Sitting of 21 March 1950

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

MOTION FOR NEW WRIT (OBJECTION)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I beg to move,
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the election of a Member to serve in this Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Sheffield, Neepsend, in the room of Lieut.-Colonel Henry Morris who, since his election to the said Borough Constituency, has accepted the office of Steward or Bailiff of His Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York."
Captain John Crowder: I object.
Mr. Speaker: This is a debatable Motion and it is not objected to in the ordinary way. If hon. Members wish to debate it, they can, but the Ruling is the same as that which I gave in the case raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) when he was a member of the Commonwealth Party. I ruled then that it could be debated at the end of Questions, and if hon. Members wish to debate the matter, it can be done then, but not now.
Mr. Oliver Stanley: The point we want to raise on this writ is rather technical.
At the end of Questions—
Question again proposed.
Mr. Turton: This Motion raises an interesting paint of constitutional procedure, and I should like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps an explanation from the right hon. and learned Attorney-General upon the position. Page 177 of Erskine May states:
"Where a vacancy has occurred prior to, or immediately after, the first meeting of a new Parliament, the writ will not be issued until the time for presenting election petitions has expired."
Quite clearly, the intention of that Rule which Parliament adopted, was to prevent
1722
any unseemly haste after a General Election in holding or in arranging by-elections. It appeared to me that we are not yet past the time for the holding of an election petition in respect of the last General Election. We are governed in this matter by the Act which Parliament passed last year—the Representation of the People Act, 1949, Section 109 of which lays down:
"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a parliamentary election petition shall be presented within twenty-one days after the return has been made to the Clerk of the Crown, or to the Clerk of the Crown for Northern Ireland, as the case may be, of the member to whose election the petition relates."
According to my computation, if that be the whole of Section 109 the matter we are discussing would be in proper order, but this Section goes on further and, in subsection (2) states:
"If the petition questions the election or return upon an allegation of corrupt practices and specifically alleges a payment of money or other reward …"
In that case, the time is 28 days after the date of that payment. Bearing in mind that the time for the bill to be sent by the candidate is 14 days after the result, that is 10th March in this case, quite clearly, under subsection (2) the time has by no means yet expired, and, in fact, it would carry on until the beginning of next month. I know that the Attorney-General will explain the point and might say that my construction of subsection (2) is wrong, but what I am going to rely on is the provision in subsection (3), which states:
"A petition questioning the election or return upon an allegation of an illegal practice may, so far as respects that illegal practice be presented—
(a) not later than the expiration of 14 days after the day specified in Subsection (4) of this Section;"
Subsection (4) states that that date shall be that on which the returning officer receives the return and declarations as to the election expenses by the said Member.
It is quite true that I have no knowledge as to what date Colonel Morris put in his election expenses claim, but I know that it cannot have been before the 10th March. If he had put it in before then, he would have found that later creditors could still put in their claims. Therefore, 10th March was the earliest date. Fourteen days from 10th March does bring it to next Friday, and, therefore, on that

1723
ground it would appear that this Motion is untimely. It should have been moved at the earliest at the end of this week or at the beginning of next week.
I think the House will recollect that Section 66 of the Representation of the People Act made it clear, first of all, as I have already quoted, that there are 14 days in which the claims are sent in, and all election expenses are repaid within 28 days after the result, which would make that date 24th March, which is, again, a date not yet reached. I suggest to the House that this Motion is bad from the point of view of procedure, and I ask the Government to postpone it to a more seemly date.
The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): The hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) has raised a matter of considerable interest and one about the raising of which I do not for a moment complain. But I think the House may feel assured that we have in this matter not only followed precedents set for us by hon. Members opposite when they were on this side of the House, but have actually done more and pursued what I think is the best constitutional procedure in the matter. The matter is, of course, as the hon. Member indicated, one for the House to decide, as governing its own proceedings, and it is not the subject, so far as I know—nor, I think, could it be—of any authority laid down by the courts.
But the best view of the law, as I understand it, as to the issue of Writs in respect of vacancies which occur immediately after the election of a new Parliament is, as indeed the hon. Member has put it, that they should not be presented until the normal time for the presentation of an election petition has gone by. The basic reason for that principle is that certain petitions may have the result not simply of voiding the election, but of awarding the seat to another candidate who stood at the election presumably, but not necessarily, the candidate who came next at the poll. Where petitions have actually been presented at a time when a Motion was made for the issue of a new writ, the practice has been that where the petitioner has not claimed the award of the seat to another candidate, but has merely alleged that the election was void, that fact, although there was a petition
1724
pending which had not yet been tried, would not interfere with the issue of a writ for a new election.
We suggest to the House that the same principle must apply, not only in relation to petitions which have actually been presented, but also in relation to potential or hypothetical petitions. The hon. Member has referred to Section 109 of the Representation of the People Act, in which Act all the law relating to this matter is now collected. That Act lays down the various time limits within which election petitions may be presented. There, again, the basic rule in regard to the presentation of petitions is that petitions are to be presented within 21 days from the return of the writ for the original election. But there are cases where time runs from a different period as, for instance, the case to which the hon. Member referred, where time may run from the date on which the return of election expenses was presented.
Indeed—and this is the point to which the House will probably attach importance—it is never possible at any period in the lifetime of a Parliament to reach absolute finality in regard to this matter because it may be—and this is where I think the hon. Member misinterpreted the effect of subsection (2) of Section 109—that some petitions—for instance those alleging bribery or the payment of money after the election in pursuance of an arrangement made before the election—may be brought not within any limited time at all, but within a period after the actual payment has been made whenever that may be.
Accordingly, if a candidate who succeeded in winning a Parliamentary election has secured votes by promising to pay electors for voting for him, he cannot escape the risk of an election petition at any time within the lifetime of that Parliament if he carries out his promise and pays the money, and the consequence is that there is no finality in regard to petitions of that kind.
But such petitions, like the petitions under subsection (3) of Section 109 of the 1949 Act, while they may easily void the election to which they relate, would not result in awarding the seat to another candidate unless under the provisions of Section 144 of the 1949 Act, it could be shown, not only that the elected candidate had disqualified himself by some

1725
corrupt or illegal practice, but that the number of electors whose votes should be rejected on the ground that they had been bribed, or that there had been some other corrupt or illegal practice in regard to them, was so large as to destroy the majority by which the candidate who had been petitioned against had been elected, and, in consequence, the risk in this particular context of a petition affecting the position only arises—if it arises at all—as a practical matter in those cases where the majority at the original election was a comparatively small one and there was a practical possibility that it might be or was proved—as it would have to be proved—that that majority or an equivalent number of electors had been secured by bribery or some other illegal practice.
I am sorry to appear—as I am afraid I must inevitably appear—to be delivering something in the nature of a lecture on this branch of the law, but in the past the matter seems to have been dealt with in a practical way. The fact is that this risk of a presentation of an election petition has always existed. At any rate, from the beginning of the 19th century there was always, first of all, under Sessional Orders and, since 1868, under statute, the possibility at any time of putting in an election petition based on bribery. But the practice has been not to wait for that period—which, indeed, may be a quite unlimited period—to expire, and not, indeed, to have any regard at all to what I might call the alternative to the basic period of 21 days. Indeed, the practice in the past has gone further than that, and regard has not even been paid to the basic period of 21 days.
For instance, in 1922 the Conservative Government which was then elected had the misfortune of losing at the General Election its Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but another member of the Conservative Party was considerate enough, within a very few days indeed, to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds, and a new writ was applied for 11 days after the return to the Clerk of the Crown of the writ in the original General Election. The 21 days rule existed at that time, just as it exists under the present Act. That 21 days basic rule, as I have called it, has existed over a considerable period, but no regard was paid to the basic rule at all, and the writ was issued within II days.
1726
Then again, in 1924—it happened to be under a Conservative Government once more, but I make no point of that except for the reason that I think it has always been the practice. I daresay that is why this matter, as far as I can find, has never been raised in recent times it being regarded as being a matter within the discretion of the party applying for the writ exactly when they should apply for it. At any rate, no objection was taken in 1924 by the Labour Party, which was then in Opposition.
Mr. Stanley: It was an untrained Opposition.
The Attorney-General: It may be so. At all events, the Tory Party, when they sat on the Government Benches, did not consider it improper, as I am sure they would have done if it had been improper, to apply for a writ within 11 days. I am quite certain the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends would never for a moment have sought to take advantage of an untrained Opposition to the prejudice of one of the constitutional principles of this country.
The same thing occurred in 1924, when a vacancy arose through death. I think there is no distinction in principle as to the cause of the vacancy. A new writ was moved for within nine days, at the end of 1924, when the Conservative Party had been returned to power. There are many earlier precedents, but I think the House may feel assured that in this case we have applied a more scrupulous regard to the constitutional propriety of this matter than has hitherto always been done, and we have done rightly in waiting for the expiration of 21 days. That period having gone by, unless a constituency is to remain disfranchised for an indefinite period, Parliament must take responsibility for giving leave in the issue of a new writ.
Mr. Churchill: In view of the very complicated, lucid and lengthy statement of the Attorney-General, would it be more fitting and better all round to wait until 24th March to move the writ, and thus ward off the principal dangers that are likely to occur?
The Attorney-General: I am sorry if my statement was perhaps more lengthy than lucid. I think the right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated that, under

1727
Subsection (2) of Section 109 of this Act, the period of 28 days does not date from the return to the writ but from the time when money is paid in pursuance of some corrupt practice. It may well be that if corrupt practices take place the payments made for them are delayed until it is thought that all interest in the matter has passed by.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to ask one or two questions. The Attorney-General has referred to the precedents of 1922 and 1924. No doubt those precedents were fully considered by the author of the new edition of Erskine May. There it is quite clearly stated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said:
"Where a vacancy has occurred prior to, or immediately after, the first meeting of a new Parliament, the Writ will not be issued until the time for presenting election petitions has expired."
I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he is admitting that, under the new Act, time for presentation of an election petition has not expired and, in particular, time for presenting an election petition under subsection (3) of Section 109 has not expired, and that would take it up to a later date. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give more consideration to subsection (3), which is quite different from subsection (2). In view of the content of subsection (3), and the observations in Erskine May, which were made after the precedents to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, may I ask whether he realises we are here being asked to create an undoubtedly new precedent, contrary to views expressed hitherto?
The Attorney-General: I believe I may only speak again with the leave of the House, but if I have that leave—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."]—I must say that I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) would not wish to press his point about the observations in Erskine May having been made after these precedents. The general view of Erskine May has been contained, for a very long time, in the early editions. If the hon. and learned Member will look at page 178 he will see that it deals with a situation where there has been an actual petition. Here, of course,
1728
we are dealing only with a hypothetical petition. It is stated in Erskine May that where, in the case of an actual petition, the seat is claimed—that is the difference between the election being voided and the seat being claimed—then:
"It has been ruled that the Writ should he withheld until after the trial of that claim or until the 'Petition has been withdrawn."
In the case where, as here, according to information I have been given, there was a substantial majority, the possibility of that kind of petition being presented has really passed after the lapse of 21 days. Under subsection (3), Section 109, there are also two precedents in regard to that. I only took the precedent in relation to the period of 21 days, but there are two additional precedents in regard to that, because the law was the same at that time as it is today. In this respect the 1949 Act was a consolidation Act. There were precedents, in 1895 of 24 days and in 1910 of 24 days.
I can assure the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and indeed the House, that our researches, and those of Parliamentary counsel, which have been careful in this matter, have not shown any precedents where the House has had regard to such a rule as that which the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, now contends. There is no such rule.
There is no doubt that Parliament would be entitled to issue the writ immediately after the return to the Clerk of the Crown of the original writ, and it has done so on a number of occasions. Unless we are to contemplate a position in which Parliament can never issue a writ and finality can never arise, the only period to take appears to be the basic period of 21 days. That is the period we have taken in this case. We suggest to the House that this is not only the right period on the best view of constitutional law in regard to this matter, but that it is also a very cautious view.
Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: There is just one point which I should like to put for the consideration of the House and of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I quite agree with the point the Attorney-General has made on subsection (2). That is a clear case, which he gives, of someone having made an agreement, and then the payment being made on a future date. Obviously, the case has far

1729
too much vagueness to take it into account. But I am not so happy about the point under subsection (3). This is a point we ought to get clear for procedure for the future. There, you have a quite definite and short period of 28 days—it may be shorter. As it is only a matter of seven days I should have thought that in deciding the practice of the House it would be more in accordance with caution and with the general feeling of what is right and proper that we should allow the full period of the 28 days to elapse. I put that point for consideration. It is a point which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has shown by his researches, may face either party. I should have thought that a suitable compromise fitting the dignity and propriety of the House would be the period of 28 days.
The Attorney-General: I do not know whether I may again intervene with the leave of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] The House will appreciate that that period has no reality at all, except in a case where there has been a narrow majority and there is the possibility of proving under Section 144 that as many electors as made up that majority were disqualified by reason of having been bribed or whatever it may be. I cannot exclude the possibility that an election petition might be presented under subsection (3) of Section 109 in the case of the constituency which we are now considering, but I should think the House would consider that it is beyond practical politics that anyone would be able to prove under Section 144 that 19,000 people in this constituency—I am told that that was the majority, or some such figure—had been bribed and that their votes ought, therefore, to be rejected. It is only in such a case where there is a practical possibility of something of that sort arising that this period of 28 days has any real significance or importance.
If this had been a narrowly contested election, where the majority ran into only two or three figures, I would certainly have advised the House that it would be wise to wait and see if any petition which might claim the seat was presented. But it is really impossible—I put it as highly as that—for any petition to be presented now which would claim the seat. There might well be a petition presented which would void the election.
1730
That would not matter, of course, because we are having a new election. The election had already been voided by the application for the Chiltern Hundreds. The only thing that matters is a petition which claims the seat for another candidate, and that is now a practical impossibility.
Mr. Churchill: Would not the Prime Minister consider bringing the House together on this technical point? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am asking the Prime Minister, and he can answer for himself. Will he not bring the House together on this point of allowing the 28 days to expire?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): There does not seem to be any practical reason for allowing that period to expire. All the precedents in this matter are the other way.
Mr. Churchill: Not all of them.
The Prime Minister: I am not aware that any Opposition has been over-vexatious in these matters before. I was in this House on the previous occasions to which reference has been made, and I can well remember the incidents of 1922 and 1924. On those occasions I think it was done with the full acceptance of the House. I cannot see any reason for making, an exception in this case.
Mr. Churchill: What is the unusual and extraordinary hurry? Why 21 days and not 28 days? Surely it would be more natural to bring the whole House together—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All right, you are not the masters now. Surely it would be more natural to bring the whole House together on the more reasonable and extended period.
The Prime Minister: I might ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the unusual reason for delay. If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman is the person who is creating a precedent in this matter. We are acting strictly in accordance with previous precedents.
Mr. Churchill: Oh, no. The onus and the initiative lay with the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who have created this vacancy.
Mr. Speaker: I think we had better get on.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved:
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the election of a Member to serve in this Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Sheffield, Neepsend, in the room of Lieut.-Colonel Henry Morris who, since his election to the said Borough Constituency, has accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of His Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York."

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BOOTLE EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
BURY EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 4th April.
CARDIFF EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
ILFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
NEWPORT EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
OLDHAM EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
SOUTH SHIELDS EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 4th April.
SUNDERLAND EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Chemists (Payments)
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now reached a satisfactory conclusion to his negotiations with representatives of the chemists for the speeding-up of the payment of claims made under the National Health Service scheme.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): The position varies from time to time and the Department are in constant touch with the chemists so that payments on an agreed basis may be made as quickly as is practicable.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Could the hon. Lady say whether there are many back claims still outstanding?
    Miss Herbison: We find that substantial payments on account are made to each chemist promptly each month, and these are made at a rate per prescription form equal to 90 per cent. of the rate finally determined last April for the chemist concerned. I would add that this applies to the majority of chemists in Scotland.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Could I ask the hon. Lady to bear in mind that this payment by degrees bears hardly, not only on the old-established chemist, but on those established since the war, who have not the resources behind them of those who have been in business for some time.
    Miss Herbison: I would be willing to accept that, but 90 per cent. is a fairly high proportion of payment. It is impossible at present, because of technical difficulties, to speed up the further payments.

    Oats (Price)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now place oats, permanently, on the same footing as other cereal crops in respect to the guaranteed price, owing to the fact that oats are the principal cereal crop in the North of Scotland.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): An undertaking has already been given that oats will be treated on the same footing as other cereal crops as regards guaranteed price and assured market up to and including the 1951 crop. It is impossible at this date to give an undertaking beyond that date.
    Mr. Boothby: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that agriculture in Scotland will never be on a sound basis unless the main cereal crop is put permanently upon the same footing as other cereals?
    Mr. Fraser: Even the other cereal crops do not permanently enjoy a guaranteed price and assured market.
    Mr. Boothby: Then could they not be put on the same footing, and for much longer than at present?
    Mr. John MacLeod: Could the Under-Secretary of State say why this stigma is put on oats?
    Mr. Fraser: There is no stigma on oats at all.

    Public Libraries
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in view of the importance of improving and expanding the public libraries system in Scotland, if he is yet in a position to take steps to remove the 3d. rate limit which hampers its development.
    Miss Herbison: My right hon. Friend is aware that many burgh library authorities, whose difficulties he appreciates, are considerably embarrassed in meeting the expenditure necessary to maintain an adequate library service from the rate income available under the present limit. He is, therefore, urgently requesting the Scottish Advisory Council on Education, who have been considering this subject, to report as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Hughes: While I realise that the hon. Lady is in no way responsible for the delay, may I ask if she is aware that an inquiry into this matter has lasted some years? Will she ask the inquirers to expedite their report as soon as possible?
    Miss Herbison: In the answer which I have already given it is stated that we are asking this committee to report as quickly as possible. Indeed, we are asking them to do so most urgently.

    Hearing Aids
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current delay in supplying hearing aids from the time of notification of the need for them in any particular case to the time when they are supplied.
    Miss Herbison: The waiting time for persons now receiving hearing aids has varied from four months in Aberdeen to 16 months in Glasgow. The limiting factor is not now manufacturing capacity, but
    1734
    staffing and accommodation at the hospital clinics. Steps have already been taken to improve the position in Glasgow, but my right hon. Friend has asked the regional board to give it their further attention.
    Mr. Macpherson: Is the hon. Lady aware that delays of up to 18 months have been experienced in my constituency? Can she say what is the position there and what improvements are being made?
    Miss Herbison: If the hon. Member will put down a Question to that effect I will certainly give him an answer.

    Hill Sheep Subsidy
    Major McCallumasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what decision has been reached on the rate of hill sheep breeding ewe subsidy for the current year; and on what basis it is to be paid.
    Mr. T. Fraser: It is proposed to lay before the House tomorrow a Statutory Instrument fixing a rate of 5s. per breeding ewe. In terms of the Hill Sheep (Scotland) No. 2 Scheme, payment will be calculated on the number of eligible sheep in the flock at 3rd December, 1949, or, subject to certain conditions, and if the applicant so elects, on the number of sheep in respect of which subsidy was paid in relation to 4th December, 1946. The 5s. rate will apply to England and Wales as the standard rate, and also to Northern Ireland.
    Major McCallum: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the number of hill sheep in Scotland is still many thousands, even millions, below what it was in 1946, and does he think that this 5s. subsidy will be sufficient to provide the incentive for the building up of sheep stocks?
    Mr. Fraser: I have said that in certain circumstances the number of sheep in respect of which the subsidy will be paid may be calculated by reference to the numbers in the flocks in 1946.

    Huts, Crimond
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the very bad living conditions in the hutted camp at Crimond, Aberdeenshire; and what steps he proposes to take to alleviate the situation.
    Mr. T. Fraser: These huts provide only emergency accommodation. Considerable sums have been spent in adapting and repairing them but the only real solution is the rehousing of the families elsewhere. The county council have been asked to clear the huts from the site as they are vacated.
    Mr. Boothby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the conditions in this camp are at present sub-human? Cannot something be done in the interim, until the tenants are cleared, to improve them?
    Mr. Fraser: The camps were inspected by technical officers of the Department only last month, and although they have reported that conditions in one of the camps are deteriorating, in the other they are not quite so serious. The hon. Member will know that a very considerable sum of money—something over £10,000—has already been spent on adaptations and repairs.
    Commander Galbraith: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the emergency to which he has referred will be likely to come to an end?
    Mr. Fraser: No, but in assessing the needs of that area for new housing we are taking into account the number of people who are living in such accommodation and making allowances in the authorisations to the local authorities.

    Rural Housing
    Mr. McKieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how he proposes to accelerate the building of houses in the county of Wigtown and Stewartry of Kirkcudbright.
    Mr. T. Fraser: The local building Industry is fully engaged at the moment and it is my right hon. Friend's intention to allocate additional houses to keep it fully engaged.
    Mr. McKie: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for the information he has given, may I ask if he is aware that a great blow has been dealt to rural housing in both these counties by the withdrawal of the rural housing grants and if he will convey to the Secretary of State for Scotland the desirability of reintroducing these grants at the earliest possible moment so that we may make progress in the better housing of the rural population?
    Mr. Fraser: I do not agree that such a very serious blow has been dealt to this area. If one compares the number of houses built when the Act was on the Statute Book and in operation with the number of houses now under construction and completed since the war, it will be found that we have done better since the Act has been in operation.

    Smallholdings, Dunragit
    Mr. McKieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is now the intention of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland to convert the farm of Kilfillan on the estate owned by the Department at Dunragit, Wigtownshire, into smallholdings.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Yes, Sir. A scheme is under consideration for converting the farm into seven holdings.
    Mr. McKie: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that information, may I ask if it is the intention of his Department to proceed to convert the other farms on this estate into smallholdings as well?
    Mr. Fraser: I cannot go beyond that one farm at present. We are not embarking on a wholesale scheme of new holdings, but have selected this particular farm for breaking up into certain smallholdings. I cannot give any assurance about other farms in the estate.
    Mr. McKie: Does the conversion of that farm mean the partial admission of the failure of the running of the estate by the Department of Agriculture?
    Mr. Fraser: Not at all.

    Hospital Staffs (Salaries)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to secure early removal of the existing anomalies whereby senior members of hospital staffs in Scotland, holding highly responsible positions, are being paid less than some of those occupying junior posts.
    Mr. Snaddenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the dissatisfaction amongst sister tutors in Scottish hospitals regarding the failure to increase their salaries, although that of the student nurse was raised in 1948 and ward sisters in 1949; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    Miss Herbison: The salaries of nurses employed in the National Health Service are negotiated on the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council, which at present is dealing with a claim for increased salaries for senior hospital nurses, including sister tutors.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Does that apply also to matrons and other personnel—for example, those in charge of laundries; and is the hon. Lady aware that in many cases people in authority are being paid much less than those serving under them?
    Miss Herbison: The Whitley Council has been dealing from time to time with the salaries of the whole staffs of hospitals. Regarding those to which the Question refers, the staff side put forward their proposals in December of last year. I cannot say whether this applies to matrons, but if the hon. Member would put down a Question I will give him an answer.

    Sewerage Scheme, Ayrshire
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cause of the delay in supplying sewerage facilities to the housing scheme at Bellsbank, Dalmellington, Ayrshire.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I understand that Ayr County Council have designed a sewerage scheme to drain Bellsbank housing scheme at Dalmellington, but that their right to lay the necessary sewer on the line proposed has been the subject of several Court actions and that the matter is still sub judice.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this delaying action in preventing this housing scheme is caused by a Tory landlord? Will he use any powers he has to expedite the scheme?
    Mr. Fraser: The scheme has been under consideration for a long time, for something like two or two and a half years, but we are hopeful that a solution will soon be found.

    Highlands Area
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recommendations of the Highland Advisory Panel have been implemented.
    Miss Herbison: Government action in regard to housing, including crofter housing, fishing, forestry and agriculture, piers, harbours, textiles and other Highland matters has followed advice given by the Panel from time to time. The Panel's advice is not always in the form of specific recommendations and in many cases relates to proposals put forward by other bodies. It is, therefore, not possible to say precisely what decisions and projects have been based on recommendations made by the Panel alone, but it is obvious that their advice has had wide acceptance.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Are there not many recommendations, made by the Highland Panel which, quite clearly, could have been followed without affecting the general economic position of the country?
    Miss Herbison: No. I am quite certain from the steps that have been taken by the Departments concerned and the Scottish Office that those recommendations made by the Highland Panel which could have been followed have been followed.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Is the hon. Lady aware that unless many of the recommendations are acted upon by the Government, people in the North of Scotland will feel that it will be useless to set up any further committees or courts of inquiry into Highland affairs?
    Miss Herbison: From the list of those things which have been done from the recommendations by the Highland Panel. I am quite certain that that cannot be the feeling amongst a great many people in the Highlands.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the urgent social and economic needs of the Highlands, he will consider the designation of the whole Highland area as a development area.
    Miss Herbison: The parts of the Highlands to which the provisions of the Distribution of Industry Act may be applied most suitably weer scheduled as a development area last year, and my right hon. Friend does not think that it would be appropriate to extend its boundaries to cover the whole of the seven crofting counties.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Does the hon. Lady consider that unless the Highlands are given special consideration they cannot make their full contribution to the economic welfare of the country?
    Miss Herbison: The whole Highland area can be given special attention and it has been given it for the past four and a half years. I am certain that that will continue to be done by this Government.

    Non-traditional Houses
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware chat the factories producing permanent houses are not being employed to their maximum potential and, since there are enough of them to provide a price on a competitive basis without drawing on the pool of skilled labour, if he will encourage a maximum output on a reasonable time basis.
    Mr. T. Fraser: In order to maintain,good housing progress, my right hon. Friend is most anxious to encourage the building of approved types of non-traditional houses. For this purpose he proposes, when intimating further allocations of houses to local authorities shortly, to ask them to arrange that at least 40 per cent. of the houses in the larger schemes will be of these types.
    Mrs. Mann: Would my hon. Friend agree that that is not the best use to make of the factory which produces permanent houses and that to get its full potential we must get bulk orders and continuity?
    Mr. Fraser: It is some considerable time since my right hon. Friend decided to discontinue the bulk ordering of houses, or components for houses, on a large scale for the new housing developments and to leave the ordering of houses and components to the local authorities in the different areas.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that if these highly elaborate factories are to be run to full advantage, there must be full continuity of orders which, I understand, was promised by the Department? In many cases that promise has not been carried out.
    Mr. Fraser: No such promise was given by the Department beyond the orders that were given by the Department in
    1740
    1945–46. Those orders, of course, have been taken up, but I am surprised to learn from the hon. and gallant Member that he now favours bulk purchase even for houses.
    Mrs. Mann: Would my hon. Friend try to convert his right hon. Friend to the very fine result of bulk purchase and convert him to giving us the housing output we need?
    Sir David Robertson: In view of the unsatisfactory answer to Question No. 14, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Building Programmes
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give his estimate of completed permanent houses in Scotland for 1950, 1951 and 1952; and state how far the house-building programme will be accelerated, compared with 1947. 1948 and 1949;
    (2) what further steps he proposes to take to ensure that all local authorities build houses at the greatest speed commensurate with the labour and materials at their disposal.
    Mr. T. Fraser: With permission. I will answer this Question and No. 19 together. The rate of house building depends on the resources available from time to time. My right hon. Friend does not propose to make forecasts of future trends, but he hopes that the improvement in the number of permanent houses completed which took place in 1949 will be maintained. To ensure continuity of employment, he is arranging to make additional allocations of houses to local authorities throughout Scotland towards the end of this month.
    Mrs. Mann: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that permission was asked to reply to Questions Nos. 16 and 19 together? I object to permission being granted, because Question No. 19 is an entirely different one from Question No. 16, and I want separate replies. May I respectfully ask that separate replies be given?
    Mr. Fraser: May I point out, Sir, that I asked permission to give a composite reply; there were no objections and I gave a composite reply. There seems to

    1741
    be nothing to prevent my hon. Friend from putting a separate question on the subject of No. 19 as against No. 16.
    Major Guy Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman fully aware that it is notorious that the house-building programme in Scotland is falling behind while the demand is rising and there is an overwhelming demand for houses? The number which it is intended to be built during the period mentioned in Question No. 16 will be lower. Is the hon. Gentleman fully aware of the fact that everyone in Scotland knows it? Why did he not tell the House that under this Government's programme housing in Scotland will fall?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does my hon. Friend think there is a possibility of married quarters for miners being finished by 1955?
    Lord Dunglass: Will the hon. Gentleman give the figures to show whether the number of houses proposed for the next two years is rising, or falling? I think he knows that in the county of Lanarkshire it will take over 20 years to overcome the housing shortage and that next year's programme is far below that of 1949?
    Mr. Fraser: The noble Lord talks about the programme for the next two years. We have not stated a programme for the next two years. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Government dare not."] Each year, when we consider the capital Investment White Paper, hon. Members have an opportunity of saying that they think the building resources mentioned should be turned from some other purpose to housing, but they never take the opportunity.
    Mrs. Mann: On a point of Order. I objected as quickly as I could to the two Questions being answered together. May I ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks that there are reactionary authorities who are not giving their maximum output, and if he is aware that they are sheltering behind the Government on that score? Does he propose to do anything about those local authorities?
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Before the hon. Gentleman passes from Question No. 16, surely he knows that the Minister of Health, on behalf of the Government, gave a forecast for two years of the housing programme for the country as a whole,
    1742
    which was a standstill for this year and a cut for next year? He must be able to interpret just how that applies to Scotland.
    Mr. Fraser: I agree with my right hon. Friend, who is very hopeful that the rate of completing houses in Scotland will not decline as far as we can look into the future. In regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), so far as I am aware, the number of houses being completed in any area in Scotland is not being restricted by anything which my right hon. Friend or his Department are doing at present.

    Building Licences, Orkney and Shetland
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether he will make building licences more generally available for individuals who wish to build houses for owner-occupation in the scattered rural areas of Orkney and Shetland where local authorities cannot, at economic cost, meet the need for houses.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Since 1947, agricultural communities have enjoyed a priority in the granting of licences and two-thirds of the applications received from Orkney and Shetland have been approved. In addition, the local authorities in these two counties qualify for the additional subsidies made available for the special purpose of enabling houses to be built in such remote areas and let at reasonable rents.
    Mr. Grimond: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his answer and acknowledging that some little concessions have been made, may I ask him to bear in mind that it is quite impossible for the County Council of Orkney and Shetland to provide houses except at exorbitant costs in some remote areas? Does he know that, in order to reduce costs of services, his Department are insisting that eight houses be built on each site in Shetland to meet the needs of districts where only one or two houses are required? Will he reconsider the whole matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: May I ask the Minister if he does not consider it most ungrateful of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), after supporting him in the Lobby on this policy, now to be criticising him?
    Mr. Fraser: We appreciate that the housing needs of Orkney and Shetland cannot be fully met by local authorities and that many crofters and small farmers must have the right to build houses for themselves.

    Slum Clearance
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions, and in the case of which local authorities in Scotland, he has used his powers under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, to enforce the carrying out of slum clearance.
    Mr. T. Fraser: These powers have not been exercised since 1935.
    Mrs. Mann: Is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities were reactionary in 1935 and are still reactionary, and that at the moment they are sheltering behind the Labour Government and putting all the blame for their reaction on this Government?

    Building Grants, Highlands and Islands
    Mr. John MacLeodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the official announcement in May last with regard to arrangements made by him under Section 77 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, for providing assistance by way of grants towards the erection and improvement of dwelling-houses and other buildings for landholders and cottars in the Highlands and Islands, he will state the number of applications for grants which have been received; the number of grants which have been approved; and the number of cases in which the work of rebuilding and improvement is now in progress.
    Mr. T. Fraser: The number of applications received is 1,323, of which 107 have so far been approved. I regret that information is not available as to the number of cases in which work is in progress.
    Mr. MacLeod: Will the hon. Gentleman say why there is such delay in dealing with these applications?
    Mr. Fraser: Consideration of these applications could only begin in the autumn months, the weather was not too congenial, the days were short and there
    1744
    was a shortage of technical officers. We have increased the number of technical officers by six, and we hope that in the longer days immediately ahead, there will be a quickening improvement.

    Fish (Transport Rates)
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will make a statement on the inter-Departmental inquiries concerning transport rates as they affect the fishing industry in the north of Scotland.
    Mr. T. Fraser: It is expected that these inquiries will be completed very shortly. Whenever the report is received my right hon. Friends will give it their immediate attention.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Secretary of State will consider the suggestion that the abolition of the flat transport rate should be postponed for another month, until there has been proper time for consideration of the result of these inquiries?
    Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend has not the power to postpone the abolition of the flat rate. The industry has rejected, the flat rate and my right hon. Friend cannot impose it upon them.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present uncertainty as to the freight rate for transport is embarrassing to this essential industry, and will he give some assurance that the industry will be protected either by preserving the flat rate or by means of a subsidy?
    Mr. Fraser: I cannot give such an assurance. The flat rate is going because the industry has rejected it. I cannot at this time, or until these inquiries are completed, say that a subsidy will be paid.

  PENSIONS (PERSONAL CASES)
  Mr. George Wardasked the Minister of Pensions why Mr. H. Simpson, of 40, Westcroft Street, Droitwich, reference 11/N/23417, has been refused a reinstatement of his pension, in spite of a medical certificate that his condition results from his service in the Royal Marines.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Simmons): I am glad to say that following a further review our medical advisers consider that Mr. Simpson's present condition is associated with his war service. We are therefore having him examined by a medical board in order to ascertain the degree of disablement on which to base his pension.
  Mr. Ward: Is the Minister aware that Mr. Simpson was not even X-rayed by the pensions board to find out if he had tuberculosis or not? Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that the next time this man appears before the board he is properly examined?
  Mr. Simmons: Mr. Simpson applied in May, 1949. His claim was considered by the Director-General of our Department. He is to appear before a medical board for assessment purposes. In his original examination in 1919 he did see a tuberculosis officer.
  Mr. Ward: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Simpson was not X-rayed by the naval or medical authorities or by the pensions board?
  Mr. Simmons: This case goes back to 1919, and upon it coming to us again in 1945 we gave consideration to it. We have agreed that Mr. Simpson shall go before a medical board, the result of which we must now await.
  Mr. Marloweasked the Minister of Pensions why he has refused to pay the pension due to Mr. T. Jennings, 62, Wordsworth Street, Hove, in respect of the period between his discharge in 1940 and August, 1942, in spite of the fact that the pensions tribunal found in 1943 that his injury was attributable to service.
  Mr. Simmons: My right hon. Friend and I have explained the position fully in correspondence with the hon. and learned Member. On a strict interpretation of the terms of the Royal Warrant Mr. Jennings would be entitled to compensation amounting to only £8. In view of the circumstances in his case, however, he was, in fact, paid £48.
  Mr. Marlowe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his correspondence is completely contradictory, that the application was turned down on the basis that no
  1746
  claim was made at the date of discharge, but that since then the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the case was automatically considered without application at the date of discharge? The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. It must be agreed that there was an application at the date of discharge. Will the hon. Gentleman consider the case again from that point of view?
  Mr. Simmons: There was certainly no claim made on the date of discharge. The first claim made by Mr. Jennings was in 1943 and the pensions appeal tribunal in January last confirmed the decision that aggravation had passed away in August, 1943. If the hon. and learned Member would care to see the correspondence I am quite ready to meet and discuss the matter with him. I have been through all the correspondence myself.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Court-Martial Proceedings
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now allow either the parents of 19148898 Private V. R. Sparrow or the honourable Member for Aston to inspect the proceedings of the court-martial by which the soldier, who was tried on a charge of the manslaughter of Private Sparrow, was acquitted.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): My predecessor wrote to my hon. Friend on 19th December last and explained why permission could not be given in this case.

    Overseas Service (Period)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War how many men serving in the Middle East Land Forces are being called upon to serve a period of three and a half years in that command, without leave in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Strachey: Authority for retention overseas beyond three years is delegated to the overseas command. I understand that on 1st January, 1950, General Headquarters, Middle East Land Forces, had authorised the compulsory retention of some 70 men. Since that date these cases have been reviewed and I anticipate that there will have been a substantial reduction in their numbers.

    Ammunition, Sherwood Forest
    Mr. Redmayneasked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to complete the removal of ammunition dumped in the Sherwood Forest area of Nottinghamshire.
    Mr. Strachey: Every effort is being made to complete the removal of ammunition from the Sherwood area by the end of 1952, but the rate of removal is governed by the availability of labour and of storage accommodation elsewhere.
    Mr. Redmayne: Is the Minister aware that this area is a source of great pleasure and recreation to the people of Nottingham and Sheffield and that the matter should therefore he treated as one of greater urgency than the normal ammunition dump problem?
    Mr. Strachey: I am well aware of the importance of getting on with its removal.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this ammunition will not, as has happened in previous cases, be taken away from England and dumped in Scotland?
    Mr. Strachey: There is no such intention.
    Mr. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on previous occasions we in Nottinghamshire have been promised that this ammunition will be removed from the Sherwood area, and that nothing substantial has been done towards removing it? Can my right hon. Friend give a promise that in the very near future some substantial removal will take place?
    Mr. Strachey: Some 26,000 tons have already been removed. That is fairly substantial.

    C-I Reproduction Services
    Sir John Mellorasked the Secretary of State for War what has been the total cost during the past three years, respectively, of C-I Reproduction Services situated at 5–6 Old Cavendish Street, W.1; what is its purpose; what staff is employed; what floor space is occupied; what is produced, which could not be produced by His Majesty's Stationery Office; and when he proposes to close this establishment.
    Mr. Strachey: As the answer is necessarily rather long, I will, with permission. circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The cost of staff, provided in Army Estimates, has been approximately £30,000 a year for the last three years. It would involve a large amount of labour to assess separately the cost of the overheads of this section of the War Office. The section is used for reproduction by photo-mechanical process which would, alternatively, have to be carried out by other and less suitable means; for photocopying; for micro-filming of documents required for permanent record and of correspondence which would otherwise have to be sent overseas by airmail at much heavier cost; and for photography of Army equipment and other subjects of military interest.
    The number of staff at present employed at 5–6, Cavendish Street, is 84. The floor space occupied is 11,192 sq. ft., exclusive of a small amount of storage space. Some of the work is of a kind which could be produced by H.M. Stationery Office, but the War Office, like other Service Departments, requires plant and staff to be available solely for its own reproduction work and to cover those services which H.M. Stationery Office does not provide, such as outdoor photography, and a microgram service for overseas correspondence.
    It is more convenient and economical for all these War Office requirements, which to a large extent use common processes and staff, to be performed in one section, which forms a nucleus for expansion in time of emergency. I do not propose to close this section.
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Secretary of State for War whether any payment or offer of payment, for work improperly done in his Department, was received from Glass Developments, Limited, before the police commenced investigations into the conduct of his C-I Reproduction Services; and why no proceedings were taken against the company or its representatives for conspiracy.
    Mr. Strachey: There was no written offer of payment. As regards the second part of the Question, the papers in the case were laid before the Director of

    1749
    Public Prosecutions, who decided that there was insufficient evidence to justify proceedings being taken.

    Courts-Martial (Lewis Committee)
    Mr. Gerald Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to implement the recommendations of the Lewis Committee.
    Mr. Strachey: A considerable number of the recommendations of the Lewis Committee on Army and Air Force courts-martial which did not require legislation have already been implemented by administrative action or by amendment of the rules of procedure. As the House knows, the Government felt it necessary to defer a decision on the major recommendations, concerning the setting up of a court of appeal and the re-constitution of courts-martial, until the Report of Mr. Justice Pilcher's Committee on the naval system had been received and considered. As announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, on Wednesday last, the Pilcher Committee presented a Report covering these aspects of its terms of reference on 21st February. This Report is now under urgent consideration, but I cannot yet give the date when His Majesty's Government will be ready to announce their decisions or when it will be possible to introduce any legislation that may be necessary to give effect to them.
    Mr. Williams: As it appears to be the Pilcher Report which is holding up the whole matter will the Minister expedite the implementation of that Report so that consideration of the implementation of the Lewis Committee can proceed at once?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. We have now received the Pilcher Report and we must consider action arising from it.

    Stores and Supplies (Losses)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for War what is the value of Government stores and supplies, the property of his Department, that have been lost in transit on the railways each year since the railways were nationalised.
    Mr. Strachey: The value of War Department stores and supplies, lost in transit on the railways each year since
    1750
    the railways were nationalised, is not available without lengthy research, but test checks in 1948 and 1949 indicate that losses are of the order of £5,000 to £10,000 a year. In 1947 (before nationalisation) a test check showed that losses amounted to some £20,000 a year.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that before nationalisation these losses were borne by the railways and that now they are borne by the War Department and the State? Further, would he see that the loss is now debited to the railways and credited to the War Department?
    Mr. Strachey: I am aware that before nationalisation the losses were debited to the railways, and I am also aware that the losses after nationalisation are debited to the railways.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first Report of the Transport Commission shows an improvement in these matters, both as regards civil and public property?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly, Sir. In this case the loss was halved.

    Officer (Election Candidature)
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an officer on the active list, who was at the time a prospective Parliamentary candidate, received a posting order shortly before the General Election, which was not in accordance with the spirit or the letter of paragraph 1 of Army Council Instruction of 9th November, 1944; if he will give details of the circumstances in which this posting order was made and of any other similar postings; in how many cases the officers in question appealed for the decisions to be reconsidered; by whom such appeals were considered; and with what results.
    Mr. Strachey: I am aware of only one case in which an officer on the active list, who was a prospective Parliamentary candidate, received a posting order shortly before the General Election. The order was made to ensure that there could be no suggestion of a conflict between official and political interests as a result of his holding a position of authority over certain of his prospective constituents. I should add that there was

    1751
    no implication that the officer was acting improperly or otherwise than in conformity with regulations. The officer appealed against the order and the appeal was rejected after consideration by the Army Council. Since, however, between 17th December, the date on which he vacated his previous appointment, and the General Election, the officer was required to perform only some two days military duty, there is no question but that he was given every reasonable facility in accordance with the pamphlet issued with the Army Council Instruction referred to.
    Major Beamish: Can the Secretary of State for War say why this posting was not put in writing? Further, by whom was the final decision taken to turn down the appeal of this officer?
    Mr. Strachey: I have already answered the second part of the Question; it was considered by the Army Council. I am being asked a separate question on the form in which the posting was made.
    Sir Herbert Williams: May I ask whether the officer was sent north to be nearer to the Bruce?

    Arrested Officer, Germany
    Mr. Marloweasked the Secretary of State for War upon what charge Major E. James 133973 is held in arrest at British Army of the Rhine Release 6 Transit Centre; and why no summary of evidence has yet been taken although he has been in arrest for six weeks.
    Mr. Strachey: Major James was placed in arrest in Germany on 8th February, on four holding charges involving larceny, fraud, forgery and making fraudulent statements. He was recalled to Germany owing to the fact that £150 in an account which he ran, could not be accounted for. A summary of evidence was arranged to take place on 13th February, but had to be postponed as further inquiries brought to light additional apparent irregularities which involved further investigations.
    Mr. Marlowe: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this officer has now been in arrest for some seven weeks, and that no summary of evidence has yet been taken? Will he make inquiries to see whether there is evidence justifying a continual holding in arrest?
    Mr. Strachey: I agree that these delays are unfortunate; we will do our utmost to expedite proceedings.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    Development Charges
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware that the development sections of the Town and Country Planning Act have, in practice, hampered and delayed the development and expansion of housing; and whether he will introduce amending legislation to overcome this difficulty.
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he is aware that the development sections of the Town and Country Planning Act have had an adverse effect upon all forms of development; and if he is proposing to introduce amending legislation to remove the discouraging effect of these sections.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Lindgren): My right hon. Friend will examine any evidence which either of the hon. Members would like to submit. There is, however, no prospect of amending legislation this Session.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware of the inconsistencies in methods employed in various parts of the United Kingdom by district valuers of the Inland Revenue, when computing development charges payable under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, upon extensions to industrial premises; and what stops he proposes to take to ensure uniform and equitable evaluation of such development charges.
    Mr. Lindgren: If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of any such inconsistencies I shall be glad to look into them.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the event of any difference of professional opinion as between the district valuer of the Inland Revenue and the adviser to the industry seeking expansion, there is no court of appeal or arbitration to which such difference can be referred?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. That point was the subject of discussion in the last Parliament, both in this House and in another place.
    Mr. Nabarro: What does the Parliamentary Secretary intend to do about these anomalies?
    Mr. Lindgren: We are looking at the operation of the Act to see how, by administration, we can speed up and simplify the procedure. I cannot make any promise about legislation. It will require legislation to set up a court of appeal.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he will amend the Town and Country Planning Act so as to abolish the development charge on new houses built for owner-occupation in rural areas.
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir.
    Mr. Grimond: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that in places such as Orkney and Shetland the effect of this charge is not to stop speculation or to raise revenue, but simply to hamper people in providing themselves with houses in the only way open to them?
    Mr. Lindgren: I am a brave man, but I think the hon. Member ought to address that question to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that that Question and the supplementary question both indicate the abandonment by the Liberal Party of their belief in the taxation of land values?

    Claims (Time Limit)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will give consideration to introducing an order to extend the time under which claims can be made for loss of development value.
    Mr. Lindgren: This time limit was extended from 31st March, 1949, to 30th June, 1949, and my right hon. Friend has no reason to think that any further extension is called for.
    Mr. Marshall: Will the Minister look into cases of individual hardship, of men who have been fighting since 1944 and who have been without ready access either to newspapers or broadcasts?
    Mr. Lindgren: We will look into any case, but I am assured that commanding officers of overseas units took particular care to see that the matter was called to the attention of serving members of the Forces.
    Mr. Braine: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are many humble folk who invested their life savings in land before the war, intending to build and who, either through ignorance or lack of understanding of this complex piece of legislation, have failed to put in a claim in time and are suffering today? Does he realise that in practice this legislation is nothing short of legalised robbery?
    Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to agree with his last statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—but this has been the subject of discussion for over 18 months, and 937,000 claims have been made. Generally speaking, I think it can be assumed that those who are concerned were well aware of the requirements of the Act.
    Mr. Marlowe: If the hon. Gentleman says he is not in favour of legalised robbery, will he say when he abandoned his Socialist principles?

    Iron Ore Field (Restoration)
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he has yet been able to examine the urgent problem of restoration in the Midland iron ore field; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has already called for information on this subject, and before deciding what further action is necessary he intends to take an early opportunity of visiting the area to see this devastation for himself.
    Mr. Mitchison: While welcoming that enterprise on the part of my right hon. Friend, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that a White Paper was to be forthcoming in January, that it has not yet appeared and that there is very grave public anxiety about what is to happen? Will he

    1755
    see that the matter is dealt with as one of urgency, and with the greatest possible despatch?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that, with him, I have a constituency interest in this problem so that perhaps there will be personal attention to it as well—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] A White Paper is in draft, but my right hon. Friend takes the view that with it there should be a statement of policy on this problem.
    Mr. Boothby: Does the hon. Member mean to convey to the House that he only takes a personal interest in his own constituency?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, and, knowing me, I do not think that the House will think so either.
    Mr. Mitchison: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the imperative need for full restoration in all possible cases, as distinct from all convenient cases?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. The whole problem is being looked at, but the question arises of where the finance for repairing past devastation is to come from.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been under consideration for the last five years, if not seven, and that in the opinion of all people mainly concerned the time has come when some decision and action should be taken?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, but it was the right hon. Gentleman's political friends who created this problem in the years before the war.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Death Grants
    Major H. Johnsonasked the Minister of National Insurance whether her attention has been drawn to the inability of her Department under the National Insurance Act, 1946, to pay death grants to parents of children who before they attain the age of 16 become mentally deficient or physically incapacitated but die after attaining such age without recovering mental or physical health; and what action she proposes to take to alleviate such hardship to parents.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): Entitlement to death grant in such a case depends on the insurance record of the deceased once he has ceased to be a "child" within the meaning of the Statute. It is a general principle of the National Insurance scheme that the provision made for an adult who has not married should depend on his own insurance, but I am watching carefully the operation of the Act in this type of case.
    Major Johnson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that with the possible exception of politics, there are no careers open to mentally deficient persons? How, therefore, can a mentally deficient or a person of unsound mind obtain money with which to pay 26 contributions?
    Dr. Summerskill: I take it that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in putting this supplementary question, is speaking for his own party. I want him to realise that this Act came into operation on 5th July, 1948, and that cases of this kind occasionally arise. I think he will agree that they are exceptional. Perhaps the anomaly of a person who is not a child within the meaning of the Act remaining mentally a child was not envisaged when the Act was framed. But I can undertake to look at the matter for him.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: What the hon. and gallant Gentleman said applies to Regular Army officers more than to other people.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the remark made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith)? It was an insult to the British Army?

    Territorial Army (Cards)
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Minister of National Insurance on what grounds she has decided that a national insurance card in respect of a member of the Territorial Army must be stamped by the civil employers of the member concerned and not by the Army authority; and why she penalises in this way employers who encourage their staff to join the Territorial Army.
    Dr. Summerskill: No such decision has been given by my Department. I assume that the hon. Member has in mind mem-

    1757
    bers of the Territorial Army attending annual camps. In such cases the cards for the period of attendance at camps are normally stamped by the Army authority.
    Mr. Low: Would not the right hon. Lady agree that recently she has issued a regulation which prescribes that if the civilian employer makes any payments to the member of the Territorial Army while he is in camp, that employer must stamp the card or part of it?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman is under a slight misapprehension. The regulations governing these contributions are the same as those which govern the contributions made for the man who is engaged by two civil employers at the same time. He may be engaged by one in the morning and one in the afternoon. In those cases, the man who employs him in the morning is liable for the contribution. If the Territorial goes to camp on Saturday his civil employer is liable for the contribution for the preceding week, but the Territorial Army is liable for the succeeding week.
    Mr. Low: Will the right hon. Lady have a talk with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to ensure that this regulation does not penalise either the man who goes to camp or the employer who pays him wages?
    Dr. Summerskill: I am now consulting with the Service Departments in order that the hon. Gentleman shall be under no further misapprehension.

  FORCES, MALAYA (GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL)
  Lord John Hopeasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the granting of a General Service Medal to the Forces engaged in Malaya.
  Major Beamishasked the Prime Minister whether active service in Malaya since the end of the war will be a qualification for the General Service Medal, or in what way the outstanding gallantry and devotion to duty of all ranks who have served in Malaya will be recognised.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. His Majesty has approved proposals for the grant of the General Service Medals for specified service in Malaya, since 16th June, 1948. A short White Paper on the subject is available in the Vote Office.
  Lord John Hope: Is this to be a special ribbon, or merely an addition to the present decoration?.
  The Prime Minister: I should be glad if the hon. Member would study the White Paper and then put any Questions he may think desirable.
  Major Beamish: While welcoming the announcement made by the Prime Minister, might I ask him to look into another matter which arises out of this Question? Will he try to ensure that at least a small part of the huge sum spent on Government publicity is put to good effect by informing the public of the great gallantry and devotion to duty of police and all ranks in the Army under trying and unpleasant conditions?
  Air-Commodore Harvey: Including Regular officers.
  The Prime Minister: That has nothing whatever to do with the Questions on the Paper.

  PENSIONERS (COST OF LIVING)
  Mr. Peter Robertsasked the Prime Minister whether he will institute an inquiry into the position of pensioners generally, in view of the rising cost of living.
  The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of the cost of living to pensioners and other retired persons dependent on fixed incomes, and their policy has been directed towards maintaining the maximum stability of retail prices. They do not think, therefore, that an inquiry of the kind suggested would serve any useful purpose.
  Mr. Roberts: Is not the Prime Minister aware that owing to the mismanagement of the Government, which has caused the rising cost of living, there are large numbers of old and disabled people who cannot make ends meet? Will he say why he

  1759
  will not institute an inqury which might be able to give assistance to the Government in their efforts to try to solve this problem?
  The Prime Minister: I have already explained that I do not think that it is a desirable method. I do not think it would be useful.

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement regarding the progress of erecting the buildings for the Festival of Britain.
  Mr. John E. Haireasked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the progress on the Festival of Britain site on the South Bank.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Since the beginning of the year construction of the buildings on the South Bank site has been proceeding steadily, although it is still in its early stages. I am assured by the Festival of Britain office that they confidently expect the Exhibition to be ready for opening at the beginning of May, 1951.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: To ensure that the view of the South Bank is satisfactory, will the Lord President also see that St. Thomas's Hospital is put into shape before the opening date?
  Mr. Morrison: That is not part of the Festival of Britain operations.
  Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what things are to be shown at this Exhibition?

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Profits and Wages
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums have been distributed as dividends from corporation profits and as wages and salaries, respectively, in the latest convenient period.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): Estimates for 1948 were given in Tables 6, 14 and 15 of the
    1760
    National Income White Paper, Cmd. 7649. Estimates for 1949 will appear in the next National Income White Paper, to be presented shortly.
    Mr. Osborne: Can the Chancellor tell the House whether if the whole of the distributable profits were given to the wage earners, it would make, more or less the fourpence in the pound difference which he told the Trades Union Congress would be the effect?
    Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Gentleman should put that question on the Paper if he wants an answer.

    Pound Sterling (Purchasing Power)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the purchasing power of the pound sterling to the nearest convenient date as compared with 20s. in 1945.
    Sir S. Cripps: About 16s. 2d. in January, 1950.
    Mr. Osborne: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that it is an encouragement to people to save when the longer they leave money with the Socialist Government the less valuable it becomes?
    Sir S. Cripps: The only encouragement is that it remains more valuable than in other countries.

    Sterling Balances
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation to give statutory limitation to the amount of the sterling balances, both capital and interest, which may be released in any one year.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Does not the Chancellor think that some action ought to be taken to strengthen the hands of his negotiators, who are often civil servants, by putting some limit on the amount of sterling balance which they may release to any one country in one year?
    Sir S. Cripps: It would be quite improper to take unilateral action in a matter which must be arranged by consultation.

    Gift Picture (Export)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in the case of which particulars have been sent him, permission was refused to an artist to send as a gift to a benefactor in America a sketch by himself.
    Sir S. Cripps: Gifts to persons residing outside the sterling area are not normally allowed if the value exceeds £5. In the case to which the hon. Member refers the value of the picture was stated to be a good deal more than £5 and permission was accordingly refused. I have, however, looked into this case and I am satisfied that the circumstances are such as to justify an exception being made to the general rule. If the artist still desires to send the picture, and will make application, permission will be granted.

    Savings Certificates
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is today's nominal value, including accrued interest, of a National Savings certificate, purchased in August, 1945, for 16s.; and what is its real purchasing power allowing for the subsequent drop in the internal purchasing power of the £.
    Sir S. Cripps: A Savings Certificate bought for 15s. in August, 1945, is now worth 17s. 0½d. and would now have a purchasing power in terms of 1945 prices of about 13s. 10d.
    Mr. Osborne: Does the Chancellor think it fair and just to savers that money lent to his predecessor at 15s. should be repaid at 13s. 10d.?
    Sir S. Cripps: It is not necessarily being repaid, but it is exactly the same as regards all other investments.
    Mr. Osborne: Does the Chancellor think it is an encouragement to savers to treat the matter with such levity?
    Sir S. Cripps: I doubt whether the sort of Questions which the hon. Gentleman puts encourages anyone to do anything.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does the Chancellor think that figures such as he has just disclosed reflect credit or discredit on a Socialist Administration?
    Sir S. Cripps: I do not think they reflect either, they reflect the change in the
    1762
    value of money which has been general all over the world.
    Lord John Hope: Does the answer to that supplementary question mean that the Chancellor does not welcome Questions on the value of money?
    Sir S. Cripps: Not at all. I have no objection to Questions concerning the value of money, but I do not think it is a good thing to suggest to people that it is not a good thing to save.
    Mr. Stanley: Does not the Chancellor make it quite plain by his manner of answering Questions that he does not welcome Questions on this subject at all?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir; I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is as tender-skinned as he would like to appear.
    Mr. Osborne: Does the Chancellor suggest that because the Questions are awkward for him to answer we have no right to put them to him?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. They are not in the least awkward to answer.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Captain Waterhouse: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the Rule by which Questions addressed to the Prime Minister come on the Order Paper at No. 45 was designed to make certain that these Questions and those preceding them concerning the principal Ministers were answered, and that, on one day last week, even the Prime Minister's Questions were not reached? Today, out of 15 or 16 Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, only four or five have been reached. May I ask you, Sir, to consider whether or not the Prime Minister's Questions should not be brought on the Order Paper earlier?
  Mr. Speaker: These matters are always carefully considered, and we sometimes re-arrange the order of the Ministries to make sure that the Prime Minister's Questions can be reached. It is unfortunate that today we spent over half an hour on Scottish Questions, and, last week, on the occasion which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentions, I think we spent three quarters of an hour on the same subject. After all, there is a place called England.
  Captain Waterhouse: Is it not a fact that the more inefficient the Government the more Questions there are likely to be, so that we have reason to believe that Questions will take longer than ever?
  Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion, and not a question for me.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Strachey): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement.
A suggestion has been made in a Parliamentary Question that, while I was Minister of Food, I directed the Overseas Food Corporation to try to prevent the publication of a book on the East African groundnut scheme. This suggestion is entirely without foundation. Neither in my official nor in my personal capacity have I ever attempted to ban or censor this hook, nor, of course, have I ever had any power to do so. With the author's knowledge, Mr. Gollancz showed me the manuscript and proofs of the book, and I told him that I considered that many parts of the book were a grave distortion of the history of the scheme and that I should be compelled to say so on its publication.
1764
At no time was there any question of my bringing proceedings for libel. I could not, of course, guarantee what action other individuals or firms might take in this matter. Mr. Gollancz decided not to publish the book. It will, I have no doubt, be published by some other publisher, and, far from it being suppressed, parts of it are now appearing serially in a newspaper.
Mr. Stanley: Although this matter involves the question of Ministerial responsibility, are we to regard it as a personal statement on which no comment is allowed, Mr. Speaker, and must we, therefore, raise the matter, as we certainly shall, in a different form?
Mr. Speaker: Yes. It is placed before the House as a personal statement. I must accept it, and I do accept it, of course. There are other opportunities open to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends of examining the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered:
"That this day, the Business of Supply may he 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
  AIR ESTIMATES, 1950–51

    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON'S STATEMENT
    Order for Committee read.
    4.6 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    The Air Estimates for 1950–51 show that the net total sum required for the Royal Air Force is £223 million. This is an increase of £15,500,000 on the sums allowed last year. The most substantial increase is in the Vote for aircraft and stores, for which we are asking £13,500,000 more than we did last year, and in the Works Vote for which we are asking £3,500,000 more than last year. The increase is due to the exhaustion of wartime stocks and the consequent need for re-equipment over a wide range of equipment, as well as to increased prices. As regards works expenditure, the increase is mainly in respect of the provision of married quarters, modern barrack blocks and airfield development.
    In addition to the normal grants of supply, the Estimates this year provide under Vote 11 for a maximum of £4,900,000 to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund for the construction of additional married quarters under the procedure authorised by the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act which was passed last year. I hope to deal with the housing programme in more detail later. The number of personnel who will be serving on the active list will be less than in the current year. Vote A, which, as the House knows, fixes the maximum number of officers, airmen and airwomen who may be maintained at any time during the year, allows for a total of 215,000. This compares with 255,000 voted for the last financial year. In fact, the strength of the Royal Air Force on 1st April, 1951, is expected to be about 198,000.
    In reviewing the present state and the development of the Royal Air Force I should like to deal first with the front
    1766
    line. The doubling of the front line strength of Fighter Command's jet fighter force, which I announced last year, is proceeding. All our day fighter and ground attack squadrons overseas are now re-equipped with jet aircraft, with the exception of those squadrons operating in the Far East.
    Orders have been placed for the production in quantity of a new type of jet fighter, the Venom. This aircraft will have a performance exceeding that of the Vampire in all respects—greater speed, greater rate of climb and a much higher ceiling. The Venom will be coming into the squadrons next year. The Venom will in turn be followed by jet fighters of much more advanced types which are now under development. These aircraft will have speeds approaching the speed of sound—that is, well over 600 miles an hour—and capable of operating at extreme altitudes.
    What I have said so far relates only to the regular day interceptor squadrons. In addition, of course, there are the 20 Royal Auxiliary Air Force fighter squadrons, which are now part of Fighter Command. Eight of these squadrons have now been equipped with jet aircraft, and eight more are to be re-equipped during the next 12 months. The remaining four squadrons will be re-equipped as soon as possible thereafter, although in the case of one or two of these four squadrons, certain difficulties in connection with the development of the airfields upon which they are based to standards suitable for the operation of jet aircraft have yet to be overcome. It is anticipated, however, that all 20 squadrons will be fully re-equipped with jet aircraft by December of next year.
    Last year I referred to a jet night fighter, and I said it would have a performance comparable to that of our other types of jet fighters. I am glad to say that this aircraft is now in an advanced stage of development, and we have placed orders for its production in sufficient quantity, not only to re-equip the existing night fighter squadrons but also to expand the night fighter force itself. We plan to re-equip a substantial number of these squadrons with this jet night fighter next year. Our jet night fighters. which will be fitted with up-to-date radio and radar aids, will also be capable of operating by day in weather conditions

    1767
    in which the day fighters would be grounded. They will, therefore, have a vital part to play in the air defence of the United Kingdom by day as well as by night.
    I should like to emphasise that these changes in the front line of our fighter squadrons are only the first stage of a larger plan for the build-up of the air defences of the United Kingdom. It is our aim to build up a balanced fighter force whose equipment will keep pace with progressive advances in the technique of air warfare, and in this connection I should like to say a word or two about the development of new weapons. For obvious reasons I cannot say a great deal on this subject, but I can just mention that some extremely valuable work is being done on an advanced air-to-air guided missile designed to improve the effectiveness of our fighters against the modern bomber. It is our aim to enable our fighters to attack and destroy the modern bomber from ranges beyond those of its defensive armament.
    Another important element in the defence system of this country for which we are making provision this year is the modernisation and extension of the control and reporting system, which includes not only the radar stations themselves but the communication net-works and control centres behind them. I need not emphasise the need under modern conditions of warfare of a fully integrated and well-equipped system for controlling the movements of defending fighters and passing information of enemy movements to the antiaircraft batteries.
    I turn now to Bomber Command. We have been allotted this year 70 B.29 aircraft under the Military Aid programme, and hope to receive further supplies later on. The first four are, in fact, arriving in this country tomorrow. These aircraft will be absorbed into the front line strength of Bomber Command, and will obviously greatly increase the effective striking power of our bomber force. During the next few months our Bomber Force will become substantially larger than it was a year ago.
    The B.29 has a much higher performance than the Lincoln, which is the bomber plane with which our bomber squadrons are at present equipped, both as regards range, speed, and ceiling, and it carries
    1768
    nearly twice the bomb load. We are very grateful to the Americans for this contribution to the fighting efficiency of the Royal Air Force. Our arrangements with the Americans provide for the aircraft to be flown to this country by American crews. The United States Air Force 3rd Division, at present in this country, are to give our crews and ground staff training in the handling of the B.29. The United States Air Force have also undertaken to assist us in the major maintenance and overhaul of these aircraft, putting the facilities at Burtonwood at our disposal until other arrangements are made for this work to be done either within the Royal Air Force or by civil contractors.
    I said last year that we had placed a production order for a twin-jet bomber. I refer, of course, to the Canberra. This aircraft has successfully completed its initial flying trials and rapid progress is being made in preparing it for introduction to the Service as a fully operational type. Squadrons equipped with the Canberra should be in service next year. Our good opinion of this aircraft, by the way, seems to be shared by the Australian Government, who have decided to build it under licence for the Royal Australian Air Force.
    Here again, these changes in the equipment and in the front line of Bomber Command are part of a planned programme for the increase and the progressive re-equipment of our bomber striking force. As I explained to the House last year, we have concentrated our efforts on a long term development of advanced four-engined jet bombers, capable of speeds, heights and ranges far greater than those which have been attained with our piston-engined bombers. Although good progress is being made in developing these new types, we are still in a transitional period. The B.29 and the Canberra will, therefore, as they become available in larger numbers, constitute the main equipment of our bomber striking force until such time as the advanced types to which I have referred begin to come off production.
    With one exception, to which I shall refer later, the strength of our other operational Commands will remain for the next year at much their present level. In particular, Coastal Command has continued to develop the technique of antisubmarine warfare in close co-operation

    1769
    with the Navy. All Coastal Command squadrons go through a course at the Anti-Submarine School every year, where realistic exercises are carried out with submarines and anti-submarine vessels provided by the Navy. Apart from their work at the School, Coastal Command squadrons in the United Kingdom and overseas take every opportunity of training with units of the Fleet, and in particular, during the last year, a very successful exercise was carried out with vessels of the Home Fleet in the Atlantic, when the Fleet acted as an ocean convoy attacked by submarines.
    These increases to which I have referred in the strength, both in quantity and quality, of Bomber and Fighter Commands will involve increased expenditure. Moreover, the maintenance of the Royal Air Force costs more now because the stocks with which we ended the war are now exhausted. Oil and other supplies cost more, the latest types of aircraft are more expensive than their predecessors; for example, the twin-engined Canberra costs more than the four-engined Lincoln, and the Meteor costs twice as much as the Spitfire.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask at this point whether my right hon. and learned Friend can say approximately what is the cost of a jet fighter and the cost of a bomber?
    Mr. Henderson: No, Sir, I prefer to relate them in proportion, and not to give exact amounts.
    The House will, therefore, realise that expenditure will tend to rise year by year as the Royal Air Force increases both in quantity and quality. In these circumstances it will become increasingly important for us to be quite clear what kind of air force we are aiming to produce over the next few years, and how best the building up of an adequate sized force can be reconciled with the need for maintaining the very highest quality of aircraft and of equipment.
    I am clear that it must be our aim to build up a compact, balanced and mobile force, not depending on numbers alone, but equipped with the latest aircraft and weapons which our scientists can devise, and trained throughout to the highest pitch of efficiency.
    But for the moment, and for some time to come, we are engaged in expanding the
    1770
    front line; and for this year, in order to secure the increases in the strength of Fighter and Bomber Commands to which I have referred, we have had to find substantial savings in men and money.
    The most substantial measure of economy is a reduction in the number of transport squadrons in the United Kingdom. I regret very much that this should have been necessary, especially in view of the great part which Transport Command played for over a year in helping to maintain the air lift to Berlin; though this is not to say that the Command would not again make an extremely useful contribution if, unhappily, a new task of that kind were imposed. The reduced force will contain squadrons of long range Hastings and of medium range Valettas, the type which is now replacing the Dakota.
    I would add that our transport forces in the Middle East and the Far East are being kept up to their present strength, and, indeed, their effectiveness will increase as their medium range squadrons are also being re-equipped with Valettas. It was only after the most careful and anxious consideration that the Air Council came to the conclusion that, in order to secure these vitally important increases in Bomber and Fighter Commands, there was no alternative but to reduce the size of the transport force in the United Kingdom.
    On balance, however, the net result of the change which I have described is an increase in the front line strength of the Royal Air Force, and I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this result is being achieved with a much smaller manpower force. Apart from the introduction of further economies, with which I shall deal in a moment, this expansion has only been made possible by a more efficient use of the manpower available to us, both Regular and National Service. But even after having made allowances for increased efficiency in the use of manpower, we have had very reluctantly to dispense with some units of real value and importance in order to secure the greatest possible increment in actual fighting strength.
    As an example, we have abolished the Central Bomber Establishment, whose responsibility was to study the technique of bombing operations, and to undertake

    1771
    tactical trials of equipment. We should have liked to retain the establishment for this specialised work; but its size was roughly that of three bomber squadrons, and its retention would have meant that the front line of Bomber Command would have been correspondingly smaller. The responsibility for this work is now being undertaken by the bomber squadrons themselves.
    Until recently we had three Empire Schools studying three different aspects of the work of operational aircraft—the Empire Flying School, the Empire Air Navigation School and the Empire Air Armament School. We have now amalgamated these schools into a single unit, the R.A.F. Flying College, where squadron-leaders and wing-commanders undergo a year's practical course in flying in all-weather conditions, in navigation, and in the use of weapons so that they will be able, by their own knowledge and example, to train those under them in the most effective use of aircraft as weapons of war. The savings from this change are considerable, and we hope to get better value from the training given. Of course, the other Commonwealth Air Forces who were concerned with the old Empire Schools were consulted before the change was made, and they are contributing staff and pupils to the College as they did to the Schools.
    I should like to deal for a moment with the size of staff at headquarters. Command and group headquarters staffs are being cut by at least 10 per cent. Moreover, two Transport Group Headquarters have been abolished altogether. In Technical Training Command, by concentrating courses in our largest and best schools, we hope to close down next year three of our training establishments, and a further six at a later date.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: What about the Air Ministry?
    Mr. Henderson: I will deal with the Air Ministry a little later. I pass now to flying training. The introduction of the Prentice as the basic trainer has enabled instrument flying instruction to be improved considerably, and trainees are now flying in weather conditions previously considered impossible. The use of the standard Beam Approach system for landing is a further help for pupils
    1772
    undergoing basic training. The Balliol, which has recently completed its trials with great success, has been accepted as our new advanced trainer and should be a considerable improvement on the Harvard.
    Now a word about Colonial Air Forces. In the Federation of Malaya, in Singapore, and in Hong Kong auxiliary squadrons are now being raised by the local Governments—one squadron by each, and the formation of a local corps of the Royal Air Force in Malaya has just been authorised. This force will carry out a wide range of ground duties with the Regular Air Force. I am confident that it will prove as valuable a part of the Air Force in the Far East as has the R.A.F. Regiment (Malaya) which was formed over two years ago. The similar but smaller force which was formed in Malta in 1949 has been making satisfactory progress and is another instance of our policy of using local resources, where this is practicable, to share the responsibilities of the R.A.F. in Commonwealth defence. An extension of this principle of local enlistment in British territories overseas is being examined.
    Let me now say a few words about the problem of manpower. From the developments and changes in the structure of the R.A.F. which I have described, the House will realise that we are working to a considered plan for obtaining the best and most effective fighting service from the materials at our disposal. Of these materials by far the most important is manpower, and I should like to give the House an outline of the facts of the present manpower situation as it affects the Royal Air Force, and of the very real difficulties with which we are faced. On 1st January, 1950, there were 126,000 Regular officers, airmen and airwomen and 76,500 National Service men in the R.A.F., making a total of 202,500; so, while the total number of Regulars is about the same as last year, it represents a larger proportion of the total force.
    A critical problem for the R.A.F. is the maintenance of an adequate flow of recruits of the quality required for aircrew training. There has been a slight improvement in recruiting to the aircrew categories during the last year, but we are still not getting the numbers and quality required and we are considering

    1773
    a number of measures to increase the attractiveness of aircrew service.
    I regret to say that in ground trades also the rate of recruiting of airmen and airwomen from civil life declined towards the end of 1949 and did not show the expected seasonal improvement which is normal towards the end of the year. Entries for the last six months of 1949 compare very unfavourably with the number obtained during the corresponding period of 1948 and the significance of this fact must cause all of us great concern. The numbers of airmen and airwomen who re-engaged or extended their service—so far as the airmen are concerned, mostly bounty men—showed an increase in 1949 as compared with 1948 and I hope that the improved rate of re-engagement during 1949 can be maintained this year.
    The recruiting position as a whole, however, remains unsatisfactory and since, during the coming year, a large number of tradesmen are due to leave the Service on completing bounty engagements, the general level of experience in the Service will further decline unless a larger proportion of these men are willing to remain for a further period of service. The recruiting figures, unsatisfactory as they are, do not reveal the full effect of the shortage of trained men. There is still a lack of balance between trades and, while surpluses in some trades have been eliminated or greatly reduced, there are still serious deficiencies in some of the most vital and highly skilled trades, such as radar and wireless fitters and armourers. This unbalance, I am afraid, must persist for a long time and can be evened out only as the experienced regular content of the force is built up.
    During the year a number of measures have been taken to redress this unbalance. Men have remustered from the overmanned to the under-manned trades, some 2,300 airmen being accepted for re-training under this scheme; the National Service men in the over-manned trades, or some of them, have been released several months in advance of their due date under the programme of differential release of National Service men; a system of recruiting priorities has been introduced in order to place volunteers in those trades where they are most needed; and, finally, the decision that National Service men should serve for
    1774
    18 months enabled training in Group B technical trades to be re-opened in the early part of 1949. The National Service men who entered training in Group B technical trades in early 1949 are now completing their training and from now on there should be a steady increase in the manning level of the Group B trades. Also, deferred apprentices are now coming into the Service in fairly large numbers and these will provide a valuable source of tradesmen for the more highly skilled trades.
    A large number of airmen require ab initio training each year and an experiment was, therefore, introduced into Flying Training Command in September, 1948, to see whether airmen could be trained on the job in some of the less highly skilled trades. The scheme has since been extended to other Commands and it is hoped that ultimately all training in 29 of the Group C and D trades will be done in this way.
    On the job training is particularly valuable in increasing the period of productive service of National Service men without loss of skill. The men are trained on the R.A.F. Stations where they will subsequently be employed, and the Stations thus have a direct interest in them from the start. The men are given interesting productive work—as interesting as it can be made—at the earliest possible moment and are made to realise that they are doing a worthwhile job. In this way the R.A.F. obtains the maximum amount of productive service from the men and substantial economies in the training organisation are achieved.
    I should like at this point to emphasise the fact that the Royal Air Force is trying to make very good use of the National Service entry, and that their services are vital to the continuance of the Force on its present basis. Nor should it be thought that these men are employed only in unskilled work. On the contrary, National Service men are eligible for entry into all skilled trades, except the highly specialised trades for which long periods of training are required. During the last 12 months, for example, it has been possible to allocate 38 per cent. of the National Service entry to skilled technical trades and 25 per cent. to clerical trades. Twenty-five per cent. have been allocated to semi-skilled trades and only 10 per cent. to unskilled trades.

    1775
    Moreover, some of the National Service men now being called up are skilled civil tradesmen, and in their case we have introduced a special scheme to ensure that the skill of hand gained by these men during their civilian apprenticeship is used to the fullest possible extent in the R.A.F., so that some at least of these deferred apprentices will be fitted into R.A.F. trades with little or no R.A.F. technical training. Thus we hope not only to make good some of our deficiencies in the highly skilled trades, but also, by placing these deferred apprentices into shortened courses, to reduce the training overheads in Technical Training Command.
    In spite of these measures, serious manpower problems still remain, which we are tackling in two ways. In the first place, we are concentrating training in the largest and best schools at our disposal, and hope in this way to secure at once greater efficiency and greater economy. In the second place, we have for some time been anxious to revise the organisation and structure of our ground trades, in such a way as to provide an assured career, or provide assured career prospects, for a larger number of men than is the case at present, and in particular to introduce long-service careers as foreshadowed at the time of the introduction of the new Pay Code.
    At the present time the great majority of Regulars leave the Service after 12 years. What we wish to secure are conditions which will enable and induce a much greater number to re-engage for 22 years, or even longer, up to the age of 50 or 55. I consider this to be one of the most effective ways of overcoming our shortage of Regulars. Planning is complicated, however, by the need to reconcile two conflicting factors. On the one hand, we want to be able to offer a proportion of airmen the opportunity of a life career. At the same time, we must ensure that if they sign on for such a career they enjoy adequate status and prospects of advancement and that they do not suffer from stagnation in promotion.
    In addition, we have been radically overhauling our conceptions of the training and employment of tradesmen in the light of the recommendations of the R.A.F. Manpower Economy Committee
    1776
    on which we had the assistance of both sides of industry. An Air Ministry committee has recently submitted a report dealing with trade status, training, employment and careers, and has suggested a new trade and career structure designed to overcome the difficulties to which I have referred. In particular, the committee propose that we should provide a new avenue of promotion and advancement to experienced men who acquire a high standard of skill or special qualifications in their trade, but who cannot at present be offered advancement in noncommissioned ranks owing to the limited establishment of non-commissioned officers.
    I believe that a scheme of this kind would enable a larger number of men to re-engage for long service, and would remove the disadvantage under which we are suffering at present of having to discharge at the end of their engagements men whom we should like to keep in the Service, and who indeed are anxious to sign on for a longer engagement, but to whom we could not at present offer an adequate prospect of advancement. The report is now being considered, and I hope that very shortly we shall be able to give effect to many of the recommendations.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Bearing that point in mind, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman take into account the desirability of increasing pensions, if he is asking men to stay on for longer periods?
    Mr. Henderson: I would not rule that out, but it is really a different point. What we are seeking to do is to give men who are not eligible for pensions the right to stay on to qualify for pensions. As to whether the pensions are adequate, that is another point.
    If we are to recruit to the R.A.F. men in the right numbers and of the right quality, we must destroy the notion that service in the R.A.F. is a blind-alley occupation. We have therefore been concentrating on the problem of the resettlement of the ex-Regular. It has been accepted, for example, that the source of recruitment to meet the pilot needs of civil aviation shall normally be the Services. A scheme has recently been adopted which provides for pilots, in the last year or so of their service, to be provisionally pre-selected for appointments with the civil

    1777
    aviation corporations and charter companies. So far as Service considerations permit, we shall help these men to get their civil licences before they leave the active list.
    As the House is aware, the inter-Service machinery for dealing with this problem of resettlement has been strengthened by the setting up of an advisory council containing representatives of both sides of industry. It would, I think, be most helpful if both sides of industry would encourage men to enter the R.A.F. on short-service engagements, on the understanding that when they leave the Service they will be taken back by the firm at their appropriate level. There would obviously be mutual advantages in such an arrangement. The R.A.F. would get a valuable period of whole-time service with a corresponding saving in training overheads, whilst industry would receive back men with improved skill in their trade, a wider outlook and, we hope, developed qualities of leadership.
    I am glad to say that negotiations have been proceeding with nationalised industries, local authorities, and industry generally, regarding a scheme of this kind, which has made a good beginning, and the first response from industry has been very encouraging. I should also like to inform the House that valuable agreements have recently been reached with the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the Electrical Trades Union, under which training in certain Service trades is recognised for purposes of membership of the appropriate section of these unions. These agreements cover some 50 Air Force trades, and negotiations are proceeding with other trade unions to get recognition for other R.A.F. trades.
    I want now to say something about the size of the Air Ministry. The reduction in the Air Ministry, as shown in the printed Estimates, is about 580, although the actual reduction through the year has been about 700. This very appreciable reduction at a time of continued and severe pressure on headquarters' staff has been achieved only by the most rigorous scrutiny of all posts in the Department. During the past three years, the staff of the Air Ministry has been reduced by over 3,000.
    Let me turn to the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces. The House has always taken a particular interest in the build
    1778
    up of our Reserve and Auxiliary Forces. Although recruiting for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve has not been as rapid as we would wish, recruits are coming in steadily, and, what is equally if not more important, they are of good quality. During the past year we have overhauled the structure of our Reserve and have been able to give detailed study to ways and means of meeting the Reserve requirement. During this year the 1949 class of National Service men will be coming out, after having completed their 18 months' full-time period They will pass to a special class of the Reserve for their part-time service, but we hope that many of them will, in lieu of their statutory obligation, volunteer for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force or the R.A.F.V.R., and undertake the additional training for which those Forces provide an opportunity.
    The fighter squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force have, as I have indicated, now taken up their operational place under Fighter Command, where they will later on be joined by the fighter control units, in accordance with tile phased programme for the constitution of our first-line force. We are most anxious—and I know that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who have tried to do what they can to help in this work—to attract as volunteers into the early warning system on its Auxiliary side as many men and women as possible of suitable quality to carry out this interesting and most important work. After all, the control and reporting system is vital to the efficient operation of Fighter Command: they are the eyes of Fighter Command. But we are finding great difficulty in attracting sufficient numbers into this vital work, and anything hon. Members can do to help in this work will be very much to the advantage of improving the efficiency of our reporting system.
    Mr. George Ward: It is very difficult to get people to join these fighter control units if the units do not exist. It is no good the right hon. and learned Gentleman appealing to hon. Members to help find recruits in, for instance, the Midlands, or anywhere in Worcestershire, because no fighter control units exist there.
    Mr. Henderson: That, of course, I could not controvert. The great majority

    1779
    of the fighter control units are in existence and are related to the various sectors of our control and reporting system. Even though in other districts we may have to wait until fighter control units are established, where they are established it is vitally important to get them filled up. I should like here to pay a tribute to the excellent way in which the fighter squadrons, fighter control units and the Royal Observer Corps have collaborated with the Regular squadrons in exercise "Bulldog," and indeed in many other operational training exercises which took place last year.
    The Air Training Corps and the Air Sections of the Combined Cadet Force now total 45,000 cadets, and in addition to their value as a youth organisation in training boys to be good citizens, are providing excellent material, both for Regular and National Service engagements in the Royal Air Force and for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. As the House has no doubt seen in the Press, we have recently established a flying scholarship scheme which will provide facilities at the civil flying clubs for some 200 boys a year to be trained up to the standard of civil pilot's licence. We hope that this will give us a steady flow of suitable candidates towards our requirements in aircrew, both Regular and National Service.
    This is in addition to a similar scheme which is being sponsored by the Air League of Great Britain. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how much we appreciate what the Air League are doing in this respect, which will make a very real contribution to increasing the interest of the youth of this country in aviation. These scholarships afford a great opportunity for young men to learn to fly without any expense to themselves.
    We had hoped to re-establish three more university air squadrons, but I am afraid for reasons of economy, this project must be postponed for the time being. The air squadrons are of great assistance to us in stimulating air-mindedness amongst university students.
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: How many university air squadrons are there at the present time?
    Mr. Henderson: I think it is 11 or 12, subject to correction.
    May I say a few words about the way in which the Royal Air Force have carried out their current tasks? While so much effort is being devoted to building up the Royal Air Force of the future, we cannot ignore the responsibilities of the present, and in the last year these have been many and onerous.
    In Malaya, for example, our comparatively small Far East Air Forces aided for a short time by 210 Lancaster Squadron from Coastal Command, have continued to discharge a wide variety of tasks in the war against the insurgents. These tasks have included air strikes by Nos. 45, 33 and 60 Squadrons. convoy cover, photographic and visual reconnaissances, as well as airlifts, supply drops, leaflet dropping and communication flights by Nos. 110, 48 and 52 Squadrons. While the nature of the country in Malaya and the type of operations involved are such that anything in the nature of normal close support operations is extremely difficult, there is evidence that these air strikes have a valuable moral effect, and both the military and police authorities on the spot have emphasised their importance.
    But probably the most valuable, indeed indispensable form of air co-operation with the ground forces in Malaya has been air supply. That confers upon our jungle patrols a mobility and independence of normal lines of communication without which their task would be virtually impossible. In terrain where normal military transport is useless and the soldier has to live and fight on what he can carry, air supply enables our detachments to live and fight in the jungle for two months and more at a time.
    The Middle East Air Forces have continued to help in maintaining internal security over a wide area, including the Aden Protectorate, Kenya, Uganda, Eritrea and Italian Somaliland, and particularly good work was done by No. 8 Squadron during the year. I hope the House will forgive me if I mention all these squadrons by their numbers. It is the only way we can give recognition to the men and pilots of these squadrons. A flight of Dakotas of No. 27 Squadron was sent out from the United Kingdom

    1781
    to Nigeria during the disturbances there last winter. Fortunately no emergency arose, but the G.O.C.-in-C. West Africa paid a tribute to their work in demonstrating the speed and efficiency with which military and police could be moved about the territory by air.
    The R.A.F. has continued to carry out many non-warlike flights for various socially useful purposes. Extensive programmes of photographic survey have continued to be carried out for the Ordnance Survey, the Colonial Office and other Government Departments. The R.A.F. is also able to assist scholars and scientists from time to time in their researches. For example, fighter aircraft were used last summer to expose photographic plates at very high altitudes in connection with experiments in cosmic radiation. The R.A.F. has also cooperated in a programme of air photography for archaeological purposes, and valuable results have been obtained, particularly in the dry summer of last year, when traces of ancient monuments of various types were revealed with great clarity on air photographs.
    A small R.A.F. flight of Austers accompanied the expedition to the Antarctic in s.s. "Norsel." Its reconnaissance flights in search of seas free from ice saved the expedition a great deal of time in finding a place to land; subsequently they surveyed possible sledge routes into the interior. The leader of the expedition has said that the R.A.F. reconnaissances were of the utmost value, and indeed, without them, the expedition might well have failed to land at all. We were also able to provide the services of R.A.F. personnel and supply dropping and other equipment for the Falkland Islands expedition of the s.s. "John Biscoe" which led to the rescue of the marooned scientists on Stonington Island.
    The normal peace-time training tasks of the Royal Air Force have been many and widespread and their exercises have involved co-operation with a great many other air forces. I may mention in particular the two major air defence exercises "Foil" and "Bulldog" over this country, and air defence exercises in Egypt in which the Royal Egyptian Air Force joined with units of the Middle East Air Force, which was reinforced for the occasion by Lincolns and Meteors flown out from the United Kingdom.
    1782
    The R.A.F. has continued to strengthen its links with other Commonwealth Air Forces. The exchange of officers with the older Commonwealth Air Forces has continued and there have been a number of visits by squadrons or individual aircraft. For example, 120 Squadron of Coastal Command, equipped with Lancasters, spent a month in Canada and, in co-operation with the Royal Canadian Navy, carried out a number of exercises in anti-submarine duties and in interception, shadowing and illumination of surface vessels.
    A number of personnel of Bomber Command have been attached to the Royal Australian Air Force Lincoln Squadrons, and there has been an exchange of visits between flying boats of the Royal New Zealand Air Force and the Far East Air Force. The Royal New Zealand Air Force has also provided a flight of Dakotas which, under the general control of the Far East Air Force, have carried out valuable communication work between Hong Kong and Malaya.
    The extent of our co-operation with the Indian Air Force and the Royal Pakistan Air Force may not be equally well known. We have been happy to lend the Governments of India and Pakistan senior R.A.F. officers to command their Air Forces, and several other R.A.F. officers are serving in command and staff posts in those two Air Forces. No. 9 Squadron of Bomber Command took part in an exercise at Quetta, which included attacks at sea in co-operation with the Royal Navy. Members of the Indian Air Force and of the Royal Pakistan Air Force are receiving training at a wide variety of R.A.F. units; in particular, places at Cranwell have now been reserved for cadets from Pakistan at the request of their Government.
    In the Middle East, too, there has been a great deal of co-operation with friendly Air Forces. A Turkish fighter squadron visited Cyprus last summer, and No. 32 Squadron returned the compliment by visiting Turkey shortly afterwards. Members of the Royal Egyptian Air Force have received training at R.A.F. Stations in the Canal Zone, and a squadron of the Royal Iraqi Air Force recently spent a month at Habbaniya exercising with the R.A.F. squadron there.
    May I say a word of what we have done in the way of contacts with the Air

    1783
    Forces of our North Atlantic Treaty Allies. Our links with the United States Air Force remain very close, and I may just mention that the number of officers exchanged between the R.A.F. on the one hand and the U.S.A.F. and U.S. Navy on the other is greater than ever before, and that the scheme has just been extended to include women officers.
    The development of a unified Air Defence Organisation covering Western Union has made good progress during the past year, and a considerable number of British jet fighters have been supplied to these Allies. All Western Union Air Forces took part in Exercise "Bulldog." Nos. 66 and 92 fighter squadrons have visited Norway and Italy. In addition, Bomber Command took part in an air exercise over Norway, designed to give Norwegian fighters practice in interception
    May I, in the last part of my speech, deal with the question of housing? It is impossible to over-emphasise the importance of providing decent living accommodation for the men and women serving in the Royal Air Force. Last year I told the House that by this date we hoped to have some 12,500 quarters in use and 1,400 building, as compared with a total of approximately 6,000 quarters in use in the Royal Air Force in September, 1939. I am glad to say that in exceeding this forecast we have more than doubled the number of quarters in use as compared with 1939. I am not making any point of this fact, because we have doubled the Air Force. In addition, over 2,000 quarters are under construction at the moment.
    There has, however, been a major development in this field as a result of the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, which empowers us to borrow money from the Consolidated Fund to finance the housing programmes for the Services, provided that any houses so built will be of value for general housing purposes should they ever become surplus to our requirements. As a result of this we are hoping to double the rate of building of permanent quarters which has hitherto been possible, and our programme at home for 1950–51 amounts to no less than 4,000 new permanent quarters, which on completion will give us at least a total at home of nearly 17,000 quarters.
    1784
    A third of the 1950–51 programme will be for officers' quarters. I have been much concerned personally, on my visits, at the severe hardships which the present shortage of civilian accommodation has placed on many officers, especially junior officers, and I hope that the provision which we are making for new building next year will produce a welcome improvement in this respect. Overseas we are also planning to double the rate of provision of married quarters, and it is hoped to complete over 600 in the Middle East and Far East during the year.
    We have also introduced a scheme following that which was introduced by the War Office, under which the Air Ministry will rent suitable houses or flats for married officers and airmen. The rent will be paid by the Air Ministry, and the occupant will be charged at the rate which he would normally pay for a married quarter. This scheme has only recently been introduced, and it may interest the House to know that up to date we have been able to provide nearly 500 married quarters on this basis. I hope that this scheme will make a very useful supplement to the permanent building programme. I can assure the House that the whole problem of suitable housing for the Royal Air Force is one to which I have given, and will continue to give, the most careful attention. Unless our officers and men are decently housed, and unless they can be guaranteed the accommodation to which they are entitled, we shall never build up the contented and efficient force which is our aim.
    Nor is it only in the field of married quarters that the accommodation problem is urgent. At home, many units continue to be housed in war-time hutted camps which were never intended for peace-time occupation. This accommodation is being replaced or rehabilitated as fast as available resources will permit. Since the end of the war, 29 modern airmen's barrack blocks, each housing 100 airmen, in a high degree of comfort, have been completed.
    I believe there are different views. A view was expressed yesterday about "pansy" accommodation. I am afraid that I cannot agree with that attitude. I doubt very much whether any hon. Member who has served would disagree with

    1785
    me when I say that there is no reason at all why we should not give our airmen, or our soldiers and sailors for that matter, a reasonable degree of comfort, whatever we may do by way of increasing their emoluments. In my opinion, one of the best ways of solving the problem of Regular recruitment is to give, not only to maried men but to single men, reasonable accommodation not too dissimilar in standard from the standards they may enjoy in civil life. I have never yet known anyone fight less well if he is treated well.
    As I say, we have built these 29 modern blocks. A further 15, including four for airwomen, are in an advanced stage of construction. An additional six, which it is hoped to increase to 14, are being planned for this year. The completion of this programme will make a valuable addition to the permanent accommodation already available, in that it will provide up-to-date standards of comfort for an additional 5,000 airmen and airwomen.
    We are also concerned with the amenities of the stations. We have therefore tried to help with the provision of some new clubs. A number of new clubs for airmen are needed, and eight of these are under construction, with a further two in the planning stage. Apart from new building, however, a good deal of rehabilitation has been, and continues to be, undertaken. This includes extensive improvements to existing single accommodation, messes, kitchens, roads, etc., to bring them up to acceptable standards. To conclude this review of the situation at home I should mention that in addition to domestic accommodation, a wide range of improvements are being made to existing technical buildings, including schools, hangars, storage sheds, and workshops.
    Overseas, barrack blocks to similar standards are planned next year for the Canal Zone, and for the R.A.F. in Malaya; a large block at Gibraltar which will house 400 airmen is nearing completion. In addition to this new construction, however, steady progress is being made with the rehabilitation of existing accommodation, both domestic and technical, to bring it up to acceptable standards. I hope the House will agree that in the matter of housing at any rate, we have made a good start to provide
    1786
    conditions which will compare favourably with those in civilian life.
    I have tried to give the House a broad picture of the present state of the Royal Air Force and to show that while it is continuing to carry out its present responsibilities and meeting effectively and without fail the many calls which have been, and still are being, made upon it, it is also building for the future. There was a time, not so long ago, when it seemed that the strain and stress of the unsettled post-war conditions, coupled with the very heavy load imposed upon the operational units of the Royal Air Force, might endanger its long-term development and efficiency. It is my conviction that this period of acute danger to the future of the Royal Air Force is now over, and that, in spite of the difficulties to which I have referred, we have turned the corner and can look forward, as both accommodation and career prospects improve and as new aircraft and equipment come forward to the squadrons, to a period of consolidation, of increasing operational efficiency, and of continued expansion.
    5.10 p.m.
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: It is, to me at any rate, a sobering thought that this is the fifth occasion on which I have been called upon to speak from this bench following the introduction of the Air Estimates. I am bound to say that there were moments during that exciting afternoon of 24th February when I began to hope that I might be spared this exacting and delicate task, but this was not to be. The Government, if not altogether airworthy, are still in the air. Perhaps it would be truer to say that they are suspended like Mahomet's coffin, between Heaven and earth by the operation of a kind of political helicopter.
    In the meantime, while awaiting the inevitable crash, I have one very pleasant duty, which is to congratulate the Secretary of State on his retaining in these anxious days both his seat in the House of Commons and his seat at the Air Ministry. He has now, unlike some of his predecessors, had a reasonably long tenure of his office. I believe that to be of great advantage to the Service, for in the Fighting Services Ministers should be given a chance to do something serious. Before I go on to some other points, I congratulate him in particular

    1787
    upon what he told us in the last part of his speech about the progress in housing. Throughout, in the discharge of his important functions, he has shown every courtesy and given every assistance to hon. Members on all sides of the House who are interested in the great Service over which he presides, and we are very grateful to him for that.
    I have also the pleasure of welcoming the new Under-Secretary of State for Air. We have often heard him to great advantage in our Debates on Defence, and especially on air problems. His opinions upon air strategy have always been interesting, if sometimes rather unorthodox. In the melancholy task which I set myself during this weekend of reading through the whole of the Defence and Air Estimates Debates of the last four years, I was particularly interested in re-reading the speech which the Under-Secretary made last year in the Defence Debate on the relative advantages of the defence and the attack in the air. I expect he has been re-reading it, too, with equal interest and perhaps a little anxiety, but I think he should not be unduly worried, for, if I recollect aright, the atmosphere of the Air Council is both congenial and forgiving.
    During the first Air Estimates Debate of the last Parliament, in 1946, the then Under-Secretary of State for Air, now the Secretary of State for War, observed that this was a transitional period and that he would make a transitional speech. The Secretary of State for War is becoming rather an expert on transition in every sense of the word, both in function and in opinion. Burt, of course, every year is a transitional year, and I have no doubt that, as they left the Garden of Eden. Adam said to Eve "My dear, we live in an age of transition." It is, of course, true that the problems of the Royal Air Force have been enormously increased and complicated during these four years by the rapid deterioration in the world situation. After every great war, a Fighting Service, whether Army, Navy or Air, has to face tremendous problems of reorganisation. It has to try to fit itself back into something like the old peacetime pattern and yet, of course, the vast scientific changes and developments that war has brought about make the new pattern very different from the old.
    1788
    We might have hoped that this transformation could have taken place during a period of comparative calm in our international relations when we should only have to carry out those inevitable routine functions which are the duty of every great imperial nation and of which the Secretary of State has spoken to us today. I should like to add our tribute to what he said about the work of the Air Force in Malaya, the Middle East and Africa. All these hopes have been disappointed, however, and all of us in different parts of the House, with varying degrees of disillusion, have been forced to face the harsh and stark realities of the day. There has certainly been some difference between the two sides of the House in the note of urgency sounded, but at any rate the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister cannot reproach us for failure to give the necessary warnings and to demand the necessary defence measures in the light of the deteriorated situation. Indeed, the Prime Minister, who is himself a master of the art of understatement, has sometimes reproved us for over-dramatising the situation and overestimating the need for leadership and decision.
    At any rate, as these four years have passed we have tried to do our duty, and today, on a very appropriate day, the massive and impressive manifesto of the Air League comes to reinforce everything that we have been trying to say. We have called attention year by year to the increased burdens which the grim situation in the world has placed upon air defence, with ever-increasing gravity and urgency. We have asked, within the limits of security, for at least the information which is public property all over the world, in order that we may judge of the progress, or otherwise that we are making.
    We have not been very successful, for the Air Estimates conceal under a vast statistical apparatus an almost complete black-out, much more complete than the Navy Estimates, on everything of real importance. If we look up the index we can find the most extraordinary range of information, especially on trivial matters, from chimney-sweeps to sewing machines, but if we want to know about the great questions—the number, the character, the equipment and the fighting strength of the actual formations—nothing at all. All we know is the number of airmen and air-

    1789
    women, the cost of their pay, the cost—but not the type—of aircraft, the cost of the stores, the supplies and all the other expenditure consequential upon maintaining their manifold and intricate requirements.
    We have repeatedly asked, why all this secrecy? We have pointed out the extraordinary contrast between our secretiveness in Great Britain and the daring exposure of these vital facts practised by our American allies. They tell us the number of machines, the number of formations and the squadrons, their character, a great deal of information as to their equipment, and a host of similar vital and illuminating statistics. I do not propose to repeat today all the arguments about secrecy in any detail; we have developed them repeatedly, and especially last year. I will content myself with saying this. The Americans are the dominant air Power in the world today. They do not practise secrecy; they revel in publicity. That is because they are strong and they wish to advertise their strength.
    I can only add this, that the less Ministers tell us—and they must make the final decision; it rests with them—the greater is the burden of their responsibility. For in the form in which these Estimates are introduced it is impossible for any private Member to share in that responsibility except in a purely formal sense. We cannot even know whether we are getting value for our money, for we do not know, except in the broadest terms, what it is that we are getting. It is, therefore, within these limitations and under these conditions—not, I should say, of an impenetrable fog but at least of very low visibility—that we must make what contribution we can today to the common pool. At least it will be our purpose to be helpful and constructive. We shall not seek to darken counsel or to raise controversy for its own sake. However, there are many uncertainties which must if possible be cleared away.
    At this point perhaps I may be allowed to express on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends on this side of the House our pleasure at two recent appointments. No one has served the Royal Air Force in war and in peace better than Lord Tedder, and we rejoice that he is still to serve our country in Washington and in the Anglo-American Alliance, which
    1790
    he did so much in war to create and to cement. In his successor, Sir John Slessor, we have a man who commands both the confidence and the affection of the Royal Air Force and of the nation. His Majesty's Government are fortunate in having two such advisers, both equally competent in the tactics and the strategy of air warfare.
    Now I must come to one or two matters which are difficult to express, and therefore, the House will excuse me if I speak with care, because I do not want to say anything disadvantageous to our interests. I do not think there is any longer a need to present at length an appreciation, as it used to be called, of the broad strategic situation in which the Royal Air Force is called upon to make its contribution. Today we are in fact at war—thank God, only a "cold" war, but still war—and our first and major purpose is to avoid and prevent the shooting war.
    I wish to limit myself today to the strict question of what the Royal Air Force is to do and how it is to do it. In the higher realms of air strategy there are naturally conflicting views and a changing balance of argument between the relative power of offence and defence at any moment. Some people believe that the interception of modern high-speed and high-flying bombers is more difficult even than in war-time. There are others who argue—and they can certainly fortify themselves by the position taken by Mr. Vannevar Bush in the remarkable volume to which the Prime Minister referred last Thursday—that owing to the approaching development of short-range, ram-jet and other guided missiles, and similar developments—to quote the words of this authority—
    "the days of mass bombing may be approaching their end."
    However, we should be careful in not drawing too rapid or too definite a conclusion. Readers of this volume must remember that it is written from an American and not from a British point of view. I do not mean ideologically, I mean geographically. America operates over distances which we cannot command. Mr. Bush sums up his argument in these words:
    "No fleets of bombers will proceed unmolested against an enemy that can bring properly equipped jet pursuit ships"—

    1791
    obviously fighters—
    "against them in numbers, aided by effective ground radar, and equipped with rockets or guided air-to-air missiles armed with proximity fuses."
    That is his proposition, on which he bases the weakness of the bomber under modern conditions.
    The House will also observe that there are many conditions to be fulfilled before we can claim that the enemy bomber can be mastered, and for Britain some of them are difficult to accomplish. Some we cannot accomplish alone. Take the first that we can do—"properly equipped fighters in numbers." Last year the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I had a little passage about the precise meaning of the phrase "doubling the strength of Fighter Command." I am bound to say that what he said to me today has not left me much wiser than last year. I can find only two references to this operation in the White Paper and they are both rather obscure. In the Defence White Paper the expression is:
    "The plan for doubling the jet fighter strength of fighter command will be completed."
    Last year it was to have been completed in the year 1949–50, so I take it that the expression "will be completed" means the year 1950–51. The words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which I took down, were "is now proceeding," so it is not complete, but it will be. The Memorandum says:
    "The necessary manpower is being found to complete the doubling of the jet fighter strength of Fighter Command …. The re-equipment and expansion of day fighter squadrons with jet aircraft is continuing."
    That is a little ambiguous.
    Mr. A. Henderson: If I may interrupt to get the facts correct, what I said a year ago was that the increase in the strength of Fighter Command would be completed by the middle of next year, that is 1950. I do not want to go into details, but there have been some difficulties and, therefore, I would not mislead the House by suggesting that we would complete at a time later than I said, so I said "We are proceeding," and we are getting on with what I said.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: When will it be finished?
    Mr. Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman knows that in dealing with technical matters and new aircraft it is difficult for any Minister to give an exact month—[An HON. MEMBER: "A year?"] It is not a question of years. I do not want to tie myself to a matter of a month or so, but certainly it will be completed by the time I or my successor comes here next year.
    Mr. Macmillan: I am glad to hear that it will be completed in the financial year 1950–51, which is what I said.
    So far as the organisation of a squadron is concerned, there was some discussion last year as to whether the plan was to return to the system of two flights to the squadron, instead of what might be called the emergency plan of only one flight. Of course, we do not know the number of squadrons. All we know is that there are x squadrons and 20 auxiliary squadrons. Am I right in believing that by the end of this process the number of squadrons—x or whatever it may be—remains the same—
    Mr. Henderson Mr. Henderson indicated assent.
    Mr. Macmillan: —but that each of these squadrons will have two flights instead of one?
    Mr. Henderson: That is one way of putting it. I was putting it the other way, that there will be twice as many operational jet aircraft in each of those squadrons.
    Mr. Macmillan: I did not want to confuse the House with the number of jet aircraft; it is the squadrons with which I am dealing. I take it that at the end of this operation there will be the same number of squadrons but that there will be two flights instead of one. Can we also assume—because we have no information such as the Navy gives about its ships—that there will be the same number of aircraft in each flight? In other words, that the number of flights will not be increased by the mere method of reducing the number of aircraft in the flight?
    Mr. Henderson: Certainly there will be no reduction in the strength of each flight.
    Mr. Macmillan: The same number of aircraft in each flight? I am only trying to find out the facts which were a little

    1793
    obscured by the phrase which was used for the first time this year. We are told much more about the auxiliary squadrons, that there are 20, and that the 20 fighter squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force are now a part of Fighter Command. I take it that that is for operational and training purposes and that there are still x squadrons plus 20 auxiliaries. They are not used to make up the number of squadrons?
    Mr. Henderson: No.
    Mr. Macmillan: I am glad to hear that.
    Now, as to equipment. Last year the right hon. and learned Gentleman was very careful in his statement, when he told us:
    "We are doubling the total number of equipped and operationally effective jet fighters next year."
    But since he did not tell us the proportion of the unknown number of Regular squadrons which are armed with jet fighters to the total number of all the squadrons, it was very difficult for us to reach a conclusion. I take it, however, that I may now say that all the squadrons in Fighter Command will be armed with jet fighters and that the squadrons will be organised on the two-flight, and not upon the single flight, basis, and that that, we can say, may be finished some time this summer or, at any rate, in the course of this financial year.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to make this point quite clear? Every one of the x number of squadrons today is complete on its present strength with jets. There is no squadron without jets. By the end of this financial year, we shall have doubled the number of jets in the squadrons.
    Mr. Macmillan: I am very much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope he does not think that I am trying to conduct a cross-examination, but I think that the expression "doubled" has now moved into a much closer meaning than anything we knew before or ascertained last year.
    Now, about the Auxiliary squadrons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am very happy to say, is one up on the White Paper, because that tells us that seven squadrons have been equipped with jet aircraft, whereas the number is now
    1794
    eight, or one more than is in the White Paper. We have made progress, therefore, since the publication of the White Paper, and I congratulate the Minister. We are now told in the White Paper that
    "other squadrons will receive them during the coming year."
    I thought that a very typical phrase which every Ministry produces, because "other" might mean anything more than one but less than 13. But now we hear that eight more squadrons will be equipped this year and four, presumably, afterwards.
    What was the reason for this deficiency? Why is it that all the Auxiliary squadrons are not armed with jet fighters? Is it because the runways or the maintenance staffs are not available or, perhaps, because these are the very planes which the Argentinians and the other locusts have eaten up during last year? Unless the first two acts of negligence have been committed, unless it is that there is not enough maintenance or there are not the right kind of airfields, then I do not see how the Prime Minister is justified in claiming, as he did the other night, that the transaction of selling the jet aircraft has not meant a weakening of the Air Force. So much for the day fighters.
    Now about the night fighters. We have had very good news, on which I should like to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman, about the progress with the night fighters. Last year the White Paper on Defence and the Memorandum were rather discreet—nothing was said about them; but now the right hon. and learned Gentleman uses the words "an advanced state of development," and says that orders have been placed. I take it, therefore, that we can really hope that within a reasonable time there will be the introduction and equipment of the squadrons with night fighters.
    Mr. Henderson: Next year.
    Mr. Macmillan: In the next calendar year?
    Mr. Henderson: Yes, in the next calendar year.
    Mr. Macmillan: So much for the fighter planes, the "pursuit ships" which, the American authority tells us, must be "properly equipped and in numbers" if the threat of the bomber is to be met.

    1795
    The number of enemy bombers which we might have to meet, we can, perhaps, estimate. The hon. Gentleman who is now the Under-Secretary of State made his own estimate last year. I do not know whether he has found it confirmed since he went to the Air Ministry. It was a very formidable number, but I believe he underestimated it—I should like to know. At any rate, the number of fighters required upon the basis of any estimate is a pretty heavy one.
    Of course, we read all these estimates in different quarters and in the publications of different nations of what is likely to be the bomber strength of the enemy, but on this side of the House we have no knowledge at all as to whether we have, or are likely to have, sufficient numbers to deal with a potential attack. That is the responsibility of the Government, and that is the one which they can discharge in this country if they have the will.
    The next phrase, "properly equipped," involves considerations which are very much discussed abroad and in many technical publications but are not very much discussed at home. I was very happy to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say about lifting the curtain a little on this matter. On the development of rockets and guided air-to-air missiles with proximity fuses of various kinds depends, probably, in the views of most of the experts, the real power of the fighter to deal with the bomber of the future. I can only say that I am certain that our scientists and technologists will be equal to this task if enthusiasm and energy are given towards the solution of these problems.
    What was the third condition to success? It is effective ground radar. But effective ground radar for the defence of the American Continent is one thing, and effective ground radar for the defence of this little island, separated from the Continent of Europe by only a few miles, is quite another thing. I do not think anyone can doubt that the speed and range of modern attack, whether by bomber, fighter-bomber, or even fighter, has changed the whole situation. Britain cannot have effective radar protection except by an integrated European defence system, including the territory as far to the east as possible. In that sense,
    1796
    Western Germany is essential to our protection. Either the territory must be held by occupying forces, with all the risks and difficulties involved, more or less indefinitely, or, alternatively, by some means or other they must be incorporated in a truly European system of defence.
    My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made his first movement towards the solution of that problem at Strasbourg in August of last year. Of course, there were doubters and faint-hearts then, but, largely under his inspiration, the Consultative Assembly unanimously approved the invitation to Germany to join in the Organisation of Europe. Eight months have passed and nothing has happened. Last Thursday my right hon. Friend made an equally important declaration, and I am sorry that the Prime Minister tried to brush it aside with a phrase. Of this, however, I am certain: that on grounds of effective radar—and on this alone—without the cooperation of, at least, what remains of free Europe west of the Iron Curtain, there is no way at all in which Britain can be protected from a degree of air attack which might be fatal to her effective resistance.
    Now I turn from defence to offence, for, after all, our supreme purpose is to prevent war and not merely to win a war if it begins. Therefore, we cannot rest content with defence, however ingenious or however effective it may be. We must make it clear, and be able to make it clear, with our Allies, to the aggressor or to the potential aggressor that any act of aggression will call down immediate and overwhelming retaliation.
    What, then, is the situation of Bomber Command? I do not find it altogether encouraging—nor does the declaration of the Air League. It is remarkable—I should say, not remarkable, but splendid—how free high Air officers become once they are relieved from the control of Service. It is a very important declaration. The present Under-Secretary of State said last year that it was beyond our economic power to provide both attack and defence. He did not argue that it was wrong, but that it was putting too much of a strain upon our economic system. He therefore argued that all of us in Europe should rely upon the United States for our bombers; that we should undertake the defence and the fighters and

    1797
    that the United States should be relied upon to provide the bombers for Great Britain and for Europe; and that we should not attempt to develop or produce modern bombers in our factories.
    I think there is something to be said for that point of view, but I must be frank. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had time yet to convert the Air Staff or to be converted himself. It would naturally go very much against the grain to abandon in this country the attempt to produce high-speed long-range bombers and, consequently, since military requirement provides the only economic basis to civil production, the high-speed air liner.
    The enterprise which has just produced the Comet can certainly do the job, so far as skill and knowledge are a test. I am not speaking of economic resources. Therefore, we should not be prepared to acquiesce in a decision to abandon the attempt to make what was called last year the "Dream Bomber," a high-speed bomber of the future unless it became inevitable. I think it is assumed that meanwhile the period of development of the long-range high-speed bomber is a long way off, rather a misty period and it would be a matter of years before it would actually eventuate, and we are to depend on the short-range or medium-range bomber of which the Canberra is the type. It is very good to hear that this aircraft is likely to prove a real success and that deliveries of the first quantity are soon to begin. But we must not forget that short-range bombing really means bombing one's friends, because one can only thereby get to the place where the enemy is likely to be occupying one's friends.
    Mr. Henderson: I have not been able to give an indication of the range of this bomber and I do not intend to do so, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not assume that it is necessarily a short-range bomber.
    Mr. Macmillan: I do not want to press the right hon. and learned Gentleman too much on these matters of security as we understand it here, but I have understood from many people that the Canberra is much more likely to have a future as a night fighter than as a light bomber. Meanwhile, while development of the long-range heavy bomber is a matter
    1798
    of considerable distance as far as Britain is concerned, I am glad that we have decided to accept American assistance.
    Last year I said that we could re-arm the Force with American Super-Fortresses and I am glad we are doing that to some extent, but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are considerable difficulties involved. For instance, are the gun stations of the B29's going to be manned and have we the gunners to man them? A year ago we had too many air gunners and remustered them and retrained them for something else; now there are too few. Of course these are the trials which always come to Service Ministers and seem to be sent to test their patience. But, in any case, the B29's are, in a sense at any rate, obsolescent and in the event of our own not proving successful I trust we shall have an agreement with the United States that the more modern machines they may have available will be made available for our own purposes.
    I have dealt with matters of what one might call conventional fighting in the air because I think the Prime Minister was right when he said the other night that we ought not to pay too much attention to atomic and hydrogen bombs and unconventional weapons. It is our duty to provide ourselves with everything we can, both in defence and attack, in the conventional weapons of war as we know them now to be. I am sorry to keep the House for so long, but there are other points I wish to make.
    Apart from the number of squadrons in the different commands and apart from the number and quality of the aircraft available to those squadrons, I do not know whether we are really able to operate at full strength the squadrons we have. In the Memorandum there is a very disquieting sentence:
    "Regular recruiting is still far from satisfactory. There is a shortage of trained men and a lack of balance between trades persists. Although surpluses have been eliminated or reduced in a number of trades, there are serious deficiencies in some of the most important and highly skilled trades."
    In other words, we have got rid of the men we do not want, but we have not enough of the men we do want. That is what the sentence really means. I shall leave to my hon. and gallant Friends who keep more closely in touch with personnel questions than I have been able to do,

    1799
    problems of recruitment and inducements required to get men to join the Service as Regulars, or to take advantage of other forms of engagement.
    I am concerned with the effects of this paragraph. Does it mean in regard to the shortage of maintenance staff in particular that squadrons which might otherwise have their full complement of air crews and aircraft are not properly operational owing to maintenance difficulties? If that is so and as far as that results from shortage of maintenance staff, could it not be partially and temporarily remedied by giving major overhaul and similar maintenance contracts to aircraft manufacturers, especially to those who are now having to dispense with substantial numbers of their employees owing to the curtailing of the new construction contracts? After all, the rapid turnover of manpower within the Service is very costly and I think that from a cost point of view there would be a great advantage in using contractors for that kind of maintenance and repair work. I believe that a great part of the maintenance of the Berlin airlift was done by contractors. Perhaps that point can be considered.
    There is one other matter of vital importance to operational efficiency. Paragraph 12 of the Memorandum refers to the continued shortage of short-service flying officers. As I have said, I will leave to others the questions of pay, allowances, including Income Tax on allowances—that thorny problem—married quarters and the like. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us some good news, but I think there is a deeper and more serious deterrent which is new since the war. Between the wars many young men accepted short-term commissions because they believed there would be opportunities for them afterwards in the rapidly developing civilian aviation industry with all its diverse forms. Do not let the House think that I am going to drag in nationalisation like King Charles' head.
    I do not want to argue the merits of different forms of enterprise, public and private, in civil aviation; there may well be room for both; but I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be equally objective and not to allow his colleague to put the charter operators and private flying concerns out of business. He should try to get him to encourage them because
    1800
    they are really to the Royal Air Force what the Merchant Marine is to the Royal Navy. The more they flourish side by side with the great corporations the better it will be for the Royal Air Force. Many of the types of young men he wants will join his short-term flying service if they can see that they have some hope of flying apart from the restricted opportunities provided by the corporations. The same is true of flying clubs. Many of them are not in a very good way today and I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us what has happened to the recommendations of the Straight Committee and how far the Air Ministry has been able to put them into effect.
    I apologise to the House for the heavy drain I have put on the forbearance of hon. Members, but the opportunities for Debate on these great problems are very few and far between. I have raised a number of points which I hope are relevant and I have asked a number of questions which I hope will be answered with courtesy, but whether they will be really answered I can only hope. On this vital day, when perhaps everybody is interested in making a contribution to this great problem, I shall be content if I have conveyed to the Government some of the anxieties many of us feel on this side of the House and the need not for easygoing, conventional or deliberate methods but for urgency and determination and. above all, of courage.
    5.50 p.m.
    Mr. A. Edward Davies: We have listened with great interest both to my right hon. and learned Friend and to the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) because this is a part of a series of our Sittings devoted to consideration of our defence position, and a most important part at that. The other day the Minister of Defence made a statement in which he gave us the general considerations which had some bearing on each of the three Defence Services. Yesterday we had consideration of the Army Estimates, today we are considering the Air Estimates and tomorrow the Navy Estimates.
    I was impressed by an article which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" the other day which quoted at some length what was said by a distinguished American, General Lucius D. Clay. He

    1801
    seemed to think that all the free countries of Western Europe today were seeking to provide all-round defence for themselves. The impression I gained from what he said was that in the process of trying to do so each one was wasting vast sums of money and man-power, which he said ended in ineffective air forces and ineffective navies. He said it was a case of a little of all—and a lot of nothing. To quote from the article:
    "What Western Europe needs,' General Clay continues, is a composite force to which each country contributes the resources and talents which it can best exploit."
    In this connection, he went on, he thought that Britain should concentrate on shipbuilding, the production of fighter aircraft and the Navy.
    Both in the White Paper and in his speech today, my right hon. and learned Friend told us a great deal about the activities of the Royal Air Force in many parts of the world, and we were encouraged to hear of the co-operation particularly in the Empire and with the Commonwealth countries. It has certainly done a great job of work, and if I may say so in parenthesis it did a particularly good job with the Americans in the Berlin airlift. But although there seems to be very close co-operation in operational matters I wonder whether we heard quite enough about the kind of integration which we were led to expect following the Brussels Treaty and the Atlantic Pact—so far as the countries of Western Europe are concerned.
    The right hon. Member for Bromley made some reference to the problem of building bombers in this country. We were told by my right hon. and learned Friend that in the near future we can expect delivery of the "Canberra," the details of which he did not disclose but which he led us to think would be a most acceptable utility machine of long range, or so I gathered from what he said. The point is that the economic resources of each of the countries are so limited in the light of what has to be done, that there should be some kind of co-ordination and some kind of exploitation of the particular field in which we are best able to serve. When we were debating the Army Estimates yesterday the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) made some useful remarks about the co-ordination of strategy, and I should
    1802
    like to have heard something today in that respect in terms of air support in defence and offence.
    What is happening in regard to our Allies overseas, and particularly on the Continent of Europe? The Leader of the Opposition put the cat among the pigeons, to put it mildly, the other day by mentioning the possibility of Germany being asked to undertake some of this work of defence against the common enemy. I imagine that most people today consider the common enemy to be the Communist countries. Whether or not that suggestion was made in the proper context, or whether it more properly belonged to a foreign affairs Debate, here is a matter of the greatest urgency.
    We have first to satisfy ourselves as to the job which has to be done. We have heard today something about our far-flung commitments in Malaya and the Far East, policing the Commonwealth and the Colonies and doing all kinds of day to day work. The job of defending this country has to be expressed in the form of what we can do in terms of economic capability related to what the countries on the Continent are to do. What is France to do? Is Germany to pay anything to foot the bill? What form is this co-ordination to attain? Is it to be some sort of international force, or are we to continue, as General Clay said, with bits of everything and a lot of nothing? Here is a problem of great importance which is apposite to each of the three Services. Speaking as a layman, I think that increasing responsibilities will fall on the R.A.F. I can see that in naval operations, etc., the job of the R.A.F., with all its modern scientific apparatus, must be in the front line of our defence.
    I know that many of my colleagues are exercised about the cost of all this. It is a pity that in this day and generation we have to face a defence expenditure in the coming year of £780 million. Not all that is required for the Air Estimates. There is an increase of some £15 million in these Estimates, the major portion of which is accounted for by new equipment under a single item. I know that many of my hon. Friends are exercised about the great amount of money involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) described it the other day as a colossal fraud to spend so much money in these

    1803
    circumstances without having much more information.
    Last night we heard some apprehension expressed from some of my colleagues about this large scale expenditure, not only on the Air Estimates but on the Defence Services generally. It is only after very prolonged and anxious thought that I have come to some settled view about this matter. The point we have to decide is whether we are prepared to defend our country and our way of life. If that point can be resolved the ground is cleared a great deal. There can be no question that in the circumstances in which this country and the world generally finds itself today there is a solemn duty upon us to protect our way of life and to build up a defence force.
    We have to decide on one of two things. It is either a matter of raising sufficient forces to achieve that protection or it is a matter of leaving the job completely alone. It is either a case of taking the pacifist point of view of letting this system of values, this Parliamentary way of life which we have built up over centuries, go by the board in face of ruthless forces which would trample our history, our people and our values in the dust and of hoping that something may arise phoenix-like in the future to redeem mankind and the things we value; or it is surely a case of saying, "This job has to be done." If it has to be done, as I believe it has to be done, it must be done in an adequate and proper manner.
    That is not to say, however, that we have to vote a carte blanche of £780 million, or £800 million, or any other sum of millions of money, and then say that the job begins and ends there. I believe that in these matters there should be wise administration and great economy. For that reason I thought it useful to direct attention to what was said by this distinguished American. If we decide that that great job of work has to be done, and that the Foreign Secretary, faced with a difficult position, has done good work with the countries in Western Europe, and with the countries in the Commonwealth, in building up a Defence system, we are driven to the position where it has to express itself in tangible terms of defence.
    As a layman, I want to hear from time to time what we are attempting to do.
    1804
    Why the figure of 198,000? I think that was the figure the right hon. Gentleman mentioned as being the strength, at which he was aiming. What does it purport to do? How is it to be divided? How does it fit in with the requirements of the other Services. In the White Paper and the Estimates there is not sufficient evidence to show what is the job in hand. We have made the concession that unfortunately in our day and generation even a Socialist Government has to spend millions of money in defending the things we think good and proper, and which will ensure that justice and equity is done. Therefore, from time to time we should have an assurance that in terms of coordination, consultation and co-operation with other countries we are not wasting our time, or putting our money into a bottomless pit, but that we are trying to do a job for the Commonwealth, for Germany, Italy, Belgium and the other countries.
    I have heard some criticism of the fact that we are spending 7 per cent. of our national income on defence expenditure; that it is a luxury we cannot afford, and that perhaps it is disproportionate in relation to what the rest of the countries are paying today. I pray, as I am sure all hon. Members pray, that there will come a time when reason will prevail; when the nations of the world through the United Nations will learn to cooperate so that we can build a collective means of security. But until such time, we are bound to proceed not entirely in our own way. I suggest that it is not a matter of a unilateral approach as distinct from the collective approach as we would hope under United Nations, but that we have to make arrangements with the majority of nations who think in similar terms; and particularly do we look in that respect to the Commonwealth and the countries of Western Europe.
    It was a most encouraging speech which we heard from my right hon. Friend, in terms of welfare for the Services, in terms of new houses, in terms of scientific progress, in terms of trying to get on top of the job. But I failed to detect any encouraging note or information as to what was being done to co-operate, either in terms of strategy or in the use of the resources at our disposal, with other countries. I hope

    1805
    that before the conclusion of this Debate we may hear something about that.
    6.5 p.m.
    Mr. P. B. Lucas: As I have the honour to be addressing the House for the first time, I would crave the indulgence of hon. Members. I feel greatly in need of it at this moment.
    In the few remarks I have to make I wish to address myself especially to Vote 7 of these Estimates. In particular I wish to refer to the supply of aircraft for this Service. In any consideration of this nature it is necessary for us to refresh our minds as to the primary task of the Royal Air Force. In my submission, this is to secure the defence of our island home. Commitments abroad today are many and greater than ever before in peace-time, but I maintain that our first consideration must be for the aerial defence of this island. It is only right that we should select this occasion to consider whether we have in fact adjusted our means and methods of aerial defence to suit the development of the atomic and hydrogen bombs. It is against this somewhat sombre background that I make my remarks.
    At the outset I would state, lest there be any misunderstanding, that I am not one who believes that war is inevitable. I believe that if all the proper measures are taken, war can be avoided, and one of these measures is the establishment of a strong air defence of Great Britain. I believe that one of the means of securing the proper defence of this island is to create and establish the ability to strike any potential enemy at his base. We must be able to throw out a solid and a straight left and keep in reserve a well-armed right should the enemy penetrate to our shores. It is therefore first of all to Bomber Command and the aircraft of Bomber Command that I would turn my thoughts.
    In the Memorandum to these Estimates it is stated that the striking power of Bomber Command will be increased by the formation of new squadrons of B29's. I have nothing against the B29 as an aircraft; and certainly the remarks I have to make in regard to it are made in no sense of criticism of the Air Staff. Nor are they intended in any way to disparage the Americans. I believe the B29 to be a tine aeroplane. It has
    1806
    been tested in combat and, above all, it has the ability to carry the atom bomb. But the Americans finished the late war with it and now here we are, five years later, equipping our own great Air Force with a piston-engined aircraft which the Americans themselves now consider to be bordering on the obsolete.
    We are doing this at a moment when a new pride of Britain, the Comet, has burst upon the world of civil aviation to the general delight of all. I am reliably informed that it would be possible to adapt this civilian aircraft, which is leading the world, to the purposes of bombing; that it would be possible not only to carry a considerable bomb load in this aircraft, but also to attain a considerable range. Furthermore, in regard to the B29, I think it is necessary for us to realise that it is very largely an electrically-operated aircraft, like so many other American aircraft.
    As I understand it, the crux of the problem of the Royal Air Force is one of maintenance, one of keeping the aircraft in the air. I believe also that it is in the electrical trades that particular difficulty is being experienced at the present time. I may be wrong, but I believe that this is so. If we are re-equipping our squadrons with B29's, which are largely electrically-operated aeroplanes, shall we able to maintain them in the air'? I would submit that that is a point on which we should be assured. While we welcome the advent of the Canberra into the Service as a high-speed jet-propelled bomber, I suggest that the Comet, properly adapted, could fulfil another role quite apart from that for which the Canberra is designed.
    In any thought of these aircraft, it is necessary, I feel, to measure our development against the rise of the Russian Air Force. I hope very much that we shall keep this consideration in view. I am not at the moment concerned with the numerical strength of the Soviet Air Force nor with its bomber strength; but I am most anxious about the development of their jet fighter force. I believe—I only hope that I am wrong—that Russian jet fighter production today amounts to some 60 aircraft per month. These are first-class aircraft which bear comparison with the best produced by other countries. To anyone who had the practical experience towards the end of

    1807
    the last war of the German jet fighters, which were then capable of very high performances, it was clear that this kind of development would take place when German scientists became available to the Russians. It is necessary for us, while we are considering the aircraft of Bomber Command, to keep the Soviet fighter development very much in view
    Mention of fighters brings me now to the aircraft of Fighter Command. It is only right and proper that in the face of atomic development that we should concentrate on high altitude fighters. It was my privilege and honour before I left the Service after the end of the late war, to command a station in Fighter Command on which we had two of the latest jet-propelled squadrons. There I was able to obtain some limited experience of this type of flying. I am certain that the genius of the British aircraft industry now enables us to lead in this field and it will, provided the proper encouragement is given, permit us to maintain this lead. It is well known, however, that jet-propelled aircraft operate at their maximum efficiency at great heights. We have a right to be assured that while we are, rightly, concentrating at this moment on the development of high altitude fighters, we are not neglecting our aerial defence low down near the ground.
    As will be recalled by many hon. Members on both sides of the House who then sat for constituencies in the South of England, the Germans in 1943 started a series of what were then called "Tip and run raids." At that time I was closely concerned with the defence against these raids. I recall very well that it took us some time to get the measure of these attacks and to make the necessary modifications to our own aircraft to enable us to combat the raiders. I feel we should now be assured that the development of high altitude fighters will not blind us entirely to the possibility of providing aircraft which can operate at comparable speeds and performances low down near the ground. I do not believe that in this sphere of aerial defence the anti-aircraft gun is the only answer. It is one answer, but not the only one.
    The Memorandum states that the necessary manpower is being found to complete the doubling of the jet fighter strength of Fighter Command. I think
    1808
    we all agree that this is good news. It was good news last year, and it is good news now. However, I should like to know whether we really will be able to maintain this additional fighter strength. Will we be able to keep the aircraft in the air, for surely this must be a prime consideration? I used to consider that any pilots under my command who were completing something of the order of 25 to 30 flying hours per month could be said to be in full flying practice. If I looked at their log books and saw that they were getting less flying than that, I began to get a little concerned. It is only natural that the more a pilot flies, the more he wants to fly; the less he flies, the less inclined he is to fly. I do not propose to give any indication at all of what I understand to be the number of individual pilot-hours being flown in the Service today. All I wish to say is that we should be assured that this doubling of the jet fighter force in Fighter Command will be accompanied not by any decrease but by a definite increase in the number of individual hours completed by each pilot.
    Finally, I should like to make a passing reference to Vote 1—pay and allowances amounting to £53 million. I have no doubt that other hon. Members will make detailed references to this subject. I wish, however, to say that I regret that it has not been found possible to provide flying pay for aircrew. I appreciate that there are great difficulties in this respect, but I believe that the hazards of modern flying which bring pilots up against the supersonic barrier together with the immense responsibilities which they are now asked to shoulder demand proper benefits and fair rewards.
    We are out to attract the best types of British manhood into this great Service. It is a shame and a pity that we should have cases today—and I believe that there are some—where pilots, on account of the low level of their pay and especially because they do not get flying pay, are unable to pay the premiums to insure their lives against flying risks. I feel that the point of view of their families in this matter should be taken into consideration. Unless we are prepared to provide additional emoluments for these people we shall not be able to attract the best types of British manhood into the Service. Therefore, let us do our best to benefit these men by giving them the

    1809
    rewards which their priceless endeavours deserve.
    6.18 p.m.
    Group-Captain Wilcock: I am most fortunate to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas), who has just made his first speech in this Chamber. It was a speech which appealed strongly to many of us on both sides of the House, not only because of the sincerity and charm with which the hon. Member expressed himself, but also because of the knowledge which he showed. We remember the distinguished career which he had in the Royal Air Force, and it gives me great pleasure to congratulate him. I am sorry that he does not sit on this side of the House, but he is quite young and there is still time.
    It is only possible for me to select a few items in these Estimates for close examination, and I should like to discuss one technical and one non-technical point. Before I do that, I wish to express my appreciation at the appointment of the new Under-Secretary of State for Air, whom I am pleased to see in his place. He also had an Air Force record of which to be proud, and I am sure that my appreciation is shared by my hon. Friends.
    I understood the Secretary of State to say that his Department had adopted certain recommendations made by a Committee of which I had the honour to be chairman and on which many distinguished gentlemen served, including the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Roland Robinson). One recommendation was that, before aircrews leave the Royal Air Force, certain of those who so desired should be given an opportunity of training for commercial employment in civil life. I would like to thank the Minister for that, for it is one and only one of many recommendations which that Committee made, and I still hope that he will look again at some of the others, with his colleague the Minister of Civil Aviation. As was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, civil aviation is a great and important reserve of the Royal Air Force, and anything that can' be done to link these two services together will be for the good of the country.
    It is with satisfaction that we realise that America is loaning us the B29. I am not sure whether it is a loan or a gift,
    1810
    but I do not suppose it matters very much. The benefit of this arrangement and of our having this aircraft is that we shall have a high-flying aircraft of first-rate performance in which to give operational practice to our aircrews. The possession of this old type of aircraft—and, after all, it is an old type—must not be an excuse for permitting the delivery of the jet bomber to fall behind schedule. We see in the White Paper that the new jet medium bomber is in production and will be delivered this year. I must confess that I am very disillusioned about the delivery of aircraft in this country. We have all heard in this House so many times that aircraft are about to be delivered, but yet time goes on and months and even years pass before we find out that the aircraft are still in the experimental stage. I hope that the Under-Secretary, in replying, will be able to say whether the aircraft is actually coming into operational use or whether it is the case that one or two aircraft are going to squadrons for experimental use.
    The question of the new jet bomber is a most important factor in defence today, and when I say defence I mean not only aerial defence but the whole military defence of this country. I am not interested in the winning of wars as much as in preventing them, and perhaps I differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite whose Service experience is as wide as mine, in that I consider myself that the menace to this country in case of a war does not arise from aircraft or from fleets of bombers, but from guided missiles, rockets and lone aircraft with atomic bombs. In mentioning guided missiles and atomic bombs, I am only referring to things that have already been used in war and which are within the knowledge of us all.
    Therefore, I feel that this is not a question of defence against aircraft at all, and not a matter of Fighter Command, so much as a question of defence against the things I have mentioned. I think hon. Members will agree that it is not possible to make 100 per cent. certain of preventing individual high-flying fast aircraft from crossing the shores of this country, and certainly there is nothing to prevent rockets from being used, as they were during the war. If I am right we can therefore have no adequate defence against such attack and the only deter-

    1811
    rent to war is consequently the threat of retaliation, and that means bombers. If we have a bomber force large and modern enough, it then becomes unprofitable to an enemy to wage war against us.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would my hon. Friend object to the Russians using the same argument?
    Group-Captain Wilcock: I do not personally object to any argument. I am stating what I think is an absolute fact, and it is that if we have a strong enough deterrent force, it may he that we shall not have the war which none of us wants.
    The logical conclusion to what I have said is that we should utilise the whole of our financial and manpower resources solely in the air and in this form of defence, that is, a powerful deterrent bombing force, and, indeed, that is my personal view. I ask that the Minister of Defence to approach the problem from that angle. We have only certain resources, financial and manpower, and they must be used to the best advantage, which means in the air. I do not say this merely as an ex-R.A.F. officer, but because it is the logical approach to this problem, and the Army should be a police force, with colonial troops, and the Navy just a covering force for surface ships. An enemy—and we can visualise only one—would in the event of war make an all-out effort against this country, unless the threat of retaliation was very great.
    If I might now turn to something else which is also controversial, it will be to make the administrative point which I wanted to mention. I believe that this question of the overseas tour is interfering with our recruiting. It is my opinion that it is a serious deterrent to recruiting for a married man to know that he may have to go overseas for two or three years without his family. It is also a deterrent to the airmen or officer who would otherwise be inclined to extend or prolong his service, but who does not do so because of that fear of parting with his family for two or three years.
    It is not the case that we can solve the problem by the provision of married quarters overseas. We hear very much about married quarters, but, at the very best, it is only 10 or 15 per cent. of officers and other ranks who can obtain
    1812
    married quarters overseas. In my view, the expense of these married quarters and all the paraphernalia of the shipping and the servicing of the families when they get there is out of all proportion to the results achieved. Indeed, I personally doubt whether there is any value at all in having families overseas, because only 10 or 15 per cent. can be provided with the accommodation. That means at best that only 20 families in 100 can be accommodated, while the other 80 married officers and men are out there without their families and are naturally very disturbed and unsettled because of that fact.
    I want to suggest a solution which I have mentioned before, and I hope the Under-Secretary will take note of it and will say whether my figures are correct. I suggest that no married man should have to serve longer than 12 months overseas, and that that should apply to all married men in the R.A.F. It might equally well apply to the Army and the Navy, but I am not concerned today with those Services. I suggest that these men should be moved by air every 12 months. With single men, no serious problem arises, because the single man likes to be overseas for two or three years, but that is not the case with the married man. If we take the Royal Air Force strength at 200,000 and we say—and here I confess I am guessing—that 40,000 of them are overseas, which means 20 per cent., and that half of these men are long-service men and the other half National Service men, the figure of the long-term men is reduced to 20,000, of which I think it would be fair to say that half are married. Therefore, we have the problem of moving 10,000 men every 12 months during the trooping season. That can be done by 42 flights a month or 10 aircraft a week.
    If we look at the Estimates in the White Paper, we find that £2 million is being spent this year in providing married quarters overseas and transporting 500 wives and families backwards and forwards. I would prefer to see that £2 million spent on the building of more married quarters in this country, because this is the place in which the money should be spent, and not overseas. We should derive several advantages from so doing, and we should certainly get better recruiting, because married men would know that they would not

    1813
    be parted from their families for longer than 12 months.
    If it were possible to put that project into operation, we should certainly save over £2 million this year, and many millions of pounds in the provision of schools, medical services and transport overseas. I do not know how many millions of pounds we have already lost in the past few years by building married quarters in such places as Palestine, Egypt and India. And now we vote another million and a half for further married quarters overseas, and, presumably, we have the same chance as before of losing this money and the quarters. I ask that this matter should be seriously considered, and I believe that when the Minister has thought about it he will agree that the 12 months maximum overseas is a good recruiting point.
    Finally, we are turning over to jet fighters and bombers, and I believe that this fact will very seriously alter establishments in the Air Force. As is well known, the maintenance of jet aircraft is very much more economical than the maintenance of the piston type of aircraft. I think we are justified in having a little crystal-gazing into the future in so far as establishments are concerned. If we now manned all our establishments on the principle of so many men and mechanics to a squadron we should find in a few years' time that we did not need those establishments at all and that we should be in much the same position as that in which we found ourselves about 15 years ago, that is, careers blocked because of no vacancies. There should be a long-term establishment for the Royal Air Force, such an establishment as we shall require when it is fully equipped and rearmed with jets. That is the establishment we should man and to which we should give long-term engagements, and that is the one we should watch in conjunction with our promotion curves.
    In conclusion, I wish to add a word or two to what the right hon. Gentleman said concerning economy in maintenance by the use of civil facilities in this country. I believe that a tremendous lot can be done in that way, and that we should thereby be achieving two purposes. We should be giving civil aviation and civil engineering concerns the opportunity of helping not only themselves but the Royal
    1814
    Air Force, and we should also be putting the work into the hands of people who could continue to do the work in time of war. That is really a very important factor.
    In my opinion the Royal Air Force today is, in at least one aspect, lagging behind the Royal Air Force of before the war, that is, in all matters appertaining to Reserves. If I remember rightly, we had several types of Reserves in 1939. We had a Reserve of Air Force officers, a Reserve in which young men could be trained for 12 months as pilots and then go back to civil life—a most excellent arrangement—we had the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, which had about 40,000 pilots and aircrews on its strength at the outbreak of war, and we also had the Auxiliary Air Force. I believe that the Minister and the Under-Secretary should look at the position of the Royal Air Force Reserve today compared with what it was in 1939 to see whether we have advanced on or fallen behind the position at that time in this most important aspect, because every Air Force relies upon its Reserves for that wastage which can be expected to be extremely high in war.
    6.35 p.m.
    Mr. Profumo: May I begin by adding my congratulations to those already extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) on making such an excellent maiden speech this afternoon. It was a most constructive and interesting speech, and it was made in a manner which displayed the prowess for which he was so famous in the Royal Air Force.
    I say that with great feeling because it is over five years since I was fortunate enough, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye, and today I feel like a boy who has returned to school after a long illness due to an epidemic which hon. Members will remember was very prevalent in 1945, but from which, happily, I have now recovered. I find new monitors and my own class has moved up. But as for the masters—about whom I read so much while I was away—I find that their authority is far more challengeable than one would have imagined from hearsay Nevertheless, it is with the greatest diffidence and temerity that I start again to join in the activities of this House as one who desires most earnestly to play a con-

    1815
    structive and sincere part in the matters to which we must address ourselves in the future.
    There is one aspect of this present Parliament which causes me deep concern. I refer to the confusing and ambiguous statements which are far too frequently made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench. I draw the attention of the House to a remark made by the Minister of Defence in the defence Debate on 16th March, and which has already been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) this afternoon. The Minister of Defence said:
    "There is a limit to the amount of money which the Air Force can spend on equipment; while they do purchase large numbers of jet aircraft, they could not afford to buy the full output."
    My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition immediately queried that statement, but the Prime Minister himself, at the end of the Debate, repeated the remark. He said:
    "With regard to the jet aircraft, it is the fact that we could not afford to buy all the aircraft produced by the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 1277 and 1393.]
    Such remarks made by prominent members of His Majesty's Government are most misleading and cause hon. Members on all sides of the House—I am not speaking for the Liberals, who do not appear to be here this afternoon—both inside and outside this Chamber, great misgiving. Remarks of that nature are not conducive to high morale in the Service itself. When one considers the reactions of people overseas with whom we have joint defence responsibilities, one realises how serious that sort of thing can be.
    A statement of that sort could mean several things. It could mean that five years after winning the greatest victory of all times, we find ourselves today in such straitened circumstances that we cannot afford more aircraft for which we have, in fact, the necessary personnel, the aerodromes and the technicians. It could mean that we cannot afford more aeroplanes because we have reached the ceiling which can be operated by the Forces at our disposal, and that unless we can increase recruiting in the Royal Air Force we cannot make use of any more aircraft. It could mean that if we
    1816
    bought more aircraft, it would result in a proportionate increase in manpower, equipment, air bases and so on, and we are not in a position to afford that. It could mean that with all the national financial burdens to which they find themselves committed today, the Government are not able to permit a total expenditure for the Air Forces in excess of the figures we are asked to pass today and which, under Vote 7, include aircraft. Finally, it could be that the Government are satisfied that we are buying today sufficient aircraft to meet our commitments, both at. home and overseas, in the defence of the nation and to honour obligations which we have in relation to our allies.
    If the last be true—and I hope it is true—then both the statement of the Minister of Defence and that of the Prime Minister are most unnecessarily misleading and are not conducive to national confidence. At all events, it is not a question of what we can afford; it is a question of what we must afford in the matters which we are speaking about this evening. The yardstick must be that the first priority of all our resources should go to a minimum striking force which is adequate for our own safety and for the fulfilment of our overseas obligations. To meet these obligations we must maintain a balanced Air Force.
    The second point I wish to make has been touched upon by several hon. and right hon. Members this evening. It is the question of these 70 B29 American bombers, the first of which are on their way to this country now. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air—to whom I add my compliments and best wishes on his appointment—if he will answer the queries I am now about to raise. What are the implications of this deal? I yield to no man in my admiration for and gratitude to the United States, but gratitude must not blind us. This particular aspect of American co-operation needs very careful analysis indeed. What are the long-term implications of this aerial Americanisation? I realise that these Superfortresses, bound for Britain, are part of the mutual assistance programme. I realise also that the need to purchase American high-flying bombers as an interim measure derived from the decisions taken, as long ago as 1943 and 1944, that we in this country should go

    1817
    straight ahead for the greatly superior and more complicated gas-turbine engined bombers which are still in the course of development.
    The House knows that the development of a modern aeroplane takes approximately five years. Therefore, let us look to the future. I want an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State that, as a long-term policy, we will revert to our traditional conception of having an Air Force complete, independent and balanced in all its parts and equipped with fighters, bombers, transport and training aircraft of all appropriate classes fitted to the national tasks which it has to perform. I confess that I have very grave suspicion that this mutual aid will be an excuse to cut down on our Bomber Command. If that is the plan, I warn the Government—and I am pleased to see that the Prime Minister is on the Front Bench—that this will be the gravest false economy in the future.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I am sure the hon. Gentleman did me the courtesy of listening to what I said. I tried to make it as clear as possible that, so far from reducing the bomber force, this was the first phase in an increase in the bomber force.
    Mr. Profumo: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me the opportunity of making my own remarks clearer. I am talking about the intention of the Government in the future, and not what comes under these particular Estimates. Can we have an assurance tonight from the Under-Secretary of State that it is not the intention of the Government to plan that in future we should continue to use American planes in order to economise on expenditure ourselves? I want an assurance that, if these United States heavy bombers are to be a permanent part of the defences of the North Atlantic area, we will have enough of our own heavy bombers in time to act, if need be, on our own and on our own decisions.
    The House knows well how long it takes to develop bombers these days. We have to be careful that we make it quite clear to the aircraft industry that they have a reasonable guarantee of orders following development of successful new types of heavy bombers. I welcome the reference to the medium Canberra bomber, but our aircraft industry must
    1818
    know that there will be no question of the Government saying later on that "we cannot afford any more aeroplanes," as we were told last week. If His Majesty's Government are contemplating a division of labour in our air striking power with another country, however friendly that country may be, this will constitute a revolutionary change in our general conception of a defence system. As such it will be a major issue of national policy. It has never been presented to this House in that light.
    Heavy bombers can be compared with capital ships of the Navy. They are the capital ships of the air. If we are going to play our part in preventing war we must have, on our own, sufficient aerial capital ships to make it possible to carry high explosives and atomic bombs, if necessary, into other countries. We should be able to inflict corporal punishment from the air for any acts of brutality which may be contemplated against this country. The Royal Navy has its own capital ships, from which it fires its own torpedoes manufactured in our factories. The Army has its own tanks and its own artillery, firing its own shells manufactured in our factories. The Royal Air Force must be in a comparable position. It must not be put in a situation in the future where it relies on a foreign Power, however friendly it may be, to provide replacements, spares and possibly ammunition.
    I shall not be satisfied with an assurance that for the bombers that are coming, the United States will supply all the spares needed. If we continue to use these as an integral part of our Air Force, the time may come when we are no longer friends, when we may wish to act on our own, and to use our own initiative in starting action. And when action has been started, we want to know that our Chiefs of Staff can give orders without the "by your leave" of any foreign country. We in Great Britain must be in a position to carry out our own foreign policy. In that policy the Foreign Secretary is responsible to His Majesty the King and to this House. But foreign policy rests ultimately on armed strength and the Government's unfettered control of the size and structure of the Forces. If Britain has to rely on another Power for units essential to the balance of its Forces, it will have abrogated entirely its sovereignty in

    1819
    foreign relations to another foreign Power. I ask the Minister to give me an assurance that we shall maintain the system of keeping a fully balanced Royal Air Force which can carry out here or anywhere in the world the great traditions of that gallant Service.
    6.51 p.m.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: May I first ask for the indulgence of the House on this the first occasion on which I have the privilege and honour of addressing it? The Debate so far has been on a very high level, if I may say so. It has been conducted in a most professional manner by professionals, and, therefore, I feel much diffidence in intervening with a view to saying one or two things about the more mundane affairs connected with the Reserves of the Royal Air Force.
    I want to refer particularly to the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces associations and those branches of the Service which they specially cater for, namely, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and the Air Training Corps. The Secretary of State has paid a handsome tribute to the Reserve Forces, but I was rather disappointed that he did not make any allusion to the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces associations who are doing so much valuable work in promoting, organising and administering these branches of the Service. In my capacity as vice-chairman of the Air Committee of the West Riding Association, I have seen a good deal of the difficulties in the field of recruiting which are facing the Territorial associations. These difficulties do not seem in any way to diminish.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that recruiting was most unsatisfactory, and, therefore, I should like to mention one or two of the things that have struck me as being important in getting a sufficient number of men into the Service. The first difficulty that we experience is that of persuading the ex-Service man to join an Auxiliary Service when he knows himself to be already on the Emergency Reserve. He feels that he is liable to call-up in any case, and therefore he does not feel that there is any obligation upon him to join any Auxiliary Service as we are hoping he will do. Then the National
    1820
    Service man who is waiting to be called up is reluctant to go before his time. That might easily mean the loss to the Reserve Forces of a year's valuable service for many young men. Then many ex-Service men return home after long periods abroad and they feel reluctant to take on anything which will take them away from their homes at weekends or perhaps for a fortnight during the year for the annual camp and training.
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I mention one matter which I feel is contributing to the low recruiting rate to the Auxiliary Services. I refer to transport and travelling facilities to get these men to the places where they are to be trained. Perhaps I could cite my own case. The division which I have the honour to represent in this House—Bradford, North—lies adjacent to the Yeadon Aerodrome which is the headquarters of 609 West Riding Squadron of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and its complementary formations. The men have to be brought to this point from all parts of the West Riding. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, transport is difficult on Sunday mornings. The men cannot get there on Sunday mornings, nor can they get back easily on Sunday nights. Something should be done to provide adequate transport facilities to get the men to the point of training. By that means we shall get an encouraging response fairly soon. If we are going to set up expensive training establishments with all the necessary facilities and equipment, we ought to ensure that the men get there to use those facilities.
    On the material side there are substantial difficulties for local associations in finding sites for Fighter Control unit headquarters and so on. The difficulties arising from the Town and Country Planning Act and from local authorities are manifold. I hope something will be done to ease these difficulties so that Territorial associations can get on quicker with the job with which they have been entrusted—that of providing premises for the Reserves quickly, and I hope permanently.
    I suggest on this question of recruiting that a special committee might be set up embracing all interests—the interests of industry, of the Service, of local authorities and so forth who might be involved; I do not necessarily mean a Service com-

    1821
    mittee or a Civil Service committee, but a committee embracing all interests, which can bring new opinions and views to bear on this very important matter. Unless we get the men, none of the plans of the right hon. Gentleman and the Air Council will be capable of fruition. I should like to know whether there is any chance in the immediate future of the Reserve centres being set up in time. If we can establish these Reserve centres we shall have reached the point where we can deal with a man near to his home and provide him with a centre where he will have the sort of communal life which is necessary in the Service; we shall be able to give him recreational facilities and the comradeship of his fellow men in the Reserve in which he serves.
    I want to make a plea for something that is very dear to my heart. I have been connected with the Air Training Corps since its inception, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that on occasions I have discussed this matter with him. I feel that in the Air Training Corps we have the most valuable medium available to the right hon. Gentleman and his Department for getting the right material, both quality and quantity, into the Royal Air Force. In his speech at the opening of this Debate the right hon. and learned Gentleman was generous in his praise of the Air Training Corps, but I want to emphasise that when there is a satisfied cadet there is a satisfied parent, and when there is a satisfied parent we have the best possible public relations system for a Service Department.
    I hope, therefore, that the Cadet movement will be encouraged. Notwithstanding the doubt which may exist at the present time about exchange visits between Canada. United States and this country, I hope we shall go on to build up the Cadet Force and shall give it that help and support which it deserves. We have 45,000 air cadets in this country today and we are relying upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give them something for which they have been waiting for a long time—a real surge forward. I will not say any more on this point because I might divulge some information to which I have been privileged to have access in my capacity as a member of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's advisory committee on the Air Training Corps.
    1822
    I did not want to let this opportunity pass, however, without reminding the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there are people in Canada and America today who are awaiting anxiously and with great enthusiasm for him to say that our cadets can go over there this pear and that their cadets can come to this side of the Atlantic. We want to see an extension of this interchange of cadets not only between countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations but between other countries of the world. There again, is an excellent medium of public relations. It is not too directly connected with defence, but if we can extend this principle of friendship among the young people perhaps the necessity for defence will become less apparent as the years go by.

    SERVICING AND MAINTENANCE
    7.2 p.m.
    Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "this House considers that continued efforts must be made to secure the best servicing and maintenance procedure in the Royal Air Force consistent with the economical use of trained manpower."
    Before I get down to the gist of my Amendment, may I say that this is the first opportunity I have had in either this or the last Parliament to congratulate a speaker on his maiden speech. I will begin by assuring the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor) that I expected him to make a very good maiden speech because he is a fellow Yorkshireman and he knows that in this House, as in every other house the sinews which bind Yorkshiremen together are as wide as the bat which Hutton wields in our favour all over the world. We very much enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's speech; it was like a breath of fresh air to hear those tones from Bail-don Moor, bringing Ilkley Moor into our midst. I am sure that in our Debates on the Air Estimates and similar Debates. 609 squadron, which I as a Yorkshire-man regard as highly as he does, and the A.T.C. will have a very great protagonist in this House. I think I express the wishes of all hon. Members when I say we all look forward to hearing Yorkshire's voice once again, through the hon. Member for Bradford, North, in Debates of this kind.

    1823
    I turn now to the Amendment standing in my name. It is concerned with our most precious asset in present-day conditions, the best possible use of our manpower. It is surprising to find, on investigation, that out of the 50 million people in this country a very small number earn a livelihood for the rest of us. According to the sources I have consulted, experts bring the figure down to as low as seven million; that is to say, seven million really do the work in industry, in the Services and so on. Out of that seven million the three Services and Civil Defence, which I rate very highly, must have their share if we are to carry on building up the defensive system of this country.
    Further, I found out that the number of boys attaining the age of 18 is between 310,000 and 330,000 each year and that since 1939 that part of our population, which is so essential to our defence needs and to the building up of our Forces, has already declined by as much as 25 per cent. This process was already working when the 1945 election took place and the result of it is that when the next election takes place, in 1955, we shall have only half the number of juveniles at our disposal, for work of this kind, by comparison with the number in 1945. It therefore behoves us all to see that that section of our population, upon which so much depends for the welfare of our State, is used as wisely and efficiently as we can manage.
    In the Air Force and in the Services in general the old system of short-service engagements has been very wasteful indeed. We have had people often trained at great expense in technical trades in the Royal Air Force, and I suppose in the Army and Navy, too, who after a certain number of years have left the Service and have had to be re-absorbed into civilian life. The adjustments necessary must have been very great indeed. Very often all the money spent on their training in the Service has been of little use afterwards because they have taken up completely different jobs in civil life. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State give an assurance this afternoon of improvements to try to overcome that great difficulty.
    Again, there is the question of the National Service men, and this too
    1824
    applies to all three Services, for it is essential, as we have learned this afternoon, that they should be fit to be reabsorbed into civil life not simply where they left off, but with their value to the community in general greatly enhanced.
    It was often said during the war that for every man who did a flying job—aircrew of one kind or another—there were 15 people on the ground who had to do some other job in order to keep him aloft. I am afraid that that proportion is much greater in these days and is probably round about 20 to one. When we discuss the Royal Air Force, therefore, on such subjects as wages, pay, conditions and married quarters, we must remember this ratio of one in 20 and remember that we are dealing with a greater number than the small proportion who are actually doing a complete flying job. All these other people are of very great importance and are doing a great part of the work which is necessary. Of that number, the people who service and maintain the aircraft so that the Air Force can fly form a very big proportion and are, therefore, very important people. They form a very big slice of the precious manpower which we have to afford, to make available, every year in our Estimates in order to keep the R.A.F. going in the world.
    I wondered during the war and have wondered since, when I have gone round certain stations, whether sometimes the present establishments are not rather wasteful. We all know of certain parts of the country where the countryside is dotted with aerodromes so that very often their circuits even overlap. On going inside these aerodromes we should find that the establishment was the same in nearly all stations, whereas if the organisation were run by a business man who had to declare a dividend every year he would say, "There are certain fellows doing jobs in these stations, but if we had them all in one central station they would all do the same amount of work and we should save a great deal in overheads." Perhaps the Secretary of State would say what steps have been taken in that direction.
    Again, in connection with centralisation, when some hon. Members from this House and some people from another place, went last year on a special visit to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.C. headquarters,

    1825
    we found that in a desolate Welsh valley, where unemployment had been rife for a generation, a factory had been erected to make engines and to renovate engines for the great Airways Corporations. It gave work to people who had been unemployed for a very long time. The whole thing was centralised there and engines could easily be taken to the various aerodromes. I have wondered whether the Royal Air Force does the same kind of thing and whether there could not be some similar centralised organisation, even starting a new industry in some of our constituencies, if necessary. Thus we should probably cut out some waste of manpower which may be found at the moment in certain stations.
    We have heard this afternoon how Service life is being more and more integrated with civil life, and I believe that all hon. Members are worried about how far that will go. I think it should go very much further than it does at the moment, and I was glad to hear that discussions have already taken place with both sides of industry so that there is a guarantee that the National Service man, who leaves his job and does his 18 months' service, shall have a job waiting for him when he returns.
    Further, I was glad to hear that service in the Royal Air Force will count for membership of trade unions. I was shocked, while talking to one of the employers in my own constituency a few months ago, when he said that, as soon as a boy left his job as an office boy in his factory and went into the Services he had finished with him and that a boy could not expect to have his job back if he did that. I hope the Services will get rid of that prejudice. I hope they will make people realise that a man in military life, whether in the Army, Navy or Air Force, is really carrying on his civilian job, and it is up to the Service people to see that a man's Service job is a continuation of his civilian job. A civilian job can be a continuation of the Service job, too.
    I was glad to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend that steps have already been taken with the nationalised industries and with local government bodies to bring about this easy relationship between the civil and military careers. I would mention here that many of these young men
    1826
    coming out of the Forces, especially the National Service man and others on short-term engagements, could be of great use in some of the colonial development schemes. With their technical experience they should be of use in colonial territories. Perhaps that idea could be passed on to the people who decide these things.
    There are one or two questions I should like to put to my right hon. and learned Friend on the matter of maintenance and servicing. I am told that during the air lift last year the Americans, to keep things going when they were short of skilled technicians in their Air Force, brought out from time to time workmen from industry—from radio manufacture, and so on—to work on the air lift. They worked side by side with the Service men, and wore a uniform. Eventually they went back to civilian life, and they were able to take back to their ordinary job an up-to-date knowledge of Service equipment which must have been of great use to them in their civilian life. I wonder whether we did anything like that on the air lift, or whether there is any possibility of doing that on some air stations in this country. There must be many stations at which people could go to work instead of going to the ordinary factories.
    We were warned last week in an admirable maiden speech by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. Orr-Ewing) that we should be facing maintenance difficulties before very long. We had an alarming warning that there were not enough people to do all the many and varied jobs in a modern Service. I hope that the investigations that have been going on in the last 12 months, about which we have heard so much, have so resulted that we may be given some assurance on the point, because it seems to me that we might become over-technicalised so that we should be hard put to it to find enough proficient people out of the seven million at our disposal to carry on this complicated equipment.
    One way to get over the difficulty is to improve design for easier maintenance It always seemed surprising to me in the last war that once people had parachute harness on and full flying equipment it was difficult for them to move about, especially in some heavy bombers, and especially in the later years when we had so many scientific gadgets one could

    1827
    hardly move about in some bombers at all, because they were not streamlined inside as they were outside. Many more hours must have been spent on maintenance of some of that equipment than manufacturers of the instruments ever supposed would be so spent. I remember, for instance, that in a Beaufighter there was a panel held in place by 300 screws, and it had to be serviced and the 300 screws taken out painfully and methodically in the dark, except for the light of a pin-point torch.
    Probably there are many such little snags of that kind in aircraft and their equipment. However, they should be put right, and could be if the technicians went along to the scientists, as the R.A.F. leaders did in the thirties before being given Radar, and said, "Here we have a difficulty. Can you solve it for us scientifically?" I remember a night when a pilot at short notice at the end of his training went in a bomber as second pilot. It was one of his last trips as a second pilot. The aircraft got over the North Sea, and the aircraft was gaining height. The instructor said to him, "Switch the oxygen on." The second pilot was an American. I do not blame him for what happened, for really it was not his respon-After a time the pilot thought his gauges sibility. He unscrewed certain things, must be working wrongly, because the supply of petrol was running down.
    It was discovered in due time that the second pilot, instead of switching on the oxygen, had jettisoned the petrol. Luckily they were able to get back to the aerodrome with some petrol left, but it seems to me that the handle of an oxygen bottle and the apparatus for jettisoning petrol should be quite distinctive, so that even in the dark one could not be mistaken for the other. Here was an avoidable mistake which imperilled the lives of all the people in the aircraft and the aircraft itself, and could have lost us one more aircraft and crew for the attack on Berlin.
    I think there ought to be some organisation to enable the Air Force to keep in touch with scientific developments. More and more aircraft are being more and more filled up with scientific devices, and it is our duty to see that all the latest designs are applied and that those who handle them have experience of them, and that the people who service them have
    1828
    absolutely tip-top knowledge of them There ought to be planned maintenance, so that it works according to plan. Once the site for a metropolitan aerodrome is settled, that aerodrome is static, and, so far as I can see, modern air force bases are more or less fixed. In the war, although certain aerodromes were knocked about, none was knocked out, that I remember, and invariably after an attack the aerodrome would go on being used. Therefore, if the aerodromes are static, would it not be possible to plan the maintenance of the aircraft on them at some central place, and so save manpower, which could be otherwise used?
    It would be interesting if some of us Members could go out to some of these bases, and see some of the men working on the most modern equipment. Some of us have not been on aerodromes much since the war ended, and have got a bit out of date. If we could go to see these places, it would help to give us an idea of how things are now, and of the modern instruments that are being used. We should, at least, obtain some basic knowledge of them, and possibly more than some of us have at present.
    One word about the womenfolk. Last year I criticised the hats of the W.R.A.F., and the next day the newspapers said there were to be new hats for the W.R.A.F. I hope that these new hats are coming out now, and that the W.R.A.F. girls will be as smart in 1950 as the American and Canadian girls are, because there is plenty of room for improvement. We have got to remember that 80 per cent. of the work done in the Royal Air Force can be done by the girls of the W.R.A.F. In a modern air force the women have an important part to play.
    During the war we gradually brought in more and more women to do jobs which at one time we never thought women could do, and so any remarks which I have made apply equally to the nimble fingers of the W.R.A.F. as to other R.A.F. personnel. During the war, I visited a factory in the Midlands where bomber engines were being made. The only men in the place were the setters-up and an odd foreman. The vast majority of those who were building engines ready to go straight into the bombers were the womenfolk. It would be interesting to know how the W.R.A.F. are going on these days, and I think that we should let

    1829
    them know that they have our very best wishes, and we are confident that they will do as good a job in the Service in peace-time as they did during the war.
    In my student days in Switzerland, I saw a great deal of conscription, and in almost every house the adult member of the family took his rifle home. The Swiss Government knew that at a moment's notice, when the defence system clicked into action, every man up to the age of 45 could seize his rifle and be on active service. That is an ideal which, I think, we should aim at in this country, particularly in view of modern forms of attack with atom bombs, and V2's and guided missiles. The sooner we can get to that ideal of clicking into action at once, with our rifle in our hands, so to speak, the nearer we are to the perfect system which we want. We are all units in the defence system—men, women and almost children. That was brought home to us in 1940, with the setting up of the Home Guard, and so on.
    One of the attributes of this country has always been the building up of our own humble folk in certain native skills and then finding a leader to encourage them to use those skills. That has been so throughout history—at Agincourt, at Crécy, at Trafalgar and the battle of the Nile. It was that native skill, combined with wise leadership, which led us to victory. We saw it again during the last war at E1 Alamein, in the Battle of Britain, and in those grand fellows who bombed Berlin and the Ruhr night after night. We have done these things by building up native talent and using it to the best of our ability. We have always been fortunate, but in order to be fortunate again we have to have servicing and maintenance and jobs like that in which we can use our native skill properly. Those are the things that can save us in the end, and I hope that they are being watched by the Secretary of State for Air and the Air Ministry.
    7.25 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I beg to second the Amendment so ably moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn).
    It was only a few minutes ago that I realised that the honour of seconding the Amendment was to fall to me. I gladly seize that honour because it gives
    1830
    me the opportunity of saying in public to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air how much pleasure I fed at his promotion to the office which he now enjoys.
    In seconding the Amendment, I think it only right to say that I am doing so on rather different rounds from those which the mover has advanced. I am one of those hon. Members who are not in favour of our present system of National Service. I believe that conscription is wrong in principle, and that in the present situation it is economically unsound. I am, moreover, far from convinced that conscription is the best method of giving, us those defences which the country needs. I suppose that one can argue, with a great deal of justification, that of all the services the Royal Air Force is perhaps the least suited to a system of conscription. With its highly specialised trades, we want to attract into the Air Force the very best type of Service man—the man who has the ability and the initiative to make full use of the opportunities which the Royal Air Force provide.
    I support the Amendment on this ground: the more effective use we make of manpower in the Air Force, the less will be the need for conscription, either at the present time or in the future. There is another argument and that is that, if we use these men effectively we are making life for them far more interesting than otherwise it would be. If there is anything that we can do to relieve the Service man of the tedium and monotony which at many times and in places in the past has been the lot of the Service man, then my hon. Friend will have done a great service in moving this Amendment.
    I believe that the R.A.F. has gone a long way towards making the most effective use of the manpower available to it. I do not want to join issue with any of the other Services, but I think that the record of the R.A.F. in that respect can stand comparison with that of either of the other two Services. I believe that they are genuinely trying to put round pegs into round holes. There was an occasion in the 1929 Parliament when an hon. Member of this House accused Mr. Thomas of putting round pegs into square holes, and he replied, "Nonsense we do just the opposite." The R.A.F. have really made a genuine effort to get away from that position. Intelligence tests, interviews, and the activities of those

    1831
    much maligned men the psychiatrists have, I think, given the R.A.F. the opportunity of making the best use of the men who volunteer for service or who are directed into it. It means that we put them into the trades best suited to them and give them an opportunity to use their initiative. My hon. and gallant Friend was a little reminiscent tonight, and perhaps he will bear with me if I reminisce on this question of initiative.
    My mind goes back to my first week in the R.A.F. when I was what the Air Ministry so gracefully and elegantly called an A.C.H.G.D.—aircraft hand (general duties). I was sent with some of my fellow recruits, under the guidance of a corporal, for a journey of 70 miles, and I found it was going to take 10 hours to complete the journey. Believing in initiative, I ventured to suggest to the corporal a better route, which would be far less inconvenient for my colleagues and myself and would mean much less wastage of manpower from the point of view of the Service. That was the last occasion while I was in the R.A.F. that I ever ventured to make a suggestion of that kind to anyone in authority over me. If I venture tonight to make suggestions to the Secretary of State for Air, I assure him that in those days I never anticipated that I should ever be in a position to make suggestions to anyone, not even to a pilot officer.
    My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the fact that some establishments today are wasteful and overstaffed, and said that if business men were to investigate the running of these establishments it might be possible to make certain improvements. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend, with his great experience of these matters, is right. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will look into that aspect of the matter, and perhaps, too, he will look into another aspect of it, and that is the overlapping which, I believe, exists between the fighting Services. I know that in my days in R.A.F. intelligence there was a good deal of overlapping between the various intelligence branches of the Services. I imagine that that it is true in other branches of the fighting Services.
    I know that many of us felt that when the Minister of Defence was appointed
    1832
    some years ago one result would be a closer co-ordination of the activities of the Services, and that it would perhaps result in some economy in manpower. I am afraid that the figures which are constantly given to us in this House do not suggest that the most adequate and economical use is yet being made of the manpower in the Services, and I think there is a case for saying that there is a great deal of overlapping between the Services.
    I very seriously hope that we are getting away from what I think was an evil legacy of the war years—the feeling by many men in subordinate positions that manpower was plentiful and therefore it was not necessary to be as economical in manpower as it was in machines or in money. Today manpower is one of our most precious resources. Manpower is scarce, and the better use we put our manpower to in the Services, the better training that we can give it, the more useful will be those men when they come back into civil life. Just as men coming out of the Services highly trained, both morally and operationally, will be of value in civil life, so will the more highly trained recruits from civil life be of great value in the Services.
    One of the most encouraging things at the moment is the large number of what I think are called deferred Service men who are entering the Royal Air Force. These men, who have been engaged on some kind of apprenticeship, and who have therefore gone into the Service at a rather more advanced age than would normally be the case, are almost invariably men of considerable calibre, and are more mature than the average run of National Service man. The result is that they are soon mustered to a trade. It means that there is less wastage of their ability and time, and also that the training costs are lower. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the use to which he has been putting these deferred Service men. I believe that the fact that he has made the most effective use of these men is one of the things for which we ought to compliment him tonight.
    In this Amendment we call attention to the need for securing economy in trained manpower by improvements in servicing and maintenance, and I want to conclude on this note. Important as

    1833
    it is to secure economy in trained manpower by making these improvements, these improvements may well be necessary in themselves in the interests of the safety of those men who fly the aircraft of the Royal Air Force. I believe that by doing everything we can, not only by economising in manpower but by increasing the efficiency of the servicing and maintenance sections of the Royal Air Force, we shall be discharging our duty to those men who are continuing in peace-time the high traditions the Royal Air Force forged during the war.
    7.33 p.m.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I should like to thank my hon. Friends for raising this question of the need for securing economy in trained manpower by improvements in the servicing and maintenance organisation of the Royal Air Force. This is a problem which has been very much in the minds of myself and my advisers. It is one to which we have given very close attention and serious consideration for various reasons, not only because of our manpower difficulties—the shortage of skilled and experienced tradesmen, and the need to make the best use of the large number of National Service men in the Air Force—but also in the general interests of efficiency. I think few will disagree when I suggest that wasteful use of manpower can never lead to efficiency. Experience has invariably shown that a proper use of manpower has raised the general standard of efficient servicing and maintenance.
    Perhaps it would be best if I attempted, for a short while, to give the House a brief account of what we have recently done in this matter. The servicing and maintenance of modern fighter or bomber aircraft, even in the days of the jet-engine, is a complex technical task of the first order. There are two facets to the problem: first, there is the question of the techniques and methods themselves; and secondly, there is the question of the best employment of our skilled manpower and of those techniques to achieve the best possible results.
    I do not propose at this juncture to give the House a great deal of material about the techniques and methods of servicing in themselves. The Royal Air Force, however, has always sought to keep fully abreast of the latest developments in these fields. New techniques are employed
    1834
    whenever and wherever it is possible to do so. On the other hand, we have to remember that the Royal Air Force is an organisation which is geared for war; tactical operational squadrons must be ready to move quickly from place to place, and this emphasis on mobility does on occasion render more difficult the general use of certain techniques of servicing that may be suitable for a completely static organisation. So much for the techniques themselves.
    Perhaps I might now say a little about what has been done in the Service to make the best use of these techniques, and of the limited number of skilled men we have available to employ on them. I have not time to do more than outline the most important of the methods used. I think that first and foremost would be the planned servicing scheme. In essence, the planned servicing scheme consists of integrating into a pattern the major and minor periodical inspections which have to he given to aircraft, so that there is an even flow of work coming through the station workshops. This, in turn, means that it is possible to man these workshops with a small picked team specially designed to meet the flow of work.
    Before the inauguration of planned servicing the flow of work was erratic, and workshops tended to he over-manned because they were staffed to handle the peaks worked instead of the average flow. Flying Training Command, for example, have made some experiments along these lines, carrying out inspections at fixed intervals of time rather than after so many hours flying. They have reduced the time each inspection takes to one-third what it was before; they have reduced the number of aircraft going unserviceable by one-third; and they have cut the number of man-hours spent in servicing by one-half. That, I think, is very indicative of the value of this type of approach.
    In addition, everything is being done to improve the design of equipment, to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) referred, not so much in this context to improve performance as to ensure the reliability of components and accessories, and to make the servicing of the equipment, its removal and its replacement, easier. It is not so long since that little or no thought was given to this problem. Let me give an instance

    1835
    at random. The radio-telephone equipment of a Wellington bomber was so placed as to tax the ingenuity of the most experienced wireless mechanic, who had to take it out to service it, thus taking up valuable time. Today, we are doing all we can to prevent that sort of thing from happening. Specialist officers are present at all stages in the design of the aircraft to ensure that the maintenance of their particular equipment has not been forgotten. I am advised that this field is potentially perhaps the most fruitful for the saving of manpower.
    Of particular concern to the Royal Air Force at the moment is the problem how to make the best use of the National Service man, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) referred. I do not propose at this moment to argue the merits of National Service, or its value in present circumstances to the Royal Air Force. Still, it is interesting perhaps to note what we have tried to do to make the best use of the National Service man; and, incidentally, at the same time to use the abilities of the highly skilled Regular airman.
    The skilled tradesmen, who are needed for the overhaul and repair of equipment, receive full training to the trade standards which are being recognised by the trade unions. It is not possible, of course, to give the National Service entrant this lengthy trade training, and he is, therefore, given a much shorter period of general training, followed by a period of "on the job" training. Under this arrangement, a National Service man works on a particular type of aircraft and sometimes on a particular piece of equipment within that aircraft. He is constantly under skilled supervision, and by experience he achieves a high degree of skill in that particular field within which he will work during his period of National Service.
    Everything is being done to make it easier for the Royal Air Force to employ National Service airmen effectively in that way. If I may give another example, the servicing schedules for aircraft are now so broken up and arranged that a National Service airman with the minimum of training can carry them out. These alterations in turn make supervision easier and we are able to cut down
    1836
    the number of highly skilled aircraftmen who have to be employed as supervisors. Great economies have been achieved. For example, the number of man-hours necessary to carry out a major periodical inspection on a Lincoln or York aircraft has been cut by one-half, and that on a Meteor by one-third. During the past two years the number of hours spent on servicing for each 1,000 hours flying has been halved. Each economy is, however, not considered as an end in itself, but rather as a step to further economy. I can assure the House that the Royal Air Force is fully alive to the need to achieve the utmost economy in the use of skilled and semi-skilled labour throughout the servicing and maintenance organisation of the Force.
    Before I sit down, I should like to deal with one or two other points which were raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yarmouth. He referred to the methods adopted by the Americans in Germany during the air lift, in which, he said, they had brought civilian technicians from the United States to work side by side with uniformed personnel. He asked me what the Royal Air Force had done. We did not follow that system because there was no need to do it. Our circumstances were quite different. We were able to keep our trademen's establishments in Germany fully manned with our own R.A.F. tradesmen, and we made use of civilian contractors. A good deal of the servicing and maintenance was done, in fact, by contractors in this country.
    My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the work of the W.R.A.F. Incidentally, during my various visits to Germany to the R.A.F., I came across instances where members of the W.R.A.F. were airframe and engine fitters in the A and B classes, and were doing their work just as efficiently as it was being done by their male counterparts, who were working side by side with them. As my hon. and gallant Friend indicated, we have arranged to open 48 ground trades in the servicing field for W.R.A.F. personnel. The trades for which they are eligible to do covers groups A, B and C, and thus it caters for varying degrees of skill. At the present time, 10 per cent. of the women serving in the W.R.A.F. are engaged in the servicing trades. That is a very clear indication of the most valuable

    1837
    work that is being done and will be done in the future by the women's branch of the R.A.F.
    Finally, may I say that it has always been possible for hon. Members to visit units of the Royal Air Force. During the time I have been in the Air Ministry—and I am quite sure before that, too—no obstacle has been put in the way of Members of Parliament visiting units. In fact, on many occasions I have assisted hon. Members from both sides of the House to visit units, and I shall always be glad to do it in the future if called on.
    Mr. Roland Robinson: Does that apply only to units at home or does it apply to units overseas as well?
    Mr. Henderson: I am not going to commit myself on that. A question of finance may come into it, but if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to pay his own expenses to visit the Far East, I will certainly help him. I do not think he would expect me to commit myself on that, hut, broadly speaking, I am always willing to facilitate the visit of hon. Members from both sides of the House to Royal Air Force stations, and I hope that what I have said will satisfy my hon. Friend.
    Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: In view of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.
    7.48 p.m.
    Mr. Perkins: I apologise to the House for introducing a discordant note into a very happy Debate, but I have some severe criticisms to make of the Secretary of State for Air. I have been comparing him in my mind to the hermit crab. Both the Secretary of State for Air and the hermit crab have certain characteristics in common. They are both home-loving creatures, both very house-proud, both like to sit at home, and both look away from what is going on in the outside world. In fact, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman lives the life of a Trappist monk in the enclosed life of the Air Ministry. As Wordsworth says—
    Mr. A. Henderson: Before the hon. Gentleman goes further, I should like to correct him. I do not want to speak too much about myself, but I paid more visits to air stations than possibly any other Air Minister. It has been my practice to go out on an average once a week to Royal Air Force stations and establishments. Whatever criticism the hon. Gentleman may have to make, he is certainly not fortunate in that one.
    Mr. Perkins: The right hon. and learned Gentleman assures me that he has been out on an average of once a week to visit air stations. That was exactly the suggestion I was going to make, and as he has now told me he does it, I only hope that he will continue to carry on with that good work. I hope he will not only visit operational aerodromes but operational squadrons, and that he will go even further afield and see the Air Training Corps.
    Mr. Henderson: As the hon. Gentleman is making a personal attack on me, I should like to correct him. If he had ascertained the facts before he started on this basis, he would have saved the House a good deal of time. I do not restrict myself to operational units when I visit, but I make the habit of going to as many maintenance units and training units as I do to fighter and bomber squadrons. Up to this moment the hon. Gentleman in his facts is 100 per cent wrong.
    Mr. Perkins: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman also goes to the factories where the aircraft are made. It is important that the Minister, who is responsible for ordering these aircraft, should get around to the factories and see the men who are actually making the aircraft. That is merely a side point.
    I have a very serious criticism to make of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He will say that what I have to say does not actually concern him. A notice to airmen was published on 10th March, 1950, by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I can understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had no control of that at all. But he has, in fact, almost completely sabotaged the safety scheme that has been put forward by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. As the House knows, owing to the vast increase in the number of civil aircraft in the world, the

    1839
    risk of collision is daily increasing. The Ministry of Civil Aviation put out a practical and very sensible scheme, which it called "Green Airway One." The proposition is to make a corridor roughly from London to Bristol, along which air liners to and from the United States of America may fly with safety.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member is now dealing with a matter which is more the concern of the Ministry of Civil Aviation than of the Air Ministry.
    Mr. Perkins: On page 2 of the Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we find that special exemption from the rules associated with this airway has been granted to military aircraft. It means that the jet and fighter aircraft used on operational training are exempted from the necessity of obtaining clearances. That is my grievance against the Secretary of State for Air. He has seen fit to ensure that this exemption has been put into this safety order. Consequently, the effect of the safety order has been largely nullified.
    I was telling the House what this order is. It means a safety corridor from London to Bristol. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken power that his jets and fighters on operational training can play around in that corridor. It is only a matter of time before there will be a very serious accident to some incoming or outgoing aircraft. I urge the Secretary of State, in view of what is bound to happen, to withdraw at once this absurd exemption that he has put into this order. If he does not, an accident is bound to happen at some time or another, and the responsibility for that accident must rest on the shoulders of the Air Ministry, of which he is the head. I urge him to withdraw the exemption, and not to wait until there has been an accident and then to withdraw it under the pressure of public opinion.
    Another matter which I wish to raise with the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that of the flying clubs. Here I shall be in the happy position of keeping within the book. He told us that he is prepared to spend some £30,000 on these clubs in teaching members of the Air Training Corps to fly. That is first-class. For years we have been agitating in this
    1840
    House for such a scheme and we have always failed to get any satisfaction from the Air Ministry. It is true that in 1939 we got a civil aircraft scheme through, but it was a complete failure because it applied to all and sundry. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon getting this scheme through. It is first-class and it is good for the clubs. It will be good for the municipal aerodromes, many of which are now becoming derelict. It will be good both for the Air Training Corps and for the Royal Air Force. It will keep those aerodromes alive, which may one day be wanted, and it will provide a pool of highly trained and qualified instructors for the Royal Air Force.
    I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman one or two questions about the scheme. Who is to select the cadets? When does the scheme start? Will the cadets be under discipline when they get to the flying clubs? Will they have their own officers with them? What is the insurance position of a cadet who is damaged, disabled or killed? Who will be the instructors? Will they be Central Flying School trained? Will the Woman's Junior Air Corps be able to benefit from the scheme? What syllabus is proposed for these young pilots?
    Will these cadets be allowed to fly solo or will there be any limitations of hours before they can go solo? Will membership be open to open as well as to school units? Will headmasters of the school units be consulted? I hope the Minister will be able to answer those questions when he replies to the Debate. We have been taking some part in the development of the Air Training Corps. We have given a great part of our lives to it and we want to ensure that the scheme will be made to work.
    I make two suggestions to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The first is on the question of cost and the second on numbers. He told us today that there would be 200 or 250 cadets. That figure sounds a lot, but when we break it down and spread it over individual counties it is not so much. I estimate that in my county of Gloucester, where we have some very fine squadrons, we may be able to train three or four cadets a year. It is not very many, when the figure is brought down to earth. On the question of cost, to train 250 cadets for £30,000

    1841
    works out at about £120 per cadet. I do not know what terms the Air Ministry will make with the flying clubs, but if it is £3 a year it means that each one of these cadets will do about 40 hours' flying a year. Is it really necessary to give them 40 hours' flying? Would it not be better to give them 20 hours and so double the number of the cadets trained? Is it not better to train 500 than 250, by giving 20 hours' training a year instead of 40 hours?
    While I am talking on this subject of the Air Training Corps I would add that there seems to be a great threat from someone in the Department over which the right hon. and learned Gentleman presides in regard to the Air Training Corps. He proposes to transfer to a very large extent the administration of the Air Training Corps to the Territorial association in each county. Those who are workers for the Air Training Corps feel that that is a fundamental mistake and that it will increase the cost of running the Air Training Corps. We believe that the Corps will be less efficient and that there may be—in fact we know that there will be—wholesale resignations of voluntary workers, particularly on the county advisory committees. I urge the Secretary of State to go very slowly on this matter. Let him experiment if he likes in one or two counties, but let him not force this scheme down our throats because it will do untold harm to the Air Training Corps.
    Lastly there is the question of Transport Command. A sudden change of policy at the Air Council level has largely cancelled the contract for the Hastings, with its Bristol engine. I have constituents who are unemployed today because of the cancellation of this contract. I know full well that during this year many more of my constituents will become unemployed. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about this sudden change of policy. What does it mean? Does it mean that we are going to cut down Transport Command? Has some agreement been made with the United States, as was made during the war, so that they will provide the transport and we will provide the fighters? Is there any such agreement or understanding in these days? Is that what is behind this sudden cancellation of the contract? Why was it done so suddenly? Why was there no warning? Why did the Air Council suddenly, overnight, change their views and their plans?
    1842
    Surely this is the opposite of good planning. All the aircraft factories were working well and delivering the goods. They were producing at a wonderful rate. Overnight, the axe falls, and the Government say: "No, we don't want any more of these things." No opportunity has been given to the management to re-organise their factory and to re-tool and re-jig it to make something else. What is behind this sudden decision of the Air Council to change its plans? There must be something behind it. It is doing untold harm in the industry. It is doing untold harm to the young men who are coming into the industry. The apprentices know that from now on at any moment they may be dismissed because the Air Council has changed its policy. There is a loss of confidence among the young people entering the industry. I ask the Secretary of State to toll the House tonight what is behind this incident. Why has the Air Council done it? Why could it not have been spread over two or three years? What has made this suden change of policy vital?
    8.1 p.m.
    Mr. Joseph Hale: In making my maiden speech I ask for the indulgence of the House. I shall endeavour as far as possible to be non controversial We heard yesterday and we have heard again today, of the difficulty which the Services are experiencing in drawing voluntary recruitment. I am not surprised at this. Good, attractive jobs never need advertising. We know from experience in the last few years that it became necessary to advertise coalmining as an attractive industry. Even those who had never been engaged in the industry knew that it was not an attractive one, but, like the subject we are discussing tonight, it is an essential one, and rather than talk in terms of colourful uniforms and brass bands, the appeal we ought to make to our young men is that the survival of this country depends upon their response to the appeals made to them from the various Ministries to support recruitment into the Armed Forces.
    Reference has been made to the fact that Ministers have said that the Air Force is incapable of purchasing the whole output of aircraft from our aircraft factories. As an engineer, I agree with these Ministers that it is impossible for this country to take up the whole output

    1843
    of our factories. I often wonder whether the people who are so well versed in the military side of our defence are quite as well versed in the problems confronting manufacturers and engineers in our industries. We know full well that once a prototype has been produced, the "ribbon" is laid on in our great factories.
    We know from experience during the war that we can produce in almost limitless numbers, and we also know that we should not produce too many of one type, because nothing becomes old-fashioned sooner than aircraft. In the last war we had experience of worthy battleships built for the 1914–18 war still giving good service. It has been said by the Opposition that the equipment of the Army put into storage at the end of the last war ought to be still in good condition to give good service should war overtake us. No one supposes that aircraft have that life and that we can restore them as we can other types of arms.
    An hon. Member opposite mentioned to the Minister that the Auxiliary Air Force was now getting depots in our towns. That is perhaps one of the secrets of success for this branch of the service. When men, and young men particularly, have done a hard day's work in industry, the prospect of a long march into the country or a long journey by bus to the depot where the training takes place is not very appetising. The large industrial towns of the north have splendid technical colleges and I believe that a lot of the crafts which are so necessary in servicing aircraft could be given priority in these colleges. They produce engineers of all types, and aircraft engineering is only another branch of engineering. I believe that young fellows undergoing training in those colleges, could take into their curriculum subjects likely to be of service to them in the Auxiliary Air Force.
    Keeping our forces up-to-date, particularly in the Air Force, is likely to prove more expensive than the amount we are now discussing. The figure is in the region of £223 million, which looks a large sum of money. I have no doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be most happy if we were in a position to spend it on a better cause, but the fact remains that it is the duty of His Majesty's Government, whichever party happens to hold office at a particu-
    1844
    lar time, to make provision for the defence of these islands. I know full well that modern warfare does not allow a country the size of ours to defend itself alone. We are wrapped up in agreements, such as the agreement for the defence of Western Europe, and we become an integral part of a very complicated defence system. I feel sure that at present in our straitened circumstances we are bearing as big a burden as we can afford to bear. The only way the public are likely to judge the amount of money being spent on the Air Force is from the point of view of whether we are making the best use of the money.
    I have sometimes heard in speeches from the Opposition a hint, not very often openly said, that the motives of many of my colleagues are perhaps not so patriotic as those of the Opposition. Let me assure them that the young men on these benches, whatever other opinions they may hold, hold one most dearly, and that is that they should contribute to the defence of this country now or at any future time so that it may survive, because we believe it is worth defending.
    I should like to add in closing that we older people should not minimise the demands which are made upon young people today. We urge them in industry to produce for export. We also urge them to attend technical colleges in their spare time so that they can become real assets to industry at a later date. In asking them to take on National Service or part-time service in the Auxiliary Air Force we are placing a further burden upon them, and it rests upon every hon. Member to make that task as easy as possible by placing the facilities so needed in their training, as close to their homes as possible.
    8.10 pm
    Air-Commodore Harvey: It is my happy duty to congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. J. Hale) on his maiden speech. He spoke with great conviction and on a subject about which, as an engineer, he obviously knew quite a lot. I was particularly impressed by his remarks about the necessity for town headquarters for Auxiliary and Territorial units and I am sure if that can be done it will be of great service to the Auxiliary Air Force. The House will look forward to hearing the hon. Member again, particularly in

    1845
    Debates dealing with the Ministry of Supply, the production of aircraft, etc.
    May I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Air on his appointment? I am particularly pleased that he has been selected for that appointment because he was an Auxiliary Air Force officer. He can, at the Air Ministry, as an ex-officer who served before the wars as an Auxiliary and who during the war was embodied in the Regulars, render a great service to the Auxiliary Air Force. I would also congratulate the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir John Slessor, on his appointment. He will be a great inspiration to all ranks of the Service which he leads.
    The Secretary of State was frank with the House this afternoon, particularly on manpower difficulties. That is one of the greatest difficulties pertaining to the Air Force at the present time. The R.A.F. is at the moment 10,000 below the figures given in last year's Estimates. No one has so far said from the Government Front Bench anything about the position of the apprentice school at Halton. It is the backbone of the technical and engineering side of the Air Force. Men get a wonderful education there and some of their numbers have gained high rank in the Service. I should like to know whether Halton is full? If not what steps are being taken to get additional apprentices into that school?
    The same applies to Cranwell, the R.A.F. Cadet College. I questioned the Secretary of State for Air on 16th November, regarding Cranwell. He said:
    "One hundred and nine candidates sat for the written examination: 48 passed, 50 failed, while 11 withdrew or were rejected on medical grounds. In addition there were 200 candidates, mainly from the R.A.F., the Apprentice Schools and the A.T.C. … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 2004.]
    That means that the greater proportion of entrants to Cranwell were nominations. It is very worrying that so few men applied to go to Cranwell through the entrance examination. I hope that something will be said later from the Government Front Bench regarding the Cadet College. One may wonder why so few young men are going to Cranwell. There was no difficulty before the war. Then one had to pay to go there and it was always full. Now it is free, the cadets are actually paid to go there, and yet the R.A.F. cannot fill it.
    1846
    There must be something wrong. I believe parents are unhappy about the Services as a whole. They are not satisfied about the prospects of a career in the Services, with continual postings and insufficient pay and allowances. I know that the Government Front Bench do not like to be reminded of that. The late Minister of Defence always pulled a long face if one said anything about increasing the pay of men in the Fighting Forces. It is necessary to review this vital problem. I agree with the Secretary of State that the National Service men are doing a very fine job within certain limits, but it does not suit the R.A.F. to have National Service men. They are given responsibility and are very intelligent and willing. They carry out their duties in an extraordinarily fine way. For example, a National Service man may man a radar apparatus to "home" a squadron of jet fighters to its base in bad weather. After 18 months he goes and is replaced by another airman who has had only a few months' training. There is no continuity and I do not think it right that they should he given duties of such responsibility. If such a man reaches a rank of leading aircraft-man he is paid 7s. 6d. per day, or £136 per year, for bringing home a squadron to its base in bad weather conditions.
    So far as the junior officers are concerned, pay is exactly the same as it was 25 years ago. A pilot officer who flies gets 16s. a day, or £292 a year, for flying at nearly the speed of sound. They take great risks and they do not resent it, it is part of their job, but I contend that there is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) said, a case for giving flying pay to the men who take that risk. I understand that in the Navy additional pay is given in the submarine service, and I believe that extra pay is also given in the Fleet Air Arm. A pilot officer in the technical service, maintaining this complicated equipment, gets only 13s. per day, or £237 a year, and he is an officer who is maintaining very specialised equipment. Added to that, the young married officer's allowances are now taxed—and that on top of the higher cost of living and postings involving finding new schools for their children and other extra expense. If we want to get more men into the Fighting Services I am sure that the rates of pay will have to be increased.

    1847
    There are many little matters regarding the Services of which sight is often lost. I would say, in the case of the Air Force, improve the cooking of the food. The cooks in the Air Force are grade 3 in their trade, and I am told that many of the stations are only up to 50 per cent. of establishment in cooks. Give them better training. I know that the Secretary of State a few weeks ago made a speech at the opening of a new cookhouse and dining hall for the Air Force. That is very fine and there are one or two in operation now, but I believe that before new buildings are erected the right hon. and learned Gentleman should see that the cooks get a better training. If he can improve the class of their trade perhaps to grade 2, so that they get a little more money, it will attract more men into that branch of the Service.
    Airmen are also complaining about the arrangement for purchasing uniform. They receive an allowance of £2 11s. three times a year out of which they have to maintain all their clothes, pay for boot repairs, etc. It is quite impossible to do it on that sum. Formerly they received a free issue of clothing. The R.A.F. uniform is not a particularly smart one—anything but. There is a need for a walking-out jacket in summer. These airmen when working on the station take off their jackets but it is quite unsuitable for them to walk out dressed like that. They want a light-weight summer jacket and if they could have one it would improve their appearance and they would be much happier.
    Technical equipment is becoming much more complicated. To service an aircraft today is a very complicated business. The result is that owing to the international situation requirements are much heavier than one would expect them to be in peace-time. We should like to know what is going on in the Western European Defence Organisation. It has been in existence over a year but costs are not reduced. In fact, no important economies have been made. We have been told on many occasions by the Government that we are making our contribution with equipment to other countries, and I believe that; I know we are. But surely if we are to get an integrated air force or defence system we should sooner or later see the cost reduced.
    1848
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) referred to the radar system and he emphasised the necessity for having radar installations on the Continent as forward looking stations. We must have them, but meantime I wonder how many radar stations are working in Britain? I believe there is nothing to stop anybody from the Russian Embassy, until they are confined to a 30-mile limit, driving round Britain and seeing these stations when they are working. I would say that the number is very few. It is useless doubling Fighter Command unless we have the radar stations and men to operate them.
    Many reasons have been given by the Government Front Bench as to why jet fighters were exported. I agree that it is a very good thing to export aircraft. Last year the aircraft industry earned no less than £33 million by the sale of aircraft to foreign countries. But I believe those aircraft were sold not because of the money, but because they could not be manned in Britain. There were not sufficient men to man them. They could not be used because we had not the airmen to maintain them.
    We are told that the Auxiliary Aix Force squadrons are front line with the Regular jet squadrons. We have not been told when the Auxiliary squadrons are to have two flights in one squadron and I think that question should be answered tonight by the Under-Secretary. If there were a war tomorrow the Auxiliary squadrons would be called upon to play exactly the same part as the Regular units. Why then are they not getting equivalent aircraft to the Regular squadrons? They get aircraft which have been used for 300 or 400 hours flying by the Regular units and which have to have much more maintenance, and have a limitation in their operation. I suggest, having earlier in my speech congratulated the Under-Secretary on being an Auxiliary Air Force officer himself, that he should ensure that the Auxiliary squadrons are given comparable equipment with the Regular squadrons; otherwise they will be at a grave disadvantage in battle.
    The doubling of Fighter Command is only the completion of what we were told last year. I think that my right hon. Friend made it clear that all we are getting is two flights in one squadron and

    1849
    thus bringing it up to what it ought to be. In my opinion the Government have been quite wrong to play up the fact that Fighter Command has been doubled. Some of the Auxiliary squadrons, particularly in the London area, maintain their own aircraft, and their identity is achieved by the squadrons working as a unit. They go to camp together in the summer and become a complete unit. I am told that there is a suggestion that some stations are now to have two Auxiliary squadrons and one Regular squadron and that the aircraft will be maintained on the garage system. If that is being done, and I think it can only be done to save a few men so that the Regular personnel in the Auxiliary squadrons can be pooled, I consider it most unfortunate. If they are to achieve what they set out to do, that is to attract recruits and maintain their identity, the Auxiliary squadrons must operate on their own.
    If there should be a continuous attack of bombers I would ask how we are to defend this country with jet fighters alone. Their short endurance is well known to the world. How will they maintain defence against a continuous raid, or close intervals of raiding bombers? Are the Government considering that problem? Reference was made this afternoon to the University Air squadrons which are playing a great part in the training programme of the Royal Air Force. I ask the Under-Secretary to consider giving facilities to undergraduates when they leave the universities to train to wings standard in a unit elsewhere. At the moment they do their flying and then there is no further opportunity to get their wings. Many of them would like to join the Auxiliary Air Force, but they drift into the Volunteer Reserve. If they could go to a separate unit mid receive training and get the amount of flying to obtain their wings that would be a great help.
    The Minister referred to night fighters, and I was very encouraged by his remark that by next year we shall have the new jet night fighters in operation. I do not want to say that the Secretary of State is optimistic, but I shall be very surprised if we have any number worth having in operation next year. It is a very big task and I should like the Government to be certain before making the statement that we shall have jet fighters
    1850
    operating as night fighter units. it is a matter of great urgency. At the moment night fighters cannot catch the bomber, certainly not the T.U.4. the Russian bomber.
    To my way of thinking Bomber Command is a great disappointment. Two or three years ago hundreds or thousands of airmen, air gunners and wireless operators were found to be redundant in their trades and went into other branches of the Royal Air Force. Now they are being taken out again to man the B29 bombers. I am glad it has happened in time, because, had it gone on much longer, they would have lost most of their knowledge.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member a question? I am interested in this matter of jet fighters. He put forward the point of view that the jet fighters could not catch the Russian bomber. Can he give an explanation of what the jet fighters are for?
    Air-Commodore Harvey: I never said anything of the kind. I said the present night fighter could not catch the T.U.4 bomber. The hon. Member must pay attention to these points. I made it quite clear.
    I ask the Under-Secretary whether the Service will be in a position to man the B29. I appreciate it would take a considerable time to train the pilots and gunners and the others in the crew to man this aircraft, but I would ask if we have sufficient trained personnel to man these aircraft. I have seen it stated that we are to be given spares for one year with these aircraft. Is there any assurance from the United States that we shall get spares beyond a year, or have we to pay dollars after that date? As was stated earlier, the development of large aircraft takes a number of years, five to seven years. I fear that unless we really go ahead in manufacturing large aircraft it will be a great handicap to the manufacturers of civil aircraft, because one backs the other. It is not only the question of the manufacture of air frames, but it is all the ancillary equipment going into the modern bomber; and by ceasing to manufacture such machines much knowledge and "know-how" will be lost in the industry supplying the equipment.

    1851
    Reference has been made to cuts in Transport Command. I can quite see that if there is to be a cut Transport Command would be the first part of the Royal Air Force to receive it. But surely the Government knew at least a year ago that there were economic difficulties. Why was it left until the middle of an election before it was made known to the manufacturers and the public that such cuts were to be made in Transport Command? We have been talking in this House about an economic crisis for the last 18 months. I consider that the Government have been extremely lax in allowing the situation to continue.
    It may be remembered that before the war the Soviet Embassy showed in London a film of troop carriers dropping soldiers by parachute. That film made a profound impression on the world, but we went to war in 1939 with very few transport aircraft. A few Hannibals from Imperial Airways flew us over to France, and they got stuck in the mud on arrival. We worked at a great disadvantage, because we had no transport aircraft. I am concerned about how the Air Force will manage unless it has an adequte Transport Command. I saw in a newspaper only this morning a report that the four Lincolns which had flown out to Singapore were backed up by a York transport carrying airmen, ground crew and equipment.
    The Secretary of State said that the Air Force must be mobile. It may have to go to the Continent and take with it a lot of equipment. Unless the Air Force is backed up by a strong Transport Command, the position will he extremely difficult. I should like to think that this is only a temporary expedient and that, as soon as we find the way clear, the Air Force will secure additional transport machines, because the need is vital. Mobility is the first essential for all the Services.
    The maddening point about all this is that the Government, through the Air Corporations, in the last four years have spent f18 million on American civil aircraft. That is enough to employ another 4,000 or 5,000 people in the British aircraft industry for four or five years, apart from what we shall have to spend in years to come on spares for Stratocruisers and Constellations. Is it intended
    1852
    to continue to withdraw air attaches from foreign countries? That step has been taken in two or three instances, and I think that it is false economy. The Air Force must be kept informed, and an air attaché can also help to secure orders from abroad for military equipment. I ask the Government to consider whether they are bringing about any worth while saving.
    The Secretary of State talked about the Commonwealth Air Forces and referred to the auxiliary squadrons which were being formed in the Colonies. I congratulate him on that move. He did not make it clear whether these squadrons are recruiting Europeans or local men or both. Some information on that point would be helpful. If only Europeans are being recruited that is a step in the right direction, but it does not go nearly far enough. There are many men living in the Far East who would be willing to serve. In Hong Kong, for example, there are Chinese with British passports—British citizens—who would be very glad of the opportunity to defend their own British territory.
    I ask whether we are going far enough in the integration of the Air Forces in the British Empire. I know that we have the schools and that visits take place, but are we really planning future types of aircraft and equipment with, for example, the Canadians? I do not think that we are. I should like some reassurance about that. I should like to be told that the planning of new types of aircraft and equipment is being worked out between the great countries in the Empire.
    My humble view is that the Air Force has made progress in the last two years. I am desperately concerned that the problem of manning the Service will be one which will prove a great hindrance in our operation of the aircraft which we may acquire. I beg the Government to do everything they can to attract men into the Service. I believe that men want to go into the Service, but they will not join while they can earn more money in civilian life. I beg the Government to give the Air Force first priority in the three Services, because without an Air Force this country will mean nothing at all, but I believe that with a strong Air Force peace can be maintained.
    8.33 p.m.
    Mr. John E. Haire: In these Service Debates we often reach a very happy measure of agreement, on all sides of the House, and today has been no exception. I find myself, for example, in considerable agreement with the marginal notes which the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) has just offered us on the White Paper, and particularly with what he said at the beginning of his speech in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. J. Hale). I think that my hon. Friend gave us a well-informed and sincere speech and that he will make a useful addition to the fire power which we exercise on days like this in this House. Therefore, I very much welcome his contribution to this Debate.
    I am not sure that I can offer the same congratulations to the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Mr. Perkins) who, I think, added a few blots to the performance put up by the Opposition today. He, in his first speech after his reappearance in this House, entered into a personal attack on my right hon. and learned Friend which was at once completely exposed as false. We who have been in this House during the last five years know that if there is one way of catching the ear of this House, it is to come to the House with one's facts fully checked. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to find out the considerable contribution my right hon. and learned Friend has made to the Air Force in the last five years, he certainly would not have launched that personal attack.
    In handing out bouquets, I thought the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield might have extended one to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, because, indeed, I thought that today he gave a good account of his stewardship in the past year. It is quite true that I, like many other hon. Members, would have liked a great deal more information. I know the limits of security within which my right hon. and learned Friend is confined, but I hoped very much that the little game which took place between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) and the Minister—a sort of "Twenty Questions"—might have produced a little more information.
    1854
    I want to bring the Debate back from the rather human considerations introduced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken and who referred to cooks and cadets and so on, and to put in a plea for a re-orientation of the rôle of the Royal Air Force. I believe we have not yet, even five years after the last war, got down to the realistic rôle which the Royal Air Force should play in this new atomic age. In this new age, I think it is required of us to assert the right of the Royal Air Force to be considered the senior Service. I believe that, with his usual modesty, my right hon. and learned Friend has been too diffident to enter into competition with his Service colleagues, but he must not allow himself to remain in this Cinderella rôle. He must not allow himself to remain the junior prefect of the Services. The Royal Air Force is now the senior Service, and I believe that the Minister should make the bold decision to assert that position with the Minister of Defence.
    In asserting this position for the R.A.F., I want to deal with what I think are the fundamental principles of our defence in this new post-war situation. I am glad to be supported in many of the conclusions at which I have arrived by the manifesto which I suppose most of us have received today from the Air League. I certainly conclude from my own experience in the R.A.F. in the last war that the first of these principles is that sea power and land power can only function effectively if they have got full air support. That being so, it is essential for any defence blueprint to start off with what can be achieved by the Air Force at our disposal, and only after that can it be determined what should be the shape of the Army and the Navy and their possible functions in any future war. Air superiority in any theatre of war is essential and gives the Air Force the dominating rôle.
    The second fundamental principle which can be established is that, after our fighter forces have been organised to take the initial shocks of any possible enemy attack on this country or on Western Union, I believe that we must have available at once powerful bomber offensive forces. This is strongly recommended in the Air League manifesto. It states—and I thoroughly agree—that

    1855
    the spearhead of air power in the present world is the bomber force.
    The third fundamental principle which emerges is that, in a jet-propelled, pushbutton war, there can be no breathing space such as we had at the beginning of the last war in which to build up our Air Force and plan our strategy. That being so, it is absolutely necessary that our Service Ministers should see to it that as soon as possible our Air Force is at full strength to meet the shape of the war which may come. In this Debate we, unfortunately, have to assume the possibility of war, but none of us wants it, and certainly we are not seeking war ourselves.
    The final principle which I believe emerges is that, if we do create these bomber and fighter forces to meet any such offensive action against us, we shall, in effect, have created a deterrent force. The right hon. Member for Bromley was quite right when he said this afternoon that our supreme purpose is to prevent war. Therefore, I would say to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I am not satisfied that the re-equipment of the R.A.F. has been rapid enough. In the Debate last year, and indeed in that of the year before, we on this side of the House and some hon. Members opposite urged that the Air Ministry should proceed with all speed with the re-equipment of our Fighter Squadrons. I am glad to see that considerable advance has been made in that direction, though I am not sure whether, in fact, we have reached a stage when we can congratulate the Minister on having perfected our Defence Forces, when our long-range bombers are still far behind what they should be.
    Here is the dilemma in which this country and our Defence Ministers are placed. This is a most costly proposition. Today, we are being asked to vote a sum of £223 million for our Air Force in the next year. Our Defence costs are already too high, and here am I and other hon. Members making proposals which can only result in further costs. We must cut our coat in defence matters according to our cloth, and, if our defence costs are already high, they are also already out of proportion to our other expenses in our present economic situation. Hon. Members may well be aware of the enormous
    1856
    cost of building a modern bomber or fighter, which is from three to five times what it was in 1939, and that cost is still rising every day. The cost of equipping a modern aircraft with radar equipment is many times what it was in 1939, and the cost of training personnel to fly our aircraft is also many times what it was pre-war.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could my hon. Friend give an estimate of the cost of radar in the modern age?
    Mr. Haire: Perhaps my hon. Friend will address that question to the Under-Secretary, who may be able to give him the answer. The cost is changing every day, and I should like the information to be accurate.
    In view of this very high and increasing cost, I believe the case is fully proved for an increasing integration of our Air Force with those of Western Union. I feel sure that many of us are delighted that so much progress has been made in that direction. Indeed, I was very glad to know that we were supplying jet-fighters to certain countries in Western Europe. That is the answer to one hon. Member opposite who was afraid we were getting rid of these aircraft because we could not afford to use them ourselves for various reasons. In terms of supply potential, it is most desirable that there should be countries willing and ready to take these aircraft in order that our supply capacity should be fully maintained.
    I feel that we must integrate our bombing force much more closely with Western Union. I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend for the arrangements, in which he has personally taken part, in bringing about the gift to us of the B29's from the United States, the first four of which are to arrive in this country tomorrow. This co-operation in terms of the Atlantic Pact is something we ought to encourage. The combined operation between the American Air Force and our own over the Berlin Air Lift was a very successful venture. Indeed, in view of the fact that the air lift was only finally terminated in October last, I am surprised that not more reference has been made to it in the House today. That was indeed a magnificent achievement on the part of the American and British Air Forces acting in a combined operation. I hope that, though we may never need to use them,

    1857
    any later instalment of British-American co-operation in our Air Forces will be equally successful. It certainly was a symbol of our united strength and understanding.
    Those of us who remember the conversion of certain squadrons to American aircraft in 1942–43, in the early stages of the war, will know that one of the great difficulties in maintaining those American aircraft was to get sufficient spare parts and sufficient of our ground staff fully trained as fitters and engineers to handle these aircraft, quite apart from the aircrews themselves. I ask the Minister to see that sufficient spares are forthcoming to maintain these Superfortresses, and that as soon as possible we shall have sufficient personnel of our own able to fly and maintain them.
    I am anxious, as hon. Members will have realised, to try to spread the burden of our air defence, as regards cost as well as from the point of view of the actual problem of defence. I make no apology for turning once again, as I did last year, to the question of the greater integration of our defence plan in terms of air cooperation within the Commonwealth. I should like to know whether we have yet decided the role, according to the blueprint of the United Kingdom and Western Union defence, that our Commonwealth Air Forces would play. For example, do the Canadian Air Force know what role they might be required to play? Do the Australian and New Zealand Air Forces know their role?
    When I was in Canada two years ago, I visited a number of Canadian Aerodromes. There is not the slightest doubt that Canadian co-operation with us during the war was a very happy one. Those of us who served with the Royal Air Force and who met squadrons from the Dominions will remember the very happy relationship which grew up. There is not the slightest doubt that in those Dominions there is a great desire for that relationship to continue. Therefore, I make a special plea that there should be joint training schemes and regular visits of our squadrons to the Dominions, and that in turn the Dominions should reciprocate by sending their squadrons over here. I appeal for a unified Empire plan in terms of air defence.
    I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us what part the Dominions are playing
    1858
    in the production of aircraft. We have heard today of the Canberra, but we know that the prototypes of that aircraft are being produced in this country. Is there any plan for the production of modern types of bombers and fighters in the Dominions? Production in the Dominions would not only be a contribution to our war effort in terms of production, but it would be a most useful form of dispersal in the event of war.
    I doubt whether our production potential in this country with that of the United States could add up to what we believe to be the production potential in the U.S.S.R., for example. I have no desire to add to any war scare, but here are the facts so far as they can be obtained. The best information available gives this sort of figure for the Soviet Air Defence. As hon. Members will know, the Soviet Air Force is integrated with the Army and the Navy. In the Army it is estimated there are 500 regiments with about 30 to 35 aircraft each, giving a total of from 15,000 to 17,000 aircraft. In the Naval Air Force it is estimated that there are 2,000 aircraft at present, nearly all fighters. It is generally understood I believe that the Soviet have no aircraft carriers. Therefore, the present position may be that there are 14,000 front-line aircraft and 10,000 in reserve available in the U.S.S.R.
    What is the present industrial potential? As far as can be ascertained, the annual production of heavy bombers is from 1,500 to 1,800; of light bombers, 3,000 to 4,000; of fighters, 5,000 to 6,000; half of which are jets; of transport aircraft, 1,200 to 1,400, and of training aircraft some 3,000 to 4,000.
    Sir W. Wakefield: For what period is that production?
    Mr. Haire: I have mentioned that it was the annual rate of production.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give the name of his authority for those figures?
    Mr. Haire: The hon. Gentleman will find this information in the Library.
    Mr. Hughes: What authority has the hon. Member for quoting those figures?
    Mr. Haire: As I told the hon. Gentleman, this is the best information I could obtain, and it is readily available to him

    1859
    in the Library. I offer it to the House only on those terms, and with no other authority. I was trying to argue that if this, indeed, is the potential available to Soviet Russia, we ourselves ought to be concerned about having a potential available in this country and in the United States to equal it.
    I have already spoken at greater length than I intended, but it would be ungenerous if I did not mention my old command—Coastal Command—in my annual speech on the Air Force Estimates, and I do so because I think that today we have entirely neglected it, although it was mentioned in the defence Debate last Thursday. There is not the slightest doubt—and hon. Members ought to be well aware of it—that if another war were to come, at sea it would be much more dangerous for this country than was the last war, and far more dangerous than was the 1914–18 war. As those concerned with air-sea warfare know, by the end of the war there had appeared the most deadly U-boat with its Snorkel device which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition told us, had an under-water speed of some 20-odd knots, and was very difficult to detect. We can take very little consolation from the development of the Sonobuoy, which was the nearest device we invented in 1945 for detecting this new weapon. I know it is very difficult for my right hon. and learned Friend to say, but I would like to know that research is well advanced, and that aircraft are being prepared to deal with this new menace at sea.
    There is one small point I wish to mention before leaving the contribution which Coastal Command can make, and that is with regard to air-sea rescue. I remember how many of our crews were lost at sea in the last war because they could not be rescued in time. At the same time, we all recognise how important a part was played by air-sea rescue craft in recovering some of our crews. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that this side of our defence is being fully maintained.
    I now wish to make a domestic point, because it is connected with my own constituency. I notice the success which is attending my right hon. and learned Friend's policy in regard to new barrack equipment and new housing for the Royal
    1860
    Air Force, and I want to congratulate him on the progress he has made there. But a problem does arise—it is more a problem in reverse—and it was brought home to me very much this morning by a letter I received from a constituent. The point is that when an airman who has been given married quarters and has installed his family, is then posted overseas, his family may find themselves in a very difficult position. I have such a family in my own constituency, and the mother writes:
    "I have four children, 15, 14, 10, and 3 years of age. The two boys are at school and are both doing well. The eldest boy sits for his School Certificate in July so that it is most important that he should be allowed to stay at his present school. We have been given notice to get out by 20th April."
    A very great problem unfortunately now arises for that wife of a warrant officer who has been posted overseas. Can my hon. Friend say what is the remedy for such a situation as this, when it arises? I should be very glad if he would pay sympathetic attention to this case, the details of which I will send to him.
    I support everything which has been said about the Air Cadets. If we are to get recruitment, both Regular and National Service, for the Air Force it must be by encouraging the pre-service units of our A.T.C., and I find that they are not being given all possible practical encouragement in the shape of buildings and proper financial contributions. It is only by getting proper air-mindedness in our cadet units that we can hope to build up the Air Force we want and the air defences which the country needs.
    8.56 p.m.
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: I was very glad that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) referred to the importance of co-operation with the Dominions. That is a matter which I have raised in previous years. I believe it is of the utmost importance that the fullest possible co-operation should take place in the future, just as it took place during the war. There was nothing finer during the war years than the great help which Canada gave us in the air training she undertook in Canada and nothing better than the work in the Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia where much of our training took place. It would be a great pity if all that experience and goodwill were

    1861
    lost. I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State winds up we shall have an assurance that that co-operation is being continued at all levels, both operational and training, as it was in the war years.
    May I also join with hon. Members on both sides of the House in congratulating the Under-Secretary of State on his appointment? It is always a satisfaction to know that someone has been appointed to office who has had personal experience of the job. That brings confidence not only in this House but, what is perhaps most important of all, in the Service which he is called upon to administer.
    I was very glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made reference to the new developments which are taking place in the Air Training Corps. Those are developments which we on this side of the House have advocated. Reference has been made to it by others among my hon. Friends who have had great experience in the administration of the Air Training Corps. If only some of the work and encouragement now being given to the Air Training Corps had been given four or five years ago, I do not think we should be quite so short of recruits for our Air Force as we are at the present time, because in the future we must expect the Air Training Corps to be our best source of recruitment.
    In the Air Force of the future quality of personnel will be required as well as quality of aircraft and equipment. It is deeply disturbing to find, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) has pointed out, that very many nominations have to be made to fill Cranwell. That means that the quality which should be there is not there. If the quality of the Royal Air Force is to be maintained in the future, there must be quality at both Cranwell and Halton. Before the war I remember vividly a discussion which I had with a headmaster in my former constituency of Swindon. He said that he never hesitated to tell parents that they could find no finer career for their boys than to let them go to Halton for technical training. There, he said, they were quite sure to have a thorough training and to be assured of a career afterwards. I do not believe that that
    1862
    position holds good in quite the same way today. I wish it did. Unless and until the reforms which my hon. Friends have mentioned are made, I do not think we shall get that quality and quantity which are so vitally essential for the future security of our country.
    The hon. Member for Wycombe made a reference to a case in his constituency in which a warrant officer was being posted overseas and notice was given to his wife and children to quit on 20th April. I should like to know what steps the Air Ministry are taking to provide accommodation elsewhere for that family, and also many others. There must be throughout the country many disused camps where it ought to be possible for married quarters to be provided when men are being posted overseas to stations where married quarters are not available; and the married quarters ought to provide convenient and happy circumstances for the men's families. I should like to know what steps are being taken to ensure that families are being looked after in this way. Were they being looked after I am sure there would not be the same difficulty in recruitment as now faces the Air Ministry.
    As the House knows, before Christmas I raised the question again and again in the House of the disparity between the travelling allowances and facilities afforded to the Civil Service and those afforded to Service personnel. I pointed out again and again the advantages that the Civil Service got as compared with the fighting Services when personnel were moved. Fighting Service personnel move about far more frequently than do members of the Civil Service. There is no doubt about it that one of the great handicaps under which Service personnel labour is the immense amount of incidental expense incurred in moving about from place to place. I have two sons-in-law, one in the Navy and one in the Army, and I know from personal experience the great expense they have to incur in moving their families about, as they have done so much in the last three or four years. What applies to those two Services applies in this respect equally to the Royal Air Force. I hope that this matter will be thoroughly examined.
    Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) to the importance

    1863
    of having adequate flying in training. I can fully understand that, in view of the need for economy, large aircraft are considered very expensive to get into the air. However, I should like to ask the Secretary of State what steps are being taken to instal in the Royal Air Force the new synthetic training equipment developed in America and which B.O.A.C. are now using for training their air crews. It is a remarkable development. An air crew on the ground can have exactly the same type of flying experience as they could get were they in the air, and various "risks" can be taken on the ground—side to wind landings, and the like—which could not be taken, at any rate to the same extent, in the air with a large aircraft with personnel aboard. I should like to know if that new synthetic training device used by commercial interests will also be used in the R.A.F.
    I should like to know also what action is being taken by the R.A.F. to maintain an interest in the development of flying boats. We had an announcement recently made in the House that the Solent flying-boat used by B.O.A.C. was no longer to be used. We know Princess flying-boats are being built at the present time for commercial purposes. What steps are the R.A.F. taking to maintain an interest in flying-boats?
    I am certain that it is of the utmost importance for strategic purposes that they take the utmost interest in flying-boat production and development. A flying-boat can fly from a Norwegian fjord to a Central African lake, taking a large amount of equipment, whether of human beings or of stores, without the need for, or the length of time necessitated by, the preparation of an £8 million aerodrome. Most of the earth's surface is covered by water, and we know from the last war the value of the flying-boat in evacuations from Greece. Norway and other places, and the extraordinary value of those big flying-boats bought in 1940 in keeping open our communications around the West Coast of Africa when the Mediterranean was closed. It is quite clear that for strategic reasons and to ensure absolute mobility, the R.A.F. ought to take a deep interest in the future development of the flying-boat.
    1864
    It is obviously of importance that we should have all the development possible of jet aircraft for their speed, etc., but for mobility purposes the large flying-boat ought to be a part of the strategic needs and requirements of the R.A.F. The hon. Member for Wycombe made reference to Coastal Command. The greatest danger that faces this country in the future is the new submarine to which he referred. One of the main ways of combating that menace must be from the air. I think that a large flying-boat which is able to maintain patrol in mid-Atlantic for a long period is of the utmost importance and ought to be part of our strategic defence.
    That brings me to refuelling in the air. What interest has the R.A.F. taken in that question? It may be necessary for large flying-boats or other aircraft to maintain patrol over packs of submarines in mid-Atlantic and to refuel in the air. Again, we have heard of the importance of maintaining a long-range bomber force. We all know that the greatest danger which an aircraft faces is when it takes off very heavily loaded with bombs and petrol, and it may well be that it would greatly assist operations if such an aircraft could take off with a lighter load and be refuelled in the air. It may also be that when an aircraft is proceeding some long distance it can by refuelling in the air reach its objective, which otherwise it could not do. The Under-Secretary should give us some assurance that these matters are not being overlooked because they are an important part of our strategic needs.
    I conclude by stressing a point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), who opened the Debate for the Opposition, when he referred to the importance of providing opportunities for ex-short-service R.A.F. men in private flying. The lack of such opportunities is one of the greatest reasons why recruiting for the R.A.F. is not as good as it ought to be. Parents and young men feel that there are not now the opportunities that there ought to be for them in the future. Private flying has not developed, and I beg the Secretary of State for Air, in the interest of the R.A.F. and of the country, to give every possible opportunity for private operators to carry out flying operations, so that young men going into the R.A.F.

    1865
    can, when they have concluded their short-term service, feel that they have some future outside the State-operated airlines of participating in private flying, where they can take responsibility and perhaps have an opportunity in partnership with others in developing this great new venture in the air. I believe that if that is done recruiting, which we all consider to be so vital, will be helped.
    I wish both the Secretary of State for Air and his Under-Secretary all success in their endeavours in making the Royal Air Force the most efficient service possible, because today the Royal Air Force, just as the Navy used to be, is our first line of defence. If we are to have security, it can come only through the Air Force. Above everything else, a strong, powerful Air Force can be such a deterrent that neither Russia nor any other country will ever dare attack us. Defence is the prime duty of any Government, and I am sure the Government will do their utmost to fulfil their responsibilities to this House and the country.
    9.11 p.m.
    Mr. Shackleton: When this Debate began, some of us on this side were very conscious of the departure of certain of our friends who took part in previous Debates on the Air Estimates. We are glad that some of those departures have taken the form of promotion, and at any rate the Air Force Members will be glad to see such a preponderance of the Air Force in the Government. However, it is a matter of some regret that some former Members have left us, particularly after hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Mr. Perkins). It was unfortunate that his return to this House should be signified by such an irrelevant and inaccurate attack as he made on the Secretary of State.
    It was further marked by an extraordinary statement on the subject of the air corridor. I am sorry that he is not here at the moment; he has had plenty of time to have had his dinner and returned had he wanted to. He made a statement about the Air Ministry sabotaging these proposals for an air corridor for incoming and outgoing civil aircraft. It is a far more complicated subject than it appeared to be from what he had to say. Since he must have had some in
    1866
    formation from people who are concerned in it, he must have known that there are negotiations on this very subject going on at the present moment; that fighter aircraft and jet aircraft are a real problem when it comes to making them fly up and down air corridors; and that when they operate they are always under radar control, so far as the radar chain allows in this country. Indeed, it was quite wrong of him to make the attack on my right hon. and learned Friend in the way he did.
    There is another aspect of these air Debates which I sometimes regret. I feel that the Navy have an advantage over us, in that in addition to the naval officers and seamen who speak in Debates there are dockyard Members. I think it is a great pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) is not able to speak as an airfield Member. He has some of the most important of our airfields in his constituency, and I hope that in future Debates he may introduce a new tradition so that we may keep level with the Navy. Of course, if we should run short of speakers in air Debates, we always have the indefatigable Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who, to judge from his interventions in these Debates, is obviously seeking to promote his own candidature for Minister of Defence. I hope that before we finish tonight we shall hear something of what he has to say on the Air Force. How much will be about the Air Force and how much about Scottish housing we do not know, although of course Scottish housing is of very great importance.
    I should have liked to deal with one particular issue which has been raised. I refer to the ridiculous matter raised by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in the defence Debate. It was raised again today by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), and referred to by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo), who complained that he had been ill for four years and had just woken up to come back into the House again, and that is the question of the sale of jet aircraft to the Argentine. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) was the only hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House to appear to see the thing in anything like its right

    1867
    perspective. Surely hon. Gentlemen realise that in the supply of aircraft to the Royal Air Force, or, indeed, the supply of any equipment to our Armed Forces, we are limited by the capacity of this country to provide that equipment. There is no question of saying "You can have that equipment if you make it." Their attitude seems to show that extraordinary lack of economic knowledge that sometimes marks the speeches which come from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Surely they realise that the Air Force of this country is supplied with aircraft according to our capacity to provide them.
    When we export aircraft to the Argentine it is, in fact, increasing the war potential of this country, because it helps to develop our aircraft industry, which is of vital importance to us. It is an export from that point of view not unlike the export of lipstick. Some people might argue that the lipstick we export comes back in the form of beef which we buy, and so it is with the Vampires that go to the Argentine. It is desirable that we should export these aircraft, and hon. Gentlemen opposite should understand that it is in the interests of this country to do so. It is not a question of depriving our own squadrons of aircraft, which I am sorry to say we cannot afford to provide at the moment.
    That brings me to an aspect of Air Force matters which is not always fully appreciated, and that is the importance and the value of the work done by the Ministry of Supply in association with the Air Ministry. There is little doubt that this country today has a technical lead, especially in certain classes of aircraft, and anybody who saw the show at Farnborough and realises the part that the Government have played by helping to finance the striking developments which aircraft manufacturers in this country have produced, will appreciate the valuable work of the Ministry of Supply and the Air Ministry in building up a real potential of what one might call capital available against need.
    There is another point which has come up again in this Debate, and which is obviously in the minds of hon. Members opposite, and that is the question of Germany. They have this idea of bringing Germany into Western Union, the
    1868
    excuse being that we need radar stations in Germany. I do not propose to go into that at any great length, but since this issue has been raised—and it is a pity that foreign affairs have intervened into this Debate—I say again that it is absolutely vital to the peace of Europe and of the world that Germany should remain neutralised, and no question of military considerations should allow that over-riding political fact to affect our attitude and our decision.
    One of our great difficulties is not only maintaining a radar chain abroad but a radar chain in this country, as the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield said. I hope we shall hear something on this subject from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State when he replies to the Debate. I believe it is necessary for a very special drive to be made to get recruits for these ground control units in order to man our defences, because all our other plans will be made in vain if we do not do so. I believe that the manning of these radar stations is of fundamental importance.
    There is one point on which I should like to congratulate the Minister, and that is on the very real economies which he appears to have succeeded in making in the Air Ministry. I can tell this not only from the figures which he gave, but because of the departure of friends of mine into other fields. Not so long ago I called at a particular directorate and there were seven or eight people in it. Today it has a wing-commander and another officer. I believe that there has been some very successful work done by the manpower people in the Air Ministry. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will say something about what has been done by the Quig Committee, and about the work of the Organisation and Methods Department. I believe that a number of rather bold and not particularly pleasant decisions have been taken to close down old establishments playing a useful part in themselves but, unfortunately, marked to go because we must get the best use out of our available manpower.
    I should like to hear something about the work of the scientific officers of the Air Ministry. This is one of my hardy annuals and I make no apology for raising it again. I believe that the work of the operational research section during

    1869
    the war was of fundamental importance. I hope that the Scientific Adviser at the Air Ministry and his staff are well-maintained. I hope that they are being given every opportunity of development over the whole field of the Air Force. They should be allowed to poke their noses in wherever they think they can do useful work. I hope that we shall hear that they are busily engaged upon a number of active experiments. How far have they been able to develop the work of the scientific application of work study—time and motion—to maintenance problems? It is a study which applies not only to maintenance but to other fields as well, and is of very great importance.
    I should like to refer again to some of the equipment which the Air Force is receiving and particularly to the Canberra, which happens to be made in my constituency. It is an aircraft of which this country can be proud. It is obviously going to show the same sort of versatility as the Mosquito showed during the war. It is, however, difficult to see how we can maintain a steady flow of production. Already we know that there are threatened redundancies. They have not been very serious. Therefore, let me repeat the great importance of ensuring that we export as much as we can—perhaps not in regard to the Canberra but other aircraft—in order to maintain full employment in the aircraft industry. This shows the futility of the Tory complaint about export.
    Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will say something about inter-Service liaison. We know that there are a number of admirable inter-Service organisations, such as the anti-U-boat school in Derry, but they do not solve the whole problem of inter-Service liaison. How far have we advanced along the road which I have advocated in the past and to which I know the Minister has given sympathetic consideration—namely, exchanges of personnel among the Services? I refer particularly to exchanges between the Navy and the Royal Air Force. To what extent can officers and other ranks be attached to units of the sister Service in order to learn something of their point of view and their problems?
    One of the biggest problems for all Members of the House—we have all given a considerable amount of thought to it—is that of recruiting. I hope that
    1870
    hon. Members will not discourage the National Service men, who are playing a useful part in the Air Force, by suggesting that their time is wasted. We know that there are great difficulties in integrating them. There are difficulties in training. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will say something more on the use that is made of National Service men. It is a matter on which a good deal more publicity should be given, not in a carping spirit, but in order to show the efforts that are being made, and room should be left for suggestions which I am sure the House will on future occasions be glad to make.
    We have not heard very much about welfare or the educational services of the Air Force. We have heard a little about photographic reconnaissance and also something about visits overseas. I would again stress the value of the visits of squadrons overseas, and I congratulate the Air Force upon sending their Vampire squadron to Italy, and, despite the large number of crashes that they suffered, in succeeding in selling Vampires to Italy. I should like to know what they did with the crashed aircraft. Did they sell them also? I am glad that there were no fatalities. I hope that this work of exchange will continue not only from the point of view of benefit to the Air Force, but also from the point of view of developing sales.
    I want again to stress the point which has been made, and which must be made, in answer to the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley, on the subject of the size of the Air Force. Obviously anybody connected with the Air Force, particularly a retired officer or a serving man, will say that the Air Force is not big enough, and that we want a bigger and better Air Force. Everybody would agree that it is desirable to get the most money for the thing in which one believes, but we are limited by our national resources, and the right hon. Gentleman, who wrote the book "The Middle Way" and was a pre-war advocate of planning, must realise that there is a limit and that the sort of suggestions to which he has apparently lent support by quoting from the Air League's paper completely fail to comprehend the true national position, just as did his remarks about the sale of Vampires to the Argentine.

    1871
    We are seriously limited. It is arguable that we are spending too much of our resources on defence. I believe we have no alternative, but I also believe—again I congratulate the Secretary of State—that a real effort has been made in the last few years to make better use of the resources which are available. There is still much more to be done and there is still plenty of criticism which should come from either side of the House on the uses that are made of those resources, but I congratulate him and wish him and the Under-Secretary well in the work which they must do in the future.
    9.28 p.m.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: This is not quite my first speech in this House but I only spoke for 90 seconds last time so I claim at least the patience of the House if I try to speak a little longer on this occasion. First of all, I want to take up two points made by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton). In talking about the export of aircraft to the Argentine, his reasoning appeared to be that we thereby increased our air power. I do not quite see that, but I definitely see that we have increased the air power of the Argentine.
    Mr. Shackleton: Is this a maiden speech or not?
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: No. Please interrupt.
    Mr. Shackleton: I did not say that. I said "our war potential."
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Our war potential then, if those were the words. I cannot see that we have increased our war potential but I can see that we have increased the war potential of the Argentine. My next point is the reference of the hon. Member to Germany and his remark about the "excuse" for bringing it in. I submit that no reason for the defence of Britain should be classed as an excuse. The hon. Member said he would like to keep Germany neutralised. Does he think that if Germany were overrun by Russia she would remain neutralised. I am sorry that I have rather strayed from the point; I now want to come to the question of the Air Estimates.
    I am told that it is an old saying that if one is ever engaged in a fight, the great
    1872
    thing is to hit first, hit hard and keep on hitting. As a democracy we never hit first of course, but it is very important that we should be in a position, if we are hit at, to hit hard in return and to keep on hitting. I quite see that a Minister who introduces the Estimates for any of the Fighting Services is in a great difficulty in time of peace, even if it is only a so-called peace, because his experts are pulling him one way and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is pulling him another. He has nevertheless to consider, whatever the financial stringency of the country, what we shall do if, despite our wishes, war comes. The great point is that we must then be prepared to hit.
    We should like to know more about the fighter squadrons which are to be doubled as regards jet aircraft, but at least we know that that is the Minister's intention. I should like to ask what preparation has been made for the control of fighter aircraft in respect of enemy attack if war comes. Have control units and operation rooms been put underground? Are they properly protected or could they easily be knocked out?
    Has adequate provision been made for a very important aspect of Air Force work—reconnaissance? That is really the first and foremost work of any Air Force. In the 1914 war it was at first the only one. The reconnaisance aircraft has to make deep penetrations of enemy territory by day, unarmed and alone. It must therefore have a first-class performance. There is nothing in the Estimates about that aspect. I know that at present reconnaisance units are being employed in photographic survey work, but their job radically alters in time of war, and unless we have aircraft of first-class performance we cannot do the job and we cannot gain the intelligence we desire.
    I am very glad to see that the Auxiliary squadrons are to be equipped with jet aircraft. I hope that the whole of them will be so equipped before very long. There is no doubt that the Auxiliary air squadrons in the last war paid a fine dividend for all the work that went into them. I wish to say a word about the V.R. schools. This is a vitally important matter. I believe that the V.R. schools now in existence have only light training aircraft. We should encourage ex-R.A.F. pilots of experience to keep their hand in. I do not think we shall do that with aircraft

    1873
    such as Tiger Moths. It would be a very good thing if we had Oxford aircraft or some aircraft that goes a little faster and is a little warmer than the Tiger Moth. I submit that part of an airman's training should be to broaden his horizon and to visit other countries. Part of the training at R.A.F.V.R. schools should be visits to the Continent.
    I am glad to see that the flying clubs have at least received encouragement and approval in principle by the giving of an A.T.C. training grant. The value of the flying clubs is absolutely incalculable. The last war showed that not only did many pilots who distinguished themselves during the war gain their first experience in them; they also provided valuable experience for ferry pilots and for men who acted in flying control and other air duties. Moreover, every hour in the air counts, whether it be in a light aircraft or not, and over and over again that must have made the difference between whether or not an aircraft was smashed and lives lost.
    I wish to say a word about this question of manpower. Every commanding officer to whom I have spoken has complained about the amount of paper work on his station. Is adequate consideration being given to this point? Are we training more bureaucrats per airman than is necessary? I will give this one example. Before the war a station was run by one flight-lieutenant who was the adjutant. Admittedly he was fairly hard worked. But today the establishment on a station of a comparable size for administration is one wing-commander, one squadron-leader, two flight-lieutenants and a flying officer. I wish to know whether what in the United States is called stream-lining, in cutting out unnecessary paper work, is being attempted, or whether too many Government Departments are having a hand in asking for returns in the running of a station.
    I will give as an example an American Government appointed body, its Civil Aeronautics Board. I think this quotation shows an approach to bureaucracy which might well be followed by some of our Departments:
    "One outstanding feature which characterises the operation of the Board's organisation is the desire to attain utmost procedural simplicity. … The Board and its staff are constantly endeavouring to find ways of further reducing effort, time, and expense in
    1874
    the preparation of proceedings and other items for action by the Board, and changes tending towards that end are made in existing procedures with a fair degree of frequency."
    I hope that attitude may obtain in some of our Departments.
    To operate properly a good service must depend ultimately on good officers and that in turn depends on discovering the qualities of leadership. One finds leadership in all branches and grades of society. In the Air Force one very fine medium for finding it is through the A.T.C. This has been mentioned tonight by several hon. Members. It is an excellent method of finding good leaders and I would suggest that recruits should be selected from the A.T.C. for Cranwell. That would be a fine way of filling Cranwell. But above all, we need first-class qualities in leadership for men of the Air Force; quickness of thought, courage, fortitude, initiative, teamwork in adversity and capacity to meet the challenge of difficulties.
    I would put forward the suggestion that cadets from all Services should at some time or another undergo training in establishments which will bring them into contact, while still cadets, with the challenge of circumstances. The type of establishments I am thinking of are those short-term schools which are based on mountains or by the sea, such as Aberdovey on the coast of Wales, and Glenmore in Scotland. They develop just the qualities in young boys which are needed to make them good citizens or good service men; and they are also cheap, which is a tremendous merit nowadays. A famous headmaster once said that boys were like matches, they showed their quality when they were brought up against something hard and rough. I realise that today we are living in times of financial stringency. Quite clearly the Minister cannot provide the Air Force which his advisers would like him to. But if we do not provide an efficiently effective Air Force we shall not have a Britain to provide for.
    9.40 p.m.
    Mr. Roland Robinson: Though my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) has not just made a maiden speech, I am sure that hon. Members would wish me to congratulate him on adding to the speech of 90 seconds

    1875
    that he made the other day. He has spoken with vigour and knowledge, and I am sure that he will always be a welcome contributor to our Debates.
    I was glad that when he opened his remarks he at once challenged the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackle-ton). I always listen to the hon. Member for Preston, South, with the greatest interest. It was my privilege to see him during the war when he was with Coastal Command. I know that he is interested in the Service. I learned one other thing today, and that was that he was undoubtedly a very great admirer of the Secretary of State. Having vigorously defended his right hon. and learned Friend from the attack made upon him, he went so far as to thank his leader for having fired so many of his personal friends from the Air Ministry. That is indeed admiration. In an air Debate the hon. Member usually speaks with a fair measure of impartiality. Today he did not show the same virtue. It may well be that it is not long since the election and the sight of many of us on these benches provoked him to the antagonism which he must have shown to his opponent at that time.
    The hon. Gentleman raised several hares which were of his own creation. It has never been suggested from this side of the House that we do not wish the aircraft industry to sell aircraft abroad. Of course, we want them to do that. We want to have a prosperous aircraft industry providing for our own needs and exporting as well. All that has been said from this side of the House is that proper priority should be given to the due needs of the defence of this nation. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was right to take the matter any further than that. He rather suggested that we were not in a position to afford the necessary expenditure on defence. Whatever happens, we must always be able to afford whatever we need in order to defend our own shores.
    Mr. Shackleton: Does the hon. Gentleman still maintain that it was wrong to export the aircraft which we have exported to the Argentine?
    Mr. Robinson: I did not say that it was wrong to export them. I said that it was the first duty of the Secretary of State for Air to ensure that our own Air
    1876
    Force is properly equipped. Then, when he has done that, he should encourage the industry to sell their aircraft abroad. That is our view. I do not think that we need retract from it. The hon. Gentleman seeks to read many other meanings into what has been said from this side of the House.
    We cannot retract any of the arguments we have advanced about the necessity to take the radar screen further away from this country. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is necessary and that it is not an excuse for any other action. Speeds of modern aircraft are so great that we must have our warning far sooner than we had it during the last war. I hope that that will not be held against us or used in an effort to prove any other proposition which we ourselves did not put forward.
    I listened also with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire). I sympathised with him when he said that we really ought to have more information, and I was delighted when he paid his tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) for so ably cross-examining the Secretary of State for Air. We have emphasised year after year that we do not believe in overdoing secrecy and security. We consider that this House ought to have in its possession facts which are freely available in embassies all over the world.
    We agree with the hon. Member for Wycombe that this country should be strong. We must be strong to defend ourselves, and it is the duty of the House to find out whether our Air Force is at its proper strength, because we can accept the idea of the hon. Member for Wycombe that we shall not have another breathing space if there is to be a war. We can also accept the idea put forward by the Secretary of State two years ago that one purpose of a strong Air Force is, by its display of strength, to help to keep the peace of the world. If we are to keep the peace of the world, it is vitally important that the world should know that we are strong and should not believe us to be weak and vulnerable to attack. Therefore, it would be far better if the Government told us more than they have done.
    I do not propose to raise certain other problems, because many of them have been taken up, though belatedly, by the

    1877
    Air Ministry. We shall continue to urge on the right hon. and learned Gentleman the need for more efficient and better recruiting for the Royal Air Force. It is my view that the R.A.F. stands or falls on whether it has sufficient long-term volunteers. I think it is a matter of very great disappointment that the Minister's Memorandum accompanying the Estimates has to point out once again—because it is not for the first time—that Regular recruiting is still far from satisfactory. There is still a shortage of trained men, and a lack of balance which still persists between various trades. The Minister was perhaps even more alarming when he said that there is still a shortage of suitable applicants for short-service commissions as pilots and navigators. That is a shortage in what would seem to be the more interesting and attractive position in the whole of the Service.
    I believe that the situation would be helped a little if the Service had more publicity. So much of the activities of the Service are still under the cloak of war-time security so that we do not have the great public interest in the Service which we used to have during the war. But that is but a minor matter compared with the more important point that, if we are to get people into the Armed Forces today, we must improve the conditions of service. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) said, we must cover everything from pay to pensions and living conditions, but it seems that the Government are hesitating on this matter.
    The high level of recruitment cannot be maintained unless the Service itself can compete in attraction with the conditions of civilian life, and I say that so far the Government have done nothing to make Service conditions such that they can compete with conditions in civil life. I have to admit that they are better than they were, but they are still a long way from being competitive, and until they are we will not get the proper measure of recruitment. For years, we on this side have said this and shall go on saying it until we feel we can get some measure of support for this view from the Government. There is no doubt that the rise in Service pay has nowhere near kept pace with the rise in civilian pay, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend
    1878
    has said, it is all wrong that a man should be asked to fly a jet fighter for 16s. a day. It just does not work out that way.
    I believe it would pay this country if we could spend more money on a smaller volunteer force, based on a fairly long-term service, than it would to put a lot of money into having a conscript force on a short-term service. I urge the Government to consider this matter and especially to consider the question of some of the officers. After all, if we are recruiting people into the Service, they have the right to expect to rise in some way, but, at the moment, there is very little inducement. I would especially ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point that all allowances today are subject to Income Tax, which puts many of the junior officers in very serious difficulties.
    The right hon. Gentleman has done quite a number of things to help, and I welcome the proposal outlined in his speech today to open the Service to really long-service careers. That has always seemed to me a sensible thing, because it is very difficult to ask a young man to join the Service as a career, and then to say, "You will be out on your neck at 32 or 35." Here, I think, we have a genuine chance of bringing more people into the Service with a view to making it a long career. We can help, too, if we push on with the work we are now doing with regard to married quarters. The right hon. Gentleman indicated today that we are going to give some real help with the careers of men who come in on short and medium-term service. I welcome that.
    Some three years ago I was invited by the Minister of Civil Aviation to sit on the Wilcock Committee presided 'over by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. We made quite a number of recommendations, which were put forward in June, 1948, whereby we were to help people to come from the Royal Air Force into civil aviation. I should like the Under-Secretary of State for Air to say how far our recommendations are being taken up. It seems quite clear that when he refers to the scheme of pre-selection—which will help the men in the Royal Air Force going into civil aviation to get their civil licence, and so on, before they leave the Service—is an acceptance of these recommendations. I should like to know

    1879
    whether the Ministry have gone the whole way and have set up the standing liaison committee for the recruiting and training of these men which we recommended. Our suggestion was that the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Air Corporations, and the charter companies should work together on a joint standing committee in order to facilitate the recruitment and training of these men.
    I should like very briefly to say that I support all that has been said about the necessity of having adequate Reserves. I had the opportunity of speaking on the Air Estimates last year, and I well remember that the Secretary of State for Air promised that eight of the squadrons of the Auxiliary Air Force would be re-equipped with jets by the time the next Estimates were discussed. I was a bit disappointed when I read the accompanying Memorandum and saw that only seven squadrons were so re-equipped. However, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being able to tell us today that there are eight and not seven. I hope he will be able to honour his commitments so that by December, 1951, as he said, the whole 20 squadrons will be properly equipped with jet fighters.
    I was a little worried to hear that recruiting is not so rapid as one would wish. I refer to the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made today about the Auxiliary Air Force and the Volunteer Reserve. I think we ought to stimulate recruiting by making it much easier for people to give their service in this way. Take the case of people in my own constituency. If they wish to join the Auxiliary Air Force, they have to go all the way to Manchester or Liverpool to do their flying. When a man is working full-time and is willing to serve at weekends, he just does not have the opportunity or the time to travel some 50 or 60 miles or more in order to do his training. I believe it would be better if the Auxiliary Air Force or the Volunteer Reserve units were spread over a wider area of the country.
    Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has told us that there is not enough money to provide for more squadrons. I understand from what has been said that we are going to have the two flights per squadron in the very near future. Is this
    1880
    not the opportunity, even though he cannot increase the number of squadrons, for saying that where we are having two flights, one should have one located in one town and one in another where there is another aerodrome, and in that way we should be able to recruit from a far wider sphere and so provide the necessary manpower. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will consider that when he replies. We all know that he served with the Auxiliary Air Force and for that reason we welcome his appointment. I was looking up what he said before he achieved the power he has today. In 1946, in the Debate on the Air Estimates, he said:
    "Flying is one of those arts, perhaps rather like steeplechasing or cricket, in which the amateur can approach the professional. There is a great deal of temperament and instinct in flying, and a great deal depends upon enthusiasm. Before the war, Regular officers used to say of the Auxiliary Squadrons that the best thing about them was that they flew because they liked it. …
    He went on to say that:
    "If these squadrons could be extended they would prove to be a great economy in the Royal Air Force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 1037–38.]
    May I remind him of that statement today and ask him to urge on his right hon. and learned Friend and on the Air Council the necessity of effecting such a constructive economy as that to which he referred four years ago?
    There is another point. I should like to know whether it is planned for the future that we in this country should have a properly balanced Air Force. I ask that question quite deliberately because when the Secretary of State spoke this afternoon he said, "We want a balanced Air Force," and then he said, "A balanced Fighter Force." I am not quite sure whether the second statement was a correction of the first, or whether it was an addition to it. There are obviously two different types of Air Force we can have. One would be a strong offensive and defensive Air Force, whereby, if necessary, we could stand alone for a while. The other one would be an Air Force built on the American plan, which was put forward by General Omar Bradley, under which the United States would be charged with practically the whole responsibility of strategic bombing, and the United Kingdom and other European countries would have as

    1881
    their responsibility the bulk of short-range attack, bombardment and air defence of their various countries.
    There has been a certain amount of doubt about this. It may have been fostered by the fact that we are now getting 70 B.29's from the Americans. While I feel that is a most generous gesture—and we welcome it wholeheartedly in view of the needs of today—this, together with the cuts in Transport Command and the fact that we are closing down our central bomber establishment, has led many people in the aircraft industry to think that we are adopting the American plan, and that, from now on, we shall be concerned mostly with fighters and with short-range aircraft. It is of great importance to the aircraft industry that they should know whether a successful new type of British heavy bomber would be used by the R.A.F. if it were developed, whether it would also be used by our allies, and whether it would be made in British or American factories.
    There is no doubt there has been great concern recently in the aircraft industry following big cuts in Transport Command. It seems there may be other cuts too. Has the Secretary of State made cuts as well in the orders for fighters, which were to have been given? In my constituency we have at Blackpool, at Squire's Gate airport, a factory which was producing aircraft during the war. It has been empty for some three years now. Towards the end of last year it was announced by the Minister of Supply that at last a tenant had been found for the factory and that the Hawker Aircraft Company were to come to Blackpool. The reason for that change was that the orders for the Air Ministry, going through the Ministry of Supply, were so great that Hawker's could not meet them from their existing premises at Kingston. So they were coming to Blackpool where the facilities would be greater.
    Then, during the Election, it suddenly appeared that Air Ministry orders for fighters would be not nearly as great as had been imagined, that Hawker's would be able to deal with the whole matter from Kingston, and that the prospect of employment for 3,000 men at Blackpool had gone. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why and in what
    1882
    way we are cutting down fighter production which would cause the Hawker Company to be able to continue with the smaller factory?
    If we are to have a good Air Force, we must have first-class British aircraft, and we must also have a prosperous aircraft industry in this country to which engineers and other workers are readily attracted. At the moment I believe the opposite is tending to be the case. The workers see these orders being cancelled. They see unemployment coming in the aircraft industry, and conditions of full employment elsewhere. I believe they may think "This is a good industry to keep out of." That would be the worst thing which could possibly happen to this country, and I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give some assurance that the Air Ministry are going to support the British aircraft industry right up to the hilt.
    10.1 p.m.
    Mr. John McKay: I have listened with great attention to the general survey of the Air Ministry by the Secretary of State. He gave a very optimistic address; he covered the subject very well, and I believe he gave a great deal of satisfaction to the House. At the same time, there was one side of his Ministry to which he omitted any reference, and it is because of that that I should like to make a few remarks. I do not wish to take up much time, but I think the subject is worthy of consideration.
    I have felt for some time that this part of the Air Ministry could almost be named "the forgotten men." I refer to the Meteorological Office. We hear a lot about the importance of the Royal Air Force and the need for having the best possible equipment. No doubt, we all agree on that, but it will also be agreed that among their closest colleagues are the people in the Meteorological Office. They are frequently consulted. On very many occasions safety in the Royal Air Force depends upon the efforts, intelligence and organisation of the Meteorological Office. Not so very long ago we had a House full of Members interested in the accident at Prestwick. The question was raised whether the Meteorological Office was involved. That discussion indicated the importance of that office and the tremendous responsibility it has in relation to civilian and Air Force flying.

    1883
    It is sometimes forgotten that the men in the meteorological section are at the disposal of the Secretary of State, and have to go to any part of the country, and indeed to any foreign country. They are treated almost as if they were Servicemen. In time of war they are often put into uniform, and they are constantly being moved about the country at short intervals. When we are dealing with the question of housing the Royal Air Force I wish the Minister would pay some attention to housing these people as well. They have just as much right to be considered. If the facts are investigated, hon. Members will find that, in housing questions, the Royal Air Force has been looked after well, but the meteorological section has been left without any effort whatever to house its members. That is why I want to draw attention to this side of the Air Ministry.
    Hon. Members talk about the difficulty of getting recruits for the different sections of the Army and Air Force. If we examine the position in the Meteorological Office I think it will be found that we are perhaps worse off there than in any other section or any other trade. Moreover, I believe that if the men in that office had an opportunity to ventilate their grievances, just as the ordinary trade unions of the country have, we should find that there is a tremendous amount of discontent. I am not speaking in particular about remuneration, although there is a section of the staff, the assistant observers, who, I think, could be helped more than they are being helped. But there are other questions which cause great dissatisfaction. We must admit that when we are in need of recruits, of men of personality and character who can accept responsibility, we must have a system within the staff which gives them a feeling of confidence and satisfaction, a feeling that they are all being dealt with fairly and squarely together with the remainder of the staff.
    There are a large number of vacancies among senior experimental officers which are not being filled. In one of the most important stations within Coastal Command, where the amount of forecasting last December was equivalent to the forecasting done in the whole of the Meteorological Office, there is not one senior experimental officer. Yet the staff are At least a thousand miles away from any
    1884
    other Meteorological Office and have constantly to supervise and help British and United States flyers in their operations. There is great dissatisfaction about the position and in my opinion no case can be made against grading senior experimental officers in that section.
    I believe that this is a department which needs greater attention from the Air Ministry. Practices have developed since the beginning which are creating a position within the section which to my mind is not for the good of the Meteorological Office. There is a need for proper grading. Any man who comes in now will get some better remuneration, but that was arranged only within the last three months. There have been men and there are men—doing senior officers' work and bearing great responsibility whose position has not been recognised, and whose work is not paid at any higher rate. At one of the important points I have mentioned, where there is no senior officer—it is one of the most important sections in Coastal Command's area—all the men are of one class, no particular man having any special responsibilities over the others. I wanted to draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to these facts, because I honestly feel that this section of the Ministry needs more investigation, and that something should be done for the staff. It might help him to obtain the men so much required in that particular section.
    10.11 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Orr-Ewing: I should like to draw attention to paragraph 6 of the Memorandum by the Secretary of State, and very briefly make three points. The first one comes in this paragraph, where it says:
    "The radar system of the United Kingdom—which is, of course, a vital element in our air defences—will be materially strengthened."
    Those are encouraging words, but as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) pointed out, we have only to have a pair of eyes, and a little petrol and "C.D." on the backs of our cars to tour round the coasts, to see how many stations are in fact operational in our radar system. It is extremely revealing.
    I hope the Secretary of State will be able to give us some convincing news of improvements at those stations. One had only to read the weekly newspapers

    1885
    at the time of exercise "Foil" or exercise "Bulldog" to learn how, time and again, aerodromes were caught on the hop by low-flying aircraft coming in and catching aircraft on the ground refuelling. It is no good bringing our aircraft in at 30,000 feet or 40,000 feet in exercises. Everybody knows that they can be easily detected at that height. It is the low, quick aircraft which are far more difficult to combat. We should like to be convinced that this matter is being given some urgent attention. The recent evidence of our own eyes suggests that that is not so at this moment.
    Suppose that this matter is put in order, then I should like to draw attention to this manning problem. We learned from the White Paper on Defence that fighter control units for both control and reporting have been brought into existence. It would not be right for me to probe to find out what are the figures for recruiting for these units, but the last figure that was mentioned was that 20,000 people were required and that 1,800 had come forward. That is a deplorable state of affairs. I wonder if something has been done in the intervening period to encourage recruiting. I have not seen much publicity on the subject. I have talked with people who were in the Service with me and who have just not been aware that the drum is being beaten at all, or that any effort is being made to man up this Service to defend this country.
    The third problem with which I should like to deal I do not think has come up at all during the Debate, and that is the question of close support aircraft. I feel that we must support the Army—whatever we may think about it as a Service. In the last war we lagged a good way behind the United States Air Force. They controlled their fighter aircraft by means of what are called "fighter direction units"—radar units. By this means aircraft can be sent to the instant support of troops, and sent with great accuracy. Troops are in radio-telephonic communication with the aircraft, and the aircraft can be got to a corner of a wood, or any other strong point, with great accuracy. even in misty weather with low cloud.
    We have heard today from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that our close-support squadrons have been equipped with jets. He mentioned Vam-
    1886
    pires. They must fly reasonably low in order to give this close support, and the endurance of these jet aircraft at low levels is less than three-quarters of an hour. In the old days, with piston-engined aircraft, one could leave them on a "cab rank" and call them off the "cab rank" to bring them to the quick support of our troops. That is not so with the jet. One cannot call them off the "cab rank" at 35,000 feet and get them down with any hope of getting to the target where they are wanted. The view forward and downwards from fast jet aircraft cannot be good. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if we are at the same time getting piston-engine aircraft which can fly low and stooge around above light anti-aircraft height in order that they can be called to the support of our troops. If not, I do not know what will happen, because we have to have some sort of efficient, accurate and quick method of directing our jet aircraft to the support of our Army.
    I think that we are putting a great deal of effort into a mobile Army, and I hope that some of the vast sums of money being spent on the Air Force is being directed to co-operation between the Air Force and the Army. I trust that we shall have some assurance on that point.
    10.18 p.m.
    Mr. William Teeling: Many subjects have been covered in the Debate tonight, but I want to bring forward a few points in which I am particularly interested. I will not try to follow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. Orr-Ewing), who so obviously is an authority on the matter he raised or those of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallsend (Mr. J. McKay) who was so very interested in his own subject. I will leave the right hon. Gentleman to answer them.
    What has always worried me most is the subject of getting recruits. At the end of the war that was partially my job, and I feel that, year after year, as we bring this subject up, very little is done to remedy the publicity faults. I can remember in the days when Air Marshal Peck was dealing with this matter at the Air Ministry, the thrill that one felt in this new Service by the publicity given day after day to some new point or new thing done by that Service.

    1887
    In the Memorandum of the right hon. Gentleman he refers to the assistance given to the "Amethyst" and the work done in Malaya, but a great deal of what he has been telling us today has either not been told in the Press during the year, or, if it has, it seems to have been missed by many of us; certainly it has not been "plugged" as was done during the war. That, I feel, is a great mistake on the part of the Air Ministry. What appeals to young people today is thrills rather than comforts and security.
    In those war days, we were also particularly interested in our links with the Dominion Air Forces. We seemed to work much more closely together, and I have been asking myself, "Have we let this slip too much?" A great friendship was built up in those days between the men of different squadrons, some South African some Australian, some English, all closely mixed up together. What are we doing about that? The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred in a friendly way to the different Air Forces of the Empire, but he has not today given us any interesting, thrilling story of linking up with the Empire Forces; anything to make us think that there is a great future there for all of us working together. He has given me the opportunity, however, of thanking the Royal New Zealand Air Force.
    About three years ago, I found myself in one of our British Embassy aircraft from Tokio grounded at Canton. Being an M.P., I was called a V.I.P. We were to take off to go to Hong Kong but the weather was risky and the pilot would not take the responsibility with me on board. The net result was that the Consul-General informed me that I was on the point of being arrested by the Chinese for being at Canton airfield without authority. However, there was a New Zealand Air Force transport plane on its way to Japan, and they certainly had no qualms about taking me. In the New Zealand Parliament they told me at that time the Government had such a small majority—of two or three, I think—that these planes were constantly being used to get M.P.s back at all risks for Debates. I notice that these Estimates were prepared before the General Election. We have cut down considerably on transport planes in this country; but perhaps that
    1888
    would not have happened had the Estimates been prepared after the election. I give that to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as an idea for future Debates and divisions, and if we could have the use of aircraft to get us to Westminster it would be of considerable assistance.
    To turn to more serious matters, the Secretary of State said today that everything is being done with business firms to make it possible for airmen on finishing their tour of duty to return to the business at which they were working. Has he done anything in that matter with regard to the Dominions? Has anything been done about the possibility of getting people out to the Dominions after they leave the Service? Are we in any way negotiating with, or trying to get in touch with, firms or persons in the Dominions who would help in that respect? Is anything being done with regard to the Empire as a whole, not only in the Dominions but in the Colonies, for recruiting men from the Empire to come to this country to serve in our Air Force? There seem to be great possibilities in that direction.
    I remember that in the old days a great help in the realm of publicity was the belief in a great future for anybody who entered the Air Force. They believed that when they left they would get into aircraft businesses or into civil aviation. As has already been stressed today, in those days the men never expected that civil aviation would become nationalised so quickly. Nor did they think that we should find ourselves using aircraft from America and elsewhere, and bit by bit our factories putting people off. Those sorts of things are very distracting to peoples' interest.
    Furthermore, when men are thinking of their own future there is the housing problem. Today, hon. Members have spoken of houses for Service men's families and for the airmen while they are in the Air Force. I do not know whether other hon. Members have my experience in this respect, but I receive an enormous number of complaints from men in the Air Force that when they come out nothing at all is done for them with local councils to help to get houses. It may be argued that this is a matter for the Ministry of Health, or the local councils themselves, but the fact remains that in most areas ex-Service

    1889
    men get no priority. Once a man leaves the Service he has to start from scratch, and it may mean years before he gets a house. He feels that very much indeed, and I think the Air Ministry might look into it. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will say something about that aspect later.
    From what I hear, I do not believe that the same consideration is given as used to be given in the old days to regulars on the point of leaving the Air Force. In the old days, if an officer or man was leaving in a year or two that was taken into account in the posting arrangements. Today, I know of people who, for no apparent reason, have been posted away quite long distances from where they have houses which they have had for a long time. The result is that they have to give up the houses shortly before leaving the Service; whereas if they were posted to somewhere nearby, their wives could remain on in the houses and the men could come home for week-ends, and they would then still have their houses on leaving the Service. That applies, I think, particularly to Fighter Command and other Commands near London.
    Another complaint which I have received is that, in the Air Force far more than in the other Services, men were unable to vote at the election because nothing was done about getting them registered. I should like to know what the Air Ministry did about it or if they did anything at all, because at some stations practically nothing was done with the result that very many votes were lost. That was more so with regard to the Air Force than with regard to the other Services.
    There is another point which the Under-Secretary might answer if he has the time—the question of food and food costs for families in the Air Force. When prices went up and more money was needed for food, the Air Minister did not hesitate to come to Parliament for further money and an increase has been voted. But this was meant for men living on the station. There was, however, no increase in allowances for food for the families living out. This is a further grievance on the part of families of men living near the station. They claim that they should have been given this extra allowance when there was a rise in food costs.
    1890
    Lastly—and this is separate from the points I have been raising—the Air Minister made many references to links with the Dominions and the United States, but he has hardly made any reference to the links with the French Air Force, nor has he told us what the French are doing. From what I have heard of the Berlin airlift, although they were not able to take part in the actual flying, the French gave us considerable help on the ground, and we were very grateful to them for that. During the last war we had the assistance of several squadrons from France and at the end of the war there were large numbers of French air squadrons available. The men prominent in that Force that was trained in England are now in nearly all the key positions in the French Air Force. The link between us is very strong, and I should like to know what is being done in regard to the younger generation in the French Air Force to continue this link.
    Is there any possibility of getting them over here on visits or having them stationed here for a short time? If the hon. Gentleman cannot look into that matter now, perhaps he will think of it as something for the future. There is one other subject, which I have brought up on more than one occasion, and that is the matter of squadrons being adopted by foreign nations, and groups of friends of this country. There were many such before and during the war. Is there any chance of that being brought back again in some way? I know that there are numbers of people, including Ambassadors of foreign countries, who are most anxious to relink themselves in this way with the Air Force of this country.
    10.28 p.m.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: There is one point with which I find myself in agreement in the speeches that have been made by hon. Members opposite—that there has been too much secrecy, and that we have not been given the information that we should have had before we agreed to sanction the hugs sum of over £200 million for the Air Force. I want to put some questions to the Under-Secretary which I think are very relevant to the issues raised in the Debate.
    For many hours now we have been discussing jet fighters and jet bombers,

    1891
    yet we do not know the price of them. I put this very specifically to the Secretary of State for Air—surely, if we are to approve large sums of money for fighters and bombers it is reasonable to have a direct answer to the question: What is the cost of a jet fighter and a jet bomber? There can be no question of giving any information away to the enemy. I certainly would not be willing that any information should be divulged about the mechanical secrets of aircraft production, but I come from a constituency where we wish to know exactly what we are getting for our money. I do not pretend to be an expert on aerial warfare, but some attempt should be made to make some sort of an answer to the question which every man in the street would think reasonable—what is the cost of a jet fighter and a jet bomber?
    I am glad to see the Under-Secretary here, also. I want to see if I can get from him what I have failed to extract from the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State—an estimate of what one of these bombers costs. I will read a quotation from an article by a gentleman who, I believe, will be regarded as an authority on the cost of bombers. It was published in the "Observer" of 29th March, 1949, on the most prominent page, and I should say that the "Observer" examines very carefully the authority of its correspondents. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get on with it."] Just a little patience, comrade. The night is young yet, and I do not often get these opportunities. The article says:
    "If we are to have the sort of Air Force for which Lords Portal and Trenchard are calling, we certainly cannot plan for fewer than 1,000 heavy bombers, which would cost at least £250,000,000."
    From this estimate we can deduce, I think my mathematics are correct, that one bomber costs £250,000. The writer proceeds:
    "Can we afford bombers …?"
    So, £250,000 is the estimated cost of a bomber. I would like the Under-Secretary to say whether that figure is correct, because he happens to be the writer of the article. After a rather tortuous method of research in the Library, we have it now, on reliable authority, that a jet bomber costs £250,000. The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackle-
    1892
    ton) expressed some concern earlier in the Debate lest, when I came to speak, I would refer to Scottish housing. I know I cannot do that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Try."] I certainly will try. I suggest that one jet bomber costs 200 houses, and I do not think we are getting our money's worth.
    Now that we have solved the problem of the cost of one of these jet bombers, would it be too much to ask the Under-Secretary to satisfy our curiosity by telling us what is the cost of a jet fighter? We have heard a good deal about the Iron Curtain, but the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) explained to us in great detail indeed the exact production of jet bombers and fighters for the Russian Air Force. When I asked him for his authority he did not refer me to the Secret Service, but to the Librarian.
    Throughout all this discussion there has been an assumption by hon. Members on both sides of this House that they want an expensive Air Force not for war but to maintain peace. I sincerely accept that argument. I believe that no hon. Member wants war, but we must examine that argument in relation to other countries. I will go further: I do not believe that Russia wants war; I do not believe that Mr. Stalin wants war any more than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill); I do not believe that any member of the Politburo wants war. If we were able to listen in the secret proceedings of the Politburo or the Praesidium I have no doubt that we should hear precisely the same argument about maintaining peace, and maintaining the security of the U.S.S.R. All the Russian air experts would be talking in exactly the same terminology as the experts in air warfare have been talking here today. Here, we have reached the stage where we are piling up armaments, spending £220 million in preparation for war: in Moscow they are talking the same way, and saying, "If we want peace we must be prepared for war, and be strong in the air."
    The result is that the Allies, who fought side by side five years ago, are now wasting their blood and treasure and their manpower in preparing to build up an Air Force.
    Mr. Speaker: That is a foreign affairs matter, and not one for this Debate on the Air Force. It is the same argument that was used last night and could be used against the Army, the Air Force or the Navy. There is a rule against a repetition of the same argument.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Yes, Sir, but that argument has been used over and over again in this Debate. I will try to avoid, as far as possible, any matter that encroaches on foreign affairs. We are arming, presumably, against a potential enemy, and throughout this Debate it has been argued we must spend this £220 million to meet attacks from Soviet Russia. I challenge the whole idea that we are justified in this expenditure just to fight against Soviet Russia. I have no sympathy at all with Communism. I do not believe in the totalitarian theory of Communist rule. I tried to get into Russia last year, and was refused a visa.
    Mr. Commodore Harvey: So was I.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am glad that extremes meet. I think we have to try to visualise what is likely to happen to humanity if this arms race drifts to its logical conclusion. I believe it is a crime for this country to be preparing to bomb Moscow, because I believe the civilian population of Moscow should be treated with exactly the same respect as is the civilian population of this country.
    I do not believe that if we develop one of these defensive air attacks on Moscow we shall do something which is at all justifiable from the point of view of humanity. What is the point of view of the Russians? There has been an argument about the Russians having jet fighters. Why do the Russians spend their money on jet fighters? They do so to be able to bring down our jet bombers. We appear to be horrified by the very thought that the Russians have jet fighters to protect themselves. But let us try to look at it from the point of view of a Russian citizen; from the point of view of a Russian airman who has been trained in the Red Air Force.
    I said in the last Parliament that it is not without cause that the Russians seek to have defensive armaments. The Russians fear attack from our bombers. At one stage in the war, in March, 1940, preparation was made for the bombing of
    1894
    the Caucasian oilfields from bases in the Middle East. Captain Liddell Hart, who is one of our authorities on the strategy of war, has pointed out that our bombers, our short-distance bombers, stationed in the Middle East, are there presumably for the purpose of 'bombing those oilfields. If there is what is regarded as a great strategic centre likely to be bombed by what they regard as hostile aircraft, then the Russians argue that they must meet those bombers by organising a bigger air force. So you have the position now which has been outlined by several hon. Members, that the Russians have something like 16,000 aircraft. If this is going on we must, I think, come to some agreement, or there will be a crash which will bring down humanity.
    In this country we have a great deal to fear because of our congested cities. I do not feel at all relieved by learning that America is sending these new aircraft to this country. I do not subscribe to the idea which was put forward in a speech yesterday by the British Ambassador that these aircraft will necessarily help in the protection of this country. Our Ambassador, at the ceremony at the handing over of these aircraft, said:
    "This is a collective preparedness."
    That is a new slogan—a new catchword. I believe that this collective preparedness will probably lead to collective suicide.
    Mr. Speaker: We are discussing aircraft. We must not discuss what an Ambassador said on foreign affairs. The hon. Member is getting very wide of this Debate.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I apologise again, Mr. Speaker, for transgressing, but it is difficult to deal with the argument about the aircraft being brought to this country, a matter which was not introduced as an irrelevancy into this Debate, but which was mentioned in the speech of the Secretary of State for Air. Very respectfully, I submit that it is relevant to this argument.
    Mr. Speaker: Not in the way the hon. Member put it. The hon. Member put it entirely as a foreign affairs argument.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I know I am not very good at military arguments, Mr. Speaker, but the line between foreign

    1895
    affairs and military strategy is one of those rather obscure lines which an amateur strategist like me sometimes fails to discern clearly. The Ambassador, referring to the planes and not to foreign policy, said that these machines were evidence that we are fireproofing all the houses in our street. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members laugh, but I think that that analogy on the part of our Ambassador was rather unfortunate, because whatever we may say of these bombers—which, I might add, are capable of dropping atom bombs—it is odd that we should say that they are fireproofing our houses. That seems rather curious. It will be noted in Russia that these bombers have arrived here, and the Russian strategists will immediately say. "Britain is to be the base for a hostile attack by air on Russia." That makes the position of this country very precarious indeed.
    In the Debate today we have heard a good deal about fighters, but we have never had anybody attempt to answer the question put by myself to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) in a Debate which we had a few months ago. I then asked—and he seemed rather insulted, I thought, at my asking—how fighters could stop rockets. I have had no answer yet. Is that not a question which should be answered? The right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) said, quite rightly, that America was giving far more information on matters appertaining to air armament than was being given by this country. That was in one of his lucid moments, and I agree that in the book outlining American air strategy, called "Survival in the Air Age," there is a really honest attempt to convey the dangers of aerial warfare to the man in the street.
    Here is one passage:
    "The guided missile of the German V.2 type, travelling at supersonic speed, is now impossible to intercept."
    These, it is explained, are now relatively of short range, and others are of limited range; but this is talking of the internal strategy of the United States. They are not of short range so far as this country is concerned. We have not had in this Debate, as we are entitled to have, any statement as to what is the defence against guided missiles.
    1896
    I ask the Under-Secretary, who, I understand, is to reply, to give us some information as to how far our research work with guided missiles is co-ordinated with the research work going on in the United States. I put that question a few months ago, when trying to get from the Air Ministry a statement of the capital expenditure incurred in research of this kind in Australia. Surely we are entitled to know whether we are conducting in Australia precisely the same kind of research work being conducted in the United States. If we are going into a war as Allies we are entitled to know if there is any co-ordination in research, or if it is being duplicated and we are spending immense sums of capital money in just the same way as our Allies in the United States.
    I want to make a further quotation from this authoritative American book on the possibilities of aerial warfare. The author says:
    "We must also consider the defence against missiles launched against us, an even more difficult problem. Nothing was developed during the war that could cope with the V.2, yet we must be prepared to intercept and to destroy invisible missiles that will plunge towards our cities out of the stratosphere at speeds of over a mile per second. The practical difficulties involved in detecting, tracking, intercepting, and destroying them with other missiles miles above the earth are enormous. Whether or not this can ever be done is not clear."
    I would like to ask the Under-Secretary who has given a great deal of attention to these matters and who has spoken about them from on the back benches, to tell us in what way our fighter preparations are capable of meeting the rocket or the guided missile. I want to give just one final quotation from this authoritative air book:
    "The funds being spent this year on guided missiles research are not insignificant. Some $75 million"—
    notice that the Americans give the figures—
    "almost one quarter of the total research on development appropriations—are earmarked for this purpose."
    I do not believe that any Debate on air defence is adequate unless an attempt is made to answer this question: how far can this country be protected against the rocket, possibly carrying the atom bomb? I do submit that is the relevant issue of the day; that if the Russians can from Germany, or anywhere else,

    1897
    send these rockets over this country then our enormous air preparations are absolutely inadequate to meet that attack I have quoted from an authoritative American book on civil defence against air attack, in which it was finally admitted that the only defence against the atom bomb, dropped from the air, was dispersal. What sort of a policy is that for this country? Where are the people in our industrial areas to be dispersed to? Can the Under-Secretary give an answer to this question?
    I say that we are not facing this problem in a realistic way. The building of a great Air Force will not give us security. It will be challenged by the potential enemy, and in this possible war anything like the defence of this country on the lines that have been produced in this Debate cannot be accepted. I challenge the whole conception that the voting of £220 million is giving security to our people, and if I am the only voice in this House to do so, I shall protest against that.
    10.54 p.m.
    Mr. John Grimston: I resist the temptation to follow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) into some of the more speculative lines which he has entered but I must, in passing, refer to some remarks made by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton). I do it with some reluctance because we have much in common in our experience; we are both ex-Coastal Command men and both, if not "dockyard M.P.s," have important aircraft factories in our divisions.
    Speaking of our misgivings about the export of jet aircraft to the Argentine the hon. Member said they showed the lack of economic understanding of hon. Members on these benches. I say, quite simply, that what we would not think was a good deal would be a decision to sell early models of, say, the "Comet" to the Argentine. We should not think it a wise move to Fell early models of the "Canberra" and the "Venom" and the 113, which, I think, is the new night fighter. I suggest that to sell jet fighters to the Argentine, and not even for dollars but for one of the weakest and most watery currencies we could get, when the squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force are equipped with 15-year-old piston-engined aircraft is a thing the
    1898
    Government should not do. It is not putting first things first, and, after all, it is the party opposite which praises the benefits of planning.
    There was much upon which to take encouragement in what the Secretary of State had to say today. He spoke of great technical advances and of more married quarters, particularly for young married officers, a point in which many of us in all parts of the House will take great pleasure. He spoke of an increased first-line strength of the R.A.F. with a lower total manpower and also of improving the amenities for airmen, but we on this side of the House realise that Votes of this size add up to a budget of £4,000 million and we know that the taxation which goes with that expenditure is insupportable if we are to recover. We want to look at these items, therefore, to see whether the real economy which the operation of the Air Force represents is being fully used by the Government.
    I certainly do not want to detract at all from what has been said about the prime duty of the Government to provide a first-class offensive bomber force. Their second duty is the provision of a really effective jet fighter force for the defence of our country. I do not think enough has been said, however, about the third duty of the Government, which is the much more mundane matter of sinking the submarines which will be a constant menace in any future wars. Some hon. Members have said that we must not be too keen to win the last war, but must prepare for the next, and that the question of the submarine has no relevance today, but I have looked up the figures, which are available to all hon. Members in the Library, and I see that it is thought that the Russians at the moment have 360 submarines, including ex-German boats. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman has more accurate figures. There are 100 in the 1948–49 programme in addition, and with the five-year plan there is envisaged by 1950–51 a figure of 1,000 submarines. I understand that it is most doubtful whether they will reach this figure. I hope the Minister has the accurate figures and appreciates the importance of this problem, and I hope he appreciates that the Russians are working on a submarine of great range and high under-water speed.

    1899
    If we are to attack these boats then, in my view, attack from the air is the only way to do it. If we are continually to make faster surface vessels in larger numbers the cost will be quite prohibitive, but we can concentrate on building aircraft—piston-engined, because we do not want jets at the heights at which we have to operate against submarines. We want aircraft whose speed is not very important but whose ability to remain in the air for long periods is of the utmost importance. After all, the speed of an aircraft is so immeasurably greater than the speed of a submarine that we do not need to go for extra speed and thereby constantly reduce the endurance.
    A certain manoeuvrability is needed. If we get a simple piston-engined aircraft capable of remaining in the air for 24 or 30 hours we could cover the whole Atlantic with a screen of such aircraft in regular succession on our shipping routes, thereby relieving the Navy of a very great deal of expense with resultant economy to the country. This point has not been stressed enough, and I hope the Under-Secretary will give us a few more details of the research going on into the methods of killing submarines. While on that subject, should not the R.A.F. work out some means of assessing the probability of their own kills? During the war that matter was the exclusive work of the admirals who are well known in their dislike of aircraft, doubting often whether they could kill the U-boat. There were many certain kills which were not admitted because the crew were unable to produce the captains' trousers, the only evidence the admirals would accept. I hope some fairer method of assessment of kills will be worked out. It would reflect the greatest credit on the Minister himself.
    Mr. Shackleton: There was an Air Force representative on the assessment committee. In fact, assessments subsequently checked were found to be about 95 per cent. correct. It is also a fact that far more U-boat kills were credited to the R.A.F. than to the Royal. Navy.
    Mr. Grimston: I am delighted to hear that, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also confirm that the Air Force representative was in the minority on the
    1900
    committee and that claims were watered down because the Royal Navy had an uneasy feeling that the proper way to kill U-boats was by surface vessels because aircraft were not so effective. But it is not only the number that were sunk that counts, it is the moral effect on the crews, of constant crash diving and constant depth charging which they know they will subjected to from the air. Even the Snorkel device is not proof against aircraft; even towards the end of the war radar was able to pick the U-boats out, although not so easily as when they were on the surface.
    There is one other point about long-range aircraft. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force will be equipped with jets, which means that the function of the Force will have to be reviewed. After all, the members of that Force are part-time men, generally having some other job, and flying fighters at great heights is a young man's job. One soon gets too old to do it properly. I suggest to the Minister that he should form other long-range squadrons of the Auxiliary Air Force into which pilots can transfer after they have completed a tour in the fighter squadrons. The R.A.A.F., as it is now constituted, would form an excellent training ground for the handling of larger aircraft.
    This suggestion would also have the advantage that it would be a very great help in recruiting, particularly of ground trades in the R.A.A.F. With the single-seater craft with which the Force is now equipped it is much more difficult to get ground tradesmen to join. Before the war, when, for the most part, we had two-seater aircraft, you could take your own rigger with you, and the point of joining that Force was that you did get a certain amount of flying even if you did ground work. If that were the case now we might have some interesting recruiting posters offering week-end trips to Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus, and possibly annual camps in Durban. The ground trades of the R.A.A.F. do look for a little flying, but with single-seater aircraft we are unable to give them that pleasure. Whether or not the Minister accepts that suggestion, I hope that he will have something to say on the production of very long-range aircraft. During the invasion of Normandy these aircraft kept the narrow seas free of submarines. In another was the same thing may have to

    1901
    be done between here and the United States, and that will be the third most important job the Air Force has to do.
    11.6 p.m.
    Mr. George Ward: May I start by adding my congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State on his appointment? I have known him for many years—we were in the same auxiliary squadron—we like to think it is the best—and I wish him all success in his new appointment. I hope he will not take it amiss if I express the hope that he will not have too many of those unfortunate lapses of memory from which he suffered one night at South Cerney, when he made a perfect landing without first taking the precaution of lowering his undercarriage.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that we have had an excellent Debate, which I feel sure the Liberal Party will thoroughly enjoy reading it in HANSARD. It has been enriched by two excellent maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Brantford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) made a most able and experienced maiden speech, in which he emphasised the importance of a powerful striking force, and made some highly constructive suggestions of which I hope the Government will take note. He speaks with firsthand knowledge, and this House always accords to those who speak from firsthand an attentive hearing, particularly in Service Debates. We also had an excellent maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for North Bradford (Mr. W. J. Taylor), who also spoke with experience and authority on the problems facing the Territorial air auxiliary associations. He clearly has the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces, and especially the A.T.C., much at heart, and I hope that the Government will take note, too, of his suggestions. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) had previously done taxiing trials, and this time he opened the throttle and took off in fine style. He made a valuable contribution to our deliberations.
    This Debate as most of these Service Debates are apt to be, was divided into two aspects—first, the broad aspect, that is, the strategic and tactical considerations of the Royal Air Force, the overall size
    1902
    and shape of the Force, governed by our responsibilities in various parts of the world; and, second, the rather narrow aspect of equipment and personnel problems, which, though narrow, are so important to solve if what the Secretary of State likes to call the third Air Force is to live up to the fine example and the high standards set it by its two honourable and gallant predecessors.
    I do not propose, in a short speech, to deal in any detail with the broad aspect. That has been admirably done by many speakers, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire), with whom I went a good deal of the way, particularly when he spoke of greater cooperation with the Commonwealth Air Forces. Even the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), unfortunately now away from his place, dealt with the wider aspects. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) attributed to the Opposition in general, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley in particular, sinister political motives for wishing to spread our early warning radar devices out to the Continent of Europe. The hon. Member is a very experienced airman, and it is not worthy of him to say that His Majesty's Opposition are suggesting methods of protecting these shores only with a sinister, political motive behind them. He knows as well as I do that with the speed of modern aircraft, it is fantastic to think that London can adequately be defended with radar bases on the south coast of England. I hope that with more mature consideration the hon. Member will realise that his speech was not really up to the standard of those he generally produces in this House.
    Mr. Shackleton: Since the hon. Gentleman has attacked me, I should like to say that I attributed no sinister motives to the Opposition. What I did say was that the Opposition were trying to bring Germany into Western Union, and I remarked that I thought it was a most undesirable thing on political grounds. I made the further observation that one of the first jobs was to man our own radar chains, but I was objecting to the general proposal. I am not saying there is anything sinister behind it.
    Mr. Ward: I will not pursue the point any further, but perhaps the hon. Member will take it from me that the Opposition is as much concerned with the defence of this country, and with putting forward practical realistic suggestions for our defence, as are Government supporters.
    I will not deal with the wider aspects of the problem, but I should like to echo the anxiety felt by many hon. Members on both sides of the House and by the Air League of the British Empire about our plans for the development of our bomber Force. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Profumo) asked the Government for an assurance that the future development of modern heavy long-range bombers would not be relaxed and would even be accelerated. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) also expressed anxiety on this point. I hope the Government will be able to set our minds at rest about this.
    I should like to draw attention to one point which has not been mentioned. Although one is more than grateful to the Americans for providing us with this temporary respite of B29's under the Mutual Defence Assistance Act, let us not forget that it is one of the terms of that Act that weapons provided under the Act will not be used outside the Atlantic area. Therefore, should we be called on to use long-range bombers for the defence of the Commonwealth as a whole, or in connection with our responsibilities in the Near and Far East, I believe I am right in saying that we would not be able to use the bombers which have been given to us under the Mutual Defence Assistance Act. That is a very important point.
    I should like to go on to deal with what I have called the narrower aspects, because I believe the main anxiety of hon. Members during this Debate has been on these problems of equipment and personnel. Equipment problems have been dealt with by other hon. Members, who have provided excellent suggestions, and I am not going to add very much. Reading paragraph 2 of the White Paper accompanying the Air Estimates, however, it is strange to find this sentence:
    "The main Increase is due to the introduction of more modern types of aircraft and equipment."
    1904
    Paragraph 24 speaks of the delivery of "Venoms," "Canberras," "Hastings," "Valettas" and improved modern types of trainers. The Secretary of State gave the impression that all these new types were flowing off the production line and into the Service squadrons, or were likely to do so very shortly, in considerable quantities. Therefore, it seems strange that in Vote 7 the increased provision for new aircraft for this year amounts to only £250,000. I submit that the words of the White Paper are misleading on this point. In fact, study of Vote 7 reveals that by far the largest amount of money is being spent on spare parts for aircraft which may already be obsolete, or at any rate obsolescent.
    A word about research and development, because I believe these are vitally important, and because I am not at all happy about them. I want to make what I well appreciate is a highly controversial suggestion. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire and other hon. Members expressed anxiety about research and development on guided missiles. I, too, feel anxiety on that score, and my anxiety is increased by the knowledge that the Minister responsible for research and development on these modern weapons is the Minister of Supply. The Minister of Supply is not interested in such matters. He is far too much engrossed in political questions, such as the nationalisation of the steel industry and making losses on State trading. Research and development are technical matters which, in my view at any rate, are purely the concern of the Air Ministry and it is under the Air Ministry, I submit, that this development of new weapons should reside. I throw out that suggestion and I hope that the Secretary of State will give it serious consideration.
    Now I want for a few minutes to turn to personnel problems, starting with officers. Paragraph 12 of the White Paper says:
    "There is still a shortage of suitable applicants for short service commissions as pilots and navigators."
    That point has also been brought out in this Debate, not only by the Secretary of State but also by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas). They spoke of the inability of pilot officers even

    1905
    to pay premiums on life assurance, even though they are daily taking their lives into their hands. I would like to put this in another way, just as striking, if not more so: it may interest the House to know that a pilot officer flying a jet fighter at speeds approaching that of sound makes less money a week than the civilian batman who looks after him. If I am challenged on this I have figures to show that, with weekend overtime, his civilian batman makes more money in a week than the pilot officer. This is an intolerable situation. The solution, I submit, is not to raise the rates of pay throughout the whole range of officers, but, as has been suggested already, to restore flying pay to the general duties branch below the rank of wing commander.
    Anyone who is in touch with Royal Air Force officers will know, and will have to face the fact if he is sensible, that the quality of the officer material in the Air Force leaves much to be desired. I think the reasons are not far to seek. After the war many officers with the right qualifications, and with fine war records, were refused permanent commissions and allowed to drift away from the Service. The result now is that officers for permanent commissions are badly needed, and it is difficult to find the right type for such commissions in competition with the opportunities offered by civilian employment. If this problem is to be faced realistically, the first thing to do is to see that the officer of medium seniority—flight-lieutenant and squadron leaders, most of who are married and have families, or would like to have families—must be given a more reasonable life than they are having now. Almost all the officers of that seniority are living beyond their means, and getting into debt. That is a point which has been emphasised during this Debate, and, indeed, is emphasised in every Debate we have on Air Estimates. It is not as if they are living in any way extravagantly; the Secretary of State will know, because he gets around to the stations, that officers do not run motor cars nor smoke, because they cannot afford to, nor do they go to the cinema because they cannot afford it. Still, they get into debt. How can it be expected that people will apply for permanent commissions if they know that
    1906
    this is the sort of life they will have to lead?
    Their main complaint is taxation of marriage and other allowances. After all, officers are responsible people, and they know, as well as we do, the economic situation of this country. They do not ask for immediately drastic increases in their rates of pay. But they do not see why their marriage and other allowances should be so penally taxed. Why should officers serving overseas have to pay United Kingdom rates of Income Tax? It puts them at a great and unnecessary disadvantage compared with officers and civilians of the country concerned. That is a thing which I wish the Government would look into. It is these pinpricks. these small things, which matter, and which make life so difficult for Royal Air Force officers.
    Another reason for the shortage of candidates of the right type for short service commissions, of which the Secretary of State complained, has been mentioned by another hon. Member. it is the difficulty of finding suitable civilian employment when an officer's term of service comes to an end. Many hundreds of ex-officers who left the Service after the last war are still unemployed. Potential officers who, otherwise, would go into the Service, now look around and wonder what is to happen to them when they come out again. I do ask the Secretary of State to see whether he cannot provide some guarantee for these officers that they will have some suitable employment found for them, or that they are to be assisted to find it, when they have finished their service.
    Vote 6 shows that £409,000 less is to be spent this year on the training of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve airmen at civil flying training schools. I think that is a short-sighted policy. The civil flying training schools have played an invaluable part in training the reserves of the Royal Air Force. We on this side of the House, at any rate, consider civil flying schools to be an essential part of the air defences of the country. Incidentally, it was those schools which provided, before the war, most of the employment for short service commission officers leaving the Service at the end of their time. But today, civil flying instructors in these schools are paid less than they were before the war. They are paid such miserable rates that it is not worth

    1907
    looking forward even to that form of employment after their R.A.F. service. I say that the solution of the problem of these Regular and short service commission officers is, first, to restore flying pay; second, to remove the taxation of allowances; third, to guarantee suitable employment at the end of their service. I believe that if the Government has the courage to do these three things there will be an immediate response, and that the recruiting of officers for the Royal Air Force, both Regular and short service, will be greatly stimulated.
    Just a few words about N.C.O.s. I understand, though this comes from only a very few witnesses and I am, therefore, open to contradiction, that the present grading of air crew is very unpopular in the Royal Air Force. I understand that the grades of Pilot 1 and Pilot 2, and so on, are cordially disliked, and that a return to the serjeant pilot rank would be greatly welcomed throughout the Service. Will the Minister look into this matter, because it is one of those things which is important to many of our men? I think he will see that I am right.
    It is admitted in the White Paper that the recruiting of Regular airmen is still far from satisfactory; that is a point which has been raised from both sides of the House, and the Secretary for Air has admitted that there is a lack of balance between trades. That still persists. In the Air Estimates for last year, the Secretary of State for Air said that the "unbalance" of trades was such that in a few trades there was actually a surplus of N.C.O.s; this applied especially in the skilled aircraft fitter trades. The truth is that a re-organisation of the whole of the trade structure of the R.A.F. is long overdue, and we were delighted this evening to hear that something is to be done about it and that the Government will adopt the recommendations of the committee examining this matter. I do sincerely hope that this will be treated as a matter of urgency because I know that there are many highly skilled fitters, ex-Halton apprentices, who are still corporals after many years because the establishment of senior N.C.O.s in the group of fitter is far too small. These men must be given greater hope of advancement in their important trade.
    1908
    The White Paper, and the Secretary of State both make much of the expansion of the front line. But the effectiveness of the front line is limited not by the pilots who fly the aircraft, but by the lack of skilled men of certain trades to maintain them. The heartening assurances about our fighter strength being doubled, and American bombers arriving are, I am afraid, just so many phrases unless we do something drastic to get the men to maintain the machines—particularly in those trades where there is a great shortage. The closing down of those second line units—the Empire Flying Training Schools, and so on—is a policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul. If these establishments are necessary for the quality of the Royal Air Force then all one is achieving by this policy is the sacrifice of quality to get quantity. That, in the long run, is not good for the Service. We want a long-term policy, and as quickly as possible. Regular recruiting, so far from increasing and helping the Secretary of State to fill the gaps in essential tradesmen—gaps which are keeping front line machines on the ground—is declining.
    The Minister speaks of making the Service as attractive as possible; as attractive as civilian life. We all know that, but what we want to know is what is being done? We have been asking for five years, and we have been saying that that is what ought to be done. We are getting a little tired of seeing the platitudinous phrases which appear year after year, in the White Papers which accompany the Estimates. Next year, we want to see a real improvement in the situation; we want to see an end to these complaints and to the complaints of the difficulty of getting recruits. We want some definite steps taken to get them. While the shortages of skilled airmen persist, one would have thought that the Air Ministry would make as much use as possible of civilian tradesmen. But what do we find? Oil pages 98 and 99 of the Estimates we find that the numbers of civilian employees has been reduced this year by 4,072. Surely, with these shortages of airmen, we ought to keep these men. I may be talking nonsense, but it looks from a study of the Estimates that we are complaining, on the one hand, of the shortages of skilled maintenance men, and on the other hand, are sacking skilled civilians.
    Perhaps the Under-Secretary can explain why those 4,000 men have been dis-

    1909
    missed at this time. I promised not to take up too much time, but I have been speaking longer than I intended to. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley suggested during his speech that to help overcome the shortages of airmen—and it is, after all, these shortages which are the key to the whole problem we are discussing—some arrangement might be made with the civilian aircraft factories, who are in a difficult position owing to the cancellation of certain contracts, to do a larger amount of maintenance work and overhaul work upon R.A.F. aircraft. I hope the Secretary of State will examine that very carefully, take it seriously and let us know as soon as possible what it has been possible to do in that direction.
    I think it is not unfair to say that anyone reading the White Paper accompanying these Estimates would think that the Government, in relation to the Royal Air Force, are drifting, that they are waiting for something to turn up, that their head is still firmly in the sand; they are not facing the facts bravely and realistically. I do not think that this White Paper would give confidence to our people that our first line of defence is being really built up; that our first line of defence, which is the Royal Air Force, with its bembers and particularly its fighters, is being built up with energy and speed.
    Nor that the Royal Air Force is getting the priority it should get and which it deserves in the allocation of available economic resources and manpower resources. Finally, it does not give the confidence that if an emergency comes, we can meet it as we should. The Secretary of State did go some way this afternoon towards easing our anxieties, but perhaps the Under-Secretary will go even further and set our minds at rest on many of these points.
    11.39 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Crawley): This is the first time I have had the honour to address the House from this Box. I, too, must ask the indulgence of hon. Members in replying to a Debate in which an enormous number of questions to do with the Royal Air Force has been raised. Naturally, I welcome that fact. It shows a very great interest in the Royal Air Force in this House, but if I were to try to answer them all in my speech we should be here until
    1910
    dawn and I am sure those hon. Members to whom I give no direct answer will forgive me. We shall study their speeches with care and, if necessary, write to them about them. I naturally had a fellow feeling for the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor), the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) and the noble Lord the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton), who was in the position of being nought not out for his first innings and continued his effort today. I do not know whether my ordeal or theirs is the worse. I should think there is not much in it, and I can only say that I should like to feel that I shall acquit myself as well as they did. I hope to answer some of the points they raised during their speeches.
    The hon. Member for Bradford, North, who has played such a helpful part in the auxiliary and A.T.C. organisations, raised the question of transport for auxiliary squadrons, and we should like to know more about the case he mentioned because there are arrangements which can be made if there are difficulties. He spoke with a great deal of information about the A.T.C., and I should like to tell him that we are having meetings all over the country within the next few weeks to go into the whole question of the organisation and relationship between the A.T.C. and the Territorial Associations and organisations. We shall let him know about that.
    Before turning to the Debate as a whole and the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) I want to draw attention to one matter in these Estimates, and this is the only way I can deal with some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). It is the increasing cost of modern aircraft. My right hon. and learned Friend outlined some of the increases when explaining the extra £15½ million we are seeking for aircraft and equipment, a sum which would have been very much larger had it not been for the fact that we have made a great many economies. The fact is that we are only at the beginning of the development of jet aircraft and of radar and of other forms of modern equipment, and when we look a few years ahead to the time when the aircraft we are now developing will be coming into service, there is no doubt that the increase in cost

    1911
    is a very formidable proportion. It seems to me that both in this Debate and in the Debates which will follow in the years to come this fact must be very much in our minds.
    To put the position graphically and perhaps at its extreme, on our present Estimates—and, of course, they are only Estimates—if we needed a peak strength in another war of the same quantity of aircraft in bombers and fighters as that which we had in the last war, and if the proportions were roughly the same, then the cost of those aircraft alone would be at least twice as much as the whole of our Defence Estimates are now. That, of course, is only a rough estimate, but it seems to me that as one is constantly engaged in this sort of research and in finding money for it, one has a duty to make some estimate of where these costs are leading.
    It follows, of course, that further development on these lines is only of practical value on the assumption that improved performance in some of these aircraft and the new equipment that goes with them will allow much of the work of an Air Force to be done by fewer machines. Obviously, one cannot go into details about this and, as I say, these are only estimates, but I think I can say that as things are developing now experiments look as if in many cases they are meeting this test particularly in relation to bombers. It is plain, I think, that with jet engines—and our lead in the jet engine is very important—and with immensely increased power of bombs—and it is a fact, which has already been demonstrated, that jet bombers can fly almost as high and almost as fast as a jet fighter—that it should be possible for bombers to do their work and to carry out attacks of as great or even greater power in smaller numbers.
    Many people, thinking and realising this, have asked themselves how any defence against this sort of attack can be contrived. Again, there are developments that are taking place which show that the answer is plainly not in an indefinite increase in the number of jet fighters whose superior margin of height and speed is not very great. At this moment we need a greater number, but the guided missiles from air or land, combined with new radar devices do open up
    1912
    possibilities by which defence may be able to keep pace with this development.
    My last word on this subject is that it is difficult in these days to over-estimate the importance of ancillary equipment such as radar. It would be possible, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. Orr-Ewing) has raised this point before, to have the very latest jet aircraft and yet to have a comparatively inefficient Air Force if you have not got the most up-to-date directional and other equipment. We are very much aware of that fact.
    I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley for his references to the Secretary of State and myself. It is, of course, perfectly fair to hoist anyone who has left the backbench for the front bench on the petard of his previous speeches. I am sure that it has happened to him.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: Often.
    Mr. Crawley: I remember that in the last Parliament a book called "The Middle Way" was much quoted, and I equally remember that the right hon. Gentleman remained entirely unmoved by these quotations. I propose to follow his example. I do not regret my speeches at all, and I can claim that much of what I said in the speech to which he has referred has come about. I asked for greater co-operation with the United States and I suggested that we should take advantage of any chance we had of using American bombers, and both these things have since come to pass. I am particularly glad that the right hon. Gentleman agreed that that policy is right, and I cannot help remarking that his view is really quite inconsistent with the views expressed by some hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo), and, I think, with the publication which the Air League has put out, and which appeared only in this morning's paper. I rather doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman has read it.
    Mr. Macmillan: Oh, yes, I have.
    Mr. Crawley: This document I can only describe as irresponsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think it wants studying with care. I think it is irresponsible in two ways: first, in its timing. In the very first paragraph the authors

    1913
    of this document state that they have been deeply anxious for some time about the state of our air defences. If that is so it is very curious that they chose the day before the Estimates to publish their document, when everyone would admit that we are able to announce very considerable improvements in our air defences, and did not see fit to publish it last year or the year before when there was much greater anxiety. It lays them open to quite a lot of misrepresentation and the charge that they will be allowing their organisation to be used for political purposes. It is a mistake to have timed this announcement in the way they did.
    My second point has to do with the substance because they make some very broad statements, the first of which is that we must have air superiority over all theatres of operations and over all home bases. Throughout this document it is suggested that we have to achieve this alone. They make not the smallest reference to the United States, the Atlantic Pact, or Western Defence. They simply state the broad requirement of an overall air defence, and leave one to conclude that we have to have this superiority not only over any powers we may have in mind but over the United States as well. It is a most curious document, and I am glad to note that the conclusions I draw from it are shared by the right hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members who sit behind him.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked about the maintenance of aircraft by civil firms. He is quite right about the part civil firms were able to play in the Berlin airlift, but I wonder if he is aware of the large volume of servicing that is done by civil firms. They do practically the whole of third-line servicing, and a great deal of engine maintenance. A working party is now going into the question of whether further major maintenance may be done in this way. We agree with him that it is well worth exploring. He and many other hon. Members also mentioned manning difficulties. It would be absurd to suggest that this is not a difficult problem. There are shortages in certain skilled trades, particularly the electrical trades, but we expect to be able to man the B29 squadrons. To the hon. Member for Brentford I would say that although the same difficulties arise in the expansion of our fighter Force, we see
    1914
    no reason for anxiety at the moment. It is difficult, and there are shortages, and one cannot be dogmatic about it.
    Many hon. Members raised the question of charter firms, and the usefulness of civil aircraft generally to the Air Force. Again, I would say that we do use private firms for a great many purposes. One of the most common is for anti-aircraft practice, and we are hoping to increase their use for that purpose. They also provide the aircraft for some flying clubs, and—although this is really a War Office matter, they are engaged in troop movements to West Africa. We are examining a good many other ways in which we believe they may be able to help us.
    The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members mentioned the question of exporting aircraft. It seems to me that the answer is straightforward. The decision to export military aircraft was not a sudden decision. It was part of a deliberate policy which enabled us to keep our production at a much higher level than would otherwise have been the case. If the 100 aircraft which went to Argentina had not been exported they ought not to have been produced, and would not have been produced. We planned the export of military aircraft, and we are still planning export, so that our industry should be kept at a higher level for war potential, and for purposes of expansion in war, than we could keep it if we only bought from it the aircraft we need ourselves. That seems to me the complete answer to all the suggestions thrown up on that point today or last week in the Debate on defence. It is impossible, if you are going to plan an export drive of that kind, suddenly to switch the aircraft to home account. If you do, you lose the export markets and very soon find yourselves with a lot of redundant aircraft factories, because you will have re-equipped your force at a speed greater than you can afford and you will find your demands are far less than an industry of that capacity needs.
    I sympathise with the desire that auxiliary squadrons should be re-equipped with the latest types of aircraft. Nobody who has served in the auxiliary forces can have anything but the warmest of feelings for them, but, once again, it is no use pretending that finance has nothing to do with it. It is like

    1915
    the documents of the Air League, the obvious ideal. We should like to have all the aircraft for every purpose which would make us feel safe, but it cannot be done. It is absurd, too, to imagine that the auxiliary squadrons can be equipped before the Regular squadrons. The truth is we are re-equipping our auxiliary squadrons at the fastest speed we can afford, and we shall, I hope, re-equip them by next year. That is the answer to that particular problem.
    I should like to come to one or two points raised by the hon. Member for Hendon, North, and which the Prime Minister referred to in his speech the other day when he said that we would be able to say something about them tonight. One of them is the question of the fighter control units. These units are of the utmost importance. They control from the ground the movement of our own aircraft, and report the movement of the enemy aircraft as they are coming in to attack us. At the moment we have 26 units, and they are to be manned mainly by volunteer auxiliaries with a kernel of regulars, at any rate, to start with.
    The figures which were given by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) were not quite accurate. The fact is that we are in need of a great many volunteers still, but we have got something over 3,000. We need up to another 15,000 now. On the other hand, there are a good many National Service men doing this job in the Royal Air Force development area, and they will form a reserve and will volunteer to come into the organisation. There is another scheme. This work can be done by girls and women, and we are offering a new type of non-Regular contract for training for six months to girls who have left secondary schools and to women. They will then go into the auxiliary units and they will bring up the numbers. The hon. Member for Worcester raised the question of location. Twenty-six units are in the most vital places, and we hope to expand the number as quickly as can be. When a beginning is made, the most important place is organised first.
    The hon. Member for Hendon, North, also raised the question of the possibility of using civilians from the radio industry in this type of work and in similar work.
    1916
    We have been discussing this with members of the industry and with other bodies. We are about to form in London a new type of auxiliary unit. It will include this radar reporting unit, which will specialise in this particular role. We hope they will start recruiting for it in the next two or three months, and they will draw strength from the radio industry. We are also considering raising another similar unit in Cambridge.
    I should like to say a few words about recruiting. It would be idle to pretend that we are satisfied with recruiting, but I do not want to go into any detail on it. It was dealt with fully in the Defence Debate and also yesterday on the Army Estimates. The general view that was expressed on the question of pay that it should be at the level which people might assume was competitive with civilian life, does not seem to me to be a panacea in itself. It is agreed that the problem of pay is, after all, very important, but people do not, in fact, go into the Services to make money in the same way as one goes into business to make money. A reasonable return is expected to provide a decent standard of living, but then something else is looked for—the things that are got from comradeship, games, the sort of life when companies are living together, and a smart uniform.
    I do not suppose that anyone in the Services has a closed mind on the question of pay, which is something which has continually to be looked at, but, at the same time, I believe that improved conditions, at a time when we are pressed so tightly economically, is equally important, and there, I claim, we have done a great deal. One could point to nothing of great significance except perhaps the improvement in the provision of married quarters, but we have done many different things which, on the whole, make life in the Air Force more agreeable. In connection with this I must emphasise that the best hope of improving recruitment is to persuade men who serve as National Service men to take on Regular engagements. One encouraging factor in the recruiting figures is the slight increase in the numbers of National Service men re-engaging. We hope to continue this increase by accelerating the disposal of surplus ammunition and cutting down the number of stations where the men had to do exceedingly boring jobs, like guard-

    1917
    ing ammunition and moving it, which so bored National Service men that when they left the Service they were going about the country saying, "Whatever you do, don't join the R.A.F., because you will be put on that kind of job."
    Maintenance Command have greatly accelerated the disposal of that sort of work and as a result many many fewer National Service men are called on to do it. They are making better use of them in other ways, training them in all sorts of jobs. There is a limit to what we can do in this, because we cannot take men on the job off it too long, but we have devised a system of assistant training by breaking down a skilled job into subsections which are more or less repetitive but which require a certain amount of skill, to that we are training men more quickly. Another thing is that there have been too many postings. In future National Service men should have only two postings during their service, one being to their original recruit training.
    Regarding trade careers, a point raised by the hon. Member for Worcester and to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred, we are hoping to devise a scheme whereby a man can find a career in a trade and get increases in pay throughout that career. We think this will reorganise the whole of the trade structure and offer a great deal that will be much more competitive with civilian life. The present scholarships to the Air Training Corps are not of direct value to the Air Force, because training of that kind does not produce pilots useful to the Air Force. But we can say that they are indirectly of great use because they encourage airmindedness.
    There is a large number of further points I could take up, but we have already been debating for a long time and I would like to study these points at greater length. I will communicate with hon. Members where necessary privately about them. The R.A.F. is expanding and it is obviously improving, particularly in striking power. I think this Debate will have helped my right hon. and learned Friend to continue that improvement. The Royal Air Force is an effective Force now, and I think we can claim it is well on the way to meet all commitments likely to fall to it within the Atlantic Pact and for the defence of the Commonwealth and of democracy.
    Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put and agreed to.
    Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
    [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

    AIR ESTIMATES, 1950–51

      VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE
      Resolved:
      "That a number of officers, airmen and air-women, not exceeding 215,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

    VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE
    Resolved:
    "That a sum, not exceeding £52,850,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

    VOTE 2. RESERVE AND AUXILIARY SERVICES
    Resolved:
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,442,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 56,000 all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve and 20,000, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

    VOTE 7. AIRCRAFT AND STORES
    Resolved:
    "That a sum, not exceeding £78,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

    VOTE 8. WORKS AND LANDS
    Resolved:
    "That a sum, not exceeding £26,440,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."

    VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES
    Resolved:
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,345,000, 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, 1951."

    VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS
    Resolved:
    "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will

    1919
    come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951."—[Mr. Arthur Henderson.]
    Resolutions to be reported this day; Committee to sit again this day.

KITCHEN COMMITTEE
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [13th March], "That Three be the quorum."
Question again proposed.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Does the hon. Member for Croydon, East, (Sir H. Williams) wish to move his Amendment?
Sir Herbert Williams: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I did not wish to do so. I thought I had indicated that I did not wish to pursue the matter further, because it was made clear to me that the new Committee is likely to make a real inquiry into the cause of the heavy losses in the past. I desired to move another Amendment on the night, when, owing to the turbulence of the House, I could not hear what Mr. Speaker was saying. I put down this alternative Amendment. If the quorum had been four, instead of three, last session I think it would have been better. I want to see the elimination of the £20,000 loss, because I do not see why hon. Members should have meals here at the expense of the public outside, but in the circumstances I beg to move to leave out "Three" and to insert "Four."
Amendment agreed to.
Question, as amended, agreed to.

KINGSTON HOSPITAL COMMITTEE (APPOINTMENTS)
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
12.9 a.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Tonight I desire to raise the question of certain rather odd happenings in the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, events which have caused, and are causing, considerable feeling in my constituency. They also, I think, give rise to rather interesting reflec-
1920
tions on what is happening generally on the hospital side of the National Health Service. I understand that it is the policy of the Ministry of Health and, in general, it seems to be the right policy, not to intervene in the actions of these regional boards; and I say at once that I am the last man to suggest lightly that the Minister of Health should intervene in any particular activity more than he does at present. The circumstances which have arisen in this particular case, however, are such that non-intervention by the Minister would really amount to connivance of a grave abuse in the powers of the Regional Hospital Board. If I can satisfy the House that matters have arisen which demand an inquiry by the Minister, I hope the Minister will accept the view that inquiry, at least, must take place.
The House is aware of the general structure of these boards. The regional boards are appointed by the right hon. Gentleman, and they, in their turn, appoint the group management committees, which actually control the group of hospitals. These appointments are generally for short periods, but it is possible to renew them. In the particular case which I have in mind, the dispute has arisen in connection with the appointments to the Kingston Group Management Committee, and so that one may have a proper understanding of this matter, it must be explained that in the background of this dispute concerning appointments, there is another dispute still going on between the Group Management Committee and the Regional Board.
That dispute, into which I do not propose to enter, because the matter is sub judice and no decision has been reached, is whether the Kingston Victoria Hospital shall continue as a small hospital as at present—to which general practitioners may go to treat their patients—or whether it shall be turned into a maternity unit attached to a larger hospital. There has been a dispute of some months between the Group Management Committee and the Regional Board, a dispute which is still continuing and which, unfortunately, has given rise to considerable feeling. One member of the Regional Board has demonstrated, in my view, his complete unfitness to continue as a member by announcing while the controversy was going on, that the views of the Management Committee were a "political stunt."

1921
The question has now arisen of the renewal of appointments to the Management Committee and what has happened in the last few days is that the chairman of the Management Committee and three of the members have not been reappointed. It is significant, I think, that both the chairman, and the three members not re-appointed, are all people who have strongly supported the views of their own Management Committee as against the views of the Regional Board. The chairman is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) and is a man of considerable ability; a former member of the Surrey County Council, which post he gave up to undertake duties of the Management Committee.
The other three members are all people of considerable distinction, one being the chairman of the House Committee of Kingston Victoria Hospital. All are people who have taken the line which their local experience entitles them to take, that the Group Management Committee's views are more in accordance with local needs and local tradition and local feeling than are the recommendations of the Regional Board. Yet in the middle of this conference as to the future of the Victoria Hospital, the chairman and three members of the Management Committee have not been put back in their appointments.
It would certainly appear that the Regional Board have used their powers of appointment in order, in my view, to force their views upon the Management Committee. It would appear—I say this in parenthesis—equally, that the Regional Board have taken a curious view of their duties under the National Health Service Act. If the Parliamentary Secretary would be good enough to refer to the Third Schedule of the Act of 1946, the relevant part is Part II, he will notice that it is there laid down that before making the appointment to fill vacancies the Board shall also consult the Committee. I understand that, in fact, that consultation has not taken place.
But whatever the consequences of that breach of their duties under the Act, I do not wish to lay particular stress on it, because I am very much more concerned with the merits of the matter and with the fact that people have been
1922
removed from duties they have satisfactorily discharged for no apparent reason other than that they disagreed with the Regional Board on a controversial matter which is still at issue.
The chairman, whose obvious capacities for the duties he was successfully discharging no one has ever disputed, has been replaced by a distinguished admiral who comes from outside the hospital area and who, in the circumstances, may find it somewhat difficult to confirm his acceptance of the appointment. I do not know. In any event, the matter strikes local opinion, and I must confess strikes me, as bearing only one possible interpretation. I would like to quote, in that connection, the words of the removed chairman, made in a letter to the local newspaper:
"As one of the victims of the 'purge' I should like to make public my experience as the chairman of Kingston Hospital Management Committee: the whole administrative set-up of the hospital system is thoroughly unsatisfactory … In the first place, as I have already stated to your representative, the position of chairman of the Management Committee is not defined. The view of the Regional Board, as expressed by their chairman, has however been made most abundantly clear to me. It is that the chairman of a Management Committee should bludgeon his committee into accepting the policy of the Regional Board."
The same word "bludgeon" is, in my view, very appropriately used in a leading article in that local newspaper of the same date, which reads:
"Last Saturday we suggested that members of the Kingston Group Hospital Management Committee who opposed the Regional Hospital Board's plan to annex Kingston Victoria Hospital had been thrown off the committee because of their opposition. All those opponents whose term in office had expired, although they could have been re-appointed, were cast aside. The only reason for that action was obviously the one we gave—that these members fought for what they thought right instead of doing what they were told, and so were ousted."
It is clear that is part of an attempt, and I believe it is not the only attempt, this particular Regional Board has made to exercise its powers of appointment in order to override the Group Management Committee. As I understand it, the Group Management Committee's whole object is to secure that local feeling and local views are properly represented. Of course, it makes an absolute mockery of the discharge of the duties if the Regional Board who appoint their members is to

1923
indulge in abuse of their power of appointment. That it is not anything but part of a consistent attempt to do that is illustrated by two ancillary matters.
At the same time of these appointments, the local advisory committee was asked for recommendations of appointments to the Group Committee. They nominated four medical men in order of preference. The Regional Board appointed the last two—the two at the bottom of the order of preference—and it is perhaps significant that the doctor whose name appeared first in the order of preference on the list is a very distinguished man, prominent in the activities of the British Medical Association, who shares the views of the Group Management Committee on the future of the Victoria Hospital. It is equally interesting to note that there remains on the Group Management Committee another gentleman who, I should have thought, was very disadvantageously placed there in as much as he is not only a member of the Regional Board but is also in his medical capacity an employee of the Group Management Committee.
It appears, therefore, that this is no isolated error of judgment. On the contrary, it appears that it is part of a deliberate effort to override the Group Management Committee and to enable the Regional Board to get its way by what I must confess I regard as a gross abuse of its power. That being so, it seems to me that it is imperative that the Minister should intervene. I do not ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept merely the version of the facts which I have given to the House tonight; all I ask him to do is to give an assurance that the matter will be investigated, that the Minister will discuss the matter not merely with the Regional Board but with the members and former members of the Group Management Committee and will make up his own mind, in an impartial manner, on the facts. That is all I ask and, in justice to my constituents. I do not think I can ask for less.
12.22 a.m.
Mr. McCorquodale: In spite of the lateness of the hour I rise to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and to express my apprehension as to what is going on in the district I have the honour
1924
to represent in regard to hospital administration. My hon. Friend has raised the question of the dismissal—and that is what it is—of a very worthy chairman of the Kingston Hospital Group Committee. His appointment has not been confirmed for a further period and all he got was a curt letter of three lines from his superiors. If that is not tantamount to a dismissal I do not know what is.
This gentleman is a very prominent constituent of mine, and a very good friend. He is an ex-alderman of the borough and an ex-member of the county council. He gave up his other public work to have plenty of time to concentrate on hospital administration. A distinguished lawyer, a man held in high regard in our area and a man with a long and successful experience of hospital administration, he seemed an ideal choice, and I cannot help thinking that to allow him to go with a curt letter of three lines is not in the best traditions of the Ministry of Health. It is contrary to the views expressed by the Minister himself in recent Debates and Debates last year when he himself highly commended the disinterested work of the chairmen of these boards and committees.
I was apprehensive about this matter and I became much more seriously alarmed when I learned that the same treatment was being meted out in the group hospital committee next door. The distinguished chairman of the St. Helier Committee, in spite of the unanimous approval of his leadership by his own committee—I think I am right in saying this—has been told that his appointment has not been confirmed. I submit that there is obviously something wrong between the Regional board and the Group Hospital Committee. The Regional Board is under the authority and is the responsibility of the Minister and I would reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend that the Minister himself should look into the matter. I do not want to go into the reasons for some of this trouble, although I think I know something about it. I am convinced that if the Minister wishes he can easily find out the cause of the trouble, and then I would urge him to take action to rectify these distressing events. It is only in this way that he can get the good and economical administration which we all hope to see in the conduct of our hospital affairs.
12.25 a.m.
Mr. Messer: I sincerely hope that the Minister will not give in to the appeals which have been made to him. I remember the Debates on this Act when, as a Bill, it was passing through the House, and I recall how strongly the Opposition said that there must be no interference from Whitehall. They said that the Minister of Health must not do anything to interfere with the responsibilities placed on the shoulders of the regional hospital board. They were planning bodies, it was claimed, and if they were to be subjected to the directions of the Minister of Health the result would be a central bureaucratic machine against all the interests of this human service.
We have an instance here where, because it suits the Opposition, they want interference from Whitehall, but I want to tell the Minister that this is far more important than this incident appears to suggest. It is important because the boards could not possibly do their job if they always had to be looking behind their shoulders to see whether what they were doing met with the approval of the Minister. Indeed, the defence is contained in the fact that the regional boards are independent and, under the Act, have certain authority and powers. They have powers, for instance, of appointing management committees, and it is ridiculous to talk about a purge. It is ridiculous because what has not been said tonight is that the board before they get the recommendations receive them from the area committee, and they do not get them from the management committee. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said there was no consultation. Is he not aware that all the bodies mentioned in the Schedule to the Act were approached?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The consultation I referred to was not consultation with other bodies but consultation with the committee, as laid down at the end of Part II to the Third Schedule.
Mr. Messer: That consultation took place. I have a copy of the letter which was sent. When that letter was sent, the Management Committee sent forward nominations. Those nominations did not go to the Regional Board. They first of all went to the South Surrey Area Committee, and it was this Committee which
1926
sent the recommendations to the Regional Board.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So that there was no consultation with the Committee.
Mr. Messer: There was consultation to the extent that the area committee was the agent of the Regional Board for this purpose. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it all ways. I know that he likes it all ways, but he must be logical. His forensic skill should make him recognise that some degree of consistency is required. I suggest that if the Minister of Health permits an inquiry into this then every regional board will be faced with this prospect when it declines to renew an appointment.
That was the case here. These members have terminated their appointments, and what is more, I can say now what I would not have said if he had not quoted from the newspaper report—that the chairman resigned and, after that resignation, asked for it to be withdrawn. That resignation was withdrawn, so that it is absurd to suggest that this was a question of victimisation merely because the Regional Board disagrees with the Management Committee about the use of a hospital. What is the position of a regional hospital board to be when it plans a service, and has to look not at an individual hospital but at the Health Service as a whole? I regret that time does not permit me to develop that as I would like, in a way which would show that the Service would break down if the Minister gave in to this appeal.
12.30 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): am a little surprised and very sorry, that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) should have indulged in what I can only describe as special pleading before the House in the case of the non-reappointment of certain members of the Kingston Group Hospital Management Committee. Quite properly, I believe, my right hon. Friend has no power whatever to deal with the appointment of hospital management committees, which is the statutory job of the regional hospital boards. Indeed, if that were not so, what we would get presumably, in this House, would be a repetition on

1927
a much wider scale of the sort of pleading we have listened to tonight.
Throughout the country, whenever regional hospital boards thought it desirable to have changes in the membership of hospital management committees, as they are fully entitled to do, we would have members on both sides of the House putting their impassioned cases in support of particular members of the committees who might not have been reappointed, and creating complete disorder—which they may desire to create for all I know—in the working of the hospital system.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, assuming there to be grave abuses on a regional board his right hon. Friend is absolutely helpless?
Mr. Blenkinsop: I am saying that he has no power at all to question the appointments to hospital management committees. That is the point we are dealing with tonight. I am interested to observe that hon. Members opposite are taking this line of opposition to the Regional Hospital Board concerned, and are clearly attempting to do all they can to make the work of that Board as difficult as possible. It is another example of what I suppose hon. Members opposite call their great anxiety to help develop the hospital service.
Mr. McCorquodale: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that any effort we on this side may make to see that the hospital administration is carried on decently, which all people in the country wish to see, is pure party politics, because, if so, that is not worthy of him?
Mr. Blenkinsop: What I am saying is that the attempt to introduce the Minister into the appointment of hospital management committees would be an entirely retrograde step, and would bring into operation the sort of political intervention which it would be our desire to avoid, and which we imagined at one time, perhaps foolishly, that hon. Members opposite would also desire to avoid. It is clear from Part II of the Schedule that management committees shall consist of the chairman and such other members as the board think fit, and that the members shall include persons appointed after con-
1928
sultation in various ways. We are satisfied that the Regional Hospital Board here has carried out its duties to the letter, and there is no basis at all for my right hon. Friend to intervene in any way.
I would add this: my right hon. Friend has, as he is fully entitled to do, sent advice in circulars to regional hospital boards generally on the question of the size of management committees, and the different bodies that should be consulted in addition to those laid down in the Schedule, and on the desirability for change from time to time in the membership of hospital management committees. The desirability of getting new personnel to serve on these committees is a matter which we also consider from time to time in the appointment of regional hospital boards. We would hope that we would not have when we make changes on these boards to be checked in the way suggested. If that were the attitude then it would be impossible to make any changes that we might want to make in order to bring new blood on to the boards. Also, we want to encourage the regional hospitals boards, in their turn, to bring new personnel in to the management committees.
Instead of that hon. Members want to criticise every time that this is being done. The hospital boards are fully responsible to the Minister for the organisation of the hospital services in their region. I suggest that it would be quite undesirable for the regional hospitals boards to be attacked when they desire to make changes in the membership of their managements committees in the way we now suggest they should be. If that were done I cannot imagine that very many members or the chairman of the regional hospital boards would be willing to accept the very heavy and real responsibility imposed upon them under the Act. My right hon. Friend and I have on many occasions called attention to the most valuable work which is being done both by the regional hospitals board members and by members of the hospital managements committees throughout the country, and they are doing this work voluntarily to the great advantage of the community.
I would suggest that it is a great pity that issues of this kind should be raised in the House in a way which can only be interpreted as an attempt to introduce

1929
party political motives into a service which we would all desire to see kept outside that arena. This is all the more so because I imagine that hon. Members opposite as well as hon. Members on this side of the House desire to ensure the greatest freedom of action to regional hospital boards to make sure they should not be influenced unduly in the carrying out of their duties by interference in matters which are wholly their responsibility.
Obviously, on this matter I cannot say anything about the Management Committee which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Epsom, but the same issue applies. There, again, we would certainly not interfere with decisions taken by the regional hospitals board upon the appointment of a chairman. All we would point out is that the powers of the Minister, which are frequently used, are
1930
to give advice upon the conduct of their work and to take into consideration the various proposals that are put forward by regional hospital boards and to consider the various objections which may be made by management committees. We have to hear the representations made to see that all points are considered, but on this particular issue of the appointments to this committee, where it has been expressly laid down in the Act that the responsibility should be wholly upon the Board.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Tuesday and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-one Minutes to One o'Clock a.m.

SCOTLAND
  Hill Sheep Subsidy
  Hill Sheep Subsidy
  Housing, Glasgow
  Housing, Glasgow
  ARMOURED VEHICLES, MALAYA
  ARMOURED VEHICLES, MALAYA
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Warcop R.A.C. Rangers
  Warcop R.A.C. Rangers
  Footbridges, Washburn Valley
  Footbridges, Washburn Valley
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Arrears (Distraint)
  Tax Arrears (Distraint)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Tobacco Concession
  Tobacco Concession
  Authors (Dollar Earnings)
  Authors (Dollar Earnings)
  Prototypes (Customs Delays)
  Prototypes (Customs Delays)
  Savings (Advertising)
  Savings (Advertising)
  Confiscated Textiles (Disposal)
  Confiscated Textiles (Disposal)
  Special Contribution
  Special Contribution
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Finished Textile Goods (Import)
  Finished Textile Goods (Import)
  War Damage (Business Scheme)
  War Damage (Business Scheme)
  Terry Squares (Supply)
  Terry Squares (Supply)
  Spectacle Frames
  Spectacle Frames
  New Factories, Pembroke Dock
  New Factories, Pembroke Dock
  Raw Cotton Commission (Accounts)
  Raw Cotton Commission (Accounts)
  Bahamas Timber
  Bahamas Timber
  Greenhill Estate, Coatbridge
  Greenhill Estate, Coatbridge
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Pensions (Means Disqualification)
  Pensions (Means Disqualification)
  Fishermen (Unemployment Benefit)
  Fishermen (Unemployment Benefit)
  Contributions (Impressed Stamping)
  Contributions (Impressed Stamping)
  Contributions (Evasion)
  Contributions (Evasion)
EMPLOYMENT
  Bristol Aeroplane Co. (Redundancies)
  Bristol Aeroplane Co. (Redundancies)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Milford Haven
  Milford Haven
  Building Workers, Falmouth and Camborne
  Building Workers, Falmouth and Camborne
  Canterbury, Whitstable and Herne Bay
  Canterbury, Whitstable and Herne Bay
  Radio-Telegraphists
  Radio-Telegraphists
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Disabled Miners
  Disabled Miners
  Tuberculosis Sanatoria (Waiting Lists)
  Tuberculosis Sanatoria (Waiting Lists)
  Hospital Management Committees
  Hospital Management Committees
  BURMAH OIL COMPANY (GUARANTEE)
  BURMAH OIL COMPANY (GUARANTEE)
  GERMANY (DISTURBANCES, SALZGITTER)
  GERMANY (DISTURBANCES, SALZGITTER)
  AIRCRAFT (FOREIGN SALE)
  AIRCRAFT (FOREIGN SALE)
  TIMBER FELLINGS
  TIMBER FELLINGS
  PREFABRICATED SCHOOL BUILDINGS
  PREFABRICATED SCHOOL BUILDINGS
  BARBADOS (FOODSTUFFS IMPORTS)
  BARBADOS (FOODSTUFFS IMPORTS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
BATH EXTENSION BILL [H.L.] CARLISLE EXTENSION BILL [H.L.] GERMAN POTASH SYNDICATE LOAN BILL [H.L.] WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
FACULTY OF HOMœOPATHY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS BILL [H.L.]
2.36 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable certain maintenance orders to be made and enforced throughout the United Kingdom; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

SERETSE KHAMA
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask His Majesty's Government when it is intended to publish a White Paper concerning Seretse Khama?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice. At any rate, I would respectfully say to the noble Viscount that this is not the appropriate moment to ask the question.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, will the noble and learned Viscount, the
300
Lord Chancellor, bear in mind that it would be hardly fair to depose and exile this man without there being an opportunity of presenting his case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount may be assured that all relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

LAW OF DEFAMATION
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 whether, in view of the unanimous recommendations of the Committee on the Law of Defamation presided over by Lord Porter, the Report of which was presented to Parliament in October, 1948, and of the opportunity which now arises for promoting useful legislation which does not involve Party conflict, they intend to introduce a Bill dealing with this subject.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, careful consideration has been given to the recommendation to which the noble and learned Viscount refers but, as he is aware, the subject is by no means an easy one, and I am unable to say when it will be possible to introduce legislation.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Viscount for that answer, may I ask this question? In view of the authority which must attach to a Report for which Lord Porter is mainly responsible on the subject of amending the law of libel, and of the widespread feeling that amendments in the law of libel are called for, and while I admit that the subject is not an easy one, will my noble and learned friend do his best to see that this subject, which is not a matter of Party conflict, is kept in the forefront for consideration for early legislation if possible?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I confess I view with some sympathy the point of view which the noble and learned Viscount has expressed, and, subject to political exigencies which one cannot foresee very clearly at the present time, I will see what I can do to assist in this matter. But I can give no sort of undertaking.

PRODUCTION ON MARGINAL LAND
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lovat, who cannot be here, I beg to put to His Majesty's Government the Question which stands in the noble Lord's name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have appointed a Committee to study the question of the improvement of production on marginal land, and if so, what is the membership of that Committee.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, it has already been announced in another place that no formal Committee has been appointed to study this question. My right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland are being advised in this matter by a small working party of officials of agricultural departments, with whom are associated certain distinguished agricultural scientists.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl why he should decline to give the names of the people associated with the working party? Surely their names ought to be made public.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, it is contrary to the usual practice to give the names of civil servants on such a working party.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I did not ask for the names of the civil servants. I asked for the names of those who were to be associated with the civil servants.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I can give the names of the scientists associated with the working party. One is Professor W. Ellison, of the University College of Wales; the other is Dr. F. Yates, of Rothamstead.

POLICE AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
2.39 p.m.
LORD BADELEY: 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 why a distinction should have been made by regulation under the National Insurance Act, 1946. between men in the Police Force who served as such before the war and who, because of age, et cetera, were deemed to be "new entrants", and men who left the Police Force for the period of the war and served in the Armed Forces, or who entered the Police Force as recruits prior to July 1948, and who, instead of being classed as "new entrants" are deemed to be insured persons with a defective insurance record; whether these men are being called upon to pay a lump sum of £10 or more in respect of arrears of contributions, and why such arrears were so allowed to accumulate.]
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, regulations under the National Insurance Act, 1946, provided for insurance under the previous schemes to he taken into account as if it had been under the new scheme where a claim for a corresponding benefit was involved. These arrangements, of course, give substantial advantages to the great majority of insured persons concerned. It is, however, true that where for any reason there was a break in the payment of contributions during the last year of the old health and pension scheme, the benefits of the new scheme could not be made full available unless the missing contributions were made good to the necessary extent. It was open to persons in this position to pay the contributions at the time when they were due, but where they failed to do so they were informed of the accumulated arrears, and as a special concession the time for payment of such arrears was considerably extended.
While certain policemen are known to be in the position indicated, policemen as such are not the subject of any special National insurance regulations. So far as the scheme is concerned, their position is in no way different from that of any other class of previously insured person whose employment or occupation immediately before the start of the new scheme did not make him liable for the payment of health and pensions contributions and who did not take the

303
opportunity given to him to pay the contributions voluntarily as they became due.
LORD BADELEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I would ask whether he cannot, even at this eleventh hour, approach the Minister to see whether some concession can be made in favour of the men in the Police Force who have suffered. Perhaps the noble Lord will convey to the Minister that a great many of these men cannot put their hand in their pocket and produce £10 or £11, and, if they accept the idea of a loan, which is given in some quarters, they will have to pay 4s. a week from their weekly pay packet. In addition, they have to pay for National Insurance, whereas they had a free health service before the Act was passed. What I might call the divesting day—the day on which these arrears have to be paid—is March 31. If the Minister can see her way to granting some concession in favour of the police before that date, the gesture will be appreciated by a Force which has not had many gestures made to it.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I shall be glad to bring the noble Lord's comments to the notice of my right honourable friend, but I can hold out no hope that a distinction will be made in the case of policemen. It will be within the noble Lord's recollection that many other classes of insured persons are in the same position as the policemen.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, is that true? Did not the policemen have these services before the Act came into force simply because they were policemen? In those days the policeman did not have to pay anything, and he may have accumulated these arrears thinking that he was still in that position. Surely this is an additional reason why some concession might be made.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, the attention of these police officers was called to their position in insurance. However, I will bring the point just put forward to the notice of my right honourable friend.

MIDWIVES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
2.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. In doing so I desire to speak only briefly, because I am well aware of the great interest among all sections in your Lordships' House in the Motion which appears lower down on the Order Paper. The Working Party to consider the conditions under which midwives work and are trained was appointed some little time ago. That Working Party reported on January 28, 1949. In the Report there were no fewer than sixty-three tabulated recommendations but, contrary to general experience, only a small proportion of those recommendations had to be considered in reference to future legislation. By far the greater number of them have been put into operation, are in the process of being put into operation, or, if they are accepted by the Government, will be put into operation administratively. That seems to me a matter which ought to be noted, and one in which we can all take a great deal of pleasure. We find that while there are things still, to be done to improve the profession of midwifery Parliament has done so much of recent years that at this moment there is little pending in the way of future legislation.
It is sometimes said that the profession of midwifery is one of the oldest in the world. Long before there were medical men, in the modern term, there were women who carried out this essential function. But they were untrained, badly paid and almost unrecognised. Indeed, it was not until 1902, during the reign of a Conservative Government, that the first measure was placed upon the Statute Book dealing with the employment of midwives, their education, training and registration. If we really want to applaud ourselves in these days in our modern Parliament, all we have to do is to compare our experience in dealing with the midwife with the experience of the Parliaments immediately before this century began. The Obstetrical Society of London made a survey in 1869, and because of the conditions which they found on that occasion they decided to issue a diploma to midwives who could

305
show a minimum of experience and ability to do their task in child-birth. The diploma could not then be issued in response to training and the passing of examinations. In 1381 the Midwives' Institute (now the Royal College of Midwives) was establishes, and began to perform its beneficent work; and women who were doing the duties of midwifery began to be more experienced and learned in the subject. But a great deal had still to be done, and the help of Parliament was sought. In 1879 and 1884 Bills were drafted, but were never introduced. In 1890, 1891, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, and 1900, Bills were in fact introduced into Parliament but they were blocked, either by interested parties, by lack of interest on the part of Governments, or by sheer bad luck. Every effort had been made during that fairly long period to interest Parliament in this important subject, but almost without avail.
As I have already indicated, in 1902 a change took place and the first Midwives Act of Parliament found its way to the Statute Book. Since that period, especially as a result of the Act of 1936, not only has this profession become recognised but its members are well trained; they are certificated, and are now well employed by public authorities. At present there are 70,000 midwives having their names on the roll, but of these something under 18,000 are practising. Of this smaller number, 5,800 are employed by hospital authorities and 8,200 by local authorities. The remainder are either employed in private maternity homes or, although registered, may not be following their profession at all. It will therefore be seen that the business of midwifery has become a public one. It is now linked up with our health services, and we in Parliament are largely responsible for the future welfare of midwives. Perhaps I ought to add that the figures I have given all relate to England and Wales, as I have been unable to ascertain the proper figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I do not wish to say anything more by way of a preface to this Second Reading. I do not think it is necessary that I should argue the case for the Bill. I believe that the Bill itself is acceptable in all quarters of the House, and I am certain that it will have an easy passage. Perhaps, however, I should say one or two words about the clauses in the Bill, in
306
order that noble Lords may be interested, and perhaps participate in the Bill's remaining procedure in your Lordships' House.
Two working parties were established, one for midwives and one for nurses. The one for nurses was appointed at an earlier date, and indeed its report became known before the second working party was appointed. The nurses' working party recommended that the Central Midwives Board should be amalgamated with the General Nursing Council. They believed that all the nurses in the country, to whatever section they might belong, should be brought under one authority. Consequently, when the second working party was established, the Government, as one of its terms of reference, asked it to express an opinion upon the recommendation of the first board. The working party for the midwives decided that it would be much better that the control of midwives should remain separate from that of the nurses in, general, and the Government have now decided, as will he seen by this Bill, to take the latter view. To that extent there will not be an amalgamation between the midwives' service and that of nursing services in general.
Clauses I and 2 of the Bill deal with that matter. They deal with the reconstruction of the Central Midwives Board, and the Central Midwives Board for Scotland, and with other matters pertaining to them. Perhaps I ought to mention, for the information of your Lordships, that hitherto the Central Boards have been appointed by Order in Council. That originated from the first Act of 1902. The Government have now decided to ask Parliament to change that method and allow such changes in these Boards to be made by statutory instrument. That will expedite matters on occasion, and will at the same time retain the right of Parliament to intervene when changes in the Boards come up for consideration. Before I leave Clauses 1 and 2, I should like to pay a tribute to the admirably efficient work of the present Boards. The revolutionary change which has taken place in the practice of midwifery over the past century, and the high regard in which the profession of the midwife now stands, are due in great measure to the devoted and unobtrusive work of the Central Midwives Boards. Any changes

307
which might be made in their constitution would not imply a reflection on their efficiency, but would be designed to strengthen them, possibly by the inclusion of a higher percentage of qualified midwives who are now limited to five out of a membership of fourteen in England and Wales.
Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill concern the certification of midwives who have passed their examinations in one of the countries which make up the United Kingdom. A midwife who has gained her experience in England and has been certificated in England but afterwards goes to Scotland to reside will, under rules to be made by the Scottish Central Midwives Board, become eligible for registration and certification in that country. This will do away with some of the cumbersome machinery which now exists between the two. Clause 5 deals with the women who have been trained as midwives in other countries, and who have then come to this country to reside. Where their training is recognised by the Central Midwives Board in this country they will become entitled to their certificate, but where they have been trained in institutions abroad that are not entirely recognised then the Central Midwives Board will be able to authorise further training so as to enable them to become qualified.
Clause 6 of the Bill deals with uniforms. An official uniform is to be provided, but the wearing of this uniform will not be compulsory upon midwives themselves. It may be that occasionally, in localities where patriotism is strong and where colour schemes are believed in, uniforms may be established by county councils or by borough councils and the like. The penalty for wearing a uniform without the proper authority to do so will be severe, and will protect this profession from persons who might like to become midwives without having secured the necessary qualifications. Clause 7 deals with the roll of midwives. There are over 70,000 enrolled at this moment, and the Central Midwives Board is compelled to publish this roll once every five years. Since only between 17,000 and 18,000 of these women are at present in practice, it is considered a waste of time and money for the full roll to be published. However, the roll
308
will be kept at the headquarters of the Board so that it may be examined by interested parties. As hitherto, the local authorities will supply the Central Midwives Boards with the names of practising midwives, and it will be the duty of the Central Midwives Board to publish those lists every year—a list of 17,000 instead of 70,000.
Clause 8 enables the local supervising bodies to provide residential accommodation for pupil midwives. We believe that to be a good step in the proper direction. Clause 9 exempts midwives who are in practice from jury service. In Clause 10 there is a provision for minor amendments to the Bill which, at the appropriate time, will facilitate a consolidation measure so that the law relating to midwives can be made clear and simple. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
2.58 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, so far as I can see, there is no objection at all to this measure. After all, Clause I merely does away with the reference to the Privy Council, and leaves the matter in the hands of the Minister, but either House of Parliament can still deal with it by negative Resolution if they do not like the constitution of the Board. I think that is a step to which we can all consent. I agree entirely with the reciprocal arrangements made between this country and Scotland, on the one hand, and Northern Ireland on the other. I think these clauses, including Clause 5, are sensible. I am a little astonished that there is not that reciprocal arrangement between the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Office or the Government of Northern Ireland which would have enabled the noble Lord to give us the figures for Scotland and for Northern Ireland to-day. We are entitled to the figures for Scotland, for this Bill deals equally with Scotland as with England.
With regard to Clause 6, I think it is a good idea that midwives should have a distinctive uniform and not merely a badge as they used to have in times past. But I hope it will be a distinctive uniform, and not a kind of county council uniform which may be adapted to anybody doing any kind of service in the county council. With regard to Clause 7, I think it is right that the Central Midwives Board need

309
not publish every five years this huge list, which includes many midwives who have now ceased to practice but are still qualified; but we should have a live register published every year. With regard to Clause 8–the provision of accommodation—where there are enough students for a midwives' course it is obviously appropriate that some kind of accommodation should be provided for them. I hope it will not be done when there are only one or two; but when there are sufficient to justify hostel accommodation then I think it quite right that the local authority should have the power to provide it. As to Clause 9–exemption from jury service must say that I think that this ought to have been provided for a long time ago. There are plenty of people available for calling up for jury service without taking midwives away from what is, after all, essential work.
In short this measure, which found mention in the King's Speech, seems to comply with the basic principle underlying that Speech, in that it is a completely uncontroversial measure. It might indeed hardly justify mention in normal times in the gracious Speech from the Throne. We are grateful that we have not got more contentious legislation than this coming along. As this is one of the major Government measures to be introduced in this Parliament, it is for those of us who think it is a proper one to greet it and welcome it and to express the hope that all future measures introduced in this Parliament will be as non-contentious and as pleasant in their character as the one we are now discussing.
3.2 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, I should like to say a word of welcome and of greeting to this Bill. I do not wish to discuss any of the clauses in particular, but I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to give serious and sympathetic consideration between now and the Committee stage to the wording of Clause 6. I was glad to hear the noble Lord say that the wearing of the proposed uniform would not be compulsory, but I was rather disturbed to find that some local authorities might prevent midwives from wearing the uniform which is recognised as the uniform of their profession. I hope that at the Committee stage the noble Lord will be able to assure your Lordships on this point.
310
While the midwife has secured under the Bill a uniform which she may wear, hope that she will also secure the right to wear that uniform and not be liable to a requirement to vicar one prescribed by a county council or other authority.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, could the noble Lord in his reply explain for the benefit of laymen, the expression, "not entirely recognised"? Does it mean societies whose certificates exempt the holder from perhaps preliminary examination, or that they are not recognised at all?
LORD SHEPHERD: The reference I made was to midwives who come to this country from abroad. Some of the institutions in which they are trained have been recognised as giving a certificate worthy of the name, whereas in other cases there has not been the same confidence in the training given to these women. These women, as I have said, will not be entirely shut out, as they will he given an opportunity of further training. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, I shall be pleased to give consideration to the point raised by him, and to talk with him on the matter between now and the Committee stage.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, may I echo the plea made by my noble friend Lord Llewellin, that we should at sonic stage have the comparable figures for Scotland?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, certainly.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
3.7 p.m.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD rose to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the large number of crimes accompanied by violence occurring in large cities; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper to-day is an expression of a very sincere anxiety which I feel at the appalling number of crimes

311
of violence which are being committed in this country at the present time. I feel bound to emphasise my reasons for putting down this Motion, because of a suggestion made by the Home Secretary in another place last week to the effect that those who dared to call attention to this state of affairs were doing so in order—to quote the Home Secretary's own words—"to create a sensational atmosphere." I should have thought that the present crime wave was in itself sufficiently sensational to make any such attempt unnecessary, and in any case. so far as I am concerned, I disclaim any such motive. I do feel, however, that there are many others who share my anxiety, not only in Parliament, where Questions have been asked in both Houses, but also in the country, where I believe there is growing concern at the extent and the brutality of these outrages. It therefore seemed to me appropriate that these matters should be considered by your Lordships at an early opportunity.
Like many others, I had hoped that the Government's reply to these Parliamentary Questions would have given us some reassurance, but I must confess that I found little comfort, either in the reply of the Home Secretary in another place or in that of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in response to a Question put to him by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in your Lordships' House last week. The substance of the Lord Chancellor's reply was that, since there has been a decrease in the cases of robbery with violence since the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, passing Majesty's Government did not consider that there was any reason at present to reintroduce corporal punishment. The noble and learned Viscount was, of course, replying to a specific Question on the subject of corporal punishment, and clearly he was not bound to say any more than he did. But so far, it seems to me, all we know is what the Government are not going to do, and not what the Government are going to do to deal with this grave social menace. The impression left on my mind was that the Government were content to watch the situation and to take no positive action. I realise that this impression may be entirely wrong; and I hope it is. If it is, I feel that this debate will give the Government an
312
opportunity of correcting this misapprehension on my part and of making their policy abundantly clear.
I do not for one moment dispute the figures that were given to your Lordships by the noble and learned Viscount last week, though—and this is important—I should like to remind the House that those figures dealt only with the first nine months of 1949 and therefore did not cover the last six months when, so it seems to me, the number of these crimes has shown a striking increase. I think it would be valuable to the public, since the latest statistics available are those for the year 1948, if the noble and learned Viscount in his reply could tell the House the most recent figures available to the Home Office, not merely for the crime of robbery with violence but also for the other main offences committed against property and accompanied by violence—burglary, housebreaking and shopbreaking, for example. As I have said, I do not dispute that there may well have been some decrease in robbery with violence since 1948. Statistics, however, do not alter the fact that it is impossible nowadays to pick up a newspaper without reading of some fresh outrage. Only yesterday three fresh cases were reported in the London area alone. I do not propose to give a long string of examples because your Lordships will be only too familiar with the kind of case that I mean. Perhaps I may give just one example, that of a lady of fifty who was attacked in a train by two youths armed with a gun, a cosh and an iron bar. She was beaten to within an inch of her life, and robbed of £1. What is so shocking, quite apart from the number or the ferocity of these attacks, is the proportion perpetrated by mere youths in their teens, and the number of their victims who are elderly women, incapable of defending themselves.
These are facts which are available to anybody who can read, and I believe it is these facts which are making a powerful impression upon the public mind, particularly in those areas of our large cities where these crimes are specially prevalent, where no woman dare walk alone in the streets at night and where the average householder is almost afraid to answer the door-bell in case he is hit over the head with a cosh. I cannot believe that the anxieties of these people will be allayed by the information that there was

313
rather less of this kind of crime in 1949 than in 1948. I cannot help feeling that they must feel, as indeed I do, that, there is still far far too much of this kind of thing, and that it is time something was done about it. In any case, if we are dealing with statistics, it seems to me that it is the general trend over a period, and not the fluctuations as between one year and its immediate predecessor, that we ought to study. There are always these annual fluctuations, but I do not believe that they give us the true picture.
Last week the noble and learned Viscount gave your Lordships some figures for the crime of robbery with violence. He took, as I would have expected him to, the number of cases known to the police, because it is of course from the cases known to the police, and not from the convictions, that an accurate picture of the number of crimes actually committed can be obtained. The noble and learned Viscount told your Lordships that while for the first nine months of 1948 there were 711 cases of robbery with violence known to the for the first nine months of 1949 there were only 597 such cases—a decrease of a little over 100 cases. The criminal statistics for 1948 show that for the whole year there were 1,101 cases of robbery will violence, and therefore, on the assumption that this difference of about 100 cases between the two years did not alter materially during the last three months of 1949, it would be reasonable to assume that even in 1949 there were still about 1,000 cases of robbery with violence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Eight hundred and sixty.
LORD LLOYD: The noble and learned Viscount says 860. Well, if I am wrong in my facts, I hope that when he comes to reply he will set my mind at rest. After all, it is precisely for that reason that I have put down this Motion. At the moment, from the facts available to me it appears that there were about 1,000 cases in 1949.
I should now like to look for a moment at the period of nearly forty years between 1900 and 1939. For most of this period I have been able to obtain only average figures covering five-year periods. Nevertheless, I think that average figures present a sufficiently fair picture for comparison. During the whole
314
of this long period, the highest yearly average of cases known to the police was 251, between 1900 and 1904. The lowest yearly average was 127, between 1915 and 1919. Between 1935 and 1939 the yearly average figure was 227. Compare those figures with the known figure of 1,101 cases in 1948, and with my estimated figure of 1,000 cases for 1949 (which I now understand from the noble and learned Viscount is wrong), and the real gravity of the present situation becomes obvious.
Perhaps one of the most striking facts that emerges from this study is that while for the five years immediately after the First World War the yearly average was 177 cases of robbery with violence, for the same period after this last war the average is about 1,000 cases; or, to put it in other words, three cases a day, instead of three cases a week. Another interesting comparison is between the figures for the periods immediately before and after the two World Wars. There are, and always have been, a number of experts who contend that there is invariably a great increase in crime immediately after a war. So far as robbery is concerned, this would not appear to be proved in any way because, if one compares the figures for the five years before the First World War—I admit that there has been an enormous increase since the last war—with the figures for the five years immediately afterwards, the yearly average shows a difference of only one case.
There have been equally significant increases in the other major crimes of violence against property as compared with 1938. In 1948 there were 2,500 more cases of burglary than in 1938; there were 24,000 more cases of housebreaking than in 1938, and there were 33,000 more cases of shopbreaking than in 1938. I do not, however, wish to weary your Lordships with any more statistics, nor do I think that necessary, for whatever the annual fluctuations may be it seems to me abundantly clear that there has been an alarming increase in the number of crimes of violence since before the last war and that this is a situation to which we cannot be apathetic. It is a situation which merits immediate attention. I am no expert in criminology or penology. My status in this matter is no greater than that of any man, woman, or child in this country—

315
the status of a potential victim. Among all the experts who are taking part in this debate this afternoon, I am certainly the least qualified of your Lordships to pontificate as to the right course of action to be taken. Indeed, on this particular question the difficulties of the layman arc enormously increased by the fact that these very experts appear to disagree.
Before I say a word about these disagreements I would like to touch on one matter upon which I believe we can all agree—namely, the vital importance at this juncture of doing everything possible to assist and strengthen the police force. Never was there a time when a strong and efficient police force was more essential. As regards efficiency, I believe that our police force is still a model to the whole world and I should like to take this opportunity of paying my tribute to the valiant efforts that they are making at the present time to fight these gangsters. But however efficient a police force may he, it cannot give of its best if it is seriously undermanned. If we are ever to overcome this crime wave, I am convinced that one of the most important things is that there should be more men on the beat; and I am quite sure that if the police force could be brought up to full strength it would be a most valuable contribution—perhaps the most valuable contribution—towards stamping out these outrages. That is what is needed more than anything else.
In 1948, the police force in England and Wales was, I believe, something in the neighbourhood of 12,000 men under strength, and the Metropolitan Police Force was nearly 5,000 men under strength. As your Lordships know, since that time the Government have taken action to stimulate recruiting by implementing some of the recommendations of the Oaksey Report. Whether the action that they have taken has proved sufficiently effective, or whether more urgent steps are needed to stimulate recruiting further, I do not know; but I am sure your Lordships would wish the noble and learned Viscount in his reply to tell us what success this action on the part of the Government has had in regard to recruiting, and, in particular, what improvement they have been able to achieve in the provision of housing for both single and married policemen.
316
I pass now to the vexed question of punishment for crimes of violence. As I have already said, this is a particularly difficult matter, because the experts disagree. However, there seem to be two fairly clearly defined schools of thought. There are those who believe that in cases of this kind corporal punishment is a deterrent; on the other hand, there are those who believe that, in principle, punishment is not a deterrent—that it has value only in so far as it reforms the criminal. They hold that if we wish to eliminate crime, we must first find out what turns a man into a criminal and then eliminate the causes of crime. I must confess that I have never been convinced that punishment is no deterrent to crime, although I certainly agree that the object of punishment should be not merely that of retribution but also that of reform.
Whatever I may feel about that, I am the last person to minimise the importance of trying to eliminate the causes of crime. I am quite sure that the man who has a decent job, a good home and ample opportunity for healthy recreation is less likely to become a criminal than a man who has none of these things. That, of course, is one of the many reasons why full employment is so valuable, and why the provision of houses is so important. Indeed, it is one of the main complaints that we on these Benches have against His Majesty's Government, that in our opinion they have failed to provide the houses which the nation so urgently needs at the present time. Equally important is the provision of proper facilities for recreation. The National Federation of Boys' Clubs and the National Playing Fields Association are doing splendid work in this sphere, and I hope they will continue to enjoy the full support, not only of the Government but of all right-thinking, citizens.
But more attention ought to be paid to other matters which have a bearing on crime. There is the question of the 15,000 deserters who are still at large in this country, and who inevitably, by their very position, are forced into criminal ways. That question has to be considered. But there are other questions, such as the effect of the cinema upon adolescent minds, and whether a rather stricter censorship of the worst type of gangster film might not well be imposed. Whilst I do not minimise the importance of all this, I cannot believe that such remedies alone

317
constitute an adequate policy to deal with the present situation.
In the first place, these remedies are all, by their very nature, long-term remedies, whilst the problem itself is urgent and immediate. In the second place, these remedies have been applied increasingly over the last fifty years. Nobody, I think, will deny that these years have been years of progress. Noble Lords opposite may consider that the progress would have been more rapid and greater if they had been in power for the whole of the period. We may think otherwise, but everybody will agree that progress there has been—in education, in the standard of living, in housing conditions, in the social services and, not least, in prison conditions and in the reformative aspect of prison life. Yet despite all this material progress, instead of decreasing, violence has steadily increased. That, I suggest, is food for thought for those who believe that: by these methods alone crime can be eliminated. To my mind, the solution lies perhaps elsewhere. I do not believe that it is what is taught in the schools that matters so much as what is taught in the homes. The last fifty years have admittedly been years of great material progress, but they have, I believe, been years of a steady decline in the teaching in our homes of those Christian values by which alone this kind of thing can be brought to an end. It is in the restoration of the teaching of these values in our homes that I believe a long-term solution to this problem lies.
It is not with the long-term solution so much as with the short-term solution that we are concerned to-day, however. The Government have a duty to protect the life, the person and the property of the citizen of this country. This duty cannot be laid aside in the hope that one day better social conditions will render this duty unnecessary. For economic reasons, social conditions may well deteriorate. Even if they improve, I do not think there is any reason to suppose that that would have the desired effect. The people have the right to demand protection from this kind of thing now, and the Government have a duty to take urgent steps to deal with these pests to society. Whilst I respect the opinions of those who deny that corporal punishment is any deterrent to crime, I submit that they can no more prove their case than can their opponents
318
who believe precisely the opposite. All that can be said with certainty is that whilst in some cases corporal punishment may be no deterrent, in others it may be a very great deterrent; and in no case-can it possibly be an incentive. For example, one cannot conceive of a particular man "beating up" somebody for the purpose of being "beaten up" himself in ret urn, but one can conceive of a man deciding against a course of violence because of the fear of receiving some of his own medicine.
For these reasons I felt that the. Government were very rash to select the year 1948–a year when the police force was 12,000 men below strength, and when the number of cases of robbery with violence was the highest for fifty years—to abandon corporal punishment. Had there been little crime, had the police force been strong, and had the general situation been more under control, the experiment might well have been justified. But, in the existing circumstances, it seemed to me that 1943 was the very last time to abandon even the most doubtful deterrent to this kind of offence.
Nobody can be enthusiastic about the imposition of corporal punishment. At the best, it should be a reserve power to strengthen the hands of the Judiciary in certain cases. And so far as I am concerned, the less it is necessary to use it, the better. Nevertheless, the Judges and the magistrates, in their great experience, can surely he trusted to use such a power with wisdom, and I think that this power ought to be there. Certainly, I can see neither sense nor justice in the present dispensation whereby the only people to suffer corporal punishment are the innocent victims of these vile attacks, whilst their assailants escape unhurt.
Nor can I ignore the opinions of the: one body of experts who more than any other seem to be reasonably unanimous in this matter. His Majesty's Judges devote their lives to dealing with these matters, and their opinions can surely not be lightly disregarded. It is, I think, significant that so many Judges should have publicly stated their opinion that not merely is corporal punishment a deterrent in many of these cases but that in many instances a sentence of corporal punishment coupled with a short term of imprisonment is a much more appropriate

319
sentence than the long term of imprisonment which at the present moment is the only alternative. I know nothing of these matters, but it seems to me that if you take a young man of eighteen and send him to prison for fourteen years what you do to that man is, in effect, to give him every inducement to become a "hard case" for life.
Few of your Lordships, I imagine, would favour the return of the "cat." In 1948, this House passed an Amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which abolished the "cat" but retained the birch. This Amendment was rejected by the Government in another place, and was not insisted upon by your Lordships. I thought that the Government were wrong then, and I think that the Government are wrong to-day. I would therefore urge them, in view of the present circumstances, to reconsider the whole matter. If they do so, and if they decide, for the time being, to restore to the courts this sanction for use in appropriate cases, then I believe that they will be doing the wise thing. In so doing, they will in no way prejudice their right to try this experiment again at a later date, when circumstances are more propitious. If, on the other hand, they are not prepared to do this, then I think we have the right to ask them whether, in the first place, they are satisfied with the present state of affairs, and, if not, what alternative course of action they propose to deal with the situation. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.34 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I thought might be convenient to your Lordships' House if I were to speak at this very early stage because, in the course of what I have to say, I propose to offer your Lordships certain statistics which may be of value to those who come after me in the debate. I think that it probably would be for the convenience of the House that I do that at this stage; and if I can assist at the end of the debate on Thursday, by answering specific questions, then, with the permission of the House, I shall be very pleased to do so. Speaking for myself, I have no grievance at all about this matter being ventilated at the present time, nor have I the slightest criticism to make of the noble Lord who has just
320
spoken for the way in which he has approached his task. I say nothing about a "sensational atmosphere." I wish I could set the noble Lord's mind at rest. I wish I could set my own mind at rest. I think the circumstances of to-day are in many respects very grave, and I shall, in the course of what I have to say, "nothing extenuate"—I wish that I could say "nothing set down in haste," because a good many of the figures which I now have I learned only in the course of the last hour or so.
This is a problem that confronts all of us. It is in no shape or form a Party question. We are confronted with a dangerous and difficult situation. We have to consider, with cool heads, what are the right steps to take in order to deal with it. I am certainly not going to pontificate about what I regard as an exceedingly difficult matter, nor am I going to assert that those who differ from me—in many respects I do not think many of your Lordships will differ from me—are necessarily wrong. The terms of the Motion which the noble Lord has moved are perfectly general. As I have said, I think it was right that the Motion should be moved. I think that the noble Lord has simply given voice to public disquiet which does exist. I believe there is reason for this public disquiet, and as a practical way of showing that that is what I think I shall ask your Lordships to accept this Motion; I shall not ask you to reject it. So far as Papers are concerned, all the Papers which I have are, of course, at your Lordships' disposal: I have nothing which I desire to conceal in any way at all.
Although the noble Lord's Motion is general, he did in fact introduce the debatable and vexed question of flogging. I think I should say here that the attitude of the Government upon this is quite definite, and I can leave it at that. The last Parliament, in its last year deliberately passed an Act of Parliament which did away with flogging. We have no intention of reintroducing it—none whatever. That is said, and that is simply said. But that does not mean that we are not prepared to cope with the situation. The old experiment whereby His Majesty's Judges used often to give a shorter sentence, with a sentence of corporal punishment added to it, is

321
now impossible. They cannot now give corporal punishment. It follows from that, as the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice usefully pointed out the other day, that the shorter sentence is no longer appropriate and that longer sentences have to be given. We have to try to see what happens as the result now of not awarding the short sentence with a sentence of whipping, and of awarding the longer sentences which cannot now be cut down by the use of corporal punishment.
If your Lordships will consider the facts for one moment, you will remember that in 1937 (I think my dates are right) the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon—he was Home Secretary at the time—appointed a Committee known as the Cadogan Committee. That Committee reported in 1938. It was a powerful Committee composed of very sensible and level-headed people. They stated in the course of their Report that they had come to a unanimous conclusion. They had rot started with any preconceived ideas upon this matter but, they said, they were driven on investigation of the situation to the unanimous conclusion that corporal punishment ought to be abolished.
Again, before the war the noble Viscount, Lord Tern plewood—who was then Home Secretary—introduced a Bill into the House of Commons and in its Committee stage a very considerable majority of the Committee in that place endorsed tine proposal that corporal punishment should be abolished. It was only the outbreak of the war which prevented that Bill from going any further. Then in the last Parliament a Bill was introduced another place which sought to abolish corporal punishment. In the proceedings in another place there was no Division at all on the question. When the Bill came to your Lordships' House we had a most interesting debate on an Amendment moved by the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice and the noble Lord, Lord Roche, spoke in favour and the noble Lord, Lord du Parcq, whose loss we all particularly deplore on an occasion of this sort, spoke in a contrary sense. The Amendment was carried by a small majority. When the Bill went back to another place, this Amendment was rejected by a very large majority, some 230 odd to 60, and when
322
it returned to your Lordships' House we decided not to insist on our Amendment. In these circumstances it would be politically impossible—and, indeed, impossible from every point of view—that we should now go back on the decision we came to a year ago, unless the figures available to us provided us with most cogent reasons for doing so. But as the figures seem to indicate no such necessity at all, I say at once that it is quite impossible for us to go back on that decision now.
My right honourable: friend the Home Secretary, has promised to undertake to bring some of the figures of the Cadogan Report up to date. Your Lordships will remember that the Cadogan Report, in the second Appendix, took the figures showing the number of cases of robbery with violence up to 1935 and also gave the number of persons sentenced to corporal punishment. The years differ very much, as your Lordships who have the Report before you will see, but the average number sentenced to corporal punishment for the thirty-five years under consideration was about thirteen a year.
In Appendix Ill the case histories of these people are followed. They show that on the whole—I think I had better put it in this way—the subsequent careers of those who were flogged were rather worse than the subsequent careers of those who were not flogged. I think it is fair to say that presumably those who were flogged would be the worst cases, and that criticism can he made of any conclusion drawn from those figures. But that is the position. The Home Secretary is perfectly willing to undertake to try to bring these figures up to date. I am saying "up to date," but of course we cannot bring them right to the current date, because to deal with the subsequent history of those sentenced requires a gap of a few years—perhaps we can give the figures up to 1940. It would be interesting to see what these figures revealed. I am only guessing, but I am guessing on the advice of those who know a good deal about it, when I say that they would probably reveal the same conclusion as the earlier figures before the Cadogan Committee. It will be a considerable task to obtain these figures, but when we have them I will certainly make them available to your Lordships.

323
I have seen some of our newspapers put the question in this way: "Cat or Cosh?" —that was the headline of a great newspaper. I cannot imagine a more misleading way of putting the controversy. The two are put as though they are alternatives. If it can be shown that they really are alternative, and that by giving the "cat" we can abolish the cosh, then there is a tremendous case for the "cat"; but the whole point of the controversy is: Is it "cat" or cosh, or "cat" and cosh? The argument is weak, because there is no evidence to show that the use of the "cat" prevents further crimes of violence. What we have to see is whether the longer sentences which now inevitably have to be given by Judges, whether they like it or not, are not a more effective deterrent than short sentences coupled with the "cat."
As I have said before, I think the Lord Chief Justice called attention to a public misapprehension. The public seem to think that what we did by abolishing corporal punishment was to show greater leniency to these criminals. That is a fallacious point, as the noble and learned Lord himself pointed out. It is inevitable that sentences now must be longer if we do not have the use of corporal punishment, and I understand that that was what the Lord Chief Justice was pointing out. Other Judges have pointed it out since. I hope—and I am one person who can say this—that Judges will not go on pointing, this out in a way which rather indicates that they are criticising the Legislature; because nothing is more certain than this: that the function of the Legislature is to pass the laws, and the function of the Judges is to administer them. Everyone who has thought the matter over carefully, will agree with me that it is essential that these two functions should be kept absolutely independent of each other. It would be as deplorable if we interfered with the administration of the laws as it would be if the Judges interfered with the making of the laws. I am not saying that it is being done—I do not think it has been; but I am saying that certain people think it has been done, and that is a misfortune. Judges are pointing out, as indeed they must point out, that in existing circumstances they must give longer sentences than hitherto; and I regard it as
324
appropriate and essential that the Judges should say it and have the right to say it.
I believe that what we need far more than figures on corporal punishment is, first, certainty of arrest, and secondly, at the present time, a long and severe sentence following the arrest. I will deal presently with the question of the police, which I regard with the noble Lord as a matter of first importance in this question.
I have to trouble your Lordships with some statistics. I am afraid that I shall be rather wearisome, and I am sorry that I have not got them in tabulated form. The criminal statistics come out generally about June or July of the year, and when I am trying to deal with 1949 of course I have not the completed figures. I am trying, therefore, to simplify the figures, because I realise how difficult it is to follow them without seeing them. I think the right test of what the noble Lord said is to take the figures of crimes known to the police, because that is an indication of the totality of crime and is for that reason, I think, a better figure than the number of those found guilty. May I make this general observation, that as I follow through year after year I notice that the number of cases which are cleared up is slightly mounting, showing that the methods of detection are certainly not less but are more effective than they were? That is very satisfactory. I give this word of warning: one cannot collate the number of convicted persons with the number of cases that, in the police phraseology, are "cleared up." The reason for this is that a man on conviction will confess to a number of other crimes which he desires taken into account, and also that a jury do not know the past history of people they find not guilty in cases where the police are perfectly satisfied that they are guilty. That must be borne in mind.
I start with the broadest general survey of indictable offences, not necessarily of violence, but any petty theft, stealing from a shop, pilfering or petty larceny. In the year 1948 the number of offences known to the police were 522,684 and in the year 1949, 459,869. There is a satisfactory drop there. But there are two unsatisfactory features. The proportion of that total accounted for by juveniles—and I use that word in the sense of persons of under seventeen—has not

325
dropped to the extent I should like. If I must refer to persons found guilty—and I cannot do it in any other way—whereas in 1948 the number of juveniles found guilty was 44,434, in 1949 the number of juveniles found guilty was 40,430. That is a drop from 44,434 to 40,430, but it is not nearly so substantial a drop as I should like to see. Secondly, I think in fairness we must remember that the year 1918, with which I am comparing 1949, was in itself a very bad year—it was the worst year.
Let me give your Lordships these figures. The comparable figure of all indictable offences known to the police for 1938 was 283,220; for 1939, 303,771 —I pass over the war years—for 1945, 478,394; for 1946, 472,489; for 1947, 498,576; for 1948, which is an "all-time high," 522,684; and for 1949, 459,869. Your Lordships will see that the 1949 figure is lower than the figure for 1945, 1946, 1947 or 1948, hut is still very much higher than the figure for 1938. There your Lordships see the position. I come to the next set of statistics I want to give to your Lordships.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount? He started by giving us totals of indictable offences known to the police. I follow those. The noble and learned Viscount then passed to a comparison of a number of convictions. Is it in any way possible to know what proportion of these totals of indictable offences known to the police are believed to have been committed by juveniles?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I can tell your Lordships that. There is a sum involved, which someone who is a mathematician will do for me. The total number of persons found guilty of the 522,684 offences was 129,384. That 129,384 is divided as follows: the number of persons of seventeen and over was 84,950, and of persons of under seventeen 44,434 Therefore, the under-seventeens are approximately 33 per cent. Before I leave this table, the figures for the clearing up of offences are these: in 1948 42 per cent. were cleared up, and in 1949 44 per cent. were cleared up,
I come now to a different question which the noble Lord was kind enough in
326
a letter to indicate he would like me to deal with. I take now a table of figures relating to crimes of violence against the person. We find in the criminal statistics all sorts of figures relating to crimes of violence against the person, though they are not crimes of violence in the ordinary sense at all—for example, abortion and so on. I have selected from these crimes those which in the popular sense involve violence. I take murder, attempt to murder, threats or conspiring to murder, manslaughter, felonious wounding, malicious wounding, assault, rape, indecent assaults on females and robbery of all sorts. These are the figures for those crimes.
A NOBLE LORD: It is not robbery of all sorts?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, it is. Under the appropriate section of the Larceny Act one subsection deals with robbery with violence, for which in the old days a sentence of flogging could be imposed, and another subsection deals with simple robbery for which the penalty was up to fourteen years. A third subsection deals with assaults with intent to commit robbery for which you could give five years—the Lord Chief Justice will correct me if I am wrong.
LORD GODDARD: It is robbery with aggravation for which you can give life, robbery with violence for which you can give life, and simple robbery for which you can give fourteen years.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: When I say "all sorts of robbery," I am dealing with those offences, In 1948 there were known to the police 11.780 cases, and 73 per cent. of them were cleared up. Persons of seventeen and over found guilty numbered 4,447, and persons of under seventeen found guilty numbered 871. Therefore the total number of persons found guilty was 5,318. I now come to 1949, and this seems to be a pretty bad figure. In 1949 the cases known to the police are 12,247, compared to the 11,780 for 1943. The proportion cleared up is 74 per cent. Persons of seventeen and over found guilty were 4,701, and persons of under seventeen found guilty were 894, making a total of 5,595. I was disturbed to see that 1949 was a higher total than 1948–to be precise, it was 467 more.

327
I have to break up the figures to differentiate between the various crimes. I find that the difference is accounted for, and more than accounted for, by indecent assaults on females—for which, I may say, incidentally, flogging was never a penalty. Whereas in 1948 the number of these assaults was 5,659, in 1949 it was 6,191. That is an addition of 532, which your Lordships will see more than accounts for the increase in 1949 compared with 1948, which was 467. That is a very serious figure. With regard to persons under 17 found guilty, they represent roughly 16 per cent. of the total for both the years 1948 and 1949. If these young people are not going to reform, but are going to lead a life of crime hereafter, then we shall be confronted with a most serious situation, because this whole group of law breakers will be added to the criminal population.
I now come to my next set of figures. I will deal with that particular type of robbery which was punishable by flogging. By way of parenthesis, may I just remind your Lordships of how unsatisfactory I at any rate have always thought the old law about flogging was? Your Lordships may remember the case which I mentioned, about that frightful assault in Sunderland where seven young menthe eldest of them I think was 21–took hold of some decent and respectable girl sitting in a public park, took her into a wood, and whilst two held her down, five of them raped her one after the other. When they had finished their disgusting task they opened her handbag, in which she had a £1 note and a fountain pen, which they took. Now technically they became liable to be flogged. What for? Not because they raped this girl, but because they stole the fountain pen and the £1 note. I must confess that it has always seemed to me that if we are going to have flogging it should not necessarily be confined to crimes of violence in the nature of robbery, but should be applicable to all crimes of violence.
However, I am now dealing with statistics of that type of robbery which was punishable by flogging. I gave your Lordships the figure for the first nine months of 1948, a figure of 711. I am able to give your Lordships the figures for the last three months of 1948, which is 267, making a total for the year 1948 of 978. Incidentally, I may say that the
328
dark season of the year, December, is the worst month for this business. Therefore the total robbery with violence figure—that is, in the technical sense, of the crimes which were formerly punishable by flogging—is 978. In the corresponding period of 1949, the first nine months, the figure was 597, and in the last three months, 263–making a total of 860. I tried to see whether I could get any further statistical help about these figures, and I have been able to obtain the figures for London and the thirteen largest cities which comprise one-third of the total population of England and Wales. I give your Lordships these figures. From January to September, 1948–I cannot complete the year—there were 331; from January to September, 1949, 306. In October, 1949, 32; in November, 1949, 33; in December, 1949, 46; in January, 1950, 39, and in February, 1950, 39. Those are the figures up to date. Your Lordships will observe that the figures for London and the thirteen largest cities account for approximately one-half of this class of crime, whereas the population is only one-third. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard this class of crime as in any way confined to London and the big cities, because as your Lordships will see there is a considerable quantity of this crime outside London and those thirteen cities.
There is one other set of figures which I must give—I apologise for doing so, but I think it is right that I should. These figures relate to crimes of violence against property — housebreaking, burglary, shopbreaking and that sort of thing. The total known to the police for 1948 was 112,665, and the total known to the police for 1949 was 91,445, a fairly substantial drop. A feature of this which I do not like is that in the year 1948 approximately 50 per cent. of those crimes were committed by young people under seventeen. It is true that they embrace such small crimes as breaking into a small sweatshop or something of that sort. Nevertheless, 50 per cent, is a very formidable total. Of the persons found guilty, 12,656 out of a total of 23,580 found guilty of those crimes in 1948 were young persons under seventeen. In the year 1949, 10,337 out of 19,502 persons found guilty were young persons under seventeen.

329
This state of affairs led me, a year or so ago, on a Motion of the most reverend Primate, to suggest that he should be brought in touch with the Home Secretary and that he should try to get the public conscience stirred and arrange conferences to try to tackle this terrible problem of crime amongst the young. The juvenile delinquency figures for 1948 had shown a very large increase over the figures for 1947. There had been a 26 per cent. increase in the number of boys and girls under fourteen found guilty of indictable offences at Magistrates' courts, and a 23 per cent. increase in the number of boys and girls between fourteen and seventeen found guilty of indictable offences at magistrates' courts. Thanks to the Archbishop and the fact that he put down a Motion, the Home Secretary and the Minister of Education summoned a conference at which a large number of local authorities, juvenile court justices, teachers and voluntary organisations were present, together with both the Archbishops. That conference discussed both causes and remedies. It was held in March, 1949, and your Lordships will find a brief account of its conclusions in the introduction to the Memorandum on Juvenile Delinquency which was issued jointly by the Home Office and the Ministry of Education. The result of that has been that a large number of the various local authorities have held their conferences and have got to work trying to evolve schemes and methods of dealing with this very serious menace. Of those who have not yet held their conferences, a considerable number are going to do so soon.
I find that in the year 1949, as compared with 1948 there was a decrease of about 7 per cent. in the number of boys and girls under fourteen found guilty of indictable offences in magistrates' courts, and a decrease of 11 per cent. in the numbers of boys and girls between fourteen and seventeen found guilty of indictable offences in magistrates' courts. Although that is a reduction compared with 1948, nobody should be satisfied by it, because the 1949 figures, thus reduced, are substantially more than the 1947 figures and, Heaven knows, the 1947 figures were high enough. I am sorry for having had to arrange it in this way, but I think that gives your Lordships the sort of material which may he useful.
330
Now I come to the subject of the police. Here again I think there is some cause for disquiet, but things are better. First, in the provinces the authorised establishment as at September, 1938–that is to say, before the war—was 42,269. In 1946 the authorised establishment was raised to 44,647. As at March 1, 1950, the establishment was raised to 50,604. Now for the strength. In September, 1938, the provincial police forces were only 2.4 per cent. below strength. In January, 1946, they were 23.8 per cent. below strength. In March, 1950, in spite of the fact that there is a larger establishment, they are 13.4 per cent. below strength. The prospects for recruiting amongst the provincial police forces seem on the whole to be good. Average figures are apt to be misleading; but I may say that whereas some towns and district are yielding unsatisfactory results, other districts are more satisfactory—for, so far as I know, no apparent reason. Take, for instance, Devon and Plymouth. Devonshire is 20 per cent. under strength, but Plymouth is up to strength. Coventry is no less than 36 per cent. under strength, whereas Nottingham is only 1.3 per cent. under strength. Leeds is 4 per cent. under strength. Birmingham is 28 per cent. under strength. Liverpool is 17 per cent. under strength. It looks to me as if it is rather a problem of the large towns. Whatever the reason is, the problem is a baffling one. Speaking by and large, however, the position of the provincial police force is easing considerably.
EARL FORTESCUE: If I may interrupt the noble and learned Viscount for a moment, I believe I am right in saying that the reason why Plymouth is in a better position than Devon is that houses are being made available for police in Plymouth, and not so much so in Devon.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There may, of course, always be some special local conditions, but frankly I do not know in general what the reasons are.
Now for the position of the Metropolitan Police Force. It has gone up slightly. Its authorised establishment is 19,737. There is a 21 per cent. deficiency to-day, which is much more than I like it to be. Are we making it good? To some extent we are. The effects of the improvements recommended by the Committee presided over by Lord Oaksey, came into force on July 1, 1949. Up to

331
that date the net increase in the strength of the Metropolitan Police Force was only*2.4 per cent. and since that date the average monthly increase in regular strength has been 16* per cent.—which is nothing like high enough, but at any rate it compares favourably with* 2.4 per cent. I hope and believe that the improvement will be maintained. The authorities have decided—and I think rightly—to drop slightly in some respects their standard requirements. It is a fact that a very large percentage of recruits for one reason or another have been rejected; and I am sure we are right, if we possibly can, not to lower these standards. I think there has been some slight lowering in the standard of height, but not of anything else; and I am sure that that is right.
With regard to housing, police authorities are not, of course, housing authorities, but as a rule the policy has been that police should make their own arrangements for housing. I very much hope that local authorities will he rather more generously inclined towards the police than they have been heretofore. It is a fact, I think, that in the past local authorities have been not quite so forthcoming as one would have hoped; and I trust that as a result of this debate local authorities may feel that the police ought to be very high on their list of priorities. The number of houses owned by police authorities is quite small as compared with the whole figure.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I believe I am right in saying that it was said in earlier debates on this subject that the local authorities do not recognise a priority for the police. They recognise priorities for a number of things but, it was stated, I think, that they do not recognise a priority for police. Will they do so now?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know. But there is nothing binding or fixed in the matter of priorities, so far as the local authorities are concerned. I hope that, as a result of a circular which is now going out, the authorities may make some improvement in the position.
I have tried to put this matter in a completely non-controversial way. This is a very grave problem and I think the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has put forward this Motion focusing public
* See Col. 481.
332
attention upon it is all to the good. I sincerely hope that by these various methods and in various ways this great problem may be solved.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether, when he mentioned flogging, he referred only to the use of the "cat" or did he include also the use of the birch?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I was saying was that we did not contemplate altering the present position, and I meant all forms of corporal punishment.
THL EARL OF STAIR: Will local authorities be allowed in the future to provide tied houses for police?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question at this stage. I will find out if possible.
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, the course that the debate has taken shows how great is the debt of gratitude we owe to the noble Lord who raised it. It seemed to me that he made a most able and comprehensive speech. with a great deal of which I find myself in agreement. If I disagree with him on one single point, it does not detract from my respect for the way in which he put his case, for the very useful course that he has taken in drawing the attention of the country to the grave state of affairs and, in particular, for having elicited from the Lord Chancellor a series of very important statistics. I share to the full the public anxiety. I do not delay over the details of the statistics. I am prepared to accept the fact that there has been a serious outbreak of violent crime and that there has been an equally serious increase in juvenile delinquency. Nor do I approach these questions from any sentimental angle. Indeed, the proposals for dealing with dangerous criminals that I made in 1938, when I was Home Secretary, and which have since been embodied in the Criminal Justice Act, make the law more and not less severe for hardened offenders.
Nor do I fail to recognise that conditions have changed since 1938 and that the problems of the war and the after-war have brought into the forefront a number of new and very difficult factors. It is from this background that I approach the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and I ask

333
myself these questions. How can we best re-establish respect for law and order? How can we raise the moral standard of the people, the moral standard that is really the greatest of all safeguards against delinquency and crime? How can we help the police to succeed better in detecting crime and in protecting the community from it? Those seem to me to be the three cardinal questions of to-day. In a few minutes I propose to try to give what I regard as tentative answers to them. I purposely say "tentative." I realise as clearly as anyone that questions of crime and delinquency are very complicated and are dangerous to generalise about. When I ask myself: "What is the line that looks most favourable for dealing with them?", I look in two directions. I look first in the direction of intensive training and, if necessary, long terms of imprisonment. I look secondly in the direction of strengthening the police forces to a much greater extent than has even been suggested by the Lord Chancellor this afternoon.
Training, of course, has been the central principle of our penal institutions for a good many years. Ever since the introduction of approved schools and Borstals, the great body of penal workers have taken the view that, particularly with the young, there is needed, not a short sentence but a long period of training. It was upon this principle that we made a further step in advance in the Criminal Justice Act of 1948 We then adopted proposals starting detention centres where young criminals could undergo a period of treatment but, most important of all, we adopted a proposal of what is called corrective training—namely, a long sentence of corrective training in a special institution for dangerous young offenders. I ask the Lord Chancellor to-day whether, before the end of this debate, he can tell us to what extent these institutions have been started and whether there are yet any lessons than can be drawn from the training that is being given, particularly in the corrective training centres and in the detention centres. I think that anyone who has been closely connected with penal questions for a period of years will agree with me when I say that this line of intensive training is in the long run the most hopeful line for dealing particularly with young offenders. I do not say that any of us is yet satisfied with the results.
334
One of our difficulties is that, although most of these methods have now been adopted for a good many years, there is still a considerable obscurity as to how exactly they have worked. Only to-day I have written to the Home Secretary to ask him to provide us with much fuller information upon the actual results, say of juvenile courts, say of probation, say of approved schools, a an at present we possess. I am told, for instance, that there are no records available of cases where an offender has been out on probation twice. I am told again that in the case of children who are sent to what arc called senior approved schools there are no records as to whether they have been in junior approved schools. I do not weary the House this afternoon with these details. What I wish to emphasise is that we need a much more systematic approach to the statistics of these questions than we have had in the past. I myself believe that what is needed is a series of methodical and systematic inquiries directed, it may be, by some central body at the Home Office and working for choice through the research departments of the various universities. I think that as a result of those inquiries we should better understand which of the present methods is proving the most effective, and where the lessons of experience tell us that we need changes. They would tell us whether reforms need to be effected or not. In any case, from the experience that I have had, I am sure that it is along the line of intensive training and, if necessary, long terms of imprisonment in special institutions, that the best hope lies for reducing the figures of violent crime.
I come now to my second point, the question of the police. I am convinced that a great deal of juvenile delinquency to-day is due to the fact that in many districts, particularly in some of the new housing districts, the children never see a policeman from one end of the week to the other. I am convinced that the mere sight of a policeman on his beat in the street would prevent many of these children from doing some silly act, it may be of bravado, that in the end may lead them into much more serious crime. I can never forget the fact that if you look at the records of the worst criminals you will find that in almost every case they started their criminal career with some quite petty offence as a juvenile. I believe

335
that in many cases those petty offences could be stopped by having a policeman walking up and down the street, embodying in the district the law and order that has got to be respected.
The Lord Chancellor gave us a number of figures about the present state of the police force, and seemed to me (I hope I am wrong) to give a more favourable impression of the situation than I believe is actually the case. I have here the figures of the Metropolitan Police. They show that even upon the present inadequate establishment the Metropolitan Police are 4,300 men short. That is not the end of the story. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has himself said that the establishment has not been raised since the war. I have calculated—and I base my calculation upon inquiries I have been making—that the Metropolitan Police is to-day between 6,000 and 7,000 men short of what ought to be its adequate strength. The Lord Chancellor said that since the first Report of the Oaksey Committee recruiting has been improving. I agree that it does show an improvement, but, according to the figures that I was given last week, it is so small an improvement that it will take more than twenty years before the establishment of the police is finally reached. My figures show that in the last six months 707 new recruits joined the police and 536 men have left. That means an addition of 171 in the course of six months. Noble Lords can calculate as to when at that rate the ranks of the Metropolitan Police will be filled. I do not wish to go into any detail about the many reasons that are holding up recruiting for the police. Some of my noble friends and myself hope to have a full debate upon the subject after Easter. It is sufficient for me to point to this great shortage which I put at 6,000 men in the Metropolitan Police and 7,000 men in the provinces. I am convinced that we have to take this shortage into constant account when we are considering the reasons for these outbursts of violent crime and the best ways of restraining them.
Your Lordships will see that I have taken two questions, training and the police, as the questions which I believe really matter when we are facing the difficult problems that confront us. I
336
have purposely left to the end the question of corporal punishment because I do not believe it is the kind of method that is really going to make much difference to the problems that I have been discussing. I do not argue to-day the moral aspects of corporal punishment. I have my own personal views upon the subject. I believe that on the whole judicial corporal punishment lowers the general moral standards of the country. But for the moment I set aside that argument; and I set aside the other argument that judicial corporal punishment is brutal. The Lord Chief Justice admitted in this House on June 2 that there was an element of brutality in the "cat," and that it often did permanent harm to an offender. Lord du Parcq, I remember very well, added that in his experience flogging left a hardened criminal more hardened than he was before.
But I do not delay upon arguments of that kind; I concentrate upon two and two only. First of all, it is my convinced opinion that corporal punishment is not an essential deterrent for suppressing the outbursts of violent crime that are making us all so anxious. I believe the long terms of training and imprisonment to which I have alluded are a much better deterrent. Put at their lowest they keep the violent criminal segregated for a length of time; put at their highest they enable us to give these young offenders a long period of intensive training which will eventually reform them. Secondly, I believe that judicial corporal punishment is ineffective. At the magistrates' courts it has been abandoned, not because the magistrates thought it was wicked or immoral but because they thought it was of little use and that it often did much harm. It is a significant fact that although it was in 1948 that the provision authorising whipping as a sentence in magistrates' courts was repealed, whipping sentences in magistrates' courts had practically become obsolete before that date. I think that in the year before the Act was passed, the number of sentences of that kind, which at one time had been many hundreds—sometimes indeed running into thousands—was reduced to ten or twenty. Magistrates, as a whole, had abandoned it because they had found it useless for their purpose.

337
Finally I hope very much that we shall not be deflected from what really matters in these penal questions by what I believe to be a quack remedy. I want a much greater concentration on the kind of points which I have been discussing this afternoon—the problems of training, the improvement of our probation system, the introduction of necessary reforms, it may be, into Borstal institutions and approved schools. I am very much afraid that this outcry for recourse to corporal punishment within only a few months of the action of Parliament in abolishing it will, if it succeeds, not only be ineffective for repressing crimes of violence but will deflect the minds of the people of the country and the activities of social and penal workers from these much better directions in which we believe that, with persistence, we can eventually greatly improve the present state of affairs. It is on those grounds that, while pressing the Government for further information upon the subjects with which I have dealt, and while thanking the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for having taken the firm stand which he has taken on this question of judicial corporal punishment, I maintain the view which I expressed ten years ago upon the objections to judicial corporal punishment, and express the hope that as the result of this debate the country will see that there are other and much better lines along which we can advance.
4.44 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I share the gratitude which has already been expressed to the noble Lord who opened the debate on this subject in what I felt was a very forcible and fair speech. I found myself in almost entire agreement with him, except upon one matter. We all of us, I am sure, share with him indignation at the cruel and savage crimes of which we read only too frequently in our newspapers. I think it is a terrible fact that there are large numbers of elderly people and others who are terrified of opening their doors at night, in case they may find some ruffian trying to enter, and that there are many all over the country who are terrified of walking alone in the streets after nightfall. There is a strong feeling of indignation and anger against those who commit these crimes, and support is given to the Judges in doing their utmost to stamp out these crimes with sentences
338
which express the indignation of the people. I am not, however, convinced that flogging is the right remedy.
I am not taking a very strong line, or the principle that all corporal punishment is wrong on every possible occasion. I do not believe that. I believe that there are cases, especially among juveniles, when corporal punishment is thoroughly salutary and legitimate. But that is quite a different matter from judicial sentences of corporal punishment. The question which I ask myself, and which I want to put to others is: What is the evidence that corporal punishment inflicted by judicial sentence is a deterrent? I have heard statements made frequently that it is a deterrent, but so far I have heard no kind of evidence in support of what too often is taken for granted. I think there is a good deal of evidence to the contrary. Take, for instance, what happened in the Middle Ages, when attempts were made to fit the punishment to the crime, and it was felt that imprisonment, with all its horrors, and even death itself, were not sufficient. The worse the offence the more terrible was the torture which was designed as a fitting punishment. In the Middle Ages, we know, torture, flogging, and all sorts of terrible penalties were inflicted increasingly upon men found guilty of crime, but nowhere do we find that there was any decrease in the amount of violent crime in consequence.
I think Montaigne, in one of his essays, well expressed his criticism when he wrote:
"All that exceeds a simple death appears to me absolute cruelty. Neither can our justices expect that he whom the fear of being executed by being beheaded or hanged will not restrain, shall any more be awed by the imagination of a languishing fire, burning pincers, or the wheel."
That view might well be applied to the present situation. I doubt very much whether a man who knows that if he is detected and convicted he will be sentenced to a long term of imprisonment will be deterred by the possibility of a flogging. That was certainly the view of the most important Committee, to which reference has already been made this afternoon and which reported in 1938. That Committee declared that,
"After examining all the available evidence, we have been unable to find any body of facts or figures showing that the introduction of a power of flogging has produced a decrease in the number of offences for which it may be

339
imposed, or that offences for which flogging may be ordered have tended to increase when little use was made of the power to order flogging or to decrease when the power was exercised more frequently."
That was the unanimous conclusion of a very powerful Committee. Although I think that the period since flogging was abolished is too short to enable us to rely on any statistics, so far as there are any statistics they show that these crimes have been on the decrease.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an illustration from my own experience. Some forty years ago when I was vicar of a parish, I regularly used to visit the local prison. One of my parishioners—not one of my congregation—was sentenced to be flogged as a rogue and vagabond. He was one of the worst men I have ever known. He lived on the proceeds of prostitutes, and knocked them about with his knuckleduster when they did not bring in sufficient money. I visited him in prison in the ordinary course of my duties and I found the man absolutely terrified, in a state of abject fear. I heard from the police that the others involved in the same crime had hurriedly left the town. But I also found that the officials and warders of the prison were filled with consternation at the thought that they had to carry out this sentence. The warders, pretty tough men, found it in some way degrading that they should have to flog an adult. The man was flogged, and served his term of imprisonment. I made inquiries from the police some months afterwards. They said that the man had gone back to his old profession, and the people who had left the town had returned to it. I believe that that has been the general experience, that a flogging is not a deterrent. It would be a far greater deterrent if we had a sufficient number of police to make it certain that every crime would be detected and the criminal brought to trial, convicted and severely sentenced. As has already been pointed out, our police are insufficient in number. They are not only insufficient in number, but they have placed upon them all sorts of duties which take them away from their primary duty of arresting criminals and protecting property and persons.
I want to speak now on what I feel is much more important than the question of punishment; that is, bow best
340
to stop the sources of crime. As noble Lords who have already spoken have pointed out, there is a large amount of juvenile crime. The figures given to us by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor are most alarming and disturbing. I believe that if we knew the past history of those who have recently been convicted of brutal crimes we should find that they had previously been before the magistrates and that as juveniles they had from time to time committed various offences. There is undoubtedly a large pool of juvenile delinquents, and the question is, how can we dry up this pool? What are the sources which are perpetually feeding it with new recruits? I am sure that there is not one simple answer to the sources of juvenile crime. It is partly due to the atmosphere of excitement and restlessness of the war years, partly (though I think only partly) due to gangster films, and partly to bad housing. Partly, also, it is due to the ignorance of religion on the part of a large number of these children. It is one thing to tell them that dishonesty is disobedience to God, and quite another to tell them dishonesty is an offence against the social order.
All these considerations have tended to increase juvenile delinquency, but it must be remembered that the great majority of children are subjected to the same considerations and yet they are not delinquents. After all, it is only a minority who come before the courts or offend against the law. It is becoming increasingly clear, I believe, that the juvenile delinquents are those who come from unsatisfactory homes. The root of the mischief is to be found in the home. I am not bringing a railing accusation, levelled generally against parents. The great majority of parents feel full responsibility towards their children, and many parents living in most uncomfortable and crowded surroundings have a very high sense of duty towards the unbringing of the children. But all the evidence goes to show that the great majority of juvenile delinquents come from unsatisfactory homes.
In the Medical Journal this week there is an extremely interesting article by Doctor Bowldy, who says that:
"two factors can be picked out which are specially common in the history of persistent

341
delinquents, and differentiate them from children suffering from other forms of maladjustment. These are:

(1) Prolonged separation of the child from his mother or established foster-mother during his first five years. Such separations are of not lass than sis months during which the child is with complete strangers. …

(2) A child's being more or less unwanted by parents who are themselves unstable and unhappy people. …"

This doctor shows, with a mass of evidence and statistics, that there is general agreement that the unhappy home and the unhappiness of parents are two of the main causes which lead to juvenile delinquency. In addition to that there are undoubtedly a number of parents who feel no responsibility for their children, who make no attempt to enforce discipline and obedience and let the child run wild. It is not always the fault of the parents. Homes are often so overcrowded that it is impossible for parents to keep the children in when they ought to be off the streets, but welfare workers are unanimous in their opinion that a great deal more could be done by parents insisting on discipline.
An interesting suggestion has been made by the Warrington and District School Matters' Association, which is quoted in the Manchester Guardian to-day. The paper says:
"If the parent is primarily to blame for his child committing a crime, then it is the parent who should compulsorily appear in the juvenile court, side by side with his child, the parent who should pay for damage to property, the parent who should be placed on probation."
That may be a rather drastic suggestion, but I am certain that some method must be found of bringing home to the parents that they are responsible for the misdemeanours of their children.
This problem of juvenile delinquency and its connection with the unhappy home, the home in which the parents have been separated by divorce, or in which the parents are perpetually quarrelling, is a problem which concerns both the Church and the State. It is a moral as well as a civic problem. It is impossible in these days for the Church to get in touch with all these people. It is easy to say that this is the obligation of the Church, but it is impossible for the Church to carry out fully the duties which many wish to see it fulfil. But the State, through its schools and through its welfare associations, has a large number of
342
different ways in which it can get in touch with all these homes. I had hoped very much, though I am afraid I gave the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor no notice of this, that we might have had a report on the results of some of these conferences on juvenile delinquency which are being held in various parts of the country. These conferences have been held in many places, but in the places where I have made inquiries, so far as I can learn, not enough conferences have been held. But these conferences ought to be able to produce a large number of extremely valuable recommendations which might later be acted upon. I hope very much that in this debate we shall not dwell overmuch on the question of flogging, which after all is a minor matter in connection with the whole field. I hope we shall try to see how best we can reduce the pool of juvenile delinquency from which later on the older delinquents come.
5.0 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, my only justification for intervening in this debate is that twenty-five years ago I was a magistrate in Glasgow, and sitting as a very young magistrate alone in the courts I was perhaps more than usually impressed with the responsibility of my office and became interested in the whole problem of the causation of crime and the treatment of the criminal. In the years immediately before the war, I was concerned in the organisation and the running of one of the child guidance clinics which was attempting to deal with the great problem of juvenile delinquency and juvenile maladjustment which has been referred to as probably the great source of most of the later and more serious crimes. I do not pretend for a moment that as a result of that experience I became, as my wife did, an expert in that particular field, but only, like the noble Lord who introduced the debate, one of the more than usually interested men in the street in this matter. We are greatly indebted to the noble Lord for introducing this debate, and I am sure there is no speaker who would not wish to express agreement with him in the concern which he feels about the crimes of violence which are disturbing the community to-day: nor would we wish to fall behind hill in expressing our sympathy with the victims of that

343
violence and with those whose lives continue to be disturbed by the fear of violence if they carry out their normal pursuits.
The most reverend Primate referred to the fact that we feel angry when we read in the newspapers about these crimes of violence. I would suggest, with all humility, that, however angry we may feel about them, we are not likely to get very far in dealing with this serious problem if we approach it in a mood of anger. We know from our private lives that decisions made in anger are seldom wise ones, and on a matter as serious as this that is even more likely to be the case. Anger is, of course, the natural reaction to these crimes of violence, but to make decisions in that frame of mind would be a mistake. It is unfortunate that when the question of judicial corporal punishment is raised in connection with crimes of violence there is apt to be just as much emotion displayed by those who advocate flogging as by those who oppose flogging. I doubt whether the emotional state of either body of opinion leads us very far in the matter.
Unfortunately, the people who might make the greatest contribution to the long-term understanding and treatment of this problem have been very badly served by their publicity—I refer to the psychiatrists and psychologists, whose work in the long run must provide the ultimate solution. No responsible psychiatrist or psychologist would claim to-day that they have any ready-made answer for the problem. They will make modest claims in respect of the contribution that they have to make, particularly in the field of juvenile delinquency and in one or two related fields. They are too well aware of the vast amount of research that still remains to be undertaken, and of the very limited amount which has been done up to date. Unfortunately, popular journalism on the subject has given the impression that the psychiatrists and psychologists, to use the current phrase, claim to have all the answers. The natural reaction to that from the man in the street is to discredit the claims and the genuine work of the psychiatrists and psychologists. I would suggest, with all regard to the economic difficulties of the country to-day, that, if possible, His Majesty's Government should make more
344
funds available for research in this particular field—and not in any isolated part. It is, I suggest, a social, medical and psychiatric problem. The research which has been done in the past has been too small and has not been sufficiently coordinated between those three different aspects of the problem. I hope that, instead of our natural and proper emotion on this subject to-day being directed in some unconstructive direction, we shall see to it that something useful arises from it. One of the useful things, I suggest, would be a greater and much more coordinated report on the whole social, medical and psychiatric field.
It may appear to be a digression, but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the great improvement that has taken place in the treatment in mental hospitals in this country, particularly over the past thirty years. It is true that long before that time we had, in fact, got away from the old, more barbarous treatment: we no longer flogged the mentally afflicted or insane when their mania came to its highest point. But even thirty years ago we were still using the methods of the straitjacket and the handcuffs. Today the straitjacket and the handcuffs have been abolished, and our mental hospitals are quieter and happier places than they have ever been in their previous history. I know that the development of new and more subtle drugs has helped in that direction, but undoubtedly the greatest advance in that field is not due to the drugs but to the great research which has gone into the problems of mental disturbance. My suggestion is that, just as that improvement in the treatment of mental disease over the thirty years shows a great raising of the level of our civilisation, equally, if in the years to come a corresponding increase in research into the field of the causation of crime can give us a similar raising of the level of treatment, and the level of result, we shall have done a very great work indeed.
5.9 p.m.
LORD OAKSEY: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships would wish me to congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down on the speech he has made. We shall look forward to hearing him again in the future on the topics with which he has dealt so ably to-day, as well as on other topics.

345
I should not intervene in your Lordships' debate to-day were it not that, although I am not a penologist, and, in a sense, do not regard myself as an expert on the question we are now debating, I have spent twelve years of my life as a King's Bench Judge, going on circuit and attending assizes in every part of the country. Not only that; I lived in the same house with my father, except for the four years of the First War, during the whole of the eighteen years when he was a King's Bench Judge going the circuits in the same way. Although I am not sure that that constitutes one an expert upon these matters, yet it brings one very closely into touch with them. I must confess that throughout the time that I sat as a King's Bench Judge, whenever I had to try a case of robbery with violence, if I considered the violence was sufficiently serious I ordered the man to be flogged, either with a "cat-o'-nine-tails" or with a birch. I am not aware that my sentences were ever interfered with by the Court of Criminal Appeal or by the Horne Secretary.
With the greatest respect to others who take a different view, I adhere to the opinion that flogging has a deterrent effect. I think that those of us such as Judges, police and prison officers who are in the closest possible touch with the criminals themselves are in a position to form a better opinion about the effect which such sentences have upon the criminals than any of your Lordships who sit here in the comparative comfort of your Lordships' Chamber, and who may be informed by statistics which do not deal with the particular facts of the case but deal simply with the broad categories into which the offences may be classified. It is a quite different experience to have the detailed facts of a case of robbery with violence proved before you, to see the man there, awaiting sentence and knowing that he may be flogged, than to sit here and listen to statistics such as those which the noble and learned Viscount or the Woolsack has given us to-day.
The Lord Chancellor has admitted the serious position which exists, but he has announced the decision of the Government that no alteration will be made in the law which was passed in 1948. What I want to emphasise, among other things, is not so that there have been more cases of robbery with violence but, as I
346
understand from my friends in the King's Bench, that those case have been accompanied by far greater ferocious violence than they were in the past. I have heard, and perhaps your Lordships have heard, too, of the sort of thing which has been done. It has been reported in the Press that, with the most diabolical cruelty, men have invented new forms of knuckle-dusters with which to inflict the grievous harm that they do upon their victims. Bicycle chains, which give the men longer reach, are fitted with leather to guard the men's hands, with the bicycle chain over their knuckles. And there are other forms of knuckledusters. That is the sort of thing which is being used up and down the country, and I do not believe for one moment that long sentences will in any way stamp out this wave of violence which is going through the country at the present day.
I said just now that I thought that Judges, police officers and prison officers know far more about this sort of criminal than any one else. In the Report of the Cadogan Committee in 1938, it was stated
"… that the Judges of the King's Bench Division consider that corporal punishment operates as a useful deterrent, and are of opinion that it is desirable to retain the existing powers to impose sentences of corporal punishment …"
That was the opinion of His Majesty's Judges in 1938. That view was rejected by the Committee, but the extraordinary thing is that the Committee, after the most careful consideration, came to the unanimous conclusion that corporal punishment should be retained for any violence upon prison officers. Surely that shows that when one is in close touch with the men themselves one appreciates that the thing which deters them is the fear of corporal punishment.
I am not going to trouble your Lordships with long readings from the Report. but what the Committee said on that was this:
"We are thus satisfied that the fear of corporal punishment does exercise a strong deterrent influence in restraining violent prisoners who would otherwise corn nit serious assaults on prison officers."
That was the unanimous opinion, and I find it difficult to understand what the most reverend Primate has told us about the views of prison officers who dislike inflicting corporal punishment upon prisoners, when through the years up to

347
the present time the prison officers have insisted, and all the prison authorities have insisted, upon corporal punishment being retained for attacks upon prison officers. Now I, in my simplicity, am unable to see why prison officers should be protected by corporal punishment whereas poor old women, young women, old jewellers and bank clerks, are not. In my opinion, it is simply because the prison officers know the man, and know the danger they are in. Of course, victims among, the public, spread as they are all over the country among many millions of other people, are without any voice in your Lordships' House or in the deliberations of Parliament. If a vote were to be taken from the victims, then I feel certain that the vote would unanimously be that corporal punishment should be inflicted.
The Cadogan Committee went on to investigate in detail the cases of 440 people who had been convicted of robbery with violence. A certain number of them had been flogged, and a certain number of them had not. Only two of those who had been flogged had ever committed crimes of violence again. There is put before a Judge on circuit the whole record of the prisoner whom he has to sentence. He has, in a short form, a record of exactly what the man has done before, and what sentences have been passed upon him. Never in the whole of my experience have I come across a man who has committed robbery with violence and been flogged who has done it again. In the cases which were investigated by the Cadogan Committee, there were only two in which men who had committed robbery with violence and been flogged had done it again. Doubtless they committed other offences, for, as I think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said, they were men of extremely bad character; but they did not face the risk of the "cat" again. To my simple mind, that indicates that the "cat" or the birch—any form of corporal punishment—is a deterrent.
In the present circumstances I have no hope that the mere imposition of a long sentence will stamp out this menace. Lone sentences, when the prisons are so full that it is unavoidable that two or three men have to be put into a cell which
348
was intended for one, provide a situation which must be a nightmare to many people, though possibly a source of social enjoyment to others. It is a terrible state of affairs that several men should have to be put into these single cells. I cannot but think that long sentences for robbery with violence, imposed upon young men, are not the most appropriate remedy.
5.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, in introducing this Motion, has rendered a very great service. He delivered what must be considered by common consent a very able speech, in form and manner most acceptable to the House. His Motion also has already evoked a great deal of valuable additional information from the Government. I am glad that the Motion is to be accepted and that we shall have, in due course, further information on this subject, in the form of additional Papers. I propose not to range over the wide field covered by some previous speakers. In a desire to save your Lordships' time I shall limit myself entirely to one question which has aroused most public attention to-day and to which the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken devoted the main part of his speech—namely, corporal punishment. I am one of those who, on this subject, find themselves entirely in disagreement with Lord Lloyd and Lord Oaksey and able to support the opinion expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and by the most reverend Primate.
This matter was fully discussed in this House in June, 1948. It was discussed up to a very late hour—about eleven o'clock—when the House was very thinly attended and the Division taken was a small one. It is a good thing that now, literally in the light of day, we should have a discussion on the same subject. I cannot agree that since that debate in 1948 any additional facts have come to light which would justify Parliament taking a different course now from the course taken at that time. What has taken place is that great attention has been drawn to the matter and some of our most eminent Judges have given great prominence to it. It may be, of course, that in some particular instances the cases have been more brutal than in those days; but, for the most part, they are cases such I as the courts have had to deal with year

349
by year, both since and before the war. The only new fact that has emerged since our previous debate is that these cases have decreased in number. In 1948, there were 978 cases of robbery with violence; in 1949, there were 860–a reduction of one in seven. Crimes against property generally have tended to go down. The total number of such cases in 1948 was 112,000, and in 1949, 91,000–a reduction of one in six and over 20,000 in a single year.
As it happens, in The Times of to-day's date I noticed this paragraph:
"A substantial decrease in the amount of crime, including juvenile crime, in Liverpool, is disclosed the annual report of the Chief Constable. Reported crimes numbered 18,958, the lowest total since 1945, and a reduction of 4,151 on the figure for the previous year."
Therefore it looks as if the terrible increase in crime which followed upon the late war, as a similar increase followed on the First World War, is now beginning to abate. However, experience of a single year is not sufficient on which to form a firm opinion. At the same time, I am quite sure that if the figures had been the other about since the abolition of flogging, if the number of these crimes had gone up by one-sixth or one-seventh, we should not have heard from Lord Lloyd and Lord Oaksey and the Lord Chief Justice that statistics are of no value and, in the words of Mr. Justice Streatfeild, that "facts are more important than statistics." They would have said, "I told you so; you would abolish flogging, and the result has been an increase of one-sixth or one-seventh in these crimes." This is a case, surely, where those who are opposed to flogging are entitled to think—
LORD GODDARD: Perhaps I may be allowed to interrupt to point out that I have never said that statistics are of no use. I do not think I have ever expressed any opinion in public or in private such as the noble Viscount attributes to me.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. I thought he was one who had expressed such a view, but I acquit him of that charge and he leaves the court without a stain on his character so far as I am concerned.
LORD LLOYD: I hope the noble Viscount will forgive my interrupting, but
350
neither did I say what he attributes to me. I said that we ought not to look at comparisons between one year and another and that it is to my mind more important to take the statistics over a longer period.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I thought the noble Lord said that he rather put aside statistics as the main factor in the matter, and certainly several people have stated, that they regarded the quality of these crimes as more important than their quantity.
Lord Oaksey has mentioned what I take to be the Report of the Cadogan Committee on the number of persons who had been sentenced to flogging and who had committed second offences. It was pointed out that the number was very small. May I enlarge a little on that and make rather fuller reference to the Report of that Committee? The Committee considered the statistics of those persons who had been committed to prison for robbery with violence over a period of ten years, 1921 to 1930. There were 440 of them. Of those, 142 had suffered the punishment of flogging, and those who had not suffered it numbered 298. As the noble and learned Lord quite rightly said, there were only two who had suffered flogging who committed the offence a second time, but I think one ought also to take into account the 298 who had not suffered flogging.
As to that, the Committee say that of the 298 who were not flogged, three were later re-convicted of robbery with violence. But two of these men were mentally unstable, and it seems very doubtful whether either of them would have been restrained from committing the second offence if they had been flogged on the first occasion. They point out that the experience with regard to those who were not flogged was practically identical with those who were flogged, and consequently the sentences of imprisonment without flogging had proved just as effective as those with flogging. But they point out with regard to other serious crimes that of those 440 who had been convicted of robbery with violence, after their discharge those who were not flogged committed another serious crime but of a different type to the number of 44 per cent., which is a very high total—four out of every ten of those men who had

351
not been flogged committed another serious offence. But of those who had been flogged 55 per cent. committed another serious offence. Therefore the whole argument that this is an effective deterrent, that no man would commit the same sort of crime again if flogged, is disproved by ten years' experience of cases where they have committed other serious offences and evidently have gone back to a life of crime, at all events so far as the second offence is concerned.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, may I ask, first of all, whether it would not be reasonable to assume that the worst cases are those who get flogging sentences; and, secondly, whether the offences that I gather that these men committed afterwards were ones for which flogging was not the punishment?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The latter is correct, the former may be correct. I do not think we can draw the conclusion from it that was in fact formed just now by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, who quoted these very figures as indicating the effectiveness of the sentence of flogging, from the fact that only two people who had been flogged committed the same offence another time. That is textually true, but I cannot draw any conclusion from that argument favourable to the imposition of flogging. No one in these debates has even attempted to answer the one argument based upon experience, which is derived from the fact that in Scotland for very many years past there has been no flogging for these offences. No one has said that the position in Scotland is worse than it is in England. No one has ventured to point to Scotland and say: "Here you have no flogging and therefore the offences are more frequent and more violent." No one has advanced that argument at all. We have had an experiment made in Scotland. Fiat experimentum in corpore nobili. We might be guided by that experience or, at all events, I think we are entitled to ask the advocates of corporal punishment to give some answer to the argument that the experience of Scotland disproves their case.
With regard to the offences against prison officers, which the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken has mentioned, the reason why corporal
352
punishment is retained for violent assaults upon prison officers, with the approval of all who have been Home Secretaries and who have been opposed to flogging as a judicial sentence, is simple—because there is no other alternative. We do not say that flogging is not a deterrent; of course it is. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that people were divided into two classes—the prison reformers who did not believe that punishment was a deterrent, and others who all think that punishment is a deterrent.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Flogging.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: No—punishment. The noble Lord referred to the general philosophy of penal reform in lieu of punishment.
LORD LLOYD: That is correct. I think the extreme prison reformers would go so far as to say that no punishment is really a deterrent.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: None of those who have spoken in this House on the same argument that I am advancing has ever said that. We are not all of the school who take the extreme view of the pacifist, who says that you must submit to any violence rather than repel it by force. Similarly, also there must be penal law and penalties, and severe ones where necessary. When we come to the inside of a prison, where a man may be already serving a long sentence, and we do not wish to put him to death for an assault upon a warder, there must be some penalty, otherwise the lives and limbs of the warders will be in peril every hour from some of these exceedingly violent people who are found in prison. Such a man cannot be sentenced to a long sentence of imprisonment because he is already suffering that. Consequently, nothing would be done to him for this assault. For that reason only, so far as I can remember, the Cadogan Committee recommended the continuation of this penalty for that one offence. But in the other cases where an alternative is open, then we say that corporal punishment ought not to be applied.
Frequently in the course of the history of penal reform we read that Parliament has been stampeded by a series of cases of great violence, with the invention of methods of cruelty such as the noble and learned Lord who has just

353
spoken has mentioned. In such cases, people got very excited and said: "We must do something. What can we do? We will introduce flogging, or extend flogging." There was the case of garrotting in 1862–the choking of certain old gentlemen walking along the streets in Westminster and Mayfair. It became rife at that time and there were a series of offences of that type where the criminal was arrested and punished. When at last a Member of Parliament himself suffered garrotting, then the House of Commons in its wrath passed speedily an Act to make that offence punishable by the "cat." But, before that had been done, the police had taken measures which were to some extent effective. After criminals had been arrested and punished that Act was passed. The crime had begun to decline. Ever since then there has been a legend that garrotting was stopped by the "cat" and that nothing else would have done it, whereas every Home Secretary since that date has always explained in Parliament that that is historically untrue, and that garrotting was stopped before the Act was passed; it had begun to decline and eventually it completely disappeared.
Again, in regard to Liverpool there was at one time 3 series of terrible crimes and a "flogging Judge," Mr. Justice Day, went there, determined to stamp it out. For several years he went there to the Assizes, and the number of floggings that he ordered was very great. At the end the number of crimes was practically the same as it was at the beginning. Flogging was not a remedy; the crimes declined for other reasons. Soon after the war, too, there were a number of crimes of what were called smash-and-grab raids, made possible by the use of the motor car and by the depletion of the police force, particularly in London. There were quite a number of them for some months, and jewellers and others were almost terrorised. However, the advent of more efficient police measures, of more policemen, of cruising cars with radio apparatus wandering about the streets, able to be summoned by the 999 signal, was very effective. A number of these men who were guilty of this crime were arrested, and that fashion of crime disappeared; and afterwards one heard practically nothing of it. I am convinced that if at that moment Parliament had
354
been stampeded into passing a law to impose flogging for smash-and-grab raids, ever afterwards people would have said: "See how effective flogging is. The moment it was imposed the raids ended." Flogging was not enacted. The raids ended, but no one mentioned that they were ended by the adoption of proper methods for the prevention of that type of crime.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, has mentioned particular cases in his experience, and the Lord Chief Justice has done the same. I should like to recall the voice of Lord du Parcq who spoke in the last debate and afterwards died, to the deep grief of all who knew and loved him. He said that he belonged to a minority of Judges, those who did not approve of flogging. Since he no longer lives to tell us his views perhaps I may be allowed to quote a few words from his speech in this House on June 2, 1948. He said:
"Lord Roche, whose experience is greater than mine—I say quite unfeignedly that I regard any opinion of his on such a matter as this with the most profound respect—has told us of an experience with one offender. Although I had no liking for corporal punishment as a penalty, I thought that in a bad case I had no right, whatever I may have thought about it, not to carry out what was on the Statute Book, showing the intention of the Legislature. In one case, and in one case only, of robbery with violence, I ordered a flogging. I must confess that I think now that I was quite wrong. By what appeared to be a mere coincidence, it happened about a year afterwards, when I was again on circuit, a local paper fell into my hands and in it I read—I am not saying this is a strong argument; it is one incident, and I do not reason from one incident—that the man whom I had ordered a flogging hat again come before the court for some serious crime, and the police officer in charge of the case had said that since he had been flogged in prison he had become a much more desperate character than he had ever been before."
Lord du Parcq went on to say of the Committee:
"They say, further, that experience had shown—and it was the evidence of a great many people accustomed to prisons, knowing the men who bad been flogged and how it had affected them—that on the whole there was a serious danger that the tough man, the hard man, was made tougher and harder and more desperate."
But the essence of the matter is whether we think that the infliction of physical pain is a proper element to have a place in our penal law. That is the real issue. It was the medieval practice to clip a

355
man's ears, to cut off his hands, to flog him, to put him on the rack or subject him to the thumbscrews. Those are medievalisms which have given way to the civilisation of the modern world. The Lord Chief Justice agrees now that that is so with regard to the "cat." He says that he thinks the "cat" has an element of barbarity in it, and therefore he would not re-enact it. But some of the Judges did not hold that view; until quite recently they were prepared to defend the "cat." Now they do not do so, but say that they would be content with legislation which was limited to the birch. On that the Committee on Corporal Punishment say this:
"It is commonly supposed that the birch inflicts much less pain than the cat-o'-nine-tails; but we have been assured, by witnesses who have had long experience in supervising the administration of both types of punishment, that as it is administered in prisons a birching is almost, if not quite, as painful as a flogging with the 'cat'."
My Lords, those are the main reasons why I am against this proposal to reintroduce corporal punishment. I would add a quotation from a speech of my old chief, Mr. Asquith, who in a debate in the House of Commons as long ago as 1900, on a Bill proposing an extended use of corporal punishment, said:
"I regard the suggestions made in this debate as a revival of the theory, at once fallacious and barbarous, that a man who commits a peculiarly brutal offence should receive a proportionately brutal punishment. I can imagine nothing more repugnant to the most elementary principles of justice and common sense than to say that, because a man has committed a savage offence, those whose duty it is to enforce respect for the law should begin that man's punishment with a correspondingly savage treatment."
Let me add a few words with regard to the effect of this debate upon the question of juvenile offenders. Although the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, who moved the Amendment to retain the birch, said in his speech that he was not himself thinking of juvenile cases, Lord Roche was speaking of them, and advocated the restoration of corporal punishment for boys. Therefore it is not a matter foreign to our debate to-day and one must deal with that point, however briefly. The Committee pointed out that the juvenile courts themselves had abandoned the use of the birch for boys because they found it was ineffective. They said:
356
"Our conclusion is based on the practice of the more experienced juvenile courts which have discontinued the use of the birch, not on a priori grounds, but because they have found it less effective than other methods."
The Committee took statistics in regard to two selected centres, a large seaport and a manufacturing town, in which 574 children had been birched by order of a court. Two years later it was found that of the 574 children, 440–76 per cent., or three out of four of the whole number—had come before the courts having committed a fresh offence. That is the reason why the number of birchings ordered by the courts in England and Wales, which at the end of last century was 3,385 in a single year, had been reduced in 1936 to 166–and since then much lower. The Committee say of that:
"In the great majority of juvenile courts in England and Wales the use of the birch has been entirely discontinued."
That was not on the order of Parliament, nor as a result of legislation, because the power still remained; it was discontinued because it was found to be ineffective and better methods could be adopted. The most reverend Primate and others have indicated what those other methods should be.
An American novelist wrote:
"Every new generation is a fresh invasion of savages."
That, of course, is an overstatement; but it is true that new generations born into civilised society have to be taught the requirements of a civilised life. It does not come naturally to all, although it does to many. If there is no one to teach them, if their parents do not teach them, if their schoolmasters do not teach them, if they have not friends or surroundings that inculcate proper moral standards, then they may grow up and have their life in a circle where the law is despised, in one of those pockets of criminality which exist and always have existed in great and crowded communities. Then, if they grow up in those circumstances they may grow up as criminals.
The most reverend Primate said that their parents ought to be brought into this problem, that their responsibility ought to be made clear before the court. In 1908 I had the honour of introducing the first Children Act, which set up the juvenile courts, and I included a provision that the courts might impose penalties upon

357
parents when they had not fulfilled their responsibilities if the delinquency of a particular child was shown to be due to their neglect. That provision, I think, has been very little acted upon. I agree with the most reverend Primate that it would be better if it were revived, and if it were brought home to parents that it is their business, as agents of society, so to speak, to eliminate the "savagery" that may appear in the coming generation. The exercise of Their influence, together with certainty of detection through better police methods, and greater use of the probation system (and now, when nearing the end of my political career, I look back also on the fact that I had the honour of introducing the probation system in this country in 1907), are the important factors for getting rid of juvenile delinquency. That section of public opinion winch pursues the line that corporal punishment should be revived, is, I am convinced, on the wrong tack. It should be the business of this House, as leaders of public opinion, to discourage it.
5.52 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am startled to find myself speaking in a debate in which I am whole-heartedly in agreement both with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. Whilst I hope that this will not be regarded as a precedent, I would like, if I may, with respect, to say that I think that both have made out an almost unanswerable case in justification of the decision which His Majesty's Government have taken in this matter. Lord Lloyd has cast his Motion in wide terms, and the most reverend Primate has rightly asked us to regard those wider terms as the more important of the two matters which we are discussing. Nevertheless, public opinion has undoubtedly asked Parliament to consider the question of corporal punishment and that subject has now been considered in sufficient detail, submit, for us to see pretty clearly what the answer are. The first question is one which has been raised more prominently outride the House than inside it. It is this: Is the public conscience so shocked by the violence of some of these crimes as to insist that equal violence be done in return to the guilty party? Putting it another way, should we in
358
fact return to the doctrine of "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?" Should we endeavour to make the punishment fit the crime? Not many noble Lords have put forward a plea for that, but it has been raised frequently in letters to the Press, the suggestion being that a ruffian who has made an old woman suffer pain should be repaid with pain. Surely the answer to that barbaric idea was effectively given in the words of Mr. Asquith which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has just quoted.
The second question is this: Have crimes of violence which were previously punishable with corporal punishment increased since corporal punishment was abolished in number or in violence? The question of violence, I must confess, worries me a little. It is difficult to sec bow one can reach any decision. One can look only at the headlines, and headlines are not always wholly reliable. I myself am not yet satisfied that there has in fact been an increase in the violence of these crimes. I believe it is rather the publicity that has increased, but I stand ready to be corrected. As to numbers, it appears to me that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has given, for the moment, a complete answer. I should have been of the same opinion as I now am even if the numbers had gene up a little. I should have been satisfied that we were not yet in a position to say that the abolition of corporal punishment had brought about an increase in crimes of violence. If we had watched the figures for a year or two we might have been able to say that, but I think that we should not even then have given the present system a fair enough trial. As the figures are—though I must confess that my head has been whirling with figures for the last two hours—I think they indicate that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has for the time being a complete answer.
One further point I wish to raise is this. When we took this decision during the discussions on the Criminal Justice Bill, I was of a different opinion. I had then been convinced by arguments put forward by the Lord Chief Justice and other Judges, and I would still be prepared to change my mind again if the evidence showed that the step which

359
the Government took has proved a complete failure. But so far there is no such evidence to satisfy me. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, spoke about the past age of barbarism, and so did the most reverend Primate. I remember that when we passed the Criminal Justice Act some eighteen months ago, an article commenting upon it appeared in one of the German newspapers. I have not that article with me, so I cannot quote it accurately to your Lordships, but the gist of it was this: Once again England, always a leader in matters of humanity and humane principles, has taken a step along the road towards greater humanity. I remember that I was much impressed by that comment, coming as it did from a German source.
It would be very easy now if the facts were not as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has stated, for us to say: "Right, we have made a mistake." And it is easy to correct a Parliamentary mistake. Parliament passes an amending Act and reverses its previous decision. We could do that easily. I believe, however, that if we did that it would he the most tremendous confession of failure, it would be a step backwards along the road of humanity. We should pause long before deciding to take such a step, and we should have a great deal more evidence than we now have before we decide upon it. As I have said, I am still prepared to be convinced that the step that we have taken is wrong. But I am not yet convinced.
Another point which I wanted to make —but I will not weary your Lordships by repetition—was that the police must be given every aid which we can possibly give them. Could we for instance relieve the police of the burden of "chivvying" 10,000 to 20,000 deserters—it may be that I am exaggerating but I take those figures from those last given to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. If we did that, surely it would help greatly the police. We must recognise the inherent danger in the fact that between 10,000 and 20,000 men are at large in this country for many of whom crime is the best way, and for some the only way, of grabbing a living. That seems to me an urgent social problem which we still have to solve.
360
The only other point I wish to make is this. I have been shocked beyond measure to see quite responsible people advancing the following theory. They say that one of the reasons for the present crime wave is that for six and a half years young men have been taught to shoot and kill, and therefore we should not be surprised if they come back to this country from the war and turn into gangsters. That is a most shocking slander on the Armed Forces. During the war, dogs were trained to guard prisoners of war, thereby saving manpower. Those dogs were taught to be savage. At the end of the war we found that some of them were so savage that it was not safe to return them to their rightful owners, and they had to be destroyed. Are we to apply that same argument to the cream of the British Armed Forces?
I have been doing a little research work on my own account, though I do not claim that my statistics are any more reliable than most statistics. I have spent an hour going through the files of the Daily Telegraph in your Lordships' library. I had to examine 34 cases of crimes of violence of the type of which we have been speaking this afternoon before I could find one in which the accused man seemed likely ever to have seen a shot fired in anger. It is the most shocking slander on the Armed Forces to suggest that the fighting men, the submarine crews, commandos and paratroopers, are so lacking in moral discipline that they should come back and lapse into gangsterdom. I suggest that if we were to carry out proper research into this matter we should find that very few of these young hooligans and thugs had ever seen active service, or been taught how to kill in the Forces. That is all I wish to say. I came down to the House prepared to be convinced that the Government were wrong; I think it is only right to say that I remain the more convinced that the Government are completely right.
6.1 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I have been most interested in listening to the speech of the noble Lord who has preceded me. I think he stated his case with great frankness, and there is much in his speech that commends itself to your Lordships. I was particularly interested in the two points that he

361
raised, towards the conclusion of his remarks. In the first place, he said that it would be a good thing if we were immediately to deal with the 10,000 to 20,000 men who were deserters from the Services. I think there is a great deal of sense in that statement. I agree with the noble Lord that one of the causes of the violent crimes we have at the present time is that we have permanently in our midst this large body of people who, whatever their failure in the past, are now deprived of any means of making a decent living. It seems to me time that we should revise our policy and give these men a chance of coming back into the life of civilised citizens in our society.
With regard to the noble Lord's second point, I air one of those who put the argument of which he so greatly disapproves, but I would put it in a different way from the one which he castigated, a way which I think would probably meet with much less, if any, of his disapproval. It is not the men who have been in the war, who have taken part in the fighting. and who have been trained to acts of violence which they repeat when they come home, who are responsible; it is the people who have not been in the war, and it is particularly young children who read about the war and about violence, who read the glorification of acts of violence without understanding the cause of it, who think they would like to do what they are taught their elders did a few years back. That is what makes a great deal of juvenile crime. It is well known that people who are deprived of expression through the proper channels adopt methods of expression through improper channels; and the.children whose only contact with war has been to read stories of what they are taught is heroism, think they will find the heroism in attacking harmless people, and they go forward to commit crime in consequence.
That brings me to the crux of the matter. We are told that corporal punishment is a great deterrent. On this point I am in full support of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I do not think many people deny that every form of punishment, corporal as much as others, is a deterrent. The question is, whether the "con" is not greater than the "pro." It may well be that some people are deterred from acts of violence in the future, but the question is whether the imposition of a violent penalty is not such
362
an irritant of an already turbulent and disordered mind that it creates for society a far graver problem in the future than it did in the past. I recognise the great debt we owe to His Majesty's Judges. They have imposed upon them the distasteful task of hearing and sifting evidence in some of these horrible cases, and the indignation which they feel at the outrages inflicted on quite innocent and often elderly people is only part of the indignation which is felt by the whole community and which I feel, in common with all others who take my view in this matter. The way in which the Judges uphold the highest traditions of impartiality and of justice in our courts is one of which we are tremendously proud. We listen to them, therefore, with attention, when they give their views on this matter, with which they are brought into daily contact.
Nevertheless, we are here as legislators and it is our duty to examine all the evidence in these cases and all the views of those connected with them. As, in my opinion, the crux of the matter is the after-effects on the prisoner's mind, a matter which the Judges are not appointed to deal with, and have not the time to deal with, we feel that the testimony of those who have that duty must be taken in preference to the testimony of the Judges. The statistics which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has produced from the Home Office records and the attitude of those in the prisons seem to us more important than the views of the Judges. I hope I shall not be regarded as presumptuous in challenging the views of His Majesty's Judges, but while we should listen to them with deference and respect, we should not accept their version of the facts as the final word.
Let us disabuse our minds of a good many confusions. Many of your Lordships were at public schools in your youth and suffered and inflicted corporal punishment. I also was at a public school and shared that experience. But, after all, those were very minor affairs. Though it might have been very unpleasant at the lime, it did not bulk very large, and I do not suppose it did either very much harm or very much good. But, as the most reverend Primate has said, that is an entirely different thing from the infliction, with all the majesty of the law, of

363
corporal punishment. Either corporal punishment is trivial and unimportant and easily forgotten, in which case it does not work as a deterrent, or it is very severe and amounts to an attitude of the community that what is forbidden to one man is right and proper on the part of society to inflict on a man who has transgressed the law. If it is the latter, in my opinion, so far from deterring the man, it stimulates his worst passions; it stimulates not only the worst passions of the man but also the worst passions of those who inflict the punishment. That I regard as an evil thing.
It is our duty as legislators to protect society from these outrages, and I agree with the Lord Chancellor when he says that if it could be shown that the infliction of corporal punishment on adults was a real means of reducing the number of atrocious attacks upon members of society, it certainly would be a strong argument. But I see no such evidence; all the evidence I see is in the opposite direction. If I thought that the infliction of corporal punishment on the individual was the best way of reforming him, of reclaiming him and making him again a good member of society—if he ever was one—then, equally, I should be in favour of corporal punishment. But I see no evidence in favour; again, all the evidence is in the opposite direction. I do not agree that, even if it does not protect society, and even if it does not help to reform the individual, nevertheless corporal punishment is justified on the ground that it gives vent to the indignation of the community against the crime. I do not believe that giving vent to indignation is something that is worth while if it is injurious to the two objects which I contend are the sole purpose of justice to bring about.
So we come to this. Corporal punishment, as I see it, is the wrong remedy. We have to find means of securing respect for the law and reducing violence in other ways. We have to see to it that children's minds are not perverted by glorification of violence, cruelty and evil ways. It is not merely in the cinema that these things are evident: you can pick up a paper almost any day and find in it some glorification of violence. I feel also that the war has been partly responsible, as in many cases fathers were fighting at the front, mothers were working in munition
364
factories, and the children were left to bring themselves up by running about the streets. Some of us saw after the First World War the terrible pictures of the Russian children who, during the war, had become almost wild animals. We did not get as bad as that in this country during the recent war, but undoubtedly there was a great loss of control of children.
The essential remedy is to be found in stopping at its source the intention to commit crime. But in so far as we fail to do that, how are we going to treat the criminal when we have caught him, convicted him, and sentenced him? There I agree largely with the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood. I think we have to devise inside our penal system methods for handling the criminal and, if possible, bringing him back as a sane, healthy member of civilised society. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, may say that some people are so hard that it is impossible. That may be so; it is not for me to say. If it be so, then the only thing to do is to keep them out of harm's way and protect society by their continued incarceration. My view is that that would apply in very few cases. If you ask me what precise method I should adopt, I frankly say that I am not an expert on these things, and I do not know. But we have much to learn from the doctors and psychologists, and under their advice we have to discover a means of bringing sound pressure to bear upon the people who have been guilty of the crimes, to improve their future outlook on society. It is by those means, and not by the false means of attempting to terrify them by inflicting violence and torture upon them, that we shall attain the protection of society and the improvement of the attitude of the individual towards life.
6.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, like many of your Lordships, I find myself in a distinct quandary in regard to this question. Many of us are not experts, though by the end of Thursday we shall once again have heard the best advice from members of your Lordships' House who are most qualified to give it. Many of your Lordships would, like the Minister in another place, prefer to describe yourselves as just ordinary people, and it is as an ordinary person

365
that I venture to address your Lordships this evening. Some of us have had experience in prison work, and others have not. I have had very little, but I have had sonic. To my mind, this matter is so difficult that three times I tore up the notes I had made and decided that I had better not speak. Then I came to the conclusion that perhaps the opinion of one more who could be classified as outside the expert line would do no harm, and I should put my views forward.
I do not Jive in this city, but on my fairly frequent visits to London, and especially lately, I am bound to admit that I am horrified to find that, in these times, as has already been said by the most reverend Primate, men have to consider carefully whether it is safe to allow their womenfolk to go about the less well-lighted and less frequented parts of the city unaccompanied; and this applies perhaps ever more to their children. If a woman gets a ring at her doorbell, or a knock at the door, she now considers it wise to have a chain put on the door in order that it will not open wide enough to allow somebody to force his way in. I feel that this is a dreadful indictment on this country of ours, and it seems to me it is about time fiat those to whom the government of this country has been entrusted should set themselves to govern, and take heed of what is really becoming a call of the people to take action.
As I have already said, I cannot claim to have had a great deal of experience of prison work, but I have had a little, and from that I know there are some experts —officials, governors of prisons and others—who do not believe in corporal punishment. We know from the Press and from what has been said to-day that some of His Majesty's Judges do still advocate a return to the old method of correction. Even if they do not advocate the "cat," at any rate they think we should return to the birch. Those who have had some experience of prison life will agree that one of the first principles is to try and establish co-operation on the part of the prisoner when he comes in, and to encourage him to get himself out again and to become a decent man and citizen as early as he can. Some officials maintain that if the prisoner has been birched or beaten co-operation is difficult.
As an ordinary citizen—and it is as that that I speak to-clay—it appears only
366
reasonable to say that the state of affairs which is existent to-day has reached a point when there is a real call and need for a review of the whole situation. I myself regard this question as almost on a par with that of prohibition in the United States. To put a law on the Statute Book, or to withdraw it from the Statute Book before the country is ready for it, is to court failure. That is exactly what happened in the United States in regard to Prohibition, and that is what I feel there is reason to suggest is happening here to-day. Obviously—and I think it is obvious to us all—we have not yet found the right answer to this question in this country. Personally—and I say this with all deference—I am not satisfied that in this country the youth, or the youthful adults (and I say that specifically because of what I shall say later) are yet ready to forgo all forms of corporal punishment. We know that the "cat" is a very brutal thing. I understand that those who have had either to witness it or administer it have all come to the same conclusion: that they wish neither ever to administer it again or to see it administered. They also express the view that there is great difficulty in finding the right person to administer that punishment.
I need not dilate upon this point because it is obvious, and I personally doubt whether a return to the "cat" would he right. But matters cannot remain where they are. Some remedy must be found and, as has already been said, it must he a short-term remedy. Therefore, I am going to raise one or two points, and make what perhaps might be termed one or two suggestions. The first thing I am going to say—it has been mentioned before, but not 'very fully—is in regard to the effect of publicity. Most people who have had to deal with children, and perhaps older people generally, realise that the one thing you want to avoid with a child is to bring him into the public eye. Well, that is exactly what is happening every day. You open your paper and find that a great deal is made of all that is happening. Take even the theft of that tithing smack, the "Girl Jean," in Arbroath. Why write it up in enormous headlines? I realise that we cannot nor would we wish to muzzle the Press. That is the last thing we want to do, because we know that it is run generally by very high-minded people, and I am quite certain that if it was put to

367
them more strongly that real harm is being done to the youth of this country by the publicity given to crime, they would be the first to wish to co-operate in that regard.
The second suggestion I want to make —I know it is rather revolutionary—is that we should explore as to whether there is not some method of trying to identify these young hooligans to the public, so that the element of ridicule can come in once again. It is a long time ago since there was a ducking stool; it is a long time ago since people had their heads shaved. Possibly some people might say that somebody had committed a crime when really he had a frightful disease. But, after all, we could always paint a young hooligan's head blue. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I do believe that a suggestion such as this is not entirely without sense and that it could be explored. Somehow, we must bring these young hooligans into ridicule, and in that way we might possibly bring them to their senses earlier.
The question of more police on the beat has been mentioned. We know that that is a vital need and we have to see that if possible it is brought to fruition as quickly as possible. Housing, of course, is one of the difficulties in the provinces. Finally, we come to the question whether we are to bring back the birch. The Government have told us that they are not going to do so. Well, I am sorry. I do not believe in the "cat," because I think it is beyond the pale. We have reached a stage when we have grown out of that very brutal action. But I do believe that if we could bring back the birch and give it not only to the young boys but, as I said, to the youthful adult, we should bring in an element of "infra dig." Nobody likes being birched at the age of eighteen or twenty. It is very "infra dig." I am quite willing to admit that I have been beaten—not birched—when I was young. I did not like it. I have forgotten it up to a point. I was seventeen at the time and I had my house colours at Eton. I had not committed the offence, either, which was even worse; but I frankly admit that the memory has remained with me.
Looking back over my past life when I was beaten, quite frequently the number of the strokes and the tool which was
368
going to be used to administer that thrashing played a very large part in deciding whether I should try to repeat the crime, or even do it for the first time if there was any chance of being caught. I maintain that there is something in that point. It is known that strokes with the birch are extremely painful, but they have this advantage: that they are not so brutal and they do not mark for life. They do perform a certain office on the mind and that is what we want to get at, as well as somewhere else. If it is really decoratively and well administered, I believe there is nothing like it. It is a long time since many of your Lordships suffered from it, but I must admit that I still remember it vaguely at the back, and I should think twice before committing an offence which might bring it upon me again. Whatever the answer is to this problem, it is a knotty point; perhaps I have looked at it from the lighter side and it is not a light subject.
There is one other matter which I should like to raise which has come up again and again in this debate in your Lordships' House, and that is that there is in these days a tendency to consider matters such as this too much from the perpetrators' point of view. May I ask: What about the receiving end? What about the raped? What about the "vermin" who have been coshed? I suggest that these pleas for a review of this matter should not be just airily swept aside and described, as I think they were described in another place, as "mere emotional outbursts." I submit that that was a most unfortunate remark. How would whoever made it feel if his wife had been knocked down and worse, or if his child had been interfered with? How would one of your Lordships feel if that had been the case? I submit that this is a reasonable outburst. It is one which the people want to see answered, and it is one that should be attended to at the earliest moment.
6.29 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, we have reached the stage when one begins to say, "At this late hour I do not intend to detain your Lordships." I certainly do not propose to speak at length on this most important topic, but I must answer one or two points made by the noble Earl who preceded me, when he spoke of rape and the need of adequate

369
punishment. We should have to go back not only to the old law, but to pass a new law, because, as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor explained to us, unfortunately perhaps, raping was not one of the crimes for which flogging could be administered. There had to be a direct brutal assault as well as the sexual outrage.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I would pass that.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, there is something to be said for that. But with regard to the question of indignation, the natural outlet for that is not the knowledge that away in some prison somebody is being birched, but by going back to the old-fashioned public lynching, as in certain of the Southern States of the United States of America even to this day. That is your best way if you need an outlet in the form of revenge. Furthermore, the noble Earl should recognise, I suggest, that, at any rate in our early days, there was a difference in the upbringing and the psychology between the young lads the various classes. The noble Earl said that he was beaten. I, too, was beaten, both as a young midshipman and as a boy at school. Most of your Lordships have been beaten in one way or another and we can all say, as we always do, that it has done us no harm. But the young lad of the working class family to-day is more sensitive to corporal punishment than the lad from the so-called governing classes of our time. The noble Earl can joke about it and make your Lordships laugh good-humouredly about the fact that it did him no harm; but it does not follow that that applies to the case of a young lad from a working class home. He is more sensitive.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Why is he more sensitive?
LORD STRABOLGI: Because he is not brought up in the same tradition and because he does not start with the superiority complex with which the noble Earl evidently began. The noble Earl has a military tradition, and he must know that people of his class, as soldiers, can stand more hardship and pain than even the best of the lads from the agricultural or other labouring classes. That really is a fact, and it was proved in the last war.
370
This has been an amazing debate. I thought that I, with my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and a few others, would be in a very small minority; that there was going to be a hue and cry in your Lordships' House for the restoration of corporal punishment and that we might hope merely to bring a little sanity into the debate. But, on the contrary, one has seen a change of opinion almost as the debate went on. I think that is a great compliment, not only to this Chamber but to the whole Parliamentary system.
I hope the debate will do a great deal of good in this way. We have all agreed that the most urgent short-term policy is immediately to increase the police forces. I think we should be prepared to take all necessary measures to improve pay and conditions for the police. We shall have to re-examine our policy of allowing the police to find their own lodgings and accommodation. It is not easy in any large town to-day to Lind comfortable quarters of the kind which a policeman needs, where he can sleep in the daytime because of his work at night. We are told it is better to lot policemen live amongst their neighbours and let their children mix with.the neighbours' children instead of segregating them. But when we have large numbers of unmarried policemen who have difficulty in finding suitable lodgings, we should speed up the building of suitable barracks or hostels, with gymnasia, canteens, recreation rooms and so on for the younger policemen. Above all, a great drive by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and those who work with him is needed, to step up immediately the recruiting of the police and thereby to fill these deficiencies. I hope that this debate will have done a very great deal of good in that respect.
Lord Airlie spoke of the Press. He was, as he no doubt knew, on most dangerous ground in suggesting any interference with the liberty of the Press.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I said that I had no intention of attempting to muzzle the Press. I should be the last person to wish or attempt to do that. I do not believe you could muzzle the Press, even if you wanted to.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am agreeing with the noble Earl: I believe that there is too much publicity given to certain forms of juvenile crime. I cannot help noticing that the so-called comic strips which are read by children and which appear in newspapers with very large circulations, though they are very well written and proper and decent enough, do mostly concentrate on various forms of crime—violence, murders, poisonings, abductions and so forth. These are very popular—but there is all the time this background of publicity of acts of violence. This is in addition to certain cinema films and now some of the television plays. In addition, there is the matter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and which I ventured to raise with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in a Supplementary Question to Lord Howe's question the other day. Many of these young men who are giving trouble now were children during the war years, and many were out of control. The fathers were at the front and the mothers doing war work; the children were evacuated, perhaps to uncomfortable homes, or else they remained in the big cities as the so-called "dead-end kids." Some lived by looting bomb-damaged buildings, and so on. They are now young men. That is one explanation of the apparent wave of crime which is being made so much of in this debate.
There is one matter which has not been raised in this or the previous discussion on this subject in your Lordships' House, and that is the experience of corporal punishment in the Services. I refer particularly to the Royal Navy—though the same arguments apply to the Army. The old Navy was recruited to a great extent from a very rough section of the population. Also some of the men had been taken up by the press gangs and were unwilling seamen. But they were splendid fighting men, and we know their prowess in the old wars. There were officers who believed that discipline could be maintained amongst the seamen only by flogging with a "cat-o'nine-tails." That practice fell into desuetude largely through the captains themselves hesitating to apply this punishment. Parliament ultimately abolished it by law, but it was retained in both the Army and the Navy long after it had ceased to be a common
372
form of civil punishment. Particularly in the Navy there was resistance from the old officers, the Board of Admiralty and the admirals, who said that without this punishment discipline could not possibly be maintained. In some cases, they said, it had turned an unruly character into a good seaman. All the arguments were put forward which we heard put forward by the noble Earl a few minutes ago for the retention of the birch. It was said that flogging was a deterrent and did not do any actual harm of a lasting character. Fortunately, Parliament prevailed, and we see the result to-day. Every man of war carries a "cat-o'nine-tails," and I think there are one or two offences for which flogging can still be inflicted; but in the whole of my time since I first went to sea there has been no case of a man being flogged with a "cat-o'nine-tails."
Yet discipline in the Navy has never been better than it is to-day. Discipline at sea has progressively improved all the time. The statistics of imprisonment and detention and the more serious punishments show that there has been a steady decrease in crime and misdemeanour in the Services, and particularly in the Royal Navy. Nowadays the Navy is most law-abiding. Drunkenness has almost disappeared amongst the bulk of the officers and ratings of the Royal Navy. When I first went to sea, drunkenness was rife and the curse of the Services. There is now very little desertion or violence. Mutiny is almost unheard of. When, unfortunately, there was a mutiny between the wars, it was a comparatively "law-abiding" affair, if I may use that word. There was no violence attached to it. That is in spite of the fact that the older school of naval officers were convinced that the "cat" was necessary to preserve discipline and as a deterrent against crime. I think that that history and the history in the Army (with which I will not trouble your Lordships now) are similar. The history of punishment by the infliction of corporal pain in the Services ought to be more widely known. It has not been mentioned in any of the debates in your Lordships' House on this most important subject.
I think that anyone reading the leading article in yesterday's Times headed "The Rod" must have been impressed by the marshalling of the evidence from the

373
Cadogan Committee which reinforces the effect of the statistics given by the Lord Chancellor to-day. Particularly it points out that the idea that garrotting was put down by flogging is erroneous. I am not quite old enough to remember the agitation caused by garrotting, although I can remember the later agitation arising from a similar wave of crime to that one, in which the "cat" was advocated once more; the case of garrotting was mentioned and embodied in the evidence. It says here clearly that garrotting was not brought to an end actually by the "cat"; the end was brought about by other causes. It mentions Mr. Justice Day in Liverpool, where gang violence had become prevalent in the '80s and early '90s of last century, and where such crimes actually increased after the flogging assizes. I submit to your Lordships that the whole case is very well summarised there. I defy anyone with an open mind to read the actual historical evidence there adduced without coining to the conclusion, which has been only reinforced the latest statistics given by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that the case for flogging is non-proven.
6.42 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I do not intend to keep your Lordships long, nor do I intend to compete with the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and the noble Lord who has just sat down in the exchange of personal reminiscences. I was struck by one phrase used by the noble Lord who has just spoken which seemed to be immediately understood by the noble Earl, though it rather puzzled me. The noble Lord said that the working class are more sensitive than the governing class. I did not know which he meant by "working class," or what he meant by the "governing class," but evidently he meant it in the same way as the noble Earl took it. I think perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was a little out of date in the phrase he used.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I tried to make it clear that I was referring to the generation when the noble Earl and myself were youngsters, when class differences were much more marked and the whole upbringings were different. I agree that there has been a useful levelling.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Passing that by, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, not only on bringing this subject to our notice but also on the admirable speech by which he introduced it. We are all agreed that we want to find some deterrent for these crimes of violence. They have increased since the war—not only this last year, but since the war. It is largely due, not to the people who were in the Armed Forces but to a certain number of the youngsters whose fathers were away during their most formative years, who perhaps were evacuated from their homes and their home surroundings and who were brought up in these difficult circumstances. Nevertheless, we are all agreed that in some way or other we need to deter them because this ought to be a country, as it has been for years, where old and young, strong and feeble, can walk the streets without fear of violent attack, unlike some cities that I could mention but which, for tactful reasons, I will not. Here we have rather prided ourselves that that was the state of affairs, not only in London but also in all the cities, towns and villages of Great Britain.
I do not believe that we are discussing flogging with the "cat" now. It is not suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice, that we re-introduce the "cat." It is a question of the birch. We are all agreed that the birch is a deterrent, otherwise we should not retain it in prisons for assaults on prison officers. A long term of imprisonment is also a pretty effective deterrent. For the moment or two that I shall detain the House, I want to look at this question from the point of view of how best we can reform the prisoner. Take the case of that young man of seventeen, to which I think the noble Lord. Lord Lloyd, referred, who had made a brutal assault upon a woman in a train and was given, quite properly, as that kind of offence has to be stopped, a sentence of seven years' imprisonment. That is seven years' imprisonment at the age of seventeen.
LORD LLOYD: No. I am not quite sure of the exact case to which the noble Lord is referring, but there was a similar case where a young man got fourteen years at the age of eighteen.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That may be a different case. I was thinking—perhaps

375
I am wrong—that it was seven years. At any rate, whichever it is, there is a youth of seventeen going to prison for seven years and being there at any rate for five-and-a-half years. He is still of Borstal age. He will not be with his own contemporaries but with older "lags," older men, whom he will find in prison. I am not at all sure whether it would not have been more humane to give that fellow some strokes with the birch and then send him to three years' Borstal—to give him a good birching not in the Borstal institution but in a remand home or prison, and then send him to Borstal to see whether they could not reform him in the next three years. I do not believe that that fellow is coming out of a prison sentence of seven years—still less after fourteen years —anything but a man hardened to doing the same kind of thing again. I do not think we shall reform that person in that way.
With great respect, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, that a birching is anything akin to torture, which was the word he used. It is not. It is a good sharp corrective for a man who, having had it, need not suffer a long term of imprisonment. If we are all saying, as the Lord Chief Justice has been saying, and as I think the Lord Chancellor said to-day that longer sentences must be tried, whether the Judge likes it or not, I am not at all sure that that is more likely to reform a man, or is more humane, than to give him a quick, sharp birching and a short sentence in the appropriate place—which for these young offenders is a Borstal institution. I would not merely send them to Borstal, because of course that is not enough; that does not draw enough distinction between the crime of violence that has been committed and the offences for which people are normally sent to Borstal institutions, such as an ordinary shop-breaking without violence. But I am horrified to think what is going to be the real effect on some of these young men of sending them to prison for a long sentence.
The most reverend Primate was right when he said that a lot of warders feel concerned at having to inflict the "cat." Of course that does not apply so much to the birch. Nobody ever believed the headmaster who said: "This gives me more pain than it is going to give you."
376
Nobody in the course of the whole history of mankind ever believed him in that, and I do not think that most ordinary prison warders would object at all to giving the birch. But if it is reintroduced it ought not to be given in the prison or Borstal institution in which the man is to serve his sentence. It ought to be given in some separate penal institution, so that the first introduction of a prisoner to the governor and warders whom it is hoped may do something to reform him will not be the governor supervising, and the warders inflicting, corporal punishment on him from the start. That is not the best way of starting the right relationship.
I know that a great deal of the agitation to get rid of corporal punishment started with the prison staffs, as did the agitation to get rid of capital punishment. If I may digress for one moment from corporal punishment, I hope that before long we shall have one prison set apart for receiving men sentenced to death; that when a man is due to be executed there will not be all that commotion which one finds in the ordinary prison where other people are kept on ordinary sentences. We ought to have one prison set apart with a special staff. Equally, if we ever reintroduce corporal punishment, that ought not to be given by the warders and under the supervision of the officers who are going to try to reform that person. I hear the noble Lord opposite say that that gives away the whole case. Indeed, I do not think it does. What I am saying is that we ought to have this known deterrent so that if people commit these crimes of violence, carry revolvers, manufacture coshes and things of that sort, they know they may get whipped with the birch. That might deter quite a number of them. One does not know how many people have been deterred in the past, because they have never come before the courts at all; they never come into the statistical table. Once the deterrent has been used, then treat the offender exactly as an ordinary prisoner in his own age group. If he is a young man, after he has suffered that extra penalty let him have his proper training at a Borstal institution.
I should like to add just one word about deserters. I always thought that the policy with regard to deserters who gave themselves up was wrong. It was

377
suggested that they should be treated leniently. Two or three men chose to give themselves up. They were immediately tried by a district or general court-martial, and given a couple of years' detention. My Lords, by this time, if their only offence was that of desertion, those men ought to be given a free pardon. Let them then re-establish themselves, not under aliases or whatever it is they are doing. Some of them by now are probably living under an alias, and are well established in work. But some have not yet reached anything like that stage, and I am certain that because of the stigma attaching to them they are helping to till this bandit class. We ought to take steps now to see that a free pardon is given to those men. Let it he publicly but quietly done, so that they will have no excuse for not settling down to a decent life, as they certainly should do.
My Lords, I am doubtful on this matter of whether the birch should be reinstituted for crimes of violence. The last time the subject came before this House, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I was neutral. Now I am coming round rather to the idea in favour of, not the "cat", but the birch. But we shall have to wait to ice how things go on. If by these long sentences we cannot deter people from these acts of violence, then I believe we ought to give, not to the general magistrates but only to the King's Bench Judges and perhaps to approved chairmen of quarter sessions, the power of using this additional deterrent, because deterrent I certainly think it is. I believe that we should wash out such phrases as "torture" and things of that sort, and realise that a birching does not do a man a great deal of harm. Indeed, it may just check him and in many cases it would be kinder to give a young man a sentence of the birch than to send him to prison for three, four, five, six or even seven years at a wretch—an appalling thought, at the formative age of his life. So if we find that we do not cure these waves of violence, ultimately we shall perhaps be more humane in saying that once more we will introduce what, after all, is not such an inhumane method.
7.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF FORTESCUE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Fortescue.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
Message from the Commons, That they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on Tuesday last on the subject of Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949.
  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN STAMPS
  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN STAMPS