Sitting of 8 March 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS
The Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting:
Whereupon Major MILNER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING
The PRIME MINISTER reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address on the happy event of the birth of a son to My dear daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, and the Duke of Edinburgh.
You have frequently shown the affectionate interest which you take in all that concerns My Family and Myself, and we have been deeply moved by your congratulations on the birth of Our grandson which has given so much pleasure throughout the Commonwealth.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TERRITORIAL ARMY

    Motor Allowance
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in spite of the recent increase of ½d., the motor mileage allowance rate for officers and men of the Territorial Army, who have to use their private cars for journeys between their homes and their normal places of employment or unit headquarters, is still little more than half the allowance given by other organisations and by many local authorities; and
    956
    if he will immediately review this situation with a view to making a more generous allowance.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): The rate is now 3½d., having been increased by½d. as a result of a review last October. This rate is intended only to cover actual running expenses in petrol, lubricants, wear of tyres and extra depreciation and maintenance, as it is assumed that the car is maintained in the first place for private reasons; it is not intended to cover the cost of licensing, insurance and depreciation by age. I am not aware that there is any reason to carry out a further review at present.
    Major Beamish: Is not it a fact that local authorities and other organisations make an allowance of 5d. and 6d. a mile? Why should Territorial Army officers and men give up their spare time to do this most valuable work and be treated in such an ungenerous fashion?
    Mr. Shinwell: But these other local authorities provide for total expenses—
    Major Beamish: No, they do not.
    Mr. Shinwell: —of upkeep, so I understand—
    Major Beamish: It is wrong.
    Mr. Shinwell: —as against the actual running expenses. This, on the whole, is regarded as a generous allowance. As far as I am aware there has been no discontent.
    Mr. Erroll: Would the Minister consider giving the same allowance to Territorial Army officers as he gives to Regular officers who use their motor cars?
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not propose to go further than this at the present time.
    General Sir George Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases at any rate local authorities give more, and that it is solely for the use of the motor car, and for nothing more? Why should there be this skinflinting and cheese-paring in the case of the Territorial Army?
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not regard it either as cheese-paring or skinflinting. As a matter of fact, we regard it as quite generous.

    Adjutants (Appointments)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give longer security of tenure to Territorial Army adjutants than the period of three years now proposed, as is done for Territorial Army quartermasters, since many adjutants cannot afford to take the risk of a short-term engagement.
    Mr. Shinwell: The question of granting some extension of tenure to certain existing non-Regular adjutants of Territorial Army units is under consideration. I should like to make it clear, however, that there is no question of granting longer initial tenures than the two or three years at present permitted, as it is intended that all adjutants' appointments in the Territorial Army shall be filled by Regular officers as soon as possible.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the Minister aware that he has already lost, and he is losing, some most experienced and skilled adjutants because the limit of tenure is only three years; and does he not agree that if he could give an extension it would be to the great advantage of the Territorial Army?
    Mr. Shinwell: I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend said about the efficiency of some of the present adjutants of the Territorial Army. They are doing excellent work. We are considering possible extension, but I must make it clear that it is for the Regular Army to undertake this task.

    RIFLE CLUBS (AMMUNITION)
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the further representations made to him by the Fife and Kinross Rifle Association and by the hon. Member for Fife, East, regarding the supply of ammunition for Home Guard Rifle Clubs; and what steps he is taking to assist and offer encouragement to these clubs in the important work which they are doing.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have considered these representations, but I regret that it is not possible to make a free issue of ammunition to Home Guard rifle clubs as suggested. As regards the last part of the Question, arrangements have been
    958
    made to allow rifle clubs to use War Department ranges and Territorial and Auxiliary Forces associations and officers commanding Territorial Army units have been asked to do all they can to help these clubs.
    Mr. Stewart: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price now charged for that ammunition is such as seriously to discourage the work of these men, and in the case probably of thousands of members of these clubs, to make it impossible for them to do the job at all? If he wants this good work to be done why does he not encourage it?
    Mr. Shinwell: We encourage it to the best of our ability, but we cannot provide ammunition free of charge.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is it not a fact that there are countless millions of rounds of ammunition in store left over from the war or has it been disposed of? Should not ammunition be changed and turned over from time to time, and would not this be a very valuable way of doing it?
    Mr. Shinwell: I shall not quarrel with the hon. and gallant Member about our available reserves of ammunition.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Indian Army Service (Claims)
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will have immediate inquiries made into the reason why pay and allowances due to Staff Sergeant D. A. Coote, S/5335775, Royal Army Service Corps, whilst serving in India have not been settled; whether he will arrange for more expeditious methods to be adopted in dealing with these matters; and whether he will state how many such claims are at present outstanding.
    Mr. Shinwell: As the account of this non-commissioned officer is maintained in West Africa I have called for information by cable. When it has been received I will write to the hon. Member. This claim relates to service with the Indian Army Corps of Clerks and all reasonable claims of this nature are dealt with as quickly as possible bearing in mind that the majority concern payments accounted

    959
    for by the local Indian authorities before 1st November, 1944. Not more than 50 of these claims are still outstanding.
    Sir R. Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to provide money not only for this non-commissioned officer, but for others in similar circumstances, as they are deprived of what is really due to them and they have no knowledge of when this money will be paid?
    Mr. Shinwell: This has to do with the Indian Army Corps of Clerks and not with me.

    Schools of Instruction
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War how many units and formations which nominally form part of the active Army at home and abroad, are at present being used as schools of instruction for officers, noncommissioned officers, or young soldiers.
    Mr. Shinwell: Nineteen units of the active Army are at present being used for instructional purposes in Army training. All these units are stationed in the United Kingdom. One of them is being released for normal duty in the near future.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it not the case that at least one unit is so employed for the training of non-commissioned officers with the British Army of the Rhine, and would it not be much better if these units were active and capable of mobilisation?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not prepared to give any more information on this matter.

    Requisitioned Land, Finsbury Park
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for War what is the explanation for the long delay in the derequisitioning of the anti-aircraft site and other land occupied by his Department in Finsbury Park; and if he will take steps to hasten the derequisition in view of the shortage of open spaces in North London.
    Mr. Shinwell: The delay in de-requisitioning the anti-aircraft gunsite in Finsbury Park has been caused by the necessity for reviewing the whole of the operational lay-out of anti-aircraft defence.
    960
    I regret that I am not yet able to say when the whole or any part of this land can be released.
    Mr. Gammans: Does that answer mean that possibly the people in North London will never get back Finsbury Park, and is the Minister aware of the awful jumble of broken-down huts in the park? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman does not need all those?
    Mr. Shinwell: As I have said, we are reviewing the whole question of antiaircraft defence and, therefore, I cannot say more.

    Nurse (Disability Pension)
    Lord Willoughby de Eresbyasked the Secretary of State for War how many women, who served in the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry in the 1914–18 war, are today receiving a disability pension under the Industrial Injuries Act, Army Form O184.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not clear which Act the noble Lord has in mind. One member of the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry injured in the 1914–18 war is receiving a pension under the Injuries in War (Compensation) Acts, 1914.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: In view of the very small number involved—in fact, there is only one—could not the right hon. Gentleman see his way to bring the case under the Ministry of Pensions, where, in the opinion of many people, it should have been put in the first place?
    Mr. Shinwell: I understand that she is receiving a pension.

    Guard Duties, London (Full Dress)
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Secretary of State for War if he will now authorise the wearing of full dress uniform by troops performing guard duties in London, or why not.
    Mr. Shinwell: Household Cavalry are already authorised to wear full dress when carrying out guard duties in London. Authority also exists for the wearing of full dress by the Brigade of Guards on ceremonial parades attended by a member of the Royal Family and Guards of Honour mounted in attendance on members of reigning royal families or presidents of republican states. It has

    961
    not so far been possible to authorise any further extension of the occasions on which full dress can be worn as it is necessary to rely on existing prewar stocks, and when these are exhausted new production would be required with consequent diversion of cloth from the export trade. I cannot give any undertaking that any further extension will be possible in the near future, though the matter will be reviewed from time to time.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: May I ask the Minister whether after three years of peace and three years of Socialist Government he does not think that London should have a little of the prewar pageantry?
    Mr. Shinwell: There has been more full colour since this Government came in than ever there was before.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the Minister aware that when in 1921 full dress was restored to the Brigade of Guards for duty in London, from that moment their recruiting, which had been languishing, never looked back again?
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir. I am aware of all this, but there are compensations.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the desire for colour and gaiety, would the Minister equip these gentlemen with battle-axes and bows and arrows?
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Although the Household Brigade have in fact got prewar clothes, have they not khaki underclothes?
    Mr. Shinwell: In certain circumstances it is not wise to look underneath.

    Task Force, Aqaba
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is still a British task force stationed at Aqaba; and whether any permanent Army installations are being constructed in that area.
    Mr. Shinwell: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes," and to the second, "No."
    Dr. Segal: Was the journey of this task force really necessary? Is it not about time that my right hon. Friend considered calling off this cold war against the State of Israel?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is not the question. I was asked whether there is still a British task force stationed at Aqaba and I have answered in the affirmative.
    Mr. M. Philips Price: Was not the cold war started by the Zionists?
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is there any confirmation of the report received in this country on 3rd March that Israeli troops are advancing towards Aqaba?
    Mr. Shinwell: Surely, that is another question.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    Roadside Advertisements
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether his attention has been called to the large display of roadside advertisements by Government Departments; and what steps he has taken, in consultation with the Departments concerned, to arrange for the removal of such advertisements by county planning authorities.
    The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): The sites on which advertisements by Government Departments are displayed are generally commercial sites and are subject to control under the Control of Advertisements Regulations. Even if such advertisements are removed, the sites will generally be available for use by other advertisers, at least for so long as the period of grace permitted under the regulations. I would agree, however, that Government Departments should set a good standard in this matter and will consider with my colleagues what improvements are possible in particular cases.
    Sir J. Mellor: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but is he aware that at present Government Departments are the worst disfigurers of the countryside, and if he has any doubt will he have a look at Warwickshire?
    Mr. Silkin: I am certainly not aware of that, and I have very grave doubts.

    Development Charge (Village Halls)
    Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether village halls and institutes run

    963
    on a non-profit basis for entertainment and education will be liable to development charge if they wish to enlarge their buildings.
    Mr. Silkin: Development charge is payable in respect of any enlargement in excess of 10 per cent. of the cubic content of buildings used as village halls and institutes. The amount of the charge will depend on the location of the premises and in some cases may be nil.
    Mr. Philips Price: Has not the matter of village halls and public or semi-public institutions and whether or not they should be liable to this charge been the subject of inquiry?
    Mr. Silkin: Yes, Sir. The result of that inquiry is incorporated in the answer to the Question.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Was it ever the intention of this House in passing this Act that handicaps should be put in the way of most desirable extensions of building activities of this kind, and what chance would there be of speculative gain resulting from these extensions?
    Mr. Silkin: The House had the opportunity, in considering exemptions and other regulations, of dealing with this point and did not do so. I do not agree that this is necessarily deterring desirable extensions.
    Mr. Stanley: How does the right hon. Gentleman think that having to pay a development charge, which may amount to a considerable sum in addition to the cost of the actual building, can fail to make it more difficult for these people to develop, as the whole House would like to see them develop?
    Mr. Silkin: Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman has misconceived the situation. This Question does not arise on the building of village halls, but on extensions, and, in the consideration of this matter, it is quite impossible to distinguish this from other types of buildings.
    Sir Basil Neven-Spence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of every single village hall in Shetland the site was presented "free, gratis and for nothings" by the proprietors, and why cannot the Government be equally generous?

    New Town, Bracknell
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffeasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he has yet considered the evidence submitted on 23rd February at the public inquiry regarding the new town at Bracknell; and how soon he will publish his decision thereon.
    Mr. Silkin: I am considering the Report of my Inspector, and I shall publish my decision as soon as possible.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the continued delay and uncertainty places farmers in the area in question in an almost impossible position, and that this uncertainty can only have an adverse effect on food production in the current year?
    Mr. Silkin: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would wish me to consider carefully the evidence given at the inquiry held on 23rd February, and would not wish to rush me into a decision.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Catering Wages Act (Operation)
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Labour what representations have been made to him by employers and by trades unions on the operation of the Catering Wages Act.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): None.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: In what respect is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this Act is achieving the object for which it was introduced?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is another question; I have answered the Question on the Order Paper.

    Foreign Domestics (Age Limit)
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Minister of Labour for what reason foreigners who have accepted engagements for domestic employment in this country are refused permission by his Department to take up their engagements if they are over 55 years of age.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): The reason is that the period of full and useful service such foreigners will be able to contribute is likely to be limited.
    Mr. Macpherson: Would it not be possible for permission to be granted for people to come over here on limited contracts?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: We are doing that in a number of industries, where there are limiting contracts, but, in general, people coming over here at 55 would never be able to qualify for our social services, and would become chargeable to public funds on reaching the age of 65 if they were not working.

    Factory Machines (Guards)
    Mr. Elwyn Jonesasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for the year 1947 stating that guards to protect against serious injury in factories are frequently unobtainable except after delay, sometimes of several years; whether there has been any improvement in the supply of such guards; and what steps have been and are being taken to deal with this problem.
    Mr. Isaacs: During 1948, as steel output improved, it was found possible to arrange a special scheme for providing material for guards on the basis of certificates of factory inspectors. I understand that this has cut down delays in guard manufacture, and that the position is now much easier. It will continue to be closely watched.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is my right hon. Friend taking any steps regarding the manufacture of these guards by any Government agency?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir; a new factory was opened at Caerphilly about a month ago for this purpose.
    Mr. John Lewis: Is it not a fact that there is a statutory obligation on the manufacturers of new machines to see that they are supplied with adequate guards and fencing?
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the absence of these guards causes an increased number of accidents and also increases the number of claims in respect of them and the
    966
    defences against such claims, and is not that an added reason for haste in increasing the supply of these guards?
    Mr. Isaacs: If my hon. and learned Friend will look at my answer to the Question and to the supplementary question, he will see that we are doing everything we can.

    Trainees
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons now receiving training at training centres for which his Department is responsible; and how many such persons are disabled.
    Mr. Isaacs: Four thousand, three hundred and one men and women are training at Government training centres, of whom 2,012 are disabled.

    Wages (Cost-of-Living Basis)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Labour if he can state in convenient categories, as far as available, the number of persons in Britain whose wages and salaries are on cost-of-living basis.
    Mr. Isaacs: It is estimated that nearly 1½ million workpeople are covered by collective agreements providing for the adjustment of wage rates in correspondence with movements in the interim index of retail prices. The great majority of these are in the building, iron and steel, boot and shoe and hosiery industries.
    Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Minister realise that this system is one of the major causes of inflation, and, in the national interest, will he do all he can to restrict it or stop it?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir; I certainly will not take any steps in that direction.

    Defence Regulations (Orders)
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Minister of Labour if he will identify the orders now in force made under regulations 58A and 58AA of the Defence (General) Regulations.
    Mr. Isaacs: As the reply is long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:

  EXISTING ORDERS UNDER REGULATIONS 58A AND 58AA OF THE DEFENCE (GENERAL) REGULATIONS BY THE MINISTER OF LABOUR AND NATIONAL SERVICE

    ORDERS FULLY IN OPERATION
    Under D.R. 58A
    Control of Employment

    Control of Employment (Directed Persons) Order, 1943 (S.R. & O. 1943 No. 651).

    Essential Work and Directed Persons (National Service Officers) Order, 1943 (S.R. & O. 1943 No. 1075).

    Control of Employment (Directed Persons) (Amendment) Order, 1948 (S.I. 1948 No. 708).

    Control of Engagement

    Control of Engagement Order, 1947 (S.R. & O. 1947 No. 2021).

    Control of Engagement (Amendment) Order, 1948 (S.I. 1948 No. 2608).

    Dock Workers

    Dock Labour (Compulsory Registration) Order, 1940 (S.R. & O. 1940 No. 1013).

    Dock Labour (Compulsory Registration) (Amendment) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O. 1947 No. 1208).

    Applying to the Ports of: Bideford, Dartmouth, Exmouth and Kirkwall.

    Records, Information and Inspection of Premises

    Undertakings (Records and Information and Inspection of Premises) Order, 1943 (S.R. & O. 1943 No. 870).

    Registration Orders

    Registration for Employment Order, 1947 (S.R. & O. 1947 No. 2409). No Registrations have been made under this Order since early 1948.

    Under D.R. 58AA
    National Arbitration Tribunal

    Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Orders, 1940 to 1944—S.R. & O.

    1940 No. 1305

    1941 No. 1884

    1942 No. 1073

    1942 No. 2673

    1944 No. 1437

    ORDERS PARTLY IN OPERATION
    Under D.R. 58A
    Essential Work Orders

    Essential Work (General Provisions) (No. 2) Order, 1942 (S.R. & O. 1942 No. 1594).

    Essential Work (General Provisions) Order, 1944 (S.R. & O. 1944 No. 815).

    Essential Work (General Provisions) (Amendment) Order, 1944 (S.R. & O. 1944 No. 1467).

    These Orders are in operation only in so far as Article 5 of the 1942 Order constitutes Local Appeal Boards which are used for the purposes of the Control of Employment (Directed Persons) Orders, 1943 to 1948.

    ORDERS WHICH ARE NOT BEING OPERATED
    Under D.R. 58A
    Essential Work Orders
    (1) Building and Civil Engineering

    Essential Work (Building and Civil Engineering) Order, 1942 (S.R. & O. 1942 No. 2044).

    Essential Work (Building and Civil Engineering) Order, 1944 (S.R. & O. 1944 No. 1435).

    (2) Miscellaneous Orders

    Reinstatement in Civil Employment (Exemption from Restriction) Order, 1944 (S.R. & O. 1944 No. 902).

    Essential Work (Permission to Terminate Employment) (Exemption) Order, 1945 (S.R. & O. 1945 No. 560).

    Essential Work (De-Scheduling) Order. 1946 (S.R. & O. 1946 No. 530).

    Registration Orders

    Specified Classes of Persons (Registration) (No. 1) Order, 1940 (S.R. & O. 1940 No. 1221).

    Specified Classes of Persons (Registration) (No 2) Order, 1940 (S.R. & O. 1940 No. 1293).

    Evacuated Persons Registration Order, 1940 (S.R. & O. 1940 No. 1812).

    Registration for Employment Order, 1941 (S.R. & O. 1941 No. 368).

    Nurses and Midwives (Registration for Employment) Order, 1943 (S.R. & O. 1943 No. 511).

    NOTE 1.—The above lists do not include Orders made under 58A requiring specific classes of persons to register on prescribed dates where the prescribed dates are all in the past.
    NOTE 2.—Orders made under 58A and 58AA by the Ministry of Labour for Northern Ireland have not been included in the list.
    NOTE 3.—Although the Specified Classes of Persons (Registration) Orders (No. 1) and (No. 2) 1940 require certain types of engineers, chemists, etc., to register unless registered with the Central Register of the Ministry, this requirement is not in practice enforced because the information is, in fact, obtained through the Central Register machinery.
    NOTE 4.—In the main, the position of Dockworkers is covered by the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1946, and the Order thereunder.

    Merseyside
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Minister of Labour the numbers of unemployed registered on Merseyside at the latest available date.
    Mr. Isaacs: Twenty-seven thousand, seven hundred and forty-seven at 14th February.
    Mrs. Braddock: In view of the very unsatisfactory position and the continued increase of unemployment in the Liverpool area, would my right hon. Friend ask the local employment committee for a complete report of the reasons why unemployment continues to increase in that area?
    Mr. Isaacs: It is not a continued increase because there has been a slight drop. There has been a drop of 659 from January to February, and that is a move in the right direction, though not a very big one. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend knows, it has been decided that this area is to be scheduled as a development area and that will give greater facilities for improved opportunities of employment.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend give the separate figures for Birkenhead?
    Mr. Isaacs: Not without notice.

    NATIONAL SERVICE (DEFERMENTS)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Labour how many men were granted deferments of call-up on the grounds of study and apprenticeship, with separate figures for each category during the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The figures for 1947 and 1948 are as follow: Students—1947: 7,039. 1948: 6,713. Apprentices—1947: 45,287. 1948: 47,157. No comparable figures are available for 1945 and 1946 when deferment was not, as at present, granted to apprentices or students as such.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the figure for apprentices is expected to rise during the current year by very nearly 50 per cent. over the figure which he has given?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This is the result of pressure from both sides of the House that apprentices should be given the complete right of deferment; that is to say, they would serve their apprenticeship first and do their military service second. Because
    970
    of the growth of the apprenticeship system throughout the country, we are finding that apprentices are taking advantage of the right which Parliament gave them to serve their apprenticeships first and do their military service later.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the new regulations come into force?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: There was an arrangement referred to in the White Paper on the call-up for the Forces in 1947–48, and, when the National Service Act came into operation, there was a continuation of that right.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Labour how many students and how many apprentices will come to the end of their periods of deferment during the year 1949; how many of these he intends to call up for National Service during the year 1949; and whether the latter figures are included in the total figures for call-up during that-year which have been already announced.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The figures asked for in the first part of the Question could be obtained only by special inquiries which would entail a heavy cost in staff and take a considerable time to complete. It is intended to call up this year all of these young men who are medically fit whose deferments expire sufficiently in advance of the end of the year; this number is estimated at 21,000, divided about equally between apprentices and students. The answer to the last part of the Question is "Yes."
    Mr. Chetwynd: Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that none of these people deferred will escape their liability to military service?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I can give that assurance to the House. The machinery is the same as it was during the war in regard to students and apprentices, and the House can be assured that these people are to be called up.

  SCOTLAND

    Doctors and Dentists
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many doctors and dentists, respectively, have now joined the National Health Service; how many of each profession have not

    971
    joined; and how many of each of these are in the City of Aberdeen.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): As the answer includes

    —

    On lists of Executive Councils as at 31st January, 1949

    Not on lists of Executive Councils*

    Doctors

    Dentists

    Doctors

    Dentists

    Scotland

    …

    …

    2,374

    1,176

    Fewer than 50

    40–50

    City of Aberdeen

    …

    …

    80

    75

    None known

    2

    * Exact figures are not known.

    Tweed Industry
    Sir Basil Neven-Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any announcement to make regarding the scheme for distinguishing between hand-woven and power-woven tweed recently submitted to him by the Highland and Islands Advisory Panel.
    Mr. Woodburn: I have received this proposal, and am considering the whole question in consultation with the Treasury and the Board of Trade. I regret that it is not possible to make any statement meanwhile.
    Sir B. Neven-Spence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the urgency of this question, in view of the fact that the hand-loom tweed industry is now at a complete standstill, and will he see if it is possible to offer further help, in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a view to withdrawing the iniquitous Purchase Tax on hand-woven tweeds?
    Mr. Woodburn: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's worry over this matter, but, as he knows, we have been studying this whole problem, and it would help us very much if this industry had some organisation or association that could help us in solving the technical and practical problems involved.

    Winter Herring Fishing
    Sir Basil Neven-Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken by the Herring Industry Board to revive the Scottish winter herring fishing.
    Mr. Woodburn: As an immediate measure, the Herring Industry Board
    a number of figures, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    have encouraged fishermen to engage in the winter fishing on the West Coast by undertaking during the period 11th January to 13th March, 1949, to take over at fixed prices according to quality all herring landed at the ports of Stornoway, Ullapool, Gairloch, Kyle and Mallaig. The Board are undertaking the long term development of quick freezing and other outlets at Stornoway which should help the winter as well as the summer fisheries. The Board have also arranged contracts for the supply of herring from the Clyde to Germany during the winter season should herring surplus to home market requirements become available.
    Sir B. Neven-Spence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Food is busily engaged in sabotaging the efforts of the Herring Industry Board, and would he consult with him on the matter?
    Mr. Woodburn: I am not aware of that, but I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to put that question to the Ministry of Food.
    Sir B. Neven-Spence: Is the Minister aware that the question came up last week when the Minister of Food admitted that Norwegian herrings were being imported surplus to requirements, and that, in consequence, good West Coast herrings were being reduced to fish meal and oil?
    Mr. Boothby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this scheme of the herring board has broken down, and can he hold out reasonable hopes that adequate quick freezing plant will be put up quickly on the West Coast as that is the only way of dealing with this situation?
    Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman should not be so pessimistic. Certain difficulties have arisen, but, as he knows, the Minister of Food's first job in this country is to guarantee a food supply to the people, and where the returns from our fisheries are very variable, precautions have to be taken that they do not fall below the requisite standard.
    Mr. Scollan: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department aware that there is a very serious lack of facilities on the distributive side for herrings and white fish, but particularly for herrings, and that not half the herrings are being distributed which were being distributed 50 years ago?
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman referred only to the action being taken on the West Coast to improve the herring trade, but may I express the hope that he is not forgetting that on the East Coast a very great winter herring fishing used to take place, and that we shall be glad to have it resumed?

    Housing
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have been condemned as unfit for human habitation at the village of Benwhat, Ayrshire.
    Mr. Woodburn: I am informed that demolition orders have been made in respect of seven of the houses in this village.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this is a coalmining village and has been condemned as unfit for human habitation; and could he stimulate his Department to erect more houses in this area?
    Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is this not symbolic of many other small towns and villages in Ayrshire?
    Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir, the country is peppered with the tragedies of the neglect of the last 50 years.
    Sir T. Moore: Could you advise me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to when I may put a Question to the Government with the assurance that I shall get a reply accepting any responsibility for the Government of today?
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now consider purchasing a further quantity of Swedish houses for erection in rural areas in the lowlands of Scotland.
    Mr. Woodburn: No, Sir. The building industry in Scotland is showing signs of reaching the point where it can undertake more work, and it is desirable that its labour and materials should be made full use of.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the local authorities in the South of Scotland are very anxious to get more Swedish houses, and that some of these houses are at least £500 cheaper than other houses?
    Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir, but I am glad to say that the position about prices is improving in Scotland. It is essential to see that our own labour is occupied before we bring in material from elsewhere.
    Mr. Thomton-Kemsley: Is the Secretary of State aware, arising from his last answer, that at least one local authority in Scotland is refusing to accept its allocation of Swedish houses because they cost about £950 each as compared with £1,600 for a more satisfactory type of traditional house?

    SERVICE PENSIONS (SPECIAL HARDSHIP ALLOWANCE)
    Mr. Heathcoat Amoryasked the Minister of Pensions whether in view of the fact that less than one per cent. of disability pensioners of the 1914–18 war are in receipt of the Special Hardship Allowance, he will make the conditions of this particular award less stringent for this age group.
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): I do not consider that the conditions attached to payment of the allowance for this age group are too stringent. The number of awards is now increasing steadily but the full effect has not yet been felt of the special measures that have been taken to bring the conditions for award of the allowance, as well as other matters to the notice of all 1914–18 war pensioners. I am watching the position closely.
    Mr. Amory: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of the pensioners of the 1914–18 war by reason of their age are finding it harder and harder to hold their own in the competitive labour market, and will he also try. by the more sympathetic interpretation of the unemployability allowance and of the Special Hardship Allowance to do something to help this age group a bit more?
    Mr. Marquand: The regulations are administered very sympathetically as I believe all hon. Members know. I am glad to say that the number of awards of these particular allowances now being made is at the rate of 75 a week, whereas until recently it was only 50.

    FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Lord President of the Council what organisation or organisations are to be charged with the responsibility of selecting suitable exhibits for the Festival of Britain, 1951, with the object of demonstrating Great Britain's contribution to civilisation in the field of science.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): In order to ensure that the British contribution to science and technology should be worthily presented in the Festival of Britain, 1951, I set up in May last year a special Council of Science and Technology to advise me on this aspect of the Festival. Sir Alan Barlow is chairman, and the members are leading men of science and technology in Britain. The Council is advised by about 13 specialist panels. The selection of exhibits illustrating the results of British scientific achievement will be carried out by the Council in consultation with the Council of Industrial Design and the Festival organisation.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Income and Expenditure
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in future editions of the White Paper entitled, National Income and Expenditure of the United Kingdom, and similar publications, he will show the figures of rent, interest and profits, salaries, wages and pay and allowances after deduction
    976
    of tax; and whether he will show corporation profits separately from other profits.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The figures mentioned in the first part of the Question can be derived from the White Paper in its present form. The answer to the second part is "Yes."
    Mr. Thomas: As the figures given in their present form are constantly misused for propaganda purposes—for example, by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) in his recent publication—could not the right hon. Gentleman see that the figures after taxation are given in more prominent form?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Member should have discovered that fact before he crossed the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for West Fife never makes any unreliable statements, and that the statements referred to by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) will bear investigation?
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that the discovery of the truth entails crossing the Floor?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: On the contrary, it appeared to me that the hon. Member had only just made the discovery.

    Government Hospitality Centre, London
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the percentage of accommodation which has been utilised since the opening of the premises in Park Street.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The percentage of hotel accommodation utilised has varied, sometimes rather above and sometimes rather below the figure of 50 per cent. Taking the average over the period, the premises have so far been just under half-occupied.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer show that the whole project is ill-conceived; and, further, in view of the availability now of hotel accommodation, is the right hon. Gentleman able to give the date on which it is proposed to relinquish these premises?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon. and learned Friend dealt with this matter a little while back in reply to a question put to him, and made it quite clear that hotel keepers consider that 1949 is going to be a difficult year for accommodation, and that as soon as the situation improves this matter will be looked at again.
    Mr. Stanley: Are we to understand that this is being done at the request of hotel keepers?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Nothing that I have said should lead the right hon. Gentleman to think that.
    Mr. Stanley: May I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman? I was only trying to attach some meaning to his answer, and that was the only meaning I could attach.

    Scotch Whisky (Foreign Embassies)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that at the present time foreign embassies in London are unable to obtain supplies of whisky in this country even if they are prepared to pay for it in gold dollars or other hard currency with the result that they are either limited to purchasing Irish or Canadian whisky in this country or to reimporting Scotch whisky via America or some other overseas country; and whether arrangements can be made to evolve a less onerous system of control.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I am aware of the situation to which the hon. Member refers; but, as the hon. Member will appreciate, the effect of any change such as he has in mind would be to encourage the diversion of supplies earmarked for the development of permanent hard currency markets.
    Mr. Boothby: Is it not a fact that these foreign embassies in London are prepared to pay in gold or hard currency? If that is the case, why should they not buy in Scotland, which is much nearer than the United States of America and is where the stuff is made?
    Mr. Jay: There is an arrangement by which foreign embassies in London can be supplied against the export quota for payment in their own currency. If we went beyond that, we should interfere with our long-term market.
    Mr. Scollan: May I ask the Financial Secretary if this is not a plea for the contact man in the whisky trade?

    Economic Survey, 1949
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to produce an Economic Survey for 1949.
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. The Economic Survey for 1949 will be published on Tuesday afternoon, 15th March, and will be generally on sale the following day. A popular illustrated version entitled "Survey, "49" will be published about the same time.
    Mr. Erroll: Can the Economic Secretary say what is the value of a Survey for 1949 which is published when one-fifth of the year has already passed?
    Mr. Jay: It is being published at approximately the same date as has always been the case in the past.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will there be separate figures issued for Scotland?
    Mr. Jay: The great majority of the figures will apply, naturally, to the whole of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Can my hon. Friend say what the price of the popular edition will be?
    Mr. Spence: Might I ask the Minister if, in the interests of economy and having regard to the accuracy of these figures in the past, he can arrange to have this Survey published as part of Old Moore's Almanac?

    Economic Information Unit (Publication)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the monthly circulation of the publication "Target," prepared for the Economic Information Unit; if any charge is made for it; and what is the monthly cost and the cost to date to the taxpayer.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Forty-one thousand, eight hundred. No charge is made. The monthly cost from June, 1948, to January, 1949, averaged £635, and the first issue of the new series, initiated in February, cost approximately £1,250. The total cost up to and including the February issue has been £6,810.
    Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the taxpayer should pay £6,810 for Socialist propaganda? Will he arrange for the hon. Member for Orpington to write the next number, and if that permission is granted, will he guarantee that it will be published unedited?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: This publication contains facts of the utmost use to those who are now engaged in the great productive drive. I will, of course, pass on the hon. Member's suggestion. There are some people who think that the thing is a little heavy and who would like one or two features of a lighter nature.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the method of distribution of this publication?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is distributed free to factories up and down the country.
    Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order. I have been criticised.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought the hon. Member was being complimented.
    Sir W. Smithers: I was criticised by the Financial Secretary as desiring something of a lighter nature. It would be of a more truthful nature.

    Dividends (Limitation)
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he arrived at as to the rise in dividends which would result from the policy of moderation and restraint offered by the Federation of British Industries and associated bodies, as an alternative to voluntary dividend limitation.
    Mr. Jay: As my right hon. and learned Friend said in his letter to the Presidents of the Federation of British Industries, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the National Union of Manufacturers, he noted their joint assurance of co-operation for one year more in avoiding any general increase in the level of dividends. We shall watch the carrying out of this assurance with keen interest.
    Mr. Chamberlain: As the policy of the dividend ceiling, now withdrawn by the Federation of British Industries, was virtually worthless, is not the new policy
    980
    of moderation and restraint just evasion of their obligations by the Federation of British Industries and completely useless?
    Mr. Jay: I could not agree that the policy is completely useless, because at least 93 per cent. of the firms concerned, as the hon. Member knows, observed the undertaking and we have every hope that they will continue to do so in the future.

    Invisible Exports
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the importance of invisible exports in balancing the overall deficit on visible trade, what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government to ensure that the proceeds of invisible exports are not frozen in the country receiving them.
    Mr. Jay: It is the constant objective of His Majesty's Government in negotiations with other countries to secure the maximum freedom of remittances to this country.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of the importance of these invisible exports, can the Economic Secretary say what actual steps are being taken in the many treaties to see that things like royalties are, in fact, payable in currency which is convertible and returnable to this country?
    Mr. Jay: We raise this matter in the course of negotiations with all countries concerned and attach a lot of importance to it.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Would the Economic Secretary say what action is taken to see that in fact, it happens. It is all very well raising it; will he say in how many cases he has achieved it?
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread disquiet in the City of London at the loss to the British economy of these very important invisible exports by reason of the growth of unofficial markets in shares, in commodities and in money all over the world, due to the restrictions of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Jay: We recognise the importance of these invisible exports. It is not restriction by His Majesty's Government which is holding them back. I can assure the hon. Member that in a number of trade

    981
    negotiations we have successfully insisted on this point. If he want particulars, I can let him have them.

    Sterling Balances
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total of sterling balances at the last convenient date; and at a similar date 12 months earlier.
    Mr. Jay: I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the Balance of Payments White Paper which will be published next week with the Economic Survey.

    Japanese Bonds
    Mr. William Teelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the delays in bringing about a Peace Treaty with Japan, he will consult with the United States authorities as to the possibility of including the interest accrued and the capital sum due to British holders of Japanese Bonds as assets belonging to this country, in Japan, which can be used for purchases in any further trade agreement with Japan.
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir. The proceeds of exports from Japan fall far short of the cost of essential imports, and it would be unrealistic to expect the Japanese economy, while it is being supported by the American taxpayer, to forego payment in foreign exchange for exports, in order to meet other claims, however legitimate in themselves.
    Mr. Teelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money is being lost to the British Exchequer in taxation each year, by the non-receipt in this country of interest due on Japanese Bonds since the Armistice with Japan.
    Mr. Jay: The amount of interest due to holders in the United Kingdom annually on Japanese Bonds since the Armistice with Japan has been estimated very roughly at about £2 million. Income Tax on this sum at 9s. in the £ would be £900,000.

    Foreign Bonds
    Mr. Teelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what countries bonds and the interest on bonds held by British subjects are used by us as assets for trade negotiations and agreements.
    Mr. Jay: It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to ensure that the interests of bondholders are, so far as possible, safeguarded in all overseas negotiations.

    Purchase Tax (Drugs)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, under Notice No. 78N, issued by the Commissioner of Customs and Excise, elaborate rules have been laid down as to the manner in which medicines and drugs must be packed if the contents are to be free of Purchase Tax, and as under these rules a person buying 100 aspirin tablets sold under a brand name is obliged to pay the full rate of tax, but a bottle of 150 of the same tablets obtained by means of a prescription from a medical practitioner is free of tax, if he will revise these rules.
    Mr. Jay: The exemption from Purchase Tax explained in Notice 78N meets the request made during discussion on the last Finance Bill that certain proprietary drugs should be freed from Purchase Tax when supplied on a doctor's prescription. The exemption was granted by the Purchase Tax (No. 1) Order, 1949 (S.I. 1949, No. 46) which has been before the House.
    Sir T. Moore: Why this senseless discrimination in regard to the purchase of the same drug by different methods?
    Mr. Jay: The hon. and gallant Member calls it "senseless discrimination," but this House decided that it should work that way and the suggestion actually came from the hon. and gallant Member's side of the House.
    Mr. Stanley: Is not the Economic Secretary fully aware that from this side of the House we protested against the whole system of the tax being levied on these medical articles merely because they were proprietary; and that we asked that the tax should depend entirely upon whether in fact they were essential and useful for health purposes?
    Mr. Jay: This is a provision by which certain proprietary articles are exempted; therefore, it goes in the direction which the right hon. Gentleman was advocating.
    Mr. Stanley: Would it not now be better to go the whole way in that direction?
    Dr. Segal: If these medicines are bought under prescription from a general medical practitioner, ought not the brand name to be obliterated?

    Books (Imports)
    Mr. Marloweasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a reprint of Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray," published and printed by The World Publishing Company, of 2231 West 110th Street, Cleveland, Ohio, is on sale in this country; and why Treasury permission has been given in respect of the dollars involved in this import.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Open individual licences for the import of books of fiction in English published and printed in any country, including the U.S.A., are issued for the most part to pre-war importers of such books, provided that an undertaking is given that no less than 50 per cent. by value of the total imports will be re-exported. It would be impracticable to distinguish between original works and reprints.
    Mr. Marlowe: Can the right hon. Gentleman justify the use of dollars for a publication which the English publishers both can and do supply themselves without the use of any dollars?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have tried to explain that we cannot prevent the import of these books if they comply with the licence issued. On the other hand, if we began to discriminate in this way it is quite likely that the United States would take action against books exported from this country which earn a considerable amount of dollars.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the theme of this book, the point and pith of the book, consists in sudden revelations as a consequence of a long period of anterior delay? Since this has an important moral for the Conservative Party, will he give us an assurance that he will do nothing to impede its circulation?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: So far as I know it was written just when the Whig Party was in its decline.

    Gold Reserves
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of our gold reserves at the latest available date.
    Mr. Jay: United Kingdom holdings of gold and dollars were £457 million at the end of 1948.
    Sir W. Smithers: Does that include the £80 million of gold on loan from Africa. and, if so, why?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, that had been received many months before, and so was included in these calculations.
    Sir W. Smithers: Why should the Government include in gold reserves, gold on loan? When will the Government realise that honesty is the best policy?

    Social Survey
    Mr. Amoryasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is satisfied that the results accruing from the work of the Social Survey Division of the Central Office of Information justify the manpower and the expenditure entailed.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Amory: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many people. rightly or wrongly, regard these investigators as a species of snooper, and that in those circumstances the replies are likely to be framed with a certain amount of caution?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I suppose that that is so, although these investigations are excellent in their way, and those who carry them out are warned to be very careful how they put their questions.
    Mr. Albu: To make clear the nature of the extremely valuable work done by this department, will my right hon. Friend consider transferring it from the Central Office of Information to the Central Statistical Office?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Clothing Industry
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement as to his intentions for a proposed development council for the clothing industry.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): My right hon. Friend cannot make a statement until he has considered the comments on the proposals for a Clothing Development Council which he published in January.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Can the hon. Gentleman ensure that the development council order will not be made while large and important sections of the industry are still opposed to this proposal?
    Mr. Edwards: I cannot say any more until my right hon. Friend has considered the comments.

    Newsprint
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will ask the Newsprint Supply Company to allocate more newsprint to local newspapers.
    Mr. J. Edwards: An increase in the consumption of newsprint by newspapers generally took place at the beginning of this year. The position is being kept under review, but I am at present unable to indicate when any further increase will be possible. When the time comes my right hon. Friend feels that an increase should be allowed equally to all categories of newspapers and not restricted to local newspapers.
    Mr. Skeffington: Is my hon. Friend aware that I did not put this Question down as a suggestion that there should be more space for the reporting of the speeches of Members of Parliament, although that may be a good thing, but there are large numbers of statutory notices which have to be given by local authorities, and of other notices, and the pressure upon the space of local papers is very high?
    Mr. Edwards: That is so, but I would ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that the present consumption of paper by the provincial dailies and weekly papers is very much higher by comparison with prewar than the corresponding figures for the London dailies.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman, when taking the matter into consideration, remember that the holiday resorts want increased supplies at certain times of the year? May I have
    986
    an answer? If the hon. Gentleman will not give me an answer, I shall be obliged to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Film Industry
    Mr. John Hyndasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the redundancy in the British film producing industry; and whether he is contemplating any adjustment in the quota arrangement for exhibitors in the light of the fall which must result in available British films.
    Mr. J. Edwards: My right hon. Friend is in close touch with both sides of the industry about the present production difficulties. The Cinematograph Films Council are meeting on 15th March to consider their recommendations to him on the quota percentages for the next exhibitors' quota period, and he will announce his decision as soon as possible after that.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present quota of 45 per cent. is quite unrealistic in view of the fact that over 2,000 cinemas have been given relief from the quota requirements and been told in advance that they need not show a quota of more than 25 per cent. or 20 per cent., and in some cases 10 per cent.? Is this not a great handicap to British film production?
    Mr. Edwards: That is another question.

    New Factories, Liverpool
    Mrs. Braddockasked the President of the Board of Trade how many new factories have been built in Liverpool since January, 1946.
    Mr. J. Edwards: Five new factories and 17 extensions of 5,000 sq. ft. and over have been completed since January, 1946, in Liverpool (covering the employment exchange areas of Bootle, Garston, Old Swan, Walton and Leece Street).
    Mrs. Braddock: In view of the very large number of unemployed in that area, does my hon. Friend think that the local authority has used the powers that it has? If he is of the opinion that it has not, will he take steps to call a conference, including those representing the local authority, to try to persuade it to use the powers it has?
    Mr. Edwards: That raises an entirely different question, which, perhaps, my hon. Friend may care to put down.

    OPENCAST COALMINING, WINSTANLEY
    Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many claims for damage to residential property caused by working the Winstanley Hall Opencast No. 3A site have been paid, and what is the total amount paid so far; how many claims are pending, and for what amount; and what is the estimated total of damages likely to amount to by time the site is exhausted.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): No claims have been received nor payments made in respect of this site.
    Mr. Erroll: Would the hon. Gentleman answer the rest of my Question, about the damage which is to be expected because of the workings which are going on adjacent to the house?
    Mr. Robens: It is not expected that there will be any damage.
    Mr. Tom Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that Winstanley Hall opencast site is in my Division, and that it is being dealt with by the local authority, by me, the Ministry and the local branch of the Ministry? Is he aware that it would be in accord with the dignity and honour of this House if the hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Erroll) would mind his own business?
    Mr. Erroll: When the Minister replies to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) will he inform him that his constitutents are very dissatisfied with the position, and with the lack of action taken by their own Member of Parliament?
    Mr. Robens: The hon. Member for Ince has been most active in this matter, and sees me and my officials almost every week in relation to Winstanley Hall opencast site. Further, he has arranged for a meeting of the local authority and other people concerned, and I have undertaken to go down to see those people.
    Mr. Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter was raised by me on the
    988
    Adjournment on 1st February this year, and that I hope to raise it on the Adjournment on a subsequent day when I win the ballot?
    Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what representations he has received from the National Coal Board about the undesirability of working the Winstanley Hall Opencast No. 3A site.
    Mr. Robens: The National Coal Board were, of course, consulted about this site, and have agreed to the proposed method of working.
    Mr. Erroll: Have they not objected in any way?
    Mr. Robens: No objection has been made by the National Coal Board, because our officials work in close consultation with the Board, and arrangements were made.

    HIGH FREQUENCY BROADCASTING
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Postmaster-General how much has been spent during the last 12 months on frequency modulation; and whether, in view of experience elsewhere, he has reached a decision regarding its future.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): During the past 12 months the B.B.C. has spent about £85,000 on very high frequency broadcasting. Very high frequencies can be used either with amplitude modulation or with frequency modulation. It is not yet decided which method will be used in this country, and the B.B.C.'s Experimental Station, now under construction, will at first provide for transmissions by both methods. I am satisfied that it is necessary to develop very high frequency broadcasting in order to relieve the shortage of long and medium wavelengths.
    Mr. Shepherd: Has the hon. Gentleman studied the results which have been obtained in the United States? Will he bear in mind the inadvisability of proceeding with large-scale expenditure on a project which has very little hope of being of any practical value to this country?
    Mr. Hobson: Yes, Sir.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Remploy Factory, Abertillery
    Mr. Daggarasked the Minister of Works when it is proposed to commence the building of the Remploy factory at Abertillery, Monmouthshire.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): It is hoped to begin building this factory early in June.
    Mr. Daggar: In view of the prolonged delay in commencing the building of this factory, will the Minister take steps to reduce the period?
    Mr. Key: I am afraid the peculiarities and difficulties of the site made it very difficult to get the scheme produced even by June.

    Bomb-Damaged Sites, Liverpool (Clearance)
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Minister of Works how many men are employed on clearance of bomb-damaged buildings and sites in Liverpool at the latest available date.
    Mr. Key: I regret that there are no separate figures for the work of clearance alone, but the number of operatives employed on both clearance and repair of bomb-damaged buildings and sites in Liverpool at the end of February was approximately 2,100.

BILL PRESENTED
  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
  "to amend the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1925 to 1946; to promote the improvement of housing accommodation in Scotland by authorising the making of contributions out of the Exchequer and of grants by local authorities; to authorise the making out of the Exchequer of contributions in addition to the contributions payable under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1946, in certain cases, and of contributions in respect of the provision of hostels and of building experiments in Scotland; to extend and amend certain provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, and the Building Materials and Housing Act, 1945, in their application to Scotland; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Woodburn; supported by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Glenvil Hall, Mr. Thomas Fraser and Mr. J. J. Robertson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
  Ordered:
  "That this day, the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'Clock and shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
NAVY ESTIMATES, 1949–50 AND NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1948–49

  MR. JOHN DUGDALE'S STATEMENT
  Order for Committee read.
  3.32 p.m.
  The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I beg to move, "That Mr. Deputy-Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  I am afraid that hon. Members may possibly find my speech somewhat depressing today because I prepared the notes for it while in bed with jaundice, and therefore, to some extent the jaundice may be reflected in the speech. I think, however, that the contents of the speech will be sufficiently cheerful to counteract the jaundice.
  We are asking for a sum of £189¼ million, which is £36¼ million more than we asked for last year, but £21 million more than we actually spent. Half of this, as hon. Members will see from the explanatory statement, is due to higher prices, in particular the cost of shipbuilding which is now some 250 per cent. higher than it was before the war; to the rundown by the use and sale of our stocks and to increased pay. The other half is due to steps which we are taking to see that the Fleet is brought to an even greater state of readiness than it is at present. The right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), in the Debate on the Ministry of Defence last week, was disturbed that the resources may be, as he said, frittered away. I can assure him that we are just as concerned in the Admiralty as he is to see that every penny that we use contributes to the building of a bigger and better Fleet, and all our endeavours will be to that end.
  I intend, first of all, to give an account of our stewardship during the past year, and, secondly, to make some remarks upon our plans for future naval warfare. I think that I can say that last year was a year of achievement. If hon. Members will cast their minds back, they will remember that the Leader of the Opposition expressed some doubts as to the strength of the Navy last year and was
  992
  somewhat alarmed by the rapid rundown. I said at that time on behalf of my noble Friend that we had deliberately decided to run down the hostilities-only men as rapidly as possible in order to build up that year Regular Forces and to get going on a Regular R.N. basis as quickly as possible. This we have done. The results have been most satisfactory.
  Let me take recruiting first. During the past year, we have accepted 19,700 men for the Royal Navy, which is very nearly our target for recruitment. There is one difficulty which we have today which I think is greater than existed before the war, and that is the very high proportion of wastage. I will give one example. Before the war, men were invalided for tuberculosis to the extent of two per thousand. Today they are invalided at the rate of seven per thousand. Let me say at once—and I want to make this abundantly clear—that this is not due to an increase in tuberculosis in the Navy, but due to the fact that there is a system of examination which enables the disease to be detected at a very much earlier stage. The net result is that we get greater wastage. All these new recruits have to be trained. We have had very big training commitments for new entries, and we continue to have a tremendous training programme for all ranks who have to be trained and re-trained in the complicated branches of naval warfare. In spite of this we have been able to close one or two naval training establishments and to reduce others very considerably during the year.
  We should have been able to close more had it not been that during the past year we decided to increase the rate of intake of National Service men from 2,000 to 10,000, and this has meant a much greater commitment for training. During the past year, we have had the advantages of the deliberations of the Eastham Manpower Economy Committee presided over by His Honour Sir Tom Eastham. By and large, I can say that this Committee found that while there were cases here and there where economies could be effected, the Admiralty was, on the whole, very mindful of the need to economise in manpower. They made various suggestions, and as a result of these a Departmental Admiralty Committee was set up which has made, and is making, various recommendations. and already, as a result of

  993
  those which have been accepted, some 2,500 men have been saved on shore jobs, and will now be available to go to sea.
  The results of these various measures have been that today 21 ships have been re-manned including H.M.S. "Duke of York," H.M.S. "Theseus" and H.M.S. "Vengeance." The Home Fleet has been reconstituted, and last autumn it was able to go on a cruise to the West Indies on which it was accompanied for part of the way by my noble Friend—
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Was he seasick?
  Mr. Dugdale: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to know my noble Friend better than to think he would be seasick. My noble Friend had duties to perform here and had to come back to attend to those duties, otherwise I have no doubt that he would have been happy to go on with the Fleet for a longer period.
  While the Fleet was on its way to the West Indies, some of the ships broke away and went to South Africa to pay a very welcome visit to that country. It is a point of interest that while the ships were on their way to South Africa, planes flew off the deck of a carrier and flew over St. Helena for the first time in history. While this was going on, H.M.S. "Vanguard" went to the Mediterranean, and I had the pleasure of sailing on board so far as Gibraltar. I think that there are few experiences—and I am sure that hon. Members who have held my position will agree—more thrilling, and certainly none more calculated to inspire one with regard for the Royal Navy, than to stand on the bridge of a large warship as she steams slowly into a great naval harbour, especially when, after a voyage of two or three days and of many hundreds of miles, she drops anchor, not just one minute before or one minute after she is due to arrive, hut absolutely dead on time. That is a very remarkable experience.
  On all these various cruises that have been made by the Home Fleet and by other ships I am glad to say that the officers and men of the Navy have been received with the usual enthusiasm in every country they visited. It is an ordinary, common or garden thing to talk about the Royal Navy being received with enthusiasm. but I think we get so used to it that it is just as well it should
  994
  be mentioned in these days when there is so much bad feeling, one way and another, around the world. It is a very good thing to know that our ships can go from port to port, as they do, in various parts of the globe and be received with the reception they have had—in South Africa, in South America, in Central America, and elsewhere.
  The Mediterranean Fleet has also been active during the past year. The end of the Palestine patrol has enabled the Fleet to engage in tactical operations, and at the moment it is engaged in combined exercises with the Home Fleet. One thing which was of great interest to the Fleet during the past year was the visit paid by Flag Officer Air, flying his flag in H.M.S. "Triumph," to Turkey. During the course of this visit two squadrons of planes flew over the deck of his carrier, and circled over Istanbul and Ankara for the first time in history—a really remarkable event of some significance.
  The Pacific Fleet has, during the past year, moved its headquarters from Hong Kong to Singapore with the object of seeing that the naval commander-in-chief is in the same place as the commanders-in-chief of the other two Services. They are now all together, and are therefore better able to co-operate in their operations. I need hardly say that the naval patrols in the vicinity of Malaya have been of considerable assistance to our troops in their very difficult engagements there.
  I have talked of the active Fleet and of their work, but I should not like the House to forget the Reserve Fleet. During the past year the Reserve Fleet has, if I may put it this way, been to the tailors. No fewer than 150 ships have been refitted, and the Supplementary Estimate of £15½ million includes a quite considerable sum for this purpose. As many as possible of the ships which have been refitted are being what is called dynamically dehumidified, using the process to which I referred at some length in my speech last year, the process by which they can be adequately preserved for future use. I should like to pay tribute to the officers and men who man the Reserve Fleet. It is not a very easy job. I have talked of the reception that our men get when they go overseas. Well, the men of the Reserve Fleet do not get any reception; they sit day after day

  995
  in their ships, just hammering, chipping, cleaning and painting, looking after the ships, and generally being caretakers. It is not an inspiring job, but it is one of vital importance because a good Fleet, like a good football team, must have first-class reserves, and our Fleet has got first-class reserves.
  I have said that there has been a lot of refitting. There has been refitting in the Royal Dockyards, and in consequence of this, and in consequence of the naval work which has been transferred to the dockyards, repayment work has now virtually ceased. I think my hon. Friends who represent dockyard constituencies will agree with me that during the past two or three years this repayment work has been of very great value to the dockyards and to those towns. I want to make it clear that if at any time we should find that there is not enough naval work to be done in our dockyards we shall give immediate consideration to the resumption of repayment work.
  I turn now to the conditions of our sailors. It is not often that Jane Austen finds a place, either in the Navy or, indeed, in politics, though it is a curious and interesting fact that my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I do not know what the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) keeps muttering about. I always thought that he was rather fond of muttering from time to time and that he could not control himself as well as he might.
  Mr. Brendan Bracken: In view of the invitation given me to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, I would remind him that at any rate some people have read "Mansfield Park" and knew of Miss Austen's naval relations. It may be a discovery to the Parliamentary Secretary, but it is not to us.
  Mr. Dugdale: Oh, was that all? It is not very often that she refers to the Navy, but she does do so, I notice, in "Persuasion." No doubt the right hon. Member knows that already, but for the benefit of those hon. Members who do not know it, let me read what she said:
  "The Navy, who have done so much for us. have at least an equal claim with any other set of men for all the comforts and all the privileges which any home can give. Sailors work hard enough for their comforts, we must all allow."
  996
  We are determined to see that sailors shall have these comforts. In the past many of them have not had such comforts under previous Governments. I will refer for only a moment to improvements being made on board ship. First, bathrooms. What were euphemistically called "bathrooms" before the war were places where a little cold water flowed on to a lot of men. These have now been modernised: 31 have been completely modernised and 143 are in process of modernisation. Take the galleys: 42 have been modernised, and 300 automatic refrigerators have been fitted in ships which had not got them before. We have established mechanised fleet bakeries in carriers. All these things are of considerable importance to the welfare of our sailors, and therefore to the efficiency of the Navy. We are also putting in labour-saving devices—automatic chipping, scaling and paint spraying machines, which I have no doubt will be fully appreciated by those sailors who in the past have had to chip and chip and chip indefinitely, until they thought they were never coming to the end of the job.
  Mr. Bracken: Do not attack the Minister of Defence.
  Mr. Dugdale: I wish the right hon. Member could control himself. I know he looks like a chimpanzee, but I do not see why he should be a chattering chimpanzee.
  In addition to putting in a number of labour-saving devices we have taken steps during the year to improve the pay scale. The 1946 pay scale was a considerable improvement on the pre-war scale, but last year we felt that chief and petty officers needed some improvement in their pay, and we have improved their scale quite considerably. We have at the same time introduced the repayment of family removal expenses within the United Kingdom—something of considerable importance to men who have to move about from one station to another, and who in the past have been involved in great expense if they wanted to get their families moved with them. We have also given officers an increased marriage allowance; and—something of very great importance to all new entry officers—we are giving them their first issue of uniform free.
  This brings me to consideration of the new Dartmouth scheme. That scheme

  997
  has, naturally, like any other scheme of such importance, had its growing pains, but it is working by and large, quite satisfactorily. The Commanding Officer and the headmaster of Dartmouth speak very highly of the new boys who have gone there, the new 16-year-old entrants; they say that they are settling down well and making a considerable contribution to the general life of the school.
  There is, however, another form of officer entry which we are very anxious to encourage as far as possible, as I said before, and that is promotion from the lower deck. We have not been altogether satisfied with the speed of that during the past year or two. We have decided, therefore, to take two steps. The first is to see that all C.W. candidates, which as Members know are roughly speaking officer candidates, as soon as they become C.W. candidates shall have an opportunity to go to a large ship where they can be under the personal supervision of an instructor officer and therefore be able to keep up their studies as far as possible during the course of their ordinary work. We are seeing that they go to a special three months' course after they have passed the Fleet Selection Board and before they go to H.M.S. "Hawke." In this way, we hope that they will be better able to make the grade and that we shall get the full 25 per cent. at which we are aiming.
  I come now to warrant officers. I am glad to see that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) is here, because during the past year, as he and other Members know, we have for the first time arranged for warrant officers to be admitted to wardrooms in exactly the same way and with exactly the same privileges as any other officer. That is an important change. But there has been some question of their titles. Warrant officers feel that if they are called "warrant officers" there is some confusion with the warrant officers in the Army who are not warrant officers in the same sense as naval warrant officers.
  We have decided that they shall be given another title. Whatever title is given to them, I have no doubt that someone will take exception to it. Warrant officers and commissioned officers from warrant rank at present bear titles which describe the duties they perform as well
  998
  as indicating rank. For example, we have "gunner," "bo'sun," "warrant ordnance officer" and "warrant communications officer." In future, we shall take the part of the title that describes the work they do and put in front of it the word "commissioned." Thus, we shall have "commissioned" gunner, "commissioned" bo'sun, "commissioned" ordnance officer and "commissioned" communications officer. The same process will be applied to existing commissioned officers from warrant rank, except that we shall add the word "senior." Thus we shall have "senior" commissioned gunner, "senior" commissioned ordnance officer, and so on. We intend to adopt a similar procedure for the Royal Marines. The warrant list will in future be known as the "Branch List" and the generic title will be "Branch Officers." All in future will be appointed not by warrant but by commission.
  I come now to the Reserves. I have said in the past that we are satisfied with our recruiting for the Royal Navy, but we are by no means satisfied with the rate of entry to the Reserve, I should like to take this opportunity to make an appeal to all ex-hostilities officers and ratings to come forward and join if they can the R.N.V.R., or if they cannot do that, the Emergency Reserve. I hope Members of all parties who have served in the Navy during the war will join with me in making this appeal; indeed, I hope that all Members will make every possible effort in their constituencies to induce men to join the Naval Reserves, because it is vitally important that we should have these Reserves. We have, as I have said, a large Reserve Fleet, and we want to have adequate numbers of men in the Reserve forces whom we can call upon when the time comes, if it should come. I hope that we may get every support from Members in encouraging men to come forward.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: Will the Financial Secretary extend that appeal to branches of the British Legion, many of which include ex-Naval men?
  Mr. Dugdale: Certainly. We intend to appeal to every part of the country and to every activity in the country, but I think the best place for making such an appeal is to the House of Commons in

  999
  the first instance. We shall certainly take every opportunity to use the British Legion or any other suitable body to help us in our task to get more Reserves.
  I said at the commencement of my speech that I would speak first of the past and then of the future. I now come to the future. We intend to hasten slowly so far as the future is concerned. Members who have read Gibbon will remember how he says:
  "In the first Punic War, within 60 days after the first stroke of the axe had been given in the forest, a fleet of 160 galleys proudly rode at anchor at sea."
  I am afraid that we cannot emulate that and hope to have 160 warships riding at sea at the end of 60 days. We have decided that it is of great importance that we should go slowly and devote large sums of money on research and development. I shall give the House a simple illustration of the sort of problems facing our research experts, because I know there is a feeling sometimes that the House is being asked to vote large sums of money for purposes that are largely unknown.
  People sometimes ask how the large amount of money on research has been spent, what is happening as a result and what we are getting for the money. Suppose that the speed of aircraft were doubled and that we required the same time as before for defensive action, the range of aircraft detecting apparatus would then have to be doubled. This needs an increase in power of the detecting apparatus, not twice but many times; not simply more electricity from the mains, but research, development and design of a very high order. That is not all. Means for selecting targets to be engaged by our anti-aircraft guns, the calculating machinery which tells the guns where to point, the rate of fire of the guns and the velocity of the shells must all be improved to meet the in-increased speed of the attacker. That is one form of research.
  The Admiralty are also responsible for basic electronic research for the three Services. Electronic valves and other electronic devices are vitally needed, not only for our radar and communications systems, but also in the equipment used for the detection of submarines and aircraft, in proximity fuses and in automatic target-seeking torpedoes and guided
  1000
  missiles. We have carried out a number of ship target trials from which we have obtained very valuable information for improvement of future designs—I refer in particular to the trials at Loch Striven. The effect of under-water explosions on hull structure and equipment of warships, far-reaching effects on vital points of future design, will make a great contribution to the ability of our warships to resist damage from all known types of weapons, as well as providing data for weapon designers. We have carried out experiments with submarines at unusual depths, far greater than have been developed before. In all these experiments the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors are playing the very valuable and very quiet part they always play.
  What sort of naval warfare do we envisage? I need hardly say that the Navy's main task in any future war will be, as it has been in past wars, to protect our sea communications. What are the obstacles we shall have to encounter? Obviously, the first one that jumps to anyone's mind is the atom bomb. I think I can say that any danger which may come from the atom bomb would be probably greater ashore than afloat. So far as the Navy is concerned, the greatest danger would be in the Royal dockyards and in the shore establishments. Naturally, there could be great danger from an atom bomb at sea, but ships move about and are dispersed and therefore there is less danger to them than to shore establishments. We are planning a radiological survey to investigate penetration of gamma rays into a ship under attack by atomic weapons, and these tests will begin this year.
  The second enemy which we have to encounter is the submarine. I am not referring—and I say this with great respect to the men who served in them during the last war—to the submersible vessels previously called submarines but to true submarines. In the past a submarine was something that went down below the surface of the water and then had to come to the top to breathe like an otter. It lived primarily on top of the water. Now the submarine, by using the device known as the "Snort," can stay under water three, four or five weeks, and indeed longer. Not only that but it will have considerably increased speed. Supposing our convoys are capable of a speed of ten knots and submarines increase their

  1001
  speed from eight, which was about their speed before the war, to 15 or even 20 knots under the water, the House will see the great change that is bound to take place in submarine warfare.
  I shall not ask the House to listen to words of mine about what the result will be, but to the words of Mr. John L. Sullivan, the United States Navy Secretary, who said:
  "With 70 per cent. of the earth covered by water and the advantages of concealment and difficult detection afforded by water, it is possible that a future conflict might involve as many battles under the sea as on the surface."
  This is not a dream.
  As the House knows, we are working on this problem, and hon. Members will not expect me to go into details, because the work is of a highly secret nature. I can say, however, that while they are not spectacular our results are proving most satisfactory. Whatever our results are, there is no reason to suppose that other nations are not doing the same, and having equally successful results.
  We have, therefore, to take steps to see that our ships are adequately defended against the submarine menace. The House will be reassured to learn that we do not consider that the modern submarine is invulnerable. Its greatest enemy is the frigate, of which we have today about 150, and these form a very large part of our Reserve Fleet. We are also making a prototype of two fast frigates converted from existing destroyers, which will have considerably increased speed. If this scheme is successful we shall carry out a very much bigger conversion programme later. We are launching five further destroyers next year. Incidentally we shall be launching one before the end of this financial year, and I shall have the pleasure of going to Glasgow to see it launched by my wife. We are making progress in a new anti-sumbarine weapon. We hope to get the prototype in a destroyer for trials this year. We hope, in short, that we shall be able to make the life of even the most modern types of submarine both hazardous and uncomfortable.
  The third enemy with which we have to contend is aircraft. I know the atom bomb is dropped by them, but I am speaking now of general aircraft attack. In a future war the Atlantic might become like the Mediterranean was in the
  1002
  last war, with England taking the place of Malta. We have to see that we have adequate defence against enemy air attacks upon our convoys, and it is not only the question of defence but of offence too. If we have strongly supported carriers we may be able to take them within perhaps 100 miles or even 50 miles of the enemy coastline, from which planes can be dispatched hundreds of miles over enemy territory. It is, therefore, of great importance both for the defensive and offensive that we should have these carriers.
  We propose, therefore, to spend quite considerable sums of money on Naval aviation this year, and hon. Members will see that for that purpose £15¾ million has been allocated. We have now five Fleet and six Light Fleet carriers. We are continuing with the construction of two Fleets, while H.M.S. "Eagle" is expected to be completed at the end of next year. Work has been suspended on four Light Fleets and work is now proceeding on another four, one of which has already been launched and H.M.S. "Hermes" is due to be launched next year. We intend completely to modernise the carrier "Formidable." This carrier will be taken into dock and will have its lifts, its arrester gear, its catapults, and its island structure completely altered so that it will be able when ready to fly off the very latest type of plane.
  While I am on the subject of construction I should like to take this opportunity to tell the House that we have just decided on the conversion of the 21-year old County Class cruiser, H.M.S. "Cumberland," into the first trials cruiser the Royal Navy has ever had. We shall start next month and the ship will be ready in 1951. We shall be able to try out anti-aircraft guns, torpedoes and guided missiles. This ship will be the first large ship that will be so equipped and it will be fitted with fin stabilisers to reduce rolling and thus increase the accuracy of firing.
  I should like to say a word on the course of this construction, because as I mentioned earlier we are very desirous of showing that we do not waste any money and the House should know the reason for some of these very high costs. For example, a carrier before the war had radio but it had no radar. The cost of equipping a carrier with radio was

  1003
  £12,000. Today the cost of equipping that same carrier with radio alone would be £100,000, and over and above that the cost of equipping it with radar would be £192,000. Instead, therefore, of a cost of £12,000 before the War the cost today is no less than £292,000. That is not just a question of higher prices, but of the fact that so much more equipment has to be placed in a modern warship than had to be placed in it before.
  While I am on the subject of naval aviation, I think the House would like me to remark for a moment on the brilliant and successful visit of one of our naval air squadrons to New York for the International Air Exhibition. Our papers last year could not give as much space as we would like to certain subjects, and at any rate they were not large enough to print all that we should like to see printed. I would refer therefore, to the American papers for a description of what happened at this Exhibition. I need hardly add that these are not my words. They are not English but American in their phraseology. Here is what the American Press said:

BRITISH FLYERS MAKE IDLEWILD GASP

  ROYAL NAVY'S 806TH SQUADRON STAGES STUNTS THAT STARTLE EVEN FIELD ATTENDANTS
  The 806th squadron, Royal Navy, began its appearance in the Golden Jubilee opening air show at Idlewild Airport by just about startling the gizzards out of the men in charge of the field, not to mention tightly constricting the throats of the spectators.
  'Don't ever do that kind of thing again without telling us you are going to' an operations man pleaded. 'When we saw those two planes coming from opposite ends of the runway—'
  It was obvious from the way he dropped the phrase how they all had felt."
  This exhibition was held in front of several hundreds of thousands of people, including the President of the United States, and there is no doubt about it from all the reports which we have received of the squadron from the Royal Navy that it, together with the squadron from the Royal Air Force, completely stole the show. The Americans realised as a result of it that, although we may not have quite the same numbers of planes and ships as they have, the quality is as high as ever.
  Finally, a word on co-operation with the Commonwealth. During the past year we have helped with advice, ships and equipment. I would only mention one particular instance in which we have been able to assist, and that is in the transfer of the Light Fleet carrier H.M.S. "Terrible" to Australia, the transfer ceremony of which was performed by my noble Friend. That ship is now H.M.A.S. "Sydney" and forms the beginning of Australia's new naval aviation. At the same time the Light Fleet carrier "Magnificent" has been lent to Canada. Since the war we have transferred six cruisers, 32 destroyers, escort destroyers and frigates to the Dominions. These all form a vital part of naval defence of the Commonwealth. Equipped with all the latest weapons and manned by well trained crews, our united Fleets will, if ever they should unfortunately be called upon to do so, play as distinguished and successful a part in any future war as they have played in every war throughout our history.
  4.11 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I am sure that it is the wish of the House that I should congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on having the honour for the third time to introduce the Navy Estimates to the House and on the manner in which he has done it. In regard to the matter, I could have wished, as I shall show during my speech, for very much more information than he has given the House, although I would agree that he has perhaps given us more information than on the two previous occasions when he has introduced these Estimates.
  I also feel that the House would wish me to say that we are very glad that he recovered in time from the gloomiest and most depressing of diseases in order to be here today. At least, I hope he has made a complete recovery. I noticed one or two still rather jaundiced shafts at His Majesty's long-suffering Opposition and one or two back kicks at the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence when he referred to messing under previous Governments and previous régimes at the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence should remember that when I had the honour to serve under him there, we made a very great contribution towards many of

  1005
  the improvements which the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned as belonging to the present Government.
  Hon. Members in all parts of the House will want to pay a tribute to the officers and men of the Royal Navy for the success of their efforts in restoring the Home Fleet and its formations to the high state of efficiency at which they are today compared with what they were when the Estimates were introduced a year ago. It was obvious that the morale of the re-vitalised Home Fleet when it returned to home ports after the Autumn cruise last Christmas was at a very high pitch indeed. The exercises, the manœuvres and the drills had all been performed with the old competence and keenness which we have always learnt to associate with naval tradition. I am sure that the same can be said of the Spring cruise and the exercises which are going on at the moment, about which we are most interested to read in the Press today. The country and Parliament owe a debt of gratitude to those officers and men.
  We have also been very fortunate in having had this vital year given to us in which to recover from the blow of immobilisation which struck the Home Fleet so improvidently in the Autumn of 1947. However, do not let us think that the country went unscathed during this period. It is a truism, which I am not ashamed to repeat today, that for countless generations the country's prestige in the world has been associated with the fortunes and the activities of the Royal Navy. This prestige suffered very grievously from the forced inactivity of the Fleet a year ago, and especially—I am afraid I must say so—from the maladroit way in which the whole matter was handled by His Majesty's Government at that time. On that occasion the Parliamentary spokesmen were inclined to shelter behind the opinions of the Service chiefs, who were said to have advised this sudden and rather violent acceleration in the plan of demobilisation.
  I can certainly sympathise—we all can—with the Board of Admiralty in wanting to get the Navy manpower position straightened out as quickly as possible, but if it was justifiable to do this in 1947, when international relations were deteriorating, surely it would be far wiser
  1006
  if the same step had been taken at least 12 months earlier. However, that is past, and now we are thankful that no further advantage was taken of our period of temporary naval unpreparedness. I repeat that we are glad today to pay our tribute from these benches to the resilience of the Royal Navy in withstanding the shock tactics of His Majesty's Government and to congratulate all ranks on the recovery they have made since the Navy Estimates last year.
  Although the reports of the activities of our Fleet and of our squadrons are now so very much more reassuring and the scene is a good deal happier than it was 12 months ago, the Opposition still feel that the country should be given a far clearer re-statement of our naval defence preparations. I understand the difficulties of secrecy about the money spent on research, but we could know much more whether or not we are getting real value for our money. We are asked to sign a cheque for the privilege of having a lucky dip, and when we have got our parcel we still do not know what it contains because the Government refuse to allow us to cut the tape. Today we are asked to approve a Vote of 153,000 men and women and £189,250,000. It is true that the Estimate and the explanatory memorandum give us more information as regards the employment of the personnel and the proposed expenditure than anything we have had since the war, and the Parliamentary Secretary has added to that knowledge during his speech, but not as greatly as we would have liked him to do. I must also say how much we welcome the fact that once more, the Navy List can come out of the Library for general use and general study. We welcome this very belated decision which the First Lord announced in another place a week ago.
  Our main criticism is that nothing appears in these Estimates, or in the other documents, or emerged during the Defence Debate last week, to show that the Government have any real appreciation of the problems of the strategic requirements so far as the Navy is concerned. It may be that they have a plan. I hope and trust they have. If so, why cannot we share their secret just as the American nation, and, indeed, the whole world, shares the same secret of

  1007
  the United States Government? It seems more than ever true that our naval commitments depend to a very large extent upon the defence plans of the Commonwealth, upon our association with the maritime Powers of Western Union and upon the closest possible co-operation of all these powers with the United States.
  However, platitudes of this kind—heaven knows we have had enough of them of late—do not reassure the British people who have to dig very deep into their pockets to pay for their naval defence, nor, so far as I can see from the Estimates this year, do they form any sort of directive upon which the Admiralty can set to work. I want to be fair to the Government. We have had more information than usual, but I still maintain that we could have a great deal more. We are still starved of much information which we ought to have, and therefore I hope the House will bear with me if for a minute or two I review some of the considerations which the Opposition feel should be taken into account in an appreciation of the present naval situation.
  It should be clear that the organisation of sea power in time of peace today is very different from what it was in the 20's and the 30's. Instead of having several countries with navies of considerable size which might at any time be lined up against us, there is, bluntly, only one country. There are no longer any battle fleets, as we understood them before the war, to which our forces might find themselves opposed. If, however, we have little to fear from surface craft, the same thing certainly cannot be said of the air over the sea or of the water under the surface. There are, in my judgment, two major factors standing out from all others which have transformed warfare at sea at the present time. They are the emergence of air power with its effect on the range of bombardment and of reconnaissance, and its use for the detection and the destruction of submarines, and the enormously increased range and speed of the modern submarine, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, through the use of the "Snort" or "Schnorkel," and other new devices.
  The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned submarine research, and we were glad to hear about it, but we should be ready now to deal with the modern submarine.
  1008
  We do not yet know the speed of the latest Russian submarine. It has been reported that the newest American vessels can make a speed of 25 knots submerged, while the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned 15 or 20 knots. We are told reliably that much of the German knowledge of submarine design and some German crews are now with the Russians. Therefore, we cannot discount the possibility of the development by the Soviet of submarines of comparable performance—I think it would be folly to do so—and it is known that Russia has upwards of 250 submarines. We must presume that most of those are of modern type. Therefore, I suggest to the House that 250 modern submarines have a power of destruction equivalent to that of 1,000 submarines of pre-war speed.
  It is not for me to calculate the possible menace to convoys of merchantmen of squadrons of submarines manoeuvring submerged for long periods below the surface and capable of speeds up to three times that of the convoy, or for me to attempt to suggest the final answer to the problem. It is obviously a question which is causing the naval staff of the Admiralty considerable exercise of mind at the present time. However, it must be clear to the House that anti-submarine vessels, which we now call frigates, and which have a speed of only 20 knots, will hardly be effective against submarines when they have not the speed to catch them. Therefore, in any future war aircraft must play an even larger part than in the last in all anti-submarine measures.
  The war in the Pacific established the fact that the aircraft carrier is the most important class of warship today, and there is little doubt that sea power will centre round these mobile air bases rather than round battleships in the future. In saying that, I do not wish to convey that the battleship no longer has its uses, for it has indisputably an important rôle to play, but if a reasonable definition of a capital ship is the unit which can combine the greatest power to strike and to protect itself, then the battleship must yield pride of place to the aircraft carrier, with its necessary escorting craft under the sea, upon the sea, and in the air above.
  The modern attack force—and let the House remember that the most effective

  1009
  defence lies still in attack—will comprise aircraft carriers, both large and small, cruisers and destroyers, submarines and very high speed surface craft for submarine chasing. We must realise, as those who haved served in the Admiralty know so well, that the Navy has to be fully deployed in time of war from the first day. It would be quite wrong, however. to measure our sea power solely in relation to that of a possible enemy.
  British sea power must always be proportionate to the tonnage of our seaborne trade and to the extent and breadth of our sea communications. Whatever considerations may or may not justify a small, highly efficient Army or metropolitan Air Force, nothing justifies a small Navy. The cutting of our sea communications at any point may well immobilise proposed military or air operations. Therefore; the Navy must at all times be large enough to cover our communications and powerful enough to be concentrated quickly where the occasion demands.
  That brings me to the fact that it is of the utmost importance today that we should retain in a constant state of readiness our far-flung naval bases. I would particularly ask the Civil Lord if, in winding up the Debate today, he can tell us what is our policy about our bases in Africa and at Hong Kong. After all, we have lost Alexandria, we have lost Haifa, Simonstown is now a matter for Dominion responsibility and I suppose Colombo is also a Dominion responsibility. Have His Majesty's Government made up their minds with regard to our bases for the future? If so, we shall be glad if the Civil Lord can tell us tonight.
  I have given the House these rather broad considerations of naval requirements because it is from this angle that this year we have approached the subject of the Naval Estimates from these benches. Turning to page 6 of the First Lord's statement, we find that the active fleet comprises two battleships, five aircraft carriers, 15 cruisers, 33 destroyers, 25 frigates, 30 submarines, and numerous other attendant vessels. The total number of our aircraft carriers, including those in the training squadrons and in the Reserve Fleet, do not number more than 12. In view of what I have said about the importance of this vessel and of the air-arm in future naval strategy, we have to examine carefully the shipbuilding
  1010
  programme contained in the Estimates. I have a number of questions which I wish to put to the Civil Lord and to which I hope to obtain answers this evening.
  On page 234 of the Estimates, we find that one Fleet carrier and one light Fleet carrier are on the stocks. With regard to these I know the House will want to be told whether their construction is being pressed on with all speed, and perhaps later this evening the Civil Lord will assure me that it is. However, we are dismayed to see that constructional work on three of the seven light Fleet carriers, which have been launched, is still suspended. We cannot believe that there is any justification for holding up the building of these vessels which are vital to our naval strength and to the security of our country. Can the Civil Lord tell us the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the building of these ships? When is their construction to be resumed? What are the dates when we may expect that all these carriers, which have been launched, will be ready for service?
  Let me turn to the question of cruiser strength. Here our total strength, including those ships which are being used for training and for other purposes as well as those in the Reserve Fleet, is only 29. There are only three at present under construction—launched in 1945 and not only has their building been suspended, but, according to the Estimates, the details of their armament have not yet been settled. While cruisers are vital for what we call a shooting war, they are, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) said last week, also vitally important in the cold war when there is any risk of disturbance in our Colonial possessions or elsewhere. The many incidents which have occurred during the last 18 months might well have been avoided if our cruiser strength had been greater than it was. After all, a farmer can hardly complain when small boys steal his fruit if he seldom visits his orchard.
  Before leaving cruisers, I see on page 7 of the First Lord's statement a most ominous reference to one cruiser which has either been sold to a foreign Power or is about to be sold. May I ask the Civil Lord a very direct question as to whether that cruiser is H.M.S. "Ajax"? The Parliamentary Secretary promised us an answer at the end of July. It is high

  1011
  time we had one, and I hope we shall get it from the Civil Lord tonight.
  I must in fairness say, having read the Estimates and listened to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, that the Silent Service has been less oyster-like than some of their colleagues in the other Services during the past 12 months. Again, however, we must protest at being told so little of what we are getting for our money, especially on the whole question of naval aviation. I have here the Annual Report of the Secretary of the United States Navy, a document corresponding with our own Estimates, which is infinitely more forthcoming. This is a very informative report, and amongst a wealth of information which it gives to the American people—who know exactly what they are getting for their money—is the number of operational aircraft in the Navy as more than 5,000, with 2,000 operational reserves and a gross total of all aircraft of 14,500.
  We heard in the First Lord's statement that the re-equipment with modern types is steadily continuing, and the Parliamentary Secretary repeated that remark today. I am very glad to hear it, but we should be far happier if the Government would give us more information which would allow us to judge the number of aircraft available for immediate service and whether or not the number will be sufficient to enable the Fleet to be operationally effective. We want to know also how many and what types of aircraft we have available in reserve. All these questions I address to the Civil Lord.
  I should like to know how much of Vote 8 is being expended on the repair, renovation and maintenance of ships in the Reserve Fleet. That information may be in the Estimates; but I have failed to discover it. In the explanation of the Supplementary Estimates for 1948–49 appears the enormous sum of an increase of £12½ million for the work of refitting ships in reserve. No doubt this staggering bill is due partly to the decision to accelerate the programme, but it must mean also that the ships must have deteriorated to a shocking extent since they were laid up at the end of hostilities.
  I am astonished to see in this year's statement that the apparatus for "cocooning" the armament and other installations has not yet been com-
  1012
  pleated, and the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech held out no hope that it had been. I am sorry to quote myself, but two years ago, in the Debate on the Navy Estimates, I recommended this American system of preservation. which the First Lord's statement calls, not "cocooning," but "de-humidification." The Civil Lord assured me that the matter had been looked into but that the equipment was very expensive. It gives me no satisfaction to stand at this Box today and say that it appears that the neglect to follow the advice then given from these benches has proved to be far more expensive still.
  I turn now to Vote A and the provision in the Estimates for 153,000 officers and ratings, of whom 5,000, I see, will be on release leave. Seventeen thousand seven hundred of this total are National Service men, which gives a Regular strength of about 130,000, including the 7,200 members of the W.R.N.S. I am very glad that the Government have now had them established as a permanent component of the Royal Navy. There is no doubt that the extension of compulsory service from 12 to 18 months will make the National Service element of some use to the Navy instead of being an actual liability. I hope the Navy will see also that the men themselves get full value from their service and that some, therefore, will want to sign on for Regular engagements. It is important also that those who do not sign on should at least approach their compulsory period in the R.N.V.R. with something of the pride and keenness which we have always learnt to associate with that particular Reserve.
  As the Parliamentary Secretary said in his speech today, however, the most disturbing feature of the Regular manpower situation is the unwillingness to re-engage for pensionable service. This matter was referred to in the Debate in another place last month, when the First Lord admitted that the average rate of re-engagement was less than half of what it was before the war; it is less than 30 per cent. today. compared with 65 per cent. before the war. No doubt there are many reasons for the urge to leave the Navy and seek jobs ashore. Pay is higher, hours are Shorter—
  Mr. Percy Wells: And jobs are easier to get.
  Mr. Thomas: Jobs may be temporarily easier to get—and a man and his family, if they have a home, have a chance of remaining in it. These facts must be faced. Their effect on the morale of the younger men is, frankly, very disquieting, and in the interests of the fighting efficiency of the Service, if no others, Parliament has got to face the facts and try to stop the rot.
  There have been minor increases in the rates of pay and allowances which may play some part in the solution of this problem, but it is questionable whether these changes and increases have gone far enough or have been applied in the best way. The First Lord admitted—again, in another place last month—that the more senior ratings had a grievance that there was an insufficient gradient in the pay scales; in other words, there was not enough financial incentive to the men to qualify themselves for promotion. I will repeat to the House what these increases have been: 6d. a day more for an able seaman, 1s. a day more for a leading seaman and 1s. 6d. a day more for both petty officers and chief petty officers. This has only steepened the steps slightly and in the absence of additional pay for non-substantive rates it still fails to restore much of the incentive which used to exist in the pre-war system, when added responsibility would bring its reward.
  I realise that this question of pay is one which cannot possibly be considered for the Navy in isolation, but the Admiralty have a responsibility to the country for the efficient manning of the Fleet upon which the country and the taxpayers are being asked to spend an enormous amount of money. The Navy has an old saying that it is folly to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar, and if fighting efficiency is going to suffer because of a niggardly policy with regard to pay, or if the Socialist principles of excessive equality fail to keep the long-service ratings in the Service, then the Board of Admiralty must face up to it and press their case upon the Treasury for a necessary revision of the pay code.
  The Minister of Defence said last week in the Defence Debate—and I agree with him—that conditions of pay are not the only factors in maintaining recruiting and encouraging re-engagement. I should like to ask the Admiralty whether they have
  1014
  considered shortening the period of re-engagement. This is not an original question on my part, but was put in another place ten days ago by an Admiral to whom the Admiralty have always listened—the Earl of Cork and Orrery. Ten years for re-engagement is a long time, and it might well be that men would be willing to re-engage if they could do so for a shorter period. In all the American Forces re-engagements can be entered into for periods as short as two years. They have a certain system of paying a re-engagement bounty, the amount of which depends upon the length of a period chosen. Thus, signing on for six more years qualifies a man for substantially more than the aggregate bounties for three periods of two years. For a period of two years in the American Armed Forces a bounty of 40 dollars is given; for three years, 90 dollars; four years, 160 dollars; five years, 250 dollars: and for six years, 360 dollars. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister of Defence that it might be worth while giving that system a trial in this country.
  There is also the question of barracks and married quarters. It is not surprising that men do not re-engage when the programme for rebuilding barracks is proceeding, unfortunately, in a very dilatory fashion. The plans for rebuilding were made a long time ago. As is usual, I expect that during this Debate hon. Members opposite will ask why we, the Government of the past, did not put those plans into operation. but I am not sure that it comes at all well from hon. Members who voted with monotonous regularity against all the Service Estimates to make that comment. After all, the money which was voted had primarily to be devoted to the building up of our defences.
  Commander Pursey: I have been reluctant to intervene, because although this speech does not tie up with the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, that is a point with which I can deal later. The particular point about which I rise is that the votes to which the hon. Member refers were on matters of principle. Will he explain why his own side of the House voted against the National Health Service?
  Mr. Thomas: If I begin to speak about the National Health Service on the Navy Estimates, I shall soon find myself out of Order.
  Commander Pursey: It was the same thing.
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. and gallant Member says that my speech does not tie up with that of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am not surprised to hear that, for I am doing my best to fill the enormous gaps which were left by the Parliamentary Secretary in the statement with which he introduced the Navy Estimates this afternoon.
  I turn to a question which is one particularly for the Civil Lord. I wish to ask him some questions about married quarters. Hon. Members will see that provision was made in last year's Estimates, on page 147, for the construction of 690 married quarters. This year we find that the number has fallen to 646. Two points arise here. Perhaps the Civil Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but is it a fact that only 44 quarters have been completed during the past 12 months? Secondly, in spite of the re-engagement figures, which have obviously been causing anxiety, no provision is being made this year for increasing the number of quarters to be constructed. It has been represented to me—I read it in the Press, but I must admit to the House that when I came to prepare my speech I could not find the actual quotation—that some naval wives have been turned out of council houses when their husbands were sent abroad. Is that correct?
  Mr. Medland: I should be obliged if the hon. Member would tell us where this is happening.
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): As I shall probably have to answer the Debate, I shall have to ask the hon. Member to put me in touch with the editor concerned so that I can get the information from him.
  Mr. Thomas: I said that I remembered reading the statement but that I could not find the actual quotation. I am asking the Civil Lord whether I am right in thinking that that statement is true. If it is not true, I shall be delighted to hear it.
  Mr. Edwards: The hon. Member should ask the newspaper.
  Mr. Thomas: I thought that the information might have reached the Civil Lord's Department. If his Department has not read it, and there is no proof that it is being done, I shall be delighted. If it is being done, I rely on the Civil Lord to get in touch with the Minister of Health to have a stop put to it at once.
  The Government appear to have little hesitation in paying enormous salaries and expense allowances to heads of the nationalised boards. I do not think that they are therefore in a position to criticise hon. Members on this side of the House when they ask that something should be done for officers of the Armed Forces. We on this side of the House are far from satisfied that the conditions of service for the officers of the Royal Navy are good enough. There is much evidence from applications by junior officers for the, resignation of commissions and from the premature retirement of senior officers that all is not well so far as the conditions of officers are concerned.
  I return to the question of married quarters. I see that in Vote 10 only 2 per cent. of the married quarters to be constructed are for the use of officers. Last year the figure was 5 per cent. It is not easier for an officer to find accommodation than it is for a rating to do so. It is more difficult for him to get his name put on the waiting list of a local authority for a council house. Proper provision for accommodation ashore is one of the vital factors in improving both the recruiting figures and the re-engagement figures.
  I turn to the question of manpower reserves. The Parliamentary Secretary asked us whether we would join in an appeal from this House to increase the number of Reserves. Of course we will. I can give him the fullest assurance on behalf of those who sit on this side of the House. But on this point I would remind him that out of nearly £200 million asked for in the Estimates this year only £1 million is asked for in Vote 7 for the Reserves. Surely this is a case of faulty allocation of priorities? As I have said earlier, in the event of emergency the Royal Navy has to be ready for immediate action on a vast scale. The speed at which the Reserves are mobilised and the degree of their

  1017
  efficiency are perhaps of even greater importance in the case of the Royal Navy than in the case of the other two Armed Services of the Crown. In another place, on 23rd February, the First Lord said that it was not yet possible to come to a decision about the Royal Naval Reserve. This question has been going on for month after month, almost year after year. Surely it is high time that the Admiralty and the Ministry of Transport resolved their differences, and that His Majesty's Government let the House know what decision they have reached about the Royal Naval Reserve.
  The strength of the R.N.V.R. calls, as the Financial Secretary said, for close examination. The Estimates show that the Admiralty have set the established strength they require at nearly 15,000 officers and men. Yet the target set for 1949–50 is only 7,000—rather less than half the number fixed by the Naval Staff for the necessary strength of the Reserve. This in itself would be bad enough, but even more serious is the fact that it appears that there are only about 1,400 ratings at present in the Reserve out of a target of more than 5,000, while the establishment was fixed at nearly 13,000. It is true that this number will eventually be augmented by the arrival of National Service men, but it appears that for a long time the R.N.V.R. will remain at a strength considerably below the safety line.
  In view of this position, it becomes hard to understand the attitude of the Admiralty towards the R.N.V.(S.)R., whose members are accepted in name as a dormant Reserve. I cannot find out from the Votes that they are given any financial provision for training whatever. These officers, who served during the war and who acquired a very high standard of efficiency, are being wasted. Many of them are being released to join the Territorials and the R.A.F.V.R., and will eventually have to be replaced by untrained men in the event of hostilities. I could say a lot more about the R.N.V.(S.)R. but as it will be the subject of an Amendment to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) I will leave the matter there.
  There is, however, one aspect which I wish to impress upon the Government. I refer to the question of Reserves of
  1018
  aircrews for naval aviation. It appears that the Navy have no comparable Reserve to the R.A.F.V.R., since the four air squadrons of the R.N.V.R. are a small active Reserve of about 100 pilots flying operational types of aircraft This Reserve corresponds not to the R.A.F.V.R. but to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. They should indeed really be renamed the Royal Naval Auxiliary Air Service. There is no provision, as in the case of the R.A.F.V.R., for a pool of pilots and other aircrew members being kept in training. In view of the evidence which the Parliamentary Secretary gave today of the growing importance of air power over the sea. and to which I referred earlier, this neglect to provide adequate aircrew Reserves seems to me to be absolute folly. Naval flying is one of the most hazardous of all Service occupations, although one might not realise it from the meagre pay, and losses in war are very heavy. It is particularly vital that there shall be maintained a large reserve of aircrews. But there is no provision at present for their training, and we shall lose these men altogether. They can no longer keep in flying practice. Those who do so can only do it as members of an Air Force instead of a naval Reserve.
  To sum up, I have said that we rejoice in the improvement in the Royal Navy today compared with what it was a year ago, but I must also say that we on this side of the House are dissatisfied with the Government's general attitude towards maritime defences. We are not told what we are getting for our money. The country has not been given a full statement of naval defence policy. There is no evidence of any new construction being planned to exploit the increasingly important element of the air, nor to deal with the greatly increased danger from submarines. We see that the failure to maintain the ships of the Reserve Fleet has resulted in excessive expenditure to bring them back to a state of usefulness. The construction of new aircraft carriers and cruisers is still suspended and no decision appears to have been taken for the resumption of this work.
  The manning of the Fleet, though in a better state than the other two Services, is still causing great anxiety to the country and hardship to the officers and men, and the Naval Reserves are in a parlous condition, particularly with re-

  1019
  gard to naval aviation. In spite of all this, we rejoice that the morale, fighting efficiency and keenness of the officers and men of the Royal Navy are as great as they are, and deserve the highest praise and the thanks of the nation. We in return owe it to them that in ships, equipment, conditions of service and Reserves, they are given nothing but the best.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) has dealt with these Estimates with all his customary pleasantness, but I do not think that he has had any major criticism to make either of them or of the speech which was made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I think that that absence of major criticism was due not to the hon. Gentleman's pleasantness but to the fact that there is nothing in these Estimates, or indeed, in my hon. Friend's speech, of which major criticism can be made. The main burden of the hon. Gentleman's complaint was on the score of lack of information, and, on the whole, I am bound to say that I think there is much in that complaint. I think we are tending still to carry over into peace time a little too much of the war-time mentality which enforced secrecy upon everything to do with these Services.
  With the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the major problem which faces the Navy today I entirely agree, and I have no doubt that everybody else in the House agrees; that is the tremendous new problem which faces everybody concerned with the Navy as a result of the development of the true submarine. I must say that I myself have no great doubts that the Admiralty will be able to solve that problem satisfactorily and that they will be able to provide for the defence of this country the fast chasers which are obviously needed in place of the frigates for dealing with the submarines, and indeed the necessary defence from the air.
  Of all Government departments, the Admiralty is the one which I tend to admire most. It seems to me to be about the only Government department which has really learned the art of dealing with the Treasury. Where other people take "No" for an answer, the Admiralty seems merely to bend slightly before the
  1020
  Treasury's frown, and invariably in the long run to get exactly what they want. My fear, however, is that what the Admiralty want, is not always what the Admiralty ought to get.
  There is always a tremendous emphasis placed by the Admiralty, and quite rightly so, upon the need for the best best type of equipment, but less emphasis has been placed on the requirements of the men. The German Navy had quite a distinct policy. They used to make certain that their ships were fighting units, and fighting units only. They did not bother to any great extent about the comfort and convenience of the men at sea, but because their ships were fighting units and in many ways were uncomfortable to serve in, the Germans took great care that when these ships were in port the men themselves were housed in extremely good barracks. They did not live to any great extent aboard ship when they were in harbour, but they were taken into barracks which were extremely good. It is true that our ships at sea, certainly in the immediate past, were almost as uncomfortable to serve in as were those of the Germans, but it is also unfortunately true that we had no such provision as the Germans had for the comfort of the men ashore.
  The hon. Member for Hereford made references to the bad effect on re-engagement of conditions in the Royal Naval barracks. Like him, I do not wish to keep on repeating myself on these subjects, but this is the fourth Debate on the Navy Estimates in which I have had the pleasure of taking part; this will be the fourth time I have brought up certain points about the Royal Naval barracks, and I have not the slightest doubt that it will also be the fourth time that the Civil Lord will ignore everything I have got to say.
  I do, however, wish to repeat one or two points about the whole question of the rebuilding and redesigning of barracks. I do not know whether plans are very far ahead for the redesigning of barracks. I hope they are, and if they are I hope it is now the intention of the Admiralty to make all Royal Naval barracks very much smaller in the future than they have been in the past, for two reasons. The first reason is that a very large establishment is difficult to control;

  1021
  it is difficult to maintain discipline and anything like a decent morale in such an establishment. Secondly, a large establishment is a particularly vulnerable target for atom bombs, and there is a serious danger that in any future war if we persist in maintaining those three very large depots at Devonport, Chatham and Portsmouth, they can be wiped out in a single day with all the men in them.
  Besides being made smaller, I hope new barracks will also have substantial changes in design. In the old barracks a mess deck was a sort of utility place where everything was done. The men slept, ate, smoked, sweated, cooked and did their "dhobying" there. Because so many activities were carried on in one place, the atmosphere was terrible. I hope that new barracks will be properly designed for men to live in, and that, for example, there will be dining halls quite apart from the mess decks so that the men will not have to sleep with the smell of stale food.
  I now come to some points about the treatment of men at sea and about the design of ships and its effect upon the conditions of men in the Navy. I am not myself qualified to talk about the seaworthiness of the ships in which we send men to sea. I am a layman in that respect. It has been disquieting to find that our ships have a tendency to go down when other ships can stand up to very heavy treatment indeed from bombardment. It may be that the loss of the "Hood" was just an accident; I do not know. But there is one aspect of design on which I have some qualification to speak. I believe that our ships are not designed as a whole; they are not designed as complete units. What happens is that the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors—that hardworked and admirable body—design a ship and put into it all the essentials. The less "essential" things—for the comfort of the men—are put in as an afterthought as it were, and not as part of the general design.
  In one ship in which I had experience during the war there was a typical example of this sort of thing. All the things which were nearly essential, but not quite, were put anywhere in the ship, parked wherever there happened to be a space. Things like hoists and winches
  1022
  for bringing ammunition from the ammunition room were parked slap in the middle of the mess deck, or were lying about the iron deck. Quite apart from things like hoists and winches, in the few ships in which there is a pretence of modern comfort, such as the provision of refrigerators, to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, such things, not having been allowed for in the original design, are dumped just anywhere.
  I believe it to be true that British ships are probably the cleanest in the world but it is astonishing to me that the are not, in fact, the dirtiest. Taking into account all the apparatus which clutters up space it is astounding that officers and men can keep ships as clean as they do. Apart from cleanliness, the lack of consideration for the men who have to serve in ships affects efficiency. It really is not good enough that seamen should be made to serve their four-hour watches in open gun-shields without any form of heating whatsoever. The Americans have electric heating in their gun-shields, which helps to keep the men warm; and unless the men do keep warm they cannot do their job properly when they are called upon suddenly for action.
  Apart from that kind of comfort which is essential to efficiency the comfort of men in our ships in other ways has been neglected in the past. I was delighted to hear the Parliamentary Secretary talk on the very mundane subject of washrooms. We had a dreadful experience of washrooms during the short time I was at sea. The space in which 40 seamen could wash was about the size of the Clerk's Table, and at rush hours it was almost impossible to get near it. The only way in which I could manage to have anything like a bath was to use the bucket in which I had been sick, had done my washing and had made cocoa for the rest of my messmates. That was the main means by which I had to keep myself clean. I am therefore delighted that washrooms are being modernised, and that showers are being provided. I have heard, however, that although showers are being provided, the water tanks are of such small capacity that it is impossible to draw water in sufficient quantity. That is not an untypical example of the design of some of our ships—things are put in as an afterthought, and not as part of the original design.

  1023
  All this seems to be to some extent a criticism of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors, but it is much more a criticism of the Admiralty. I understand that the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors have to work in extremely difficult conditions. Because of their necessarily long training, which keeps the members of that body learning until the age of 25, they are inevitably rather apart from the Navy as a whole. I regret that that "apartness" is intensified by the status of that Corps. They are neither one thing nor the other; they are part Navy, part Civil Service, and part civilian. I believe it would be helpful if the Corps were to become an integral part of the Navy, just the same as any other branch of the Service.
  I think it would give them greater standing if they were part of the Navy; I think, too, it would help them better to understand their own job. If they spent a little more time at sea in the ships they designed, and talked a little more to the men who actually use the ships, they would be able to improve design and avoid the mistakes they have made in the past. That, to some extent, is a criticism of the Corps. But I criticise the Admiralty, too, on the grounds that the Corps is much too small. There are far too few men for too much work. I know that a committee has been looking into questions of pay and conditions of the Corps, and I hope their recommendations will be published soon, that they will be favourable and will be acted upon quickly. I hope they will lead to an increase in the number of men who are prepared to go into this absolutely vital service. Unless ships are designed better and more efficiently than they have been in the past the efficiency of the Navy will be rather curtailed.
  In this short and very inadequate speech I have been trying to make a plea for fuller and better consideration for sailors. Whenever a civilian goes into a Service and spends a war there and comes out again he tends to make two resolutions: first, that he will never go back into the Service if he can help it; second, that wherever he goes in civilian life he will try to do something to improve the conditions of the men with whom he served. Unfortunately, one of these resolutions tends to weaken as time passes. He tends
  1024
  to forget the people with whom he has served and think only of the organisation as a whole. He remembers the Navy, but he forgets the sailors. In that respect, I think this Parliament has been very much better than some of its predecessors. One has only to hear the speeches made on the Navy Estimates or read the Amendments on the Order Paper today to realise that those in this House who served in the Navy have not forgotten the men with whom they served. I ask the Civil Lord to make sure that the Admiralty are made fully aware of the determination of this House of Commons that British seamen shall be treated like human beings, and given the best possible chance to continue to render great service to their country.
  5.8 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: I agree with what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) has said about the necessity for ensuring that the personnel of the Royal Navy, both ashore and afloat, should be able to serve in the best possible conditions. I should, however, like to turn to the White Paper on Defence, which lays down three main factors for Defence—(1) Reconstructive, building and equipping new and efficient units; (2) maintaining our existing forces in a condition to resist aggression if suddenly and unexpectedly called upon to do so; and (3) arrangements to meet our current commitments throughout the world. According to the Navy Estimates there is to be no new construction, although construction is to be continued on certain ships which have already been laid down. Owing to the advance of science and new weapons of offence, the construction of a new Navy both as regards design and type of vessel must be a very difficult task.
  The Royal Corps of Naval Constructors, which has rendered such splendid service in years gone by, will, I am sure, continue to do so in future in the construction of our new ships. We do not know whether any decision has yet been come to with regard to the design of the particular types of ship which are considered necessary to bring the new Navy into being. I hope that this decision will not be long delayed. When the types of ship have been decided upon it will be a very long time before the new Navy is

  1025
  built, launched and in full commission. Pending that time we have to rely, in order to carry out the three factors of defence, upon ships that have been left to us after the last war, the majority of which are at the present time in reserve. We cannot wait for getting these new types of ships for a Navy powerful and efficient enough to carry out the objectives of defence as laid down. We must have them immediately ready.
  The second factor is that of maintaining our existing forces in a condition to resist aggression if suddenly and unexpectedly forced upon us. Such forces do not exist today. We have not got them in commission. If we have to meet a sudden attack we have not the ships with which to do it. At the present time the strength of the Home Fleet, as given in the White Paper, consist of one battleship, two light Fleet carriers, four cruisers and two destroyer flotillas. That undoubtedly is a big advance over the striking force which we had at the time of the last Estimate and which was one cruiser and the famous four battle destroyers—a marvellous striking force. Therefore I suppose the country can congratulate itself upon having an increased strength in the Home Fleet.
  The Minister of Defence, who I am glad to see is present, and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, with his experience of the Service, will know that the force in the Home Fleet is totally inadequate to satisfy the second main factor laid down in the White Paper. We are particularly deficient in cruisers, of course, and in aircraft carriers, destroyers and vessels to counter submarine attack. These last vessels should be of sufficient speed to cope with the latest submarines, but, so far as I know, we have not got them. None have been provided for in the new Estimates. That is a very serious matter. If no further ships have been added to the Home Fleet since last September what have we got in the remainder of the world in order to carry out the kind of defence laid down in the White Paper. It amounts to this: one battle ship, one Fleet carrier, two light Fleet carriers, 11 cruisers and 17 destroyers. Also we have 35 frigates, 30 submarines and 14 mine layers. The Minister of Defence, above everybody in this House, will know how inadequate we were in the last war in respect of cruisers, and he must admit that the force which I
  1026
  have just read out is totally inadequate to meet sudden attack or a sudden act of aggression. Therefore I think that the Navy Estimates entirely fail in that respect.
  The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was not at all encouraging as to action that is being taken by the Government in order to secure a sufficiency of ships to meet that sudden attack. I am sure that it is agreed that there will be no warning at all for the next war. Because there will be no warning, unless we have a Fleet ready for instant action we shall not be able to meet the initial attack, and we cannot afford to be in that position. I think it is also agreed that the menace is from Russia. We know that Russia has a very large number of submarines which are particularly dangerous to our world-wide trade and for blocking our harbours and the approaches in the Channel and in the North Sea. So far as I know, we have no ships sufficiently fast to counter the modern submarine.
  In addition to the danger of sudden attack at home, there is the additional danger of Communist risings all over the world in places where Russia either has complete control or has Communist organisations at the same time. It is certain that as soon as there is an act of aggression here by Communist Russia there will also be aggression in all other parts of the world against our trade and against our ports. How are we to meet it? Not with the force I have just read out. That would be impossible. We could not defend our trade, on which we depend, and we could not convey troops or whatever else is required overseas. We have not the ships to provide protection for convoys or for trade. They are not provided in the figures I have read out to the House and, so far as I understand the speeches made this afternoon, no steps are being taken to see that we shall have them.
  The White Paper on Defence states that the attempt of the United Nations to build up an armed force has proved a grievous disappointment: that collective security upon a world-wide basis has not been achieved. I mention those facts for a particular reason. It is just because of them and for the other reasons I have stated, that it is essential for us to go ahead and to provide for ourselves such force as it is possible for us to do. We

  1027
  must obtain that force by commissioning the ships of the Reserve as quickly as we can and particularly the ships in which we are deficient—cruisers, destroyers, small craft and submarine chasers—in order that we may be ready to meet sudden attack.
  Commander Pursey: From where?
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: I thought I had made it clear. I mentioned that it is coming from Russia.
  Mr. Paget: Russia has not got a fleet.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: I repeat that in order to meet this sudden attack we must have a Fleet in being at the earliest possible moment in order that the personnel manning our ships may have the opportunity of becoming efficient. That applies not only to gunnery and torpedo and other exercises, but also to the question of the commanding officers practising the handling of their ships and the commanders-in-chief practising the controlling and exercising of the vessels under their command. We have had technical and strategical exercises carried out this year and last year. That is all to the good. From reports in the newspapers we were led to imagine that there was a tremendous Fleet at sea. There was, of course, nothing of the sort. We had not a large Fleet to send. It was a skeleton Fleet. It was a make believe exercise. It had to be a make believe exercise, because there were so few ships. No doubt it was very good, up to a point, but what we want is a sufficiency of ships in order that these exercises may be practical and real.
  There is another very important point to which I wish to refer, and that is the policy laid down in the White Paper. I honestly do not understand it. It states:
  "Policy during the forthcoming year will be directed to the improvement by all possible means of the state of readiness of the Fleet."
  What does that actually mean? We have not been told. Does it mean that there are to be additions to the Fleet? I hope that the Civil Lord will tell us something about that. Then it goes on:
  "to the welding of the new Royal Navy, that has now emerged, into an effective fighting instrument."
  Will the Civil Lord tell us what is this new Royal Navy? I have not the fog-
  1028
  giest idea. We have not a new Royal Navy. We have the bits and pieces which are left after the last war—[Laughter.]—hon. Members may laugh but that is a fact. We have not a new Royal Navy, and I hope that the House will be enlightened about that matter. We cannot have a new Royal Navy until we get the newly constructed ships. "Welding it together"—what does it mean?
  Commander Pursey: It means welding it together.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: With regard to a general defence plan we have been told that there have been various discussions and conferences and visits by officers, officials and scientists and all that sort of thing. That is all to the good. But surely it is about time that all these discussions and conferences came to an end and we decided on a defence plan. I do not know whether we have a plan. But with all those nations coming in with us the matter will take some time, and we cannot afford to wait. In my opinion we must have a plan now within the British Commonwealth and Empire. I congratulate the British Colonies on their decision to have navies of their own so far as they are able to provide them. It will be an immense asset in regard to defence, and we must have a British Commonwealth and British Empire defence plan. Perhaps we have. I do not know. We have not been told. I hope we have.
  Such a plan can only be a real plan providing every unit in the Commonwealth and in the British Colonial Empire will now carry out the purpose they have set themselves and the part which they will play in war—providing ships, training their crews and so on. We must be absolutely certain that when war breaks out, if unfortunately it does break out, every single unit in the Commonwealth and every British Colony will play their part. They have played their part magnificently in the past. Nothing could have been better. We owe a deep debt of gratitude to our Colonies and Dominions for the part they played, but they were not ready when war broke out. We are no longer able ourselves to carry the whole burden of defence. We must rely on the assistance of units of the Commonwealth and the British Colonial Empire. They must therefore get ready

  1029
  now. The plan should be accepted now so that, should we unfortunately be suddenly attacked, we should be prepared to meet that attack at once. The only way in which we could meet such an eventuality would be by having an Empire plan and everybody agreeing to it and everybody carrying it out in peace time in order to be ready if, unfortunately, war should come.
  5.27 p.m.
  Commander Pursey: I am very pleased to follow the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) because if any one were to go through his speech sentence by sentence, they would find that either his fears did not exist or else that the greater number of questions which he has posed have been answered. The hon. and gallant Member is appealing for the Fleet to be ready immediately. He is appealing for the new ships to be built forthwith. I prefer to put my trust in the present Sea Lords, with their vast war-time experience, rather than trust in the experience of the hon. and gallant Member, which is 30 years out of date. But let us take his argument back to a contemporary of his, the world-renowned First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir John Fisher—the great "Jacky Fisher." His maxim was, "Build last and build fast." Then when war comes you will have new ships and not obsolete ones. If the Admiralty were to be led up the garden path by the arguments of hon. Members opposite and of the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington, we should be building ships now which when the guns fired would be obsolete.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Of course I do not advocate that ships should be built until their design has been settled. Then I strongly advocate that they should be built. The hon. and gallant Member says that if we build now in so many years time the ships would be obsolete. Therefore I suppose he means we should wait and wait, and when war breaks out then we should build. Is that the policy of the hon. and gallant Gentleman? If so he will not be in time.
  Commander Pursey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not try to twist my arguments to suit his own. I did not interrupt him during his speech. He was asking for new ships to be built. Anyone
  1030
  would imagine that we built battleships like Ford cars and discarded them every year. Apparently he has no idea of the length of life of a battleship. He went on to make the equally idiotic statement—because there is no other word for it—that there have been no new ships since the war. The "Vanguard" has been completed since the war, admittedly not with improvements as the result of postwar experience. In addition, several other new ships, from cruisers down, have been completed. I hope that the Civil Lord, with the figures at his disposal, will completely shatter the argument that there have been no new ships completed since the war. The argument about starting new construction is fantastic when we have in existence ships which are partly completed.
  I could go on at length through practically the whole of the hon. and gallant Member's speech and tear it into smithereens for the bunkum that it is. It was purely a Navy League speech on the argument, "We have got 'nowt,' we have nowhere to go for "owt" and when the day comes we shall have 'nowt.' "It was quite fantastic nonsense because actually and relatively we are stronger at sea than ever we have been in the centuries since this country became a maritime nation. Moreover, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument about producing a plan is fantastic nonsense, because more information is given about the Navy today than has been given at any other time of possible crisis. Whenever there is any question, as the hon. and gallant Member tried to suggest, of a sudden threat of attack he is asking the Government and the Admiralty to produce their plans on a plate to the enemy. I never heard such bunkum in the number of years that I have listened to Debates in this House both before I became a Member and afterwards. I hope that that torpedoes the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor rose—
  Commander Pursey: I have given way to the hon. and gallant Member once. He had a fair innings with no interruptions. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been torpedoed, so he should fly the non-intervention flag.
  It is my purpose today to deal with a totally different subject. I refer to the

  1031
  more humane factor of welfare. I do so with the knowledge and experience of 10 years on the lower deck plus 20 years as an officer. I use the term "welfare" in its widest sense, namely, vocational training in the Service, the placing of men in employment after leaving the Service; the welfare of the families of serving men; the welfare of the man himself when he leaves the Service and, particularly, the rehabilitation of invalids. These factors are of vital importance today when we have full employment. Full employment is the major reason why we cannot get the recruits. It is a state of affairs we have never had before in the history of this country. Previously, in the time of the Governments of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, general starvation was their main recruiting factor.
  Mr. J. Langford-Holt rose—
  Commander Pursey: I refuse to give way to every fish that rises to every bit of bait that I throw down. I have not got the Floor of the House indefinitely.
  These factors are of vital importance today when it is difficult to recruit and more difficult to get the men to re-engage. The reasons for the importance of this matter are that a man when he is in the Service rightly wishes to be sure that his family will be looked after if they are in difficulty, and that he himself will be able to get a worthwhile job when he returns to "Civvy street." I appreciate, none more, that more has been done by this Government than by any previous Government. The Service man and the ex-Service man today is better off actually and relatively than he has ever been before. In spite of the nonsense talked by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the vast majority of Service and ex-Service men will support my statement. I fully appreciate that both the Admiralty and the Ministry of Labour have done far more for Service and ex-Service men than any Department has done before. But I say to the Admiralty that I want them to go still further in the matter of vocational training not only in the amount done but also in the variety of jobs for which they train the men. I ask also that they should take more steps to ensure that a man completes his vocational training before he leaves the Service. He should com-
  1032
  plete his training in Service time and, if that is not done and he must do it in his own time after leaving the Service, it should be done at no expense to him. I have had cases where that has not been so.
  On the question of obtaining worthwhile jobs, the National Service man has a right to his old job. Therefore, the main problem is with the long Service man, the regular whom we want to join to make the Service his career. Fortunately, here we have the advantage of the National Association for the Employment of Regular Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen, whose short title is the Regular Forces Employment Association, which was founded in 1884. This Association has over 60 years specialist experience, and is the main employment agency for both the Navy and the R.A.F. In the last couple of years, however, the British Legion—I do not want to be controversial about that tonight—has been trying to encroach on a specialist task which they are not competent to undertake. I notice that the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) has started to register a private protest.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: No.
  Commander Pursey: The question of the British Legion was raised from the opposite side of the House first, and I will deal with it later. The number of people placed in jobs will show the success of these two rival organisations. In the last year for which figures are available, the Regular Forces Employment Association placed in jobs over 54,000 ex-Service men, whereas the British Legion placed only 16,800 men and women, no distinction being drawn between the sexes. There is no necessity for this duplication. The Admiralty should ensure that every man leaving the Service is fully acquainted with the work done by the Regular Forces Employment Association, and they should render every financial assistance from nonpublic and other funds in conjunction with the other two Service Departments so that this organisation can continue its good work without the disgraceful business of cadging charity from the public for ex-Service men.
  I turn to the problem of the welfare of the serving man's family. The main

  1033
  cause of concern has always been illness, doctors' bills and the like. Fortunately, that worry has been removed by the Labour Government's National Health Service.
  This is a great boon, not only to the man's family, but also to the man himself, in removing the fear of financial hardship in the event of illness at his home. There remains the question of obtaining information about his family, and the question of rendering help, preferably voluntarily, to a family in need. Several "private" organisations have grown up over the years and have "cashed in" on this subject, with much unnecessary duplication, and, unfortunately, the majority of them depend for their funds on cadging from the public. This national cadging from the public by tin-rattling, whether by flag days or poppy days, is most distasteful, both to Service people and ex-Service men; it is also a disgrace to the country, and it should be abolished. The Navy itself abolished this tin-rattling and cadging for charity over 20 years ago, and, for a quarter of a century, they have had their own benevolent fund—the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust, which has never itself engaged in this tin-rattling and private cadging. Nevertheless, this organisation has largely looked after the welfare of the Service man's family and the ex-Service man, and today has assets of over £2,500,000. In addition, there is the Royal Naval Old Comrades' Association, about which I shall say a few words later.
  The point I want to stress here is that the Admiralty should make more use of these two naval organisations for all their naval welfare work. There would then be little or no need for them to make use of these "private" organisations, such as the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families' Association, the Forces Help Society and similar organisations. Representatives of these organisations are relics of a bygone age—[An HON. MEMBER: "Like you."]—Thank you—when the pay and pensions paid to Service men were mere pittances. and, if his family were in trouble, he had no alternative but to apply for private charity. Today, with better emoluments, the sailor reckons to provide his own funds, to abhor private charity and hold his head high as a true Britisher, independent of every one and of all charity.
  1034
  The representatives of these "private" organisations are usually women taking a leading part in Tory propaganda and activities. [Interruption.] If I am challenged, I will gladly give details, if the hon. Member wants them. Ex-Service men and women have the greatest objection to their welfare questions today being dealt with by a woman who, tomorrow, comes to canvass their votes for the Tory Party. It happens all over the country. These women took up this work as war work, instead of going into the factories and doing some really national war work, and so they have no practical knowledge whatever of Service life and conditions, and they have no business to be "mucking about" now with ex-Service men's welfare.
  In any case, with the increasing anti-flag day complex of the public, the funds of these organisations must obviously diminish and the organisations themselves close down for want of financial support from the public. The same argument applies to the British Legion. It is the greatest national tin-rattling and cadging organisation, and, with its excessive expenses, is the greatest charitable scandal of the century, and the Royal Navy has very little room for it.
  I now want to say a few words about the men leaving the Services. I have dealt with the question of employment. There are also the problems of pensions and allowances, and other problems on which they wish to have the help of experts. Consequently, the Admiralty should make full use of the Royal Naval Old Comrades' Association and allied organisations, which were in existence long before the Legion, and were doing this job admirably in the first three years after the first world war, which was the most important time, with a sheeny Government in power denying ex-Service men their pensions and allowances. Admittedly, the Royal Naval Old Comrades' Association is mainly on a unit basis and has only a skeleton national organisation, but, last year, the Admiralty gave encouragement to the amalgamation of these units into the Royal Naval Association, on a somewhat similar basis to the Royal Air Force Association. The most important factor which can help this amalgamation is that of giving to the Royal Naval Old Comrades' Association some responsibility and some responsible work

  1035
  to do. The obvious task is the welfare of the Service man's family and the welfare of the ex-Service man, in which direction they could be the voluntary agents of the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust. Today, the Admiralty also have the advantage of a large number of ex-W.R.N.S. in the W.R.N.S. Association, and these men and women, both with special knowledge of naval problems, are better able to deal with these matters than these women who have never served in any of the Services at all but "dodged the column" the whole war through.
  There are also available to the Admiralty the services of various retired naval officers and petty officers in their own recruiting offices, in the Regular Forces Employment Association, and other similar organisations. These officers and petty officers are closely in touch with everything happening locally as far as employment is concerned, as they are with any other considerations affecting ex-Service men, and they are able to render invaluable help to their colleagues who were in the Services either with them or after them. Obviously, ex-naval men would definitely prefer to be dealt with by ex-naval men and women who appreciate their problems, rather than by old soldiers of the British Legion, who know nothing about the sea service.
  The short point here is that the Navy, with its own benevolent fund and with its own ex-Service men's organisations, can be independent and deal with all its own welfare work. Largely, this is what is actually happening now, and it is like the Royal Air Force Association, which also has its own fund and organisation and largely handles all its own welfare work. Both Services can make their funds self-supporting, and so avoid this disgraceful cadging of charity from the public in the name of the ex-Service man, whereby the ex-Service man has not only been exploited financially, but politically as well.
  My last point is with regard to the rehabilitation of invalids. There was an Admiralty Fleet Order, No. 7350 of 1945, which gave the Navy an after-care scheme, but that Order largely refers those invalids to the care of the Red Cross, again a private voluntary organisation, albeit a very fine one, and I pay my
  1036
  tribute to the good work it is doing. In addition, there was a pamphlet, B.R.1008, "Notes for the Guidance of Ratings, Men and Women, Invalided from the Services." There, I understand, there is a reference to the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust, which I wish the Admiralty would amplify. The principle should be that when disabled ex-Service men, invalids and others, are discharged they should be dispersed in the countryside, with their own friends and relatives.
  The policy of segregating them in hostels, in villages, and so on, where they are literally taking in one another's washing, and where their wives have to listen all their lives to the backchat about somebody else's bomb is wrong. This rehabilitation should be brought into touch with the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust and the Royal Naval Old Comrades' Association so that the Trust which has done such invaluable work should be able to get into touch with these people as soon as they leave the Service. As a consequence the Navy and the Admiralty should take a greater interest in the ex-Service men, and with these two organisations looking after the Naval ex-Service men and their families the Navy can stand four-square on its own feet, self-supporting and providing its own funds, because today there is no more reason why there should be a flag day for an ex-Service man than for any other member of the community.
  5.51 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: After the earthquake comes the still, small voice. I am sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that when you called upon the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) we all realised that it would not be long before he found in the Navy Estimates a vehicle for attack on the British Legion. Should the hon. and gallant Member catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair next Friday when the House is discussing simplified spelling, fox-hunting or tied houses, I am sure his remarks will lead to a similar conclusion.
  The Minister of Defence, were he still with us, would recall that when he occupied the honourable position of First Lord during the closing stages of the war, the Navy launched out like the other Services with an excellent scheme

  1037
  of adult education. I want to ask whether that is proceeding with the same efficiency in time of peace as it did then, and whether the system of information rooms, which were established on board His Majesty's ships and in the shore establishments, and which contained the newspapers of the day, HANSARD and other publications available to the ratings, is still being pursued.
  I should like to add my voice to the plea of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that employment on discharge should still be a first interest of their Lordships, and, indeed, that the problem of resettlement becomes no less acute because we are at peace than it was during the general demobilisation, and that officers and men coming out of the Navy, whether after long-term engagements or under the National Service scheme, still need that provision. I hope and believe that the Board of Admiralty still have them very much in mind. While on the subject of welfare and education, I would inquire whether there is now a sufficient inflow of schoolmasters and instructors. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will remember, because he was in the House then, that in the Estimates debated in 1945—the last Debate that took place before the end of the war—that question was raised in several quarters of the House, and there was then some dissatisfaction and anxiety about the pay and terms of service of that particular branch. I thought I would take this opportunity of asking whether the situation has now, four years later, cleared up satisfactorily.
  When speaking earlier this afternoon, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) returned to the question of naval barracks. I wish to say a word about that, too, because I well recall that in the early days of this Government we were told that this question was going to be tackled as it had never been tackled before, that Chatham, Devonport and Portsmouth were all going to be razed to the ground, not by atom bombs, but by His Majesty's Government, and that new and splendid structures would rapidly rise. On that occasion, I took the opportunity of saying, as I have said before to other Governments, that I should believe it when I saw it, because during my lifetime, anyhow, all these things have followed one monotonous
  1038
  course. In time of peace, the Estimates are cut so low that the money is not available for the rebuilding of barracks, and when war breaks out there is a shortage of material and labour, and infinitely more men have to be crowded into the accommodation than is the case in time of peace. However, we all wish the Government well in their blueprint, and I hope that, in due course, it will result in the building of new barracks. There is much to be said for the suggestion that they should be smaller and more dispersed than is the case at present.
  A Motion will shortly be coming before us, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), on the subject of the Royal Naval Volunteer Supplementary Reserve upon which it would not be in Order for me to touch now, but I should like for a few minutes to draw the attention of the House to the question of the Royal Naval Reserve—not the R.N.V.R. but the R.N.R.—upon which a Committee has been sitting for an inordinate length of time. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the R.N.R. is really a link of tremendous importance in the general set-up of our Naval organisations. The Royal Navy men are the professionals, those who devote their whole lives and careers to the Service, and who become expert in their various branches and departments. The Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve is, and always has been, a collection of amateurs, men who are fond of the sea, who knock about in small craft, and who in time of war have to learn a great deal about navigation, as well as everything else, gunnery and the various branches of the Service. But the Royal Naval Reserve has always consisted of men of the Merchant Navy who are constantly at sea in the following of their normal vocation. To them the sextant is an instrument of daily use, for them a chart has no mystery, and the rule of the road at sea no terrors.
  They are a potential force of rapid recruitment, and it is said—I do not know whether justifiably or not, but the Minister can tell us—that this delay is due to a prolonged tug-of-war between the Admiralty and the Ministry of Transport for the bodies of these men, and that the Ministry of Transport feel that in any renewed war they should remain in the Merchant Navy and sail solely under the Red Ensign. I hope that is not so. because

  1039
  there were no more valuable officers acting as commodores of convoy in the recent war, both ocean and coastal, than the men who had stepped straight from the Merchant Navy into the Royal Naval Reserve, and who had the confidence and understanding of those sailing in company with them in the merchant ships.
  The point which the House has to consider at the moment is that those who were commodores of convoy in the years 1939–45, with the rank of commander or captain, were two-stripers round about the year 1930 in a period of naval disarmament when the 10-year peace was still the formula being followed by the Admiralty and the War Office. But should hostilities recommence in the next five years, these men of the Merchant Navy will be essential to the successful conduct of a naval war. It used to be the tradition, particularly in the big shipping companies, that their officers joined the Royal Naval Reserve as a matter of course and as a matter of tradition and were thus brought into the most valuable annual contacts with the officers of the Royal Navy and the routine of His Majesty's ships.
  There is another reason which I want to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary. If only these officers can come in now as juniors they will begin immediately to climb the ladder of promotion. I think that is important because in the two wars within the experience of most hon. Members sitting in this House, upon the outbreak of war their Lordships have had an all-consuming passion to make everybody, whatever their age, a sub-lieutenant; and not only a sub-lieutenant, but a sub-lieutenant prefixed by a series of most humiliating adjectives—temporary, acting, probationary; terms which are almost as offensive to my ears as the general phrase applied to the lower deck—and we have heard it again today—"hostilities only," as if engaging the King's enemies were a secondary or almost trivial matter. I hope their Lordships will give thought to this subject, because these are psychological points which, to my mind, bear upon recruiting to a very considerable extent.
  The long delay in deciding the future of the Royal Naval Reserve is gravely endangering this fine tradition of the automatic joining of it by sea-going officers in
  1040
  the Merchant Navy and, should hostilities break out within a reasonably short period of time—say five years—we should be confronted with a serious shortage of junior R.N.R. officers with experience of naval routine and method. Even if they are to be retained under the Red Ensign, even if the Ministry of Transport win this tug-of-war, if tug-of-war it be, surely it is important that these gentlemen should be instructed in gunnery, signals, and convoy organisation in all of which they will have to take part should they be sailing in convoy of merchant ships or otherwise.
  I want also to ask about the clerical branch of the Royal Naval Reserve, now called Supply and Secretarial, which used to be largely recruited from the professions of banking and chartered accountancy. Are the Admiralty still searching that field for junior officers to take over these duties, in the event of hostilities? Are they being encouraged, and if so, is the intake satisfactory?
  There is another important source of manpower to which I must refer before I conclude. It is the ex-officers of the Royal Naval Reserve who have gone through a process known as swallowing the anchor, who have retired from the sea and been lured ashore, by financial or matrimonial inducements, perhaps in some cases both planned simultaneously, thereby assuring them at one and the same time of full employment and freedom from want. Whether connubiality and security have come together or not, the point I would put to the Parliamentary Secretary is that these men still exist. What surely is more important to the nation is that their knowledge still exists, their training still exists and, most valuable of all, their war experience still exists. Is anything being done about refresher courses for ex-officers like that who could be brought back and polished up in the latest methods of convoy organisation, D.E.M.S., naval control and the like? Is the Admiralty still in contact with these gentlemen?
  On this topic, there was a very interesting and valuable article in the "Sunday Times" of 27th February, written by an officer who has had a rather unusual experience. It was Admiral Sir Charles Morgan, whose name the Parliamentary Secretary obviously recognises at once, who was Flag Officer Commanding in Italy in the later stages of the war and

  1041
  until, I think, only 18 months ago, was Admiral Commanding Reserves—I think the last to hold the appointment before the officer who holds it at present—and who since his retirement from the Royal Navy has taken an appointment in the Merchant Navy and has been to sea in the situation of something approaching staff officer, captain or commodore with the Blue Funnel Line. In this article he used words which I would like to read to the House because they seem to me to sum up what I have been endeavouring to say. He is writing of his experience sailing under the Red Ensign and he says:
  "Not only were the large majority of Merchant Navy officers anxious to know about the organisation, administration and system of advancement in the Navy, but they were also keenly interested in the employment of the men, gunnery control, navigation and the general routine in a man-of-war. The desire for knowledge about their sister Service was particularly noticeable among the younger officers, and it is this interest which the Admiralty must actively encourage. The spirit and determination of the men of the Merchant Navy, so much in evidence in the days of the Malta and Russian convoys, is still there, but it is lying dormant. A regular interchange of officers will revive and strengthen it, and in so doing make a vital contribution towards the defence of the Empire and the preservation of World Peace."
  I commend these as wise words coming from a wise man. The Royal Naval Reserve has an unrivalled record in two world wars. Let it neither perish nor decay.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) has succeeded in pouring oil on very stormy waters after the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) and the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey). The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull was certainly forthright and he conducted a terrific attack upon the British Legion. He gave the British Legion a great deal of publicity in the House this afternoon and if he wanted to do them a lot of good, that was the best way to do it. Whatever the merits or demerits of the case, I do not think it will be settled by speeches of that sort in this House. I was sorry that the hon. and gallant Member made something of a personal attack upon the hon. and gallant Member for
  1042
  South Paddington, who has been in this House a long time. Whatever the case may be for battleships or for the traditional conception of the British Navy, the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington has pursued the interests of the welfare of the British Navy with a single-minded purpose second to none in this House.
  Commander Pursey: As the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) has made a personal reference to me, perhaps he will permit me to intervene to point out that my concern today was not the British Legion but the welfare of the naval serving man and his wife and of the ex-Service man, so that they might be entirely freed from the stigma which they have suffered for the last 20 years—this public cadging and box-rattling on behalf of the ex-Service man.
  Mr. Granville: The hon. and gallant Member is merely repeating the attack with more abuse and hardly any different phraseology. I still believe that large numbers of ex-Service men in the villages and towns of this country will have great respect for the good work done by the British Legion, irrespective of the fact that it is denounced by a crank in this House who inserts his hobby horse into a naval Debate.
  The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington referred to decentralisation with regard to naval policy, and I hope that the Civil Lord will be able to tell us a little more than the Parliamentary Secretary told us of the sort of co-operation that he anticipates between the growing Fleets of the Dominions and the Fleet of this country. Of course, this is an important factor. If the Fleet is responsible for policing a very large and growing area, then the Dominions must bear a greater amount of the cost. The Dominions are always generous, and if the case is put to them they will, I have no doubt, do what they can. It is all the more necessary, in view of the decentralisation or dispersal which is contemplated in over-all planning.
  I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on recovering from his attack of jaundice and upon the manner in which he introduced the Estimates today. He gave the House more information than he did last year, but I agree with the hon. Member for Here ford

  1043
  (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) that we should be told a little more. The hon. Member for Hereford referred, for instance, to the information which is given by the Navy Department of the United States of America. Is there really any reason why we should not be given information similarly of our activities and developments? Of course, quite rightly the taxpayer will always want to know that the public money is being well spent. He is painfully aware of the fact that £2,000 million spent on defence in four years before the war did not give us fair value for money, as was evident when the war broke out. However, I should like to pay my tribute to the Admiralty for this, that of all Government Departments the Admiralty are the most proficient in getting good value for the money they spend. I think that it is remarkable how the Admiralty have adapted our naval forces to the rapid changes of a technical and scientific character that have taken place in the last three or four years, while yet preserving their traditional organisation and efficiency.
  Mr. Scollan: That is a change.
  Mr. Granville: I have always said that. The Admiralty are head and shoulders above all the Departments in that respect.
  Mr. Scollan: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the reluctance of the Admiralty to adapt themselves to changing circumstances at the beginning of the war, when they used old-fashioned, out-of-date Seafires instead of more up-to-date aircraft?
  Mr. Granville: If the hon. Gentleman had seen the landings of jet fighter aircraft on British carriers at sea under difficult conditions he would have been quite overcome by the great proficiency displayed—the proficiency not only of the pilots, but of all concerned—in making such a feat possible, for it was one of the most difficult technical problems to solve.
  I was hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us something about the experiments in "winterisation"—in the tests in the Arctic in relation to Arctic strategy. There was the test which the United States of America made, which was called "Musk Ox" and the "Operation Frigid," in conjunction with the
  1044
  Royal Canadian Navy, and, I think, the Royal Canadian Air Force. I understand that we have sent ships—there have been reports in the Press about this—to test men and equipment in the Arctic and in training to overcome the enormous problems of Arctic warfare. These tests are very severe and grim for the men and the technical equipment. As the Parliamentary Secretary did not say anything about this, I hope that the Civil Lord, when he winds up the Debate, will tell us something about this vital development. It is not enough to leave these important tests to the American Navy alone or even to the Royal Canadian Navy.
  I am wondering whether there has been any development in regard to standardisation of equipment, more particularly of measurements, between the Royal Navy and the United States Navy. I should like to know whether the Canadian Navy is to work upon American standards or upon our own, or whether we are envisaging some sort of standardisation between, Britain, Canada and the United States in the supply and interchangeability of types. I understand there has been a committee in existence which has been tackling this problem. The solution of it is the prerequisite of an international defence force and in itself will save hundreds of millions of pounds, and simplify the task of the United Nations in defending themselves against any aggressor.
  I should like to see a new and modern scheme instituted for the training of Reserves. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the fascinating subjects of electronics, atomic power, radar, jets, and so on. I believe that, in conjunction with the development of our industrial war potential, there should be a scheme whereby the men in the Fleet, who man, service and fly the naval aircraft and other equipment, should go into the workshops, into the laboratories and scientific research stations, to see how the weapons with which they fight are invented and designed and made, and to see how much they depend upon the scientists and research engineers. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give some consideration to this suggestion which, I believe, has been made before, and which is in keeping with these modern days. Such a scheme for the men in the Fleet, in conjunction with

  1045
  their technical training, would enable many of them, who will in any case have to work upon this kind of thing themselves while they are in the Navy, to be prepared for a first-class career in civil life when the leave the Navy. I conclude with the reminder that the safety of these islands, even in these days of atomic power and jet aircraft and so on, still depends upon the Royal Navy; on the sea and in the air.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. Paget: As an extemporary acting probationer sub-lieutenant I enter upon this naval engagement with some anxiety. I wish to preface what I want to say by stating one or two general strategic propositions, and then I shall seek to show how these naval proposals fit into them. The first general strategical proposition I wish to put forward is this, that this country at this moment is threatened, and very immediately threatened, by a very obvious danger. That danger is Russia. When the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) talks about our wanting naval defence all round the world and not against any particular enemy, I think he is saying something very dangerous. We are faced with a very immediate and real danger. Our defences against that danger are necessarily inadequate, and if we do not concentrate upon that danger our defences will be hopelessly inadequate.
  The second general proposition which I would like to make is this: In any event, owing to the nature of Britain's position, her defences always must be inadequate. The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) said, the other day, that he hoped that our defence policy would be designed next time to win the first battle. Frankly, I cannot imagine any more disastrous defence policy than that. If we attempted to plan for winning the first battle, it would mean that we would have to compete in mobilisation with a great Continental Power; and we should exhaust ourselves hopelessly in the process and have expended our reserves before we ever got to the first battle. We have to plan for surviving the first battle. We have to bear that always in mind. In the military field we want a very small and efficient army, because it is an army which, in the initial stages, will have to do the most difficult of all
  1046
  military manoeuvres—a fighting retreat. That must always be our position at the beginning of a war.
  We have to design our defences with regard to Atlantic defences generally and the Atlantic Pact. That is to say that in a defence system which generally must be inadequate overall, we should give priority to those things in which assistance from across the Atlantic is likely to be least adequate and to come most slowly. Having said these three general things, let us consider for a moment what is the case for giving priority in expenditure, which we have given in these Estimates, to a surface fleet. The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) said at intervals throughout his speech that the surface fleet was inadequate. We waited some time to hear for what it was inadequate. Obviously, its inadequacy could not be measured against the Russian fleet because there is no Russian fleet. Eventually, we got it; it was inadequate to carry out proper fleet manoeuvres.
  That is an attitude of mind which, I am afraid, does carry weight in naval circles. Battleships are such lovely toys; they are so useful for naval manoeuvres, and they tend to be kept on that sort of basis. [An HON. MEMBER: "They cost a lot of money."] We have to look at what we want a surface fleet for. I should have thought that there was no possibility whatever of the Russians being able to put a surface fleet into the Atlantic. Apart from any fleet question, they could never get through the air. There is the radar barrage between Iceland and the Shetlands and they could never pass a ship through without an air strike being put on it.
  Therefore, I should have thought that the only possibility of requiring in war a surface fleet would be for the Norwegian communications, and so far as that is concerned, I should have thought it very unlikely indeed that one would want anything larger than a cruiser. If we wanted to hold open, Norwegian communications, it would mean that we had Norwegian airfields and British airfields. That would be the purpose for which one would want to keep open the Norwegian communications. I should have thought that the air would have kept those communications far more effectively than any surface fleet would do. Therefore I would

  1047
  say with regard to the surface fleet that its usefulness in war is highly problematical. It is the first thing that the Americans could let us have, because America has an enormous number of surface fighting ships. I think, therefore, that in our defence, which in the general economic picture must always be inadequate, the priority given to the very expensive job of maintaining a surface fleet of the size we have got is too great. I would myself say that one or two battleships and three or four carriers ought to be sufficient. For our general world policy—a peace-time policy largely; Communist outbreaks and that sort of thing—we require a number of cruisers, but I think that the cruisers want re-designing in order to carry a great many more troops. We should look in these sort of terms at the question of our surface fleet.
  The next question is air. What is the Fleet commitment with regard to air? I would have thought that so far as the Norwegian passage was concerned, land-based air was likely to be the most effective. Again, so far as the Northern waters are concerned between Iceland and Shetland, I should have thought that land-based air was likely to be the more effective. I should not have thought that in the early stages, at any rate, there was much likelihood of a Russian air threat in the Atlantic, which could not be adequately dealt with by the intercepting base, which is Britain. I should have thought that this was a possible but not very probable or immediate danger. It is also one of the things as to which American assistance would be immediately available. I feel, therefore, that air commitments so far as the Naval Estimates are concerned receive too great a priority as against the terribly urgent things which the Army and Air Force want.
  Finally—and this would seem to me to be the overwhelming necessity so far as the Navy is concerned—there is the submarine threat, and that threat will be immediate. I think also that my hon. Friend in opening this Debate did not do full justice to the extent of that threat. He referred to the difference between the modern submarine, which is a genuine three dimensional fighter, and the old-time submarine, which was merely a surface ship which could sometimes take
  1048
  cover under the water. That is only part of the story. The new submarine will not only be able to live under the water, it will be able to do its fighting under the water. The old submarine could only fight from periscope level, whereas the modern submarine will be able to direct its torpedo by Asdic apparatus and will be able to discharge its missiles from 500 feet or 600 feet under the water. That is an appalling threat. I personally believe that just in the same way as we first dealt with the three dimensional aircraft by land defences and eventually found out that the only adequate defence was to go up in the air and meet it there, so with the genuine three dimensional submarine we shall find that the only way to meet it is to go down into the depths and meet it in its own element. With improved Asdic and other directional finding apparatus under water, and with improved homing torpedoes it will be a question of battles right under the sea between two forces operating in those elements.
  I hope that when this Debate is wound up we shall be told that something is being done about research upon those lines. Of course, that does not merely mean scientific research; it means operational research into new methods so that surface defence will not be confused as to recognition when there is also an under water defence. These are all very difficult problems which need a tremendous amount of working out, but I hope that in the future the Government will recognise that the essential priority job is the submarine, that far more will be spent on that and far less be spent on the problematical threat from the surface and the air.
  6.31 p.m.
  Sir Ronald Ross: I always like listening to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), for, although I do not always agree with his conclusions, he does show a depth of study and opens new fields of thought. Certainly the most staggering new field of thought he opened up tonight was that anyone too well prepared for war always lost it. One can imagine the Prime Minister, when war is on the horizon, asking himself: "Am I sufficiently unprepared?" If he were he would, according to the hon. and learned

  1049
  Member, win the war, whereas if he were thoroughly prepared he would be bound to lose it. My only comment on that is that the hon. and learned Member should remember that some wars have not occurred, and that some first battles have not had to be fought, because the obvious victim was so well prepared that he might have won the first battle. That is a thing which never happens to us, and that is the ground upon which I normally would advocate rearmament or the maintenance of armaments—to prevent wars rather than to win them.
  I have spoken in previous Debates on this Motion on many occasions, some of them a very long time ago, and I never imagined then that I should be in the proud position of having in my constituency substantial naval establishments, ships based upon the principal town thereof, and a large naval aerodrome as well. This privilege carries with it a certain responsibility. I am astonished at the Admiralty policy on civilian employment. One would imagine that their policy would be to reward those men who had volunteered for the Armed Forces. The position in Northern Ireland is wholly different from that in Great Britain, because in Northern Ireland there was no compulsion; the National Service Act did not apply. Those who joined up did so as volunteers; but they are now being excluded from Government employment by men of military age who did not volunteer. The principle which may be appropriate over here, where it is the same for all, did not apply in Northern Ireland, so that in Britain this gross injustice did not take place.
  When I asked a Question about this the Civil Lord—who I am sorry should be momentarily absent—made a statement which was entirely contrary to the fact. He did so quite innocently and by inadvertence. He said that the reason there was no compulsory service and the National Service Act did not apply in Northern Ireland was because the Government of Northern Ireland did not desire it. For many reasons that was entirely contrary to the fact, and I hope that the Civil Lord—who enjoys the goodwill of the House to a remarkable and, I think, exceptional degree—will take the opportunity, when replying. of putting this matter right and explaining
  1050
  that he made an innocent mistake in suggesting that we do not always, both in this House and by representations from the Government of Northern Ireland, wish to bear our share in National Defence. Hitherto the Labour Party has invariably voted that we should not be able to do so by having National Service Acts apply to us. I have voted, not only against a Labour Government but against a Conservative Government, and against a National Government in that respect.
  It is preposterous to expect—as the Government do—employers to pay the difference between men's ordinary pay and what they are getting when performing Territorial training, when the Government as an employer prefer to employ those who are not ex-Service men, Eirean citizens who do not owe any allegiance to this country, while allowing the ex-Service man, because he has sacrificed his chance by joining up, to be left unemployed as a consequence. That is a disgrace, and it is farcical for the Government to call for sacrifices from private employers when they have set this wretchedly bad example themselves as an employer.
  Having said those few trenchant words of criticism I will now do my best to say something more appreciative of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech today and of the White Paper which accompanies the Estimates. It is the best White Paper we have had with any Estimates since the war ended. That is not a particularly high standard, but certainly this White Paper is more informative than any on previous Navy Estimates, and certainly on those for the Air and the Army. The First Lord is rather like Old Man River—"he must know somethin' but don't say nothin' "for a very long time. Now he has said something; but I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary: why not bring back the Return of Fleets in its old form? What is the objection to that? What objection can there be? To those hon. Members who have not seen it, I would just recall to the notice of the House these words:
  "The information relating to foreign navies contained herein is that furnished by the various Powers mainly from publications in this form. It is no longer the practice of the Government of the U.S.S.R. to furnish particulars for this purpose. All reference to the Soviet Navy has now been omitted."
  We do not have any account of the Soviet Navy in this document, which is dated

  1051
  1939, the last that has been issued, but I cannot see what objection there can be to publishing the information—leaving out, of course, those countries which do not furnish us with an official account of their Fleets.
  Commander Pursey: No other nation except the United States has got a Navy.
  Sir R. Ross: I do not want any interruptions from the hon. and gallant Member, who never lets anybody else interrupt him, and who is incapable of making a speech without using the language of the gutter. His references to the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) were most unfortunate, to say the least, and I should be proud to be associated with objects which are abused by the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey), because his language is the manure upon which others flourish. To return to the Navy—[Interruption.] We do not want any interruptions from the hon. and gallant Member. We have heard a long discourse from him during which he would not allow anyone to interrupt.
  There is one point to which attention should be drawn in the Estimates, and that is the fantastic cost of the Admiralty Office. The extra cost is not due to any extra naval officers being there, because the percentage increase is very small indeed. We are told in the White Paper that the number of people employed there has decreased by 600, but the amount of money has gone up by £500,000. The cost is now running at over £5 million per year, where before the war it was about £1½ million. What has produced this vast increase in the expenditure of the Admiralty Office? [An HON. MEMBER: "Increased wages."] I do not think that is so. It they employ 600 fewer, it should not increase the amount by that much.
  Mr. Scollan: Jobs for the boys.
  Sir R. Ross: In regard to the Fleet generally, I do not think there is much to be said, except to ask whether there is any truth in the rumours of this large Russian battleship. I do not think there is any truth in it, but suggestions have appeared in the Press that there are one or more large capital ships of a new type,
  1052
  and I should be very interested to hear whether that is so.
  The question of cruisers is a very important one. It used to be said in the old days that 70 cruisers were essential to protect our commerce and sea lanes upon which our life depends. I have looked at the situation as it was in 1939, and I find that we then had 62, of which a number were over-age. Although that was short of the minimum required, we now have only 29. It has to be remembered that our ships go all over the world and that we need, therefore, an adequate number of cruisers. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton appeared to forget that there is a Pacific as well as an Atlantic, and that our potential enemies have outlets both to the Pacific and to the Atlantic. I thought his speech was a little optimistic. It was very much like the speeches we used to hear about how unnecessary it was to fortify Singapore, when the trouble was that we did not fortify it in the right place or well enough.
  Mr. Scollan: We spent the money.
  Sir R. Ross: I do not know whether I am to have this verbal encouragement throughout the whole of my speech. I listen with pleasure to the hon. Member from time to time and derive benefit from what he says without interrupting him. I hope he will do the same in my case. Our trade must be protected, and if we do not have the cruisers, we get incidents like the "Rawalpindi" and the "Jarvis Bay." We get ships invaluable in war-time and peace-time to carry troops or cargo being used as warships for which they are quite unfitted, and being sunk, as these ships were, in most gallant actions which would never have occurred if we had had sufficient cruisers. The present policy seems to be to hand out ships in all directions. Any ship approaching over-age—and even an overage ship can be quite useful—is handed out, and one of our cruisers, a ship passed to China, is now behind the iron curtain already in Communist hands. I hope the Admiralty will consider the matter very carefully before sending out any more of these ships.
  The prime responsibility of the Navy is to the Merchant Navy, and I, too, regret that we have not started again the Royal Naval Reserve. What we want

  1053
  is a close bond between the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy through the Royal Naval Reserve, or some such body. I think it would be appreciated. There is one other point in regard to the Navy's duties to the Merchant Navy in peace as well as in war. I think that "Research," that very special vessel which is very nearly completed and has been built to assist seamen on their lawful occasions in matters of navigation, should be finished. It would be worth while to finish that ship so that she can take up the important scientific work for which she has been designed.
  The Prime Minister told us the other day that it takes a long time to build up a Navy, but that we should have a long-term programme. But I do not see any long-term programme in construction. As far as cruisers are concerned, three are lying incomplete, with not much needed to be done. I suggest that they should be completed. The same applies to the light aircraft carriers. I should like to say how delighted I was to hear that H.M.S. "Formidable" is to be brought up to the most modern standards. I saw that ship launched—indeed, she launched herself before the whistle was blown. After going through a long war and suffering a good deal of damage, she is still considered by the Admiralty to be capable of renovations to make her the latest type of aircraft carrier. That is a great tribute to the shipbuilders in Belfast who built her, and they will be delighted to hear that this, the first big carrier to be built in Belfast, has been singled out for the distinction of such a big re-fit and alteration.
  It is rather hard to expect the Navy to fulfil its duty in protecting our trade routes with so few aircraft carriers. During the war we had a large number of escort carriers, but now we have only one because they have had to go back to America. The functions of the light carrier against submarines is not ended, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton seemed to suggest. The light escort carrier has an important part in anti-submarine work. A most important feature is protection against underwater attack, and in this connection I was rather surprised that no mention was made of the danger from mines. I assume that the organisation and provision of suitable mine-sweeping flotillas is still in
  1054
  hand and is a matter of consideration by the Admiralty.
  We have fewer destroyers than in 1939, and I beseech those who speak for the Admiralty not to try to count destroyers more than once. In the Debate on the Naval Estimates last year, when we on this side of the House spoke about the shortage of cruisers, we were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that although there might be a shortage of cruisers, destroyers were so much more powerful now. Of course, destroyers are more powerful, but that does not make it possible to count them twice, first as destroyers and then as cruisers. A cruiser has rather different functions, and the destroyer has not much endurance at sea, and has to be re-oiled. Of course, that can be done at sea, but it is not always possible. It is a problem which more than any other is more likely to turn an admiral's hair grey. In 1939 there were 159 destroyers and there are only 113 now.
  As regards frigates, I am glad to see that the destroyers of the Hunt class are now counted as frigates. The thing that is worrying me more than anything else is whether those frigates, as anti-submarine craft, are really up to their present or future job. The whole question of submarine catching has changed since the end of the war. The arrival of "snort" and the fast under-water speeds, as well as various other factors which arrived at the end of the war, have meant a great change in anti-submarine measures. If those in operation at the end of the war were applied now, it would result in terrible losses. Are our frigates as we now know them capable of fulfilling the useful function which they should fulfil? Although they are a good deal faster than the average corvette, sloop or frigate of the last war, we do not want them to have the small radius of action of the Hunt class destroyer.
  I have looked up the figures and I find that the Bay frigate, which is the latest frigate, would have 5,500 horse power and carry 720 tons of oil. The Hunt class destroyer has more than three times as much horse power, 19,000, and about a third as much oil, 280 tons. The problem seems to me to get a craft with the radius of action of the Bay class frigate and the speed of the Hunt class destroyer.

  1055
  I should like to hear more of experiments in that direction. It may be that by the use of high-speed diesels—and we learned a good deal From German vessels captured towards the end of the war—or by some other method of propulsion we shall produce the required craft.
  I am anxious about relying on the 127 frigates we now have, which performed such excellent service in the last war, and I think the Admiralty should be very much on their toes to try to provide themselves with adequate antisubmarine craft in case we are threatened again with war. The solution to the problem lies a great deal in research and experiment, and I hope there is no truth in the rumour that research is being reduced. To go through the Estimates and find the sums to be expended on research is a very difficult task. In Vote 11 (K) I see that research in certain directions has been reduced. That is rather ominous, and I do not know of any other Votes which cover research.
  In that respect I urge upon the Admiralty the extraordinary importance of having not only highly skilled aircraft such as we have at present, but a highly skilled reserve of pilots, because the lesson of the war in the Pacific was the difference in the efficiency of the Japanese Fleet for and after the battle of Midway Island. Before the battle it was an efficient navy, but after the battle, when all the well-trained pilots were shot down, it was an entirely different thing. That was what the Americans call the Marianne's turkey shoot, when they shot down nearly 500 planes for the loss of about 40. It showed that courage alone—and we all know that the Japanese have plenty of courage—is not enough.
  As we have been told, in the future it may be that attacks on submarines may be made by other submarines. I hope that research is going on, particularly in the recognition of submerged submarines by their own surface forces, which is a very difficult and tricky proposition. Those seem to me to be very urgent problems, and a large number of ships left over from the last war is not, to my mind, a satisfactory answer. I very much hope that the Admiralty will devote themselves to solving this problem and keep the Navy, as it has always been, the sure shield of the country.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. Austin: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) seem to demand the expansion of the Navy without having regard either to the resources of the country or of the needs of the other Services. Every year when I hear views of such a character put forward, it occurs to me that what hon. Gentlemen opposite really want is to have one Service only in this country, that of the Royal Navy with the Army as an auxiliary in the form of Commandos or Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force an auxiliary in the form of a naval controlled Coastal Command.
  Sir R. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is being a little hard on me. I served in the Army for 11 years though I never intended to, and I realise its importance. For two years in the last war I was associated with the R.A.F. and I realise its importance. The Navy at the present time is getting less money than either of these Services.
  Mr. Austin: Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's association with both Services, it seems to me he implies the necessity for hara-kiri in those two Services and their absorption by the Royal Navy. In defining expenditure for the Services, the Government have to bear in mind the requirements of all three.
  I wish to turn to one aspect which has not yet received much attention from the House, although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty and the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) talked of it for a short time. The question I have in mind is that of naval aviation. Following on the comment of the First Lord of the Admiralty a fortnight ago that the Navy was in good heart, I thought I would like to go and see for myself what the position was. On Tuesday last I took the trouble to go down to Lee-on-Solent, where I visited two shore establishments. One was the Royal Naval aircraft repair yard at Fleetlands, which is a most important establishment, and the other was the Royal Naval Air Station at Lee-on-Solent, of which I had some personal experience during the war. At the outset I wish to put on record my appreciation of the kindness shown to me by

  1057
  the officers concerned at both those establishments.
  At the Royal Naval aircraft repair yard I was allowed, through the courtesy of the captain in charge, to meet members of the Whitley Council who put certain matters to me. First, it was felt that a greater variety of repair aircraft could be directed to this yard in order to stimulate interest in repair. At present a great deal of activity in the yard is engaged only on various modifications which tend to become monotonous, and the personnel feel that they need a greater variety of repairs. This could be done by attracting or diverting naval aircraft repairs from civilian aircraft repair yards to this establishment.
  The second point put to me by the Whitley Council members concerned the complete blackout still in force in the hangars at Fleetlands where the repairs take place. In view of the hundreds and perhaps thousands of lights burning there, some attention should be directed to this if only on the grounds of economy. The chairman of the Whitley Council told me—it was corroborated by medical officers—that a good deal of illness is caused through this permanent blackout, including a great deal of eyestrain and a need for spectacles and a great many headaches, and he also considered that it caused a great lowering of morale among the workpeople. I inspected the place—I am conversant with factory conditions—and I thought that the north lighting there would be eminently suitable if the asbestos were replaced by glass. I hope that the Civil Lord will give this his urgent attention.
  I had known Fleetlands earlier and had often seen aircraft deteriorating in the open owing to lack of hangar space. After all these years I still found that all the hangars were crammed to capacity with aircraft equipment, engines, mainplanes and other paraphernalia, and certain aircraft were standing out in the open, subject to deterioration. I cannot assess the loss in monetary terms, but I am certain that if my hon. Friend searched other Royal Air Force airfields or naval air stations—we have closed down certain naval air stations—he would find one or two hangars which could be made avaliable for use at Fleetlands and thus avoid deterioration of aircraft.
  1058
  I went on to the Royal Naval Air Station at Lee-on-Solent which I inspected. The first thing that caught my eye near the airfield was the grim gaunt sight of two hangars which were blitzed in 1940 still standing there without roofs. It seemed a most demoralising thing to visit that station and to find that after eight years those roofs had not been replaced. Again, the deterioration of aircraft which are not able to be kept under cover is involved, and I hope that my hon. Friend will pay attention to that matter.
  I had a discussion about various matters with junior officers at Lee-on-Solent, and what I hope to put before the House is a reflection of the views which they gave me. I met a number of officers who had continued under extended service engagements in 1946 and 1947, which applied to all who had been connected with the air branch—pilots, observers, fighter direction and flying control officers and so on. These young men find themselves in a dilemma. There are only a few hundred of them. When some of them originally entered the service they were boys who had just left school and they have known no other life but Service life. They have extended their service for a further four years, and apparently the need for them was desperate because the Admiralty not only put the offer forward in 1946 but renewed it in 1947 and attracted further response. Some of these young men have no jobs to go to when they leave the Service. Some of them have married during their service and find themselves with a child or two, and they do not know where to turn when they leave the Service. The first of these young men are due to leave the Service in October of this year. I want my hon. Friend to consult his colleagues at the Admiralty and consider this matter.
  I understand that recruiting for aircrew for naval aviation is still below standard and that we are desperately in need of recruits. How can we reconcile getting rid of these young men, most of whom are aircrew personnel, with an agreed shortage of aircrew volunteers for that branch of the Service? I suggest that my hon. Friend puts before the Admiralty a scheme whereby not only can these young men be offered extended service again but during that period of extended service

  1059
  they can be allowed the pension rights and all the other rights which belong to orthodox and complete members of the Royal Navy.
  Another point was put to me by many of these young men who fly naval aircraft. They feel that their morale would be strengthened if they could serve under commanding officers who were air-minded. For example it was put to me that in the American Navy all commanding officers of aircraft carriers and naval air stations—senior officers down—are aviators, but that in this country that is not so. A lieutenant told me that at a certain air exhibition great astonishment was caused by the arrival of three American admirals flying their own aircraft. He said that they stepped out from their aircraft much to the surprise of those present. It would be hard to imagine that sort of thing happening in this country. These young men say they would feel happier in the Service if their senior officers had known and flown aircraft and, above all, were still active in flying aircraft. I put that to my hon. Friend as a suggestion which has some bearing on morale in that branch of the Royal Navy and on future prospects.
  Another point advanced by these young men seemed to show a certain amount of resentment against other elements in the Service. The Admiralty have allowed executive officers a six weeks' flying training course at Gosport Royal Naval Airport under the provisions of Fleet Order 2406/48. These young officers feel that, having completed a six weeks' course at Gosport, certain executive officers imagine that they know everything there is to know about naval aviation when they go back to their watch-keeping and other duties. They feel that injustice is being done to those in naval aviation by allowing these executive officers just to touch on the fringe of flying and then forget all about it.
  I talked to these officers about their training and one of the facts which came to light seemed to confirm a point I made in a recent Question to the Parliamentary Secretary. I asked him at the time whether, in view of the natural attachment of the naval officers to their own Service, he would consider whether it was not now possible to provide an
  1060
  elementary flying training establishment for naval personnel. As I had it from these chaps, they have to train with the R.A.F. and, after their initial training with the Navy, they say they resent having to leave the Service and go into the confines of another Service, sometimes finding themselves at variance with members of that other Service. The answer of my hon. Friend was that he could not foresee the provision of elementary flying schools on the grounds of the question I put to him. Perhaps not purely on the grounds of a natural attachment to their own Service, but I believe one could make out a case on the grounds of economy.
  I understand that payment is made to the R.A.F. for the training of all naval flying personnel. We have the Tiger Moths available in the Service, we have naval airfields that have been closed down and which could be reopened, we have naval air instructors in the Royal Navy who could be used to train Service personnel. I see no reason whatever, on grounds of sentiment or economy, why that could not be done. I hope that something may be done about that because the question seems to date back to what was known as the Inskip Award of 30th July, 1937, when it was decided that Coastal Command would come under the aegis of the R.A.F. and the Fleet Air Arm would come within the orbit of the Navy. It seems that at that time it was laid down that elementary flying training would have to be undergone through the R.A.F. but I think the time is ripe for a change and for the Navy to be completely self-contained in this matter.
  The next point put to me was that of pay. They said that they get 3s. a day extra flying money. I am certain that I do not need to impress upon the House that there are hazards in flying. Of that 3s. a day, ls. 9d. is left because it is subject to taxation. They said to me, "Can you wonder at the poor response to recruiting for flying duties?" I suggest to my hon. Friend that if he wants to stimulate recruiting for aircrew duties in naval aviation, he will have to do something about this pay question, because most of these fellows feel that, apart from their love of flying, it is not worth while taking all the risks for the sake of 1s. 9d. a day. I hope that when considerations of further pay increases, already ventilated by hon. Members in

  1061
  this Debate, are discussed by the Admiralty, they will consider also this question of pay for flying personnel.
  I revert to a point which I have raised previously at Question Time, namely that of flying training for R.N.V.R. personnel. As I understand it, the only facilities that exist in this country for training R.N.V.R. flying personnel are those at Culham, Stretton, Abbotsinch and Bramscote, and training is available only to personnel who live in the immediate vicinity. The sooner the Admiralty come to some amicable arrangement with the R.A.F. whereby members of the R.N.V.R. flying personnel are engaged in flying practice with the Royal Air Force, the better for the Service. I was reading in either "The Fleet" or the "Navy" magazine the other day a passage to the effect that men were leaving the R.N.V.R. to join the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve because it was only in the R.A.F. that they could obtain flying training. That is another important matter to be considered by the Admiralty.
  I was glad to hear my hon. Friend refer to the Dartmouth entry. He said that the Admiralty was completely satisfied with the scheme and that it was anticipated there would be no difficulties. As far as I can gather from information obtained after putting down a Question, the September application and examination was 500, of which there were only 25 entries. That does not seem to me to be a high figure. The January application and examination was 319, of which there were only 27 entries. Are those figures sufficient for the needs of the Service? At Dartmouth that entry covers the Executive, Engineering and Supply branches, and if those entries are distributed over the three branches, they do not represent many in actual numbers.
  Is there some method of guidance whereby entries into Dartmouth who are Executive are in any way attracted to flying duties? If we are to abolish the "A" Branch, as I understand will shortly be the case, something will have to be done about attracting more members of the Service into flying duties and into naval aviation. Perhaps, after due consideration and in the light of experience, it may be considered advisable to set up something in the nature of a mean between "A" branch and the Executive branch to promote a tendency in the direction of flying amongst the new entries there.
  1062
  About the abolition of the "A" branch, very little has been said except a brief statement which I obtained after a 'phone call to the Admiralty. It was as follows:
  "The intention to abolish the branch was promulgated to the Fleet in a brief Admiralty message on 5th November, 1948, but this has not yet been put into effect and no A.F.O. on the subject has so far been issued."
  As far as I know from my discussions with naval personnel, they do not know the reasons why the "A" branch is being abolished. On Tuesday last I heard arguments for and against its abolition. It would be in the best interests of the Service if the Admiralty can see their way to promulgating an A.F.O. on this matter giving all the necessary reasons as soon as possible.
  With regard to the aircraft being used in the Service, is the Admiralty doing something now about giving naval aviation modern aircraft? The flying personnel are happy that the Barracuda and the Firefly are going out of service, and that the Hawker Sea Fury is coming into operation. Some of them say that the latter is the first aircraft that ever had the feeling of being an aircraft for the purposes for which it was intended. I know that there are developments in regard to the Mosquito and the Vampire for service in naval aviation, but at Lee-on-Solent I could not see any squadrons of Sea Furies or Mosquitos or Vampires. If I read the feelings of the personnel there aright, they were anxious to know when they would be supplied with these up-to-date aircraft.
  Finally, I should like to know if my hon. Friend is satisfied with the accident rate in flying training. This is a most important question. Everybody knows that numbers of lives were lost needlessly during the war through accidents in flying training and that last year the Admiralty took the step of expanding their branch which deals with accidents and their prevention. I hope that in his report my hon. Friend can give the House some reassurance that these questions are being dealt with adequately.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. J. Langford-Holt: I had intended to follow the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) on the question of the flying personnel in naval aviation, but he has covered much of the

  1063
  ground that I had in mind. I will, however, refer later to the subject of allowances, to which he referred, in very much the same way as he dealt with it. I should like to re-emphasise his point about the blitzed hangars at Lee-on Solent. He said they had been there for eight years. They have not; they have been there for nine years—I was there when they were blitzed. The hon. Gentleman referred also to senior officers having insufficient knowledge of flying. Very strong feeling about this has existed for very many years in what is now known as the Fleet Air Arm. There is nothing new in this criticism. It is a trifle irksome to junior officers, when they read reports such as one I saw which stated that five admirals of the American Navy had arrived flying their own aircraft.
  When the Navy Estimates came before the House last year, I had reason to cross swords with the Parliamentary Secretary on the amount of time he devoted in his speech to naval aviation. On that occasion he devoted, I think, about 45 seconds. This year he has improved, and has devoted two minutes and ten seconds to the Fleet Air Arm. That is not enough for a branch of the Service which contributes one-third of the personnel of the Navy. A mere two minutes and ten seconds is wholly inadequate. In the statement by the First Lord 13 lines out of some 11 or 12 pages are devoted to naval aviation. This, again, is altogether inadequate, and the rather casual attitude at present being adopted must cease.
  In the past the Navy has been, as it undoubtedly will again become, the first line of defence. It will have to take the first shock of any attack. It will be aided and assisted by the Air Force, who will have to bear the attack from the air. I want, therefore, to deal particularly with the aircraft being supplied to the Navy and the men who fly them, for without a good supply of both we shall not be successful in achieving a satisfactory air branch of the Navy. The aircraft supplied to the Navy must be of the most modern type and as numerous as the money—and this we must realise—which is available can provide.
  It is worth while looking at the procedure through which an aircraft has to go
  1064
  from the stage when it is on the drawing board until the time when it arrives on the flight deck. First, a Staff requirement goes out as to exactly what type of aircraft is required. This Staff requirement is put out on tender to various aircraft building firms. The tender designs are subsequently considered by all the interested specialist departments. Eventually there is a final consultation to ensure that the chosen aircraft conforms as far as possible, down to the minutest detail, with what is required.
  On paper this is quite a good process, but it has drawbacks. First, it is not always complied with or followed and, second, it takes far too long. Anybody who has had any connection at all with the Fleet Air Arm will remember the cases of the Fairey Fulmar, which was out of date even before it took to the air, and the Barracuda. I remember seeing a prototype of the Barracuda flying in 1941. As far as I know the Barracuda may still be flying today, but it did not take the air in any numbers until 1944, three years after it started to fly. At what time the Barracuda was first designed, goodness only knows, but it was not until some three years after it first took the air that it finally went into service. What happened to that aircraft is common talk and knowledge throughout the Fleet Air Arm. New additions or modifications were required; first the tailplane was lowered, then it was put up, and finally I do not suppose the designer knew what would happen next. I am convinced that the technical advice that is being given to the Minister of Supply on naval aviation is inadequate. I should like to know whether the Civil Lord is satisfied that the right persons are representing the Royal Navy in the Ministry of Supply when advice is given on technical matters—I emphasise the word "technical"—regarding aircraft for the Fleet Air Arm. The naval representation certainly does not compare in any way with that of the Royal Air Force.
  What of the more recent products of this system of developing aircraft? Doubtless many hon. Members visited Farnborough during last summer and saw a demonstration of modern aircraft. One of these was the N7/46. I am not giving away any secrets, because all that I am saying has been published in such journals as "Flight" and "The Aeroplane" and

  1065
  has been seen by hon. Members. First, this aircraft was not a naval aircraft. Second, it became a general purpose naval fighter. Third, it was built round an engine which, I am assured, is obsolescent if not obsolete. This aircraft has the chance of being another perfect example of what happens if the present system is not speeded up and altered radically. I believe I am right in saying that in the original version of this aircraft—which shows what little consultation had taken place—in order to arm the machine guns the armourer had to be lowered in by his heels. That is no way to build a naval fighter, especially when it never started out as a fighter in any case. To be effective a naval fighter must be up to date.
  The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about research, but research is no good to aviation if it was, made three, four or five years ago. Research must be up to date and the aircraft must be new, modern and well equipped, and at the same time be the result of a definite plan and idea. It is no use—as, for example, with the Barracuda—starting off as a dive bomber, continuing as a torpedo-dropping aircraft and finding that as a dive bomber the aircraft cannot dive with its brakes and has to glide-bomb without them. That is nonsense and we cannot go on like that.
  The Admiralty and those responsible in the Ministry of Supply must know what types of aircraft they want and must adhere to their views. The aircraft must be the result of consultation with all the technical authorities interested and that consultation must take place at an early stage. In the early days it can be consultation, whereas at a later stage it is not; it has to be modification, and this has been the cause of half the trouble. I have expressed my view that the Minister must investigate the whole question of how the supply of aircraft works within the Ministry of Supply, as well as naval representation within that Ministry. In the second place, he must reduce the time for the production of the aircraft from the first staff requirements, past the drawing board stage on to the flight deck. So much for the aircraft.
  The one point which one must make about the personnel, when dealing with naval aviation, especially shore-based, is the question of amenities. By its very
  1066
  character, most of its effective war-time bases are in outlandish places in the extreme parts of Scotland, Wales and the West Country. In this respect the Royal Navy compares most unfavourably with the R.A.F. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would wish to look into this matter. I draw his attention to it and invite him to do so. I am told, for example, that the conditions at the Royal Naval air station at Eglinton, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) are little short of a disgrace. Then there is the question of married quarters in naval air stations, especially these outlandish stations. It is all the more important there, where there are no boarding houses, hotels or "digs." There one finds that married families are having to go back into huts which were vacated by civil engineers, six, seven and eight years ago.
  The hon. Member for Stretford mentioned the question of pay and allowances. The increases which were announced with somewhat of a flourish by the Minister of Defence on 24th November last, were an improvement but were not nearly as good as the right hon. Gentleman probably believed and certainly encouraged the House to believe. The hon. Member mentioned flying pay. He pointed out something which I should like to state in other words, namely, that if we are to give 3s. a day flying pay—and it is not a lot of money for danger money—it is not a bit of good, having decided that it is worth 3s., then to cut it at once to Is. 9d. That is what is happening today. Another allowance, which is rather a different one, but which goes to show how the general tendency of allowances in the Royal Navy is quite inadequate, is the allowance for those living in London of 3s. 6d. a day. At the beginning of this Parliament we put up our own pay by £8 per week; yet a naval officer who works close by, in the Admiralty, gets just 3s. 6d. per day, and that is taxed, while ours is considered to be expenses, and is not taxed.
  The question of information has been raised again and again in this House. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he cannot see his way to give us more information? We have heard from another place that the Navy List is again to come into circulation in a more general

  1067
  form. It is quite impossible to get out of the hon. Gentleman opposite information which I can get out of the Navy List. I can find the names and numbers of the squadrons and the numbers in them, although I cannot find out anything about aircraft. Yet, if I were to put down a Question to elicit information to the same effect, I should receive the answer that it was not in the national interest to give it. The hon. Gentleman surely does not intend to tell me that it is not in the possession of every Embassy in London? Of course, it is. He is inviting hon. Members to take the trouble to look it up themselves. It is his duty and the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to provide the House with all the information which hon. Members need to consider adequately the defences of this country.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman will go into the question of planning procedure in producing aircraft. I want them also to remember the causes of discontent in the aircrews of the Fleet Air Arm which were brought out by the hon. Member for Stretford. Finally, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember, in connection with this question of how much he tells the House, that it is not only his responsibility but also ours, in whatever part of the House we sit. In the writing of history it is not only he who will be held responsible, but hon. Members, not only on the other side of the House but also on this side.

  SUPPLEMENTARY RESERVE
  7.36 p.m.
  Mr. Hollis: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add:
  "This House deplores the absence of training facilities for the Royal Naval Volunteer (Supplementary) Reserve, which has resulted in the loss to the Royal Navy of a substantial number of trained reservists."
  I must begin with an apology to the House for being the beneficiary of what I think must be a unique bounty of good fortune. About 400 Members put down their names in the ballot in the hope of drawing one of the first four places. The odds are a hundred to one against drawing that place once. By an obvious mathmatical calculation the odds are about ten thousand to one against any
  1068
  hon. Member drawing first place for two years running. I do not know whether in the history of Parliament anyone has been so fortunate before, but that has been my good fortune here.
  I would begin by remarking that the Parliamentary Secretary showed himself in his speech to be something of a Janeite, not so much a student of "Jane's Fighting Ships" as a student of the works of Jane Austen. I can only recall to him and to hon. Members opposite the words of Mrs. Bennett, when she said that
  "when a person receives exceptional luck it is a proof that Providence approves of what he is doing."
  I hope that, bearing that in mind, he will agree with all that I shall ask him to agree with.
  I am raising a very small, definite and limited though important subject, not the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve in general, but the Royal Naval Volunteer (Supplementary) Reserve. As hon. Members doubtless know, the R.N.V.(S.)R. is at the moment little more than a list of officers—"dormant" is the word which the Admiralty have used—who can be called up in the event of an emergency, something like the Officers Emergency Reserve which some of us remember from before the war. One of the main reasons for the existence of this Supplementary Reserve is because, as the Parliamentary Secretary told us in his speech, recruiting for the Reserve in general has been by no means satisfactory, and the numbers of officers who have been recruited for the Reserve are greatly out of proportion to the numbers of other ranks. Therefore, it would not be possible to include in the R.N.V.R. all the officers who have offered themselves. Accordingly, a sort of waiting list has been created in the form of the R.N.V.(S.)R., which consists at the moment of between 7,000 and 7,500 members divided into 22 units.
  The general policy of the Admiralty towards the R.N.V.(S.)R. is to treat it as a dormant list, to refuse to give any money to it and to take the line that what money is available to be spent should rather be spent on the R.N.V.R.; and that when it becomes possible to train the present members of the Supplementary Reserve it would be better to give them their training by transferring them into the R.N.V.R. as that might become pos-

  1069
  sible, rather than to hold out any hopes of giving training to the R.N.V.(S.)R. as such.
  I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that that is a substantially accurate description of Admiralty policy. I want to make it clear that I am not challenging the general Admiralty policy towards the R.N.V.(S.)R. I am not asking the Admiralty to treat it as something entirely different from what, in point of fact, it is, but I am addressing my mind to the question whether within those limits, and accepting those limits, there is something rather more that we can do with it than is at present being done with it. The R.N.V.(S.)R. is, as I say, something like the pre-war Officers Emergency Reserve.
  I think we must all recognise that when enthusiastic people are anxious to offer themselves for service and at the same time it is not immediately easy to see to what Service they could be put, it is a great temptation, but a temptation that ought to be resisted by Service Departments, just to give them a list and tell them to write their names down on the list, let them go away and then think that one has got rid of them by doing that. That is a temptation, but it is a fatal temptation, because nothing is more likely to kill enthusiasm than by fobbing people off in that fashion. I think a good many of us remember that a good deal of disappointment was caused before the war by the treatment of the Officers Emergency Reserve in that way.
  I remember that I myself volunteered and heard nothing from the War Office for six months. Then I happened to be returning from the West Indies and, reaching Madeira, I received a letter from the War Office stating that they were unaware of my father's Christian names. I sent them my father's Christian names, and the last obstacle to international development had then apparently been removed, because the next day Hitler marched into Prague and all went ahead. I am not suggesting that if Hitler had been aware that the War Office knew my father's Christian names, that would have deterred him from his subsequent actions. What we have to try to address ourselves to is to see how, granted the nature of the R.N.V.(S.)R., we can improve upon our present method of maintaining interest and keenness in those men which at present is being so dangerously dissipated.
  1070
  I have a number of practical suggestions, and I shall be grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary if he will give us an answer to them. They are all small points; some are apparently trivial, but some are psychologically important, and some are of greater importance. The first is a small point, but is one about which some of these men have considerable feeling. These men have been officers; why should they not be allowed to call themselves officers, rather than members, as they are called at present?
  My second and more practical point is: at present no training facilities whatsoever are given by the Admiralty to these members. They have to get in touch with naval officers themselves, and see what private arrangements they can make for getting lectures given to them and other facilities granted to them. At certain places, notably at Portsmouth, they have received very considerable facilities. I should like to ask whether what has been done at Portsmouth might not also be done equally well at other places, so as to give more encouragement to them all over the country.
  My third point is to ask whether it is possible to arrange day cruises for these men on motor launches, motor gunboats or motor torpedo boats. It is highly probable that in the event of a future war, boats of this sort will be the only craft which will be able to sail in the North Sea or in the English Channel, and it is very desirable that these people should have a certain amount of sea experience on those boats during these intervening years. The advice which Gilbert gave in the last century, to
  "Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
  And you all may be Rulers of the Queen's Navee"
  was the advice which was given to politicians, but was not the advice which politicians were asked to impose on other people who were anxious to go to sea.
  My fourth point is that even when members of the R.N.V.(S.)R. arrange to go on board a ship, they cannot be appointed to that ship, and therefore they cannot do even the most pedestrian things such as taking part in watches in port and activities like that. Could not they be allowed to play some part in the life of the ship when they are able to get on a ship by their own arrangements? I am

  1071
  not challenging the general policy of the Admiralty or of the Government in not making this Service a substantial charge upon the taxpayer. I am accepting that policy. I think it is the right policy, but there is no reason why it should be applied in an absolutely pedantic and rigid form. There is no reason why, when they are on board ship, they should not be victualled and why they should have to pay their full messing expenses. There is no reason why they should not receive, if not travelling expenses, at least Service rates, when they go to this Service which they are themselves voluntarily undertaking.
  Then again, if we turn to the Navy Estimates we read:
  "In addition to the Naval Reserves specified in the subheads for which financial provision has been made, there are the Royal Naval Volunteer Supplementary Reserve, The Royal Naval Emergency Reserve, the Royal Marine Emergency Reserve, and the Women's Royal Naval Reserve. In these reserves there is no training commitment and consequently there is no financial liability in connection with them."
  That is all. It is a somewhat negative and chilly and not very constructive policy, that they should be dismissed in that single sentence. I am not asking for a substantial grant of money towards them, but it would be a good thing if a token vote could be given to this Service so that it could appear in the Navy Estimates.
  Again, cannot such training as they arrange for themselves, whether it be on merchant ships or on naval vessels, be recognised as reservist training? If it were recognised as reservist training, it would then be much easier for them to get their fortnight's holiday with pay from their employers, which sometimes they can get and sometimes they cannot get, according to the taste and fancy of their employers. Incidentally, so far as I can make out, of all employers the most difficult are Government departments in granting them this opportunity for recognised reserve training. So much for the purely naval personnel of the R.N.V.(S.)R.
  I now want to say a few words about the aspect of the Service in which I am particularly interested, and that is the air section of the R.N.V.(S.)R. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr.
  1072
  Langford-Holt) has referred to the Fleet Air Arm, and the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) spoke of the Fleet Air Arm Reserve. Naturally, I should be out of Order if I discussed the whole problems of the Fleet Air Arm in general or, indeed, of the Fleet Air Arm Reserve in general, but the position as regards the Reserve is that at present there are four R.N.V.R. squadrons. That is not very much. It means that there are about 100 pilots; 100 pilots merely means about 4 per cent. of the naval pilots who were trained during the war, and it is a serious and a sad situation that the country should be allowing this enormously and important asset to run to waste.
  For that reason, and in the hope of preventing it, the R.N.V.(S.)R. formed its own air section which has more members than the R.N.V.R. air section. They have 850 members. Far from asking anything of the country, they are willing to pay £1 a year each for the privilege of being members of the R.N.V.(S.)R. The objects which they have set out for themselves in their statement are these: (1) to promote interest in all aspects of aviation and to foster enthusiasm and efficiency in all aeronautical matters amongst its members in collaboration with the Air Division, Admiralty; (2) to enable members of the R.N.V.(S.)R. who served with the Fleet Air Arm during the war to keep up to date with naval flying duties; (3) to provide facilities for members of the R.N.V.(S.)R. wishing to learn to fly ("A" licence standard); (4) to enable members of the R.N.V.(S.)R. in possession of civil licences, but who did not serve with the Air Arm during the war, to be trained in naval flying duties; (5) to enable members of the R.N.V.(S.)R. interested in ground duties in support of flying personnel to be trained; (6) to provide opportunities for members of the R.N.V.(S.)R. to visit aircraft carriers, naval air stations, civil airports, air displays, exhibitions, etc.
  Those are six admirable and desirable patriotic objectives, but to none of them have the Admiralty made any contribution whatsoever. Without interfering in the least with the general policy of the Fleet Air Arm there is no reason why certain facilities for flying should not be given to these people. It is said, "Where are the aeroplanes?" The Ministry of Supply are willing to supply Tiger Moths. It is true that the Admi-

  1073
  ralty have said that the Tiger Moth is no use, but the Royal Air Force, who are entitled to an opinion about what is useful when it comes to flying aeroplanes, think the Tiger Moth is useful. After all, one is likely to learn more about aeronautics through flying the Tiger Moth than by walking on the ground. The Tiger Moth must be better than nothing.
  Then there is the question of maintenance. A number of naval officers have said that if they were allowed to do so by the Admiralty, they could be of great assistance in the maintenance of the Tiger Moths. If they are not allowed to do so then members of the R.N.V.(S.)R. are willing to use the facilities of flying clubs to keep the Tiger Moths in the air. They are not in a position to pay the full fee of the private flyers but are willing to pay up to 25s. an hour, which is a considerable sacrifice when we realise that they are not doing it for their own amusement but entirely out of patriotic motives. The Admiralty give no encouragement, and the result, is that 100 have resigned and joined the R.A.F.V.R. I am myself a member, of the Royal Air Force, and it is gratifying to me to learn that gallant naval officers are joining the ranks of the R.A.F. But from the national point of view I think no one can welcome the news that people whose natural loyalty is to the Navy are in despair transferring themselves to the Air Force.
  These are suggestions by which, within limits which I understand and accept. the Admiralty can show more imagination than they have shown up to the present. Instead of letting the enthusiasm of the gallant and patriotic people dissipate they can preserve their keenness and enhance the strength of the Navy against the day of adversity. I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of this comparatively limited subject; I do not want too much to be made of it; but at the same time, I do not want too little to be made of it. It is far more than a question of 7,500 men. The Parliamentary Secretary said earlier today that it was difficult to get people to join the Reserve. That being so, this is the worst time for the Admiralty to pursue a policy which advertises the fact that they are not making the best use of the keenness and patriotism of these volunteers. The good effect of a keener, positive and more imaginative policy would stretch far beyond the
  1074
  boundaries of the R.N.V.(S.)R. itself, even as the bad effect of a negative and unimaginative policy causes despair and spreads disillusion far beyond the boundaries of the R.N.V.(S.)R. itself.
  In a Debate in another place a fortnight ago a number of noble Lords raised the question of this Service. The reply of the First Lord of the Admiralty, which was confined almost to one sentence was brief, negative and depressing. Matters cannot rest where they are; we must have a more imaginative policy, and I hope the Government will take this opportunity to announce that more imaginative policy tonight.
  7.56 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Marshall: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The Amendment has been moved ably and eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) and I second it with some hesitancy because I am a member of this force myself and declare my interest in the matter. I feel sure that Members opposite will, however, realise that the points I wish to make are purely in the national interest, and would be made in exactly the same way whether I was a member of that force or not. My hon. Friend has, I think, left little for me to say. Perhaps the Minister of Defence will remember that I raised this matter in October, 1945, that is to say, just two months after the cessation of hostilities with Japan. At that time I made a point of the R.N.V.(S.)R. being resuscitated in the national interest. I said it would be to the benefit of the nation if that was done. The right hon. Gentleman, who at that time was First Lord of the Admiralty, said in reply:
  "The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that sufficient modern equipment and ships will be available for training purposes when a decision on the future of the Reserve has been taken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 411.]
  I pressed the right hon. Gentleman on this point through 1946 and through 1947. If, arising out of the few remarks I have to make, it may be suggested that I am putting a further burden on the Navy Estimates I would like also to refer to what I said on 18th March, 1947:
  "Most of the comments and criticisms are on the question of why so much money is wanted for this or that purpose. I am not

  1075
  going to make criticism of why the amount is so much, but why it is so small."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 261.]
  It is true that in the admirable White Paper which is before us today there are the words:
  "No provision is necessary for the recently created Royal Naval and Royal Marine Emergency Reserves since enrolment in these reserves does not involve either peace-time training, or payment of retainers or bounties."
  We know that to be the case, but what we are trying to do is to see whether, within those narrow boundaries a little more can be done to benefit the Royal Navy by utilising to the full the immediate volunteering of all these men.
  How can that be brought about. It would appear that where these units have been formed—and a goodly number have already been formed by the enterprise, the wish and the will of men who have volunteered—the commanders-in-chief, when they try to do as much as possible within the conditions laid down by the Admiralty, may find themselves in a difficulty. If they wish to put a room at the disposal of the men, then comes the question how to get chairs and tables, and the nuts and bolts for the unit to work with. Under the rigid rule which is laid down at present, in no circumstances must a single penny be borne upon the Vote. The restriction against which the commanders-in-chief find themselves is impossible to get over. It may seem absurd when I mention such things as chairs and tables, but what I have said is true.
  There are other points to which we should address our minds. There is the question of going afloat during the weekend, to be able, for example, to tour the Royal Dockyards. There are other suggestions I could make in order that they might be considered with a view to the men concerned being made to feel that they are part of the Service which they have volunteered to join. Is it not possible, at bases where there are recreational facilities for sports like cricket and rugger, for these men to join in the games? It would make them feel that they were part of the Royal Navy. It is psychological factors of that kind that make very much difference. Such is the position, however, that owing to shortage if the men even want to buy an R.N.V.(S.)R. tie they cannot obtain one. There is nothing to make them feel part
  1076
  of the Navy, except the urge which made them want to join it.
  Surely it would be possible without any fuss to utilise these men in the recruitment programme? Here they are, volunteers. I should have thought they could be used. In the "Bulletin" which is issued to members of one unit of the R.N.V.(S.)R. one sees that the Admiralty sends a message. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Admiralty could not circulate that message to every member of the R.N.V.(S.)R.? If not, why not? Even if 7,000 copies had to be duplicated, the cost would not be very much. Why should this message apply only to one unit? Is there any reason, moreover, why the Admiralty should not notify yacht clubs asking them to give honorary membership to R.N.V.(S.)R.'s so that they could use the facilities and thereby freshen up their knowledge of small boats? These are times when people cannot afford to go on paying out money themselves, but it might be helpful if they could take advantage of the facilities that the Admiralty might get for them. Joining in regattas might be of very great advantage to the R.N.V.(S.)R.
  My last point concerns fishery protection vessels. Members of the R.N.V.(S.)R. would no doubt like to take advantage of the great opportunities that exist in our seaports for getting to know more about these vessels. Again and again I have asked in this House whether we have a sufficient number of these vessels. We know that we have not. I am not going into that question now, as it would not be right to do so on this Amendment. Is it not possible to give the R.N.V.(S.)R. some experience in these matters and thereby to give full value to their knowledge, and also to bring out the fact that the fishery protection vessels are of great value to our fishing fleets? In that way I think we should all secure great benefit.
  When I asked in October, 1945, for the resuscitation of the R.N.V.(S.)R., I put to the right hon. Gentleman the point that if something were not done fairly quickly on the question of reinstating this force, their uniforms would get moth-eaten and wasted. We know that that has happened, and the point I am now going to make applies to the Royal Navy as a whole as well as to the R.N.V.(S.)R. These articles of necessary uniform should be freed of Purchase Tax.

  1077
  In expressing my great pleasure and privilege in seconding this Amendment, I wish to assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that without any question at all you would find the R.N.V.(S.)R. always willing and proud to serve the Royal Navy. All that is required is that they should be given the facilities so to serve.
  8.8 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If I may presume to say so, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) have rendered a useful service in drawing attention to the important question of training facilities for the R.N.V.(S.)R. and for the Navy as a whole. I have in my possession a copy of the communication that was issued by the Admiralty in January, 1946, in which it was indicated that the Admiralty were anxious to foster the teaching of radio technique by educational establishments, particularly in relation to radar. It is clear that there is a great need in all the services for people with high technical qualifications who can keep themselves up to date with recent developments in radar technique and other scientific methods used at the present time.
  In January, 1946, the Admiralty were considering how to assist with the necessary equipment those who might be interested in providing those training facilities. For that purpose a letter was addressed to educational establishments of various kinds up and down the country in which they were invited to set out, for the information of the Director of Radio Equipment at the Admiralty, details of the equipment that would be required. The Admiralty, of course, made it clear at the time that it was not possible to indicate on what terms the equipment, if supplied, could be made available. I quote the actual words of the communication:
  "It is generally the intention that supplies should be on such terms as to stimulate an added interest in the teaching of these subjects."
  It so happens that in my constituency there is a school for telegraphy. It has been in existence now for some 43 years and was one of the institutions which received this circular communication to which I have referred. The recipients of this communication were asked to communicate with the Admiralty within 30 days. My constituent, who is the
  1078
  principal of this school, did so, and received no reply to his letter. He sent a reminder 14 days subsequently and to that he received no reply, not even a formal acknowledgment. That was three years ago. The other day, to his surprise, he discovered that the Admiralty had actually supplied radar equipment for instructional purposes to four institutions, the University College at Southampton, the Technical School at Hull, the Marine School at South Shields, and the Nautical College at Leith. My constituent, and I do not blame him for feeling so strongly on the subject, is somewhat annoyed by the treatment he has received.
  During the war, as the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, wireless operators were sadly needed by the Admiralty and private training schools made a very valuable contribution towards the needs that manifested themselves at that time. These private schools readily came to the assistance of the Government and did their utmost to help the Admiralty and the Service Departments generally to get out of the difficulty in which they were placed. It appears that there has been some negligence or carelessness or lack of initiative on the part of the authorities in connection with this need to stimulate interest in the various technical requirements, both of the Navy, and of the other Services. I hope that my hon. Friend will look into this aspect of the matter. It seems to me to be most important that provision should be made for whatever interest there may be in various parts of the country and a ready opportunity given for that interest to be satisfied. In that way a useful contribution could he made towards the encouragement and continued training of people who would be a very useful acquisition to the Reserve Forces of the Crown.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Beechman: I wish to support the Amendment. I have asked in the House and outside, and I have even asked myself, in the hope of getting some sort of an intelligent reply, why nothing is done about these Naval Reserves. The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) has spoken about one form of Reserve, and we have heard about the others. I have the greatest liking and respect for the Admiralty and the Navy, as we all have,

  1079
  but it does seem that the Admiralty is here throwing to the winds a very great deal of enthusiasm which might be utilised.
  I remember on one occasion seeing a fisherman going off to a conscientious objectors' tribunal. I asked him what was his conscientious objection, and he said he was going to state that he had a conscientious objection to joining anything except the Navy. That is very much the feeling with which I am familiar in this matter. I wish to pay a tribute to what the Admiralty has done. The other day we had a visit from the "Anson" and everybody was delighted. Sir Rhoderick MacGrigor came to St. Ives. We also had the splendid frigate, the "Tremadoc Bay," which came to Mounts Bay. There was great enthusiasm, and everyone was most proud of that visit. But what happened? The enthusiasm which had been engendered was allowed to dissipate in a most extraordinary way. There are so many people, not only members of yacht clubs—we are not all interested in regattas—but fishermen, who are anxious to be associated with the Royal Naval Reserve.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Dugdale: I am very appreciative of the spirit in which this Amendment has been moved, and I assure hon. Members that we are not at all unmindful of the fine work that has been done in the past by these officers, nor of their public spiritedness in coming forward and joining the R.N.V.(S.)R. I do not think that the position is quite as bad as the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) made out. I sympathise with him very much over his problem about his father's Christian names, but unfortunately that has nothing to do with the Admiralty. I may say that I had difficulty when I attempted to enter the R.N.V.R. I was told I had no yachting experience and so I was forced to join another Service instead.
  We are doing a certain amount for these officers. I admit that it is not as much as we should like to do and it is quite obvious that hon. Members would like us to do more. There are some small but important things that we are doing. In the first place, there are special identity cards which enable them to visit ships and naval establishments which it is
  1080
  not possible for the ordinary civilian, or somebody who is not a member of the R.N.V.(S.)R. to visit. The second thing is that they can attend lectures on gunnery, aircraft recognition, radar, meteorology, and lectures on other subjects are arranged. The third thing is that from time to time they have opportunities of going in warships. These arrangements are made locally through each individual commanding officer, but quite a number of members of the R.N.V.(S.)R. can and have made these arrangements, and we should like to encourage them so far as circumstances permit. I would add that the position was the same before the war as it is now. Evidently the Admiralty then experienced the same difficulties as it is now experiencing.
  The difficulties are very simple. We have a certain amount of butter to spread and we have to spread it very carefully. We feel that, by and large, these men are trained; they may not be trained as much as we should like, or as much as they would like, but they are trained to a far greater degree than other men whom we have to train. We therefore have to give them less training in order that we may give other men and other officers more training. In the first place we have to see that we give as much as possible to the R.N.V.R. so that that can be developed to the greatest possible extent. Only when that is done can we then give all the training that we should like to give to the R.N.V.(S.)R.
  We fully appreciate the way in which these men have allowed their names to go forward to join the organisation. We appreciate also the spirit in which this Amendment has been moved. A very large number of important suggestions have been made. I could not possibly reply in detail; that would take a very long time. However, we shall give them every possible consideration, but I cannot promise any immediate change. As hon. Members know, my noble Friend spoke on this subject only a few days ago in another place.
  Commander Maitland: Might I make a suggestion? The hon. Gentleman says that he cannot reply in detail now. Might he not perhaps reply by letter to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) so that he might know what is the decision of the Admiralty on these matters? That course is often taken.
  Mr. Dugdale: By all means. I am perfectly willing to do that. I do not dismiss the suggestions but they are detailed and, if that is a method which the hon. Gentleman would prefer, I shall write to him and also to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall).
  Mr. D. Marshall: Instead of writing to me, would it not be possible, as the Royal Navy interests all hon. Members, to have the reply printed in HANSARD?
  Mr. Dugdale: I do not think that that would be possible. I think that a much better way would be for me to write to the hon. Member. If the hon. Member is not satisfied with my reply he can put down a Question or take other action which is open to hon. Members.
  In fact, we are paying attention to these matters. We have received a number of valuable suggestions this evening, but this is not easy and I cannot hold out any promise that a lot will be done very soon. As a result of this Debate we realise the strong feeling that there is on this matter and we shall do out utmost to satisfy hon. Members.
  Mr. Hollis: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, can he not say something about the problem of the air section?
  Mr. Dugdale: That is really the same as the problem of the sea section. There is no great difference. In both cases there are men who want to be trained and who want to be embodied either in the sea service or the air service, though they are, of course, all one Service. We want the men to get all the training possible. I realise that it is unfortunate if these men have to leave the R.N.V.R. (Air) and join the R.A.F.V.R. Naturally, we have not got all the facilities, such as airfields, which the R.A.F. possess. We are using the facilities which we have for the R.N.V.R. If in any way we can extend the facilities for members of the R.N.V.(S.)R. to get practice in aviation we shall be only too glad to do so, but we are faced with exactly the same problems in the air as we are on the sea.
  That is why I did not refer specifically to that problem. I simply treated it as one of the problems with which we are faced and as one of the suggestions which we shall consider in detail. I am sorry that I really cannot say more than that now. J receive this Amendment in a
  1082
  friendly spirit and I hope that as a result of this discussion we shall be able to put forward various suggestions, though naturally I cannot promise anything definite at the moment.
  Mr. Hollis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: This Debate on the Naval Estimates has taken place in a somewhat different atmosphere from that which we experienced during the same Debate last year. On that occasion we were treated to one of those flashing raids from the Leader of the Opposition, one of those raids which always leave the Opposition in such a state of discomfiture. It has been a very different state of affairs today when the right hon. Gentleman has been absent, and a very different attitude has been presented by those who have spoken from the Opposition Front Bench. What happened a year ago was that there had been considerable criticism of the Admiralty by those on the Front Bench opposite who are supposed to be experts on naval matters, but the Leader of the Opposition turned up and contradicted all the arguments that had been used during the previous four or five months by his fellow spokesmen on these matters. In fact, the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition last year had such a destructive effect on his right hon. Friends that they were not quite sure whether they were in Bournemouth or Bikini. It was, therefore, a most remarkable display.
  It is an extraordinary state of affairs that after a Debate of such violence and heat a year ago we should have had a Debate of such a quiet nature today. The Opposition have come forward and congratulated the Admiralty on everything that has been done. They have told us in what a high state of efficiency the Admiralty have kept the Navy. They have paid tributes to the efficiency shown in the activities which have taken place during the past few months. It seems that a remarkable transformation has taken place in the past year. I think that all those tributes to the Admiralty are very well deserved.

  1083
  The truth of the matter is that the Opposition have never had a clear idea of what was meant by a demobilisation programme for the Navy at the end of the war. Last year we had the extraordinary state of affairs that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) was complaining because the demobilisation had been too fast, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was complaining because it had not been swift enough. I am glad to see that they have been able to reconcile those differences. The truth is that in carrying out the demobilisation of the Navy and reducing its strength from something just under one million to the figure at which it stands today, the Admiralty have carried through very smoothly and with considerable skill a most difficult task. They deserve the applause which has come from all sides of the House on that matter today. I am glad to add my compliments on the skill with which the Admiralty have carried through this task. I do that partly because I think that the compliments are true and partly because I do not propose to continue the rest of my speech in such a complimentary tone.
  There is another reference which I wish to make to matters discussed by the hon. Member for Hereford. He referred to the question of the barracks in Devon-port and elsewhere. As a reason for nothing having been done about these quarters in the past when the hon. Member and his party were in charge of affairs, he seemed to advance the excuse that in any case the Labour Party had voted against the Naval Estimates and therefore they could not be expected to have gone ahead to deal with the barracks and to provide decent quarters. That is not a very powerful argument. Of course, the Opposition know perfectly well that these Amendments on the Naval Estimates were put down by the Labour Party in the period before the war as a protest against the foreign policy of the Government of the day and also as a protest against the disrepute into which the party opposite had brought the British Navy.
  One of the troubles with the Conservative Party is that its members were not taught very much history at the public schools they attended. If they had
  1084
  known a little more history, they would have known that the British Navy has suffered some of the worst periods of its life under Tory Administrations. From the days of Charles II to those of Neville Chamberlain, the Navy has always had to look with a very careful eye on the conduct of Tory Administrations. It was a protest against the disrepute into which the Conservative Party had allowed the British Navy to fall in 1935, when they were not even prepared to stand up to Mussolini, that the Labour Party voted as it did.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Would the hon. Gentleman like to explain to the House his own attitude during that period? Was he not agitating at that time to get total disarmament?
  Mr. Foot: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been misinformed. I was not engaged in agitation of that kind at all, but was agitating to ensure that we should prevent the war which actually happened, and one of the ways in which I think we might have prevented it was if the British Government of that time had placed a higher reliance upon the capacity of the British Navy. I think it was perfectly possible for the Government to have stood up to Mussolini, to have imposed sanctions against Italy and thereby to have prevented the war from occurring at all.
  I do not think it was an adequate excuse for not going ahead with reorganisation and rebuilding, or providing new naval barracks, to suggest that the Labour Party had voted against the Naval Estimates. I am glad there is pressure in the House on that subject today, and also that the question of married quarters has been raised. I hope the Admiralty may also be able to give us some information on the subject of the period of foreign service, because I would say that that is the major grievance which exists amongst naval people and people now serving in the Royal Navy. We had a statement from the Admiralty two years ago that they were looking into this question eagerly and closely, and that, as soon as possible, they would reduce the period of foreign service. I do not know whether they can tell us more about it today. I realise there are considerable difficulties, but I hope the Admiralty will always keep in mind the desirability of

  1085
  reducing effectively, as soon as they can, the period of foreign service of men serving in the Royal Navy.
  The matter to which I wish to direct my chief attention and that of the House tonight concerns the Royal Dockyards. I imagine that the Admiralty might have supposed that they would have a pretty easy run from the representatives of the Royal Dockyards in this House on this occasion, because the money is being increased and because employment is being increased. Because of those facts, it looks as if there is going to be a better opportunity of easing some of the unemployment that exists in some dockyard towns, and it might even have been expected by the Admiralty that we who represent constituencies containing dockyards would rise in this House and say "Thank you" in unison, and leave the matter there.
  I want to say, as the representative of a dockyard town, that we are not content. Just because the Admiralty have been successful in squeezing more money out of the Treasury does not mean that they have faced the real problem of reorganisation and overhaul which they should face in dealing with the dockyards. I think that the policy they must apply to the dockyards is that which was laid down by the Parliamentary Secretary when he opened the Debate, and when he said that every penny must be examined and they must take the greatest possible care in examining how they spent the money which was made available for them by the Treasury.
  One of the features of the Estimates this year is that there is a further big cut in the provision made for the repayment or commercial work in dockyards. There was a big cut last year from more than 4,000 men engaged on commercial work to about 2,400, and in these Estimates, in effect, the number of persons in the dockyards to be employed on repayment work will be reduced to negligible proportions. I am sure that that fact makes the Admirals very happy, but it does not make me very happy. Everyone must agree that the main work of the Royal Dockyards must be concerned with the repair or construction of naval vessels, but I should think it was equally obvious that, however great and important the amount of repairs to be done in the Royal Navy, the numbers of persons whom it is
  1086
  desirable to employ, or to have available for employment, on repairs in peace-time cannot be as large as the number it is obviously desirable to have available for repairs and construction in war time.
  I had, of course, thought that the idea of introducing the repayment and commercial work was to maintain in the Royal Dockyards a pool of labour engaged on useful work for the country, a pool which could be turned over to full war-time production in times of necessity. I am, therefore, somewhat distressed at the severe reduction which has been made in this proposed repayment work. The scheme was introduced only three years ago, but it is now to be curtailed very severely. My fears are increased because it is my belief, and I am sure it is the belief of the great mass of the workers in the dockyards, that the admirals themselves were never very keen on this repayment work. I think there is a fear that they have now jumped at the opportunity provided by the extra money from the Treasury to do away with it to a great extent.
  It does stand to reason that we will need a bigger force engaged solely on naval work in wartime than in peacetime, and therefore this reduction of the repayment work means that either we will not have the numbers required in, war-time working in the dockyards, or, alternatively, when less money is provided by the Treasury, it may be difficult to start up again the kind of repayment and commercial work which I think is necessary to maintain the numbers required in the dockyards. We had a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech today that, if the necessity arose, they might reinstate the repayment scheme, but I do not think there has ever been created in the dockyards, in the three years during which this scheme has been in operation, a real belief that the Admiralty were making the best of it and pushing it as much as they might do.
  This brings me to my main contention which I want to put to the Admiralty, which is that if, in fact, the Royal Dockyards were more efficiently organised, it would be possible for them to do more repair work and retain the commercial and repayment work at the same time. Whatever may be said by the Civil Lord or his officials, nine people out of ten in

  1087
  Devonport Dockyard would agree with me. We have been battering away at the Civil Lord on this subject for three years, and I thank him for the courtesy and patience which he has shown, for the great work which he has done for the dockyards in many directions, and for the constant help which he has given to hon. Members representing the dockyards, but I do not thank him for his activity in this respect. We have been battering away at the Admiralty on this subject for a long time without getting much response.
  We have asked, in each Debate on the Naval Estimates, for an independent inquiry into the work of the dockyards and for a working party which would examine the facts. In response to that request, we have seen the Civil Lord, the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Minister of Defence each in turn giving a plausible imitation of Mr. Molotov. I hope that recent events will act as a warning to them. We did get a concession a year ago, when we were told by the Civil Lord, in answer to a Question, that he was setting up a small committee to examine the commercial working of the dockyards, but it was a Committee which was permitted only to deal with one department in the dockyards, and it had no powers to examine the question of general efficiency throughout the dockyards. It was a committee composed of three distinguished gentlemen who were supposed to conduct an examination into the engineering department alone. That Committee visited Devon-port Dockyard for exactly one day and only two out of the three distinguished men who were appointed to the Committee turned up. None of the workers was asked to give evidence to that Committee, and so far as I know nobody knows what has happened to their report.
  I do not think that is a very satisfactory state of affairs. We all know the story of the blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which is not there. Believe me, for sheer organised futility that scene has nothing on a departmental committee set up by the Admiralty to discover whether their Lordships are properly doing a job which, in any case, they do not want to do. That is what we are faced with in this situation. I think that my hon.
  1088
  Friend's Committee has probably done more harm than good because it has increased the frustration among workers in the dockyards. It is a really serious situation when there is a group of patriotic men, as they all are in the Royal Dockyards—and in this I am sure that my fellow dockyard Members would agree with me—who have been saying for three years, "We believe we could do more work for the nation." Surely when they go on saying that year after year, and when they say, "We really must have the opportunity of trying to see whether we cannot organise this job better," it is right that the Admiralty should take more notice.
  Although we have not had a real committee examining this question, we have been able to lift one corner of the veil. It was not thanks to the Admiralty that we were able to do that, but thanks to the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, Cmd. 200, which was presented to the House of Commons last July. I congratulate hon. Members of this House who were members of that Select Committee and who put several questions to the Admiralty which support some of the things which we have been trying to present to the Admiralty for so long. Although this Committee was only examining the work of naval establishments in connection with the production and export drive, what they reveal does cast a light on the whole organisation of the Royal Dockyards. Perhaps I might first quote the conclusion of the Committee which is not directly concerned with my main argument. At any rate, the conclusion reached by this Committee about repayment work was quite different from that reached by the Admiralty before. Having cross-examined the Admiralty, the Committee suggested that an effort should be made to maintain the repayment work and to keep it going. That was their main conclusion. But I am more interested in the questions which were put to the representatives of the Admiralty by the members of that Select Committee and in the answers that were given.
  One of the main arguments we have always used with the Admiralty in this respect is that we suspect that the costs are not so low as they could be if there was a more efficient organisation. The Admiralty have always replied, "We

  1089
  think our costs compare very well with the costs in private yards, and therefore there is nothing to be alarmed about." But let us look at some of the answers given in this discussion. For instance, one member of the Committee asked the representative of the Admiralty:
  "Do you know how the costs of the work carried out in the Admiralty dockyards compare with the costs of similar work carried out by private contractors?"
  The answer was:
  "No, I am afraid we have not got that information."
  That seems to me an extraordinary answer. Another member of the Select Committee went on to say—and I congratulate him on it:
  "That does raise rather an important general question, surely, in order to provide a satisfactory answer to which we ought to have some sort of documentary evidence, I should have thought. Would it not be possible, Mr. Chairman, to find, either by information given to us from the Department or by inquiries made in other directions, typical examples of work which interests not only the Dockyards but outside firms, and compare quotations or costings with the eventually approved costs after the work has been done."
  I should have thought that was a simple process and certainly one which should have been carried through, but in the answers given to the Select Committee there was no indication that the Admiralty had made any such real examination about costs. Later on in their replies they go even further. The question was again put, on page 57:
  "You have no knowledge at all of how your prices in fact do compare with a commercial basis?"
  The answer was:
  "Not with the rejected prices of somebody else or of the actual costs of somebody else."
  Very naturally, the member went on to say, "Well, if you do not know exactly how your costs do compare, then how do you know what is your profit and loss account on this general repayment work you have been undertaking." The question was:
  "If we could cover the whole of the work we have been discussing this afternoon, this non-service work, are you in a position to say what the profit and loss account is?"
  The answer is:
  "I think that would be very difficult, Sir. I would say on the whole we probably would come out about even."
  It does not seem to me to be a satisfactory state of affairs that the representative of the Admiralty, when cross-examined
  1090
  about this work, should say, "We probably break about even, but we are not quite sure about it." That seems to me to be a state of affairs that discloses a situation in which something ought to be done.
  There are very extraordinary replies given in this document. One of the questions, for instance, about which the Admiralty are concerned, is recruitment of skilled workers in the dockyards. They say they have been having some difficulty in getting all the skilled workers and apprentices they want. It is explained by the representative of the Admiralty to the Select Committee that one of the difficulties is that they now have to compete more with some outside firms and organisations.
  Finally, at the end of this discussion, as to how the dockyards are to recruit apprentices in the future in order to provide the skilled men they will need, the question is put:
  "Can you suggest any way in which they [the dockyards] can be made more attractive?"
  The answer is:
  "No. With all the experience I have, I cannot suggest anything."
  That, again, seems an extraordinary state of affairs, when the representative of the Admiralty cannot suggest how they are to deal with the failure to recruit apprentices which they will need in order to maintain skilled workers in the dockyard.
  We could go on to other statements made in this Report. Questions were asked, for instance, about the establishment system. I am very glad that a change has been made in that system, and I congratulate the Admiralty on that. But certainly the representative of the Admiralty who appeared before the Select Committee did not seem to understand how the failure in the past to deal with the establishment system had acted as a very big brake on the recruitment of people to the dockyards. Again, further questions were asked by this Committee about a subject which causes great interest in the dockyards, whether it is really a right and proper thing that a great business organisation—for that is what the dockyards are—should, in fact, be under the sole control of the Admiralty. The question was asked about how admiral superintendents were appointed. I am not making a criticism

  1091
  of any admiral superintendent, and have no desire to do so.
  This is a matter of general principle. One of the Members of the Committee asked how long an admiral superintendent would remain in charge of a Royal Dockyard carrying out the work of constructing the vessels we need, and the answer was, "Four to five years." The questioner went on,
  "So that continuity is not maintained beyond that period?"
  The answer was "No," and that apparently is a principle which the Admiralty are quite ready to accept. Take again the question of how this repayment and commercial work was obtained for the dockyards. In replies given in the Select Committee it is admitted that they did not have any organisation really to go out to discover whether they could get more work, but were quite content to do it in what I think can only be described by anyone reading these answers as a most haphazard fashion.
  This is the only kind of inquiry which has been made, so far as I know, in recent years into the organisation of the Royal Dockyards. It occupied a matter of an hour or two's cross-examination before the Select Committee. I suggest that that is not good enough, because this is a great business in which, as was admitted by the representative of the Admiralty before the Select Committee, they have no particular ideas about recruitment of apprentices in the future; it is a great organisation which took up commercial work three years ago and which now, in effect, is to drop it; it is a great organisation which according to these statements had no real comparison of costs for repayment work between Royal Dockyards and commercial firms; it is a great organisation which is in the main controlled by persons who have not primarily been trained for their industrial efficiency; it is a great organisation in which a deep-seated frustration does exist amongst the workers who are engaged in that industry; and it is a great organisation into which, as I said, no kind of inquiry has been made for generations.
  I suggest it is high time we really discovered whether we are getting full value for the money which is spent on the Royal Dockyard and I suggest that
  1092
  the only way in which we can do that is to have an independent inquiry, a working party, such as we had in the case of the cotton industry and other industries. I believe all hon. Members will agree that those working parties produced most valuable reports. They produced reports which gave an insight into the inefficiencies in some of those industries. The cotton industry and the pottery industry and other industries have been subject to many inquiries, many more than have been made into the Royal Dockyards.
  The fact is—and tribute was paid to this fact earlier in the Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu)—that the Admiralty are, second only to the Treasury, if second to the Treasury at all, the most powerful Department in this country. It is one of the closest corporations in the land. Talk about a closed shop! This is an industry with an iron curtain around it, and I suggest, therefore, that we must have the power to break through that iron curtain and see really what is going on. If the Admiralty are so content with the situation, as they have said to us they are content, I am sure the working party will provide another encomium for the occupants of the Front Bench and they will have nothing to worry about, but if in fact an independent inquiry which really went into the organisation of this great industry were to produce a report saying that behind the monastic walls of Devonport Dockyard, the Admiralty has for years been conducting a busy, active, 100 per cent. efficient, streamlined organisation—if the report were to say that, I can assure the hon. Member that there is no one who would be more surprised than the people of Plymouth. They could not be more surprised if they woke up tomorrow morning and discovered that the directors of Plymouth Argyle had just spent £30,000 buying Stanley Matthews.
  I therefore suggest quite seriously to the Admiralty that when this demand is going on as persistently as it has been going on, it is really time that they should consider whether they should not have the examination we have asked for. It is an examination which can assist the Admiralty in doing the work they want to do—building the efficient Royal Navy we want in this country.
  8.54 p.m.
  Captain Marsden: The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) made his customary start, full of venom and inaccuracy. After that he settled down to a very interesting talk on Plymouth Dockyard. If a committee such as he suggests found that the dockyard was working very well and the system was efficient, I do not think for one moment he would be satisfied with that.
  I return to an early remark which he made about this side of the House suffering a transformation in their views on the Navy Estimates since last year. That is partially correct. But we had something to be surprised about. Twelve months ago we did not know what Navy we had. We were suspicious that we had very few ships in commission. Eventually, a paragraph appeared in the Press saying that the Home Fleet, consisting of one cruiser and four destroyers, was under way and going south to Gibraltar. Naturally, we were alarmed. We on this side of the House have always believed in parading our naval strength. Unfortunately, the party opposite, during the time they have been in power, have had to take a quite different line and devote their, publicity, such as it is, to concealing our weakness. That is admitted. That is admitted by the Minister of Defence. The White Paper issued last week says about the recent cruise to the West Indies that it is
  "an encouraging sign of the recovery of our own naval strength."
  There is the Minister of Defence talking of our recovering our naval strength From what are we recovering? We are recovering from our naval weakness. High time for that, too. Of course we are pleased, and, of course, our views this year are slightly more enthusiastic than they were last year.
  I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary can complain about the speeches made after he started the Debate. Of course, there was the usual extraordinary comment by the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey). I will only say about that, that of all the people I have heard talking about the Navy, including people who have served in the Navy, he is the only one—and mind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Navy treated him pretty well—he is the only
  1094
  one who has not a single nice thing to say about it. It was such a relief to hear the hon.—and the gallant—Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), who served both on the lower deck and as an officer and, who, although he had several comments to make, some of them quite strong, yet drew an agreeable picture of naval life. He, as he said, does not regret a moment of the time that he spent in the Navy.
  There are, of course, awful difficulties aboard a man-of-war, especially a small one. The naval constructor has to consult so many interests. First there is the gunnery department. There is so much room required for that department. Then the engineers need so much room in which to get up a ship's speed. Other departments clamour for room too, including, of course, the navigating department. The naval constructor has to meet the problem of satisfying all those needs. We know what the difference is said to be between a big French passenger ship and a big English passenger ship. The French passenger ship is said to be a hotel with a hull built around it, whereas the English are said to construct a passenger ship by building a hull and putting a hotel inside it. The naval constructor building a man-of-war has to build both, has to do both things. But we must never forget that the efficiency of the ship comes first. First the requirements of efficiency must be met, and then with the space that is left over, the naval constructor must do what he can to provide for the ship's company to eat, sleep, and wash. That is his job. The better the constructor we get, the better the job will be done.
  One of our difficulties in latter years has been that we have not paid sufficient attention to the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors. Witness has been given to that by almost every high officer that we have, including Admiral of the Fleet Lord Cunningham. We have had a committee on this matter. Their report has been in the Admiralty for some time. Why it has not been published already, goodness only knows. I assume it is because of the customary fight between the Admiralty and the Treasury. Apparently, the Treasury is very strong and the Admiralty not quite so strong. However, unless we pay these men properly and make their posts worth while, we shall

  1095
  not get the best men. If the recommendations of the committee are carried out, we shall be quite certain, I think, that the strength of the Corps will be very much strengthened and improved.
  The Parliamentary Secretary quite rightly—because this is in everybody's mind—spoke of the conditions of the men serving afloat and ashore. I shall not say much about the conditions of those ashore. As to the conditions of those at sea, I am glad that so many matters are being dealt with for the sake of the men's comfort. I suggest only one other thing. The hon. Gentleman talked about bringing in refrigerators and potato peeling machines, and so on. Why cannot he bring in some more washing machines? I ask him to do so. I ask this especially for the men serving in ships in hot climates, where they wear white uniforms. I remember in the West Indies in past days, the old washerwoman, who always swore that her ancestors had washed for Lord Nelson, would come off shore and do the washing for a shilling or so. But now it is a most expensive operation. In those ships which are on service where white uniform has constantly to be worn, it would be a tremendous relief and save officers and men a great deal of trouble if some such equipment could be provided.
  The Parliamentary Secretary was rather pleased about the fact that new. entry officers get a free uniform, and I particularly ask whether the allowance is free of Purchase Tax. It seems silly to give a sum of money, £60 or whatever it may be, and then to require Purchase Tax to be paid. It is very foolish and is uneconomical; what is more, and this should appeal to Government, it is not good planning. Another piece of information given to the House for the first time is the fact that warrant officers no longer exist but are now commissioned officers, if they feel themselves any better for it; if they do feel better for it, it is about the only benefit they will receive. They are to be commissioned officers and will get a commission instead of being warrant officers. The Government have already made things thoroughly uncomfortable for them by taking them out of the cosy officers' mess and putting them into the overcrowded wardroom.
  Commander Pursey: Nonsense.
  Captain Marsden: In order to satisfy the social aspirations of a few, they have brought discomfort to many. Cannot we get some better names for the newly commissioned officers than the rather lengthy titles they are to be given? In the old days there used to be an officer known as "Fleet Officer," and there was the "Master of the Fleet "—that was in the days of Napoleon. He was not a commissioned officer but a particular sort of officer. When we imagine at some ceremonial occasion the announcement being made, "Senior Commissioned Bo'sun So-and-so," it seems rather a lengthy title. What is the matter with calling him "Fleet Officer So-and-so?" There are a large number of executive officers called commanders, lieutenants, captains or whatever it may be, with the initial letter of their special qualifications interposed. Why not do that with these ex-warrant officers that are now to be commissioned officers? In the eyes of the world it would make no difference.
  The Parliamentary Secretary alarmed me, and no doubt he alarmed other Members, with his remarks about submarines. The Russians are supposed to have 250, although any number might be correct—it might be 100 or 300 and be just as near to the truth. We might say that they will do nothing as they have done nothing before, but as far as the Navy is concerned, we never under-estimate but have to assume that all the submarines the Russians have are efficient and up-to-date vessels, capable of going to sea and keeping at sea for long periods. If they are fitted with Schnorkel apparatus, it means that they are more of a danger than ever before, and if they can go up to 15 to 20 knots it does not do for us to have slow ships to chase them. It means we must have ships that are sufficiently fast, and that does not mean ships of the same speed but ships that are definitely faster, to chase them. We have about 130 ships of the frigate class, but they cannot do the necessary speed.
  The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) gave us an interesting treatise on naval tactics of the Jules Verne type, but he seems to overlook the fact that what we want are surface ships, because the only antidote to the present submarine is a surface ship. Radar is no use against submarines and aeroplanes rarely are and have done

  1097
  very little. The surface ship, fitted with the Asdic, can locate submarines and then plant depth charges round them forcing them to the surface or with any luck destroying them under water. I do not suppose the Russians could follow all our convoys everywhere, but across the North Atlantic our ships would have to be in convoy and every convoy protected by quite a number of surface ships.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not leaving out of his consideration that if there were a war with the Russians, the American Navy would be on the side of the British Navy?
  Captain Marsden: I hope they would and I shall come to that later, but the Americans would not think much of us if they had to do all the work. The best way we can get help from the Americans is to assure them that we are doing our share, which I am perfectly sure we would do.
  The Parliamentary Secretary gave us some good news about the fitting out of the "Cumberland" as a trial ship. Never before in history is experiment more necessary than at the present time. We are passing through a curious period, and the Navy must be equipped with the most recent and the best methods of attack and defence. Our difficulty is that we must always be ready for war. In spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Devonport, the Navy was ready for war in 1939, and thank God it was. It has always been ready and, far from having to wait a bit before it can get into action, the Navy usually strikes the first blow. We can be perfectly sure that in future, the blow will fall before war is declared. Anything further that we can devise in the way of experiment and science would be for the strengthening of the Navy.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) mentioned the United States and I am glad he did, because about two years ago I asked a Question about reciprocal arrangements with that country whereby we could use their ports and they could use ours in the event of another conflict. The Parliamentary Secretary told me that the idea was a good one and he would inquire into it. I imagine that we have got such
  1098
  an arrangement now. I am quite certain that if we had to go to war the United States ships would be welcomed in our harbours. But if there is such an arrangement why not say so? It seems to me that we lose a lot by not publicly announcing that fact, because it would have great psychological effect on other countries. If other countries realised that there was an alliance with the. United States, it would suggest to them great material and physical strength while it would have a great moral effect everywhere. Indeed, it might dissuade many from going over to the enemy, and even induce neutral nations to come in with us, because between us, representative as we are of two great nationalities, we are agreed on the important things, and the preservation of the peace of the world is our main aim and object.
  9.9 p.m.
  Mr. Swingler: I have promised to be very brief, and, therefore, I resist the temptation to be drawn into a general discussion on naval strategy with the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden). Those better qualified than I am will no doubt reply to him tonight. I rise to raise one point of special interest—the question of the administration of justice in the Navy. Some hon. Members may regard this as a Committee point, but I think it of sufficient importance to be raised in the general Debate on the Navy Estimates in view of what happened recently.
  As hon. Members on all sides of the House know, a statement was made on 23rd February by the Minister of Defence on the major recommendations of the Lewis Committee, set up in 1946 to inquire into the constitution and procedure of courts martial in the Army and Air Force. In 1946 when that Committee was set up, the Navy was specifically excluded from its purview. In the first place tonight I want to draw the attention of the House to a statement which was made at that time in regard to naval courts martial and the Lewis Committee. I refer to a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) on 31st October, 1946. He asked the Prime Minister:
  "Whether the Government intends to take early action to standardise and overhaul court martial procedure in all three Services."

  1099
  In his reply the Prime Minister said:
  "The standardisation of court martial procedure in all three Services would encounter many difficulties owing to the entirely different conditions under which the Services operate. The closest attention will be given to the effects on the naval court martial system of any recommendations by the committee, which is being set up by the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air to review the military courts, and in all respects I think it would be best to await the results of the committee's investigations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1946; Vol. 428, c. 774–5.]
  The first question I want to put to the Civil Lord is in regard to the consideration which has been given at the Admiralty to the Report of the Lewis Committee on Court Martial Procedure in the Army and the Royal Air Force, not on the minor recommendations following which certain reforms are being carried into effect, but the major recommendations concerning civilian judge presidents, unanimity of findings and the establishment of a court of appeal. Hon. Members know what has happened. The Minister of Defence has announced that, owing to the fact that the Navy was excluded from the purview of the Lewis Committee and owing to the radical recommendations which were made by the Lewis Committee, the Government have now decided to set up another committee to inquire especially into the system of naval courts martial. That committee has already started under Mr. Justice Pilcher and its terms of reference have been announced.
  On 23rd February, 1949, when the Minister of Defence made his statement, I raised an Adjournment Debate on the subject of that statement. I want to draw the attention of the Civil Lord to one or two statements which were then made by the Minister of Defence about the Pilcher Committee and its terms of reference and the way in which it would work. One point which was raised then was whether the Committee would have its attention drawn directly to the recommendations of the Lewis Committee in order that its work should be shortened or whether it would have the same terms of reference. The Minister of Defence stressed the fact that as far as possible the work of the Pilcher Committee would be expedited so that it would report as soon as possible and that its terms of reference would be such as to eliminate much of the work which had had to be
  1100
  done by the Lewis Committee in relation to the system of justice in the Army and the Air Force.
  Next day when one saw the terms of reference of the Pilcher Committee, namely to consider whether any changes were desirable in the administration of justice under the court martial system based on the Naval Discipline Act, the reaction of any Member who had followed this matter must have been that those terms of reference were about as wide as they could be fixed, and there was no reference whatever to the Lewis Report or to its recommendations. It meant that in regard to the history of justice in the Navy the Pilcher Committee had to go over the same ground as the Lewis Committee did for the Army and the Air Force.
  I want to ask my hon. Friend whether the Pilcher Committee has had its attention specifically drawn to the major recommendations in the Lewis Report and whether the work of this Committee will be expedited. Another thing said by the Minister of Defence on 23rd February was that the. Pilcher Committee would report within the lifetime of this Parliament. That is a most important question which concerns many hon. Members who are anxious to see these reforms implemented as soon as possible. If the Pilcher Committee goes over the same ground in regard to the administration of justice in the Navy as the Lewis Committee covered in the Army and Air Force, it will take at least 12 months to do the work. That is the opinion of competent lawyers. Therefore, within the lifetime of this Parliament not only will nothing be done in the Navy but nothing will be done in the Army or Air Force.
  I hope, therefore, that the Civil Lord will be able to give an assurance to the House this evening first, that the Pilcher Committee is directly considering the recommendations made in the Lewis Report and how they can be applied in the Navy and, secondly, that the Pilcher Committee has at least been given to understand that it should report within a period of six months or so in order that the reforms can be carried into effect in all the three Services.
  9.16 p.m.
  Commander Maitland: I am sure that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler), who has spoken

  1101
  about courts martial, will not mind if I do not follow him because I spent all my time in the Service in avoiding courts martial and I intend to go on avoiding them. When I was serving at sea, I could never understand why the Navy was called the Silent Navy, perhaps because I served some time in a Devonport ship. Now at last, after having served in this House for three and a half years, I have begun to understand it because the number of important reports which the Admiralty is sitting on, and about which nothing whatever is being done, is quite astonishing.
  For example, it needed three Admirals of the Fleet, firing on all cylinders, to get anything at all out of the noble Lord in another place about the question of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors. It is a most disgraceful business that nothing has been told to the people of this country, and to the Navy in particular, about the condition of that important and admirable section of the Navy. Then again, to descend to a smaller question that has been mentioned by hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite, there is the Naval Recruiting Service. The pay and conditions of the Naval Recruiting Service are under consideration. Why cannot we be told something about them?
  Then there is the Royal Naval Reserve. We have put down Questions about the R.N.R. and we can find out nothing except, from the Estimates, that entry is restricted to those who have already served, and there does not appear to be any money allowed for any expansion in the coming year. Last but not least, there is the question of the "Ajax," about which we have put down Question after Question on this side of the House. For some reason or other the Government have stalled us off every time. Why should we not be told whether or not the "Ajax" has been sold to a foreign country, and if so, to which foreign country? After all, the foreign country itself must know. Without being impertinent, the First Lord of the Admiralty and his two junior Ministers remind me strongly of those three monkeys who sit with their hands in front of their eyes, ears and mouth and see nothing, hear nothing and say nothing.
  Now I want to talk about three points of great importance. The first has not been mentioned at all in this Debate—
  1102
  the question of the Naval Ordnance inspecting officers. That is another of the points about which the Admiralty have kept silent. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a Committee was set up in 1945. It has reported and the matter is still under consideration. I will tell the House briefly the situation with regard to the Naval Ordnance inspecting officers. Since it was consolidated in 1935 they have had no change in pay except for a £90 a year allowance for rising cost of living, which is the same as has been made to all officer grades of the Civil Service. Incidentally, when their pay was consolidated in 1935 it had to include victualling. Of course, naval victualling—the 3s. 4d. a day which an officer gets—cannot be taxed, but these men have to pay taxation on their full pay, so that they do not get the benefit of their victualling allowance.
  What does it really amount to? A lieutenant-commander with two years' service in the Naval Ordnance and who is married, and who, of course, has to live ashore, is getting £769 plus £90 a year. A lieutenant-commander in the Royal Navy who is married and living ashore, and has two years' service, gets £1,019. It is really ridiculous that this totally inexplicable difference of some £160 should be allowed to continue without some form of explanation. Is it because this is a small body of men? I believe there are only about 50 Ordnance inspecting officers in the Navy. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence immediately recognises my point. These men do not have very many people to talk for them. They do not have a wages board, a trade union or anything like that to which they can take their grievance. They have only us in this House to speak for them. We speak for them tonight, and we want an answer about what is happening in their particular direction.
  The second important point is that of the re-engagement of petty officers and chief petty officers, both artisans and artificers and those serving on the upper deck. Recently I put a Question to the hon. Gentleman. The answers I received were really devastating. In the case of artificers and artisans, for example, only 50 per cent. of those available to reengage are now re-engaging; of leading seamen, who should be the absolute

  1103
  coming core of the Navy, only 16 per cent.; and of petty officers, 29 per cent. That is a most disgraceful state of affairs. It cannot merely be written off by saying that there is full employment outside. We cannot get on without these people. We must see that the conditions and opportunities which we offer compete with the full employment, which we all want to see a permanency in this country.
  Since I have been in this House I have always criticised very strongly the pay code, which in my opinion has brought about this state of affairs. I want to quote briefly from a letter I have received. It is from a marine officer to his brother. It was not intended for publication in any way, but I have obtained the brother's permission to read it in this House. This is what he says:
  "During the past fortnight I've been touring all R.M. Establishments. Every place one goes to the feeling about the pay code is the same. There is now no incentive to promotion or to better oneself in the Service, and this is reflected in the complete lack of interest in promotion, and in volunteers to become instructors in the various branches of the Corps."
  What more damning evidence than that spontaneous letter could there be about the pay code and what it is doing to the Royal Navy?
  The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): As I said last week, these declarations are all very well, but hon. Members cannot deny that the provision which has been made by the present Government is the best, comparatively and in every way, that has been made for the Services by any Government in the history of this country. If these cases were stated in a rather different spirit, it would be more helpful.
  Commander Maitland: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman gets so cross. This is a perfectly straightforward argument, and one about which he himself should be worried. It is a most astonishing thing that the right hon. Gentleman always defends the indefensible. He is always looking for a wall to put his back against or a last ditch to get into. There is no defence on this question; it is absolutely indefensible, and the right hon. Gentleman should be the first man to say so if he wants to get the Armed Services of this country
  1104
  into their proper position. After that heated moment of what I might call poppycock, I will get back to the rest of what I have to say.
  The last question I wish to raise is one which almost every Member who has spoken tonight has raised. It is perhaps the most vital point of all, namely, the question of our preparedness to deal with the submarine. I should like to know whether it is a fact that the Russians have at least five times as many submarines as the Germans had on the outbreak of war in 1939? Is it fully realised by the House and the country in general that the latest improvements in submarines have enormously magnified that number, that they are much more effective, and that at this moment there is a great potential menace to this country? What are the Admiralty doing about it now? Is it realised that these later inventions have Jargely nullified the advantages which we had when we were hunting submarines with aeroplanes? It is no longer so effective as it was to hunt them with aeroplanes.
  I think that the Parliamentary Secretary tended to lull the House when he told us of the situation and what was being done about it—that two frigates are being experimented with. I quite agree that this is a great problem. We may have to take great decisions over this quesion. We may have to put our battleships to sleep and concentrate on fast escort vessels. It is essential that, because the question is difficult, it should not just be shelved. We want to hear what are the proposals of the Admiralty to deal with this menace to our country. When I was speaking in the Defence Debate last week, I put forward much the same argument as I am putting forward tonight about the submarine. because it is a national problem and a great danger to this country. I was told by the Prime Minister that it was a mere matter for the Navy Estimates. We are now considering the Navy Estimates. Let us have the answer.
  9.27 p.m.
  Major Bruce: While I cannot share a good deal of the synthetic emotion which has been displayed by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) I must say that it is a little surprising,

  1105
  indeed very pleasant, that we should have a member of the party opposite advocating adjustments of pay and allowances in an upward direction, more especially as he is a member of the party which on at least two occasions in the inter-war years was responsible for both pay and pension cuts in connection with the Forces. I am extremely pleased that his conversion has taken place. It is also interesting in view of the general declarations of the Opposition in favour of decreases of Government expenditure. We find, as usual, that the Opposition always recommend reductions of Government expenditure in general, and then advance reasons in public why it should be increased in particular. I will not say that I regard the existing pay code or the allowances code as in any way final. I do say, and I think that the country at large realises, that this Government have at any rate shown very good faith in the matter, and have made very important steps in the right direction.
  I should also like to refer in passing to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden). His theme, as I understood it, was that we should be in an eternal state of war preparedness. I do not think that there is anyone on either side of this House who would wish us to be in a position in which we could at any time be pounced upon defenceless by anyone who was bent upon aggression against this country. I think it should be realised that we are not necessarily the more prepared for war if we have everything in the front window. It is no use having a strong magnificent Navy, a strong mannificent Army, and a strong magnificent Air Force unless the economy of the country can sustain the effort which must be made.
  Running through one or two of the speeches this evening there was this idea of putting everything into the front window. References were made to increases of expenditure and effort, without regard to the effect on the economy of the country as a whole. One of the problems over which the Government must find considerable difficulty is this business of maintaining the balance between what must be regarded as the physical expression of our armed power and what is economically necessary in terms of the effort of the individual and the financial
  1106
  stress that must arise from the economic position necessary to sustain a war effort that sooner or later may have to be made.
  For that reason I wish to support, albeit not in the same terms, the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port (Mr. Foot) who asked for an inquiry to be made into the organisation of the Royal Dockyards. It is quite true, as a perusal of these Estimates will reveal, that a very considerable sum is expended in the repair and refitting of ships, and in the hundred and one other services provided by the Royal Dockyards.
  I cannot for the life of me see why it is not possible for the First Lord of the Admiralty to set up a working party on those lines. It is all very well, from the official standpoint and from the Whitehall end, to be able to advance a hundred and one reasons why this is not necessary. One can always obtain the best of all satisfactory reports from below. One can occasionally, shall we say, make a flying visit. But these things really do not bear any relevance to the experience of hundreds and thousands of people on the spot. The fact of the matter is that the average dockyard worker in the Royal Dockyards—who has been working in the yards day after day in many cases for 30 or 40 years—thinks that things can be improved.
  I do not wish in any way to belittle the intellectual power which their Lordships of the Admiralty can bring to bear in the study of a problem of this kind. All I wish to say is that I prefer to take the sentiments of the average "dockie" on the subject. There is a general feeling throughout the Dockyards that there ought to be an investigation, and that is a good prima facie reason why one should take place. Having said that, I would not wish to support some of the rather more severe strictures on the Royal Dockyards which my hon. Friend was good enough to make. It is important that one should view the whole conduct of the Admiralty in relation to the Royal Dockyards and the dockyard towns in its true perspective. It is right that we should have that divine discontent which enables us continuously to press for reforms, but unless we know what has occurred so far we are liable eternally to nag and nag without appreciating what has already been done. As a matter of fact a very substantial change

  1107
  has taken place in the relationship between the Admiralty and the Royal Dockyard towns since the end of the war.
  I make no apology for bringing the position of the Royal Dockyard towns into this Debate. Every Member of this House is the Member for a particular constituency. Those who represent agricultural constituencies participate with special interest in Debates on agriculture, and those whose constituents are in the cotton industry show a similar interest in Debates upon that industry. Therefore, I repeat, I make no apology for introducing the special position of the Royal Dockyard towns. In the pre-war years those towns were very much at the mercy of the Estimates passed by this House year by year. For example, in the City of Portsmouth between the wars the average unemployment was running at about 11 per cent. What happened was that if the Admiralty had their Estimate cut as a result of action by the Treasury, or for any other reason, there would be mass discharges from the Royal Dockyards. I am afraid that would not mean very much to the rest of the country at the time, but to thousands of people in the City of Portsmouth who were suddenly slung out on their necks with seven days' notice, it meant a great deal.
  I am pleased to see that in the last few years the Admiralty have taken what for them must be the revolutionary step of declaring that they take a responsibility for endeavouring to secure the maintenance of a constant level of employment in those cities and towns where they are the predominant economic interest and the predominant agents of employment. They are also represented on the regional boards for industry and they participate more and more in all the discussions which take place as that the economy of the country as a whole shall be developed properly. That policy should be encouraged. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport that it may be most short-sighted to say that repayment work should be decreased. There is a case for exploring its maintenance at, for example, the figure at which it stood last year in order that experience may be gained administratively as well as by the workmen themselves. Then, if at some future stage real peace breaks out and there is the
  1108
  necessity for large-scale repayment work to preserve the economic balance of the area, there should be adequate experience.
  During the last three years in the Royal Dockyards many reforms have been carried out by the Admiralty which reflect great credit on the new attitude which the Admiralty have for those for whom they are responsible. I must mention the changes which have taken place in relation to what is called "establishment." Before the war a man could work in the dockyards for 40 years, and in many cases more, on a weekly wage, and at the end of that period he could be given seven days' notice on the grounds of redundancy and pushed out of his job with a gratuity. The Admiralty would wash their hands of him.
  That state of affairs was not very encouraging for the people in the dockyard towns. I do not suggest by any means that that evil is ended, but the figures given in these Estimates of the number of people established show what a revolution has taken place. In the year 1949–50 there are to be roughly double the number of people "established," and therefore entitled to pension, than there were in the year 1948–49. Of course, in all these matters there are marginal cases. Always somewhere a line must be drawn, and some people think that in this case the line has been drawn too high up the scale with the result that other people are left the wrong side of the margin. This will always happen where a line is drawn, and it is to be hoped that, as time passes. the Admiralty may be able to make further concessions in this matter of "establishment," so that, when people do enter the Government service they are entitled to reasonable security.
  It is not for me to go through the whole series of reforms, which are indeed numerous, which have been carried through by the Admiralty in the last three years. There have been various increases in the expenses allowable, more paid holidays, the guaranteed week of 44 hours, the introduction of the five-day week and a whole series of reforms brought in under this new era of Admiralty administration affecting the Royal Dockyard towns. For example, the men are now getting sick leave, which for them is something entirely new, though people engaged in private industry have had it for quite a long time.

  1109
  I speak here with deliberate caution. There have been so many reforms in the last three years that there is a danger, and I am sorry to have to mention it, that undue advantage may be taken of some of the reforms granted. This is something which I am quite sure the ordinary trade unionist employed in the dockyard would wish to avoid, but the fact of the matter at present is that only a little over 50 per cent. of the industrial workers employed in the Royal Dockyards are organised in trade unions. It does not, therefore, give a chance to the trade union movement to secure voluntarily that industrial self-discipline which the men employed in the dockyards would like, and I ask my hon. Friend whether he can see his way clear to give the trade unions in the Royal Dockyards more facilities to organise the workers.
  This is nothing new to private industry or to the Royal Ordnance Depots. I know that it is not officially on the cards of the Royal Ordnance Depots, but it does happen, and I do not see any reason why facilities should not be given to the trade unions to organise the workers within the dockyards, because the more trade union organisation there is in the yards—and I think that here the enlightened Tory would agree with me—the more chance there is for the preservation and enlargement of that self-discipline by means of which the full benefit to the country of these reforms can finally be realised.
  There is another point which arises out of that. Some little time ago, the Civil Lord was good enough to go down to the various dockyard towns and have interviews with the staff side of the Whitley Council as well as the official side with a view to the establishment of joint production councils. I think the Civil Lord is under the impression that these councils are functioning well. I am sorry to have to disillusion him, but they are not. The fact of the matter is that there remains a tendency—I am not going to say it is purely because the admirals are there for some of them are most enlightened—that the joint production councils are not functioning in the way in which I am quite sure the Civil Lord would wish them to do. Very little information is passed to the trade union side about what is happening in production, and far too little use is made of the undoubted skill, knowledge and experience available
  1110
  to them. I hope the Civil Lord will take another look into this matter, because, unless the trade unions are encouraged to do their utmost, the best productive efforts cannot be obtained from the Royal Dockyards.
  That is all I have to say on the position of the Royal Dockyards as I see it, and, incidentally, it emerges from some little personal association with them, because one endeavours to take a fairly close personal interest in matters of this kind. I hope it will be possible for the Civil Lord not to view this matter from the Whitehall angle as if everything were completely tidy and in its place. I beg of him to realise that the people in the Royal Dockyard towns, alive as they are to their own defects—and all of us in this House have our defects—are nevertheless as determined as they could be to give of their very best. I ask him to pay attention to their demands for an inquiry into dockyard organisation, and hope that he will see that their full productive capacity and energies are effectively used in the interests of the nation which they have served so well.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Brendan Bracken: There is no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce)—
  Mr. Medland: On a point of Order. Am I to understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this closes the general Debate?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, certainly not.
  Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman has his consolation from one of the most gifted Members in the art of soothing nerves. Now, perhaps, he will allow me to get on with the purport of my speech. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth is a diligent dockyard Member. There is nothing wrong with that. Hon. Members must serve their constituents, and I think, in his own way, he has done it very well tonight, even though he may be rebuked tomorrow by his lord and master the Minister of Health, because the Minister of Health has put it on record that Britain needs no exports, and, of course, if we do not have any exports, we will not have any ships. But I leave the painful domestic interview between the hon. and gallant

  1111
  Gentleman and the Minister of Health to the imagination of the newspapers; I shall not dwell upon it tonight.
  So far as I could summarise his remarks, the hon. and gallant Member said that he was rather disappointed by this Government. So am I, but it is quite obvious tonight that he is anxious to placate them, and if I were a dockyard Member I should certainly do so, because it rests in the hands of the noble Lord in another place and the archangel who guides him, the Minister of Defence, and his two, let me say, trusty servants, to make it possible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to have his ambitions fulfilled. But I doubt if he will succeed.
  First of all, I was rather surprised by his appeals to the workers for self-discipline. What right has any hon. Member opposite, in view of their election addresses, to appeal to the workers for self-discipline? Furthermore, nobody on this side of the House has any right to appeal to the workers for self-discipline. We live in a democracy with greater judgment than any in the world, and we know that the workers will not take it from politicians that they should discipline themselves. We ought to show, perhaps intermittently, just between elections, a respect for electors. I do not think this exhortation of self-discipline is going to do any good in Portsmouth, or elsewhere. In fact, I think it will add to the growing feeling of dissatisfaction with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who now represents North Portsmouth.
  I will now turn to the remarkable speech—I say it is remarkable merely because I have never heard such a speech from the benches opposite—of the Parliamentary Secretary. He added little to the Estimates or to the First Lord's meagre explanatory statement. I have no doubt that he has had his orders, and that it was necessary for him to tell us about the trips he has made, and about the First Lord's trips. He felt, presumably, that it was his duty to fill up perhaps 35 or 40 minutes on those rather inadequate topics, but I must also say that his speech was livened up by zoological comparisons with myself. I think that I could reluctantly, most reluctantly, brace myself up to provide an adequately insulting answer, but I refrain from doing so, because in these naval Debates I think
  1112
  we ought to respect the noble naval heritage. The people who are serving the Navy at sea—and I do not know how many there are now—have always expected a certain moderate standard of politeness and courtesy in this House. I certainly shall not follow the hon. Gentleman, nor would I think it a good thing that HANSARD should be sustained by squalid extracts from the class warfare vocabulary of the very well-endowed Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty.
  Major Bruce: I should like the right. hon. Gentleman to inform the House whether he is holding himself up as a model of courtesy.
  Mr. Bracken: Considering the provocation, I should think my courtesy was angelic. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty was very angry with me today—I think that was the reason for this zoological characterisation—for correcting his reference to Jane Austen. He told us today that he had found a new mine for quotation. He prided himself on the discovery that a quotation in praise of the Navy could even be found in the novels of Jane Austen. I think he is ignorant of the fact that Jane Austen had three brothers of whom two served in the Royal Navy; one rose to the dizzy eminence of an admiral of the Fleet and the other was one of the best respected admirals in the Navy. It is really surprising that when the hon. Gentleman's secretary started looking up quotations he did not bother to find out whether the Austen family had any connection with the Royal Navy. I forgive the Parliamentary Secretary if he will promise me to read Jane Austen's books. They are wholly delightful and obviously the Parliamentary Secretary is going to approach them with a fresh mind He will find in those books constant references to the Royal Navy, so I hope that in the future he will not come down to this House so ill-briefed by, his unfortunate private secretary.
  Apart from his passionate devotion to the unknown Jane Austen—unknown as far as he is concerned—the only other statement he made of any importance was his talk about the future submarine warfare beneath the depths of the Atlantic Ocean. There are other oceans. I do not know whether the Admiralty have charted the Atlantic and Pacific oceans or other oceans. I dare say they

  1113
  have thought all this thing out, for in future they are going to stage battles hundreds of thousands of miles beneath the sea. If our sole protection in future is to be the Jules Verne-like imagination of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, no doubt endorsed by the First Lord, whose ideas are less plentiful than those of the Parliamentary Secretary, all I can say, considering naval tradition, is:
  "Oh God our help in ages past.
  Our hope for years to come."
  Mr. Dugdale: As a matter of fact, I was quoting the Secretary for the American Navy.
  Mr. Bracken: I intend to make a few quotations from the Secretary for the American Navy. But the hon. Gentleman forgot to point out that the Secretary for the American Navy has newly arrived in office and has not yet had the discipline of the Civil Service. I should like, as I have to say a word or two later about Mr. Forrestal, to believe that he would not endorse the proposition of Mr. Sullivan. I have no doubt Mr. Sullivan is a great fighter. John L. Sullivan is a famous name in pugilistic lore. However, it is of no use for the House tonight to rely on the prophecies made by the Parliamentary Secretary about the possibility of arresting attacks on this country by sending large numbers of scientists and mariners beneath the deep seas. Honestly, I do not think the hon. Gentleman's answer was a proper answer to the very remarkable speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. T. Thomas). It really is quite silly to think we can depend upon novelists to do the duty of the Admiralty.
  As I seem to have upset not only the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth, who has now departed—I do not blame him: he has been waiting here a long time—but also the Parliamentary Secretary and one or two others, for a brief moment let us get away from controversy, and let me refer to a gentleman whose salary appears in the Estimates. Since the last Estimates were presented a new First Sea Lord has been appointed, and I think we should welcome that appointment. He has indeed rendered great services to the Royal Navy. He is a gunnery expert of rare distinction, one
  1114
  who has wrought great things for the Fleet Air Arm. We have heard a very interesting discussion here tonight about the growth of the Fleet Air Arm, hitherto known as naval aviation, now, apparently, once again absorbed in the general list of the Navy. It was due, I think to Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fraser that night fighting from aircraft carriers was first begun. That was one of his many services to the Navy. The First Lord has had great experience of him in peacetime, and I had remarkable experience of him in war-time. He was one of the ablest of war leaders.
  If the Royal Air Force—and here I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), who was formerly Secretary of State for Air—are to be believed, the new First Sea Lord was one of the worst poachers who ever held the exacting office of controller of the Royal Navy in war-time. I must say, as the Navy always travels first class and as I have an enduring affection for the first and greatest of our Services, that I admire his poaching activities. But I must also say about this poacher that he is a man of singular unselfishness. Some years ago he refused an opportunity of becoming First Sea Lord because he believed that another great sailor was better equipped for that office. That was a noble decision. However, he got a consolation prize. His opportunity came when he sank the Scharnhorst, and he would regard that as a much greater accomplishment than that of holding for years the office of First Sea Lord.
  Having paid a compliment to the Admiralty on this wise choice of the new First Sea Lord, I must now draw attention to the Estimates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Members who applaud the remark probably do not think the First Sea Lord comes into the Estimates, but thank heaven he does, because if we come up against times of trouble, he will be far more important than some of the politicians who appear in the Estimates. As I said, the Estimates and the First Lord's statement have the merit of being a little more informative than those submitted last year, but they are still marred by silly secrecy. I am afraid that the First Lord must be described as an "ennobled blackout." The First Lord shares, with the Minister of Defence, an inability to understand the difference

  1115
  between secrecy and security. The right hon. Gentleman and I had many arguments about this matter during the late war. I shall not refer to them, but I certainly feel that he has an apt pupil in the First Lord of the Admiralty. Both of them believe in blackouts of news and information necessary to the public.
  The First Lord is, of course, rightly security minded, but is it really necessary to carry security to the point of ridiculousness, as he does in his statements? He reminds me of some trouble we had in the Ministry of Information in the early days of the war. This story concerns a Hereford bull. The censors, who were almost as busy in war-time as are the Minister of Defence and the First Lord in cutting out important information, were suddenly faced with a newspaper report that a Hereford bull had been killed by a bomb; and so they met together, just as the First Lord and the Minister of Defence meet together, and the other unfortunate Service Ministers, and they thought over what should be done. I am sorry to say that our censor at the Ministry of Information cut out the word "Hereford" and made it a "West country" bull. He really ought to be chief of staff to the Minister of Defence and adviser on publicity to the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  I want to ask the Minister of Defence, who after all is our war lord—his Service Ministers, although they rebel frequently, have on the whole to take some note of what he says—and the First Lord to remember that there are ways in which excess of secrecy can weaken not only security but the safety of the country. I should have thought Members opposite would subscribe to the belief which we strongly hold on this side of the House that a well-informed public opinion is the foundation of a democratic State. They used to say that on the platform, and I hope that tonight they will remember their past utterances and endorse those remarks.
  The public are entitled to some information about the state of our naval defence. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should tell the public about our latest weapons, if we have any, but I say that security and publicity can be well-balanced, provided we do not
  1116
  start, as the Minister of Defence does, with an absolute bias against all forms of publicity, save personal publicity which he expects to receive and did receive during the war—because no man made better speeches for war savings than did the right hon. Gentleman. No man is more inclined to get on the platform today and make observations which are certainly hallowed by the mark of antiquity. I have no desire to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his political lucubrations, but I ask him to believe that the British public are entitled to better information about naval affairs, and, indeed, about the affairs of all the Services.
  We are willing to make great sacrifices to strengthen our defences, but the public cannot do so if they are kept in blinkers. There is a shortage of everything in this country, but there is certainly no shortage of blinkers in Whitehall. Foreigners have better information about the state of our defences than have most Members of Parliament and the public. Owing to the contrivance of the Minister of Supply and the President of the Board of Trade, a large number of purchasing agents from unfriendly foreign Powers have been allowed to rove about factories, which are of great importance to our defences. These gentlemen have had ample opportunity of picking up information which is not available to this House, and the Minister of Defence knows very well that naval attachés are not sent here for social purposes.
  What is the good of blindfolding the public? The British people always have responded to daring leadership and to being told the facts about our situation, however dangerous that situation. The First Lord and the Minister of Defence ought to console themselves with the fact that publicity is often a good deterrent to aggression. No one in this House wants war. We want to prevent war, and one of the best ways is to let unfriendly Powers know that our forces are well trained, equipped and, above all, operationally prepared. They will certainly hesitate very long before attacking us or our neighbours if they know that truth.
  The First Lord and the Minister of Defence, as well as the junior Ministers at the Admiralty, are very anxious to encourage recruiting. Excess of secrecy

  1117
  greatly damages recruiting, and I believe it has affected re-engagements in the Royal Navy. If the truth is told to the public, does anybody believe that they will not swell the Territorials, and that faithful sailors, having served their turn, will not re-engage when they feel the call of duty. If one wants to appeal to the British people, one may for a while succeed by bearing them gifts, but in the end the best of all calls is the call to duty. I recommend the Minister of Defence to recognise that and to call off this fog of secrecy which he has distributed in all the Service Departments in Whitehall.
  I have explained the difficulties of following naval affairs. The First Lord does not believe in publicity because his lord and master the Minister of Defence never has, and the Secretary of State for Air has to follow in the footsteps of the First Lord, and the Secretary of State for War is a rather unreliable fellow traveller on the Minister of Defence's disciplinary ark. However, I suggest that Ministers opposite, more especially the Parliamentary Secretary, who has quoted the new Secretary for the Navy in the United States, should recognise that anyone who tries to follow naval affairs in Britain is advantaged by reading the regular statements of the American Secretary of Defence and Secretary of the Navy.
  Let me digress for a moment by saying a word—I thought I might have heard it from the other side—about Mr. James Forrestal, formerly Secretary of the Navy of the United States, who has now given up the great office of Secretary of Defence. I dare say he found his office almost as thorny as that occupied by the right hon. Gentleman my former colleague in the National Government, but I feel certain that all those who served in the National Government in war-time have every reason to remember Mr. Forrestal as an unfailing friend to Britain. I am sure that the Minister of Defence will agree with me that Mr. Forrestal was always consistently friendly and helpful to the Royal Navy. I know that Mr. Forrestal holds the right hon. Gentleman in great esteem and I am sure that that esteem is reciprocated, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will join with me in saying that if character and ability are tests of statesmanship, Mr. Forrestal may certainly be described as one of the first
  1118
  statesmen of our time. He will of his modesty repudiate that description, but nevertheless we here in Britain, recognising his very great services to our country, ought to say on his going out from great office how much we owe to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  The American naval authorities are certainly security-minded but they give the public a great deal of information about the United States Navy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford produced a bulky document today almost as big as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, at any rate as big as the London Telephone Directory, showing quite clearly how much the American Navy feel the public should know. American naval authorities and naval correspondents close to them are constantly asserting—I wonder whether any Member of the Front Bench opposite will deny this—that Russia is building up the greatest submarine fleet in history. They assert that this submarine-building programme is guided by German scientists and that submarine crews are being trained by experienced German submarine commanders.
  I want to say one word about this matter of commanders. The First Lord knows very well that during the war the greatest depredations to British shipping were done by a handful of German submarine commanders. If they are now in the service of Russia we had better look out. These new submarines—the Government have plenty of information about them—can overcome Asdic and other detector devices that were almost our salvation in the late war. If this information is accurate—and I accept the view of the American Navy Department—we should look closely at our naval resources.
  I need hardly stress the mortal menace of the German submarine in the last war. Apart from the heavy losses inflicted on the Royal Navy by German submarine commanders, nearly 30,000 British merchant seamen lost their lives, and no fewer than 4,786 merchant ships went down largely through the operations of German submarines. I am sure that the Minister of Defence will agree with me that all through the war in our darkest hours at the Cabinet—because he and I were both what are called "constant attenders"—we were worried beyond all telling by sinkings. We could put up

  1119
  with many reverses, military reverses or even air reverses, but when I saw the right hon. Gentleman accompanied by that great sailor the then First Sea Lord, Admiral Pound, in the recurrent days when the German submarine was once again on the ascendant. I am sure that all their colleagues in the Cabinet had the most profound sympathy for them.
  If the right hon. Gentleman lives to the age of Methuselah, he will, I think, accept the view I am putting to him now that the hardest time of his life was when the Germans really developed their submarine menace to Britain in the last war. I am sure he will agree with that, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) our former Leader, will endorse it. I believe that our remembrance—hon. Gentlemen opposite are apparently not much interested in this, but they did not bear the responsibility of the Minister of Defence and other Ministers in coping with this submarine attack. One of these days, the brains trust or quiz on the benches behind the right hon. Gentleman will remember what I say to them. Whatever happens, do not let us have a repetition of the menace we had to face from German submarine activities in the last great war.
  I want to ask a question of the Civil Lord. In the great war the co-operation between the R.A.F. and the Royal Navy plus the co-operation between the American Navy and the American Air Force in the end conquered the submarine, the submarine as we knew it, until a few months before the war ended. Despite the devoted service and the very great sacrifices of Bomber Command in their prolonged attacks on German submarine pens, factories making components for submarines and submarine construction yards, the Germans were able towards the end of the war to produce an even more sinister type of submarine. Does not that illustrate the menace with which we are faced by this building up of the biggest submarine fleet in history? That is what the Russian submarine fleet is. I am very sorry to say that many of the most competent engineers, the people who built those submarines, are now, apparently, busily employed behind the iron curtain. If they are, and the Government have that
  1120
  information—the British Secret Service is the best in the world, as the Americans well realise—surely the Civil Lord will report to the First Lord the feeling of this House that we must indeed hope that we have enough escort vessels to cope with the better equipped and speedier submarines.
  I hope I carry the Minister of Defence with me when I say that we shall certainly need many more and faster escort vessels than we had in the last war if Russia possesses a submarine strength of anything between 220 and 300 submarines.
  Mr. Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman has made some rather detailed comments about this matter. It is only right to say to him quite directly that the menace, which started some months before the last war ended, was discovered by and was very well known to the Admiralty; that immediate steps were taken to do what was possible within their then resources; and that they have been engaged in continuous research ever since. The right hon. Gentleman must not assume that one nation alone has the advice of the best technicians or has alienated for themselves alone the advice of German technicians.
  Mr. Bracken: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I was for a very brief time his immediate successor. But let me point out that since the war, the Russians have given over tremendous sums of money for the development of the submarine. I wonder how much money has been given to the Royal Navy to discharge this task? The Russians care nothing about the expenditure of money if they can achieve their aims. While I welcome the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman I can say this to him as Minister of Defence. If he had half of the Navy Estimates granted to Russia—of course, it is a Navy Estimate based on building submarines alone; they do not want to build battleships—how happy he would be, and in my judgment he would see that we had the fastest escort vessels—and plenty of them—known to man in order to meet this menace.
  But as the Minister of Defence has interrupted me, and more or less asked me a question, may I ask him: Are these fast escort vessels being built? I do not expect

  1121
  him to answer, because his auxiliary, the First Lord—that is how we explain relationships now between Service Ministers and the Minister of Defence—tells us, "I do not propose this year to undertake any substantial programme of new construction."
  In another part of his statement he declared that it is still necessary to proceed slowly—listen to these words in a time like this—with new naval construction. "To proceed slowly," when the Government must know that the Russians are building up a force of submarines which they believe will give them the opportunity of starving the people of these islands, of destroying any prospects of munitions to Western Union, and in fact of completing their conquest of the world. And then to hear from the First Lord that we must "proceed slowly" in the building of new fast escort vessels! Was there ever such misuse of language?
  Mr. Alexander: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in danger of creating despondency and alarm where it certainly is not needed. I really think that when he reads tomorrow the words of the Parliamentary Secretary perhaps more carefully than he has listened to them, and sees the steps which the Admiralty are taking in this matter, he will not be able to go on creating this kind of alarm. He heard this afternoon that destroyers are being converted specially into fast frigates, and that modern prototypes are in preparation. In that respect it is not at all a bad thing to stand upon that, having first of all specially created a number of fast escorts now in the interim period, to develop prototypes and then to build late, build fast, and build each one better than the last.
  Mr. Bracken: The right hon. Gentleman's intervention was not a happy one. I shall explain the reason why. [An HON. MEMBER: "Answer."] I intend to answer. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman accusing me of creating despondency or defeatism. I had that very problem to deal with in the war, and I was told as the Minister of Information, by a number of busybodies outside the Government, that by releasing news to the Press I would create alarm and despondency. The only time that I came up against the dangers of alarm and despondency was when a number of
  1122
  Ministers wanted to bully the B.B.C. into giving them opportunities for making exhortations over the radio. That was the only moment when I can recall alarm and despondency—when Ministers were rushing forward to the public to tell them that there was nothing wrong.
  Again, if the Minister of Defence is right, does he now assert that the vague references made to new destroyers—and they are not in this year's construction list—or to new cruisers, are capable of coping with 282 powerful Russian submarines built for the very purpose of conquering the world? Why, a pill to cure an earthquake would be a small affair by comparison with the claim of the Minister of Defence tonight that this meagre new building record, these adaptations of old ships, will be capable of coping with the type of submarine about which we knew in the last days of the war. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that submarine has been greatly improved since the days when the National Government ended.
  Mr. Alexander: I assert that we shall be very much better prepared than I found we were prepared in 1940, in dark and difficult days, after years of so-called re-armament under a Government led by the right hon. Gentleman's party.
  Mr. Bracken: In this rather quiet discussion about defence, and above all about the Navy Estimates, I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have dragged in party politics. But as he has done so, while I will not go too far in following him along that road, let me remind him of the part he played in the London Agreement, which did a great deal to cripple the Royal Navy. He voted steadily against every Defence Estimate in this House.
  Mr. Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong again about the London Naval Treaty. In the first place, my Conservative successor at the Admiralty in 1931 afterwards assured me very solemnly that he would never criticise again the London Naval Treaty.
  Mr. Bracken: Who was he?
  Mr. Alexander: Lord Monsell. He said he would never criticise the London Naval Treaty, for without it, in the panic reductions of 1931–35, he would not have got the cruiser programme he was able

  1123
  to get. Another thing I would say is that—I am telling the facts—so far as the construction of heavy ships is concerned, nothing did happen. The Japanese kept the Treaty right up to 1938.
  Mr. Bracken: I must say that I am at a disadvantage in dealing with the last statement. Lord Monsell's private conversations have been reported to the House for the first time. Lord Monsell has been bitterly attacked by Socialists for his administration of the Admiralty. Surely he would have fallen back on the defence outlined to us by the former First Lord, now Minister of Defence, if in fact he held those views. I think it is very wrong that private conversations between public men should be dragged in to buttress a very bad case. However, I say this on this controversy about historical recollections—after the Parliamentary Secretary has fallen into such a historical bloomer in his remarks on Jane Austen, I think the Minister of Defence can be excused for following his bad example. I do not think the Minister or the Civil Lord will deny what I am now about to say to them, that the fate of Britain may depend on our swiftness—and I use the word "swiftness" with all the emphasis I possess—to meet this mortal menace of submarine warfare. The Russians are adroit warriors. They are not building battleships and cruisers against us. In the war we merely gave them the figures of our submarine sinkings. It was necessary for us to do so, as the Minister of Defence knows, because they were always calling out for the delivery of more aeroplanes and more weapons of all sorts to Russia and we had to hand over to them the record of sinkings on the North Atlantic.
  President Roosevelt's decision—and it was a bold decision which might have led to his impeachment—to start a shooting war, was entirely due to the fact that he said he was absolutely tired of seeing American tanks, American aeroplanes and weapons of all kinds sent across the Atlantic ocean and sunk by German submarines. I do beg the House to recollect that the Russians, knowing the power of the submarines, more particularly against a very small island containing more than 50 million people, know well, thanks to the information given them in war and by other friends they have here—and I am afraid their friends are manifold—that we
  1124
  run the risk of being deprived of food from the Dominions and of arms and food from the United States of America. The life of Britain may depend on our power to meet this submarine menace
  Here I want to ask a question of the Civil Lord. Remembering the vital part played by the air in destroying the German submarines, are naval crews being trained together with R.A.F. crews in anti-submarine warfare? I should like an, answer to that question. Furthermore, I hope that the Civil Lord will tell me that we are working in the closest comradeship with the United States in preparing against this submarine menace. Neither these Estimates, nor the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, give us any information about these important matters. What did the hon. and gallant Gentleman say? Apparently he has not the courage to repeat on his feet what he has said seated.
  Major Bruce: I was speaking of the remarks which the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) is reported to have made in a speech last night, when he referred to the "Gaiety Girls" of the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Bracken: We have not recovered from that lavish flattery which he has cast upon us. Nothing could be more attractive than that a number of elderly and sedentary politicians should be described as "Gaiety Girls." I am very much afraid that if he reads that speech, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) may really go out on the tiles and thereby greatly commend his colleagues to the public. I do not think that that was a helpful or even a relevant interruption.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford complained about the cursory references to naval aviation. I hope the Civil Lord will reassure us tonight that naval aviation is equipped with plenty of the fastest modern aircraft. I cannot go on too long tonight because—[Interruption.] I know that hon. Gentlemen want to go home. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is plenty of time for the Civil Lord to answer. He has until midnight if he likes, or longer. If the hon. Gentlemen would like to see dawn over Westminster, and want to do their public duty, they might put up with

  1125
  a few more observations from their humble servant. I shall not keep them so long, but I want to say something to them about a subject which is not, I should have thought, controversial.
  It is not controversial because, in bygone times the Minister of Defence was responsible for setting up the Eastham Committee about the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors. I must say that what has happened to the Corps is one of the blackest records in the history of the Admiralty. Do hon. Members opposite recognise that this Corps is one of the most underpaid bodies of persons with scientific knowledge who serve the State? I complain about some of the vacillations of the First Lord, but I cannot sit down without saying something about the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors. In this time of increasingly shattering explosives, their skill and ingenuity is more than ever important to the Royal Navy, and I hope that the Minister of Defence will use his influence to push through the recommendations of the Eastham Report. I have no hope, if I may say so, of the First Lord, because the committee's report was presented to him two years ago, and all he said of it was, "I want to say that we have come to certain conclusions in relation to the question of pay. I wish they were a matter that the Admiralty itself could decide."
  What are the conclusions from the First Lord's two years of meditation, and who is preventing action? Is it the Treasury and, if it is, I do beg of the Minister of Defence to back his colleague the First Lord in pushing through the Eastham Report. It is, I say, scandalous that men of great scientific ability should be paid so low a wage at the present time. The Minister of Defence was the author of that committee whose report, as I have said, came forward two years ago. But nothing has been done. Let me remind the House that the Chorley Committee last year rendered a report for increasing the pay of the higher Civil Service and that went through in less than a year, and recently we saw that it had been endorsed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am all for increasing the pay of the higher Civil Service, but what are they compared with the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors? I have sufficient faith in the Minister of Defence to believe he will fulfil the terms of the Eastham Report. If he
  1126
  does not do so, let him at least publish it, because, believe me, when the public outside reads the terms of the report they will use their full strength in backing up the First Lord in his painful and unsuccessful interviews with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The advice which I have for Ministers connected with the Royal Navy and for the Minister of Defence, is cast in the form of another literary reference. The House will recall the early references to Jane Austen and it would have been better if hon. Members opposite had read her. Let us think of Jane Austen, but I want to remind the Minister of Defence, and his Man Friday sitting beside him, and all the Service Ministers, of Captain Marry at. It may be remembered that Captain Marryat wrote something which should be an inspiration to them; they will remember that Midshipman Easy was once charged with a number of trivial offences; and we are charging the Government with much greater offences. But the Midshipman's defence was, "I suffered from an excess of zeal." If we could see an excess of zeal in the First Lord, the Financial Secretary, the Civil Lord, and the Minister of Defence how happy we should be.
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. Medland:Surely the House will not expect me to follow the speech to which we have just listened; a speech which was very long and sometimes, I think, quite unintelligible. I am not going to talk about Jane Austen, Captain Marryat or Deadwood Dick. I am going to try to talk about the Estimates. Immediately before the speech of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) we had two speeches from dockyard Members. I am not going to say very much about the dockyards, because I worked in them for 40 years, and in those 40 years I heard a great deal about them. During all that period, with two notable exceptions, I served under Liberal and Tory Governments. One exception was when a Labour Government was in office and I got a week's holiday with pay. I hardly knew what to do with it. After 40 years' service I finished up with a pension from my Liberal and Tory friends of 25s. a week. That will not happen to dockyard-men today, because everybody will be better off as a result of having a Labour

  1127
  Government in office for the last three years.
  I prefer to talk about something else than dockyards. What I found most interesting in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was the statement describing research into the kind of naval vessels we shall require for the naval warfare of the future. Having hopped about the dockyards for 40 years on ships of various sizes and types, I know something of the subject, and that is why I was so interested in the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am glad to know that this great work of research is being carried on, and that the effect of the stress and strains on metal at great depths is being studied and tested. However, it makes me wonder when people talk about submarines diving to 500 feet and firing torpedoes what kind of metal it is that can stand the strain of the pressure and weight of water at that depth. I have heard talk about that in today's Debate and I am a little puzzled.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Bournemouth that we might have been told a great deal more. I value the work of the right hon. Gentleman at the Ministry of Information during the war, because it was one of the good jobs that was done during the war. If we think so, we ought to say so. Though he may be a good publicist, I do not think he is much of a sailor. During his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said something about, "O God, our help in ages past." It reminded me of the first time I saw a photograph of the right hon. Gentleman wearing his naval cap. I said on seeing it, "O God, our help in ages past." I believe the right hon. Gentleman was right about this publicity business.
  I should like to ask whether we can be told something of the effects of the atomic bomb on American ships during the test held some time ago. Are these things as well known to us as they are to the Americans themselves? Is there a close liaison and interchange of knowledge between the two nations, especially as we are faced with this terrible menace of 282 Russian-German submarines being launched against us? If so, may we be told how far this co-operation between the greatest navy in the world—and it is not ours, for we take second place today—and our own is going on? May we
  1128
  also be told whether the old strategic plan to meet the menace has been fought out between the two Admiralties? I think it would be a relief to the national concern that will be felt tomorrow after the speeches made by hon. Members opposite have been read. Having said that, and having expressed my gratitude to the Admiralty for what they have done for the men in the dockyards during the past three years, I turn to one or two other points.
  I think the men in the Navy who will be most disappointed tomorrow, if they have not heard it already, will be those whom I consider to be the backbone of the Service—the Warrant Officer class. The announcement made by the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon about the new nomenclature of the Warrant Officer class is most disappointing, and I am much disturbed after what took place exactly 12 months ago this week. Then we had Navy Estimates, and unfortunately I was unable to be present. On 5th March, 1948, the Parliamentary Secretary sent an Admiralty Fleet Order for the information of all naval depots, ships and bases, to the effect that in future the Warrant Officer class would be abolished, and that they would become Ward-room officers. Then came the question of the name they should be called. The Parliamentary Secretary promised, in reply to Questions which I put to him, that he would make an announcement about this. From time to time I have submitted further questions, and to the last one I put I received a reply that he would make the announcement very shortly. "Very shortly" was exactly 12 months ago this week, and 12 months from the time he made his first announcement.
  The announcement he has made today will cause some amazement. We are told that no longer are they to be called warrant officers, but that they are to be commissioned officer shipwright, commissioned officer engineer, and commissioned officer gunner, or whatever the rating might be. The senior man is to be senior commissioned officer. What nonsense! This is a relic of the old diehard feudalism which has existed in the Admiralty ever since I have known it, and indeed ever since Nelson. No man who comes from the lower deck can expect to become an officer except by the sweat of his brow, agony and tears. It

  1129
  was so simple to have called them sublieutenants or lieutenants. I am sure I am expressing the great disappointment of hundreds of men who have gone through the whole of their lives in the Senior Service and are a great example to us in the service they render to the country and the devotion they attach to this service.
  Another question I want to ask is why the Admiralty continue to waste officer-power. Looking through the Navy List I have never been able to understand why they want to waste some 50 engineer officers in posts in H.M. Dockyards which are civilian establishments. There are commanders (1), commanders (2), commanders (3), commanders (4) and assistant commanders, but nine out of ten of them have to be shown their jobs by the workmen under them. I have had 40 years' experience of this. Why do we waste officer-power in this way, seeing that the dockyards are civilian establishments? After all, these fellows have been trained as engine-drivers, not as engineers. The job of an engineer is to drive the ship, yet we are training engine-drivers to work in an administrative capacity.
  It is time we made the dockyards really civilian establishments and gave the civilian employees the opportunity to rise to the ton of the tree. One of the reasons why we cannot get any apprentices today is that the avenue of promotion is closed: the top ranks of promotion belong to the naval officers. The door is barred to them, yet they might be made available. I went to a Tory First Lord of the Admiralty over 25 years ago about this and he said he would have the matter considered. I suggest that the time has now arrived, with a Labour Government in power, for an effort to be made to give some consideration to this point.
  I want to draw the attention of the House and the Civil Lord in particular to a paragraph under the heading "Works Programme" in the White Paper, which says:
  "The replanning of the Royal Dockyards to modern standards continues with a view to their reconstruction and development. The scale on which work can proceed is, however, limited by the availability of money, manpower and materials and it is clear that the programme can be undertaken on a longterm basis only."
  What I want to know is, how long? Because on looking at page 54 of the Esti-
  1130
  mates, in which factories and dockyards are dealt with, I find under "Works to be started in 1949–50 and works started in previous years," a note which says:
  " … for the reconstruction of war-damaged establishments and other works in dockyards, and to improve working efficiency and conditions."
  What is happening is this. The Admiralty have decided in their wisdom to take on tracts of land in Portsmouth and Plymouth for the extension of the naval bases and the dockyards. They have also decided that the land is to be acquired not under the Defence Regulations but under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947. This Act lays down that if they are to acquire this land they must first make what is known as a declaratory order, the effect of which is to sterilise the land and reserve the use of it for their purpose.
  In both Portsmouth and Plymouth this land contains a large amount of blitzed and empty sites. I am not complaining of their taking these empty sites, but there are also numbers of people living in these areas which contain many shops and other property. I want to ask the Admiralty what is to be their policy in this matter. They must tell the people both in Portsmouth and Plymouth what they are going to do with the land which they have sterilised, and which they are preventing other people from developing. It is only fair to the hundreds of people concerned that the Admiralty should buy the land, and have a compulsory purchase order put upon it, so that a man might see some result, without all this period of uncertainty which exists now, from the money which represents in many cases his life savings invested in a house. I beseech the Admiralty to clear up, as rapidly as possible, this question which is disturbing the minds of so many people who reside in the towns in which they play so prominent a part. It is not fair that a man should have this declaratory order placed on his land which may be required in five or 10 years, or next week or next month. It is just not fair to keep him in suspense, and I beg the Admiralty to bring this matter to a conclusion at the earliest possible moment.
  There is one other factor in this question. Large numbers of families are to be dispossessed of their houses, and the proper thing for the Admiralty to do is to erect houses for their own people and

  1131
  not put the burden on the local authority, because they have plenty to get on with without taking on the burdens of the Admiralty. If the local authority has to do the job, however, the Admiralty had better pay the full amount of the subsidy the local authority would have to pay on the houses. I am asking the Admiralty to do that, because it is a matter which the city council in Portsmouth or Plymouth should not have to do.
  Now I have had my yearly grumble about the Admiralty. I have not said half the nasty things I harbour in my heart, but I do realise that the men who serve in the ships of the Royal Navy, my friends and life-time colleagues, the men who serve and repair the ships in the Royal Dockyards, are today receiving earnings they have never received before in their long experience. I am very proud of the fact, that in spite of gaps in the pay code, particularly in regard to the pay of petty officers and chief officers, their wives and families are better off than during any time in the whole of my experience, of their own experience, and of the experience of their fathers before them. That is because of the attitude adopted by the Board of Admiralty which I acknowledge with great sincerity. We owe a debt to them. At the same time, I hope they will not forget my grumbles.
  11.5 p.m.
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): We have had a most interesting discussion, and as usual there has been much interest shown on both sides of the House in the work of the Admiralty.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of Order. Is this the closing speech of the Debate? Nobody has yet been allowed the opportunity of opposing these Estimates.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): This does not bring the Debate to an end.
  Mr. Edwards: As I was saying, there has been much interest in the work of the Admiralty during the past year and in the Estimates for 1949–50. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) introduced some humour into the Debate, in the same way as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) did when he
  1132
  was having his annual tussle with the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor). In spite of these humorous moments the Debate has served a useful purpose, and hon. Members on both sides of the House can be assured that regard will be paid to what has been said.
  I do not recall one instance in which any hon. Member has felt that the Admiralty is asking for too much money. From what has been said by many hon. Members, we should in fact require twice the amount next year to meet their wishes. The Debate was opened as usual by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas). He was very forceful. and would lead one to believe that he had given great consideration to these important matters of naval affairs. But I am bound to say, with great respect, that almost everything he said could have been taken out of the House of Lords HANSARD which reported the discussion they had on naval affairs recently. It was almost word for word: and it is very useful for us to know that, when Debates take place here on naval matters, what has been said in the House of Lords is to be repeated here. The House will not, I am sure, expect me to reply to every point made during this Debate today. There are, however, several matters with which hon. Members have dealt more or less generally, and I should like to take them in their order.
  The question which seems to worry the Opposition more than hon. Members behind me is that of lack of information. I was interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, who seems to have been given permission recently to visit the Soviet Union in order to acquire that tremendous amount of knowledge he seems to have about their work. He told us that he knows they have 292 very fast submarines, and that they are spending a terrific amount of money on building new submarines. In my opinion it is difficult to get that information. I had always thought that the only members who could possibly get any reliable information from the Soviet Union were the Communist Members.
  Mr. Bracken: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to me, may I interrupt? My information came from reading Service papers in the United States, from statements made by high American govern-

  1133
  ment officials. They have given the figure. Perhaps they are wrong, but the Government know approximately what figures the Russians have in submarines. Nobody is going to tell me that the Secret Service do not know that fact and have not reported it to the Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the Russians have more than 200 submarines? I should like to ask that question because the people have been fooled once before by Ministers who were not telling them the truth about defence.
  Mr. Edwards: That still does not get away from what I have been saying. Whether the right hon. Gentleman gets his information out of an American newspaper or in any other way, he is making a very definite statement that Russia has 292 fast submarines. It seems strange to me that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to get that information. So far as my own knowledge goes, I can honestly assure the right hon. Gentleman that nobody has ever told me there are 292 Russian. submarines. I cannot say whether that is 100 or 200 too many, because I have not been behind the Iron Curtain myself and I do not necessarily take notice of everything I read in the newspapers either in this or in other countries.
  Mr. Bracken: Or listen to the American Government.
  Mr. Edwards: Certainly I listen to the American Government, but that is not the same as relying on American newspapers and taking what they say to be statements of fact.
  From almost every speech delivered from the other side of the House today it would appear that there is the possibility of a very early war with the Soviet Union. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Paddington said we must be ready and that we must build our Fleet up now—obviously trying to leave the House with the impression that there is liable to be sudden attack by Russia involving us in a defensive war. That is his view and the view of many hon. Members on the other side. Nevertheless although they have that view, they complain that we do not publish enough information. If you thought a war was imminent would you think it wise to impart the fullest information to your enemy? The Opposition really
  1134
  want it both ways. The House can rest assured that when the Government feel the time is suitable in the interests of the nation, they will give more information than they feel able to give at the present time. We did however get credit from the hon. Member for Hereford for the developments which have taken place this year, in comparison with last year. When the situation warrants it, the House may rest assured that it will be given more information.
  With regard to anti-submarine defence, in view of the Opposition's opinion that we have to do something very quickly, obviously one would expect them to say that we should get fast escort vessels as soon as we possibly can. We are now in the year 1949, which is less than four years from the end of the war. Did we in 1922 start rushing headlong into naval expenditure because there was a possibility of something—
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: The Civil Lord must know quite well that at that time there was an assumption and an agreement that there would be no war for ten years. That is not so today.
  Mr. Edwards: I do not place too much faith on these agreements that there will be no war for a certain period between any particular nations, because it depends upon their Governments. The point I was trying to make is that we are being pressed to spend vast sums of money less than four years from the end of the last war because there is an Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe, and because some people seem to have the idea that we shall be forced to have a war with the country behind the Iron Curtain in the very near future. Nevertheless, a fair amount of money is being spent on the Navy. Quite a large amount of money is being spent on production, though it. is true, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, there is no provision for new construction in the year 1949–50. Other construction is, however, proceeding.
  With regard to submarines, it has already been stated by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth that in the later part of the war the submarine problem nearly caught us again. We caught it up at first, and then it nearly caught us again. I think the House will agree that we cannot always keep pace on this particular problem. We cannot

  1135
  build new destroyers every couple of years because of an increase in speed of say three knots, or perhaps of five knots. But I want to give the House an assurance that the lessons of the last war are not forgotten at the Admiralty. This question is being very carefully watched. We consider that the quickest way to provide suitable vessels will be by way of conversion, which has been mentioned today, rather than by new construction.
  Commander Maitland: What is worrying me, and probably other hon. Members, is whether those conversions have enough radius of action. That is an important point.
  Mr. Edwards: That is one of the reasons why we cannot do this thing in a moment. We have to go thoroughly into the question with the object of providing for the radius of action. As has been mentioned, two prototypes have been put down so that we shall know, when the conversions take place, that the vessels will be eminently suitable for the job they will be called upon to do.
  The question of barrack accommodation was referred to by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) to whom I must reply, because he has complained that he has raised this matter upon two or three occasions and that I have not afforded him the courtesy of a reply. I, like him, can say quite a lot with regard to the conditions I found in the naval establishments when I was there. I am very happy to be able to tell him that there has been a great improvement since he left the Navy. When I was at Chatham Barracks recently I saw, for the first time during the period in which I have known the Navy, sailors sleeping in rooms other than those in which they had to eat. A large amount of money is being spent on modernisation of the barracks, and it will perhaps interest my hon. Friend to know that in 1948–49 only £80,000 was shown in the Estimates for modernisation, but that in the 1949–50 Estimates, there is £300,000. We are hoping to commence work on the modernisation of a seamen's block at Chatham and at Portsmouth, and we hope to start a chief and petty officers' block at Devonport.
  Mr. Bracken: I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, but is he taking into
  1136
  account the good suggestions made by his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield? I doubt if there is any point in spending money on modernising these great, gaunt Victorian barracks. Why not spread your barracks? Why go in for these gaunt skyscrapers? He got good suggestions from Huddersfield; they are winners in football, and sometimes in politics, although not necessarily at the next election.
  Mr. Edwards: I am only too ready to accept the suggestions which may come from Huddersfield, but I told the right hon. Member for Bournemouth that that matter is under consideration. For the moment we have not decided to disperse or do away with the three naval establishments we have in the south of England. It is our duty to get on with making conditions better than they have been before in these places as soon as we possibly can.
  Another matter to which I must refer is one mentioned by three or four of my hon. Friends representing constituencies in which there are Royal Dockyards. I was glad to hear the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) who was, perhaps, not so critical as the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). In this matter of repayment work, I must point out that, in the Royal Dockyards—and I remind the House that it was started in 1946—it was done to prevent unemployment, to provide useful work for the nation, and to continue work for those men who had served us so well during the war. The Royal Dockyards are not set up for outside work; they are for the purpose of carrying out repairs to the Fleet, and one could easily find some criticism of the setting up of an organisation of a temporary character such as repayment work. I ask the House to remember that it was work which had to be organised rather suddenly by a body of people who had not had similar outside experience. It may be that this repayment work did not suit some members of the Public Accounts Committee; but so long as we were satisfied that it was work which was satisfactory to the country, that the men were working in the proper way, and that it was proper work for the dockyard towns, we were entitled to take the risk.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport says that we ought always to

  1137
  have this repayment work there. I want to repeat what has been said so often, that if we have naval repair work in the dockyards and the dockyards are to carry it out, that work must have first priority. While we have had sufficient work this year, and hope to have next year, we cannot spoil or interfere with our naval work by the introduction of repayment work. I say, with respect, that it is very easy to make these sweeping allegations about the people in charge of the dockyards. I know it is difficult to see that every man is doing his job properly, but from my knowledge of those who are in charge I feel they are doing the job as well as it is possible for them to do.
  I see no reason why the Admiralty should have to set up a working party within its own department because some people are complaining. Possibly they are the people who are always complaining. We have had no justification for acceding to the request that a working party should be established to go into the work being done at the Royal Dockyards. The question of civilianisation is a matter we could not deal with too lightly. It must receive most serious consideration. Whatever one may say about the admiral superintendents and commodore superintendents who have been in charge of the dockyards, these dockyards have helped materially in bringing us through two world wars. I am all for a change if I know it is to be beneficial, but I have to be certain that the change would be beneficial before I agree to it.
  Mrs. Middleton: When repayment work was brought into the dockyards the Admiralty stated there would be production committees in connection with this work. I have not heard whether with the cessation of this work these production committees were abandoned, or whether they are to be continued. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could give me an answer to that point.
  Mr. Edwards: As my hon. Friend knows we already had production committees during the war and when this repayment work commenced. After the war it was felt by many people that the organisation could be better improved by setting up joint production committees. These committees were not confined to repayment work but dealt with the everyday work of the dockyards, and they will
  1138
  continue in the dockyards whether there is repayment work or not.
  There is now the question of the R.N.R. I understand the apprehension felt by many hon. Members at the fact that we have not been able to give a satisfactory answer about setting up the R.N.R. again. As the House will know, there are still some people in the R.N.R.; they were in it prior to the war and they are carrying on so that we have a nucleus. I am afraid I have to say that we have not yet come to finality in the talks which have taken place between the interested parties. We hope, however, that in the near future we shall be able to give the House some more definite information about recruitment to this reserve. It is split up into two sections, one of which is the patrol section. This section is to be re-opened as soon as practical, which is something I hope will be welcomed by the House.
  Mr. D. Marshall: In mentioning the interested parties, could the hon. Gentleman say if one of those interested parties is the fishing industry.
  Mr. Edwards: No, off-hand I do not think that it is. I will let the hon. Gentleman know, but I think the Ministry of Transport and the shipowners are the people we have been dealing with.
  A number of questions were put by the hon. Member for Hereford. He wanted to know the policy with regard to the resumption of work on the three light fleet carriers and the three cruisers. It is perfectly true, as the House knows, that the constructional work on the three light fleet carriers has been suspended, but the production of equipment is still proceeding and similar equipment is being considered for other ships. The House can take it that we have not given up the idea of proceeding with these ships. New ideas are coming into operation very quickly, and we want to get the most up-to-date equipment for these ships before the actual construction is complete. The same applies to the three cruisers. It is because of research that work on those ships is being held up, but we are hopeful that at some later date, when we are in a satisfactory position with regard to reconstruction, we shall be able to get on with the work.
  I do not think the hon. Member for Hereford would expect me to answer all his questions. He will be interested to

  1139
  know the figures with regard to the work on the Reserve Fleet for this year and next year. For 1948–49 the work by contract amounted to about £1 million, and 72 ships which were destroyers or below were dealt with. In the dockyards we spent about £l¼ million for 117 ships, destroyers and below. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said today that 150 ships were refitted during the year. Next year we intend to spend three-quarters of a million by contract, but we are not quite certain of the amount for Reserve Fleet ships which will be spent in the Royal Dockyards. It will depend to a large extent on the operational requirements of the yards. If the yards are not required for the active Fleet then we shall proceed as quickly as possible with ships in the Reserve Fleet.
  The question of married quarters for officers was raised. I should like to clear up any impression which might have been left by the hon. Member for Hereford that I should be against officers having married quarters, or that I should be more in favour of the ratings than of the officers.
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I never made any such accusation against the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Edwards: I said in case such an impression might be left. Nobody would expect us to have the same number of married quarters for officers as we intend to have for ratings. The latest figures that I have show that married quarters occupied by officers at home total 65 and abroad 68. For ratings the figures are 80 at home and 51 abroad, so that there is not much difference. We have been able to provide a lot of married quarters as a result of conversions, and in 1949–50 we hope to have something in the region of 570 new flats or houses for naval ratings. We were held up a little with regard to plans for naval officers' houses because at one time we were limited to a certain floor area. We have, however, gone very actively into the question, and we are hopeful that in the next financial year something quite good can be done for the officers.
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I should like an answer to my question about H.M.S. "Ajax."
  Mr. Edwards: As it has been asked by a number of hon. Members I can give the answer—it is that no decision has been taken yet.
  Mr. Bracken: This is an important question. Is this important ship on offer, and does the Admiralty not think that it is a profanation of a great ship to sell it to people who are quite hostile towards us in South America?
  Mr. Edwards: These statements have been made in the past. I can only repeat what has been said previously—that no decision has been made about the sale or non-sale of H.M.S. "Ajax." I cannot very well go further this evening.
  Mr. Medland: Can the Civil Lord say whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to sell H.M.S. "Ajax"?
  Mr. Edwards: I am afraid I cannot say at the moment. I cannot go beyond what has been said previously on the matter. We are in precisely the same position.
  Mr. Medland: Well done!
  Mr. Edwards: There are quite a number of other matters which were raised, but many of these, as I said, were raised in another place only a short time ago. They were answered by my noble Friend and my answer is more or less the same today.
  If hon. Members will be good enough to look up the Debate in another place it will save me quite a lot of breath and time. As time is getting on now, I should like the House to be good enough to allow me to conclude on the note that I am sure my noble Friend will be satisfied with the course of the Debate and the very justified and helpful criticism which has been levelled. I hope I have satisfied the House to a certain extent, at any rate, as to the work we are doing.
  Sir R. Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the policy of the Admiralty in Northern Ireland, where as he now knows, the National Service Acts were not imposed by this House, is still to employ people who did not serve and Eire citizens, in preference to ex-Service men in civilian employment in naval establishments?
  Mr. Edwards: I am sorry that I did not refer to the hon. Member's speech,

  1141
  but I was out of the House when he made it. He has asked me more or less to apologise for having said that the Northern Ireland Government did not introduce conscription during the war. I thought I had made that perfectly clear on the occasion when we had a row about it. If I did not make it clear, then I take this opportunity of making it quite clear now that the Northern Ireland Government did not impose conscription and it was not their fault that it was not imposed. On the point which has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member with regard to Northern Ireland ex-Service men, I have gone very thoroughly into the position and I am perfectly happy and satisfied that under Admiralty regulations in Northern Ireland a Northern Ireland ex-Service man gets a very fair deal, and those men comprise a very large percentage of the workpeople we have there.
  Commander Maitland: There is a point which was not raised in the other place, but which I have asked in this House without an answer; that is, when are Naval Ordnance inspection officers to be told about increased pay and better conditions? This is a matter of great urgency and there are very few of them.
  Mr. Edwards: Here again I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these matters are very carefully and sympathetically looked upon. The House will know that the Admiralty—although I am not blaming anyone—are not masters as far as these matters are concerned, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we have made some headway on this matter, and if the House will exercise a little more patience we feel that we shall have something to offer in the near future.
  11.41 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Civil Lord has just told us that there has been no opposition to these Estimates in the Debate hitherto. His rejoicing is rather premature because I believe it is necessary, in view of the course this Debate has taken, to ask certain questions and to make certain criticisms. I believe that if these Estimates of £189,250,000 had been introduced by a Tory Government instead of by a Labour Government the Labour Opposition would have kept the
  1142
  House up all night before agreeing to an increase of £36,250,000, which is an increase of 20 per cent. in the Estimates.
  I do not represent a dockyard constituency, but I do represent fishermen, and sometimes I go out with these fishermen, and discuss matters with them. I have listened to them tell of their experiences in the last war. I went out last January in a Clyde fishing boat in which there were seven fishermen, the majority of whom had served in the Navy in the last war, most of them in ships engaged in convoy to Russia. They used to sit round the fire in the evening when there was no fishing and talk about their adventures in the last war. Some had been thrown into an icy sea, some had been blown up, all of them had had very difficult and hard conditions in that convoy helping to take supplies to Russia, and now barely four years after that war is over, we have to tell those same fishermen who are now in the Reserve that they have to go through some other harrowing experiences fighting the people whom they helped a few years ago.
  These fishermen in the Reserve want to know what it all means, and I believe the country wants to know what is meant by this complaisant acceptance by the Labour Government of this huge increase in naval armaments. What is more, it is only a foretaste of what is to come because if we carry this argument to its logical conclusion, it does not mean stopping at £189,250,000. It means accepting the position that year after year we have to face a steady increase in our naval arms. We shall be face to face with more and more demands from the Admiralty on grounds which have been argued by the Opposition here tonight.
  I do not know whether Russia has got 292 submarines. If they have, it is 292 too many, and everything I have to say of the Russian Government applies equally to us. Now we are apparently going to be reconciled to the fatalistic attitude that we have to be prepared for a naval race with Russia, in the same way as we prepared for the naval race with Japan and Germany in the years before the war. Only this is going to be a more expensive armaments race because, according to the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary, our ships are to cost infinitely more. He gave one alarming figure, that to equip a new aircraft carrier

  1143
  with radio and radar will cost now £292,000. That is a fantastic figure. If we are going to have a huge Fleet engaged in hunting down Russian submarines, we shall have a steady demand from the Admiralty piling up year after year, on the ground that it is necessary for our security.
  The question of America was ignored in most of the Debate, except by the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden). Everybody knows that America now has the largest fleet in the world, more vessels than all the other nations put together. Yet only in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member was there the slightest indication that there was this tremendous sea power, which presumably would be on our side if we came to the unfortunate possibility of war with Russia. I want to know if these naval plans are linked up with a policy of isolation on our part, or with some coordinated and combined naval strategy with the U.S.A. If that is the case, I suggest that £189,250,000 is a fantastic figure, which the pre-war Labour Opposition would have opposed. It should be co-ordinated with the Navy of the U.S.A., and also should have some relation to our own economic resources.
  I object to giving huge blank cheques to the Admiralty, for, say, £7 million for naval research. I object to the iron curtain in Eastern Europe, but I also object to the iron curtain round the. Admiralty. I should like to know how this £7 million is to be spent. I do not feel satisfied, as the representative of my constituency, to be told that the information will probably be given by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition. I understand he is to go to the Prime Minister at Downing Street, and they are going to have a nice confidential talk in which information is to be given by the Prime Minister to satisfy the Leader of the Opposition. I do not understand that business at all. I do not understand this kind of secret diplomacy. The Labour Party tell us that the Leader of the Opposition is a political danger. I entirely agree. We have just had a by-election at South Hammersmith, in which the Leader of the Opposition went round the constituency the day before the election attacking the policy of the Labour
  1144
  Party. The following day we had 30 Labour Members of Parliament—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I think the hon. Member must keep more closely to the Navy Estimates.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: If the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to know all about the secrets of our naval defence and the £7,000,000 spent on research, then I think the ordinary Member of the House is equally entitled to know it. I object to the Leader of the Opposition being rejected by the people at by-elections and coming back into 10 Downing Street through the back door.
  In another place today, there was given a very different kind of information about the Russians. I saw it on the tape. The First Lord of the Admiralty referred to the cordial meetings between Russian sailors and British sailors at Edinburgh. Something might have been said about that here. It is really fantastic to me, as a layman who does not understand these things, to hear of the tremendous Russian submarine menace and then to see that the Government have made a nice arrangement with the Russian Government to bring back the "Royal Sovereign" and other ships and send back to Russia the practically modern Italian fleet. Surely if this is the state of affairs, some questions should be asked. In another place the First Lord said that relations between British and Russian naval officers and other ranks were admirable. Those are the sailors who, if this potential war develops, will be called upon to bombard each other, to sink each other's ships and drown each other.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members are allowed to quote from a Minister in another place provided the Minister is dealing with policy. If the Minister in his speech is not dealing with policy, it is not in Order to quote it directly here.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Thank you. I will leave this point.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of Order. I apprehend that if the First Lord in another place was dealing with the policy under which the ships were received back from Russia, it is not out of Order to refer to that.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If it is a question of Government policy, it is in Order, as I have just said.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not want to be involved in the technicalities of a point of Order. I only wished to say that the First Lord pointed out that most cordial relations had existed and hoped that in a few months' time, when more vessels were being brought back from the U.S.S.R., the same cordial relations would continue. I am sure that is the wish of the sailors of both navies who may be involved in another war if the politicians continue making a mess of it. We have had amazing things said today. We have had this island described as a potential Malta of the next war by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. We in this little island with its congested population, are to look forward to a possible future when we shall be bombarded by atom bombs on a much larger scale than Malta was bombed in the last war. We have had a theory developed that if this possible war develops, the naval dockyards are too big, and will have to be dispersed, and it has been advanced that the ships are going to be safer than the dockyards.
  To me this seems to be a crazy world. It is a stupid world. We are blundering into this not merely because the Russians have 292 submarines, but because of the futile policies pursued between the wars by all Governments, ours included. You think that by piling another £30 million on the Navy Estimates that you are going to frighten the Russians. But do you think the Russians are going to say that they are now going to cut down their 292 submarines to 150? That is not how these things develop. The Russians will read the report of this Debate, their naval attachés will read HANSARD, and the Russians will say that Great Britain is preparing for war on a gigantic scale and that the United States are doing likewise. I have often heard it said in Debates that to get peace you have to prepare for war. That has not been the lesson of history for the last 50 years. I point out to the Government at this time, even if only my voice is raised in protest, that we are entering upon a naval armaments race which is going to be an insupportable burden on the people of this country. I
  1146
  believe that that protest ought to be made, and it mill be made on every occasion so long as I am able to make it.
  11.57 p.m.
  Mrs. Middleton: I had no intention of intervening in this Debate, but I was very disappointed that the Civil Lord made no reference to a very important point made by the hon. Member for Drake (Mr. Medland) with regard to dockyard reconstruction areas in Portsmouth and Devonport. My hon. Friend dealt with the matter from the point of view of people who have homes or businesses in these areas, and the difficulties with which they are faced in that they do not know how long they will be allowed to continue to occupy their premises. By this evening's post, I had a letter from a constituent which puts a rather different aspect of this case. It is not that of a man who has his house or his shop situated in the recontruction area. It is the case of a constituent who had a house in that area which was blitzed in 1941. I want, with the permission of the House, to read an extract from the letter:
  "I owned a house in Devonport which, with four others in the terrace, was totally destroyed by enemy action in April, 1941. In August, 1945, the architect was prepared to rebuild, and had material and labour to do so, but lacked official permission."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member will not be in Order in referring to the War Damage Commission. It must have reference to the Navy Estimates.
  Mrs. Middleton: It has reference to the Navy Estimates because, I submit, the rebuilding or compensation for this area must come out of the Admiralty Vote, as the area concerned is scheduled for dockyard development purposes. If I may continue reading the letter, it says:
  "Eventually the Admiralty decided that they required this land for the dockyard extension scheme. That finished rebuilding hopes, but there is still no sign of being compensated. I am a naval pensioner working in H.M. Dockyard and there are many people like me who lived in that area and who are in a similar position; who have struggled to provide a certain amount of security for their old age. You will appreciate that the wives of people like us have to bear the brunt of the burden of this struggle. The reticence to pay the compensation is robbing us of the joys we anticipated, and now we have to worry. Failure to pay income tax is promptly followed by a threat of distraint, but for our compensation it

  1147
  seems we shall be too old to reap the benefits of it. Does the Government appreciate the plight of us small householders?"
  That letter, I think, speaks for itself. I know that the Civil Lord has a compassionate heart; I know he will realise the plight of people who lost property early in the war and who are still unable to get compensation because the Admiralty has not been able to proceed with reconstruction; to make up its mind to compensate people who have lost their property. I want to ask him to do whatever is possible in order that these areas of dockyard redevelopment may be decided upon, and in order that the people who are today in such a difficult plight because of the fact that they cannot get their compensation, or who do not know what is going to happen to their homes in the near future, may be relieved of the burden which weighs so heavily upon them.
  Question, "That Mr. Deputy-Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1949–50.

  VOTE A. NUMBERS
  Resolved:
  "That 153,000 Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and the Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service together with 1,400 Royal Marine Police borne on the books at the Royal Marine Divisions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950."

  VOTE 1. PAY, &C., OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES
  Resolved:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £37,225,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense
  1148
  of the pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950."

  VOTE 2. VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY
  Resolved:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £11,690,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950."

  VOTE 4. CIVILIANS EMPLOYED ON FLEET SERVICES
  Resolved:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £5,815,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of civilians employed on fleet services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950."

  VOTE 10. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND REPAIRS AT HOME AND ABROAD
  Resolved:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £10,266,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950."

  VOTE 11. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES
  Resolved:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £6,358,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950."

  VOTE 13. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES
  Resolved:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £14,613,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1950."

  NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1948–49

  Resolved:

  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year."

  SCHEDULE.

  Sums not exceeding

  Supply Grants.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Vote.

  £

  £

  1.

  Pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines

  …

  2,860,000

  —

  2.

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  …

  1,770,000

  *-

  700,000

  3.

  Medical Establishments and Services

  …

  80,000

  —

  4.

  Civilians employed on Fleet Services

  …

  1,350,000

  —

  5.

  Educational Services

  …

  45,000

  —

  6.

  Scientific Services

  …

  Cr

  135,000

  100,000

  7.

  Royal Naval Reserves

  …

  70,000

  —

  8.

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.—

  Section I.—Personnel

  …

  2,300,000

  280,000

  Section II.—Matériel

  …

  1,700,000

  4,400,000

  Section III.—Contract work

  …

  2,700,000

  1,900,000

  9.

  Naval Armaments

  …

  1,100,000

  1,500,000

  10.

  Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

  …

  980,000

  320,000

  11.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  …

  380,000

  440,000

  12.

  Admiralty Office

  …

  410,000

  —

  13.

  Non-Effective Services

  …

  150,000

  —

  14.

  Merchant Shipbuilding, &c.

  …

  Cr

  260,000

  260,000

  Total, Navy (Supplementary) 1948–49

  £

  15,500,000

  8,500,000

  * Deficit.

  Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow: Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  GERMANY (RESTITUTION OF PROPERTY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]
  12.6 a.m.
  Brigadier Medlicott: It is with some diffidence that I rise at this late hour, but the subject matter is one which I feel ought to be ventilated without further delay. I wish to raise the subject of the delay in promulgating the law for the restitution of property in the British zone of Germany. This matter came to my notice as a result of inquiries which I had to make in a professional capacity on behalf of a former German subject, who had been dispossessed of his property before the war by the Nazi Government. I was astonished to find that at this late stage this man was still kept out of the property which was taken away from him without com-
  1150
  pensation by the Nazi régime. Consequent upon that discovery I made a further study of this problem, and I have been profoundly disturbed by what I found. In the years between the wars we were accused of lacking many qualities, but we were not lacking in conscience. In those years our consciences were outraged by the brazen robbery and confiscation which went on in Germany. and which was mainly directed against the Jewish community. I want to make it clear that this question of restitution does not relate only to the Jews. There were non-Jewish anti-Nazis, whose property was stolen, and they, as much as the members of the Jewish race, are interested in this matter. In so far as approximately 95 per cent. of the confiscated property was taken from members of the Jewish fraternity, however, the problem is one which affects them overwhelmingly.
  The German treatment of the Jews was one of the factors which helped to unite Europe, and ultimately the world, against Germany. It was felt by those of us

  1151
  who belonged to the communities in which a liberal form of democracy was practised that it could not live side by side with the kind of tyranny which was being practised against the Jewish community in Germany.
  I should have thought, therefore, that when the war was won, the most strenuous effort would have been made to restore property with all possible speed, as far as the changed conditions through the great loss of life and the upheaval of the war would allow. What has, in fact, happened? Restitution laws have been passed by practically every ex-enemy country. The restitution problem has been dealt with in almost every part of Europe, but Great Britain shares with Russia the unhappy distinction of being one of the only two countries where this matter has not yet been dealt with. Even the Russians have passed or allowed a restitution law in respect of Thuringia. The immediate point of comparison is, however, in relation to the three Allied Occupation zones of Western Germany. In the American and French zones restitution laws were passed as long ago as November, 1947, nearly 1½ years ago. These restitution laws, furthermore, are working satisfactorily. A large number of properties have been restored, some of them by agreement and in other cases upon the decision of the Restitution Court or Restitution Chambers.
  The American and French authorities have in fact gone a step further, and have tackled the much more difficult question of compensation where it is no longer possible to effect restitution of the specific property which was taken away. Draft laws dealing with this second stage of restitution have been prepared, and probably will shortly be put into force. Yet, after nearly four years, we have still not passed the first kind of restitution measure. We are also approaching the time when some unification of the Western zones will be achieved. I would have thought that this was an added reason why we should have kept in step with our Allies, so that there would be uniformity in the treatment of this problem throughout the whole area involved.
  I want to trace shortly the history of this matter, and the facts which are relevant are quite brief. In January, 1948, three months after the American
  1152
  and French authorities had passed their restitution laws, a conference took place, in this country, between the Foreign Office and the organisations which are recognised as representing the interests of most of the claimants. Action was promised in that January conference, but it was not until June, 1948, that the first draft restitution law was shown to these organisations. These organisations raised certain obections on the ground that the draft was less favourable in material respects than the corresponding laws already promulgated in the American and French zones. The Foreign Office, I understand, said that a fresh draft would be submitted in a few weeks. It is understood—and we can only make assumptions on this point—that a fresh draft did in fact arrive from the British authorities in Germany, but not until November.
  In those two stages we have examples of very considerable delay, a January conference resulting in a draft in June, and then no further draft until the following November; and even now, in March, 1949, that draft has still not been re-shown to the interested parties.
  In the meantime, there could have been many settlements out of court and I want to say, in passing, that it is not only the dispossessed persons who are complaining; it is highly unsatisfactory that there should be so much uncertainty about the law relating to rights of ownership. Not only those who have been dispossessed, but those who are temporarily holding some kind of ownership are thus anxious that this long-continued delay shall be brought to an end. Meanwhile, even amicable arrangements between the parties are ruled out because they would not be permitted by the British authorities.
  Not only private individuals are affected by this delay. Jewish charities and other Jewish organisations are also denied the return of their properties and it seems particularly regrettable that even Jewish cemeteries are not permitted to be returned into the jurisdiction and ownership of the community to which they rightfully belong. Time is passing. Hitler's Germany lasted only 12 years and yet those who were his principal victims have already had to wait nearly one-third as long as that time—and they are still waiting—for the restoration of the rights to which they are entitled.

  1153
  One other complication threatens. We are told that the issue of the German Occupation Statute is near and it is feared that this draft Statute may contain no provision reserving to the Allied Powers some jurisdiction over this question of the restitution of property. I do submit that it will be a very serious matter if the present unsatisfactory position is allowed to crystallise and if no proper provision is made before the Occupation Statute is passed for the restoration of property to those from whom it has been taken.
  Something more than property is at issue here. The time has arrived when our name for fair dealing is possibly going to be questioned. I suggest that we should have been the first in all Europe to see that this matter was dealt with. I think we are entitled to ask why we are the last. I would be interested if the Minister of State could give us any indication as to where the delay lies. Is there some obstruction in the British administration in Germany or, has this matter perhaps got into the hands of the lawyers, who have been allowed to become masters of the Ministry instead of its servants?
  I would point out that this was the situation in which millions of members of the Jewish race were placed—some 6,000,000 of them in all—who had been already stripped of all their worldly possessions, lost their lives as well in the German concentration camps and gas chambers, and of whom only a remnant are left. It is believed that there are in fact only some 10,000 possible claimants left in the British zone and perhaps 100,000 claimants who are living outside the British zone. It is a very tragic residue who are asking for what is their due. In conclusion may I recall that when the Nazis were doing their grim work they openly boasted that the dead would never return to claim their rights. There are nevertheless some who have happily survived and who do claim their rights. We are entitled to ask: "How much longer have they still to wait?"
  12.20 a.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. and gallant Member for Eastern Norfolk (Brigadier Medlicott) has put his case so moderately, modestly, and yet so completely, and we are all so anxious to hear the Minister's reply, that
  1154
  I do not want to take more than a few moments, but I want to say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. The first is that no one doubts his own knowledge, understanding, and sympathy in this matter, but it is because we recognise that fact that it is so difficult to understand, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has pointed out, why this country, whom all the world would have expected to be the first in this matter should be the last. It is not for want of sympathy in the Foreign Office, of that I am certain. Then what is it that is holding us up so far behind not merely the ex-enemy nations, upon whom, after all, we forced the policy of restitution in the treaties we have compelled them to sign, but the United States, who had precisely and exactly the same problem to deal with, under exactly the same conditions in that other part of Western Germany with which we are seeking to accommodate and co-ordinate our policy?
  It is true—it has been suggested in some places—that one of the reasons is that the military administration in the British zone is unwilling to accept the same kind of Statute as Amercia, something less generous, less complete, something which would leave in German hands all the property for whom no heir can be found? I see the difficulty about a successor corporation in regard to the heirs of those who have disappeared. I do not want to ask too many questions because there will not be time for an answer, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure the House that the delay will not be long, and that our Statute will be as generous as anyone else's.
  Mr. Janner rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. McNeil.
  12.23 a.m.
  The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): I am indebted and touched, as I frequently am, by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in his references to myself, and I thank the hon. and gallant Member for East Norfolk (Brigadier Medlicott) for his moderation, and I also apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester for not being able to give way.
  Mr. Janner: I only wanted to ask two questions.
  Mr. McNeil: The intentions of the Government are not in doubt, of that I am sure. We, acknowledge our obligations to these unfortunate people and their successors, and we are desparately anxious to discharge our duty on this subject efficiently and justly. It is argued that we are behind the other two Powers. Here I want to say, in parenthesis, although there is a limited Statute, the Soviet zone has no general discharge on this subject either.
  Our address to the subject was necessarily complex. We had to deal not only with the people who have been deprived of property, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman understands, but we also had to take into account the people who were forced to negotiate property under duress, and it is equally true that, although the great bulk of this property was the property of Jews—the worst treated of these people—there was some 5 or 7 per cent. of the property which formerly belonged to people whom we, on this side of the House, would have called comrades, and for that reason it was taken from them. Moreover, there were the obligations introduced by such features as dilapidations, even appreciations, and profits.
  When we first addressed ourselves to the subject some of the property had, in our opinion, been illegally disposed of as long as 14 years before, so any legislation had necessarily to be very complex. We first hoped there would be quadripartite action, and with the other three Powers we took up conversations on this subject. We had, however, taken one independent action, and that was, as I have tried to explain to the House before, that we did put through a general order making arrangements for claims to be filed and registered, in the hope that we could go into action immediately an ordinance had been promulgated and a court or body constituted for this purpose. But we did base ourselves first on the hope of quadripartite agreement. Those talks broke down in November, 1947.
  The Americans and the French had already prepared separate, and rather varying laws to deal with such a contingency. I think I ought to apologise to the House for having to admit that we had not prepared against such a contingency ourselves by doing the spade work on a law relating only to our zone. How-
  1156
  ever, that was one of the big setbacks we had to meet. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the course of negotiations, and the delay. My dates accord fairly accurately with his. There is one feature to which I wish to draw attention. We had most properly, in my opinion, entered into undertakings that we would take no action without consulting the appropriate organisations in this country. In addition, we naturally had to meet the representatives of His Majesty's Government in Berlin, so we had, as it were, almost three-cornered discussions going on.
  The easiest course would have been to conform pretty closely to the American model. I am satisfied that the overriding reason why we did not thus conform was that we feared that, if we produced an instrument that was too inflexible or looked harsh, we might thereby encourage or create a recrudescence of anti-Semitic feeling. I have apologised for the delay, but I am satisfied, from my examination of these circumstances, that that was a very real factor. When we had made our first attempt, neglecting the American model, we were eventually, not forced, but eager to admit that the American model worked very well. There was a great deal of amicable settlement, surprisingly little litigation, and most certainly, as far as we could see, no reaction which might have been interpreted as anti-Semitic feeling.
  We, therefore, have directed our representatives in Germany to produce a model following fairly closely the American example. At one stage we had hoped it might be possible to produce an instrument applying to both zones, because we had discovered, as the Americans have discovered, that sometimes we had a person with half his property in the American and half in the British zone. The Americans found it was impossible for administrative reasons to make the modifications which should have been made in their instrument if it were to apply to the slightly different local conditions in our zone. Since that was impossible, we directed ourselves to producing a third text, closely following the American model. That, I am glad to say, we received four days ago. I and my advisers have only had a preliminary look at this but I should say to the House that I think it is a satisfactory instrument if we are to base ourselves on the

  1157
  American experience. I want to assure the House that so far as I can see there will be little delay in formalising this instrument.
  I want to make two points. We are, of course, determined to consult again the organisations in this country. We are indebted to them for the advice they have given, for their wealth of experience; and I am indebted to them for their courtesy on this subject. We are also under the obligation to submit the draft ordinance to the Land Government in our zone. It is desirable that we should have the consent as well as the experience of these people blended upon it. I should hope that these two series of conversations will be developed quickly and that within a relatively short time, I hope a matter of weeks, I may be able to inform the House that the instrument is there. I feel I ought to apologise for the delay. We have trodden a tortuous path. But even though I apologise for the delay I want to say that there should be no doubt of our intention and sympathy in this matter. We want this instrument to be flexible, just and appropriate to use today and one we ought quickly to discharge.
  Mr. Janner: Will the Minister say whether he is proposing to presume that there was duress, before coming to a conclusion in respect of any property and put the onus of proof upon the present owner in respect of property confiscated, whether confiscated by word or by assent
  1158
  or transfer by deed? Has he considered the point with regard to heirless property being considered as a matter for compensating a community, and whether it is proposed to restore to communities which exist at the present time in Germany, those properties which have been communal property and which they are entitled to have back?
  Mr. McNeil: Yes, the ordinance covers such properties. I should have told my hon. Friend that there is provision for intestate property. There we would have to provide a trustee or make trusteeship arrangements. Where confiscation has taken place, the matter is straightforward. On the question of duress I would not attempt to answer offhand that this is assumed. If it is what the Americans have done, we would approximately be the same on that point. Of course, we are making it obligatory for anyone who has knowledge of property to bring that information. Registration takes place as well as claim by deed.
  Mr. Janner: With corporations?
  Mr. McNeil: Corporations, yes; I am fairly certain I am right, but perhaps I might look at that matter and send an answer to my hon. Friend.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes to One o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  N.C.O. (Greek Award)
  N.C.O. (Greek Award)
  Thefts (Investigation Procedure)
  Thefts (Investigation Procedure)
TERRITORIAL ARMY
  Recruiting, Huddersfield
  Recruiting, Huddersfield
  Strength
  Strength
  PROPOSED NEW TOWN, CONGLETON
  PROPOSED NEW TOWN, CONGLETON
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Foreign Workers
  Foreign Workers
EMPLOYMENT
  Doncaster
  Doncaster
  County Durham
  County Durham
  Dismissals, Uxbridge and Hayes
  Dismissals, Uxbridge and Hayes
  Unemployment (Regional Percentages)
  Unemployment (Regional Percentages)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (STATISTICS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (STATISTICS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Betting Taxation (Receipts)
  Betting Taxation (Receipts)
  Budget (Date)
  Budget (Date)
  Foreign Currency (R.S.P.C.A.)
  Foreign Currency (R.S.P.C.A.)
  CIVIL SERVICE (REDUNDANT STAFF)
  CIVIL SERVICE (REDUNDANT STAFF)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Cash Registers
  Cash Registers
  Negotiations (Liaison with Industry)
  Negotiations (Liaison with Industry)
  GREECE (DEATH SENTENCE)
  GREECE (DEATH SENTENCE)
  CARDINAL MINDSZENTY (TRIAL)
  CARDINAL MINDSZENTY (TRIAL)
  FOREIGN WORKERS (ENGLISH COURSES)
  FOREIGN WORKERS (ENGLISH COURSES)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Russian Coarse Grain
  Russian Coarse Grain
  Farm Workers
  Farm Workers
  Cheese Production
  Cheese Production
  Sweets (Prices)
  Sweets (Prices)
ROADS
  Crofter Counties Scheme
  Crofter Counties Scheme
  Repairs, Kingston Bagpuize
  Repairs, Kingston Bagpuize
  HEARING AIDS
  HEARING AIDS
COAL INDUSTRY
  Exports
  Exports
  Accidents (Information)
  Accidents (Information)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  ADDRESS OF CONGRATULATION: HIS MAJESTY'S REPLY
  2.35 p.m.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I have to report to your Lordships that, in accordance with the order of the House of Tuesday. November 16 last, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, and myself as Lord Privy Seal and Leader of your Lordships' House, waited upon His Majesty at Buckingham Palace on Friday afternoon last, March 4, and presented to him your Lordships' Address congratulating His Majesty, Her Majesty the Queen and Their Royal Highnesses The Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh, on the birth of a son to Her Royal Highness, The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.
  His Majesty, who was accompanied by Her Majesty the Queen, and Their Royal Highnesses The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, and the Duke of Edinburgh, was graciously pleased to reply as follows:
  "I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address on the happy event of the birth of a son to my dear daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, and the Duke of Edinburgh.
  You have frequently shown the affectionate interest which you take in all that concerns my family and myself, and we have been deeply moved by your congratulations on the birth of our grandson which has given so much pleasure throughout the Commonwealth."

  HURST PARK RACE COURSE BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL [H.L.]
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the enactments relating to patents and designs and to provide for an additional puisne Judge of the High Court; and to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill he now read 1a.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENT CONTROL) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

  EIREANN CITIZENS IN GREAT BRITAIN
  2.39 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: 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: (1) Whether, after the Republic of Ireland Act passed by the Eire Legislature comes into force, citizens of Eire resident in Great Britain will be liable to National Service; (2) Whether they contemplate the introduction and passage of any legislation to deal with any aspect of the situation arising from the coming into force of the Republic of Ireland Act which has been passed by the Eire Legislature.]
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble and learned Viscount's Question, by virtue of Section 3 (2) of the British Nationality Act. 1948, the National Service Acts will continue, as now, to apply to citizens of Eire who are of military age and are ordinarily resident in Great Britain. In reply to the second part of the Question, His Majesty's Government have under consideration the question of what legislation may be required to give effect to the policy enunciated in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, on November 25 last.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, arising out of that answer, may I ask whether

  177
  attention is being paid to the letter which was published in The Times on February 28 from Serjeant Sullivan, who is widely regarded as a considerable authority on such matters? In that letter Serjeant Sullivan points out that, in his view, when the Republic of Eire comes into being, it must be regarded as a foreign State. He further points out that the phrase "citizens of Eire" in the British Nationality Act, which was passed by Parliament last July, must be interpreted as referring to persons who are under the allegiance to the Crown and within the Commonwealth. I do not ask, of course, that these views should be discussed now, but I wish to inquire whether serious consideration is being given to these views which obviously, if they are correct, though special to the case of Ireland, are of large importance.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that consideration is being given to that matter.

  DEATH SENTENCE ON GENERAL PIKA
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  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 PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, General Pika has appealed against the death sentence and the House would not wish me to say anything which might prejudice the reconsideration of it. Though His Majesty's Government have no locus standi for taking any steps in the matter, as he is not a British subject, widespread sympathy is felt for a gallant officer who served Czechoslovakia and her Allies loyally during the war. I need hardly add that no reliance can be placed on any confessions he may be said to have made in regard to allegations regarding his contacts with British representatives. Any such contacts were limited to the
  178
  social relations which in most countries are normal between the Embassy of a friendly Government and high officials of the country concerned.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that during the war General Pika rendered such signal service to Russo-Czech relations that a number of high Soviet decorations were conferred upon him?
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am well aware of the fact which has just been stated by the noble Lord.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, could not that outstanding example of Soviet gratitude be conveyed to some of the more distinguished fellow travellers here?

  JURIES BILL
  2.43 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, in asking your Lordships for the Second Reading of this Bill, I do not think I need take up a great deal of time, as the Bill, if not entirely uncontroversial, is at any rate like the curate's egg, uncontroversial in parts. There is no need for me to discuss the manifold merits of the jury system as developed in this country in connection with both criminal and civil trials. It has been called the palladium of British liberty. Although it may not be a perfect method of resolving disputes on questions of fact, it is in the opinion of many people as good a method as exists, and in addition it has psychological and political advantages which have long been realised by the great mass of the people. In these circumstances, I am sure your Lordships will agree that anything which can be done to improve and strengthen the system will be of advantage to the administration of justice.
  The Bill which is before your Lordships' House this afternoon is intended to have that effect. It has two main objectives; first, to enable payment to be made to jurors, and secondly, to abolish the system of special juries. I think it is only in respect of the latter part that there is any controversy about the merits of the Bill. The greater part of the Bill is taken up with the first of these two objectives, which I think will appeal to

  179
  noble Lords on both sides of the House. The position in respect of payment of jurors is broadly the same, whether the jurors are called to take part in a criminal case or in a civil case. In the case of jurors at criminal trials, whether at assizes or quarter sessions, no payment is made to jurors for travelling expenses, loss of earnings, subsistence or anything of the kind. A juror may be brought from a far part of the county and be kept at the court for several days entirely at his own expense. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a hardship, particularly at the present time when costs are so much higher than they were before the war.
  In the case of jurors at civil trials, the situation is much the same, although there is a small payment which is sanctioned by custom. In the Middle Ages it was called the "juryman's groat." In London, where expenses were higher, the custom grew up to pay the jurors as much as three groats, or one shilling, and this was the "juryman's shilling." At assizes they were paid two groats, and at some courts they were paid as low as half a groat—not a very munificent remuneration for a hard day's work in the administration of justice. It might well have been that in the Middle Ages that was better than nothing, but at the present time it amounts to very little indeed—hardly the price of a glass of beer. These hardships have been often pointed out in the past, but nothing has been done about them until the present Bill was introduced. The Government to which I have the honour to belong have decided that there are a number of anomalies which ought to be put right, and this is one of them. Your Lordships will agree that it is unfortunate that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who is particularly interested in this Bill, is unable to be here this afternoon to ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading. It is one of a number of measures which he has sponsored and supported for redressing anomalies in the administration of the law of this country.
  The greater part of the Bill turns on Clause 1, which provides for payment to jurors in accordance with a prescribed scale that will be introduced by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Treasury, in respect of travelling and subsistence
  180
  allowances and compensation for loss of earnings. In respect of compensation for loss of earnings a ceiling is imposed in the proviso to the clause. Where the time lost is of not more than four hours' duration, the sum shall be no more than ten shillings, and where it is of more than four hours' duration the amount payable shall have a ceiling of twenty shillings. This scale is in accordance with the general practice which has been coming into existence.
  Under the Local Government Act, 1948, Section 112, similar allowances are payable to members of local authorities and the same scale of costs is payable to witnesses under the Witnesses' Allowances Order made under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908. As recently as August of last year, a new order was brought into force under which the scales have been revised and improved, and I understand that the regulations which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will introduce will be largely framed on the same basis as the order applying to witnesses. There will be a subsistence maximum of 5s. per day; the travelling, allowance will be the actual cost to which the juryman is put; and where the juryman is detained owing to the length of the case, and has to spend a night at the assize town, or wherever it may be, he will be given a night allowance, with a maximum of 20s.
  I feel that I should also draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 1 (2), which is of some importance, because those of your Lordships—and I know there are many—who take part in the administration of justice, particularly at quarter sessions, will know that frequently juries are summoned without having, to take part in a case. Subsection (2) provides that in a case of that sort, where a juror is called to the court but is not required to serve, he will be deemed to have served and will be entitled to the payment just as much as if he had taken part in a case and had been a party to a verdict.
  The following sixteen clauses all establish machinery for putting Clause 1 into effect. I do not think I need ask your Lordships to look at them in detail. The general principle is that in criminal cases, where the county pays at present for the administration of the criminal law, the county shall pay for the jurors.

  181
  In using the expression "county" I include, of course, all relevant local authorities who are concerned. In cases of civil litigation, where the financial burden is shouldered by the Exchequer, the Exchequer will shoulder the burden of making these payments to jurors, except that the parties to the litigation will have to pay something towards it. I understand that arrangements already exist under which the Lord Chancellor, in the case of the High Court in consultation with the Judges, and in the county courts in consultation with the Treasury, may establish the fees which litigants themselves must pay. That will to some extent lighten the burden upon the Exchequer.
  There are a certain number of local courts of civil jurisdiction of high antiquity and very considerable authority—such as the Court of Passage at Liverpool, the Salford Hundred Court, and others—where the local authority will accept the responsibility of the financial burden imposed by the payment to the jurors. Some of your Lordships who are interested in the antiquarian side of this matter will perhaps be interested to look at Clause 14, which excludes certain types of jurors from the benefits conferred by this Bill. For example, antiquarian institutions such as the Great or Small Barmote Court, which sits in the Hundred of High Peak and is concerned with disputes about mineral rights, are excluded. There are other juries of the same kind which I believe occasionally sit, and the sitting is made an occasion for a certain amount of jollification, at which a good time is had by as many people as are able to gather together. We do not desire that those interesting survivals should be brought to an end but, also, we do not wish that they should come within the financial provisions made by this Bill.
  We then come to Clause 18, which with the following clauses is concerned with the abolition of the special jury. There is an important exception to this, in the case of special juries which are summoned in the City of London. They may continue to be used for the purpose of dealing with commercial problems. These special juries in the City of London have a very honourable history; indeed, as is known to some of your Lordships who have been much interested in our commercial law, they may claim to have taken a large part in the building up of the commercial law of this country in
  182
  the eighteenth century, under the presiding genius of Lord Mansfield, perhaps the greatest commercial lawyer this country has known. Since that time City of London special juries have not been used quite so much, and they are not commonly met with nowadays. There may from time to time, however, be a case in which the expert knowledge of such a jury would be of great assistance to the Judge who has charge of the commercial list in the High Court, and it is therefore proposed to maintain the existence of this special jury from the City of London. It has always been possible to transfer a case from one of the provincial centres of commerce to London, in order that advantage of this special jury may be taken by the litigants and the Judge, and this will continue to be the case.
  The history of the special jury is not very clear. One of the biggest lacunæ in the late Sir William Holdsworth's monumental History of English Law is in relation to the history of the special jury; so far as I have been able to discover, there is nothing in that great work about the special jury. It seems to have grown up in about the fifteenth century, just as a matter of practice, and from that time it has undoubtedly taken a great part in the administration of law, being used in a difficult type of case in which a man of substance and education could take a valuable part in the administration of justice.
  The qualifications to be a special juror at the present time are governed by the Jurors Act, 1870, and the main difference between the special jury and a common jury under that Act is merely a matter of wealth; indeed, it is little more than a question of whether a person lives in a larger house, because it is mainly a question of the rateable value of the house. A householder rated at £100 in a large town, or £50 in a small town, is qualified to be a special juror, while a householder rated at £30 in London and Middlesex, and £20 elsewhere, is qualified to be a common juror. There are various other qualifications for a special juror, such as if a man is entitled to be called "Esquire," or if he is a merchant or a banker, but I understand that in practice the special jury list is largely made up on the basis of rateable qualification. In the view of His Majesty's Government, this distinction is no longer justified. It

  183
  may have been justified in the past, before education became widespread, but at the present time, when practically every citizen is reasonably well educated and at least sufficiently well to take part in the decision of an ordinary type of case which comes before a jury, it is felt that there is no longer any reason why the distinction should be maintained.
  Although it is possible to have a special jury in a criminal case, I understand that it is now over thirty years since a special jury has in fact been empanelled to decide a criminal case. Although in Scotland it is possible to have a special jury in a civil case, I understand that, for a very long time past, at any rate, no such special jury has in fact been empanelled. I rather expect that your Lordships will agree that, in these circumstances, the special jury has ceased to fulfil any useful purpose, but it is a fact that when this matter was discussed in another place a number of the Members there took a different view. At any rate, the view of His Majesty's Government is that there is no longer any valid case for continuing the existence of the special jury, and that is provided for in these clauses in the Bill.
  Part II of the Bill deals with Scotland, and the clauses there are drafted in order to bring about the same situation in Scotland as Part I of the Bill will bring about in this country. The Scottish system of law, as your Lordships know, is so different from that in this country that a special series of clauses are necessary. The main difference is that in Scotland the expense of the administration of criminal justice falls upon the Exchequer, and not upon the local authority as is the case here. I do not think I need draw your Lordships' attention to any of the details of the clauses in Part II. Part III is an enabling clause, which enables the Government of Northern Ireland to introduce legislation for the purpose of producing the result which Part I will produce in this country—in other words, to enable them to pay their jurors and to abolish the special jury. I think your Lordships will agree that, although the objects aimed at by this Bill are not of a very radical or fundamental character, nevertheless they will in fact lead to a substantial improvement in the jury system as used in this country and will, therefore, be to the advantage of the
  184
  administration of justice here. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chorley.)
  3.3 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord who has just spoken for giving us so clear an account of the contents of this Bill. While we join with him in deploring that the Lord Chancellor cannot be here, in which case he might, I suppose, have introduced the measure, I do not feel that the House has in the least suffered because on this occasion the noble Lord opposite has undertaken that duty. I think he is right in saying that in its main features the Bill will be generally approved but it is also right to say that it deals with a very important and, I may add, a very interesting subject. It is an attempt to improve our system of justice, and that is a matter which all serious citizens—and certainly all members of this House—will desire to consider carefully and fully.
  I agree with the noble Lord that there are really only two points of principle involved in the Bill, and, speaking for myself—and perhaps for many other noble Lords also—I am in agreement with the Government on both points. The first is whether we should revise and increase payment for jury service. I think we should. The second important question is whether special juries, as a separate class of jury tribunal, should be abolished with the exception of the special juries in the City of London. There again, my own judgment, based on what is a fairly long experience of jury cases, is that it is quite right now to abolish that distinction.
  May I just say a few words to the House on these two matters of principle?—because, of course, we shall discuss the details later in Committee. First, as to providing some sort of payment from public funds for jury service, I think that at present nothing is paid to a juryman who serves in a criminal court, with the great responsibility of deciding, according to the evidence and under the directions of the Judge, whether a man has or has not been proved guilty of a crime. Nothing at all is paid to such a juryman. This Bill, if I follow it correctly, will apply to the juryman in a criminal case what I think are, on the whole, very

  185
  necessary provisions. In proper instances, of course, there is a good deal to be said for the view that the duties and the responsibilities which citizens are called upon to discharge in a country like ours should be undertaken without payment. I certainly do not want to see everything which the good citizen does made the subject of remuneration. It should be part of our pride, as well as our tradition, that as citizens of this country we do our duty as well as we can, without thinking what we are to get for it. For example, the State does not remunerate electors for going to the polls, and it is to be hoped that other people do not remunerate them either. To take a still more obvious example, the State does not remunerate taxpayers because they pay their taxes; it would be a curious and circuitous process if it did.
  Those are duties and responsibilities which fall upon all of us, whereas this jury service—although it is a compulsory service—is an exceptional incident in the life of a citizen. It has to be discharged by a very small proportion of citizens who are qualified to render it, and I think that makes a great difference. The lot falls upon a selected few out of the Jury List, and these few are required to do a piece of work for the community as a whole, and in many cases this exceptional burden, this compulsory duty, does involve them in personal loss. That being so, I think it was quite right for our law to recognise (as it did in the old days, at any rate as regards cases in the civil courts as the Government have just reminded us) that a man who serves as a juror should be paid something. Without inquiring how it comes about that the value of money has so depreciated, I agree that in these days to pay one shilling to a common juryman (a shilling a day, I think it is) is really derisory. In the case of the special juryman, as many noble Lords will know, though I do not think the fact was mentioned in the speech to which we have just listened, he is entitled to be paid a guinea a day.
  LORD GODDARD: A case.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I did not mean a day. He is paid a guinea; but, oddly enough, however long the case goes on, the initial guinea is supposed to be enough. Some of us who practised at the Common Law Bar are not, unfamiliar with the long-drawn-out special jury case
  186
  in which, on the third or fourth day, before the proceedings are resumed the foreman of the jury delicately hints to the Judge that he and his comrades are feeling that the case is going on for a long time and are wondering whether it is not possible for some recognition to be made of that fact by some further payment. Then follows a process in which members of the Bar are careful not to take advantage of one another, because it may be that the litigant on one side has plenty of money, while the litigant on the other side has not; but at any rate, as a matter of arrangement between the parties, the special jurymen in a long case may in fact receive a guinea for each day. As I say, that is purely a matter of arrangement between the parties.
  It has always been recognised in civil cases, therefore, that the jury should be paid, but I do not think the existing arrangement is one which ought to stand. I am sure that the payment should be strictly limited, but there should be some better system of relieving the juryman from the special loss which he incurs. After all, the juryman is a citizen who has been chosen by lot to exercise a particular function on behalf of the public as a whole. Therefore, I am entirely in favour of the principle of Part I of the Bill, thought it will perhaps need to be examined in Committee with some little care; even now I see one or two points about which I should like to make inquiry at the proper time. I will add only this to what the noble Lord actually said in his short description, which I thought was otherwise quite accurate—namely, that the provision in the Bill is a provision for certain payments to be made in respect of jury service for each day that the juryman attends. I think I am right in saying that at present the payment which is made to a special or a common juryman is paid only if he actually goes into the box and takes the oath to serve in a case; that is to say, nothing is paid to the large number of people who are summoned to attend because they may be needed to take their places in the jury box in the course of the day.
  Now comes the other point which is more open to argument—though it is a matter on which I have a clear opinion. So far as I have any right to speak I think it is desirable (and I respectfully

  187
  commend this view to other noble Lords) to get rid of the distinction which now exists—the distinction between a common jury, which is composed of members who are householders resident in premises of the net annual value of £30—or £20 in the country—and a special jury, which is composed of members, broadly speaking, who are the occupiers of premises worth at least £100 a year in London or certain big towns (certainly in London and Middlesex, anyway) or at least £50 elsewhere. Whatever was the case long ago, that, in my view, is a distinction which clearly cannot be justified to-day. Perhaps I may be allowed to say, without being autobiographical, that in my experience a common jury is often quite as intelligent as a special jury. Certainly, we cannot grade intelligence at this time of day by inquiring what is the annual value of the premises occupied by the individual; that is manifestly a perfectly archaic and ridiculous method of grading intelligence. It may have been different in the old days. After all, in the old days, I suppose, the poorer class of the population in many instances could not read; newspapers were so expensive that the poorest people never bought one; and the circumstances generally were so different that possibly this kind of distinction was valid. But I am quite clear that to keep up such a distinction now is unjustified; and, what is more, it is really to misunderstand the way in which every juryman, of any class, goes about his business.
  I hope I shall not be thought to be wandering from the point if I say that I altogether deny that every kind of jury is actuated by what some people call "class consciousness" or "class prejudice." I would assure your Lordships, with complete candour, that that is not the experience of those who have a great deal to do face to face with juries in the jury box. The juryman, of course, has his own mental or political attitude, as has everybody else, and no doubt his view and his judgment may be coloured by that attitude. But I do not think any advocate who has had long experience of presenting cases to a jury has any doubt that when the jury have sworn that they will listen to the evidence and, as it is said, "a true verdict make," they endeavour honestly, under the guidance and authority of a wise judge, to act with the
  188
  intention and desire of arriving at a just conclusion.
  The notion of plaintiffs who have felt aggrieved about having lost their case before a special jury, that they would have won it before a common jury, is nonsense. The individual citizen sitting in the jury box is, I am sure, only trying to do his best. He listens attentively—though he sits on a very uncomfortable seat and is inadequately provided with the materials for noting what is going on. He attends closely to the learned judge and is, quite rightly, largely helped as to his ultimate judgment by the way in which the judge reminds him of the facts and points out their relevance and importance. Whether the jury be a common jury or a special jury. I feel certain that such bodies, as a whole, regard themselves as a tribunal which is helping to arrive at the truth and to administer justice.
  It may be true that sometimes a citizen in the jury box has some prejudices, but—speaking of course with very great respect—is it quite certain that a learned judge never has prejudices? I do not think so. One of the great advantages of the jury system, as I have seen it, is that where you are relying upon a judge alone, if he has an idiosyncrasy or a "kink" in some direction, a mere human failing such as we all may develop—well, you have to rely upon one man; whereas the fact that you have a number of citizens on a jury—twelve citizens in the High Court or in a criminal trial and, what is very rare nowadays, a smaller number in a county court—has the result that it tends to cancel out or to mellow the isolated extreme view which perhaps one man would form.
  Most of us who watch these things know that one of the duties of an advocate is not only to listen to the court and to make his speech but to watch the jury. There was one occasion, I remember, when a good junior said, "The red-faced man in the back row does not believe this witness." That is the sort of junior you want if you are going to carry on your work as an advocate successfully. I am quite convinced that this is the true view of our system in this country, and that is the reason why we follow a practice here which to lawyers in some other countries is most extraordinary. I have often taken a barrister

  189
  or a lawyer from the United States round our courts. The thing that astounds him is that one does not hear anybody challenge the jury, whereas in some parts of the United States there appears to be quite an elaborate inquiry first as to whether an individual citizen, if he is put in the box, is a person who, because of his ancestry, his opinions, his previous knowledge or his relations, is likely to do justice. We never do it in this country.
  I have only once seen a juryman challenged in a court. It was in a criminal ease at Bristol. I was not conducting the case, but I was there. Evidently the accused had told his solicitor or counsel that there was a particular man sitting in the jury box about to be sworn whom he regarded as his mortal enemy. I recollect very well how, before the jury was sworn, the associate said to the prisoner, in the language of the court, "Prisoner, these are the names of the jurymen who shall try you. If you object to them, or to any of them, before they are sworn, when they take the Book and before they are sworn, you shall be heard." The Testament went round and, when a certain individual in the back row took it, counsel said, "I object." Thereupon the associate said to the man, "Get out of the box." The man took the Testament he flung it down on the ledge of the desk—and one could see that the prisoner was right! That is the only instance that I have ever known where there has been a challenge of the jury, whereas in some countries, and indeed I believe in the friendly country of Holland across the Channel, these things happen much more frequently. The explanation is that in this Island we have found that a juryman's sense of duty, and his willingness to listen to a fair argument, fairly presented, together with the help he receives from the judge to weigh up the evidence, leads, on balance, to very just results. It is quite wrong to suppose that there is any class privilege about it.
  I have ventured to reinforce my observations on this point by bringing to your Lordships' House the very sprightly autobiography recently published about a friend of many of us, Sir Patrick Hastings. If I may be allowed, I should like to read one paragraph from his book. I hope I shall not be suspected thereby
  190
  of corruptly attempting to promote the further sale of this book! This is what he says—I agree with him:
  "The jury-box, which is their temporary home, contains twelve members of the most rational and sober-minded nation in the world. Their one desire is to see that justice, as they understand it, shall be done between two people who have placed themselves unreservedly in their hands. They are ignorant of law, but in their united wisdom they ale fully acquainted with the dangers and tribulations of ordinary human life. They are patient and generous to the advocates who appear before them, but are properly intolerant of anything which they think is in the nature of a trick. They will listen at any length to common sense, but become restless under verbosity; they become irritated by an ill-timed jest, and above all they detest the slightest attempt to bully either a witness or themselves. But as a tribunal for dispensing justice they are absolutely without equal."
  This very experienced advocate goes on:
  "During all the years that I have practised before them I hardly remember a single instance in which they were wrong in the decision which they gave. They have often been against me, and upon those occasions I have been properly annoyed, but upon thinking the case over, as I always did, in the end I have come to the conclusion that they were right. Their verdict may not have been strictly in accordance with that which we know as the law of evidence, but according to the law of justice and common sense there was no fault to be found with the decision at which they arrived. I am satisfied that in the end twelve ordinary English men and women sitting together form the best tribunal that civilisation has yet devised, and any legislator who seeks to curtail the activities of juries does a great disservice to the nation."
  I must say that that expresses the view which I have been led to form.
  Now, lest I should irritate by my verbosity, I will sit down, observing only that as things are to-day we employ juries in only a comparatively restricted field of litigation. They were much more widely employed when I was young. The change was due to the First World War. Then, on the grounds of saving man-power, new rules were made, and to-day a jury is employed in only a limited number of classes of litigation, where there is alleged fraud, libel, slander, false imprisonment, seduction or breach of promise. But we need not go into the details—at least, I need not. As I said in my first sentence, I feel that the two main purposes of this Bill are entirely right, and I congratulate the Government on having found the occasion and the means of bringing it forward.
  3.29 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I certainly do not propose to destroy the harmony which has hitherto prevailed in relation to this Bill. It may be that those of us who have at times practised before juries have not been as fully informed as we might have been as to the exact process by which twelve good men (or women) and true were ultimately shepherded into a portion of the court which it was not at first sight easy to distinguish from the dock. Nor have we always been entirely instructed as to the system by which they were remunerated. But now, in my judgment, the moment has come when such remuneration as they have hitherto received falls to be revised, and when the provisions of this Bill in general should usefully be put into force.
  I confess that I am a little startled at the number of clauses which are necessary in this Bill in order to put into operation what one would think at first hand was the not very complex operation of paying jurors for their service. In the interests of complete justice, it may be necessary to administer some sort of means test as to how much jurymen are to receive for a particular service, but from the point of view of simplification I cannot help thinking that there may be something to be said for adopting a system more in the nature of a flat rate of payment, although I agree as to the subsistence and journey money. We may perhaps have something to say on those points on the Committee stage.
  In these days, opportunities for voluntary service are being considerably curtailed and one might think that a chance not only to accept responsibility but to discharge a privilege by joining in the administration of justice was one which would be beneficial to the citizen. But, at the same time, when we are talking about voluntary service upon a jury, we have to remember that it was voluntary only in the sense of being so underpaid as practically not to be paid at all; voluntary, in the sense that the man had come forward and volunteered to go and sit in the jury box, it certainly was not.
  On the other aspect, I confess to no indignation or lamentation at the departure of the special jury. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has just said, there were times when special juries were very commonly resorted
  192
  to; but those times are long past—and rightly so. It seems a little ludicrous to preserve nowadays the question as to whether a person shall be a special or a common juror, in days when most of the people who used to inhabit the larger houses are living either in their own or some one else's garage or gardener's cottage. But the illogical aspect of the special jury system which impresses itself upon me is that where a man suffers injury to his body, his case can be tried by a common jury, but if he suffers injury to his reputation he can, if he wishes, import a special jury. What is the difference between the two?
  Again, and more important, a man may be tried by a common jury for libel or for fraud in the criminal aspects of those matters, and the result of that trial may well be that he goes to prison for a protracted span of time. A common jury is good enough to send him to prison, but apparently not good enough to decide whether he shall pay monetary compensation for the fact that he has defamed somebody, or damages in cases of fraud. That distinction between the criminal and the civil sphere of common and special juries seems to be so illogical that, for that reason alone, I should be prepared to see the departure of the special jury.
  It may be that there is a feeling abroad in some sections of the community to-day that a special jury is animated by political considerations, by some form of class prejudice. I believe that accusation to be unwarranted. At the same time, however, if it exists, and if the retention of a special jury is not essential to the maintenance of our judicial system, then I would rather eradicate even an unreal grievance than see the whole administration of justice possibly suffer from the existence of that view in a matter which was not fundamental to the system's efficiency. My Lords, for those reasons we desire to support this Bill and to say that on the two main principles which it sets out to establish, we are in agreement with the Government; and we congratulate them on the steps that they have taken to make these two changes in the administration of justice.
  3.35 p.m.
  LORD GODDARD: My Lords, may I say just a few words in support of this Bill? For many years I have thought

  193
  that special juries might well be abolished. As your Lordships know, with one or two minor exceptions, special juries are concerned only with civil cases, and now that juries in civil cases have almost entirely disappeared it is very rare indeed to have them. And that is just the time, I suppose, for this Bill to be introduced. I doubt whether there are now one hundred cases in a year tried by jury—either special or common. Everybody seems to be content to leave the case to a judge. Only the other day, I had a special jury in my court to try a case which I should have thought was essentially one for a jury, but both parties begged me to discharge the jury and to try it myself. I have often wondered whether the lip service that we all pay to the great palladium of British justice, the jury, is well justified, because it is a fact that many criminals want to be tried by the magistrate and not by a jury if they can possibly persuade the magistrate to take that course; and the same applies nowadays very much to civil cases.
  To pretend that special juries favour one section of the community more than another is, I believe, a complete libel upon them, and it would be just as sensible—or senseless—to say that common juries favour the other. As a matter of fact, when I was called to the Bar (in the same year as the noble Viscount: I regret to say fifty years ago), I was told by one of the old "warriors," who in those days knew a great deal about juries, "My boy, if you are for the plaintiff and have a rocky case, ask for a common jury. If you have a good case, and want heavier damages, ask for a special jury." But I have found that even that was not true. If one goes into the history of special juries, one finds they were set up originally for one purpose—and one purpose only.
  The first special jury that was ever sworn in England was sworn in the year 1645, and it was then formed by the court on the application of both parties. It was a dispute between two merchants and they both asked that a jury of merchants should be empanelled to try the case. For many years that was the only ground upon which one would have a special jury. I am glad that that sort of right has been preserved in this Bill, because I think that where commercial cases are to be tried in the City of
  194
  London it is a good thing to have a jury of merchants. In 1730, an Act was passed which enabled a court to order special juries; but even then their use was infrequent—until, of course, there came Lord Mansfield, who somehow or other managed to have established a body of special jurors which was known as "Lord Mansfield's special jurors." He used to ask them to dinner and it was considered a great compliment to be one of Lord Mansfield's special jurors. In Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chief Justices he says that when he first attended at Westminster Hall he used to see sitting there a man called Edmund Vaux, who always wore a cocked hat, who had been one of Lord Mansfield's special jurors, was intensely proud of it, and was looked upon in the City as second only in authority to the Chief Justice.
  Then, of course, there came the Act of George IV, in 1820, which fixed the qualification for special jurors. In those days, no doubt, the qualification to be assessed to the relief of the poor at £100 a year was a very considerable one. With the changes in values, that qualification has really disappeared; and now every small shopkeeper, every publican, every boarding-house keeper—all estimable persons no doubt, and all good jurors—is qualified to be a special juror, whereas the civil servant, the professional clerk, the accountants' clerk, and people like that, who are probably much more able, or just as able, to weigh up evidence, are rated only as common jurors. I defy anyone going into a court to-day to look at the jury and say whether it is a common jury or a special jury court. I think it is high time this difference was abolished. With the jurors one has now, with their greater degree of education, we can safely take all our juries from the same panel, except that I believe it is a good thing to keep the special jury for the City of London commercial cases.
  With regard to the payment of juries, I think that is a reform which is long overdue. I do not wish to add anything to what has been said except this. I would ask His Majesty's Government to remember that these changes which look so innocuous and so easy often cause a good deal of difficulty in the machinery which has to work to them, and it is quite clear to my mind that a very con

  195
  siderable burden will be placed on the office of the clerk of assize. It will be essential that the number of circuit officers, which on all circuits is now three, should be increased to at least four. Indeed, in some places it may have to be increased to five. It must be remembered that by Statute no fewer than forty-eight jurors have to be summoned every day. Those forty-eight have to get their expenses passed, they have to draw their subsistence allowance, they have, if necessary, to show that they have had to stay the night, and so forth. All this means that a very considerable amount of work will have to be done. I am sorry to say that, in my humble opinion, the department from which these officers are recruited, the Crown Office and Associates Department, is very much understaffed. I therefore hope that His Majesty's Government will bear in mind the representations which are being made to the Treasury for an increase in the number in that department, and that they may be induced to make the regulations for the recruitment of persons to that department a little more elastic. The new staff have got to be trained, and trained quickly, and unless there is to be a breakdown at the assizes, we shall want really good assistants in the offices of the clerks of assize. That is all I have to say by way of criticism of the Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will see fit to give it a Second Reading.
  3.44 p.m.
  LORD DU PARCQ: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words in support of what has been said. I entirely agree that this Bill deserves support. I wish to say a word on one subject, though I must not dwell upon it for it would be wrong to do so. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has said something about the employment of juries. He said truly that juries are nowadays comparatively rarely employed in civil actions. I hope (it may be a hope that is not likely to be realised) that we may reach a time when they will be more frequently employed. I am bound to say that as the result of my own experience as a judge trying cases with juries—it extended over only six years, I am afraid—I have never felt such complete satisfaction with the result of cases which I have heard as when I had the assistance of a jury. Sometimes
  196
  I have had a doubt as to the wisdom of my own decisions on questions of fact, but I do not think I have ever had a doubt as to the decision arrived at, when I have summed up a case, by a jury.
  I well remember that distinguished judge, who was one of the finest specimens of a judge one could ever wish to meet, Lord Justice Bankes, telling me that in his experience he had sometimes thought a jury wrong, but on reflection afterwards had come to the conclusion that it was the jury who were right and he who was wrong. Not only did he tell me that was his own experience, but he said that much the same thing had been told him by a member of your Lordships' House, Lord Sterndale, who is, perhaps, better remembered by many as Lord Justice Pickford. Those were two great judges and they both held the view that you could not have a better or fairer trial than a trial with a jury. Of course, it is perfectly true, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has so amusingly said, that many people who are charged with criminal offences prefer to be dealt with by the magistrates. Great as is my respect for magistrates, certain as I am that people get a fair trial from them, it has to be remembered that, usually, people tried by them are likely to get a lighter sentence. The matter is disposed of quickly, and, as a rule, the sentence is less.
  No matter should be considered of more importance than this question of juries. I will say one word about their expenses. I entirely agree with what has been said already to the effect that it is not desirable that everyone who undertakes service for his country should feel that he has a right to payment. I was a party to the Report of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace. That Commission reported unanimously—for on this point they were entirely unanimous—that, apart from payment of out of pocket expenses and matters of that kind, there should be no remuneration for justices of the peace. The juryman is in a very different position. I suppose it must be twenty years or more ago when I was told this by the clerk of assize of the Western circuit of that day. We were at Winchester, and I was then at the Bar. There was a rather long case in progress and the clerk of assize

  197
  told me that when the court rose a jury, man came to him and said: "What am I to do? I live in the Isle of Wight. The judge has said that we are to sit to 10.15. I cannot possibly be here in time to-morrow. I cannot get a boat to take me home to-night or one to bring me back here in time." The clerk said: "You must stay in Winchester." To that the juryman replied, "Where am I to stay?" The clerk replied: "You must go to an hotel or a boardinghouse." "But," said the juror, "I have no money." And he literally had not got any money, and he could not get any in the ordinary way. He had no money to pay for his bed and breakfast in Winchester. The clerk of assize eventually gave it to him out of his own pocket without any hope of ever recovering a penny from any fund.
  I was at once made aware of what perhaps I had not fully realised before—that this was a monstrous imposition to put upon members of the public, willing to do their duty but unable to provide the money for their expenses, for their meals and so forth, when away from their homes. And one need not think about it very long in order to realise that a man is not likely to be at his best if he is wondering all the time he is in the jury box what is happening to his little shop, or what his employer will say to him, or how he is going to find the money necessary to enable him to get home, or how he is going to find the money for some other purpose. It is high time that this change was introduced. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, that the machinery will need to be looked at. It may be much too difficult as it stands, but in principle, I hope your Lordships will all support this measure.
  My experience of special juries was much the same as that of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice. I do not think I was told that if I had a bad case I should ask to have a common jury—I agree with the noble and learned Lord that if I had been, it would have been very bad advice—but I was told that if heavy damages were required, it was a good thing to have a special jury. Time after time I was asked by clients who were claiming damages whether there ought to be a special jury, and in cases where the claim was for heavy damages, I always asked for a special
  198
  jury. By heavy damages I mean something running into thousands of pounds. Juries were not so liberal in those days as they are now; an award of £1,000 was regarded as a heavy one when I was first at the Bar. The idea of asking for a special jury was that it was composed of wealthy people who had more money and thought naturally in higher figures. In one part of the country a common jury who gave some young woman an award of £100 felt that they were endowing her for life; that it was a magnificent sum and that she was sure to find a good husband and be set up for life. That did not apply to a jury in London. They thought in much higher figures and had very different standards. Things have changed now, as my noble friends have remarked. We cannot judge the education or affluence of a man by the rateable value of his house. He may be so fortunate as to have a house protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts, or he may not.
  I remember my first case in the High-Court, as all noble Lords who have been at the Bar will remember theirs. An action was brought against an hotel keeper for supplying oysters which unfortunately caused typhoid fever. We had a special jury. I remember one old hand at the Bar saying, "Be careful. You are having a special jury. The way the under-sheriff collects them is to draw first from one district and then from another. I believe you will find that all your jurors are from Bloomsbury. They will all be hotel keepers and boarding house keepers. You will not have a ghost of a chance!" I do not remember whether they were, but the case was quite successful. If there were hotel keepers on the jury, they were not prejudiced.
  Those juries will go, and a good thing too; but it is important that we should not think of the special jury as of a rather wealthy and prejudiced class, and of a common jury as of a poorer class, with possibly prejudices in the opposite direction. I am rather sorry that the term "common jury" has been retained. If we are going to keep by way of a special jury only the City of London special jury, then why not call it the "City of London Jury" and the others "juries." There is, of course, nothing derogatory in being called "common," because the word is contained in titles

  199
  of great dignity—I am sure that the Common Serjeant is extremely proud of his title. What I am anxious about is not a matter of mere name, but a matter of substance. I am anxious to see in every jury box people representing different classes of the community. I should like to see an occasional banker and merchant as well as men who keep small shops and men who work in the country on the farm and in town in the factory. I am anxious to have intelligent householders of every sort. Because the vast majority of them are intelligent, and, what is even more to the point, they are not only fair-minded but are also extremely conscientious. Those of us who have summed-up to a jury and observed their bearing during a case, know that the only moments when they are distressed is when they are not certain they are appreciating what is being said. They attend and listen carefully, and to say that there is any prejudice on the part of a jury, is, except in the rarest instances, in my opinion mere calumny. I think it only right that I should say so. I am very glad to be able to join in the chorus of approval of the principles of this measure.
  3.56 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I need hardly say that I am exceedingly gratified at the response which has come from noble Lords in all parts of the House to this Bill. It has in fact turned out to be uncontroversial, and apart from matters of detail, on which noble Lords have very properly entered caveats, the whole reception of the Bill has been as friendly as one could have desired. Noble Lords having great experience and the highest distinction in both the practice and administration of the Law have joined in paying tribute to the value of the jury system. With only a very small experience, although possibly I may be the only one among noble Lords taking part in this discussion who has served on a special jury—and that was indeed a valuable experience and certainly increased my respect for the institution of the jury—I am glad to be able to add my tribute to those of the noble Lords.
  The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and other noble Lords, have expressed the very emphatic opinion that juries are not class-conscious. In support of that view, the noble Marquess, Lord
  200
  Reading, made what I thought was an important point when he said that there was a view abroad—how widely it goes it is possibly difficult to estimate—that juries were class-conscious, and that one of the valuable results of the passing of this Bill will be to remove that impression, because, as was said by a late member of your Lordships' House, it is not only necessary that justice should be done but just as necessary that it should appear to be done. In some very interesting reminiscences, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, pointed out that the system of challenge has disappeared from our courts. That is a comparatively recent development. Until quite recently the special jury used to be subject to a system of what was called "striking," before any question of challenging an individual juror arose. Some forty-eight jurors were selected and each side was allowed to have so many struck out.
  Your Lordships may be interested in a short passage from a most valuable book by Dr. Jackson, of the Cambridge University Law School, called The Machinery of Justice in England, I am sure it is familiar to many of your Lordships. He describes a case decided before the First World War, and in that description this system of "striking a jury" is illustrated. Dr. Jackson writes:
  "Mr. Lygon, M.P. (Conservative), brought a libel action against Mr. Green (Liberal) and a newspaper owned by Mr. Winfrey, M.P. (Liberal). Mr. Lygon had said that he was against feeding school children out of the rates and he was cited as being against feeding school children, the words 'out of the rates' being omitted, so that a fearsome innuendo arose. The Master ordered a special jury to be struck. The venue was Northamptonshire, so the sheriff of that county sent the special jury list to his London asent before whom the parties appeared and balloted for forty-eight names. Another appointment, a day later, was made for 'striking.' The plaintiff's solicitor at once set off for Northampton, followed by the defendant's solicitor, to find out the politics of the panel. The result showed thirty-five Conservatives and thirteen Liberals. The next day with 'unerring accuracy' the plaintiff struck out twelve of the thirteen Liberals, whilst the defendant said he objected to the twelve 'most violent Tories.' That left twenty-three Conservatives and one Liberal. At the assizes the one Liberal got in on the ballot, and because he was a 'quiet, unobtrusive Liberal … we got him foreman of the jury, and he brought down the verdict from £500 to £100 by sticking out'."
  That shows how the special jury system might have worked a long time ago in the case of a political libel action.

  201
  The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, complained of what he considered to be a superabundance of clauses in the Bill. That is due to the fact that there are a considerable number of different types of juries, each of which has to be dealt with; indeed, the arrangements in the counties are often complicated by the fact that some counties are divided up into ridings and other smaller areas, and in some of these counties the administration of justice is based on this type of division. All those matters have to be dealt with in the machinery clauses of the Bill. The noble Marquess also felt that it would be better to have a flat rate. Obviously there is a good deal to be said for that, but it is felt that the system introduced in this Bill should follow that established in connection with witnesses. If that were not done, a juryman might possibly have a grievance that a witness was being treated better than he was, and vice versa. In connection with witnesses, under the order to which I directed your Lordships' attention, this system has in fact been in use for many years, and has been revised and brought up to date as recently as August of last year. On the whole, therefore, it seems advisable that the matter should be dealt with in the same way in this Bill.
  I was delighted to be given historical information by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice in regard to the date of 1645, which I had not myself been able to find. I understood that the special jury came into existence before that date. I am glad to be reminded of the interesting fact about Mr. special juryman Vaux, who was one of Lord Mansfield's jurors. The noble and learned Lord Chief Justice also, very properly, drew attention to the difficulties which might be caused on circuit and in the Crown Office by this problem of having to pay a substantial number of jurors. I am glad to be able to tell him that the Government already have in mind some strengthening of the staffs of clerks of assize. I think I can safely give the noble and learned Lord an assurance that the other matters to which he drew attention will be carefully considered.
  I was very glad indeed to hear the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord du Parcq. I entirely agree with him that we have gone rather too far in giving up the use of the jury in
  202
  civil cases. The beginning of that was the First World War, to which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, drew attention. But it was rapidly accelerated as recently as the 'thirties; and another stage was reached during the recent war. We never seem to get back to the earlier position which existed before such wars. With the noble and learned Lord, I hope that it may be possible to revive the use of the jury in a substantial number of civil cases. Certainly in running-down cases, where often the jurors include a number of motorists, the jury is in my experience a good tribunal for dealing with the problems that arise.
  The case of the special jury awarding heavier damages than the common jury is, I agree, a very cogent argument why the special jury should be abolished. Surely it is altogether wrong that the compensation which a man may receive for injury to his body or to his reputation should depend on the accident of whether his advisers decide that he should have a special rather than a common jury. That seems to me to be an overwhelming argument in favour of abolishing the special jury. I again thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for the friendly way in which they have received this Bill, and for the cogent arguments they have advanced as to why it should receive a Second Reading in your Lordships' House.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  4.6 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reacting read.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, this Bill contains only three clauses, and is the smallest Scottish Bill which it has yet fallen to my lot to introduce in your Lordships' House. The object of the Bill is to enable a tenant of shop premises in Scotland who is threatened with eviction to apply to the sheriff to have his tenancy extended for a period of not more than one year at a time. The Bill, which gives effect to the main recommendations contained

  203
  in the Reports of two Committees of Inquiry, is a temporary measure, and will expire on December, 31, 1950.
  As a result of the shortage of shop premises since the war, and the high market value of heritable property generally in Scotland, the problem of shop tenure has given rise to many complaints. In order to meet the growing volume of representations the late Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Westwood, appointed on March 28, 1947, a Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. T. M. Taylor, K.C., to investigate the position in which tenants of shops in Scotland were placed at the termination of their tenancies. The Committee, in their Report, published in December, 1947, did not find sufficient evidence to justify immediate legislative action, but recommended that the position should be kept under review, lest it should deteriorate, and suggested the lines which legislation should follow if such a course became necessary.
  In view of the serious situation which arose at the May term last year, the Secretary of State invited the co-operation of local authorities in considering cases where the threatened eviction of shopkeepers appeared to justify the requisitioning of their premises under Defence Regulation 51. Requisitioning powers could, however, be exercised only where necessary to maintain essential supplies and services, and could not cover many cases of individual hardship among the 450 cases of threatened eviction submitted by local authorities. Requisitioning undoubtedly had a steadying effect last year, but it is not a solution of the recurring problem of shop tenure in Scotland.
  In November last, the Secretary of State, jointly with the President of the Board of Trade, reconvened the Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. H. W. Guthrie, K.C. (now Lord Guthrie), and the Committee were asked to report as a matter of urgency whether, in the light of recent experiences, any modification of the conclusions recorded in their previous Report with regard to shop premises in Scotland was called for. The Committee examined in detail the results of the requisitioning procedure last year, and in their Interim Report they say that it is
  204
  "impossible to escape the conclusion that the figure of 450 cases of threatened eviction, when compared with 150 cases considered in our original inquiry … represents a substantial proportionate deterioration."
  The Committee, realising that the majority of tenancies expire annually at the May term, also considered that
  "it is most undesirable that particular shopkeepers should be penalised because of the expiration of their tenancies at a particular time."
  The Committee came to the conclusion that it was right "to offer some temporary protection to tenants" until their whole inquiry could be completed. The Committee therefore suggested that the original recommendation of the Taylor Committee should be put into effect immediately, with the modification that the sheriff should be able to grant renewals of tenancy for a maximum period of only one year at a time.
  The Government have accepted the substance of the Guthrie Committee's recommendations, and effect is given to them in the present Bill. A tenant of shop premises in Scotland may in terms of this Bill, apply to the sheriff for a renewal of his tenancy within a period of twenty-one days after the service of the notice to quit or of the passing of the Bill, whichever date is the later. The sheriff may renew the tenancy, for a maximum period of one year at a time, on such terms and conditions as he thinks reasonable. If the Bill becomes law before the May term—and it is the sincere hope of the Government that its passage into law will not be delayed—the effect of this provision will be to enable any tenant who receives a notice to quit operative at the May term to apply to the sheriff for a renewal of his tenancy. The Bill is designed, in the words of the Guthrie Committee's Report,
  "to provide an equitable solution to the problem of conflicting interests of owners and occupiers."
  In fairness to both landlord and tenant the sheriff is empowered, if in all the circumstances he thinks it reasonable, to dismiss the application; and in certain specified circumstances it is provided that he should not grant a renewal of the tenancy. These circumstances are, briefly, if the sheriff is satisfied that the tenant is in breach of any condition of his tenancy; that he is bankrupt; that the landlord has offered to sell the premises to the tenant at a price to be fixed, failing agreement, by an arbiter agreed on by the parties or

  205
  appointed by a sheriff; that the landlord has offered the tenant reasonable alternative accommodation, or that the tenant has himself given notice to quit and in consequence the landlord has made other arrangements and would be seriously prejudice if he could not obtain possession of the premises. It is further provided that a renewal shall not be granted if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by a renewal of the tenancy than by a refusal so to order. This omnibus provision will enable the sheriff to deal with the wide variety of competing claims which may arise.
  As a large number of applications may be made to the sheriff about the time of the May term, the sheriff is given power in Clause 1 (5) to make an interim order continuing a tenancy up to three months until he is able to dispose of the application. Under Clause 1 (6), shopkeepers whose premises have been requisitioned by the Secretary of State under Defence Regulation 51 will be deemed to be tenants who have received notices to quit at the May term, and so will be able to seek a renewal of their tenancy under the Bill. Applications will be dealt with in the sheriff court under the small debt procedure, which is both cheap and expeditious, and to avoid protracted litigation the sheriff's decision will not be subject to review. The proposals will, in terms of Clause 2, apply equally to shop premises owned or occupied by the Crown or by Government Departments.
  My Lords, this short but useful measure, the life of which is limited to the period ending on December 31, 1950, has been generally welcomed in another place, and its speedy passage to the Statute Book will meet with great acceptance in Scotland. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Morrison.)
  4.16 p.m.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I rise to give a welcome to this small but important Scottish Bill—but a qualified welcome, for reasons which I shall explain. I welcome it because it is designed to end an abuse, but the abuse itself should be examined. The abuse has grown up because a small minority of unprincipled persons have been speculating in property
  206
  —particularly in property which includes shops—and this has brought undeniable hardship to a number of small shopkeepers. I suggest to your Lordships that, in the righteous indignation that we feel against such unsocial and unprincipled people, we should not condemn the majority of decent people who treat their tenants fairly, whether on this side of the Border or on the other side. The Report to which the noble Lord has referred brings the matter out in its proper perspective. There were 4.50 applications for action by the Secretary of State. Of these 450 applications, the Secretary of State rejected 20. He followed up 200 cases and used his requisitioning power in about 50 of them. But, of course, the fact that he was prepared to use it had an important effect upon the others. Therefore, although there is here a serious and troublesome evil, one must view it in its proper relationship to the great majority of people who have decent dealings with each other in our country of Scotland.
  I welcome this Bill, also, on another ground. I think it is right that the Secretary of State should now cease to use his requisitioning powers to combat this evil. That he did so was a matter of necessity, and it was used with good effect, but it is using a very heavy engine for a purpose for which it was not really designed. The Secretary of State for Scotland has wisely decided to terminate the use of these powers and to seek legislation. The use of requisitioning had certain disadvantages, because it cut across contracts and it was not possible to take into account the question of individual hardship. This Bill places the sheriff in Scotland in a position of great importance as an adjudicator. We will not quarrel with this, for we have confidence in the ability of our sheriffs to make wise decisions. I think, however, your Lordships should note the very important functions delegated to them.
  So much for the welcome; now for the qualifications. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to adopt the whole terms of the Guthrie Committee Report. Your Lordships will be aware that in paragraph 19 of the Report of Lord Guthrie's Committee it was recommended that the sheriff should not grant the application of the tenant if any of seven conditions was proved to exist. The Government have accepted four of

  207
  these conditions, but not the other three. The three which the Government have not accepted are as follows: first, that the premises are required for the occupation of the landlord himself, or his son or daughter if over eighteen years of age, either to open up a new business or to extend an existing business; secondly, that the premises are required for the purposes of a scheme of re-development which might involve demolition, alteration or reconstruction; and thirdly, that if, for other reasons, continued occupation by the tenant was not consistent with good estate management, it should not be granted.
  Particularly as regards the first kind of case, I feel some regret that the Government have not adopted the view of the Committee, and I propose at a later stage to return to this point and try, with the help of my friends, to devise an Amendment which may meet the difficulty expressed by the Secretary of State in Committee. In the Scottish Grand Committee the Secretary of State pointed out that if the first condition were included—that is, the one about a landlord requiring the premises for himself or his son or daughter—the sheriff would have no option but to make an order for possession, and then an unscrupulous man might recover possession and sell or re-let at a profit shortly afterwards. He did not see a way round that difficulty. The Secretary of State thought that the point was better covered by the provision in the Bill regarding hardship. I believe it would be possible to devise an Amendment which would safeguard the position by using something like the form of words which has been a part of all Rent Restrictions Acts up to date. That is to say, the paragraph concerned might be limited to the case of a landlord who reasonably required the property and, I suggest, it might be limited to landlords who have purchased before the commencement of the Act. I hope to return at a later stage to this point and see whether any Amendment can be devised which would meet the valid objections of the Government.
  Then, as regards the other recommendation about alterations and demolitions for re-development schemes, I feel that this should be included, and I believe we can devise an Amendment to provide
  208
  that the landlord should re-acquire possession if, in the sheriff's view, the scheme of reconstruction could be carried out only by the giving up of possession by the tenant, and that such re-development was essential. These may seem to be points of detail, but I feel they are points of principle. In combating one evil let us be sure we do not create another; and though the Bill as at present drafted contains provisions against hardship, I should feel much happier if the recommendations of both the Taylor Committee and the Guthrie Committee had been accepted. After all, those two Committees were presided over by most eminent and unbiased men, Mr. Taylor and Lord Guthrie, and they included representatives of important interests who could not be in any way regarded as biased on one side or the other. They gave the matter very careful consideration; and I do not yet feel that the Government have quite satisfactorily explained their reluctance to adopt fully all the provisions which the Committees recommended.
  This Bill is a temporary measure, based on an interim report, and I presume it will be followed by more permanent legislation in the course of time. So far as it goes, and subject to the observations I have made, I welcome it. But it would be wrong to suppose that Scotland or the United Kingdom or, in fact, the world in general is made up entirely of knaves and fools. There are still some honest people about, and the law of contract between two willing parties should not be unduly hampered. We should not assume that no one is fit to sign a contract with his neighbour. We shall, therefore, watch the working of this Bill closely when it becomes law. For my part, and I am speaking for my friends also, we shall do our best to facilitate the Secretary of State's desire that it shall be on the Statute Book if possible by the May term.
  4.25 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I support what the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, has said regarding this Bill? Like him, I welcome the Bill. It is the result of very careful consideration by Lord Guthrie's Committee, and, so far as one can judge from their Report, they have examined the matter from every point of view and have come to good conclusions on all of them. Now the Government

  209
  apparently have arrived at the conclusion that, whilst nearly all the recommendations in that Report ought to be adopted and have been adopted, there are three to be omitted—for what reason one cannot quite understand. Lord Clydesmuir has just referred to these particular recommendations seriatim and has explained why in his opinion they should be included; and I wish to support his contention. I cannot for the life of me see why, if a landlord has a son or daughter of adult age whom he wishes to succeed in the occupancy of his own property, for the purpose for which that property was designed and used in the past, that son or daughter should not be allowed to do so. Neither does Lord Guthrie, and he recommends that that provision should be included.
  From the point of view of equity, we know that in these days property is not regarded with the same degree of sanctity as it was in the past; things are done to-day which many of us would prefer not to see done. At the same time, in a small measure of this kind, which everybody agrees should be passed, why omit something which must be regarded as a matter of equity? I hope that the Government will listen to what Lord Clydesmuir has said with regard to that point and also to what he said with regard to the second point, which dealt with schemes of re-development involving demolition, alteration or reconstruction. Here again, it might be very necessary to take those steps for reasons which would be obvious to all of us; and yet the landlord may be deprived of the ability to do so, and, in being so deprived, he may also be deprived of future profit. I do not like to use the word "profit" because everybody on the Government Benches dislikes it so much; but after all, this future profit is a fair claim and a fair process; it may happen some day that the noble Lord opposite will buy a house and sell it at a profit, and feel very pleased that he has done so. But it is, of course, important to prevent anything being done which would not be fair. That was the view of Lord Guthrie and his Committee.
  Now we come to the third point, which is:
  "If, for other reasons, continued occupation by the tenant would not be consistent with good estate management."
  That is a perfectly clear request or
  210
  demand to make. In the Government's own legislation with regard to farming, for instance, a farmer or a landlord may occupy land but if, in the opinion of the Government, the work done on it is not consistent with good farming or good management, he is liable to be deprived of his farm and his property; it may be taken from him and handed over to someone else to farm and to manage. This is indeed a similar case. The landlord may say, and rightly say, that the occupation of the tenant would not be consistent with good estate management. Here again Lord Guthrie and his Committee have recommended that that provision should be included. I hope that, when my noble friend puts down his Amendments, on Committee stage of the Bill, as he has stated he will, the Government will be able to see their way to accept Lord Guthrie's recommendations in toto and not only in part.
  4.33 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I see no reason to be dissatisfied with the qualified welcome that this small Bill has received. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, that it affects only a small number of people. Certainly there is a danger, if one is not careful, that the general public will get the idea that the great majority ate doing these wicked things. As some of us know, if it were not for small minorities of wicked people, many laws would not need to be passed at all. That is the case here. I also agree with the noble Lord that the method adopted in this Bill is better than requisitioning. I can claim no special legal knowledge, but it is a little hard to see how it is possible for a local authority as a permanent policy to requisition shop premises merely on the ground that the landlord is seeking possession of the property It seems to me that the only reason why the local authority could requisition shop premises on a permanent basis would be that the supplies to the people who live in the locality were put in danger. Therefore, we are agreed that this is a better policy than requisitioning.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, takes up largely the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir. They have both given notice that they propose to try to devise Amendments. I welcome that, and say that the resources of the

  211
  Scottish Department are at their disposal for consultation because, in a Bill of this sort, if we can secure agreement readily it is far better than fighting it out and one side or the other carrying it by a majority. This Bill went through all its stages in another place without a Division. I am quite sure that we shall emulate them in that respect. I would point out to both noble Lords that, with regard to premises required for a landlord, or for his son or daughter, it was not thought there would be a right to evict the tenant in every case. Under the Bill, the sheriff can decide whether or not to evict the tenant. The test which the sheriff will have to apply is the test of hardship—which is the greater hardship. However, I do not want to go into that now; your Lordships have further business to do. Already, we have made a "gentlemen's agreement" that we will get together and try to devise Amendments which will be satisfactory to all.
  I would like to conclude by saying that I give a qualified welcome to the discussion, not only the discussion that has taken place but the discussion that will take place on the next stage. The qualification is on one point—namely, that everybody who can move in Scotland may move on a particular day, a custom which is unknown in England. That is the critical point of this Bill. Everybody who can possibly move, and who wants to move, will move on May 28. Therefore, it is essential that all those who welcome this Bill should help to see that it is put on the Statute Book as long before May 28 as possible. With that qualification, I hope that we shall be able to satisfy Scotland.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  RETURN OF H.M.S. "ROYAL SOVEREIGN"
  LORD AILWYN LORD AILWYN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any comments to make on the circumstances surrounding the handing back of the battleship "Royal Sovereign" by the Soviet authorities to the Royal Navy. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question that stands in my name on the Order Paper, the story can be unfolded in a few words. In the for
  212
  mulation of my Question and in the presentation of the facts which I believe to be accurate, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence if I mince no words. The time has passed, it seems to me, for being mealy-mouthed in matters affecting the dignity of this country. If I do not pull my punches, it is because I can no longer witness without protest the spectacle of other nations rocking on their heels at our discomfiture. I am asking His Majesty's Government whether they have any comments to make on the strange happenings at Rosyth early in February. Your Lordships will recall that the battleship "Royal Sovereign," together with certain other naval vessels, was loaned by this country to the Soviet Union in 1944. The "Royal Sovereign" was due to be handed back to the Royal Navy during a five-day period, January 19 to 24. All arrangements were made for her reception off May Island at the entrance to the Firth of Forth on whichever of these five days she reached the rendezvous.
  The subsequent history is as follows. The five days go by, and she fails to put in an appearance. So far as I am aware, there was a complete absence of explanations, apologies or regrets. Fresh arrangements are made and, after what one can only assume must have been a maximum of inconvenience to our own naval authorities, in due course she arrives on February 4. The Russians steam her up to Rosyth. She fails to fire any salute on arrival, an infringement of immemorial custom and usage amounting, I submit, to a grave discourtesy. If I am told that she was unable to fire the recognised 21-gun salute owing to the fact that her saluting guns had been removed, I have no doubt that your Lordships will judge of the validity or otherwise of such an explanation. In that case it would be pertinent to ask whether the Russians asked permission to be excused from observing this time-honoured international courtesy.
  While the ship is in port the Russian officers and ship's company are offered traditional British hospitality. They refuse, on the plea of pressure of work, the invitations extended to them by the British Council and by various Scottish official and public bodies. We learn from the Press, however, that they are able to accept and to partake in full measure of large scale entertainment by

  213
  the Scottish U.S.S.R. Society. The day arrives for the final handing over of the ship. The Russian Commodore refuses permission to the Press to go on board to witness the ceremony. The British Admiral who goes on board to receive the ship back makes a civil and friendly speech which is interpreted to the Russians—he wishes them bon voyage on their return journey. Does the Russian Commodore respond? Does he thank the British Admiral for his good wishes? Does he acknowledge the hospitality which has been offered to him? Does he tender the thanks of his country for the loan of "Royal Sovereign" and for the other British vessels? He remains completely silent.
  Let me interject here, that I do not necessarily condemn the Russian Commodore personally for this boorishness. It may well be that he was acting under orders. There is, in my experience, an almost universal comradeship between sailors and navies of all nations, and I would hesitate to believe that such an affront and such ill-mannered behaviour were an expression of the Russian Commodore's own personal feelings. The melancholy fact remains that what could, and should, have been a memorable, pleasant, colourful and perhaps even an historic occasion, became a sombre, colourless event of shabbiness and gloom. The transfer was effected in sullen silence. Your Lordships may be interested to learn that the official designation for this operation—or "code term" is, I fancy, the term applicable—was "Operation Happy Return." My Lords, a friend writes:
  "I thought before this that we had touched bottom, but I was wrong. In truth all nations must now realise that the way to get your way with the British is to kick them in the face."
  Those are strong words, but are they altogether unjustified? When von Ribbentrop gave His Majesty The King a Nazi salute the nation was not slow to voice its disapproval and disgust. When the Russians give us no salute at all, shall Parliament and His Majesty's Government be dumb? Shall the voice of the nation be stilled? I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.
  4.45 p.m.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, I appreciate that much interest was taken by the public, and by some
  214
  members of your Lordships' House, in the return of the warships which were loaned under conditions which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, and which are well known to your Lordships. The noble Lord said he would not mince his words. I think, however, that there is some misunderstanding as to the exact position, and in the course of the very short time that I propose to speak, I will endeavour to give the facts as they were reported to the Admiralty by a very efficient naval officer acting in a liaison rôle between the Admiralty and the Russian Commodore concerned.
  It is true that the original plan for the return of the "Royal Sovereign" to this country contemplated that she would reach Rosyth between January 19 and 24. The understanding between the U.S.S.R. and this country, however, was that the battleship "Royal Sovereign" and the Italian battleship, which was to be transferred from Italy to Russia, should arrive simultaneously at their respective ports of delivery. Delays in the Mediterranean, of which we were well aware, in connection with the Italian battleship, necessitated adjustment of the "Royal Sovereign's" original programme, and it was agreed between the British and Soviet Governments that the "Royal Sovereign" should sail for this country on January 27. The ship adhered to this revised programme, arriving at Rosyth on February 4, at the prearranged hour. So the noble Lord need have no apprehension in regard to the delivery of this battleship in accordance with the arrangement which was made, negotiated in the first instance by the Four-Power Committee which was sitting, and agreed to between the Governments of the two countries. Indeed, these facts were announced by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty in another place on January 26, when it was made known that the delay would occur. In view of the explanation that I have given of the reason for the delay in the sailing of His Majesty's ship "Royal Sovereign" I do not think any question of an explanation or apology from the U.S.S.R. authorities arises.
  The noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, emphasised the importance of saluting. I agree that it is essential that foreign warships visiting this country, or British warships visiting other countries, should

  215
  pay due regard and respect to the country, concerned on the occasion of their visit. But the difficulty, which was made known to us, in relation to this matter was that the "Royal Sovereign" carried no saluting guns, these having been removed when she was modernised for war service before being transferred to the Soviet Government in 1944. The firing of salutes would therefore have had to be carried out from 4-inch guns, a most unusual arrangement which would have involved the preparation of special charges for saluting purposes. The British naval authorities had the matter explained to them, and fully understood the situation; and from the information which I received there is no question of there having been a studied affront by the Russians. Such an affront would be completely out of keeping with the manner in which the Russian Commodore and the crews discharged all their other traditional courtesies. Indeed, it may be said that the Russian Commodore was punctilious in the discharge of all the courtesy calls and visits, both on naval authorities and on civic authorities, which are traditional when the warships of one country visit another. The extent to which the commanding officer of a visiting ship accepts additional hospitality is a matter entirely for his discretion—whatever the country to which he may belong—and I have no desire to seem to criticise such refusals as the Commodore may have felt himself compelled to make.
  I may say that many of the offers of country tours and hospitality, and so on, made by British official bodies were for periods within the working hours in the ship (and the crew of the ship was, of course, an ad hoc body) whereas the invitation of the Scottish U.S.S.R. Society, which was accepted, was outside those hours. I know that reference has been made to the fact that the Lord Provost of Edinburgh paid his call upon the Commodore of the ship before the Commodore paid his respects to the Lord Provost. These visits were arranged between the Lord Provost and the Commodore of the ship, who met at the international Rugby football match and agreed to reverse the order of their calls. So there was no question of any discourtesy there.
  216
  With regard to facilities for the Press, the Russian Commodore indicated that his regulations allowed him no latitude at all in this respect on board a Russian warship. His refusal to give permission to our Press-men was, therefore, in accordance with his orders, and it is not seemly to criticise a commanding officer for carrying out his instructions. As the ship was still under the Russian flag until the transfer had been completed, the Soviet usage—which I understand applies to all Russian ships—was naturally the correct procedure so far as the Russians were concerned. But as soon as White Ensign was hoisted the "Royal Sovereign" again became a British ship, and the Press-men were admitted in accordance with the British custom.
  On the question of speeches, which was raised by the noble Lord, I should explain that the Russian Commodore excused himself from making a speech in response to that of the British Admiral on the ground that such pronouncements were not customary in the Soviet Navy. May I say that from the friendly and appreciative expressions which the Commodore used in his conversations with the British Admiral, and from the signals which he exchanged with that officer before returning to his country, I am convinced that the fact that he did not make a public speech is to be attributed to the different customs in the navies of the two countries?
  On the final point, I need say no more than that the loan of the "Royal Sovereign" and other British warships to the Soviet Authorities was made under conditions well known to your Lordships, and at one of the most crucial periods of the war, in the interests of the successful prosecution of the war, and was thus to the advantage of both countries. I would add that, from the reports which have been made to me, I take the view that, as between the navies of the two countries, the outcome of the re-transfer of the "Royal Sovereign" and other ships may reasonably be pronounced a distinct success. And if the public of this country will appreciate the difference in methods and system as between this country and Russia, I am convinced that they will understand what the situation was. I can say that as between the British naval officers and the Russian

  217
  naval officers—and, indeed, as between other ranks as well—the atmosphere throughout was amicable, and on parting was most cordial. I look forward to similar experiences to that of the relationship established between the crews of the two navies, when other ships which were lent to Russia return to this country in the course of the coming few months.

  PAINTING OF CANAL BARGES
  4.55 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD had given notice of his intention to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state the policy of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive in regard to the painting of canal barges. The noble Lord said: My Lords, notwithstanding the promise given by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, before the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor went on leave the other day, that noble Lords on these Benches would be of good behaviour, I give your Lordships fair warning that I intended to indulge in a "barging match this afternoon. My interest in small craft dates back to the time when I was first put in charge of a naval picket boat, at the age of seventeen. What did I do? I promptly spent most of my 1s. 9d. a day pay in making the boat what the Navy calls "tiddley"—that is to say, I spent it on special enamel and varnish and generally on making the craft what I thought to be absolutely first class. The Navy has always smiled on the nautical habit of making boats and fittings generally "tiddley," but apparently the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive take the opposite view.
  As many noble Lords are doubtless aware, this point has been emphasised in recent correspondence in the Press. The distinctive bright colouring of canal boats and the system of decorating them in accordance with what are really very lovely colour schemes—particularly what one knows as the "Rose and Castle" scheme of painting—has continued from the earliest days of canals. And I am told—though I do not vouch for this—that it is really the only surviving genuine folk art, and that the painting is now done by a very small number of craftsmen. Under the Transport Act, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive have become the owners of a very large num
  218
  ber of canal boats. And what have they done? They have rapidly and universally painted these boats in a standard pattern of blue and yellow. I think, personally, that this livery is dreary and hideous, whereas the former colouring was always the gayest to be found anywhere.
  On the question of utility, I would point out that blue is one of the most perishable of colours. It is very easily affected by the elements, as anyone who has tried to paint blue the outside of any buildings well knows. But, above all, the crews of these canal boats loathe the very sight of this new colour scheme. I am sure I should be called to order if I repeated some of the language with which they have condemned it. These people are not just crews. The barges are their homes, in which they live year in and year out. They take a pride in them just as much as a cottager takes a pride in his garden. One canal boatman used these rather poetic words to a friend of mine, "We have never had gardens but we still have our roses."
  Subsequent to this correspondence in the Press, there was a statement from the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. I hope the noble Lord when he replies will not give the same answer as was given in that statement, because I regard it as completely unsatisfactory. It was entirely negative. It merely said that the Executive had no intention of suppressing the art but showed quite clearly that they had no intention of encouraging it. What a golden opportunity—perhaps I should have said, rosy opportunity—they have missed! Surely the State should be a model employer and a trustee for such a unique tradition of beauty. I think they should give encouragement to what looks like becoming a lost art. They should also assist the training of new craftsmen to carry it on. We on these Benches do not like these nationalised industries. We say they tend to become soulless, and in this particular instance, how right we are! I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
  5.2 p.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, I am sure the House was interested in the way in which the noble Lord put his Question. I am not quite sure whether he got "tiddley," or whether it was the barges, but he has been quite lively this after

  219
  noon! I think possibly he will find he is a little mistaken, and has been exaggerating a little in saying that this art has disappeared altogether. I think he will find that the Government are trying to encourage it.
  The policy of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive on this matter has been the subject of a Press notice issued by the British Transport Commission, and of a public statement by the Chairman of the Commission, copies of which I am sending to the noble Lord. These make it clear that the Executive have no intention of suppressing the decorative painting of the small proportion of long-distance canal boats which they own. There is no question of substituting numbers for the names borne by the craft, as has been alleged. Sir Cyril Hurcomb, Chairman of the British Transport Commission, speaking at the annual luncheon of the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association in London on Wednesday, March 2, said:
  "I would like to take this opportunity of making it absolutely clear that the British Transport Commission, and their Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, have no intention whatsoever of discouraging or vandalising in any way this pleasing art for the sake of imposing a standard livery. Indeed, it is perfectly possible to have the two things—the gay decoration of cabin doors, buckets and similar equipment, together with our 'house colours' of blue and yellow along the sides of the boats and where the name of the boat and that of the owners are painted. The general effect of the 'house colours' is, I think, bright and attractive. When our boats come in for repairs and repainting, the traditional 'fancy work' on cabin doors, water-cans and so on will be preserved.
  "It is a pity but it is true that the practice of decorating narrow boats in these traditional designs has been declining for many years and the number of painters skilled in this art are very few. Although we only own about 10 per cent. of the narrow boats, and a great many of these are not decorated in the old style, we shall take the greatest care of them, bearing in mind that they are also the homes of our employees."
  5.5 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply, I should like to add a sentence or two. I think the noble Lord's reply is unsatisfactory. He said that the British Transport Commission were not going to discourage this art. I think it is up to the Government and the British Transport Commission to go a great deal
  220
  further than "not discouraging." They should positively encourage. Some time ago it was suggested in a certain organ of the Press that we should have a Ministry of Pleasure. I think it would be a very good thing if we had such a Ministry to encourage gaiety and colour and frolic, and to supervise such depressing activities as those upon which the Canal and Inland Waterways Executive are apparently embarking. They are going to allow the buckets and the doors to be painted as individual taste pleases, but as for the rest it must have these "house colours" of blue and yellow—
  LORD SHEPHERD: Blue and gold.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Well then, gold; but gold usually fades into yellow, and then we have the good Tory colours going up and down the canals of Britain. We are not complaining, but we think there may be some question about the temptation in this new form of "old school tie." I think the Government should definitely encourage individualism in every possible direction—individual enterprise, individual forms of gaiety and amusement. Here is something which is only small, but it is symptomatic of this dull, dreary uniformity which seems to be descending upon the country at the present time. The noble Lord has spoken about wishing to have a brighter Britain. The Festival of Britain will take place in 1951, and I think he has lost a chance of making it a jolly good show. Instead, it will be uniform and drab, with everybody doing exactly what he is told by the Socialist Government—or perhaps there will be a Tory Government in 1951, in which case we shall do very much better. We have had a depressing reply from the noble Lord, because he has allowed himself to be subjected to that miserable uniformity which is the curse of to-day.
  5.9 p.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, I do not think I should allow the noble Lord's remarks to pass unanswered. My reply indicated that we were trying to rescue this art from oblivion and to arrest what has been going on for a long time—the disappearance of this art. I think that the painting of canal boats in the Tory colours is undesirable—perhaps there is no difficulty between us on that point!—and I only hope that the encouragement which

  221
  the Government are giving to this art will relieve us by the sight of more artistic efforts. I think we have successfully risen to the occasion.

  CERTIFICATE FROM EXAMINERS
  The LORD SPEAKER on behalf of the LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
  PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN):
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM BILL
  Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General: Received and ordered to lie on the Table.
  ROYAL ALEXANDRA AND ALBERT SCHOOL BILL [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on February 8 last discharged, and Bill committed.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
  Rural District of Bullingdon:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (DEVELOPMENT AREAS) ORDER, 1949
  Order, dated March 4, 1949, made by the Board of Trade, under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945: Laid before
  222
  the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

  DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (DEVELOPMENT AREAS) (SCOTLAND) ORDER, 1949
  Order, dated March 4, 1949, made by the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
  CHURCH DIGNITARIES (RETIREMENT) MEASURE, 1949
  Text of the Measures: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), together with Reports from the Ecclesiastical Committee, and to be printed.
  EXPORTS OF BASIC SLAG
  EXPORTS OF BASIC SLAG