Ministry. In both cases, there is something in the nature of a concealed subsidy. It would be useful if the Minister would tell us what that amounts to.
  I now come to a much larger figure in the accounts—namely, the expenditure on development and research, all of which is carried on the Vote of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. At least, I presume it is all carried on this Vote; there may be something more carried on the Vote of the Ministry of Supply. Some of the work of development and research is no doubt common to both military and civil aviation, but a large part of it is purely civil; and in the Estimates for Civil Aviation for last year a figure for research and development of over £10,000,000 is given. There is, in addition, the cost of airfields, all of which is borne by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I think it would be useful if the Minister could give us figures for capital cost and for maintenance, distinguishing, if he can, between international airfields used by the traffic of all countries and airfields used only by our internal services. The cost must already be very large, there is a great deal more to come and I would like to know what are the future prospects.
  Then there is the cost of the Ministry itself, which has increased greatly. I think the figure for staff alone (if we take headquarters staff, the staff at out-stations

  463
  and travelling expenses)exceeds £1,000,000. I wonder whether all that is necessary, and whether some of the work could not be eliminated. I think your Lordships will agree that in assessing the real cost of civil aviation all that has to be taken into account, and I would ask the Minister to give us the real aggregate figure. I think your Lordships will be surprised at it. I have tried to calculate a figure from the Estimates, and, allowing £6,750,000 for appropriations in aid, I calculate that we have to add at least £16,000,000 to the Corporations' deficit of £10,000,000 or £11,000,000. If I am right, that means that the true bill to the taxpayer for the year is not less than £26,000,000, and may well be more. It would be interesting to compare the cost to the taxpayer of the services rendered to shipping, which brings in a great income to this country, and which to-day, I suppose, is the largest of our invisible exports. I cannot say what it is, but I hazard a guess that the cost to the taxpayer of shipping services is not one-twentieth of the cost of civil aviation. I think I have said enough to show that the question of cost is of paramount importance and that it should have a profound effect upon the matters which we shall be discussing in this debate.
  I would turn to the Reports of the Corporations, and their operations. I am glad to say that there is one matter upon which I can congratulate the Minister—I may find something else in the course of my review—and it is that at long last the Government have taken the obvious decision that the Airways Corporations are to be allowed to buy their own aircraft from the makers. In company with many of your Lordships, I have been pressing this point upon the Government for the past two years, and each of the three Corporations pressed for it in their reports to Parliament last year. Obviously it is the only way to get the right contact between the user and the maker. It in no way hampers the Government in giving general directions to the Corporations. They can give directions to the Corporations as to how far they are to buy British, and they can give directions as to how far they are to be allowed to use dollars—I am sure the Treasury give them a very strict direction.
  It does not in the least interfere with the Ministry of Supply—if that is the
  464
  Ministry which conducts the research and development work. Indeed, by this means you will probably get a better and closer liaison between the Ministry of Supply and the Corporations in regard to research and development. But why was not this done sooner? I believe the Minister himself was converted quite a long time ago. It is common knowledge that the obstruction has lain with the Ministry of Supply. I do not think anybody on the Front Bench will seek to deny that. It is extraordinary how successfully the Ministry of Supply impedes the economic progress of this country.
  I now come to the policy with regard to aircraft. I feel sure we all agree that the general aim should be that the Corporations should fly British aircraft, but that those aircraft must be efficient. The three Corporations are not in the same position in this matter. As regards B.E.A.—that is, the European line—I do not think there is any serious problem. In their report the Corporation pay a deserved tribute to the Viking aircraft, and say how very suitable, economical and comfortable they are. They tell us that they have decided upon its ultimate successor, and upon Dakota replacements, all of which will be British. It is very difficult to say anything about B.S.A.A.—that is, the South American line. That line suffered a grievous loss in the unfortunate death of Air Commodore Brackley. The Corporation told us that they looked forward with confidence to the modified Tudors—I think the Tudor IV and V. It is fair to say that the Minister was absolutely right to ground the Tudor aircraft pending the exhaustive tests which are taking place. I would further say that, from the information I have, he appears to have undertaken those investigations in an expeditious and practical manner. I think that all one can say to-day—I do not know if the Minister can give us any information—is that we sincerely hope that the result of those investigations will be satisfactory.
  B.O.A.C. have had a difficult problem. If, as I hope, we have now on the stocks really good aircraft, using jet engines or gas turbines, and which are well designed to be the most economic size and type, then we ought to press ahead with them with all speed and in the closest consultation with the Commonwealth countries who operate reciprocal services.

  465
  That, it seems to me, is the practical way to combine the policy of flying British with economical operation. It is certainly the right training for the designers and the craftsmen in the aircraft industry. No benefit is really derived from either the designers or the craftsmen if they are kept at work on obsolete machines. We may have to use foreign machines in the meantime on some of the longer routes, but if we know we have the right kind of British aircraft coming along, that, I feel, will be only a temporary disadvantage. That temporary disadvantage is countervailed by the importance of the British air lines retaining their clientele and goodwill. If a line gives inferior service, whether it be in aircraft or in administration, travellers will get into the habit of travelling by foreign lines, and it will be all the harder to get them out of that habit when the good new machines are in service.
  I stress the importance of immediate and continuous consultation with the Commonwealth countries, because I think it is so important to get back to the parallel partnership and to the use of the same kind of aircraft, which we all envisaged in 1945. We not only envisaged that partnership, but we had worked out in great detail—as my successors know—just how that policy and that principle were to be applied. It broke down only because we, alas, were not able to produce the right aircraft. The policy itself is so sound and economical (I do not have to argue it now; it has already been expounded here) that it is most desirable that we should return to it as soon as we have the right types of aircraft. That is why I said at the start that we must proceed with those types in constant and close consultation with our Commonwealth partners.
  In all these Corporations the administration costs are high. I am not just jobbing backwards when I say that I cannot help once again regretting most profoundly that, pressed by some doctrinaires behind them, the Government insisted on discarding the partnership with the shipping lines. The shipping companies would have brought into this business great experience, a tremendous knowledge of transport and existing organisations all over the world. Those organisations would have rendered unnecessary the creation of all sorts of new booking offices, and the like, and could
  466
  have taken in their stride the booking of fares. In addition to their experience, the shipping companies have tremendous good will all over the world. I must say it is a great pity that they were not brought in. Not only is it a great pity, but the bill which the taxpayer has to foot to-day would have been less if that doctrinaire step had not peen taken. In my view, it would be very useful if, in the case of B.E.A., we could have a comparison with other European companies which publish their reports and full accounts and, I think, supply extensive details to I.C.A.O.—that is, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the international U.N.O. for this business. I should like to see a comparison between the number of hours flown per month by the individual aircraft of foreign lines and those flown by our lines, because it is the number of flying hours obtained from an aircraft which makes all the difference between profit and loss.
  Any of your Lordships who has read the B.E.A. Report—and, indeed, the recent statement of the Minister—must have been struck by the enormous deficit upon the internal services. I think I am right in saying that in pre-war days these internal services were operated without any subsidy at all. As your Lordships will see from the Report, in the last full year the operating deficit of B.E.A. on its internal services—that is, the services operating inside this country—was over £2,000,000, although the operating deficit on the Continental services was only £1,250,000. It is not as if a great deal more flying had been done on the internal services. On the contrary, in round figures the passenger miles flown were 50,000,000 miles on the internal services and 73,000,000 miles on the Continental services.
  Returning to the figures which the Minister published in the Press for the first half of this year—the better half, certainly, for both—the contrast is even more striking. The deficit of the internal services, even in the good seasonal time, was £720,000, whereas the deficit on the Continental services was only £143,000. But here again, that is only part of the cost. To these figures should be added the net deficit on airfields—and the cost of the airfields is millions—of which the greater number, though not the most costly, are maintained for internal services only. I think it would be an

  467
  advantage if we could have the combined losses on the services and airfields apportioned to the different routes. The Minister probably could not give me that information to-day.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): No.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: However, I think it would be useful if he would publish those figures to Parliament in a Written Answer. Obviously, the figures must be there. Adjustment about overheads can be made; every company must know roughly the loss on each of the services it runs; and the Minister knows with complete accuracy what is the cost of the airfields which accommodate those services.
  I wonder whether some of these airfields could not be run more cheaply. I have had supplied to me, by one of its users, particulars about an airfield at Islay. There, the B.E.A. Corporation have one person, but the Minister has twelve. There is a traffic controller who acts as meteorological officer; two wireless operators; two girls as teleprinter operators, four airport hands, for baggage and operation of crash tender, and one clerk. I do not know what the airfield had before the war, but I am sure it was not as much as that. But then it had something else; it had more services than the Minister is giving it to-day. Before the war there were three services daily during the summer months, and two daily during the winter months. My informant adds: "Since nationalisation, the most we have had has been a double service during the summer and a single service during the winter,"—and, I gather, not going by such a convenient route as used to make the connections. The number of staff seems a lot for one service a day.
  That leads me to the great importance of co-operation between the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Royal Air Force over the use of airfields. When we were in office in the National Government, Mr. Churchill gave a wise directive in which he laid down that there must be the greatest possible common user of airfields between the Royal Air Force and Civil Aviation. Obviously, that is good sense. It would be nonsense to keep one airfield going for the R.A.F., with one or two squadrons upon it (I hope it has
  468
  one or two), and a few miles away a separate airfield kept for civil aviation, on which there were only a few machines landing. There is no question of security in this; to raise the security bogy here would be just nonsense. I say that dogmatically, because I think I know as much about security as most noble Lords in this House. If war came, the Royal Air Force would take over every one of the airfields. I would like to ask the Minister categorically: How many airfields are there now where there is common user between the Royal Air Force and his Ministry, and (what is even more important) how many cases are there where the uses of an airfield could be combined but where that combined user is not taking place?
  I want to say a word or two about the charter services, in which your Lordships have always taken a keen and friendly interest. The Minister has been forced by circumstances to give a wider opportunity to these charter services. Your Lordships pressed him a good deal upon that in a debate which took place six months or a year ago. He has given in, but I feel that he has given in rather grudgingly. He has conveniently published for us, in Hansard of January 26 this year, the explanation of his intention and the directive which he has issued to the Transport Advisory Council. Your Lordships will observe that the Council is to be strictly advisory the Minister is to retain all the powers. I would like to make some comments on this directive, and ask some questions. In the first place, I am not clear whether this use of charters is to be confined to the United Kingdom, or whether it is to apply outside. I cannot for the life of me see why it should not apply outside the United Kingdom, in the other services and in other territories, if the Corporations cannot do the job or cannot give adequate service.
  Your Lordships will recollect the unsavoury story we had last year about the Nigerian charter. There, the Nigerian Government desired to enter into a contract with a charter company to run a service by the short route across the Sahara, a service which would have cost the British taxpayer nothing and the Nigerian taxpayer nothing, and which the charterer was prepared to undertake. They were forbidden by the Government here to enter into that

  469
  sensible contract. In place of such a contract, which would have provided an efficient service, the Ministry insisted—I do not know whether the inspiration came from the Ministry or from the Corporation, but it was a thoroughly bad inspiration—on running a service with wholly unsuitable aircraft, every one of which made a heavy loss every time it flew on the service. Indeed, if I remember aright, it was stated in the House, and not denied, that the loss on each flight was £10,000. I do not know whether that figure was right, but there was no doubt that a heavy loss was made. When civil aviation is costing £26,000,000 or £27,000,000 per year to the taxpayer, it is fantastic; and it is piling Pelion upon Ossa when a charter company is prepared to do the job free of charge to the taxpayer. I want to know, therefore, whether this use of charters is to apply outside the United Kingdom.
  As I say, the Transport Advisory Council is purely advisory. There is no independent judge. The Minister still remains the judge in his own cause. And your Lordships will observe—I think this follows a provision in the Act—that the charter companies must operate as "associates." I want to know what that means. Does it mean that these nationalised Corporations are to take a "rake-off" whenever an association is made? I have heard it stated that in some of these arrangements the Corporation have charged the charterer a commission of as much as 10 per cent. for the privilege of running the service. If that were done by private enterprise, some very rude things would be said about it; we should be told a good deal about "unearned increment," and all the rest of it. I want to know whether the nationalised Corporations receive this unearned increment; and, if they are not getting it to-day, were they getting it in the past? I saw something in one report which looks rather as if they had been getting an unearned increment in the past, but that in the future they were going to charge only for services rendered. I am sure the Minister would like to clear that matter up. I should also like to know whether this opportunity to the charterers extends to freight as well as to passenger services.
  Now I come to another term in the directive which seems to me very odd
  470
  and quite unjustifiable. The charter company is not to be allowed to charge less than the Corporations charge; if it does so, the agreement may be cancelled by the Minister. Let me quote chapter and verse and your Lordships will see that I am not exaggerating. If you will look at the column 352, paragraphs (iv) and (v), you will see these words:
  "Fares and freight rates on routes operated by the Corporations, or that might be held to compete with such routes, shall not be less than those charged by the Corporations except in agreement with them.…
  The Minister reserves the right to terminate, without notice, any Associate arrangements made, if at any time it appears to him that the safety or other conditions laid down are not being carried out.…"
  Your Lordships will see that I have not in the least exaggerated. Why should these monopolistic companies insist on maintaining high prices? Why on earth, if the charter company can make it pay, and at the same time offer a cheaper service, should they be forbidden by the Minister to give that service, just because it is cheaper than the nationalised service can run? It seems to me to be carrying the penalties of nationalisation further than any of us had anticipated.
  There is another case I wish to mention. Quite arbitrarily, the Minister says that none of these associate agreements is to last for more than two years, unless he likes to renew it. I do not think that is right. The life of an aircraft is, say, five years. An aircraft bought for service is written off after five years. It is not giving much encouragement to these people to come in and give good service to the public if they are told "You will have this for only two years." The right thing to do is to give them at least five years. I think I know what is behind this two years' period. If one of the Corporations are not running a service, but someone is prepared to go into the venture and makes good on it, then at the end of two years the monopoly Corporation can come in and turn him out and say in effect: "You have been doing the pioneer work, you have proved that this route will pay, and we are now going to take it over." I think "dog-in-the-manger" is rather a modest term to apply to that kind of policy.
  Then there is another directive—they number 13. The Minister might have been content with "Ten Commandments" or have followed the precedent

  471
  of "Fourteen Points." Thirteen is most unlucky; the Minister should either have made it ten or fourteen. Paragraph (x) says that an associate agreement must not hamper the planned development of the Corporation's services. Who is to be the judge in this? Again it is the Minister. And how long are these plans to take to mature? Seriously, the public who want to use these services ought not to be held up indefinitely while the Minister and Corporations are making up their minds whether they will plan a service. Finally, your Lordships will observe that directive (xiii) is not a very good one. It says:
  "The above conditions may be varied by the Minister from time to time."
  I should like to ask the Minister whether he will give an undertaking that if he is going to vary the conditions he will come to Parliament before he does so.
  I have only one other matter to raise. I should like to ask your Lordships to consider what should be the future of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. For my own part I consider that the time will soon come—if it has not already arrived—when this Ministry ought to be merged with the Ministry of Transport. At the beginning, a separate Ministry was necessary; there were important international and Commonwealth negotiations which had to be undertaken, and there had to be a Minister then to concentrate on these negotiations. Moreover, there was the whole structure and plan of the future of civil aviation to be worked out and established. At that time, also, the Minister of Transport was fully occupied with the control of shipping, and had his own important international negotiations. He was also occupied with the planning of the future of British Transport.
  But, my Lords, the position now is entirely different. The international negotiations, the Commonwealth negotiations, have all been completed. The international organisation I.C.A.O. has been established and is in working order. And I am glad to say that on the Commonwealth side before I left office we were able to set up the Commonwealth Air Transport Council. That is working admirably. Shipping has been decontrolled. For better or for worse, the Government have established the Air Corporations to run aviation, and the Transport Commission to run transport.
  472
  Therefore, all the arguments which compelled the formation of a separate Ministry in 1944 no longer apply to-day. Aviation—I have said this so often, but it is so true—is, first and foremost, a transport business. Surely the time has come when civil aviation should come under the jurisdiction of a Minister of Transport with the necessary staff (though not an unnecessarily large staff) and, no doubt, a highly competent Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. I must, of course, admit that such a merger would stifle and suppress the only form of competition which is encouraged in the Socialist State—namely, the civil "war," the "hot" war, which is so strongly waged between Ministers and Government Departments. However, I think that even that disadvantage might be countervailed by the obvious advantages.
  Your Lordships will be interested to know that this problem has also been considered in America, where of course civil aviation has never been a separate Ministry. Mr. Tom Finletter, in that amazingly penetrating and exhaustive review of military and civil aviation, which has been published under the title of Survival in the Air Age, recommends strongly that there should be, in one of the Departments of the United States, a completely fused Transport Ministry which would embrace all forms of transport, including civil aviation. I am bound to say—the Minister knows that I, having held his office, shall not be prejudiced—that, in the interests of good planning and sound administration, the right thing to do is to merge this Ministry in a comprehensive Ministry of Transport. I beg to move for Papers.
  3.23 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful, as I think the whole House must be, to the noble Viscount, not only for initiating this debate and affording us the chance of discussion but also for the spacious lines upon which he has just spoken to us. The noble Viscount possesses more than one manner and, in his various manners, he is acceptable to the House according to the House's mood. To-day, he has undoubtedly appeared in a constructive light, and it would be a raw and foolish Minister of Civil Aviation who did not benefit from the discourse to which we have just listened. The House will require from

  473
  me a fairly full account of my stewardship—some kind of progress report—and, therefore, with the permission of the House, I will deal with that general aspect of things in this speech that I am about to offer to your Lordships. Later in the debate (again if the House permits me) I will attempt to reply to the detailed points, leaving over to that later stage some, though not all, of the detailed points that the noble Viscount has raised. He has been good enough to give me notice of most of his questions, although in one or two respects they have been rather more intricate than I had anticipated, and I have not all the answers available. But I think I shall be able to help him in a number of ways.
  However, before reaching the main course of my speech, may I say one word, but not more at this stage, about the new announcement regarding the licensing authority? I understand that other speakers may also deal with this point, and I hope to be allowed to go into it at greater detail later. I should like to mention now the statement that was issued on the same day that my own statement was published—a statement by the charter companies, or the main Association of the charter companies—the British Air Charter Association. I will not take the House right through it now, but these sentences occur:
  "The statement by the Minister of Civil Aviation to-day … is welcomed by the British Air Charter Association"—
  that is a summary of the first paragraph. A summary of the last paragraph is as follows (I will pass it over to the noble Viscount so that he may see that I am not taking these sentences grossly out of context):
  "Although welcoming the new arrangement, the Association hopes, one day, to secure amendments in the Civil Aviation Act to give real freedom"—
  those are their expressions, not mine—
  "to the independent operators, but meanwhile the Association is grateful to the Minister of Civil Aviation for the action which he has taken."
  So it will be seen that the charter companies are prepared, and feel that within the limits of existing legislation they have come pretty well out of these new proposals, and are not labouring under quite such a grievance as noble Lords might
  474
  have supposed after the piercing remarks of the noble Viscount.
  I am glad that the noble Viscount has raised this particular issue of the total cost of evil aviation. Too often, all of us, including, I am afraid, myself, are apt to talk exclusively in terms of the results of the three Corporations. By asking for the total cost to the Government of civil aviation, the noble Viscount has very properly reminded us of the Government's responsibility, in discharging which the great majority of my own officials are engaged, for providing the aerodrome facilities, the navigational aids and the control systems which in 1948 enabled 910,000 people to arrive in, or leave, this country by air—that is, five times the pre-war number. They made possible 1,000 aircraft movements to be made every day at aerodromes under my Department's control. I understand that it counts two if you go up and come down. Therefore, 1,000 aircraft movements is what some people would call 500 flights. At any rate, let us put an excellent face on it, because it is a large figure.
  I will not pause to discuss with the noble Viscount—because I doubt if I am the best qualified person to do so, or the most detached thinker—whether I should continue to exist at all. That is really the main point, because the noble Viscount is mistaken if he thinks that any merger would greatly reduce the total number of staff. All these facilities, aids and aerodromes will have to be kept by a large staff, so there can be no question of cutting it down slightly. But the high-level issue is whether a separate Minister of Civil Aviation is wanted. I will not say more about that to-day, except that the existing Minister of Civil Aviation, who has held various other posts besides this one, finds his present job quite as arduous as any that preceded it.
  The noble Viscount has asked for the net annual cost of civil aviation to the Government. He knows, I think, that it is practically impossible to split up the total expenditure on research and development between military and civil aviation, though the former—that is, military aviation—was of course, much the larger item of the two. Apart from that development expenditure, the total net Government expenditure on civil aviation in 1948–49 is expected to amount to about

  475
  £24,000,000 (I am taking 1948–49, whereas the noble Viscount took 1947–48, but there need be no great difference between us), of which total £15,500,000 is for current expenditure and £8,500,000 for capital expenditure. The £15,500,000 includes £8,000,000, being the statutory maximum for grants to the Corporations and their associates, but, as I have previously warned the public and must now make plainer than ever to-day, the losses this year, though distinctly smaller than last, are certain to exceed £8,000,000. Therefore, if we are thinking of the expense of civil aviation to the Government and the general public, we should be prepared to add perhaps £1,000,000 to the £15,500,000 which I mentioned as being the figure for current expenditure, and that would make a total of £25,000,000 of expenditure for all purposes. Therefore, the short answer is that, leaving out development, the figure for current and capital expenditure to the Government and the general public is £25,000,000.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: When the noble Lord says "leaving out development," is that not taking into account the amount for development which would appear on his own Vote? Does he mean that over and above the £25,000,000 all development is an additional expenditure?
  LORD PAKENHAM: It takes account of all development which would be met by the Corporations. All development falling on the Government would be left out. Perhaps the noble Viscount was leaving out capital expenditure. Even so, the amount would be slightly higher than the noble Viscount's figure. Be that as it may, the £7,500,000 of current expenditure, apart from the losses of the Corporations, represents the direct and indirect cost of operating and maintaining aerodromes and around facilities at home and abroad, and, of course, any headquarters expenses of my own Ministry which cannot be allocated to those purposes. As is well known—and since my Ministry has been brought under discussion this may be of interest—among our headquarters duties are regulatory and licensing duties arising from the Air Navigation Acts, and other technical functions. I would emphasise (because I do not think this is generally understood, and I certainly did not realise it before I took up my present appointment) that the
  476
  number of officials in the Ministry of Civil Aviation who spend their time supervising or guiding the Corporations is really very small—not more than a few score—and that out of the 8,000 Ministry of Civil Aviation employees only 1,700 are employed at headquarters, the great majority of whom are working either on the planning of aerodromes and other facilities or on the regulatory functions that I have mentioned.
  Of the £8,500,000 capital expenditure, £3,000,000 represents the residual cost falling on the Government during the present year for aircraft manufactured in this country. That, of course, is not all loss. However, £2,000,000 of it must be attributed to the unhappy saga of the Tudor. If I may say so, the noble Viscount is probably anxious to forget more about that than I am anxious ever to know. That story was not initiated by the present Government. The remaining £5,500,000 represents expenditure on the development of runways and aerodromes, equipment for radio stations, and so on. The largest item in the capital expenditure on works is £2,000,000 for developing London Airport. This will continue to be an expensive item for many years ahead, but we all agree that it is absolutely essential. As all of you know, the future of London Airport is visibly taking shape. At present we are engaged in completing the dual parallel runway system, which means a pair of gigantic interlacing triangles enclosing the terminal area, to which access will be given by a tunnel. Much of the runway work is complete and plans for the interim terminal buildings, which should have a life of ten years or more, are virtually ready. It is planned to have the first part of these terminal buildings ready in time for the Festival of Britain in 1951.
  I will mention one or two more points in connection with London Airport. The existing hangars will first be supplemented by others of a temporary type. Two of these will be completed during 1949, and this will enable B.O.A.C. to begin the process of concentrating their overhaul and maintenance at London Airport. These temporary hangars (so called, though they are very solid) will be followed later by large new hangars and workshops forming the permanent pattern of London Airport. The noble Viscount asked me to look a little way ahead in

  477
  talking of total cost. The cost of the London Airport from its beginning to its completion as a dual runway airport, with all interim terminal buildings, maintenance services and the hangars so far planned, is estimated to cost in all about £25,000,000, and this expenditure should be completed by 1952. It is planned later, as traffic develops, to construct a further system of runways north of the Bath Road. I should not like to hazard an estimate of the total cost at the moment, because that would be looking a very long way ahead.
  I now turn to the three Corporations, and, if the House will allow me, will discuss first of all the published reports and accounts for the financial year 1947–48 which are already in your Lordships' hands. Operations during that year resulted in a total loss of slightly over £11,000,000. I do not know a fairer adversary than the noble Viscount, because he pitched the figure rather lower than that, but thought that he may have been too generous. In fact, the loss is slightly over £11,000,000. The total loss during the preceding year, 1946–47, was recorded as £10,200,000, but in view of the fact that B.E.A. did not take over the operation of internal services from the private companies until the early months of 1947, it appears to be a fair comparison for 1946–47 to raise that figure to £10,600,000. Therefore, it would seem that the right way of putting it is that the loss in the year under discussion, the year which ended March 31, 1948, was £500,000 greater than the loss in the previous year. I possess neither the ability nor the desire to hide that fact from your Lordships.
  I present instead four questions. The first is: Why were losses on this scale incurred during the year 1947–48? Secondly: What are we doing to secure an improvement during the current and subsequent years? Thirdly: Has any improvement in fact been visible? Fourthly: Can we look forward to still further improvement in the future? Let us take first the year under discussion, 1947–48. I decline to judge it principally in terms of loss or deficit—though equally that aspect of it is one that no one who represents, as I do, the taxpayer must ever lose sight of. What was 1947–48 from the point of view of the Corporation? It was a year of rapidly expanding business. The volume
  478
  of operation was substantially greater than during the previous year. There was, in fact, an increase of 37 per cent. in the capacity ton miles flown over 1946–47. In other words, the total volume of services rendered was 37 per cent. greater than in the previous year. That figure alone should show us what hard work was put in and should prove—if anyone doubted it—that the men of the Corporations were not a lot of slackers and long-haired theoreticians, as is sometimes alleged, though never in your Lordships' House—at any rate not quite in those terms.
  At the end of the year the Corporations could fairly claim—I speak with knowledge of this and a great volume of congratulatory correspondence, some of it from noble Lords NS ho sit on the Benches opposite, bears it out—that in technical and operational efficiency, in safety and in everything that pertains to the quality of the services rendered, their prestige throughout the world was second to none and challenged by few, if any, foreign air lines. I know that noble Lords opposite, including the noble Viscount who has initiated this debate, would be the first to pay this tribute, and they would be joined in it by the noble Lords on these Benches. They always tell me that when it is not a particularly good day they like to feel that they are on a British air line. I certainly do myself.
  I would also add this. Not only were the Corporations extending their business during the year under discussion, perfecting the quality of the services rendered, but they were also, beyond dispute, increasing their efficiency as measured by a reduction in costs. In the case of B.O.A.C., costs per capacity ton mile in 1946–47 had been 76.2d. In 1947–48 they fell by 9 per cent. to 68.5d.—of course, that is per capacity ton mile. That was the cast of B.O.A.C. In the case of B.E.A C., the costs per capacity ton mile fell from 145.5d. in their initial year, 1946–47, by over one-third to 90d. per capacity ton mile in 1947–48. Nevertheless, with expanding business, and although costs were falling, more was lost than in the preceding year. It is worth asking why. An answer which is sometimes given, and which I do not altogether repudiate, is that civil aviation to-day is, broadly speaking, not a paying proposition. That is what I am sometimes told. There is a certain element

  479
  of truth in it but it is not the whole truth. One can go on to support the contention by pointing to the American air lines. We can take their international air lines, their internal trunk lines, or their internal feeder lines, and however you compare them with ours, making allowances for the special American form of mail subsidy, the conclusion stands out clearly enough that American lines, which personify private enterprise in a pronounced form, are losing a great deal of money. I would not by any means scorn the use of this illustration if we were having a free-for-all political argument. But that is not the mood of the House.
  Therefore, in comparing our own lines with the Americans, I will mention only one or two points in passing. First, on the North Atlantic Constellation Service, where B.O.A.C. are competing on more or less equal terms, B.O.A.C. have been obtaining higher aircraft utilisation and higher load factors than their competitors. The noble Viscount has asked for statistics relating to the utilisation of B.E.A.C., but I have not the figures handy. I am sure, however, that this fact will be of interest though it has been stated before. It proves that where there is competition on level terms, B.O.A.C. have had the best utilisation. There is this further calculation, which I think is of interest though I do not lean upon it too heavily. Had B.O.A.C.'s commercial results on this service—the North Atlantic Service, where they have been working with modern aircraft—been possible on all their routes, the losses, instead of being of the order of £6,500,000 as actually disclosed in the accounts for 1947–48. would have been of the order of £1,500,000. I do not want to start an argument to-day unless I am provoked, and I must say that the noble Viscount has not been at all provocative. I do not wish to enter upon a discussion on nationalised as compared with non-nationalised aviation. We are all equally concerned to make British civil aviation a paying business proposition, and in that spirit we must, in my opinion, on no account hide from ourselves the fact that in 1947 K.L.M., the famous Dutch air line, made both ends meet (I think their accounts showed a small profit) and I should suppose that the same was true of 1948.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: And Sabena?
  LORD PAKENHAM: I can conceive an argument taking place as to whether K.L.M. is or is not nationalised. With more than half the directors appointed by the Government and more than 90 per cent. of the paid-up capital supplied from the same quarter, it seems to me rather more than half-way along that road. But do not let us bother about that, either one way or the other, at the moment. Whether it is nationalised or not, the really interesting question is this: If K.L.M. could do it, if they could make a profit in 1947–48 why should not we? And when shall we be able to do it in the future? That seems to me to be the question of paramount interest to the House. I should say in advance that K.L.M. have been steadily working, up to their present efficiency under their present management for about thirty years, and right up to the beginning of the war—if I am correctly informed—they received a subsidy themselves. I paid a most interesting visit to Holland recently as guest of the Dutch Government, and while I was there I studied K.L.M. on the spot.
  I would suggest that if you compare us with K.L.M. you must bear in mind that our own air lines have been labouring under four pronounced handicaps. These handicaps are: first, aircraft; second, dispersal of bases; third, the flying of uneconomic routes especially the internal routes, which are flown to provide social services—and, fourth, excessive costs in certain directions which have grown up during the period of initial development and for which the Corporations are the first to recognise there can be no further excuse.
  A word, first, about aircraft. There is no need at this time for me to justify the "fly British" policy. With one or two specific exceptions that policy has been adhered to amidst general approval. It was adopted with long-term national interest in mind, and it was always envisaged that the immediate cost in the form of inflated deficits for the Corporations would be heavy. The policy has, I think, been accepted in all parts of the House, and not least by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who supported it when in office and subsequently in your Lordships' House. I think also that my friends in the aircraft industry will not mind my saying that adherence to that

  481
  policy—the policy of flying British—has cost the Corporations and the taxpayer a great deal of money during the last few years. I referred to "my friends in the aircraft industry," and am rather proud to be able to do so. I cannot say that when I came into my present office a few months ago I found relations between the aircraft industry and the Corporations as happy as I could wish. I do not claim any personal credit for the improvement which has taken place, now that the big controversy on aircraft is out of the way, but I note with approval and pleasure that a real reconciliation is taking place at the present time between the leaders of the aircraft industry and the leaders of the Corporations.
  The House will remember why the British aircraft industry has not been able to supply us with the best aircraft in this interim period. That is something which has been explained here so often. It was pointed out by my predecessors that the British aircraft industry was diverted from its normal work during the war and had to concentrate on fighters and bombers. This, of course, has meant that for some years we have been trailing along behind. But the House is equally aware that that position will not last much longer, and we have types now coming forward which we hope will beat anything in the world.
  Let us take things as we have found them hitherto. For instance, let us take the transport fleet of K.L.M. It consists of 17 Constellations, 6 D.C.6's, 16 D.C.4's, 51 D.C.3's and 5 Convairs. It is, therefore, entirely American. Anyone who criticises us in comparison with the Dutch, or listens to such criticism, must grasp that as the starting point. The main Sabena fleet, except for three Doves, is purely American. Air France, with the exception of a number of Languedocs and some obsolete J.U.52's, are likewise substantially equipped with American types. A few figures may give some idea of what this means. The average aircraft in the B.O.A.C. fleet during the year 1947–48 had a payload capacity of only 5,800 lb., as compared with the 12,000 lb. payload achieved by the Constellation, even over the difficult North Atlantic route. In order to earn as much revenue as one Constellation, B.O.A.C. had to operate two of their aircraft. This meant practically doubling
  482
  the operational cost and the staff requirements for each passenger.
  In addition to the inherently uneconomic characteristics of the interim types with which B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. are still equipped, we must remember the multiplicity of types, as compared with their competitors. K.L.M. have only five main types of aircraft. B.O.A.C. have had no fewer than eleven. Your Lordships will readily understand what is involved in the way of multiplication of maintenance staff, accommodation, stores, and so or. Moreover, the present types are partly land 'planes and partly flying boats, with all that involves in the way of duplication of maintenance bases—though in saying that, I must not seem to disparage or show anything less than the most genuine enthusiasm for the S.R. 45, on which B.S.A.A. are concentrating such high hopes for the future. I join with the noble Viscount in his warm and well-justified tribute to Air Commodore Brackley, whom I came to know well during the short time that I have been in office and who will be a tremendous loss, as we are all bound to realise. But B.S.A.A. will go on with undiminished courage under the enthusiastic leadership of their Chairman. When present plans have come to fruition, and in the period that must still elapse before the arrival of the Brabazon, the Comet and the others, the B.O.A.C. fleet will be rationalised under four types — the Hermes, the Canadair, the Constellation and the Boeing Stratocruiser. Although it will be well into 1950 before all these types are in full service, we can fairly claim that the argument for aircraft has been settled in the sphere of policy and is well on its way to being disposed of in practice.
  Secondly, there is the handicap of dispersed maintenance bases, which is almost as familiar to your Lordships as the aircraft handicap. I do not think, however, that your Lordships fully realise what it means unless you have toured round the maintenance bases of the British Corporations, and then paid a visit, as I was recently privileged to do, to K.L.M.'s headquarters in Holland, In England alone, for instance, B.O.A.C. have had to maintain their aircraft and equipment over seven bases—namely, Hurn, Filton, Whitchurch, Croydon, Treforest, Hythe and London Airport. Overseas, in addition, they have Almaza Airport, in Cairo

  483
  and, until recently, Dorval, near Montreal. On the other hand, K.L.M. have the whole thing at one single airport—Schipol. There, I noticed with satisfaction the high proportion of British instructors, air crews and ground equipment, but from a strictly civil aviation point of view, the whole thing filled me with considerable envy. We all respect the Dutch achievement, but the fact remains that these facilities could not have been provided, and their concentration could not have been achieved unless the development of civil aviation in Holland had been accorded a high degree of priority in national policy.
  I do not imagine that many members of your Lordships' House will argue, against the background of our national struggle to build up our exports and restore our shattered economy, that we ought to have given quite the same priority to civil aviation as the Dutch have given. Be that as it may—and it would have been helpful to any Minister if that could have been done—this priority is obviously the reason for the Dutch success. What I have said earlier about London Airport shows that the struggle for concentration goes steadily forward. I should add that, after consultation, through the National Joint Council machinery, with the trade unions, B.E.A. have decided to close down their maintenance base at Speke and to concentrate their maintenance at Northolt and Renfrew. That is the kind of decision which has to be taken at this stage. It is not a pleasant decision to make, because it involves, or appears to involve, some local unemployment in Merseyside, an area in which unemployment is already worse than in most parts of the country, although it is not so bad as it was before the war. But I am sure that B.E.A. are doing the right thing in concentrating at Northolt and Renfrew, and every possible effort is being made to mitigate hardship round Liverpool.
  The third handicap is the uneconomic, or non-commercial, services. In the first place, the Corporations have been expected to get going a world-wide network of services very quickly without considering at every point whether they are following commercial principles which might dictate a greater concentration of effort on selected routes. But, further,
  484
  we must try to draw a distinction, because that certainly helps a fair appraisement, between two kinds of route. First, we have routes which possess commercial possibilities—I do not mean that they show profit to-day, but they are routes which can be regarded as potentially profitable. Under this head we can put almost all B.O.A.C.'s routes (assuming an eventual transfer to land 'planes), all B.S.A.A.'s routes, all (or almost all) B.E.A.'s European and some of B.E.A.'s internal routes. The great majority of routes fall under that head. On the other side, we must quite clearly, and with open eyes, face the fact that there are a number of routes operated for purposes of social services, where the possibility of commercial success at any time is slight, and to which no counterpart exists in the case of, say, our Dutch friends.
  The contrast between the results of the European and the internal services of B.E.A. has already been pointed out by the noble Viscount. In the most recent period—that is, from April to November, 1948, which takes us to two months later than when I issued the statement before Christmas—the European services yielded a route operating surplus of £170,000, before taking into account the general overheads, while on the internal services there was an operating deficit of £580,000. The contrast is certainly very marked. If one adds the overheads, the Continental services show a deficit of £290,000, and the internal services a deficit of £840,000. To avoid misunderstanding, I will only pause here for a moment to say what I think is obvious, namely, that while I have the highest regard for those who are running the European services of B.E.A., I have an equally high regard for those running the internal services. It is the same Corporation, with roughly the same methods, and with men, I believe, of the same high calibre. Therefore, we must not assume from this contrast that the European side of the business is being conducted with acumen and energy, while the internal routes are in the hands of dodderers who would be better employed elsewhere. I will also say, in passing, that the noble Viscount seemed to be under the impression that no subsidy was paid on internal routes in pre-war days. The only figure I have readily available is for 1939, when a subsidy of £100,000 was paid on the

  485
  internal routes. Further study would be required to ascertain what the losses were in those years.
  The internal routes, of course, have a very short average stage, even including those to the Channel Islands, to Glasgow and to Belfast—which are officially classed as "internal." With an average stage of 113 miles it is always going to be difficult to secure a balance of profit on the internal routes, but it is what I call the social service routes that represent the intractable problem, although I see no reason why they should not eventually make profits. When I talk about the social service routes, I have in mind the services to the Scottish Islands; or the services between Land's End and the Scilly Isles, and between Guernsey and Alderney. To illustrate the point a little further, what I call the social service routes have recently accounted for only 11 per cent. of the total capacity ton kilometres provided—that is, only 11 per cent. of the total volume of service—but they have incurred a loss of 36 per cent. of the whole of the losses on the internal services. I do not think any noble Lord—least of all noble Lords from Scotland—will suggest that the social service routes should be eliminated or seriously tampered with; and I do not think any one will deny their cultural and humanitarian justification.
  If I am not detaining your Lordships too long, I would like to say a special word about Scotland. It should be understood that 90 per cent. of the total capacity operated on social services throughout the United Kingdom is devoted to services in Scotland. I would add that the services, social and commercial, operated into, out of and within Scotland (including of course the Scottish Islands), account for 40 per cent. of the total internal services, and for 60 per cent. of the route deficits.
  LORD SHERWOOD: Can the noble Lord give it in money instead of percentages?
  LORD PAKENHAM: I have no doubt that I shall be able to put it into money. I may be able to do so during the course of this afternoon, but I cannot conjure the financial figure out of my pocket at the moment. I mention these facts with no particular purpose in view, except to indicate that Scotland has been
  486
  far from neglected under the present dispensation, and that the Scottish Advisory Council, whose next meeting I am attending in Edinburgh on Saturday (fortunately it coincides with the Rugby International match between Scotland and Wales!) have been most active, and have proved that, for all their complaints, the Scots are still able to look after themselves effectively, whatever Government are in power.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: To get us to look after them, rather.
  LORD PAKENHAM: There may be something in that.
  LORD HAWKE: It would be illuminating if the noble Lord could give us the loss per passenger ton mile of bringing Scots to England, and sending them back again.
  LORD PAKENHAM: As I have already said, there are these cultural and humanitarian considerations to be put on the other side.
  LORD HAWKE: They were always great hikers!
  LORD PAKENHAM: I thought the noble Lord said they were always great hankers. I know that many great hankers come from Scotland.
  LORD STRABOLGI: All the best people come from Scotland.
  LORD PAKENHAM: The suggestion that all the best people come from Scotland seems to me to be elaborating the truth to a point where it passes into exaggeration. I speak as one who is Irish, English and Welsh, but have no other blood of which I am aware.
  The aircraft, the dispersed maintenance bases and the elements of uneconomic services have been handicaps imposed on the Corporations from outside; but, like the rest of us, and more particularly like every other rapidly expanding business that I have ever heard of, they have had troubles of their own making. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for speaking in such a sober, balanced way, because when the Corporations are attacked, their spokesman (as I am bound to be) is inclined to come to their defence with statements indicating perfection, where one would be justified in pointing only to great virtue. That is

  487
  not my purpose this afternoon. The Corporations were told to get on quickly with the job of developing and building up this world-wide network and, as I say, they have built up an enviable reputation among the travelling public in so doing. There is no doubt that in the case of the two larger Corporations—I do not think it would be fair to say this of B.S.A.A., who have had difficulties of a different kind—their costs have hitherto been too high; at one point, and in certain directions, they were much too high.
  As the Reports in front of your Lordships show, the Corporations were already bringing down their costs in the year that ended last March—that is the year before I took office—and in subsequent months they have redoubled their efforts, naturally with every kind of encouragement and assistance that I and my officials have been able to provide. As was announced on October 26, 1948, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have put in hand a thorough and fundamental reorganisation of their undertakings. B.E.A. have invoked the assistance of a well-known firm of industrial consultants, and as the House is aware, I, accepting (as any Minister for Civil Aviation should) a high responsibility for the general efficiency of the Corporations, have made arrangements for higher officers of my Ministry to be actively associated with these overhauls.
  The House will expect some account of how these overhauls are going, but I say at once that it always seems to me difficult to describe reorganisations until you see the results, when it is easy to see whether those reorganisations are good or bad. It is too early yet to apply that test effectively to the overhauls in question, though there are some distinctly encouraging signs. I would mention, however, that the new organisation of B.O.A.C., which was originally worked out by Mr. Whitney Straight, the Chief Executive—a "live wire" if ever there was one, as I expect many of your Lordships know—was brought into full effect at the beginning of the present year. Sir Miles Thomas, who was charged with the responsibility for implementing the reorganisation, has shown his proverbial energy and drive in his inspections of the establishments of the Western Division, in North America and in Eire. At the moment he is in Africa. He has personally
  488
  reviewed the duties of all the main departments so as to ensure that the functions are clearly laid down and avoid overlapping and duplication. As was announced recently, he becomes Chairman of B.O.A.C. at the beginning of July, in succession to Sir Harold Hartley, whose fine record of public service over a long period of years requires no testimonial from me, as I am sure the House will be ready to endorse.
  Let me give your Lordships a few figures to illustrate how things are going under the reorganisation. The numbers of staff of all grades employed by the Corporation—that is B.O.A.C.—were reduced from 24,464 on April 1, 1947, to 21,844 on April 1, 1948. That was before the present reorganisation began. By December 30 last, the numbers had been further reduced to 19,146, so that in the last eighteen months or so there has been a reduction of over 5,000 of the staff of B.O.A.C. during a time when business was expanding very rapidly. These reductions apply to all grades, and they represent the substantial first fruits of the drive for economy and organisational adjustment. I would mention here that the transfer of the North Atlantic overhaul base from Dorval to Filton has now been completed—I have been down myself and I was much impressed with the drive that was being shown—and the Corporation's engineering staff employed at Montreal will be reduced as a result from 556 in September, 1948, to 21 in March, 1949. I would emphasise to the House that this is a dollar saving rather than an economy measure, but a very valuable dollar saving nevertheless. I would emphasise also that the closest attention is naturally being given to the maintenance system, to the possibility of closer integration of services common to the three Corporations, such as the bus services, and the passenger handling at the airports (where, in the past, there has been criticism at times) and to the possibility of combining the functions of the Ministry and the Corporations at the airport—a very important point to which attention has rightly been invited.
  Sir Miles Thomas has been very properly anxious to ensure the fullest consultation with the trade union side of the National Joint Council, and he has invited them to come forward with suggestions to assist him in his task. I am sure he is absolutely right and he has

  489
  earned a great reputation in the past. We must regard the trade unions as partners capable of producing the most valuable suggestions. In the case of B.E.A.C., the crucial decisions are now in the process of being taken. Here, as in the case of B.O.A.C., there is full recognition of the need for the most drastic scrutiny—indeed, I say frankly, for a sharp reduction of overheads (I think the noble Viscount approves of that)—and for the liberation of the men on the spot from undue headquarters' interference. Again I shall carry the noble Viscount with me if I say that when we do that we must make sure that there is sufficient budgetary control over the man on the spot to prevent his becoming a little emperor in his turn, as has happened before.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is the only kind of empire you should liquidate!
  LORD PAKENHAM: I have no idea what the noble Viscount—who is usually so relevant—could possibly be referring to! During the early stages of their life, B.E.A.C. were expanding their staff at a rapid rate, but they have now taken a tight grip on themselves and to-day the stall employed by the Corporation numbers under 7,000 compared with over 7,500 five months ago. That is the reduction in five months and more reductions are in sight, although a further expansion of traffic is expected this year and the business is growing the whole time. A thorough investigation of methods is in progress. For example, during the first six weeks of its operation, the bonus incentive scheme, introduced in the middle of November last in the overhaul shop at Northolt, has resulted in a marked reduction in costs and a 50 per cent. reduction in man hours per task. This increase in productivity has been accompanied by an overall increase in the hourly earnings of the staff so employed.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Was that the matter about which there was a strike?
  LORD PAKENHAM: There was a strike, but all that happily is forgotten. Of course, there is another side to all this, as will be passing through many minds while I am speaking. I am absolutely certain myself that these increases in efficiency are necessary—I should be disgracefully shirking my duty if I did not insist upon them. But when we come down to brass tacks, what do they mean
  490
  from the point of view of the man who is trying to earn a living for himself and his family in the Corporation at the present time? Given certain outside conditions of demand for air services—and admittedly there is an expanding demand—given a certain supply of aircraft, and a correct or substantially correct arrangement of services, in that case when we talk of increased efficiency, reduced deficits and all the rest of it, we mean increased productivity per man employed. That is what we mean, and it cannot be anything else. Now that does not mean overworking the man or scamping the job, but it does mean that, by greater individual effort and a mare efficient disposition of resources and layout of the process, a bigger volume of service must be rendered with a smaller number employed. That may mean, and in some cases must mean, that jobs are lost at all levels, from the highest to the lowest, by men who are excellent citizens and in no possible sense blameworthy, but who must clearly be regarded as being able to serve the country more effectively elsewhere.
  If these words of mine reach the employees of the Corporations, I do not want to meld to any existing feeling of insecurity or suggest that a new purge is on the way. I am repeating what I have said before in this House and elsewhere. But I cannot emphasise too often that this business of securing the maximum efficiency in the Corporations cannot be conducted without an occasional element of local hardship, as I am afraid has arisen at Spoke, although we are doing everything we can to mitigate it. At a time like this of full employment nationally, I am sure that we shall pull through without undue dislocation or controversy, so long as the Corporations take the trade unions into their fullest confidence and so long as it is made clear to all that the reorganisation is being conducted impartially, with even handed justice at all levels, and not just falling on the weakest vessels alone.
  With B.S.A.A. the problem is rather different. If anything, the staff has been too small and there has been some necessary increase in recent months. I have already alluded to the heavy loss they have suffered in the death of Air Commodore Brackley. I know the House will sympathise with the Corporation, and will

  491
  wish them well under the new blow that has befallen them in the disappearance of "Star Ariel." So much for the four obstacles which stand between the Corporations and what I may call their dream result. The aircraft position is being cleared up. The dispersal of maintenance bases is being tackled, but that handicap—let us face it—will endure for some years. The expenditure on social service routes must be accepted as a contribution to national, and particularly Scottish, well-being. Finally, any excessive costs are being rigorously investigated, with a view to reduction.
  Let us now, from the collective standpoint, take a look at what has been happening this year. In the current year 1948–49 the volume of operations, as measured by total capacity ton miles flown, which had increased by 37 per cent. in 1947–48 as compared with the previous year, showed a further increase of 39 per cent. in the first eight months of 1948–49, compared with the corresponding period of 1947–48. In the year which the House has been considering, the increase in the volume of services was 37 per cent., and so far this year it has been 39 per cent., which I feel sure will be recognised as encouraging progress. Operating costs, which fell by 10 per cent. between 1946–47 and 1947–48 from 76.4d. to 68.5d. per capacity ton mile, showed a further fall of 21 per cent to 54.2d. in the first six months of the current year. Costs, therefore, have fallen a great deal faster in the present year than in the year which the House has been studying. In the first six months of the current year, the total deficit per capacity ton mile flown, which had fallen by 20 per cent. between 1946–47 and 1947–48, has been cut by 38 per cent. as compared with 1947–48. These figures are encouraging, though they are regarded by the Corporations as only a beginning.
  Meanwhile, productivity per employee has also been improving rapidly. I gave one or two figures just now for individual employees. The total number of staff employed by the Corporations as a whole had fallen by the end of 1948 from a peak of 31,300 in March, 1947, to just under 28,200—a reduction of just over 3,000—though B.S.A.A. had in recent times found it necessary somewhat to increase their staff. Productivity, measured in terms of capacity ton mile per employee
  492
  per month, had risen from 230 in 1946–47 to 268 in 1947–48 and to 380 in the first half of 1948–49. I know it is difficult to take in all these figures, but I think they create a clear impression of the way things have been going, and they show that progress has, if anything, been accelerated in recent times. I think that is good going; and yet, as I have warned the House and the country before now, there has never been much prospect this year of keeping within the £8,000,000 to which the statutory subsidy drops from £10,000,000 this year. In fact, the aggregate deficit of 1948–49, which by the end of November was £5,600,000, will probably be about £9,000,000 for the year—£1,000,000 on the wrong side.
  Let me emphasise, on the other hand, that that is £2,000,000 less than in the year the Reports of which your Lordships are studying. It represents a real improvement. We have at least passed one significant turning point. In 1947–48, business was expanding and costs were falling, but it was still true that the more we flew the more we lost. That no longer holds good to-day. Business is expanding, costs are falling and the deficit is falling with them. Henceforward, the more we fly the more we win. But I readily confess that, as Minister of Civil Aviation, I shall be able to hold my head a little higher only when the deficit is well inside the statutory maximum; and I am determined—we are all equally determined—that that time shall not now be long delayed. There, then, is the progress report whose keynote is steady progress. Your Lordships will naturally expect me to say something about the future. I am confident that during the year 1949–50 we shall begin to see the visible effects of the great efforts which have been made by the Corporations to improve their overall efficiency. It falls to me as Minister, with the agreement of the Treasury, to approve the annual plan of services submitted by the Corporations and to secure them the appropriate subsidy.
  Before I close, may I ask the House to consider with me for a moment the problem presented to the Minister? On the one hand it is his function, as I see it, to reduce to a minimum the charge on the taxpayer. On the other hand, he would be seriously misconceiving his function if he became a Minister of Civil Aviation to end civil aviation, and achieved economy by drastic reduction of

  493
  services and, in the extreme case, by bringing all internal flying to an end. Civil aviation is, on any showing, at an early stage. We must foster it and develop it, and nurse it through these difficult years. But we must do all that, at a time of persistent national stringency, without wasting one single penny of the taxpayer's money. All that has been much in my mind when drawing up the plan and the directive for the Licensing Authority to which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, alluded and on which we may have further discussion later.
  In that matter three principles guided me. The first was that we must look to the time when the Corporations run all the internal scheduled services; secondly, that there is a limit to the burden that can be imposed on the taxpayer during the period while they are cutting down their costs and actually developing their network; thirdly, that it would be wrong in the meanwhile to deny the public any facilities that can be offered under reasonable conditions by private companies. If nationalised air transport is the only conceivable form of air transport in this country—as I believe it is—then it is the worst possible service both to nationalisation and to air transport to pursue a "dog-in-the-manger" policy. By that I mean a policy that says "We cannot and you shall not." I am not asking or encouraging these charter companies to step in. I am not certain whether the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, appreciated that. If they come in it is their own affair. When they are in they must be given proper conditions. When I say that I am not pursuing a "dog-in-the-manger" policy, I mean that we can do certain things now and other things later, and that meanwhile we must not deprive the public of facilities offered elsewhere if there are people ready to take a risk themselves.
  In the last resort, the scale of services authorised must represent a balanced and empirical judgment arrived at by the Minister, in which the considerations which would animate a private operator must be blended with those of the wider national interest. It was strongly represented to me, for example, that the 5,000,000 people of the Midlands area would be greatly benefited if Elmdon, the Birmingham airport, could be provided with a European service. As the House may be aware, after prolonged
  494
  discussions we have decided to link Birmingham to Paris with a daily service starting at Manchester and run on alternate days by B.E.A. and Air France. It is reckoned that the service will break even if a Dakota can achieve a 70 per cent. load factor on the route—that is to say, if seventeen or eighteen people will travel daily each way to Paris. I have told the Midlands that it is up to them to justify the service by using it, and they seem convinced that they can meet the challenge successfully.
  I would like to take this, the first public opportunity, of informing the House of our plans for a service in Wales. At present, there are no scheduled services in Wales; in fact, it is pointed out to me by my Welsh friends that, apart from an associate ferry service from Cardiff to Weston, there is no civil aviation in Wales at all except a Civil Aviation Advisory Council. I am the first to pay tribute to their enthusiastic advocacy of the cause of their country, but these gentlemen of the Advisory Council do not regard themselves, and are not anywhere regarded, as an adequate substitute for actual flying. After careful investigations, again on the spot, I have decided to authorise an experimental Welsh service. As at present plan-led, a D.H.89 will run Liverpool/Hawarden/Cardiff/Hawarden/Valley one day, and return Valley/Hawarden/Cardiff/Hawarden/Liverpool the next day. What Mr. Gladstone would have said about this service which keeps stopping at Hawarden I do not know, but it is a suitable point, as those who have made pious pilgrimages to that shrine will recollect. I like to think that if Mr. Gladstone had been alive to-day he would have been in the Labour Party, although of course he was Liberal at the time. At any rate, I know that the grounds there were used recently for a most successful Conservative fôte. All of us can visit Hawarden with equal enthusiasm!
  I ought to warn the House that even if this aircraft is filled, B.E.A. advise me that the service will be uneconomical. I want to make that plain, in order to remind your Lordships that that is the sort of problem which must be settled one way or the other. Nevertheless, I feel that the experiment is worth trying. The cost of providing it should be capable of reduction. It seems to me a duty to discover whether or not there is

  495
  in fact a demand for civil aviation in Wales—a country which pays its own share of taxes and where internal communications are very inadequate. The service is being run as an experimental service. I admit to the keenest personal interest in the enterprise, but it will be continued after a trial of six months only if it proves to be of sufficient value to the general life of Wales to justify any loss that may be incurred, while I repeat that every effort must and will be made to see that the calculated loss is brought down well below the figure hitherto put forward.
  Finally—and this, I know, will be of considerable interest to the House—I have decided to set the Corporations a definite target for the year 1949–50. I have called on them to reduce their deficits from the figure of £11,000,000, as shown in their accounts for the year 1947–48, and from the £9,000,000 or so which we anticipate for 1948–49, to £5,500,000 in the coming financial year, 1949–50, without retarding the normal expansion of services. I am approving a programme of services involving an increased capacity of about one-third over the current year, and looking for a reduction of about one-fifth in costs per capacity ton mile offered. Within that framework, I visualise a revenue of about £27,500,000, and an overall expenditure of about £33,000,000. As this is perhaps the last debate on civil aviation that we are likely to have for some little while, unless the House wishes it otherwise, I have felt it right to give your Lordships these figures and targets to-day. I say at once that I hesitated some while before doing so, in view of the shadow which the tragic disappearance of the "Star Ariel" has cast over our thoughts and plans.
  What the inquiries now on foot will reveal I cannot say. I am glad to say they are under the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, whose authority the whole House appreciates. I feel sure that the House will not expect me to pursue the matter of the "Star Ariel" further this afternoon, or deal with any implications of that disaster. The figures that I have just given your Lordships, to cut down to £5,500,000, were drawn up before the "Star Ariel" disaster and were presented to the Corporations some while ago. What, if any, qualifications will
  496
  require to be made remain to be seen. Even apart from the Tudor mishap, there are bound to be factors beyond the control of the Corporation which may well affect this target being reached. There may be delays in the delivery of aircraft, running-in troubles, reductions in fares due to world competition, or failure of world traffic to live up to expectations. Any of these may make a big difference to the net financial result.
  But I believe that civil aviation, like other industries, is all the better for knowing what is expected of it. I believe that the targets I have mentioned are capable of attainment, given reasonable luck and, I may add, the great energy which I am looking for and which I believe will be shown. I am a profound optimist about British civil aviation, and never more so than when I go abroad and find what foreigners think of it, or visit at home the men on the ground, the men who are doing the job, the men whose enthusiasm, whose good humour in the face of misunderstanding, and whose determination to put Britain on the top are, I respectfully submit to your Lordships, deserving of your highest praise.
  4.38 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I am sure that every noble Lord who has listened to the two speeches that have started this debate will agree that we owe the noble Lords who made them a debt of gratitude, in the case of my noble friend Lord Swinton for having raised a number of important questions which elicited from the Minister so interesting and comprehensive a speech. I do not rise to follow either of those two noble Lords into a discussion about the Corporations. I will say only this: that, whilst we have heard from the Minister certain facts which seem to show that the position is improving, I still remain unconvinced whether it is wise for any Government to undertake the full responsibilities for a new service like civil aviation that is subject to so many uncertainties and that needs so much the spirit of personal adventure.
  But I do not rise to follow that line of argument. I rise for one purpose, and one purpose only: to call attention to one of the other responsibilities of the Minister of Civil Aviation—his responsibility for encouraging what we call

  497
  private flying and what the Americans call "personal flying." I do not apologise to the House for raising this question. I suppose I have been connected with it for almost longer than anybody else in the country. It so happens that I started the flying clubs as long ago as 1924. Since then, I have for many years been President of the Norfolk and Norwich Flying Club, and I know at first hand a good deal about the difficulties of flying clubs, such as the need for further encouragement from the Government in the considerable part that they can play, not only in the field of air defence—a field that does not directly concern the Minister—but generally in fostering an air sense in the country.
  Let me in a sentence remind your Lordships of the history of these clubs. They started in 1924, as an experiment. The experiment answered, and eventually a plan was operated under which they were given grants for their machines, and were paid by results for the number of pilots who took flying licences. The plan answered, and it was eventually extended to include in its scope the training of the Civil Air Guards. When war started the Government were finding about £100,000 a year for these two purposes—namely, for the members of the clubs and the members of the Civil Air Guard. The war came. I do not think there will be any question as to the valuable contribution that the clubs made to the Air Force and air defence in the early days of the war, when a pilot and an instructor counted a great deal. The personnel of the clubs was absorbed for the greater part into the Air Force, their machines were transferred for training and their instructors were, according to the records, invaluable to the Air Force in those early days when there was a great shortage of instructors. Since then, while a number of clubs still exist, they have received no Government support. At the same time flying has become much more expensive, air defence has in recent months become much more urgent and, indeed, upon the civil side, the speech just made by the Minister himself shows how very important it is to stimulate the air sense of the country generally.
  I speak from personal knowledge when I say that one of the great advantages of these clubs was to bring the provincial cities, and particularly the provincial
  498
  municipalities, into direct contact with aviation. I take the case of Norwich, where a club of which I am still President is located. There the effect of starting a flying club was at once to make the City Council and the county generally interested—in those days for the first time—in flying. The result was that a municipal aerodrome was started in Norwich and flying became one of the keen local interests. My Lords, I ask whether it is not even more necessary to stimulate that keenness at the present time, when, to take only the instance of air defence, it is so important to stimulate recruiting into the Air Force. Recruiting is bad. I read in the paper only this morning that Cranwell, the training college for permanent Air Force officers, is 25 per cent. empty. That is very unlike the state of affairs before the war.
  I do not linger or delay upon this part of the case, because I know the Minister of Civil Aviation is not responsible for air defence, but I point to it as evidence of the need for encouraging the flying clubs that, in the years before the war, proved so useful in stimulating the air sense and generally creating in the provinces an interest in flying. I hope, therefore, that the Government are seriously reconsidering the position. I understand that three or four years ago they had a conference with the representatives of the clubs, and the question as to whether there should be Government assistance was left undecided. I have read the proceedings of that Conference, which took place I think in 1945, and what surprised me about it was that the suggestion was made by the Government representative that the Air Staff did not attach much value to the kind of training that was available in the flying clubs. I hope that that is not the case. If it is the case, I may tell the Minister of Civil Aviation that I had exactly the same objection raised in the year 1924. I think it is a natural kind of objection for any Service to raise, even though I disagree with it. A Service will always think it conducts its own affairs a great deal better than do other organisations. But here I can point to the actual experience of the last twenty-five years to show that, at any rate in that instance, the civilians were right in making that experiment, and that the work of the

  499
  clubs in the end proved extremely useful to the Air Force.
  I do not want to delay the course of this debate. I trust I have made the position clear, and that when the Minister comes to reply he will be able to say that he realises the value of these clubs in generally stimulating the air sense of the country, and hopes to revert to the policy that proved so successful in the past of giving them a certain measure of assistance to help them to make a valuable contribution to the country. So far as I understand, the clubs are making no extravagant demands. Their small requests seem altogether insignificant compared with the many millions we have been discussing this afternoon. It is a matter of a few thousands a year between either bringing these clubs into active operation and enabling young men and young women, rich and poor and of all classes, to learn flying, or seeing gradually fade out a movement that proved to be of great value in the years immediately before the war.
  4.49 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, the purpose of my speech this afternoon is to ask the noble Lord opposite a very simple question—whether he and the Corporations have given sufficient thought to the wishes of the passengers who are to travel with them. As Sir Stafford Cripps has on many occasions said: "When you are trying to sell something, it must be something that the customer wants." What does the public want to-day? May I say that the public to-day are a very different public from two years ago, or even last year. I will tell you why. It is simply that most of them are paying their own fares. When people travel to-day I am sure—and I may say that this is entirely borne out by my experience as a travel agent—they generally want to combine business with pleasure. They want their journey to be an enjoyable one, and in the course of their holiday or their business trip, whichever it may be, they look forward to the opportunity of having a little rest and seeing something of the world. I am sure that to-day, with most people, speed is a secondary consideration. I do not think it matters to people, in the majority of cases, whether a journey takes two days or four days, provided that it is done comfortably. Of course, it makes a difference whether it is
  500
  done in four days by air or four weeks by sea. Some people cannot afford the time for the latter.
  Not being a pessimist myself, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has taken an optimistic view of a subject on which I myself am very keen. But I would sound a note of warning to the House. Civil aviation is attracting a lot of passengers to-day because of the lack of facilities for travelling by sea to certain places—particularly to the Cape. I know that well. Is an ordinary journey in even the most modern land 'planes to-day a pleasure? I do not think it is. The passengers are compelled to sit in chairs looking at the backs of the heads of the people in front of them. They are accommodated on the edges of a tunnel-like aisle and, generally speaking, conditions are little better than they would be if it were possible to fly in an omnibus. And, of course, there is no chance of a change of viewpoint. A correspondent of Flight (I would not go so far as this myself) wrote of:
  "Passengers being hurled across the world with more despatch than decency, in order to make the ordeal as short as possible."
  Seriously, to my mind no passenger should ever be compelled to board an aircraft before 9 a.m. or to arrive at his destination after 9 p.m. Services should be worked out in accordance with the routes. No one wants to get up at half past four in the morning, or to arrive at his destination late at night. I suggest that the comfort of the marine aircraft affords a wonderful contrast to the discomfort of the land 'plane. And I would say, without qualification, that the Solent is to-day by a long way the world's most luxurious air liner. The flying boat has a spacious interior, and it gives silky alighting on the water. The routes on which it is suitable for use include places of especial historic interest—great ports, lakes and rivers. What is more, Britain at the moment has an absolutely unchallenged lead in this form of air transport. I do not think that any country in the world, including America, can come anywhere near us in this particular field. I would beg the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in considering his plans for the Corporations to have regard to the claims of the flying boat. I ask him to think of them in preference to the flying charabancs of less fortunate competitors.

  501
  There has from time to time been a good deal of criticism of British aircraft. I have read one or two critical articles recently. But undoubtedly present-day American aircraft also have their defects. Even the Constellations, and also the Convairs, which are being used on trans-Australian Airways, are having their teething troubles. I think people should remember that it is not only British aircraft which have troubles. I was very sorry indeed to hear of the possibility of the flying boat service to Australia being dropped, and that there is some doubt, also, on the long-term basis, regarding the ideal flying boat route across the Tasman Sea. I understand—and I should like to ask the noble Lord about this—that no replacement for the Solent has yet been ordered. I think this is a point which was remarked upon by Sir Frederick Timms, on the occasion of his recent mission to New Zealand. It was also mentioned at the meeting of the South Pacific Air Transport Council, at which the noble Lord's Ministry was represented by Mr. Masefield. It has been pointed out that so far as New Zealand is concerned, if they did go over to land 'planes, the fact would still remain that the existing airfields are many miles from Auckland and Wellington. As a result, either passengers would have to make a long journey by road, or the vast expense of building new airfields nearer to the cities would have to be incurred.
  With regard to exports, I think it is right to say that we have had an enviable record in the past year or so with flying boats. They have been sold to Argentina for A.L.F.A., to Uruguay for C.A.U.S.A., and to Scandinavian Air Lines in Norway. The sale of a flying boat, I need hardly point out, means the addition of a considerable sum of money to our revenue from exports. I know, of course, that the great Saunders-Roe product, the S.R.45, is planned for use by British South American Airways but I think we need, in addition to that machine, a slightly smaller aircraft—one somewhere about the 100,000 lb. mark—as a replacement for the Solent on the Tasman Sea service and also for services in other parts of the world. I spoke to Lord Pakenham before I came into the House this afternoon, and told him what the subject of my speech was to be. He
  502
  dropped a tremendous wet blanket upon me because he practically told me that I should be flogging a dead horse—or perhaps I ought more appropriately to say a waterlogged boat. I know that there are various arguments which can be advanced against flying boats. I suppose that I shall be told about the great cost of marine bases. But when we weigh this fact against the great cost of new airfields, the flying boats do not seem so tremendously expensive. I consider that we are making a great mistake in not going ahead as fast as we can with flying boats—a form of aircraft with which, as I have said, Britain leads the world.
  That completes the main part of my remarks, but I should like now, if I may, to refer to one or two matters which were mentioned by the Minister. I should like to be associated with him in paying a tribute to the late Air Commodore Brackley. He was a great personal friend of mine. I would go so far as to say that his death was the greatest loss which civil aviation has sustained since the death of Sir Sefton Brancker in the R.101 disaster.
  I was delighted to hear the noble Lord's remarks about economies in ground transport. Anyone who has been into the basement of London Transport garage near Victoria station, and has seen the airways buses drawn up there in serried ranks, will have been given cause to think. That was a point which I had intended to raise, but as the noble Lord has said it is being looked into I will not pursue it now. One thing in his speech caused me profound anxiety. He referred to the "interim terminal buildings" at Heathrow. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I imagined that it was intended to carry on with the present buildings until we could build some permanent buildings worthy of that great airfield. I would like to hear from the noble Lord why it is necessary to have a set of semi-permanent buildings before we go over to permanent ones. It seems to me that it will be like the temporary Parliament building at Canberra, which looks like being there for another thirty or forty years. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer, and shall be glad if the noble Lord can give me some greater assurance than was contained in

  503
  his remark outside the House about the future of the flying boat.
  5.0 p.m.
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate, and I apologise to your Lordships for any imperfections in what I have to say, and also to the noble Lord who is to reply for not having given notice of any points I intend to raise. But I feel that I must say a few words, because the noble Lord—realising, I suppose, that attack is the best form of defence—has taken the bull by the horns and has raised the question of Scottish services. This is normally a function which is taken by members of this side of the House. The noble Lord told us that there are a number of internal services of B.E.A. which are run as social services and which cannot be a paying proposition, and that the majority of these services are those inside Scotland. I do not presume to have enough knowledge of the economics of civil aviation to know whether it is strictly true that none of these services can be made to pay, but if we are to have them as social services, I think it is essential that they should be run with the greatest possible economy which is compatible with safety—and safety it must be—and with a reasonable degree of comfort and convenience. I was rather amused when the noble Lord described these services as "cultural." I do not know how an air service can be cultural, unless it is considered that those great additions to London Airport which will be completed in time for the Festival of Britain are cultural.
  I would like to suggest two ways in which B.E.A. have it in their hands to reduce the costs of these uneconomic services and make them less of a burden to the taxpayer and to our friends from south of the Border, who seem rather anxious about it. The first (taking the words which the Minister himself used) is the integration of jobs. The noble Viscount who opened the debate gave some figures of the staff employed at the airport of Islay. He said the staff numbered twelve, and that the number of aircraft movements a day was four in the summer and two in the winter. That seems a great many people to do nothing very much. The aircraft used on the service are D.H. Rapides, carrying six passengers. This
  504
  means that the staff of twelve have a maximum daily number of passengers of twelve in winter and twenty-four in summer. Is there any reason why a number of functions, such as those of the man who checks tickets, the man who carries luggage, and the man who receives the weather reports and takes messages on the telephone, should not be combined and carried out by a smaller number of people? Is there really any reason why the man who issues tickets should not also carry passengers' bags, put them in the aeroplane and, having done that, sit on the fire tender until the aeroplane has taken off?
  I should have thought that with such a small number of aircraft movements a day, it would have been perfectly possible for all these functions, which I agree are necessary in the interests of safety, to be carried out by three or four men. I hope it is not the case of some trade union regulation forbidding the man who issues your ticket also to carry your bag, on the analogy of the regulation which declares that the man who mends your burst pipe is not allowed to ride on a bicycle to do so.
  The second way in which I am sure economy can be effected is in the type of aircraft used on these services. I think the noble Lord's comparison between the cost of these services and other more paying internal services is not entirely fair, when one considers that these so-called social services are being run almost entirely by D.H. Rapides, whereas most other services are being run by Dakotas and Vikings. I have the greatest confidence in the Rapide. There is almost no other aircraft in which I would rather fly. I feel extremely safe when in a Rapide. But B.E.A. state in their Report that it is a type of aircraft which can never economically cover a route. As long ago as last summer, I asked the noble Lord's predecessor what was being done about a replacement for this aircraft. I do not think we should have too big ideas about aircraft for these services. It is no use talking about aircraft seating twenty to twenty-five; the small or medium size of aircraft is best, something with a capacity at the outside of eight to ten seats. The noble Lord's predecessor informed me that B.E.A. had not decided on a specification for the replacement for the Rapide.

  505
  I consider that to be sufficiently surprising, and can only say that I hope by now they have decided on a specification, because it will probably be a long time before they can get the aircraft they want.
  I am not very expert on types of aircraft, but I know that the De Havilland Company in Australia are producing the Drover aeroplane, which is a small threeengined aircraft, of a similar type to the Rapide but capable of more economic operation. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us some idea of what aircraft is intended to take the place of the Rapides. I will not take any more of your Lordships' time. I have tried to suggest two ways in which it is in the hands of the Corporation and Minister to reduce the cost of these so-called uneconomic services. I still hope and believe that these services to the outlying parts of the country will not necessarily always be uneconomical, and that in the end, when further experience has been gained, it will be found that a great part of them will be made to pay their way.
  5.10 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords on both sides of the House are grateful to the Minister for his wide and very fair review of the responsibilities he is discharging in his office. If we criticise here and there, and if we ask a question here and there, it does not in any way detract from our appreciation of the matter contained in his speech to-day. I am sure he will also understand that he gave us a fairly comprehensive set of figures which we shall want to study at length. Nevertheless, it is good that we should have such a full report concerning this vital national activity. I was glad that my noble friend who opened this debate, and who was followed in the point by the Minister, raised the question of what was the total cost of civil aviation, both the direct deficits and the hidden subsidies which are provided in various directions to assist operation.
  The policy for civil aviation has, for better or for worse, been decided by His Majesty's Government. There may come a time in the future when that policy is altered by another Government, but until that time, having registered as best we can our disapproval of that step, we must all bend ourselves to the task of making the present policy as efficient
  506
  as possible. I believe that the ordinary taxpayer—and, after all, there are very few of the taxpayers who enjoy the benefits of civil aviation—says to himself: "£26,000,000 is a lot of money. Are we as taxpayers getting value for that expenditure?" Those who study somewhat more closely the questions of civil aviation break down that broad single question into rather more detailed subdivisions. They ask, first: Is the new equipment which is necessary for more economic operation coming along? Secondly, they ask: Is the vigour of commercial management and commercial incentive reducing the overheads and costs to the highest degree?
  The noble Lord devoted most of his speech to-day to answering as fully as he could those particular questions. He told us that there were better prospects of the Corporations receiving more standard equipment in the future. That, of course, is partly due to the better system of ordering which is to rule in future. I cannot refrain from reminding the noble Lord that this question of operators ordering direct from the manufacturers has been hammered home from this side of the House for approximately three years. In the noble Lord's time, and in the time of his predecessor, we were fobbed off—I do not say that in any offensive way—and told that we were wrong; that the Self Committee had been formed; that all was best in the best of worlds, and that if only the Opposition would "pipe down" things would go on well. We have now reached the position when the very proposals which the Opposition have put forward for the last two or three years have been adopted. We are glad that that is so, and do not in any way seek to say: "We told you so." We would only say that if the noble Lord (and not only the noble Lord, but other Ministers as well) will follow rather more closely in future what the Opposition suggest we feel sure that things will be much better than they are at present.
  We were also glad to hear of the better relations that exist between the manufacturers and the operators. In fact, under the heading of equipment the message was a hopeful one. On the question of the vigour of commercial management, the noble Lord cited many steps which the Corporations are taking towards this end. We must await the

  507
  results of those steps to decide as to their efficacy or otherwise. But we do not in any way belittle the efforts which are being made in that direction by those responsible, both in the noble Lord's Department and in the Corporations. I would wish, though, that I could feel as happy with regard to the steps which need to be taken for infusing commercial sense into the administration and personnel of B.O.A.C., and that they were advancing at the same pace in the B.E.A. We cannot help feeling worried about this loss of approximately £2,000,000 on the internal services of B.E.A.C.
  LORD PAKENHAM: For 1947–48?
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Yes, for 1947–48. While one appreciates and accepts the need for what the noble Lord termed social services in connection with civil aviation (it is a new term, and a good term, which I expect will soon be widely adopted) we nevertheless feel that there should be a new outlook as regards their execution in the more remote parts of the British Isles. I wonder whether we can afford to try to run those services on grand, main trunk route standards, and with a main trunk route mentality. No one wants to reduce the standards of safety, but the routes could be run commercially more on a shoestring, in the way the noble Lord who spoke last suggested. The figures have been given for Islay. I understand that at Sumburgh to-day there is a staff of some twenty, where there used to be three. I believe that some time ago there was a staff of twenty-four at Turnhouse for, I think it was, one aircraft in and one out per day. I cannot help thinking that two luggage porters cannot be necessary at Islay, and that it would do no harm to return to the pre-war method, by which the mechanic, when he had dealt with the aircraft, helped passengers, many of whom carried their own luggage. If I can make the point to the noble Lord, it is this. Could we not have the mentality, as it were, of starting from nothing, and only grudgingly having any increase in the personnel on the commercial side, rather than starting on the level of the main grand trunk route and reluctantly reducing it? If I make that criticism about the internal routes, I would like, having travelled quite a lot on B.E.A.
  508
  and B.O.A.C. in the last year, to add a word of tribute to the high standard of courtesy of all the ground personnel.
  I feel that there is a lot of ground to be caught up in regard to ground organisation standards and efficiency, compared with air crew standards and efficiency. I came from South Africa a few weeks ago in a flying boat. In this beautiful flying boat I think we had three passengers for part of the way—in a boat that holds thirty—and only seven or eight at another stage. I could not help feeling what a lot it was costing the taxpayer. In Johannesburg there had been one lot of passengers wishing to travel, but they were told that the service had not started. I then met some people in Nairobi who were taking an aircraft back to the United Kingdom because they were told that the service was fully booked up. There are no doubt reasons to be given for this sort of inefficiency on the part of those responsible for issuing tickets; probably it was not the fault of any individual. Nevertheless, it shows that there is a need for an overhaul of the commercial organisation such as is now taking place, if it is to come up to the high standard which we all acknowledge in the air crews.
  If I may say so, the noble Lord in his speech seemed to be a little unfair on one occasion. It was when he dealt with what he called the Tudor saga. He said that probably my noble friend who opened the debate was more anxious to forget that than he himself was.
  LORD PAKENHAM: That is substantially right, but what I said—and I said it in a misguided attempt at humour—was that probably the noble Viscount was anxious to forget more about the Tudor than I was anxious ever to know. If the joke has fallen as flat as it appears to have done, then let us forget it.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I agree with the noble Lord—let us forget it, and I will not even go on with the point about who was responsible for the Courtenay Committee. I would like to join with him in his remarks about the harsh blow that has been dealt to B.S.A.A. by the loss of the "Star Ariel" but it is a blow which I am sure the courage of those both on the ground and in the air will overcome. It is a very hard blow for these people. Something goes wrong—we do not yet know what,

  509
  and we may never know—and the whole prospects of a company are damned for several months to come. All the good work of building up is brought to nothing and they have to start along the hard road again. One sees so many tragedies and disappointments in aviation that I feel the B.S.A.A. are to be commiserated with, and should be supported in their future endeavours to make good the ground that has been lost, so far as we know not in any way due to any fault of theirs.
  I now want to come for a few moments to the statement which the noble Lord published in Hansard on January 26, and upon which he touched to-day, dealing with the charter companies' new activities. I must say that I share the view of my noble friend who opened the debate that it is not, "Thank you for nothing," but it is, "Thank you for next to nothing." The noble Lord quoted the British Aviation Charter Association as expressing both welcome and gratitude for his action. If you pass by in the street somebody who is down and out and starving, and, considering yourself fortunate not to be that man, you give him some small donation, he both welcomes it and is grateful for it. Therefore, I think that welcoming help and being grateful for help is a comparative state of mind, and one should not draw the conclusion that these companies have, or think they have, received anything very much, because previously they had virtually nothing.
  I would like to analyse for a moment one or two of the points in the declaration of the Minister. First, it is only a temporary arrangement until British European Airways can run all the internal services. Therefore, all the pioneer work which these people do is liable to be taken over and the benefit of it gained by the Corporations. The Minister said: "I am not asking these companies to come in," but he would not deny the public facilities which they could offer. I took down the sense of his words. Surely the duty of the Minister is not so narrow as that. Surely the Minister's duty is to encourage, help and invite, where a public need exists. If nationalised Corporations cannot do the job, then he should not just open the door and say, "Come in if you want to," but it should be his duty to help and
  510
  encourage others to come in by an active policy of supporting them. I think the arrangement which he has put forward to these people, many of whom are economically hard-pressed and have, as it were, to take a chance now, is very one-sided.
  First, his Air Transport Advisory Committee is only advisory; the Minister remains the judge. Before the war we had a licensing body under Sir Trustram Eve—the Trustram Eve Licensing Commission. The decisions of that body as regards the granting of licences were binding both upon the Minister and the applicant. There was a subsidy of a maximum of £100,000 which could be drawn upon according to an efficiency formula. That was active help. To-day, the Minister has this Advisory Council to make its recommendations to him, but he remains the guardian of his own Corporations, and can give his decisions as to whether or not the charter companies shall be allowed to function. Secondly, the licences run for only two years. My noble friend who opened the debate has dealt with that point. I hope the Minister, in his reply, will tell us how any of these charter companies could be expected to buy new equipment on a two-years' franchise. It takes five years at 20 per cent. per annum to write off equipment, and I do not believe that anybody will easily raise the finance to buy modern equipment in order to fulfil only a two-years' franchise.
  Furthermore, the licences are terminable if the Minister considers any of the conditions broken. That is a sweeping power. The conditions are that safety standards must be the same as those of the Corporations, and that fares must be approved. Suppose some foolish person in a charter company charged lower fares than the Corporation. He would be breaking a condition by undercutting a nationalised Corporation, and the Minister has the power, under his Memorandum, to take away his licence. When the nationalised Corporations break any regulations they are not shut down, and it does seem wrong to put a handicap upon charter companies which he does not put upon his own nationalised Corporations.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but if any of the Corporations broke our regulations in

  511
  a flagrant fashion, then the Minister has the power to remove the entire Board.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The Corporation would be able to carry on, whereas these charter companies would have to stop flying and the public would have to suffer. Then there is a provision that no expenditure is normally to be allowed on ground facilities in respect of the lines which the new charter companies may be allowed to run. Does that mean that no fresh expenditure is allowed on meteorological and radio services in respect of routes which these charter companies may operate? If so, it makes nonsense of the next provision, which says that the same safety standards must be maintained by the private companies as by the nationalised Corporations. After all, the nationalised Corporations are constantly having increased radio, meteorological and other ground facilities. You cannot keep up the same standards as a rival if you are not given the same ground equipment. I think that needs a degree of qualification which does not appear in this Memorandum.
  Finally, the Minister may vary the conditions at any time. That, again, seems to be a sweeping power. He says: "The above conditions may be varied by the Minister from time to time." The companies, having complied with all these various requirements to the best of their ability, and conforming to all the regulations which the Minister lays down, being careful not to undercut the national Corporations, any morning the Minister can walk down to his office and say: "Well, I think I will vary the conditions." I do not think you can expect people to risk life, limb and money under the terms of such a document as has been issued.
  LORD PAKENHAM: Quite a number will.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Quite a number of them may, because they are pretty desperate. I grant that the Berlin air lift has, economically speaking, helped the charter companies immensely, but if it had not been for that, many of them would be nearly on the borderline; and the fact that you allow them to enter a field where conditions are so much against them seems to me to be bad economics and rather un-fair.
  512
  I trust that I have not delayed your Lordships too long and that I have not dealt unfairly with the controversial issues raised by this Memorandum. For my own part I, too, look forward to further opportunity of progress, because the more civil aviation becomes efficient, the greater the national benefit and the better instrument we shall have to deal with in our own good time when a change of Government takes place in 1950 or 1951.
  5.32 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I echo the beginning of the last sentence of the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. I know well that he has at heart the cause of civil aviation and has contributed a great deal to it, as he has to military aviation in more dangerous places than this spot which I now occupy. The noble Lord expresses the hope that in 1951 there will be a change of Government. He seems to have put the election a year later than is generally expected—or perhaps he expects some development a year after the Election! He hopes that in good time we shall be able to hand over civil aviation in a flourishing state. We cannot say; but I hope that if and when the time arises, when the present Government disappears, it will be either the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, or the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who becomes the Minister of Civil Aviation—if their strenuous assaults in the meanwhile have not liquidated the position, in which case perhaps they will compete for the rôle of Minister of Transport, which at that time, I gather, will have the jurisdiction of a kind of Tsar in many fields of human activity.
  I should like to say seriously that those of us whose business it is to run civil aviation at the present time do appreciate the whole spirit of the approach that has been made by noble Lords who have taken part in this debate this afternoon. I do not want to "lay it on too thick," but I cannot imagine a more constructive attitude than we have experienced; and I hope noble Lords will feel that that is sincerely meant. May I, in rather scrappy fashion, attempt to deal with the various points of interest that have been raised to-day? If I do not deal with them all, it is because time is running rather short; and I will send further replies by correspondence.

  513
  I think one strong anxiety that has emerged, and which I do not feel able to allay as I should like, is the doubt whether we are being sufficiently economical in some of these smaller aerodromes. As regards that, I should like to make further inquiries on the spot and report back in due course, rather than be too definite this afternoon. The noble Viscount, who is always scrupulously fair, may have understated the case, as I understand that at Port Ellen we employ fifteen people at the present time. I think the noble Viscount said twelve. We employ fifteen—but that includes a cook-housekeeper to look after them. I must say that I am glad that they have not acquired a larger staff.
  Let us look at the actual people and see whether your Lordships think they can be easily disposed of if we are to maintain proper standards of safety. Five of them man the fire and crash tender and do baggage-handling and other work; seven are concerned with traffic control, radio, and communications; then there is also a night watchman and a clerk. That is the team. I am going there to see the place for myself; I did not realise the necessity before this debate. I will in due course report to the House as to what should be done in this case. I am sure there is no suggestion, or no idea in anyone's mind, that this is a sort of scandal; it is only that one wants to know whether we can do with fewer people and at the same time maintain proper standards. I shall investigate the matter without conveying any impression to the people concerned that we are criticising them personally, because there is nothing of that sort involved. These remarks are an attempt also to reply to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, in a speech of intervention for which I am grateful.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, raised the question of the joint use of aerodromes with the Royal Air Force. It has not been possible to do as much in this direction as was expected, because the Royal Air Force aerodromes are not always conveniently located for the needs of the internal services which we run. I am informed that airfields of the Royal Air Force are available for use as alternative or diversionary aerodromes—but I think the noble Viscount had in mind aerodromes actually used for regular services
  514
  by both the Corporations and the Air Force. I should like to look into that point.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: The very fact that there are a number of airfields near enough to be alternatives suggests to me that they might be the main ones, and that those which are maintained by the cook-housekeeper and all the rest could go out of commission.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I will certainly look into it again, but I am advised that I must not hold out too much hope.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Do not take the view of the Royal Air Force about it.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I will certainly look at it and will discuss it with the Secretary of State for Air. I should like to turn for a moment to a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood. He made an eloquent and weighty plea for the flying clubs. I wish I could say something definite on that subject. I think the noble Viscount knows that I have taken a great deal of personal interest in it. I very much regret that I cannot wear my badge; it is the only flying badge I am entitled, or shall ever be entitled, to wear; it is the badge of the London Passenger Transport Flying Club, which is a first-rate club. I recently went to see it, and flew round, and generally had the best of all possible times. What struck me most there was the intense community spirit of which Lord Templewood spoke. We all know the difference between going to some kind of show where no one is really interested, and going to an establishment, such as these flying clubs, where one meets with this intense enthusiasm: not only enthusiasm for personal enjoyment—though they certainly do enjoy themselves—but enthusiasm for a cause which they, and I myself, feel is of ultimate value to the country. I will gladly do anything in my power to help these clubs, as I think they know. I must not say anything more, except that they have my good wishes, and that it would have been very agreeable to be able to extend to them something much more solid.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Can the noble Lord tell us when he will be able to make a definite statement on this subject? It is very urgent. Several of these clubs will fade out altogether unless

  515
  something is done. Will he be in a position to make a statement in, say, a month's time?
  LORD PAKENHAM: I should hope to be in a position to make a statement in a month's time. A Working Party was set up—largely on my own initiative and that of the Secretary of State for Air. We have received their Report and it is under consideration. All of us, whether in office or not, have the greatest possible sympathy for this cause, but we still have to establish our claim on the national finances. That is the crucial point, and that obstacle has yet to be cleared. I must not be taken to hold out hopes this afternoon which I would afterwards have to disappoint.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: If the noble Lord will let me know when he is in a position to make a statement, I will put a question to him.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I shall be most happy to do that, but whether any assistance can be afforded this year must be regarded as an open question. Do not think that I am trespassing on the province of the Secretary of State for Air when I say that it is a matter which concerns him almost as much as it does me. If one is going to make out a case to whoever may be the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day for financial assistance to these clubs, one has to demonstrate that they are of positive value to the national interest. I do not think that any Chancellor of the Exchequer would concede to an argument based simply on the grounds of amenity or sport. It must be put on a different footing and, therefore, the case has to be presented jointly by the Air Ministry and other Ministries.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I tried to put it upon the double basis to-day without embarrassing the Minister of Civil Aviation.
  LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Viscount has carefully avoided embarrassing me, and I hope that what he has said to-day will strengthen the case of the flying clubs. I hope that no one will carry away a false impression from these guarded and circumlocutory statements of mine, because I do not know which way it will go.
  516
  The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, spoke of flying boats. Many people prefer flying boats, but are people prepared to pay more to travel in flying boats? If the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, will come to me and say—for he is commercially interested in travel of all kinds—that people can be persuaded to pay a good deal more to travel in flying boats rather than in land 'planes—
  LORD GIFFORD: It depends on what the noble Lord means by "a good deal." I think people would certainly pay 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. more.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I doubt whether that would save the noble Lord's position, and I doubt whether people would be ready to pay that. I must dissociate myself from this wet blanket which apparently descended on the noble Lord outside the Chamber. It is bad enough to be responsible for what one says inside this House, without being taken to task for what one says outside.
  LORD GIFFORD: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord's remark.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I was not intending to convey any definite impression except one of sympathy. As we all know, of course, the truth is that, whether or not flying boats would be nearly as commercial as land 'planes assuming that there were only flying boats, we have to face the fact that there will be land 'planes from which flying boats will have to face competition. If we are to have flying boats and land 'planes on the same routes, we shall duplicate costs at many points. Therefore, it is difficult to see what can be the future of flying boats on the long-distance B.O.A.C. routes. Of course, as we all know, B.S.A., on their routes to South America, are pinning their main hopes on flying boats. I hope that that will encourage the noble Lord—
  LORD GIFFORD: Can the noble Lord say anything about the Tasman route?
  LORD PAKENHAM: I prefer not to say anything about any particular route this afternoon, because all these routes are under consideration. The noble Lord will no doubt consider the great difficulty that confronts B.O.A.C. in the desire they may feel to use flying boats. The noble Lord raised the matter from what he called a commercial standpoint. I should have thought that it should be considered

  517
  along other lines, along the lines of national defence. But that is a matter for his consideration. I do not want to lead him in any definite direction this afternoon.
  The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, made a number of constructive suggestions. I agree that a small aeroplane to succeed the Rapide is important, but perhaps the noble Lord could have a talk at some time with our experts in the Ministry about that most difficult problem. Then the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, asked about the interim buildings at London Airport. I think that the phrase "interim buildings" is not very happy. They are buildings of great size; they are designed to last from ten to fifteen years, so that they are not what most of us would think of as "interim buildings." It seems to be agreed by all concerned that, in a period of frequent and revolutionary changes of speed and of the general characteristics of aircraft, we should be unwise to commit ourselves to a final design for such buildings. But these interim buildings will last as long as some of those which would be regarded as permanent buildings.
  I now come to the sparkling wind-up by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. As I understood it, he did not put a very violent case against this statement that was issued last week, but indicated unhappiness about certain aspects. He said that these charter companies were "down and outs," and that I have done nothing better than give them a small donation. The Good Samaritan did not do much more than that, and he has been blessed ever since. I think it is the case that he found somebody "down and out" and gave him a small sum of money. I am bound to say that I feel no difficulty about looking those excellent gentlemen in the face. When I looked them in the face last week, they were not so full of complaints and did not feel so aggrieved as those who have spoken up for them this afternoon. This last clause about the change in conditions from time to time was not one, if I remember rightly—of course, they had talks with my advisers as well, and so may not have said everything to me—about which they protested. The noble Viscount has asked me whether I will come to the House when I vary these conditions. I hope he will be satisfied when I say that I will make
  518
  every endeavour to come to the House, for I realise that I shall be deeply suspect if I do not come to the House; but during a period when the House is not sitting, an occasion might arise when one could help the companies by varying the conditions. If I give a binding promise to come to the House when the House is sitting, perhaps that will be something with which to go on.
  The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has taken what I can see is a possible line when he said that if I feel that these services are at all worth while, I should encourage them and not merely permit them to run. It seems to me that time are many services in this country which cannot be regarded as essential in the national interest, and where one simply allows a business man to step in; if he does, it is worth his while. I had better not produce particular examples, but one could easily think of some such services. It is not for me to try to persuade people to use fuel and man-power in running these services. In these cases I think it is my duty not to prevent a man from running a service. Therefore in reply to his point, I would ask the noble Lord to bear that point of view in mind.
  He asks, how can any particular charter company be expected to buy equipment if the services are to be run for only two years? There again, so far as I know, they would not be buying much new equipment. But let me speak quite frankly, as I do not want to hide anything. The costs of B.E.A. have dropped sharply in the last two years, and I hope they will drop much more in the next two years. It is quite impossible for me at present to know what services B.E.A. can undertake two years from now, and therefore I feel this two years' limit, which is liable to extension, is necessarily imposed; otherwise, we could not know whether a service which was to be undertaken would compete with B.E.A. a little later. Therefore, I do not feel that it is for me to encourage these companies and give them a special inducement to acquire aircraft, when it may even be that the service will not be wanted later on.
  The noble Lord, Lore Balfour, raised the question of ground installations. There, again, there is an escape clause.

  519
  I can imagine a situation where a charter company wants to run a service which I regard as important in the national interest. In a case like that, it might well be that the Advisory Council would say that it was worth putting in some new equipment, and would advise me accordingly, which advice I would accept. Ordinarily, however, I would not feel justified in using the taxpayers' money to enable these charter companies to undertake their business. The noble Lord asks, "In that case, how can they do anything at all?" The answer is that in a great number of cases there will already be perfectly satisfactory equipment there.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The question I asked was: In that case, how could they conform to the safety standards of the Corporations which are demanded by the Minister?
  LORD PAKENHAM: They will be able to use the existing facilities at airports which are already used by the Corporations or are at other airports. There are plenty of airports which are not in full use at the present time, and which these people will be able to use. But there are other airports where there are no regular services at the present time, where the facilities are inadequate for any kind of service and there I say that, in normal circumstances, I would not feel justified in authorising the use of the taxpayers' money. I am afraid I have dealt with only a few of the matters that have been raised, but I addressed the House at great length earlier. I do not know that noble Lords would wish me to speak at greater length now. I would only say, for myself, and I think I can speak on behalf of my Department, that we welcome an exchange of views of this kind, and I am grateful to noble Lords, and particularly to the noble Viscount who initiated the debate, for taking part in our discussions this afternoon.
  5.54 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the Minister has, as we would expect, given very frank answers to a number of questions. I still remain a little surprised at this enthusiasm on the part of the charter companies. The noble Lord met them and knows what they look like.
  LORD PAKENHAM: They looked very nice.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sure they did, and apparently the noble Lord looked very nice, too. I know that kind of meeting. When you go away, you feel a little less enthusiastic, and distance does not increase the enchantment. The noble Lord has said that they regarded him as a "Good Samaritan." Possibly that was because last year he passed by on the other side! All these things are relative.
  My Lords, I would just like to put in my plea in support of my noble friend Lord Templewood in regard to flying clubs. I do not in the least base it on getting a subsidy for private flying. I hope the noble Lord is not going to rely on having to go hand in hand with the R.A.F., and that in this matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not pay undue attention to the R.A.F. No one has greater respect for the R.A.F., when they are right, than I have, but in this matter they have been consistently wrong. I gather that this question is at issue at the moment, and I think we should all put our experience into the pool for the Chancellor to draw upon. My own experience, in regard not only to machines but also personnel, was that without civil assistance the task of the R.A.F. would have been impossible. The assistance given by the flying clubs, the elementary training of personnel, proved invaluable, and we followed it up by creating the whole of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve which, in a sense, was nothing but an extension of these clubs. We brought the flying to the people because we could not bring the people to the flying. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Douglas, will agree that we could not have succeeded as we did but for mobilising the civilians. The whole of the initial training was done in civil flying training schools, and it is with profound disappointment that we hear that such initial training is not considered of great value to the Air Force. The Air Force could lay down all the rules for it. It is like giving aid to denominational schools. The noble Lord would not say that that system is wrong. He would lose his hope for the present and future if he did that.
  How does that system work? It works very well. Conditions are laid down under which the schools get their grants, and there is no reason why in this case

  521
  the Air Force should not lay down the conditions; and, if they like, they could have their own instructors to give the training as well. That is all we are asking for. That is the right way to give this help to the flying clubs, just as I stressed the importance of having common user of airfields. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will find that if he follows that line he will not be increasing his expenditure; he will find that he is making a real and wise economy and achieving good results. I am quite sure that that is the wise thing to do, especially in a period when we know we have greatly to reinforce the Air Force, when time is not necessarily on our side and when it is difficult to get the people we need. We should indeed be most unwise not to make use of this method, which has the double advantage of giving the training and also popularising military flying at a time when we want to popularise it. On grounds of efficiency, on grounds of economy and on grounds of national defence—and I have no axe to grind in this—I would certainly give this matter as wholehearted and sincere support as I can. For the rest, we have been greatly interested in what the noble Lord has had to say to us. He has set a "Target for Tonight." I hope the Corporations will
  522
  achieve that target. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Paper, by leave, withdrawn.

  NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE AREA (CONSERVATION OF WATER) ORDER, 1949 LICHFIELD RURAL (WHITTINGTON) HOUSING CONFIRMATION ORDER, 1949
  Report by the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under Section 3 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, That no Petition has been presented against the Orders: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUMMER TIME ORDER, 1949
  Draft Order in Council proposed to be made under the Sumner Time Act, 1947: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
  House adjourned at six o'clock.