Sitting of 6 March 1951

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

  DISABLED PENSIONERS (TRICYCLES AND CARS)
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Pensions (1) the numbers of cars and mechanically-propelled and hand-propelled tricycles supplied by his Department to disabled pensioners; and the cost of them for each of the years 1945–50, showing the comparisons, where possible, with the years 1918–23;
  (2) the number of sheds, garages and similar shelters, issued by his Department to those pensioners in possession of a tricycle or car; and the cost of these for each of the years 1945–50, showing the comparisons, where possible, with the years 1918–23.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Simmons): Motor tricycles for severely disabled war pensioners were issued by the State for the first time in 1945, and the motor car service was introduced in November, 1948. Since 1948 some 1,660 pensioners have been provided with motor cars at a cost of about £500,000. In the same period about 1,500 motor tricycles and 600 storage sheds were supplied, costing about £250,000 and £15,000 respectively; figures for the period 1945–47 are not readily available.
  I will write to the hon. Member giving him the other details he requires so far as they can be ascertained.
  Mr. Lewis: I thank the Minister for that answer, but can he say whether his Department makes any cash allowance for the cost of running these vehicles and, if so, what the cash payment is and how much has been paid during the period mentioned?
  Mr. Simmons: There is an allowance of £50 per annum for the maintenance and running of each of the cars supplied. I have not the over-all figures, but that is a matter of arithmetic.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Equipment, East Africa
    Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for War what quantities and types of Army equipment were held by East African forces in East Africa in November, 1945; and how much of these have subsequently been sold or transferred elsewhere.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): There were numerous miscellaneous units as well as units of the fighting arms in East Africa in 1945. Details of the equipment held or of its subsequent disposal are not available.
    Mr. Alport: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there were the equivalent of two divisions plus a number of garrison detachments in East Africa, all of which had full equipment? How is it, therefore, that he was able to state in a recent debate that there is not sufficient equipment in East Africa for an expansion of the Colonial Forces?
    Mr. Strachey: That equipment has not been left in East Africa.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Can the Secretary of State say how much of the equipment went to Soviet Russia and to Soviet satellite countries?

    Electoral Registration
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the widespread ignorance on this matter, whether he will consult with the British Broadcasting Corporation with a view to arranging to use its services again to bring to the notice of all ranks the steps necessary to ensure their inclusion on the electoral register and the absent voters' list.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that only 67 per cent. of qualified Service voters in the Army placed themselves on the new electoral register, as compared with 79 per cent. of the qualified airmen and 95 per cent. of the qualified seamen;

    209
    and whether he will reconsider the suggestion that every commanding officer of a military unit should be required to report annually how many qualified persons have and have not been registered.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a large number of private soldiers are still not given adequate information about the facilities under which they can be registered as electors; and whether he will take steps to improve the present arrangements.
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for War if all Service personnel will be given an opportunity to register their vote by proxy either prior to going overseas or immediately on arrival at their overseas destination.
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement as to how the arrangements for the registration of Service voters as laid down in Regulation, 1950, No. 1250 (S88), under the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, worked.
    Mr. Strachey: All eligible personnel who had not already submitted the Armed Forces declaration cards, which provide for the electoral registration of the soldier and for the appointment, if he wishes, of a proxy, were given the opportunity of doing so shortly before the qualifying dates for the 1951 spring register. Instructions were issued to all commanding officers, who were required to submit a certificate that the prescribed procedure had been carried out, and all ranks were informed of the matter by an information leaflet posted on notice boards throughout the Army. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred specially to the arrangements made for Service voters in a broadcast on 11th November, 1950. Similar arrangements, which it is hoped will include publicity by the British Broadcasting Corporation, are contemplated for the coming year. All ranks about to proceed overseas are reminded to appoint a proxy if they have not already done so.
    Approximately 67 per cent. of Army personnel will be included in the 1951 spring register as compared with some 48 per cent. in the existing register, so we are making progress in this matter.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman let the House know what percentage of those who were eligible availed themselves of the opportunity when it was last given?
    Mr. Strachey: I think 67 per cent. is the number of eligible personnel.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: But what percentage of the 67 per cent. availed themselves of the opportunity?
    Mr. Strachey: Of voting in the last election?
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Yes.
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot give that information.
    Mr. Keeling: As there is no reason to think that the soldier is less anxious to exercise his voting rights than the seaman and the airman, and as the Minister of Defence promised on 26th July last that the procedure which the Secretary of State has just outlined would be reconsidered if it failed—and I think it has failed, as the figures given in Question No. 5 show—will the Secretary of State say whether any further action is proposed, apart from that which he mentioned in his answer?
    Mr. Strachey: I would not agree that the procedure has failed. It has raised the percentage from 48 per cent. to 67 per cent. between the two registers, and we very much hope to raise it further by the next register.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the instructions given to commanding officers in Army Council Instruction 561 of 29th July, 1950, have been carried out, and if so, how does he account for the fact that approximately one-third of the Army will not be registered?
    Mr. Strachey: We go on pressing commanding officers to bring it to the notice of all ranks in the Army, and take the other steps of general publicity which I have detailed, and I am certainly willing to consider any further steps, but that is all I can do.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. Friend say whether units in the home commands have completed the forms at a greater rate than units overseas, and if

    211
    so, can something be done to make extra propaganda about it overseas?
    Mr. Strachey: Not without notice.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: In view of the very wide disparity in the percentages shown in Question No. 5, which seems to be a measure of the relative efficiency of the three Fighting Services, which is in inverse ratio to their representation in this House, could not the right hon. Gentleman consider the automatic registration of these men on reaching the age of 21 by the Army authorities, who have all their papers and know all about them?
    Mr. Strachey: I should have to consult the Home Secretary about that.

    Armoured Divisions, Germany
    Mr. Donnerasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an assurance that no more tanks will be taken from existing British divisions in Germany in order to provide equipment for the fourth division in that country; and that hence forth this division will be equipped with tanks from this country and not at the expense of the others.
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member has been misinformed. He is perhaps thinking of the fact that tanks have recently been brought from Germany to this country for modifications. But they have been replaced in Germany on a one-for-one basis. The new armoured division now being formed will not, of course, be equipped at the expense of the armoured divisions now in Germany.
    Mr. Donner: As the information given to me was up-to-date and came from an unchallengeable source, would the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter again?
    Mr. Strachey: The source is not only challengeable, but has been challenged and contradicted in the last few minutes.

    Troops, Korea
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are being made for periodic reliefs of British Forces in Korea.
    Mr. Strachey: National Service men in Korea are relieved in time for their release to be carried out in the United
    212
    Kingdom on their due date. Reservists and Regular soldiers retained after the expiry of their period of Colour service will be released in accordance with the arrangements announced by the Prime Minister on 29th January, 1951. Other Regular soldiers are subject to the normal overseas tour rules, save where there are medical or compassionate reasons for earlier relief.
    Mr. Watkinson: As it appears that we shall have forces in Korea now for perhaps a long time, could not the Secretary of State be a little bit more explicit with regard to the Regular Forces? Will the men do their full tour of overseas duty in Korea, or will there be any chance of a shorter period? Is it to be accepted that they will do their full time in the fighting line in Korea?
    Mr. Strachey: I should not like to commit myself on that. At the moment it is subject to the normal tour of overseas service, but I would not necessarily commit us to that rule for the future.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the instructions in regard to the release of reservists are made available for hon. Members to send to people who apply to us to know what the position is, because we are getting large numbers of letters from the relatives of the men, who want to know when they can return?
    Mr. Strachey: I have to answer another Question on that subject later today.
    Brigadier Thorp: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers completed their foreign service—more than 30 years of it —last year, and are now back in full service in Korea? Will he make a statement about that?
    Mr. Strachey: That is a question about the release of units as a whole and not of individual men.
    Mr. Watkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again in the light, perhaps, of future circumstances?
    Mr. Strachey: If it becomes clear that troops will be in Korea for a long period, then arrangements will have to be made.
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make arrangements for a Parliamentary delegation to visit the British and United Nations Forces in Korea.
    Mr. Strachey: I have given careful consideration to this matter, but I do not feel able to accept the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has been a great deal of information and misinformation about what is going on with regard to our troops in Korea, and would not such a delegation give an opportunity for Members of this House to get to know what the position is?
    Mr. Strachey: We have to consider that there is a unified command in Korea and the fact that delegations from many national Parliaments might wish to go there.
    Mr. Snow: Is there any evidence that if such a Parliamentary delegation were set up, General MacArthur would be prepared to receive it?
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement the other day that he was hoping to be able to go to Korea, will he at least take one Member from this side of the House with him?
    Mr. Strachey: If I do go, a Member from that side may be very useful.
    Mr. Martin Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for War on what date the Military Cross was awarded to Lieut. C. Lawrence for gallantry in Korea on 22nd September, 1950.
    Mr. Strachey: This award was published in the London Gazette on 16th February, 1951.
    Mr. Lindsay: Can the Secretary of State for War explain why it took five months for this recommendation to be considered and a decision taken?
    Mr. Strachey: We received it on 19th January from the Commander-in-Chief, Far Eastern Land Forces. I am not aware what was the cause of the intermediate delay.
    Mr. Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question why there is always this delay of four or five months before awards are made?
    Brigadier Thorpasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement about the release of reservists now serving in Korea.
    Mr. Strachey: Reservists will start leaving Korea next September.
    Brigadier Thorp: Does that mean that everyone who has been called up specially from the Reserves for Korea will start leaving next September?
    Mr. Strachey: They will start leaving next September, but we cannot, of course, take all the reservists out of the units in one month, as some units have a very high proportion. That is why I said that they will start leaving next September.
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the importance of tea to soldiers on active service, if he will ensure that it is made available at 3s. a pound to men fighting in Korea.
    Mr. Strachey: The ration which troops in Korea are at present receiving is enough to provide about five pints of tea a day for each soldier. In these circumstances, it seems difficult to ask N.A.A.F.I. to sell extra tea at a heavy loss in Korea, which would be the effect of the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does not the Minister appreciate that a soldier must have tea to fight on, that he pays his taxes the same as anyone else and that he should have his tea subsidised so that he can fight?
    Mr. Strachey: He receives free over double the present civilian ration, so we are here talking about extra tea. It is difficult to pick out this item and ask N.A.A.F.I. to accept a heavy loss on it.
    Mr. James Hudson: Is it not something of an improvement that at least we have reached the position that it is better to use tea than other drinks for these purposes?
    Brigadier Head: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as tea and other commodities are concerned, N.A.A.F.I. prices are fixed on Hong Kong prices, whereas those serving in Korea are not getting the Hong Kong allowances but a lower rate? Cannot he balance their allowances with the Hong Kong allowances?
    Mr. Strachey: That is another question, but I think that there is a case there which we can certainly examine.
    Mrs. Hillasked the Secretary of State for War if he has any further information about the case of Private McHardy, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who was killed in Korea in October, 1950. and whose mother is still awaiting news about his personal effects.
    Mr. Strachey: I regret that no further information is yet available concerning the personal effects of Private McHardy. The military authorities in Korea have been asked by cable to report on the position and the relatives will be informed as soon as any information is received.
    Mrs. Hill: Is the Secretary of State aware of the grave anxiety and worry it has caused the parents of this boy not to receive any intimation about the boy's effects, even after writing to the War Office on 31st December and not getting a reply till 23rd January: and will he try to expedite this matter?
    Mr. Strachey: We have cabled urgently to the Far East.

    Meritorious Service Medal
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made with the issue of the Meritorious Service Medal.
    Mr. Strachey: Orders have been placea for the production of the additional medals required. A Royal Warrant covering the new conditions for the issue of the medal has now been signed, and the issue of medals to all those registered for the Meritorious Service Medal will begin shortly.
    Brigadier Clarke: Can the Secretary of State give us any indication of what "begin shortly" means? Will it be one year, or two years, or an indefinite period, before the issue is made?
    Mr. Strachey: Well, I think we can stick to the anticipation I gave the hon. and gallant Gentleman some time ago, that the process would be completed in two years from 27th June, 1950.

    Pillboxes (Demolition Policy)
    Mr. Donnerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an assurance that the policy of demolishing pillboxes and fortified points, particularly along our coasts, has now been discontinued.
    Mr. Strachey: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him on 14th February.
    Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I got no proper answer? Will he, at any rate, say whether the cost of this disarmament will be included in the re-armament bill?
    Mr. Strachey: I can assure the hon. Member that no pillboxes or other defences of military value are being demolished.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman please look into this again, because it necessitates only a motor drive through any part of England to discover that pillboxes are being demolished at river crossings and railway crossings? It is a waste of labour, if nothing else.

    Overseas Forces (Parcels and Remittances)
    Miss Burtonasked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to make a statement on the suggested bulk parcel scheme for the Forces overseas.
    Mr. Strachey: We have gone into the bulk parcel scheme very carefully, but we have found that it has certain disadvantages.
    It is clearly impossible under such a scheme to give the individual soldier in Korea any freedom of choice. His relative would only be able to send him a standard parcel irrespective of his personal tastes. Again, N.A.A.F.I. cannot itself guarantee delivery of the parcel to the soldier and there might be difficulty in investigating complaints by senders.
    In these circumstances we have tried to find an alternative way of achieving the purpose which I am sure the House had in mind, namely, that friends and relatives might be able quickly and cheaply to send gifts to men in Korea. Hitherto, under exchange control regulations they have not been able to remit money, but we have now decided to allow anyone to send postal orders to any member of His Majesty's Forces in Korea or Japan up to the value of £2 at any one time. The postal orders can be readily cashed and the money used to buy what the individual man prefers. I have arranged with N.A.A.F.I. greatly to increase their stock in order to meet the increased demand.

    217
    I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the items already held by N.A.A.F.I. and of the additional items which are to be stocked.
    In view of the considerations I have mentioned, I therefore think it is better and more practical to send the money. As an additional concession we have been able to arrange that this postal order scheme will apply not only to Korea and Japan but to all other British Forces overseas to whom it has been impossible, hitherto to send remittances by postal order. The scheme will come into operation on Monday next.
    Miss Burton: While regretting, obviously, that it has not been possible to arrange for parcels to be sent, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware how very much pleasure at the trouble that he and the other Service Ministers have taken will be felt by all relatives of serving men? I should like to thank him very much indeed.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As the bulk parcels scheme has now been found to encounter serious difficulties will the Secretary of State now look again at the question of a reduced air mail rate for the smaller weights, which was deferred while this matter was under consideration?
    Mr. Strachey: This scheme is made just because we do think that the cost was prohibitive of making this substantial concession on air mail rates. I think I ought to make clear that it is still perfectly possible to send parcels to Korea by sea.
    Mr. Shurmer: In view of the statement made by my right hon. Friend, which will be received favourably by the relatives of the men in the Forces, naturally, will he consider the question of the prices in some parts of the world where our troops are serving? Is he aware that it costs 9s. to send half a pound of sweets to Korea? Surely he can find some means of providing cheaper supplies?
    Mr. Turton: Could the right hon. Gentleman arrange with N.A.A.F.I. greatly to reduce prices, so that these arrangements may be of some value?
    Mr. Strachey: N.A.A.F.I. prices are another question, but I have gone into them very carefully. Their prices are
    218
    based on prices in Hong Kong, Japan and the rest of the Far East. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because all N.A.A.F.I. stores all over the world charge the current price levels in the respective parts of the world. It is very difficult to ask them to change that practice.
    Mr. Driberg: Would my right hon. Friend consider allowing these sums of money which may be sent, since they are to be limited to the relatively small sum of £2, to be convertible into dollar scrip or, at least, Japanese yen, to provide a much wider choice of purchases?
    Mr. Strachey: They will be convertible under the same rules as all other moneys held by the soldiers. I would emphasise that it is to be £2 at any one time.
    Following is the list:

    Items already stocked by N.A.A.F.I.

    Cigarettes

    Brushes, various

    Tobacco

    Fountain pens

    Biscuits

    Metal and glass

    Chocolate

    mirrors

    Socks

    Cigarette lighters with

    Handkerchiets

    flints and wicks

    Soap

    Pipes

    Razors and razor

    Hair cream

    blades

    Items which will be stocked as early as possible.

    Condensed milk

    Cigarette cases

    Paper backed books

    Tobacco pouches

    Nail scissors

    Sun glasses

    Nail clippers

    Torches and batteries

    Combs in cases

    Wallets

    Toilet soap containers

    Spirit flasks

    Ball point pens and

    Note cases

    refills

    Key cases

    Penknives

    Vacuum flasks

    Gurkha Units (Strength)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for War what is the establishment strength of the Gurkha units in the British Army; and what is their present strength.
    Mr. Strachey: The establishment of the Gurkha units in the British Army is approximately 10,300. At present all units are up to full strength.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, particularly in view of the invaluable work being done by the Gurkhas in Malaya, why the establishment should not be raised and, if there is any reason, what is it?
    Mr. Strachey: The establishment is fixed partly in consultation with the Government of Nepal and has to be carefully considered. I entirely agree about the excellent service the Gurkhas are giving in Malaya.

    Ex-Miners
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service men are ex-miners of six months' standing in the industry.
    Mr. Strachey: This information is not available but, as my hon. Friend has already been informed, the number is small.
    Mr. Hynd: Just because the number is small, will my right hon. Friend consider extending the release to National Service men, as has already been arranged for the Regular soldiers?
    Mr. Strachey: We think that there are quite insignificant numbers of National Service men involved.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that applications have been made by experienced miners, including a miner from Leicester, for release from the Forces to return to the mines, and would it not be useful if these men were allowed to return to the mines, particularly in view of his statement that there are only a few of them in the Forces?
    Mr. Strachey: If there are any individual cases of miners whose applications have been turned down, perhaps my hon. Friend would let me have them.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: How is it that this information is not available? Are not particulars taken of every man's civilian occupation at the time of his joining?
    Mr. Strachey: We would have to examine the documents of every National Service man in the Army.
    Mr. Hynd: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Miss Jennie Leeasked the Secretary of State for War how many coal-miners are in the Services; how many have applied for release from the Services in order to return to work in the mines;
    220
    and which active theatres of war are excluded from the general directive enabling miners to return to their civilian jobs.
    Mr. Strachey: Records are not available to show how many coalminers are in the Services. Instructions regarding the release of coalminers were not issued until 23rd February. It is therefore unlikely that many applications for release have yet been received. Only soldiers serving under the Unified Command in the Japanese and Korean theatre are not eligible for release under this scheme.
    Miss Lee: While most commanding officers are courteous and co-operative when miners in the ranks approach them, is my right hon. Friend aware that some are not, and that it is obviously a complicated matter for men to know whether or not they are eligible for release? Will he see that when officers are approached they give a proper explanation on whether or not a man is eligible for release?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any case she has in mind.

    Class Z Reserve (Call-Up)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Secretary of State for War by what date he anticipates that warning notices will have been sent to all Z reservists required for service this year.
    Mr. Strachey: The last of these notices will be dispatched by Saturday, 10th March. As, however, they will have been sent to the reservist's last recorded address there may be some delay before the warning notice is received in cases where the reservist has recently changed his address and the warning notice has to be reissued.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War whether Class Z reservists who are not being recalled for 15 days' training may volunteer for such training.
    Mr. Strachey: Arrangements have already been made to call up the Z reservists needed to meet the requirements of units to be trained at higher establishment this year. Consequently, there is no scope for any considerable flow of volunteer Z reservists, but it may be possible to accept a few individual volunteers to take the place of recalled reservists who

    221
    are medically unfit, provided they are of the ranks and skill required. Any such reservists would have to be called up for training in accordance with the procedure provided in the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Bill.
    I strongly recommend, however, that Z reservists who have not been sent a warning notice, but who wish to train, should join either the Territorial Army or the Supplementary Reserve.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: With a view to reducing, as far as possible, the number of 40-year-old men and men with five or six years' war service who are at present being recalled for 15 days' training, will my right hon. Friend pursue a little more vigorously the possibility of encouraging men to volunteer to take the place of these older men?
    Mr. Strachey: If we get the volunteers, we try to fit them in.
    Mr. Edward Heathasked the Secretary of State for War why arrangements have been made for some Z reservists and Territorial Regiments in which they serve to attend camp for 14 days only, including travelling time: and why advantage is not to be taken of the full fifteen days' training period.
    Mr. Strachey: All reservists who are recalled for training this year will be recalled for a 15-day training period, which will include travelling time to and from their homes.
    Mr. Heath: Is the Secretary of State aware that in one command, of which I can give him details afterwards, instructions have been issued that training periods will be 14 days only, although the period is nominally—so the instruction says—for 15 days? Is not 15 days little enough time in which to give these men refresher training without throwing away one day unnecessarily?
    Mr. Strachey: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars of that.
    Mr. Harmar Nichollsasked the Secretary of State for War the number of Class Z reservists called for special training who are above the age of 35 years.
    Mr. Strachey: This information is not readily available.
    Mr. Nicholls: In view of the fact that it is likely to be a very small proportion of the whole, would the right hon. Gentleman consider, in the event of an emergency necessitating a general call-up, giving an undertaking not to call up men over 35 years of age in the first 12 months of such emergency provided they are members of the Civil Defence Forces?
    Mr. Strachey: I do not think we can give such an undertaking.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that the then Minister of Labour gave an assurance in September last that Z reservists over 40 years of age were free to join Civil Defence, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that none of the men referred to in this Question is over 40?
    Mr. Strachey: No, because the age limit is stated as 45. Although very few are over 40, the actual limit for Z reservists is 45.

    Young Soldiers, Malaya (Training)
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement relating to the circumstances in which Private G. Plant and Private D. C. Walker were killed recently in Malaya.
    Mr. Strachey: On 22nd February a patrol of one officer and nine other ranks from the 1st Battalion, the Worcestershire Regiment, with two police constables, went to investigate a report that terrorists had burned vehicles between Labis and Segamat in North Johore. Some distance from the vehicles they came under heavy fire from a terrorist force estimated to number a hundred, and five other ranks were immediately killed or fatally wounded.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Private Plant was under 19 years of age when he was killed and Private Walker was only just 19 years of age, and that Private Walker had just previously been in hospital for an operation and had had no sick leave? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is right that these men, who had a total service of only four and a half months before they left England, should be sent out to fight in a most difficult type of jungle warfare?
    Mr. Strachey: I am answering further Questions on the length of service of these men this afternoon, and perhaps I may be permitted to reply to this supplementary question then.
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for War how many soldiers under 19 years of age are serving in Malaya.
    Mr. Strachey: I have called for this information and will write to the hon. and gallant Member.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the meantime, tens of thousands of parents are in great distress about this matter, and is it not possible, with nearly one million men in the Fighting Forces, to avoid sending out soldiers of 18 years of age to fight in this most difficult war?
    Mr. Strachey: I do not think that we ought to alter the age limit for going to Malaya. It is an intensely tragic thing if any soldier is killed in Malaya or anywhere else, but his exact age as to months does not seem to me to be the main consideration.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said he would answer further Questions on this matter later, and as this is the main issue concerning the question which we are raising, will he vouchsafe a little more information on this vital subject to the House at the present time?
    Mr. Strachey: I will speak on it, but there are several more Questions on the subject. I gave, for example, the exact ages of some men who were killed in Malaya the other day. I think that it would be more appropriate on those Questions.
    Major Guy Lloyd: Surely, with regard to the Minister's remark that the main consideration is not whether a boy is killed at 18 or not, the question is whether he has had sufficient training?
    Mr. Strachey: I am asked to give the length of training which these men had, and I do give it in answer to a Question on the Order Paper today.
    Mr. Butler: On the main issue of policy, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this policy of sending young men abroad with only four
    224
    months or so of training will not be continued, because it is causing grave anxiety in the minds of many families at the present time?
    Mr. Strachey: The number of months training I will certainly consider with my military advisers, but they are convinced that the present regulations are correct.
    Mr. Butler: Apart from the present regulations, and as this is a question of policy which would alter the regulations, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in view of the perfectly legitimate anxieties on this subject, he will review the whole question of sending young men abroad at this age?
    Mr. Strachey: I think it is a question of training rather than of age. I repeat that we certainly must not send men abroad who are inadequately trained, and that my advisers are confident that that is not being done.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Was not an undertaking given that no young man under 19 years of age would be sent abroad? If so, does not that apply to Malaya?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. An undertaking was given that no young man under 19 would be sent to Korea, but the age for sending abroad to any other theatre is 18 years 3 months.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise, after his own experience in Malaya, that jungle warfare is more difficult than open warfare? If his advisers tell him that four months' training is sufficient, will not he consider getting new advisers?
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for War what training was received prior to leaving this country by Privates G. Plant and D. C. Walker, who were recently killed in Malaya.
    Mr. Strachey: These soldiers each received 10 weeks' basic training and six weeks' continuation training, together with some further training during the time they were being prepared for drafting.
    Air Commodore Harvey: How can the right hon. Gentleman make a statement like that without taking into account the period spent in kitting-up when they first join, menial duties and embarkation and other leaves? Does he not think that this is quite an inadequate period, and

    225
    now that more men are in the Army will he consider giving these men at least six or seven months' proper training?
    Mr. Strachey: We can consider this matter, but it is the firm view of my advisers that this is an adequate basic training. Of course, the training does not stop when the men go overseas.
    Mr. Manuel: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that training must obviously be related to age? Will he seriously consider the views of many Members on this side of the House that no soldier should be sent abroad into a fighting area unless he is over 19 years of age, as in the case of Korea?
    Mr. Strachey: That can be considered, but so far the rule has been 19 for Korea and 18 years 3 months for other parts.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will reconsider this matter, as 10 weeks plus six weeks is surely a quite insufficient training before sending troops into a fighting area?
    Mr. Strachey: It can be considered.
    Mr. Profumo: The right hon. Gentleman has said that in such cases as this the primary consideration is length of training and not age, but if he had adequate forces at his disposal, would he still take the view that there is sufficient training and that 18 years 3 months is a high enough age?
    Mr. Strachey: I think that the matter is rather one of training than of age, but I am advised that the training is thoroughly adequate for the purpose.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is it the firm conviction of my right hon. Friend's military advisers that 16 weeks' basic training is sufficient to enable a soldier, whether he be 18 or 19, to go into action in places like Malaya?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, that is their view, that the 16 weeks' training is an adequate period for the purpose these troops are called upon to fulfil in these theatres.
    Mr. A. R. W. Low: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that 16 weeks' training before leaving this country might be sufficient provided that when the man got to Malaya he was then given at least four weeks' training in jungle country be-
    226
    fore being sent out on active operations? Is it not clear from the figures he has given to the House that these men did not have even one week's training before they were sent straight into active operations; and is there not something very wrong about that?
    Mr. Driberg: When my right hon. Friend repeats that 19 is the age for Korea, is he aware that at least one young man was sent to Korea at the age of less than 18½ and has been killed; and, while it is true that this young man was not in the Army but in the Royal Marines, should not the age be uniform for all three Services?
    Mr. Strachey: That is a different question not entirely within my responsibility.
    Mr. Vane: If 16 weeks' training is sufficient before a soldier is sent to Malaya, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the two years' period of National Service is a gross misuse of manpower?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The purpose of National Service is not merely training. I must make it perfectly clear to the House that one of the main purposes of National Service is to reinforce the active Army.
    Air Commodore Harvey: On a point of order. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to give an assurance that he will look into this matter again, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the very earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Snow: Further to that point of order. In view of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said, does that invalidate further supplementary questions on Question No. 34?
    Mr. Speaker: We must wait till we hear the answer to the Question.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Secretary of State for War the ages of the five men of the 1st Battalion, The Worcestershire Regiment, who were reported to have been killed last week in a bandit ambush; whether they were members of the Regular Army or were National Service men; on what date they were enlisted; what were their ages: and how much individual and collective train-

    227
    ing they had had before arriving in Singapore.
    Mr. Strachey: Their ages respectively were 22 years 2 months; 20 years 9 months; 19 years; 18 years 11 months; and 18 years 11 months. Two were Regular soldiers and the others National Service men. All had received the requisite 16 weeks' training before being sent to Malaya. I will, with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the dates of their enlistment and their ages at the time.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: is
    the Secretary of State aware that there is a widespread feeling, in every home in the country, that the age of 18 or 19 is too young to send these boys into action against seasoned troops? Why not let them grow up a bit and, above all, give them more training before they take part in this most highly skilled form of guerilla warfare.
    Mr. Strachey: Changing the age would really involve changing the age for National Service, which is a much wider question. We have already discussed the point about the training.
    Several Hon. Members——
    Mr. Speaker: I think this had better be debated on the Adjournment, as notice has been given.
    Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has given notice to raise this on the Adjournment starts balloting now he will only get the Adjournment in a fortnight's time. In a fortnight's time the Easter Adjournment is coming on, and in view of the wide interest in this matter on both sides of the House, would you consider allowing a certain amount of time to it on the Easter Adjournment?
    Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that next Thursday we discuss the Army Estimates, and it would be perfectly in order to debate the matter then.
    Mr. George Ward: Further to that point of order. As this Question relates very closely to my constituency and refers to the Worcestershire Regiment, and as I have had a great many letters from my
    228
    constituents about this matter, might I ask, with great respect, whether you would allow me to put a supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I thought the hon. Gentleman would have risen on the previous Question which dealt with the same matter. If it is his constituency, I will certainly allow a supplementary question.
    Mr. Ward: Is the Secretary of State aware that a great many people in Worcester have written to me about this matter, many of whom have relations in the Worcestershire Regiment; that every one of them has expressed the opinion that 18 is much too young, that the amount of training given is much too little, and that they are extremely worried about the whole thing?
    Mr. Strachey: I think the training is the essence of the matter rather than the age, but I cannot go beyond what I have already said.
    Mr. Snow: On a point of order. On Question 33 the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) said he would raise the matter on the Adjournment, and I then asked you whether that invalidated supplementary questions on this Question. I did not understand you, Mr. Speaker, to answer then.
    Mr. Speaker: My answer was that I thought we had better hear the answer to Question 34 before I gave a Ruling. Having heard the answer, I think the matter should be discussed on the Adjournment about which notice was given. That is my Ruling.
    Following are the details:

    Date of enlistment

    Age at the time

    Years

    Months

    June, 1946

    …

    …

    22

    2

    May, 1948

    …

    …

    20

    9

    June, 1950

    …

    …

    18

    3

    July, 1950

    …

    …

    18

    3

    July, 1950

    …

    …

    18

    3

    Civilian Employees
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War why his Department is employing over 200,000 civilians outside headquarters; and what is the precentage relation of this number to the number of troops organised in fighting divisions.
    Mr. Strachey: The functions of these 191,000 civilians are described in Vote 4 of the Army Estimates. This is some 86 per cent. of the 223,000 men who my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said on 14th February could be regarded as fighting elements.
    Sir H. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it is necessary to have 200,000 bowler hats to look after only 50 per cent. more soldiers?
    Mr. Strachey: I do not think that they all wear bowler hats, because a good many of them are Chinese and Malayans.

    Camps (Demolition)
    Brigadier Prior-Palmerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause a review to be made of all camps now in process of demolition to make sure that nothing is demolished that may be again required in case of war.
    Mr. Strachey: Mobilisation requirements are now being reviewed to determine to what extent camps surplus to peace-time requirements should be considered for this purpose.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large camp in the area of Witley is in process of being demolished? Will he halt that process until a decision is arrived at, otherwise it is within the bounds of possibility that it will have to be rebuilt?
    Mr. Strachey: We are not handing over any further camps to the Ministry of Works at the present moment, but I do not think we should consider halting the demolition of camps where the work has actually begun.

    Recruiting Centres, Shrewsbury
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Secre tary of State for War what consultations he has had with the Minister of Defence with a view to combining the recruiting centres in Shrewsbury into a joint recruiting centre.
    Mr. Strachey: Consultation between the three Services, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Works about the provision of joint recruiting centres is continuous. It has been agreed that a joint recruiting centre should be established in Shrewsbury as soon as a suitable property becomes available.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: While accepting the fact that it is desirable that the Services should occupy one building rather than three separate buildings, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the interests of the Army will not be prejudiced in any way by being joined to the other Services?
    Mr. Strachey: I see no reason to suppose that.

    Records Office, York (Removal)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for War on what date he intends to carry out the move of the Infantry and General Service Corps Records Office from York to Preston.
    Mr. Strachey: The move of this office depends on the construction of new accommodation at Preston. This project is only in the planning stage and may take some years to complete.
    Mr. Turton: Will the Minister bear in mind that a great many of the staff at the Records Office have already been uprooted from Edinburgh? Will he give an undertaking that before re-uprooting them he will give them at least 12 months' notice?
    Mr. Strachey: I do not think they need be alarmed at the tenor of my statement today.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the normal delay between Government planning and Government action?
    Mr. Strachey: In this case it is a reassuring period.

    Territorial Adjutants (Pay)
    Mr. Vosperasked the Secretary of State for War how many ex-officers have been re-engaged as Territorial adjutants on consolidated rates of pay; and if he will bring these rates into line with other Service emoluments.
    Mr. Strachey: I regret that the figures are not readily available. The consolidated rates are at present under review.
    Mr. Vosper: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that since these officers were engaged they have been asked to take on a considerable amount of extra

    231
    work, and that therefore their remuneration should show some improvement?
    Mr. Strachey: I think there is a case there for consideration.

    1st Cadet Battalion, K.R.R.C.
    Mr. Michael Astorasked the Secretary of State for War what are his plans for the 1st Cadet Battalion, King's Royal Rifle Corps.
    Mr. Strachey: On 1st January, 1951, this battalion was amalgamated with the 1st City of London Cadet Regiment, in which it provides two companies. These companies continue to wear the badge of and are affiliated to the King's Royal Rifle Corps.
    Mr. Astor: Could the Secretary of State make this point rather more clear? Will this battalion, which has battle honours and has distinguished itself in three wars, be losing its identity, which is frightfully important?
    Mr. Strachey: To be quite frank, I think there is a partial loss of identity, and I entirely agree that that is a great pity and a very sad thing. Nevertheless, for reasons which have been given at length in this House, I am afraid these amalgamations are inevitable.
    Mr. Astor: I understand that there must be certain re-organisation, but in view of this battalion's particular record, starting in the South African War, could not the right hon. Gentleman do something rather less drastic, as otherwise this will deal a very severe blow at the cadet movement as a whole?
    Mr. Strachey: This particular arrangement has been agreed to by the two colonels-commandant of the King's Royal Rifle Corps after very careful consideration, and I should be loth to try to modify it now.

    Vickers Machine Gun
    Brigadier Prior-Palmerasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Vickers gun is still the standard medium machine gun for the British Army; and what steps are being taken to replace it with an equally reliable but more modern weapon.
    Mr. Strachey: The Vickers medium machine gun is still the standard medium machine gun for the British Army. A new medium machine gun is under development.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: In view of the paramount necessity for increase fire power, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that an early decision is arrived at in this matter?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, but I would not like to denigrate the Vickers machine gun, which is a very valuable weapon. We have a new weapon under development.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I possibly know as much about the Vickers machine gun as the right hon. Gentleman does, but is he not aware that there are no fewer than 16 stoppages in this gun, which prevents it from firing, and that it is a very out-of-date weapon?

  BASILDON NEW TOWN
  Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Local Government and Planning what action he proposes to take in view of the statement in the first annual report of the Basildon Development Corporation that the effect of enactments governing compensation for houses with vacant possession will cause genuine hardship in certain cases.
  The Minister of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Dalton): No such questions can arise in respect of the Corporation's present building programme, which will consist either of in-filling or of building on undeveloped land
  Mr. Braine: Is that not a contradiction of the Corporation's own report? Is the Minister not aware that I first brought this matter to his attention some 10 months ago, and is the House to assume from his reply that he pays no attention to the reports of bodies for which he himself is responsible, and is indifferent to hardships which their operations may cause?
  Mr. Dalton: No hardships are caused except to the people who are kept wailing for houses, and who will be housed when the Corporation build more houses.

  MINISTRIES OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
  Mr. De la Bereasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing difficulties of co-ordination between the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture, he will now consider merging the two Departments to ensure smoother working and increased home food production.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. As I have informed the hon. Member on previous occasions, co-operation between the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries is very close; and I am not aware of any difficulties of the kind to which he refers.
  Mr. De la Bére: Is the Prime Minister aware that the actions of the Minister of Food and of the Ministry of Food are often diametrically opposed to the interests of what the Minister of Agriculture should be doing for the home producer, and could not the right hon. Gentleman put "No" in the reverse position and make it "on" so that we can get on to something worth while?

  CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES (CONFERENCE)
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Lord President of the Council what action has been taken on the report of the United Nations Scientific Conference on the Conservation and Utilisation of Resources.
  The Lord President.of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Conference produced no report. It had been convened to facilitate, on an international basis, the exchange of current technical experience about various natural resources and it intentionally passed no resolutions nor made any recommendations.

  MINERAL RESOURCES (DEVELOPMENT)
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Lord President of the Council to what extent aeromagnetic surveying has been carried out; and with what results.
  Mr. H. Morrison: No aeromagnetic survey has been carried out by Government Departments.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the fact that to scientists and engineers this is now considered to be the best way of detecting new mineral resources, will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of having aeromagnetic detection in Cornwall for tin and copper and in other counties for other metals in view of the world shortage?
  Mr. Morrison: I will take notice of the Question of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Lord President of the Council if he can give a report on the new mineral deposits and fuel recently found; the prospects of supplies of potash, salt and coal; and what action it is intended to take.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The known mineral resources in this country other than coal, oil and iron were fully considered by the Mineral Development Committee which reported in July, 1945 (Cmd. 7732).
  The potash deposits in north-east Yorkshire referred to in that Report are being explored and the most appropriate methods of extraction are under consideration. Salt is fully dealt with in the Report referred to which states that
  "ample workable reserves exist for all reasonable and foreseeable needs."
  Recent work confirms the preliminary indications in the Report that large reserves of salt exist in north-east Yorkshire. Coal is a matter for the National Coal Board, who have announced proposals for a big development programme, described in Plan for Coal—October, 1950, and have completed a number of borings. Further borings are in progress and contemplated.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the importance of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House, will he assure us that the Government, or whichever body is concerned with producing these metals, will keep in mind the everlasting destruction of farm land, the area of which is getting smaller and smaller and will never get any bigger.
  Mr. Snow: Will my right hon. Friend satisfy himself that there is proper coordination between the scientific advisers to, and the scientists working for, the National Coal Board?
  Mr. Morrison: We do everything we can in that way.
  Mr. Drayson: The Lord President mentioned deposits of potash in north-east Yorkshire which were reported on in 1945. Does he not think that six years is rather a long time to consider the best methods of developing this potash?
  Mr. Morrison: It may be some comfort to the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) to know that this is not a matter of State enterprise, but of private enterprise. Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with the company concerned.

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  Mr. Henry Hopkinsonasked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange that special facilities offered by him to overseas visitors in connection with the Festival of Britain, such as mileage coupons on British Railways, shall be made available to residents of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I do not offer any special facilities to overseas visitors in connection with the Festival of Britain.
  Mr. Hopkinson: Is the Lord President aware that American magazines are carrying Festival of Britain advertisements which announce "substantial savings obtainable in Britain," including mileage coupons; that these mileage coupons as I understand it, provide for 1,000 miles of travel at 22 dollars 40 cents, third-class, and weekly "Go as you Please" London Transport tickets at 3 dollars 50 cents; and is there any reason why these facilities should not be made available to the people of this country?
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman says that this is a Festival of Britain advertisement. He had better send it to me and I will have a look at it, as well as referring him to the Minister to whom he should put a Question.

  CROPPING TRIALS, GAMBIA
  Mr. Hurdasked the Lord President of the Council when the Medical Research Council first informed the Colonial Development Corporation about the results of its cropping trials in the
  236
  Gambia; and if he can give an assurance that there has been regular consultation on the spot between the technical staffs of the two bodies.
  Mr. H. Morrison: As soon as provisional conclusions could be drawn from the Medical Research Council's work on soil fertility in the Gambia, they were brought formerly to the notice of the manager of the Colonial Development Corporation Poultry Farm. This was in a memorandum forwarded by air on 9th February, 1951. There had previously been personal contact of an informal kind on the spot between the technical staffs of the two bodies.
  Mr. Hurd: Does not the Lord President of the Council think it extraordinary that for two years the Medical Research Council have been carrying out these cropping trials in Gambia which cost £52,000, while at the same time the other Corporation, the Colonial Development Corporation, spent £825,000 in proving that what human beings in Gambia suffer from, hens suffer from, too, and would it not have been better if these two bodies had consulted together from the very start?
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member has uttered a whole series of propaganda allegations. [Interruption.]Half the supplementary questions from the other side are propaganda. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to put a Question on the Order Paper, and I will have inquiries made.
  Mr. Eden: On a point of order. Is the Lord President of the Council entitled to make imputations about questions of this kind which, if they were correct, would be a reflection upon the Chair?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think it was a reflection on the Chair, because one cannot stop supplementary questions and they vary a great deal. I suppose the Leader of the House is entitled to his own opinion, which might not be the opinion of the party on the other side.
  Sir Richard Acland: Is it not a fact that though the researches by the Medical Research Council were extremely interesting and promising, they have not reached the stage of being practically useful on any large scale until very recent weeks.
  Mr. Morrison: I think there is something in what my hon. Friend says.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the increasing and understandable touchiness of the Lord President of the Council, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that this Medical Research Council already had valuable information on this subject which would have proved most useful to the Food Corporation had they found out earlier, as they might have done, that they could not grow the crops on which the hens were meant to grow?
  Lord John Hope: Is the increasing testiness of the Lord President of the Council, which the whole House is noting, the stuff of which Foreign Secretaries are made?
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the Lord President of the Council aware of the undue delay which took place in the receipt of this report, and the action taken on it by the Corporation, and can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the cause of it?
  Mr. Nabarro: Did the advice received by the Lord President of the Council in this matter lead him to believe that every egg arriving from Gambia would cost £21?
  Mr. Hurd: May I ask the Lord President of the Council how many times I have to obey his request to put a Question on the Order Paper? I put down the present Question as a result of his answer on this matter last week. If I am to put it down again, shall I get the same silly answer?
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman had better go on complying with my request until I leave off making requests.

  GRENADA (SITUATION)
  Mr. Eden(by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement about the present position in Grenada.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): Yes, Sir. I am glad to report that the general situation has now improved although there has as yet been no return to work; On 4th March, the acting-Governor announced that if the improvement continued it
  238
  would be possible within a few days to declare the state of emergency at an end. I told the House on Wednesday, 28th February, that my labour adviser was leaving for Grenada within the next few days. He has now arrived. He will shortly be making a report. The Governor, Sir Robert Arundell, has terminated his leave and returned to Grenada.
  Mr. Eden: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has received telegrams indicating some anxiety, from the island. Can he give us any estimate of what the damage has been to crops and buildings, Government and private, from these events?
  Mr. Griffiths: No, I am afraid I could not now give any estimate of the amount of damage that has been done.
  Mr. Harrison: When my right hon. Friend receives the report from his labour adviser, will he make known to the House the substantial causes of all the trouble in the island recently?
  Mr. Griffiths: Yes. My labour adviser is a very experienced man. He will be making an investigation into the whole background of this trouble, including the union background.
  Mr. Eden: While that is obviously very desirable, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is another aspect, which is also serious. It is that these outbreaks went so far, and did so much damage, before adequate steps could be taken to restore law and order.
  Mr. Griffiths: One of the reasons was that the strike was called before any demands had been made. If there had been any demands at all, they would have been investigated. The first thing we knew was the calling of the strike.
  Mr. Eden: I quite accept all that, but there is also the question of the preservation of law and order, strike or no strike. It is the result of the failure to do that that the widespread damage has taken place, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to look into that aspect of the matter.
  Mr. Griffiths: Yes. I will.
  Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman also publish the report of his labour adviser as a White Paper, together with the evidence received?
  Mr. Griffiths: This will be a report from my labour adviser to myself. If a Question is put down, I shall certainly be able to tell the House what steps have been taken on the report. I do not think that it is customary for a report to a Minister by an adviser to be published.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: What is the status of the labour adviser? Is he empowered to go to the island and to intervene in matters of administration, or is he making an investigation for the Minister?
  Mr. Griffiths: He is making an investigation and is to report to me on any steps that ought to be taken by myself and the Governor in consultation.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Air Estimates, 1951–52

    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON'S STATEMENT
    3.36 p.m.
    Order for Committee read.
    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 1951–52 are for a net total of £328¾ million. This is an increase of £105¾ million on the provision made in the original Estimates for 1950–51, excluding the Supplementary Estimate of £10 million recently presented. There is, therefore, a net increase of £95¾ million. The Estimates themselves are based on the £3,600 million programme which was drawn up last summer and do not provide for the additional expenditure that will result in 1951–52 from the further measures recently announced by the Prime Minister for the acceleration and increase of the defence effort. A Supplementary Estimate to provide for expenditure on these measures will be presented in due course.
    Vote A, which fixes the maximum number of personnel who may be maintained for Air Force service during the year, allows for the number to rise to 270,000, which is 55,000 more than the number originally voted for in 1950–51 and 27,000 more than the revised number covered by the Supplementary Estimate presented last December. We have embarked on the most exacting expansion programme for the Royal Air Force that has ever been undertaken in peace; and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has told the House, air strength has been given the first priority in our defence system. Of the sum allocated to the Forces under the new three-year programme, over one-third will be spent on the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Eden: Are these new sums?
    Mr. Henderson: No; they are part of the three-year programme. By 1953–54 the Air Estimates may be the largest

    241
    single element in the defence budget. This has never been the case in our history, in peace or in war, and it reflects the growing importance of air power in our defences.
    To show the magnitude of the effort this country is now making in the air, I should like to compare this programme with the expansion programme of the Royal Air Force before the war. The Air Estimates between 1936 and 1939 averaged about £100 million a year. Under the present programme, between 1950–51 and 1953–54 expenditure on the Royal Air Force will average over £400 million a year. Allowing for the change in the value of money, this is double the pre-war rate. Taking manpower, in 1936 Vote A totalled 55,000 and in 1939 118,000. Under the present programme, the strength of the Force may rise from 215,000 allowed in last year's Estimates under Vote A to over 300,000. Compared with the pre-war expansion, the scale of effort and the complexity of the task are very much greater.
    This greatly increased effort is accounted for partly by the increased strength of the Force but also by the difference in the quality and equipment of the aircraft. Today, there are more man-hours in the twin-engined Canberra than in the four-engined Lancaster, and, of course, far more than in the Blenheim or Hampden of pre-war days. A modern aircraft, as many hon. Members will know, is not only a most complex assembly of mechanical, electrical and electronic devices, but is also a precision instrument, so that dirt on its surfaces, or the slight deformation that comes from flying stresses, will lower its performance to a critical extent. In these circumstances, it has to be maintained by highly skilled specialists with elaborate equipment and a wide range of spare parts.
    The outlet, so to speak, through which all this costly effort is expended is the aircrew in the squadrons. It is the quality of a relatively small number of pilots and navigators that determines whether the work of several hundred thousand men and women in the Force and in the factories is well used or thrown away. I doubt if there is any occupation that calls for a greater combination of mental and physical qualities than that of a pilot or navigator in the Royal Air Force today. At speeds approaching the speed of
    242
    sound, and under the physical strains of operations at great heights, a pilot cannot perform the intricate and accurate duties required of him unless he acts almost automatically. Above all, therefore, our aircrews require the highest quality of training.
    It follows, therefore, that the expansion of our front line is also dependent on the training organisation that backs it. A major part of our effort, therefore, will go in providing this backing. We have enormously to increase the training organisation, not only to supply the aircrew and tradesmen for expanding the front line and to give refresher training to our reserves of aircrews, but also to prepare for a much greater output which will be needed in the event of war. I am glad to say that a good start with this increase has already been made. Moreover, again I think I should carry the House with me when I say that new squadrons are not just formed by collecting together the necessary number of individuals from the various types of training school: they are formed by dividing existing squadrons, and spreading the new intakes evenly.
    There is, therefore, a limit to the pace at which any force can expand if a reasonable measure of experience is to be retained in each unit. As a result, however, of the steady effort of the last few years, the Royal Air Force today is in excellent shape to undertake a major expansion. Standards of skill are high, the organisation is working smoothly, and the Force has confidence in itself. What the Royal Air Force can do when called on in an emergency is surely well illustrated by our share in the Berlin air lift, while any hon. Member who visited the display at Farnborough last year can be in no doubt as to the quality of the training and the organisation of the Force.
    The studies in operational technique which have been the task of the Central Fighter Establishment and the Flying College, and the collective training of the operational squadrons themselves, have borne fruit in producing a very high level of competence amongst flight and squadron commanders on whose ability the maintenance of quality in the expanded Force will so largely depend. We are determined that throughout the very great expansion upon which we have embarked we shall maintain the very high

    243
    standards of the past at the highest pitch. Apart from the training organisation, the backing that has served the Force in the past few years will, in the main, suffice for the much larger Force that is now being created. I should like to stress the fact that the increase will be in the teeth, and not in the tail.
    I shall now do my best to give the House as much information as is possible within the limits of security about the character and extent of the expansion of the front line.
    First, I would say that the present frontline strength of the Royal Air Force is more than half as great again than it was when I first presented my Air Estimates in March, 1948. But from now on its rate of expansion will be very much quicker. I realise only too well that it would give hon. Members a better understanding if I could give them the actual figures of the present strength of the Royal Air Force. Unfortunately, for security reasons, I cannot do so. But it may be of some assistance to the House if I relate the present fighter strength to the fighter strength of the Royal Air Force in 1939. On this basis I can say that its world-wide fighter strength is already today greater than it was in September, 1939, after three years of re-armament.
    Under the expansion programme there will, of course, be a large increase in aircraft production. Much of the output will have to be devoted to forming new squadrons rather than equipping existing squadrons, and in consequence some current types of aircraft may remain in service rather longer than had been previously intended. I should like to make this point, that while we must not underestimate the performance of fighter aircraft in service in other air forces, our current types, both Meteors and Vampires, can still be regarded as first-class fighting aircraft and indeed they would give a very good account of themselves in actual combat. But a number of new types of aircraft with performances superior to those now in service will be introduced this year and next year, so that the general standard of the equipment of the Royal Air Force will be improved despite the rapidity of the expansion now planned. In this connection I feel we owe a great deal to our aircraft industry,
    244
    which, as the result of war experience, is well acquainted with the problems of rapid expansion.
    Now I should like to deal with Fighter Command for a few moments. I should like to give the House some indication of the progress which has been made in building up the Royal Air Force in various categories and as I say, I shall deal first with our fighter defences. In view of the international situation the previous plan to which I have referred in previous Estimates speeches has been recast on a much larger scale, and the rate of implementation has been greatly increased. For example, last year I told the House that the doubling of the regular day fighter force in Fighter Command would be completed during the current financial year, and I am glad to say that this corecast has been fulfilled with some months to spare. Under our new programme the strength of the day inter-cepter fighter force of Fighter Command will be very substantially increased and at a much higher tempo. While I cannot give the House details of the increases, I can assure hon. Members that they will give us formidable fighter defence forces.
    Meanwhile we have also placed substantial orders for advanced fighters with very much better performance than our existing types. These aircraft will have a rate of climb exceeding that of the best jet fighter in service today in this or any other country and, what is equally important, they will be more manoeuvrable at height and have a greater fire power. As I informed the House last year, a new fighter, the Venom, is coming into squadron service this year. This aircraft will have a performance exceeding that of the Vampire in all respects—a greater speed, a greater rate of climb and a higher ceiling.
    Before leaving the day fighter, I would remind the House that 15 of our auxiliary fighter squadrons are now equipped with Meteors and Vampires, and it is intended that the remaining five squadrons will be re-equipped with Vampire 5's in time for them to carry out their three months' training this year. As the House knows, all 20 squadrons are to be embodied for their three months continuous training this year, in order to bring them to the highest standard of operational efficiency.

    245
    I think it will be agreed that these squadrons which have a vital rÔle to play in the air defences of our country must be so operationally trained that they can take their places in the front line of defence immediately on the outbreak of any emergency. Their operational efficiency, therefore, must approximate as closely as possible to that of the regular squadrons. In this connection I fully appreciate and, indeed, agree with the desire of hon. Members that we should build up the auxiliary squadrons on a two flight basis; but I must be frank with the House and say that I see little prospect of doing this until the expansion programme is more advanced. I would say, however, that the auxiliary squadrons—since I have been associated with them—have admirably sustained their great traditions of voluntary service. They devote long hours to arduous training at evenings and weekends, as well as during annual camps.I cannot speak too highly of the spirit of service shown by the officers and airmen of these squadrons.
    We are also building up a powerful force of night fighter squadrons, all equipped with jet aircraft. I told the House last year that we had placed a production order for a British type of jet night fighter, and a number of squadrons equipped with this aircraft, the Meteor N.F. 11, will be formed within the next few months. In order to accelerate the further substantial build-up of the night fighter force, we have now ordered other types of jet night fighter, and we have under development an all-weather two-seater jet fighter to be equipped with a full range of radar and navigational equipment, and with a level speed and rate of climb comparable with that of the more advanced fighter types which, as I indicated a few moments ago, we have also ordered.
    But the fighter aircraft which I have just described must, of course, be supported by a network of radar stations, communications, radio navigational aids, and operations rooms which go to make up a modern air defence system. I should like to say something about the radar chain, and if I am not able to satisfy hon. Members on all the points on which they may seek information they will, I am sure, appreciate that there is no sector of our air defence system in
    246
    which the need for security is more important.
    By the end of the last war the whole of the United Kingdom and its surrounding waters were guarded by as complete a system of radar stations as current radar science and operational experience could devise. To have maintained and manned the whole of this system in peace-time would, in the circumstances of 1946 and until recently, have been both unnecessary and extravagant; and, indeed, it would have been impossible with the numbers of men available to the Royal Air Force.
    A number of stations were, therefore, sealed in such a way that they could be brought into operation as necessary; other stations were dismantled because it was known that development in radar technique would make them redundant. A manned radar system was, however, maintained within which personnel have been trained and exercised, and new techniques and equipment brought into use. Experience in the exercises which have taken place in both Fighter and Bomber Commands in the last two or three years has conclusively demonstrated that the quality of our radar defences remains high.
    We have been engaged, however, in improving the radar system, and when these improvements are completed we shall have a chain of radar stations encircling the United Kingdom even more efficient than was the case in 1945. We are, for example, introducing new radar equipment based on research and experience during and since the war and designed to meet the needs of modern air defence. The number of regular airmen and airwomen manning the radar system full-time is being increased, so that there will be an adequate foundation for the reinforcement of trained auxiliary and reserve radar personnel which will be needed to man the complete system in emergency.
    To ensure that the recalled personnel are capable of taking up active duty with the least possible delay, certain special measures are being taken. Realistic training is being given to Royal Auxiliary Air Force Fighter Control Units and Radar Reporting Units; for example, they will carry out training at active radar stations in Fighter Command. In addition members of the R.A.F.V.R. are being trained in Reserve flights at active stations, so

    247
    that the personnel will be familiar with the particular rÔle of the station to which they will be called up in the event of war. As the House is aware some 9,000 officers and men, the latter from the Class G Reserve, are being called up for a period of 15 days continuous training this year in order to guarantee the immediate and effective reinforcement of the radar system.
    Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. He said 9,000 but we have previously heard 10,000. Is that the wastage as a result of tribunals, and so on, in the meantime, or is that an alteration of policy?
    Mr. Henderson: It is an alteration in the numbers, not an alteration in the policy. All the figures originally given, as far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, are ceilings. We shall not call up people unless we need to, and we have decided to call up 9,000 for the C. and R. system.
    Complementary to the control and reporting system is the Royal Observer Corps, which provides Fighter Command with vital information about the movements of aircraft. Recruitment in this Corps has come on well in recent months. During the year there was a net increase of 1,200 in the strength of the Corps. The Corps is being re-organised to improve its efficiency still further. Plans are in train to provide new observer posts wherever they are needed. The improvement of the radar chain, and the measures I have described for radar personnel, are part of the general scheme for strengthening the air defence of the country; and they should be regarded as a necessary and parallel process to the expansion of the squadrons in Fighter Command. The whole system—fighter squadrons, radar chain, Royal Observer Corps and, of course, Anti-Aircraft Command—is this country's first line of defence. We are determined to make it fully adequate in all respects.
    I come now to land/air warfare. The Royal Air Force contribution will be largely composed of fighter-bombers and light bombers. The number of fighter and ground attack squadrons in Germany is to be substantially increased this year. Our Air Forces in Germany will be allocated to the Supreme Allied Commander
    248
    Europe. In addition, the light bomber squadrons of Bomber Command will be allocated to the Supreme Commander, and operated by the Commander-in-Chief Bomber Command on his behalf. The medium bomber squadrons of Bomber Command will also be at the general disposal of the Supreme Commander, but in the latter case the British Chiefs of Staff will reserve the right to direct these elements of Bomber Command to other tasks as and when required for the defence of the United Kingdom. The fighter-bomber squadrons to which I have referred are equipped with Vampires. Several new squadrons have been recently formed, and many more will be formed during the next two years. All these new squadrons will all be based on the Continent.
    May I now say a word about the Canberra. Production of the Canberra, as I informed the House in my last Estimates speech, started last year, and the first Canberra squadron will shortly be formed. This squadron will be the forerunner of the large light bomber force which will be equipped with the Canberra. The Canberra is generally regarded as a really outstanding light bomber, and promises to fulfil the high hopes which have been placed on it. In due course, we shall have photographic reconnaissance squadrons equipped with the Canberra. Other photographic reconnaissance squadrons are being re-equipped with the latest Meteors, and the first squadron of photographic reconnaissance Meteors is already in service. Photographic reconnaissance remains today, as during the war, indispensable and vital if Bomber Command is to fulfil its functions effectively. It is essential, therefore, that the most modern aircraft and equipment should be provided for this work.
    Several production lines of the Canberra have been laid down in this country in order that high output may be achieved. The Canberra is also to be produced in Australia.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could my right hon. and learned Friend give us the cost of the Canberra?
    Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. I am not prepared to give the costs of aircraft.
    Mr. Paget: Could my right hon. and learned Friend tell us if the Canberra photographic reconnaissance

    249
    squadrons are going to be at the disposal of the European Commander, or of a Command in this country?
    Mr. Henderson: Those functioning from Germany will be at the disposal of the Supreme Commander in Germany, but we shall also have them based in this country.
    Information has also just been received that the Canberra has been adopted for service in the United States Air Force, and will be produced under licence in America. I might also mention that the Americans have bought the manufacturing licence for two of our latest jet engines. One is the Sapphire and the other still remains on the secret list. This fact illustrates the wisdom of pressing ahead with research and development during the periods, such as that immediately following the last war, when the Air Force itself had to be reduced in size. If the United States of America with its immense resources, needs British aircraft and aeroengines, we need not doubt that we retain our position as one of the foremost countries in aircraft production and development. In reminding the House of this, I do not of course forget that the Royal Air Force has received, and hopes to go on receiving, American help in a number of ways with the supply of aircraft and equipment.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: My right hon. and learned Friend has referred to the organisation at the end of the war. He will remember that at the end of the war we had a highly organised sub-let contracting organisation in this country. Is the same thing being done now so that parent companies can sub-let the contracts they are receiving?
    Mr. Henderson: I think so, through the Ministry of Supply.
    We are also retaining a substantial force of medium bombers on Washingtons and Lincolns which in war-time would have certain special duties to perform as well as contributing to our overall bombing effort. These aircraft will, in due course, be replaced by long-range jet bombers, which will greatly increase our power to stage a counter-offensive. As the Prime Minister told the House on 29th January, a production order has been placed for the first British four-engined jet bomber. This aircraft, which will soon be flying,
    250
    will be faster than the Canberra, which itself has a speed of well over 500 miles an hour, and will be greatly superior to it in load and range. Other advanced jet bombers are being developed. Our ability to resist a potential aggressor depends not only on our power to defend our own bases, but also on our power to strike at the bases of an aggressor.
    I come now to sea/air warfare. We have made considerable progress in the last year, in conjunction with the Royal Navy and the United States Navy, in developing the techniques to be used against the modern submarine. We plan greatly to expand Coastal Command during the next two years during which period it will also be largely re-equipped. The Shackleton has at length completed its tests and has been accepted for service in the squadrons. It represents a considerable advance on the general reconnaissance Lancaster in endurance, speed and load. A number of medium-range reconnaissance squadrons will also be formed. These squadrons will be initially equipped with P2Vs or Neptunes which are being supplied from America under the military aid programme. These aircraft will be especially valuable in this rÔle in view of their exceptional endurance which is the primary requirement for maritime reconnaissance work.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Cominander Bennett: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he intends to develop the use of the flying boats for Coastal Command purposes?
    Mr. Henderson: I could not say. Is the hon. and gallant Member referring to the Princess flying boat?
    Surgeon Lieut-Commander Bennett: No, not necessarily.
    Mr. Henderson: I think the answer is "No."
    Lord Malcolm Douglas - Hamilton: May I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that in July, in reply to a Question, he said that the flying boat to replace the Sunderland is a long-term development and it would not be in the public interest to give the information? I pointed out that the Sunderland was 15 years old and asked whether it was not time we should have a replacement. The Minister replied:

    251
    "Yes, Sir, and one is in process of being developed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2239.]
    Mr. Henderson: I think there is a project, but I do not think we have got very far with it. One firm has a project, but there is no actual development taking place. It is no use my telling the House there is, because there is not.
    The P2V, to which I was referring, is the aircraft to which the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) referred in enthusiastic terms in the defence debate in March of last year in connection with certain anti-submarine equipment in use by the United States Navy. Co-operation between us and our Allies over devices of this kind is and has been close and continuous, contributions being made from both sides, but I am bound to say that the problem of submarine detection remains a most formidable one. Sunderland flying boats, two squadrons of which have been giving good service in Korea, will continue to be used for some time yet; but a replacement for this well-tried aircraft is under consideration.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is that the replacement to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred?
    Mr. Henderson: May I try to make the matter clear? There is no actual aircraft being developed. There is a project under consideration, but it is in the design stage. It has not gone beyond that stage yet.
    The Middle East and Far East Commands are also not being neglected. New squadrons have recently been formed in the Middle East. In this connection, Members will have read of the successful ferrying of 44 Vampires from this country to the Far East. I am sure that there will be general agreement when I state that this operation is a tribute to the high standard of flying in the R.A.F. and to the excellence of the Vampire machines that were ferried.
    I should now like to say something about Transport Command. When presenting the Air Estimates last year I said that, in order to find manpower and resources for the strengthening of Bomber and Fighter Commands, reductions were being made in Transport Command. That process has now been halted. Nevertheless, it is not possible at the
    252
    present time to expand Transport Command once again; this could only be done in present circumstances at the expense of the combat Commands. I would, however, remind the House that both the Middle East and Far East Air Forces have sizeable transport forces of their own; and we shall maintain in the United Kingdom a sufficiently large Transport Command to carry out the bulk of the movements required in peacetime along the trunk routes as well as to form the basis for expansion in war.
    Our policy of giving first priority to the needs of the combat Commands lays upon us, of course, the need to ensure that the maximum use can be made of the civil aviation resources of the country, both for any carriage of personnel and freight in peace-time that is beyond the resources of Transport Command and for the greatly increased requirement for air transport that would arise in the event of war. A good deal has been done under both these headings.
    Aircraft of the civil Corporations and of the charter companies have been, and are being, chartered for a variety of tasks— movement of personnel and freight to the Far East, movement of auxiliary air squadrons to summer camps and in connection with air defence exercises, and the carriage of married families to Egypt and Singapore. During the last financial year some £250,000 was spent in this way; I think it can be regarded as money well spent, not only because of the value of the service received but also because it has helped to maintain a valuable and considerable potential represented by the civil aviation industry. During the coming year additional use will be made of civil aircraft for the regular movement of troops.
    All this, of course, applies in peace. The formation of the first of the auxiliary transport squadrons, primarily with the staff of Airwork, Ltd., who have cooperated wholeheartedly in this experiment, has as its chief aim the utilisation of the skill and experience of the company in the form of an organised squadron in war. This unit will be able to take its place in Transport Command with the minimum delay and dislocation. We plan to form other squadrons in this way. The major task in an emergency will be to ensure that the resources of the civil Corporations are used in the most efficient

    253
    way. Standing arrangements have been made between my Department, the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Corporations to keep the detailed plans under review.
    I now turn to manpower. On present trends the effective strength of the R.A.F., excluding Commonwealth Air Forces and local Forces abroad, should be around 255,000 in March, 1952, compared with 230,000 today and 202,000 a year ago. This build-up of strength has only been achieved by recruiting more Regulars, extending the period of full-time National Service from 18 months to 2 years, and retaining temporarily the services of time-expired Regulars. The Regular content of the Force is now 63 per cent. and should rise by the end of the year to about 70 per cent.
    An impetus has been given to Regular recruiting by the introduction of the new trade structure and the substantial increases in pay and allowances and enhanced rates of short service gratuity for aircrew which were introduced in September of last year. Special schemes, due to end in December, 1951, offering tax-free bounties, have already encouraged many highly-trained serving Regular airmen to re-engage and men with previous experience to re-enlist as Regular airmen.
    Entries to Cranwell are satisfactory, but the number of university graduates accepting permanent commissions falls short of our needs. Although our full aircrew requirements were being met before the inauguration of the Government's expansion programme, I cannot over-emphasise the fact that the whole of the programme now depends on our getting adequate numbers of pilots and navigators of the highest quality. Under our new programme, with very much larger numbers of aircraft coming into service, we need to take in very many more, both Regulars and National Service men, than we have in the last few years.
    Aircraft production can be organised, and works programmes can be organised, but recruiting for service in the air depends on whether the young men of our country realise that this form of service is perhaps the finest contribution they can make to national defence. There is no more worth-while task for a man during his National Service than to train as a pilot or navigator. He will take away with him much that will be of per-
    254
    manent benefit to him in his after-life, not least the sense of achievement that comes from mastering a difficult and complex task. I have already said that the qualifications are exacting, and I am satisfied they should not be lowered.
    It is, therefore, essential to encourage a high proportion of those young men who have the mental powers, the physique and the education for the forefront of our first line of defence to volunteer for these duties. Now that the Government have removed certain factors that have been a discouragement in the past there should be a better response. The responsibilities that aircrews carry are now recognised by the grant of a commission at an early stage of training. Their conditions of service today are excellent, though no better than they deserve. I have recently written personally to the headmasters of some 1,400 schools setting out the position and asking for their help. I am sure I can count on the aid and help of hon. Members on both sides of the House in making known the urgency of our needs and the great importance of service in the air.
    Airmen of all trades will be eligible for selection for aircrew duties with facilities for continuing their careers on the ground up to the age of 55 when they are no longer required for flying duties. Certain categories will also be able to reengage to complete 22 years' aircrew service as well as being eligible to return to ground employment until the age of 55. Boys who wish to serve as aircrew during their National Service may now elect call-up at the age of 17½ instead of waiting until they are 18 years old; and boys of 17 who are anxious to become Regular or National Service aircrew may undergo their pre-selection tests before they have to register for National Service.
    I now come to the ground trades, which play such an important part in maintaining the efficiency of the Royal Air Force. There has been a substantial improvement in Regular recruiting to these trades. During the six months from September, 1950, to February, 1951, 23,000 tradesmen were recruited to Regular service compared with 7,000 in the previous six months. A substantial proportion of these were National Service men enlisting for three-year Regular engagements, followed by 2½years on the Reserve. These men provide a useful flow of short-service air-

    255
    men, and there are already indications that the improved conditions of Regular service and the new trade structure will encourage many of them to undertake longer engagements.
    In recent years much has been said about the lack of balance between trades in the R.A.F. due to the shortage of experienced Regulars and their uneven distribution, particularly amongst some of the more highly skilled technical and many of the administrative trades. The extension of the period of full-time National Service to two years and the temporary retention of time-expired Regulars have improved the position considerably. The position has also been improved by remustering during the past two years more than 1,500 N.C.O.s and airmen, usually after a special course of training, from over-manned to undermanned trades.
    As a result, today, of the 22 trade groups in the R.A.F., only the medical and catering groups are manned to less than 95 per cent. of their establishment. It is true that there are still deficiencies in some of the more advanced trades such as armament fitter and radar fitter. Broadly speaking, however, the position in the technical trades today is much more favourable than it was a year ago, and the force as a whole is much more balanced.
    So far as ground trades are concerned, the outstanding event of the year was the introduction of the new trade structure. Under this scheme, airmen today have opportunities of much better careers than ever before. It involves a complete reorganisation of all ground trades, and a radical change in methods of training and employing airmen to accord more closely with industrial practice. It provides a more flexible system of manning, and enables us to offer long-service careers to the age of 55 to a very large proportion of airmen. The new trade structure will also even out the attractions of different trades to the Regular recruit. We are lengthening initial engagements for some of the more popular trades while retaining the shorter engagements for the remainder. Gradually, we hope to place more and more trades in the category requiring longer initial engagements so that the average term of the productive service will increase throughout the force.
    256
    Now I should like to refer briefly to the increased use we are able to make of our National Service men as a result of the extended period of full-time service.
    Mr. Paget: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves the subject of Regular engagements, would he permit me to ask what is being done about recruiting in Jamaica, where such an admirable contribution was provided during the war?
    Mr. Henderson: We are still taking into the R.A.F. Jamaicans who come over here and seek to join. There is no colour bar.
    The gain in productive strength and efficiency is considerable since the extra six months' service is obtained in most cases with no additional training. Many more aircrew are being obtained from this source, and we shall be able to train them to full operational standards. When certain changes which we are making in aircrew training courses become fully effective, National Service pilots and navigators will be able to fly in operational squadrons for the last four to six months of their National Service, and the other aircrew categories even longer. The additional service also allows men in the ground trades to become more highly skilled and increases the number who merit promotion to the junior N.C.O. ranks. Today there are about 1,300 National Service officers in the ground branches. Our need for them is rising and we hope many will compete for Regular commissions.
    As regards the Women's Royal Air Force, the picture is somewhat disappointing. The strength of airwomen has fallen by some 1,500 during the year to about 8,500, and we have little more than half the number we require for the many interesting trades open to women, and especially for the important ground signalling and radar operating trades. The recent pay increases have produced a slight improvement in recruiting but much bigger entries are still needed. The strength of officers has increased slightly during the year to about 550 and we hope that the increasing range of employment will strengthen the appeal of the W.R.A.F. to women suitable for commissioning.
    Perhaps I might say a word about the educational side of the R.A.F. In the

    257
    educational field a notable feature has been the increasing contact with experts in the civilian educational field. I he Education Advisory Committee for the Royal Air Force has recently reported that the plan for education in the Royal Air Force is sound, both in its special application to Service training and in its wider application to general education. His Majesty's inspectors of schools have visited units at home, in Germany, the Middle East and the Far East and nave reported favourably on our methods and made many useful suggestions.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Does that include technical education?
    Mr. Henderson: Yes. They have also visited and reported well on schools we have set up since the war in the Middle East and Far East to provide Service children with an education broadly similar to that which they would have received in the United Kingdom. I have seen some of these schools and I can certainly endorse from my own observation the favourable views that have been taken by the representatives of the Ministry of Education.
    As regards Halton, about a quarter of our aircraft apprentices who passed out from Halton last year were awarded National certificates in mechanical and electrical engineering and three obtained Whitworth Society prizes, which are awarded to the best candidates throughout the country. Eight aircraft apprentices who had been selected for university courses in engineering, leading to permanent commissions in the Technical Branch, successfully completed their three-year courses last June, five of them obtaining second-class honours degrees.
    Last year I referred to the importance of ensuring that the Regular should be able to look forward with confidence to obtaining a job appropriate to his age, experience and qualifications when he returned to civilian life, and I indicated that negotiations with the trade unions had resulted in recognition of almost two-thirds of the Air Force trades with civil counterparts. Fresh negotiations have become necessary in many cases through the introduction of the new trade structure, but we hope ultimately to obtain trade union recognition for every appropriate R.A.F. trade. Special arrangements
    258
    have been made for Service personnel to take examinations for entry into the Civil Service and local government service while they are still serving.
    Air Commodore Harvey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to Halton and its output. What is the present strength of Halton?
    Mr. Henderson: I think it is about 90 per cent., but I will check up and ascertain the exact percentage.
    The House will, I feel sure, appreciate that increases in the overall size of the Air Force to the extent I have already outlined, entail a great and rapid expansion in the training organisation, particularly for flying training. We have been greatly assisted in meeting this need by the offer of the Canadian Government to train about 200 aircrew annually. The first batch of pupils are already under training in Canada. While we are most grateful to the Canadian Government for what they are already doing, these arrangements go only part of the way towards meeting our greatly increased requirements and, following the acceleration of the defence programme, we have submitted a bid, through the machinery of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, for the increased training facilities which the Canadian Government have recently offered to provide for the benefit of her Allies.
    I am glad to be able to announce that our partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation have agreed to allot to the United Kingdom this year the substantial air training facilities which Canada recently placed at the disposal of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. This will enable much larger numbers of R.A.F. aircrews to be trained in Canada, and their training will be carried up to and will include the advanced flying stage.
    Last year I referred at some length to training on-the-job. For some time past we have been training airmen on-the-job in the work of many R.A.F. ground trades and this method of training by association has produced most satisfactory results. Under the new trade structure re-organisation which I have already referred to, there will be more specialisation of tasks, particularly in the lower ranks, and we have found that in many trades on-the-job training is much more appro-

    259
    priate to these specialised jobs than is formal training at schools. Moreover, by providing continuity of employment on a particular job of work, it enables us to obtain the maximum economy and efficiency from National Service tradesmen in the R.A.F. On-the-job training methods are, therefore, being adopted under the new trade structure on a much larger scale than has been possible hitherto, and the number of men receiving such training has doubled in the past few months.
    I should now like to say something about the build-up of our Reserve and Auxiliary Forces. Recruiting for the R.Aux.A.F. Fighter Squadrons and for pilot duties in the R.A.F.V.R. has been most successful, but we are not satisfied with the position in other units of the R.Aux.A.F. and in ground branches and trades of the R.A.F.V.R. Though a substantial trained Reserve will in time be built up from the reserve liabilities of regular and National Service engagements, the need for a considerable volunteer effort remains and will remain for a little time to come. In most branches and trades in our Reserve and Auxiliary Forces, we urgently want volunteers, particularly from men and women with previous service or comparable experience. We are taking immediate action to remedy certain problems of equipment and accommodation which have been hampering recruiting, for example, at some Fighter Control Units of the R.Aux.A.F. in the country.
    It is vitally important that National Service reservists should help to build up the front-line auxiliary units and the Volunteer Reserve and, up to the present, I regret to say, the result has been disappointing. We are doing everything we can to encourage these reservists to volunteer and join the R.Aux.A.F. and I feel sure that, now that the urgency of the country's need is apparent, many more of them will decide to do so.
    The increase in the period of full-time National Service to two years, which has temporarily interrupted the transition of National Service men to the Reserve, will have the effect of producing reservists of considerable Service experience and in making it possible to train many more men in the more skilled trades. There will be some 40,000 a year. When they complete their full-time service from
    260
    April, 1951 onwards, they can make an outstanding contribution to the strength of our defences by joining the R.Aux.A.F. or R.A.F.V.R. A flow of qualified pilots to the R.Aux.A.F. and the R.A.F.V.R.— which is an important matter as some have more experience than others and some have to be replaced—is now being assured by the training to which I have referred, during full-time service of National Service men who, as a result, undertake to give voluntary part-time service after completing their whole-time service.
    The R.Aux.A.F. Fighter Control Units, and the Radar Reporting Unit which was formed last year with the support of the Radar Association, will all have been transferred to Fighter Command by next month. We also plan to form more units of these types. I should like to emphasise that there are many trades in these units in which volunteers without any previous experience can be trained. Within the R.A.F.V.R. we are proposing to introduce more units for specialised requirements as we consider they enhance the attractiveness of this important Reserve without detracting from the essential flexibility of its organisation. The Reserve Flights, to which I have referred, are being formed at Regular control and reporting stations and provide excellent opportunities for productive on-the-job training and for service of the highest importance to the country. We are also forming a R.A.F. Voluntary Radio Service in order to strengthen the reserve behind the Signals Branch of the R.A.F. This will comprise both civilians and volunteer reservists.
    May I say a word about the call-up of the 1,000 R.A.F. reservists? These reservists will be trained at special flights which are being formed of Harvards, Spitfires and Vampires, and they will all receive full operational training in modern jet fighter technique. For those aircrew reservists who are only carrying out normal refresher training this year the re-equipment of the Reserve Flying Schools with Chipmunk aircraft is going ahead, and eight of the schools have now been re-equipped.
    As part of their annual training, many aircrews of the R.A.F.V.R. take part in Transport Command long distance overseas flights and in Bomber and Coastal Command training sorties, of

    261
    course, with aircrew of the Regular Service. To meet future aircrew requirements in the R.A.F.V.R., National Service pilots who do not join the R.Aux.A.F. Squadrons will serve in the R.A.F.V.R. in lieu of their part-time statutory liability and similar arrangements are being made for National Service navigators.
    We are also making a close study of the present arrangements for flying training in the Reserves, and shall do everything possible to provide the different types of refresher training needed by the many various categories in order to ensure that all are adequately trained for the purpose for which they are required. I should like to pay tribute here to the excellent work which T.A.F.As. have done for the R.Aux.A.F. and in other directions.
    I indicated in my last Estimates Speech that we hoped to re-establish three more University Air Squadrons. I am glad to able to state that these squadrons have been re-formed at Bristol, Liverpool and Hull, bringing the total number to 17. Fighter Control Flights for training in control and radar reporting duties have been formed in the University Air Squadrons at Oxford, Cambridge and London.
    The Air Training Corps celebrates the tenth anniversary of its foundation this year, and both the A.T.C. and the R.A.F. sections of the Combined Cadet Force are valuable pre-entry forces to which the R.A.F. and its auxiliaries and reserves look for future members. Their strength is now 44,300 cadets. I have now set up an Air Cadet Council and a Scottish Air Cadet Council under the presidency of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air, replacing the A.T.C. Consultative Committees. These councils will provide advisory bodies for all cadet matters.
    We have reduced the age limit for entry to the R.Aux.A.F. and R.A.F.V.R. to 17 to allow suitable young men, including A.T.C cadets, to serve in these Forces before joining the R.A.F. for National Service; such volunteers will undertake to come back to the R.Aux.A.F. or the R.A.F.V.R. after completing their whole-time National Service. The flying scholarship scheme to which I referred last year has proved most successful. Seventy-seven cadets qualified for a private pilot's licence at civil flying clubs in 1950, and 112 were under training when the year ended.
    262
    Cadets so qualified and a number of other young men and women who have obtained private pilot's licences are now accepted in the R.A.F.V.R. for continuation flying training. I am glad to be able to announce that the number of scholarships to be awarded in the next financial year is to be increased from 200 to 250. Gliding training continues to be a great attraction to the A.T.C. During 1950, 1,729 cadets qualified for the Royal Aero Club certificate and the badge awarded by the International Aeronautical Federation. In R.A.F. Sections of the Combined Cadet Forces at schools arrangements are being made for cadets to have instruction in Eon primary gliders.
    I should now like to deal broadly with the formidable programme of works services which the new plan entails. Last year I stressed the need to catch up with our requirements, in living accommodation. While this remains a high priority, and every effort will be made to sustain the greatly increased rate of building achieved in the current year, the weight of effort has had to be shifted, for the time being, to urgent operational requirements.
    The revised plan inevitably means bringing back into use, both for operational and training purposes, many airfields which had been released by the R.A.F. Runways at some of these airfields, and those at a number of airfields now in use, will have to be re-surfaced and strengthened. Others need lengthening to make them suitable for the new types of aircraft coming into service. Furthermore a great deal of technical and domestic accommodation will have to be provided.
    A good deal of this work has already been started, but much remains to be put in hand. This is far greater in scale than anything that has previously been possible under peace conditions, except in the months immediately preceding the last war. Apart from its magnitude, the time set for its completion is short, and to meet the timetable which we have set ourselves exceptional measures will be needed. I take this opportunity of expressing our gratitude to the local authorities for the way in which they have co-operated when it has plainly been impossible to avoid taking land for purposes of this kind. I should like to ask for their continued co-operation in this respect.

    263
    I should now like to say a word about domestic accommodation. Last year I said that, with the assistance to be expected under the Armed Forces (Housing Loan) Act, we hoped to double the rate at which we were then building married quarters at home. I am glad to be able to say that this has been substantially achieved. During 1950–51 approximately 1,700 permanent married quarters and 100 temporary quarters have been completed at home, while an additional 4,000 permanent married quarters will either be under construction or about to start. We plan to make a start on a further 4,000 during 1951–52, but I cannot rule out the possibility of setbacks, allowing for our heavy commitments in the operational field. Overseas, 300 married quarters will have been completed during 1950–51, with a further 500 under construction. During 1951–52 we expect to make a start on a further 450.
    May I sum up this part of the programme by saying that compared with the 6,700 married quarters in use at home and overseas in September, 1939, we shall have 14,500 completed quarters by 31st March, 1951. With the completion of those under construction, and those planned to be started in 1951–52, this total will be increased to over 23,000. If to this figure is added the 350 flats or houses rented in this country for married personnel, and some 1,700 hirings overseas, the grand total we have in sight is nearly four times the number which existed before the war.
    As regards barrack accommodation and messes, while we have made substantial progress in replacing or rehabilitating war-time hutting, which, of course, was never intended for permanent accommodation, much remains to be done in this sphere. We are also faced with the further task of providing the additional programme needed for the expanded Air Force. For this class of accommodation our long-term aim is to build barrack blocks, messes and clubs in permanent construction, so as to give airmen and airwomen a reasonable degree of comfort. But building to these standards takes time, labour and materials, on a scale beyond what can be spared in the wider interests of early completion of
    264
    more immediate and essential requirements.
    Therefore I must utter this note of warning. It is regrettable, but inescapable, that the long-term aim must to a large extent give way, for the present, to the more pressing needs of the immediate situation. For the most part, therefore, new buildings will have to be in semi-permanent construction, both to achieve an accelerated rate of building and economy in the use of labour and materials. I hasten to add, however, that this will not mean any material relaxation in the standards of living conditions of the personnel, and everything will be done to ensure that these are maintained at a satisfactory level.
    I am certain that all those concerned with the Royal Air Force are conscious of the great responsibility which rests upon them. Under conditions of modern war, air power may well be conclusive, and I doubt therefore if anyone will disagree with me when I suggest that the R.A.F. has the primary responsibility for the defence of this country. The morale of the R.A.F. has never been higher in peace-time than it is today. I have had an ample opportunity of judging it by my weekly visits to stations in the United Kingdom, and while on visits to Germany and the Middle East. I am confident that the present generation in the R.A.F. will measure up to their responsibilities and also maintain the great traditions of the R.A.F. which they have inherited.
    Powerful armed forces in a world based on power politics have never prevented war, but powerful forces dedicated to the principles of the United Nations and never to be used except in accordance with those principles may well play a vital part in preventing war. It is for the latter purpose that we have taken further measures of accelerated expansion to build up a Royal Air Force powerful and efficient, not as an instrument of aggression but as an instrument for the defence of peace and national security.
    4.50 p.m.
    Mr. Eden: I have tried very hard indeed to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his amiable gallop through a pretty voluminous brief. I hope that he will not consider me ungracious if I start by saying that, with some exceptions to

    265
    which I shall refer later, there is not really a great deal that was new in what he told us this afternoon. There is a great deal which we should have liked to learn and about which we still do not know. I hope he will forgive if I stress this point as I go along. The question of secrecy is very complicated.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman made many comparisons showing how much better he was doing now than we were before the war. I am very glad indeed if he is doing better. It would be very distressing if we never learned any lessons from anything. There is one activity in which we certainly are not doing any better than before the war, and that is in the giving of information. It is getting less and less. The only actual figures I gleaned from the whole of the speech—and they were very encouraging figures—were about the building of married quarters. That is very good. I do not think that any other definite figure was given. I picked up any number of adjectives. I got as far as eleven "substantials" and then I stopped: I got to six something else and then I stopped.
    I suggest to the Minister of Defence— and this is a serious point connected with the value of our discussions on Defence Estimates—that it might be better to see whether further information can be made available not to individual Members of the House but to the House as a whole. It might be convenient to concentrate in any given year on certain important aspects of the problems we have to discuss. I do not complain about what the right hon. and learned Gentleman did today because that was his duty; but it was physically impossible, however attentive we tried to be, to follow him at the speed which he made his remarks. I do not know what the remedy is, but Parliamentary systems are adaptable and we ought to see before next year whether there is not a better way in which to handle the matter.
    I want to make a few observations on the subject of fighters, but before I do that there is one point I want to make about secrecy. We should be careful and fair on the question of whether or not, as Lord Trenchard put it in another place, we are not overdoing security as an excuse for saying nothing, or, to put it a little more rudely, as an excuse for saying very
    266
    little at very great length. We must be on the watch against that when we discuss these Estimates. I know that the Minister of Defence would say that it would be wrong for any Minister to take shelter behind the veil of security in order to avoid saying something on which criticism might be embarrassing.
    I begin this process by taking up something which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech about Fighter Command. There will be no dispute that we ended the war with the best fighters in the world. Since then, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, year after year we have had these magnificent displays at Farnborough which have shown us better and better fighters. That is very creditable to all concerned. But there is another aspect of the problem—the present. I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman rather slurred over this. I should like to know how the machines in our fighter squadrons today compare with those of the other great Powers. We are told that consideration has been given to re-equipping with the American Sabre—the F.86. That is probably a very good thing; but, of course, those machines are very much faster, are they not, than anything we have in our squadrons today?
    Is it the intention, for the time being, to re-equip with these American machines pending the delivery of the new machines referred to by the Minister of Defence the other day which are now on the drawing board and for which large orders are being placed? I do not say that that is wrong: I only want to see where we are. Are the Sabres an interim contribution so that we may be comparable with foreign Powers pending the arrival of our new types which are as yet only on the drawing board?
    Mr. A. Henderson: Discussions are taking place with the United States Government in respect of the bid which has been made for a substantial number of F.86s. I want to make it clear to all concerned that there is no question of our saying that the Meteors and Vampires with which our squadrons are now equipped are out of date and of no use. Quite the opposite is the case. We are seeking to supplement the present fighter squadrons, in which we have every confidence so far as the Vampires and Meteors are concerned, with this addi-

    267
    tional number of F.86s. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that not even the Russian Air Force or the American Air Force is composed 100 per cent. of any one type of fighter. Every Air Force is mixed, and ours will be.
    Mr. Eden: I am not making a complaint. I am not trying to put the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the dock. I only want to make clear where we are. I think the position is clear now. I think the position is—there is nothing wrong about it—that we are now going to try to get some Sabres from the United States. There is no reason why we should not do that, any more than there is any reason why the United States should not get the Canberra from us. These Sabres are considerably faster than any machine that we have now in the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Henderson: In speed.
    Mr. Eden: Yes. That is important.
    Mr. Henderson: I hope that we shall not go into too much detail, but this is an important question of confidence. The test of a good fighter is not only the level speed but the rate of climb and manoeuvrability. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, for example, so far as manoeuvrability is concerned, the machines now in use in foreign air forces are no better than those we have in our own Air Force.
    Mr. Eden: All right. I am glad to hear that. But, presumably, we are ordering the Sabres because they are better than the aircraft that we have got now. We should not be ordering them if they were not as good. There is nothing wrong in this. The Sabres will improve our present position. Then, we shall have the new fighters which are now on the drawing board and which are probably better than anything that anybody else has got. When we have the new fighters, there is no doubt that they will be made available to the United States or any other of our Allies if they want them.
    I am not trying to make a case against the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think he realises that now. We ought to see the picture as it really is. I thought that he gave the impression that the machines we have now were as fast as the
    268
    American and Russian machines. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say that.
    Mr. Henderson: No. 1 said that the Vampires and Meteors were first-class fighting machines—first-class fighters; but I admitted that they were not as fast as some machines owned by other countries.
    Mr. Eden: We have now got to much the same place as we were in at the beginning. I should like to know when we may expect—and this is cardinal, apart from the Sabres we are to get from the United States—that the new machines of which we have heard so much will be available for the squadrons—available to the men who have to fly them.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): I think there has been a misunderstanding and we had better clear it up before we go any further. My right hon. and learned Friend did not say that we were going to get these Sabres from the United States. He did not say that categorically. What he said was that the matter was under discussion.
    Mr. Eden: That is all right. I hope that he gets them. There has never been a Foreign Office debate as difficult as this debate. Perhaps I can get on with my speech now. I think that the Americans should be delighted that we want them, just as we should be delighted that they want the Canberra. Do not let us have too much secrecy and hush-hush.
    Now I come to the auxiliary squadrons. Are these auxiliary forces to be entirely a part of Fighter Command? I thought from reading the White Paper that transport and air observation post squadrons are to be added. Are the numbers to be increased to over 20, or will they now have to be slightly reduced? That brings us to the problem, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, of the pilots for the auxiliary squadrons—and here I would say that I do not think the position is quite as good as he indicated. We all pay tribute, and we certainly should, to the patriotism of the men who go every week-end to do this work with the auxiliary squadrons, and still more because, when they are called up for three months, many of them have already done more than their share of fighting in the

    269
    war, and now have to leave civilian occupations for three months to be trained afresh. There is no tribute too high which we can pay to them. Most of these pilots are war veterans, and, as time goes on, an increasing number of them will not be ably to fly our modern machines.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, in the closing part of his speech, to the universities, and showed that they are not providing enough entries to the Royal Air Force. Therefore, these new squadrons from the universities, though welcome, will not help us very much with the Auxiliary force. Before the war, there was a fairly steady flow from the universities into the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, but now this is not so. It is not anybody's fault in particular, but simply because the training required is so much more technical and there is no time for the universities to do it. Although there is not the same flow from the universities to the auxiliary squadrons, the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that he hoped that National Service pilots would come along at the end of their full-time service and offer to help. We all hope that that will happen, but when will that be and how large a number does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect to get?
    I reckon that this scheme only began six months ago, and it must be 18 months before the pilots come along. What happens in the meantime? I do not think that this position regarding pilots for the auxiliary squadrons is as agreeable as we would like it to be. We must face the blunt fact that flying jet aircraft at terrific altitudes, even with all the training that is entailed in operating these machines, means a rather considerable strain, and that it will never be easy to get men of this quite exceptional quality to do this training, especially on a part-time basis. I think the House must face that fact.
    I would like to ask the Under-Secretary if, when he comes to reply, he will tell us a little more about the re-equipment of squadrons with new jets. We were told that the squadrons which had not got jet fighters are now to have them, and that others have had jets for some time. We have discussed this matter more than once. Many of the jets are old in type, and some specimens of particular types have done a great deal of flying. What is being done to re-equip the
    270
    squadrons that are to play such an important part? I cannot help feeling, in connection with this matter, that it was a pity that, while the manufacturers were being urged to sell their products abroad, a sufficient number of them were not kept back or ordered to enable the auxiliary squadrons to be re-equipped a long time ago.
    Then there is the very important question, about which I was glad the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us something, concerning night fighters. The Minister spoke of jet night fighters, and I think that, again, that was in terms of the future. Have we any jet night fighter squadrons now? I should think not, but I understand that we shall have this year. That is very good news, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman did give the impression that this matter was going along very nicely. We hope it will do this summer, as well as next year, though I understand that, at the moment, it is a serious matter.
    I would like now to make some suggestions for the consideration of the Government, because, to me, this is very important indeed. It is not only a question of trying to deal with enemy bombers which might get through, but there is also at least the possibility—I do not put it any higher than that—that an airborne landing might be attempted here. It is a possibility, and I have thought about it a good deal more than I will say now. I do not think it is too extravagant to suggest that this might happen; it is certainly not absurd to take precautions against it, both in respect of land forces and fighter defences.
    I hope the Government will consider this possibility; no doubt they have done so. It is very difficulty for anybody to make any calculations if he has not had access to inside information, but I suggest that, may be, between 500 and 1,000 four-engined aircraft could be organised to drop something up to six divisions. If that is very far out, perhaps the Government will tell us. If it is not wholly wide of the mark, then it must be reckoned as being possible. We ought to get ready to meet that threat by taking all the elementary precautions both in the air and on the land.
    When I was in Germany the other day, I was glad to have the opportunity to learn something about our Tactical Air

    271
    Force, and, though I have no expert knowledge at all, I fully endorse what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. It is very good indeed, but I wish it were larger; it is probably one of those other "substantials" which he mentioned. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us a little more information about the expansion that is taking place, in that arm.
    Now I turn to Bomber Command, and on this subject our information is the most meagre of all. At present. we have Washingtons, the borrowed B.29's and Lincolns, which are obsolescent, and we do not know how many we have. The right hon. and learned Gentlman this afternoon spoke of the Canberra and said that it was being delivered to squadrons this year. We are very glad to hear it, but we also heard it last year. Here, I must pause to make a digression in order to praise the brilliant transatlantic flight of the Canberra, and to welcome the fact that the Americans and others are to build this machine in large numbers themselves. It is a great tribute to all concerned, to the skill of the manufacturers and the designer, Mr. Petter.
    We welcome the news that four of our firms and one in Australia are to build the Canberra, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the Canberra is classed as a light bomber, which necessarily means that either the range or the bomb-load must be very limited. I understand that several firms are designing a heavier four-jet bomber, and the Prime Minister told us in the House on 29th January that a production order has been placed for a number of one of these types. Can we be told when it is hoped that they will be delivered to the squadrons, because that is what matters?
    I now come to what may be fairly called a capital decision. It is most important that a balance should be struck between the production of fighters and bombers. There is no dispute about the fact that we have to seek to protect our cities, harbours and bases for offensive operations and also take steps to meet airborne invasion. How far should we go in trying to meet this with fighters, and how far should we be prepared to attack the bases from which enemy bombers might operate? I know that many of our greatest air authorities are convinced that a strong bomber force is an
    272
    effective deterrent, and I believe myself that they are right, especially in the conditions now developing.
    May I put it this way? I would say that it is more important to destroy the bomber bases and rocket launching platforms of the enemy than it is to attempt to intercept, however good our arrangements are, large numbers of bombers on their way to attack this country. I think we are all agreed about that. The great heights and speeds at which raids may be expected make interception much more difficult than it was in 1940, and I think that we would be very unwise indeed to count on winning a war of attrition between fighters and bombers over our own country. The losses of fighters and the damage caused by the bombers that got through could, I think, be very formidable.
    I read with great interest a speech which was made by Viscount Trenchard in another place the other day. It seemed to me that he gave us a most valuable warning, and I have never known the father of the Royal Air Force to be wrong on these issues when he talks about them. I cannot quote what he said because of our Rules, but I can say that he pointed out that we began the last war with distance still dominating air power. Space had not then been conquered. Today, space on this planet has been conquered, at any rate for the purposes of defence and offence. Therefore, the argument runs that if we are to prevent war, we must have a large number of long-distance machines. Then any potential aggressor will himself be vulnerable and will hesitate to start a war.
    There seems to me to be much strength in that argument, but that does not mean that I subscribe to the school, if there be one, that thinks we need neither armies nor navies so long as we have a strong enough air force. Those are questions which we shall have to go into on another occasion. For the moment I merely endorse the statement of the Minister of Defence that air strength has first priority in our defence expenditure, and I shall be glad to hear what are the Government's views on the suggestions I have made.
    One word about Transport Command. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us frankly about his difficulties in

    273
    that sphere, but, of course, what we need there are the necessary transports to carry troops, vehicles and supplies upon which a land force so very greatly depends today. Burma was one example of that towards the end of the last war. Have we gliders for our units? We have heard nothing about that. The Minister of Defence told us last February that he had stopped the running down of Transport Command. That is a relief, but what about a little building up again? It must come.
    I thought that we should, perhaps, hear about the Saunders Roe Princess flying boats. We have not heard a word. I heard about it even before I read of it in the newspapers. Are they to be converted to troop transports, or what is the plan? Perhaps I will give the Government a lead over this and say that, if they are to be converted, it is right that they should be. If that will help the Government to come to a decision tonight, that will be good. They could do remarkable work. I am told that six of these aircraft could do the work done by one of the Queens—and a wonderful job it was, carrying 15,000 men across the Atlantic. But I hope we shall hear something about it before the discussion is over, as it has been in the newspapers.
    Now a word about Coastal Command, because it is tremendously important. We are glad of the advent of the Shackleton because we know—that is one of the things we have heard before—that the rÔle of Coastal Command will be heavier than in the last war. My hon. Friend raised the question of the ordering of new flying boats to replace the Sunderlands which did so well in combating the German submarines. I think the Government must have something in mind about that. Sunderlands are grand machines, but they are very old, and we must have in mind some new flying boats to assist Coastal Command in its operations. The Sunderlands were invaluable in the last war, but they are slow, relatively, for modern needs, and we have to deal with faster submarines. I cannot help feeling that the Government have something in mind about that. If they have, I hope they will tell us, and, if they have not, that they will soon discover something, because a fast flying boat is certainly necessary.
    The Secretary of State for Air spoke about the improvement in recruiting owing to the revised pay code and to the
    274
    introduction of what he described as a new trade structure. There is no doubt that this new system, under which men can climb the promotion ladder either on their technical qualifications or on their administrative and command ability will be a great help both to regular recruiting and in encouraging men to re-engage for long service. I think it is a very good thing. I do not often congratulate the Government, but I get very near to doing so on this particular issue. We hope that the recruiting which has resulted will continue.
    Now I come to the less satisfactory part, which is the question of officer entry. Here, again, I think the House has to face a problem, and I do not think the Secretary of State put it to us quite clearly. I think it is more serious than even he indicated, because it is from the officers that the Service recruits the pilots, and, I understand, most of the navigators. As far as I can see from the breakdown of Vote I on page 12—and I think it is confirmed by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said—the number of officers has to be increased by 2,430. That is the intention. But when we turn to the statement in paragraph 16 on page 5 of the Memorandum, we find these words, which are confirmed by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us just now. It says:
    "Entries for pilot and navigator employment have improved but are, nevertheless, substantially below the greatly increased intake required for the expanded force … The increased officer requirements for 1951–52 will have to be met by further extensions of service and the re-entry of war-time officers in addition to the normal practice of commissioning of suitable airmen."
    In other words, we are to depend mainly on what, in other connections, would be called "drawing upon stocks."
    At best this is not a satisfactory situation, and we have still got to find some way of getting these Regulars of outstanding quality and giving them the necessary training. If we do not do that, all this effort, all the expenditure on aircraft, and so on, will be in vain. I raise for consideration the question whether the pay of aircrews is even now sufficient to encourage the right type of man as a captain of an aircraft, or, later, as a senior officer.
    At any rate, there is a very serious problem which the House has to face, and if I had to make a forecast it would be

    275
    that unless something else is done, next year the problem will be more difficult than it is now. After all, the equipment entrusted to a pilot's care is costly enough. Pilots cost £24,000 apiece to train, as well. Nor is there any doubt of what has to be paid, to put it no higher, if an enemy aircraft gets through. It is more important than ever that the Royal Air Force should attract men who have not only dash and courage, but the skill and character to press home their attack. We must get them; and in this context, which is a true one, I am not sure that the pay is yet high enough.
    One more word about the Women's Royal Air Force before I say a few general words in conclusion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the falling strength of that Force—14,500, 11,500 and 8,500 in the last three years. That is serious as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree. I believe that during the war there was one member of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force to every four men. Today, it is one woman to 23 men, and we are now in the process of building up the radar chain and strengthening the fighter control units. As the squadrons are formed, there will be more and more jobs for which women are pre-eminently suited. We should reverse this run-down, and women should be employed as far as possible in the clerical and sedentary jobs so as to release airmen for the vital aircraft servicing trades.
    Other matters will be raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends, about which they have personal knowledge and experience. I have only sought to emphasise what I believe to be some of the major problems with which we are faced in our air re-armament programme, and in fitting that programme into our overall strategic plans of our North Atlantic Treaty Allies. Above all, it is necessary to maintain quality in men and machines. The nation will never begrudge money for that. The Royal Air Force has a name which is second to none anywhere in the world, and that name has to be maintained. To do that will require unceasing watchfulness, not only by the Secretary of State for Air and his advisers, but by this House. I trust that our discussions today will contribute constructively to that most important end.
    5.20 p.m.
    Mr. John E. Haire: It has been a welcome change to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) not attempting to make any party points on this occasion. I welcome the change from the sort of approach we had a fortnight ago in the defence debate. Therefore, in following him, I can say quite freely that there was much in what he said with which I can agree. He made a constructive approach and he high-lighted certain dangers which were not referred to in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Air.
    While recognising that the Secretary of State, on this occasion, has to make a wide, sweeping survey I felt that in doing so there was absent from his speech references to the present situation, and the growing danger which has arisen as a result of events in Korea. I do not think that in reading his speech it will be possible for many of us to detect that at present the Royal Air Force is engaged on active operations in Korea. I did not find in that speech a description of our growing danger in the last six months.
    Today, we are discussing the Air Estimates as the first of our annual surveys of the Services. That is a significant change. I believe that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench have acknowledged that in the defence of this island and in our preparations for defence the Royal Air Force must play a leading part. The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington made that point when he referred to the added dangers of airborne operations. Last year some of us made an appeal for the Royal Air Force to be recognised as the senior Service, and it almost seems as though we have already won our point.
    We are now examining the budget for the Air Force. It shows a substantial increase. We are supporting the expenditure of £1 million a day on the Royal Air Force during the coming year, a sum which was spent on the whole of our Armed Forces at the beginning of the last war. It is only fit and proper that we should try to see that we get value for this increase. My right hon. and learned Friend can say, of course, that he has given proof of the very rapid expansion of the Air Force, and how right he is.

    277
    We are all in the dilemma that we cannot get behind the security screen. I should like to have more information, but I recognise the difficulties. Those of us who have weekly associations with our old Service appreciate the rapid changes that are taking place. I think we can see that value is being obtained for an expenditure which I believe is 50 per cent. higher than that during the previous year. There has been enormous progress in the last year and my right hon. and learned Friend was quite right in emphasising it. It has been a momentous year, but I believe that this year may be even more momentous and we should be fully on our guard.
    I am sure that we did not recognise, and my right hon. and learned Friend did not recognise, 12 months ago, that we would be in the position we are in today. I am sure that at the time of the annual debate last year my right hon. and learned Friend had no conception that by this time he would be required to expand his Service as rapidly as he has had to do. Our congratulations are due to him and to the Royal Air Force upon having risen so well to the occasion.
    In today's debate we should recognise that the defence programme which we have discussed so much recently in the House is a programme for the preservation of peace. Equally, we should recognise that our defence of this island depends primarily upon the success of the Royal Air Force. The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to our fighter forces and particularly our night fighter force. We should pay more attention to our night fighters. I seem to remember that in the last war they were the weakest link in our fighter defence. Certainly, we should have liked to hear more about it than that this year we hope to have more night fighters in operational strength.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Jet night fighters.
    Mr. Haire: It must be clear to all hon. Members that we are preparing our Forces for defence against atomic and rocket projectiles. Therefore, we should think in terms of supersonic interception fighters, jet-powered day or night fighters. That also brings us to consideration of our radar equipment and our preparations to meet this new type of destruction. I would have liked my right hon. and
    278
    learned Friend to have referred to "Exercise Emperor" of last October, which was a highly organised try-out of our defence of this island.
    I believe it is one of the lessons of that exercise that aircraft approaching this island at a height of 40,000 ft. must be detected on our radar screens as they cross, approximately, the Dutch frontier. This produces an entirely new picture in the defence of this island and, quite clearly, leads to the conclusion that revision of the placing of our radar chain is very necessary. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend is giving attention to that problem. I would have liked to have heard very much more about the results of that exercise. It was the largest and longest exercise ever carried out in peace-time over this island. Our Western Allies, including the Air Forces of the United States stationed here, participated in it, and surely there were some valuable lessons to be learned from it. I believe from what little I have been able to hear about it that, in fact, the defence of this island did not stand up to the attack.
    Air Commodore Harvey: I am sure the hon. Member would not want to mislead the House. He referred to aircraft passing our coast at 40,000 ft. He should make it clear that they were jet fighters.
    Mr. Haire: I think I said that the aircraft approached at 40,000 ft. I agree that they were jet fighters. When my hon. Friend replies perhaps we might hear something of "Exercise Emperor" and the lessons to be learnt from it.
    A number of United States aircraft have arrived in this country in the past year or 18 months. That has led to considerable controversy in certain quarters. These aircraft and American personnel are valuable to us in the defence of Western Europe and of this country, and I certainly do not join in the opposition to them which some people apparently feel.
    As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in reply to a Question—at the end of last year—these personnel numbered about 15,000 and there were about 180 aircraft. They have come as friends. They will go where we require them to go. As the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington said some time ago, those who freely come and freely go should be welcome.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree with the Leader of the Opposition, who stated in the defence debate, a fortnight or so ago, that the presence of these atom bombers in this island might be a terrible danger to this country as well, because they would attract the enemy?
    Mr. Haire: I should have thought that there was no lack of targets in this country if there were an enemy, and that the presence of a few American squadrons in East Anglia is not likely to provide an additional target to attract them.
    I hope that in omitting reference to the presence of our United States friends in this country my right hon. and learned Friend did not intend any discourtesy to them, because I want to put it on record that the presence of American bomber and fighter squadrons—and I am glad to see in the Memorandum that there are to be fighter squadrons—is welcome to us in helping us to face our present problems. There is no difference between the presence of these American Air Force personnel in this country and the fact that we invited Dutch Air Force personnel to come here and be trained at our base at Londonderry, even though that has met with some disapproval from the Irish Republic, nor is there any difference between it and the sending of our Forces to be trained in Canada. Indeed, I hope that this is a part of the integration which we are attempting to establish under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    I turn now to what I consider to be the next priority in our defences—the protection of our country against the submarine menace. That brings me back to my old Command and enables me to make my annual plea in support of Coastal Command. It has frequently been said in the House, in recent debates, that one of the greatest dangers this country would have to face if there should be another war would be the submarine menace. Figures of the size of the Russian submarine force have been thrown about in the House and 360 has been mentioned. I am not in a position to say whether that is right or not, or to say how operationally powerful they are, or how up to date they may be—whether they include the Schnorkel device, and so on. It is a fact, however, that in the last war we just survived the submarine menace and it may happen that in another
    280
    war, of a different kind, if we cannot be bombed into submission we might be starved into submission.
    For that reason, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give the maximum priority to the requirements of Coastal Command, to which he referred today. I was glad to hear his reference to Coastal Command. In the past there have been occasions when we have not been included and I am glad to think that Coastal Command is again coming into its own. I should like to hear something more about the use of the Shackleton, to know how many of these aircraft are with squadrons and how many squadrons of Shackletons we are likely to have during the coming year.
    One important point which we must consider in connection with submarine warfare is radar. It is now recognised by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that the new submarine is something much more powerful and faster than anything with which we had to deal during the last war, except perhaps just at the end of the war, and those who were in Coastal Command in those days know how difficult it was to tackle the new Schnorkel-equipped U-boat. I want to know whether we have any radar devices which would deal with the problem. I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend finds it difficult, on security grounds, to satisfy us on these points, but I should like to know whether we have any radar devices which would enable us to detect underwater craft when they are travelling at 20 knots under water. The defence of our convoys and of our shores depend on that.
    A further point on the subject of Coastal Command is that I think we require much more co-operation between this Command and the Navy. When I was acting as a liaison officer at the Admiralty I was conscious that even at the end of the war there was not that degree of airmindedness in our Senior Service, as it is called, that there should have been. It is quite clear to many of us that in trying to apportion the credit for our success in the U-boat campaign in the last war the naval authorities and others gave far too little credit to Coastal Command.
    Can we be assured that our friends in the Admiralty recognise the part which can be played by Coastal Command? Is

    281
    there growing that degree of co-ordination which is necessary between the aircraft carrier and Coastal Command? Should there be another war, it is my opinion that there will be great development in the part played by aircraft carriers. Against the fast-moving submarines which are expected, we must have fast-moving aircraft to detect and follow them, and that would seem to be a part to be played by aircraft from aircraft carriers and not by shore-based aircraft.
    I want to refer for a moment to the aircraft forces of Russia and her satellite countries. In recent months we have heard references to the facts. Russia has some 20,000 jet fighters and bombers. Here, again, we are not told where this figure comes from, nor whether it is a peace-time figure. We recognise that these aircraft exist. Can my right hon. and learned Friend, or some other Minister, tell me how much this figure is above what is the normal peace-time strength of the Russian Air Force? Can we be told that? All this helps us to measure the danger in which we may be placed. Are there any forward bases for these aircraft? Have new aerodromes been constructed in the satellite countries? In assessing the potential danger, it is important for us to be told these things.
    I was surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend, and indeed the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, did not make much reference to our experiences in Korea in the last nine months. There have been air operations in Korea fought, I believe, under something like modern conditions, but little reference has been made to them. Our Air Force personnel have been taking part in these operations and some have, unfortunately, made the supreme sacrifice. I should have liked to hear some reference to the lessons to be learned from the Korean operations. One very welcome fact in Korea is the co-ordination which has been established between our Forces, the American Air Forces and some of the Commonwealth Air Forces.
    May I turn now to recruitment? One of the aspects of our recruitment drive to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred this afternoon and, which requires more attention, is the recruitment of aircrew personnel. My right hon. and learned Friend gave a good account of his stewardship in other directions and
    282
    we recognise that the Air Force has grown in strength by some 20,000-odd men. I was disappointed, however, to find that aircrew personnel have not been coming forward in the numbers for which we had hoped. Surely the daring and dash of aircrew life is something which has always appealed to our younger generation. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will try to stimulate this once again. There was a period during the last war when the Air Force came to be known as the glamour Service, and we should like to see some of this glamour again. Can there be more of the flying displays in various parts of the country such as was held this year at Farnborough? Does my right hon. and learned Friend propose to invite squadrons from schools and universities to attend these displays? Might that not encourage more interest in aircrew recruitment?
    I think it has been proved in the last few months that present conditions of full employment, better pay and better conditions do not necessarily attract all the recruits we need. Nevertheless, as the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington said, one figure which has emerged today is the provision of 1,750 houses for regular serving airmen. Since we know that the housing programme of the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act is spread over five years, it is clear that it will be a very slow process if we are to attract recruits into the Air Force by the provision of houses.
    I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that, within the limitations of materials and labour available, everything possible should be done to speed up this programme, and I ask him in particular to give some attention to the possibility of providing temporary accommodation. A great deal of expenditure is provided in these Estimates for allowances to personnel for living out. These can be saved if, in fact, we can have a drive for temporary accommodation.
    My last word is to make a plea for the greatest possible integration of our Air Force within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It is quite evident that the cost which we are incurring, and which tonight we are supporting, is a very heavy one for this country to bear. If it can be shared, if we can have integration with our Western Allies, then I feel sure

    283
    that there need be no waste, there need be no uneconomical developments of the Air Force. We all recognise that our surest shield in defence will be the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and I believe that it can ensure the most economical use of our own Air Force and those of our Allies.
    5.41 p.m.
    Mr. P. B. Lucas: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire), with which I found much to agree; but I trust he will forgive me if I do not follow him in his argument tonight because I wish to address myself primarily to the development of the Soviet Air Force in its particular relation to Vote 7 of the Estimates which we are now considering, namely, the supply of our own aircraft and stores. For it is against this formidable array of Russian military aircraft that our preparations, and, indeed, our own preparedness, must now be set.
    From the limited study—I repeat, limited study—which I have been able to make of this subject from such resources as are open to me in my humble capacity, I am driven to the conclusion that the expansion of the Soviet air force between 1945 and 1951 is comparable only with the development of the German air force between 1935 and 1939. Much has been written lately in the national and technical Press of both America and this country upon this subject, but as yet we have had, as the hon. Member for Wycombe indicated, no authoritative statement from the Government. The Prime Minister has said that the Russians have an air force of nearly 20,000 aircraft, but that, of itself, means very little; it could mean anything.
    When I questioned the Secretary of State for Air upon one particular aspect of the Russian Air Force the other day he suggested that even if the answer were available it would not be in the public interest to provide it. I can clearly see that it is unwise to say too much; but so also I say it is unwise to say too little. People now are being asked to make great sacrifices; they are going to be asked to make greater sacrifices still. They want to know what they are up against,
    284
    and what the perils are; and I think they are becoming concerned today at the great increase in the strength of the Soviet air force.
    It is clear, I believe, from a study of contemporary writers upon this subject, without any reference to unpublished facts, that a remarkable development is taking place in the Soviet air force at the present time. In order to understand it, it is necessary to appreciate what the Soviet inherited from Germany at the end of the late war. In 1945, it is pretty fair to say—and I think there will be, perhaps, a general measure of agreement upon this —that in aircraft design alone the Russians were, with one exception, three or four or five years behind ourselves, the Americans and the Germans. But I believe that a considerable portion of this gap has been bridged by their inheritance from the Germans. And here, I think, there is a fundamental misunderstanding.
    The general belief at the end of the late war was that we were far ahead in the development of jet propulsion. The great Whittle invention—that engineering masterpiece—had, undoubtedly, given us the lead in design. That cannot be disputed. I would not dispute it; but I believe that in operational development and production of rocket and jet propelled aircraft the Germans were ahead of us. Consider the facts.
    Mr. Paget: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Russian jet aircraft is a development of the Messerschmitt, and, in fact, owes nothing to the Nene jets which they got in 1946?
    Mr. Lucas: I am coming to that point, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will bear with me. I am trying to develop the argument, and I trust that I shall satisfy him as I proceed. I think, as I was saying, that the general belief is that we were far ahead in jet propulsion. My personal view is that in the actual production and operational development of jet propelled aircraft the Germans were, in fact, in front. By the end of 1944, we had one squadron of jet propelled aircraft in the line of battle, the Meteors. As I was earlier privileged to command that squadron, I feel hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the

    285
    House will appreciate that it is not my intention to disparage in any way the remarkable achievements of that squadron, but I consider it is only fair and just to say that this unit—although it was in the order of battle first in this country against the flying bomb and later in Holland after the victorious sweep of the armies through the Low Countries— was designed more for its propaganda worth than for its operational value.
    At the same time, late in 1944, while we had just this handful of jet propelled aircraft, the Germans had available 300 jet or rocket propelled aircraft on the Western Front—enough for eight or 10 first class squadrons. Under the weight and pressure of Allied bombing they were pressing forward with jet and rocket development, but most significant of all, was the fact that by the end of 1944, as far as we can see, their production of jet and rocket propelled aircraft had reached the figure of some 200 a month.
    In 1945 many of these fruits of research and development in Germany's aircraft industry became potentially available to the Russians. The Heinkel factory at Rostock, the Dornier factory at Wismar, the Junkers factory at Dessau, the Messerschmitt works at Prague and at Gotha, in Silesia and in Hungary. All these, together with designers, technicians and blue prints became potentially available to the Russians. However ironical this may seem, it is necessary for us to consider these acquisitions.
    Air Chief Marshal Sir Guy Garrod, who knows more about these things than I do, in a speech on 19th December last, said:
    "The British public must be warned of the menace of the Russian air force… As regards fighter aircraft, information which is available makes it quite certain that the Russians have extremely advanced types flying, some of them in service, and that, for the next three years, at least equal in speed and manoeuvrability to any which the Royal Air Force will have in service."
    Coming from the Air Chief Marshal these are indeed strong words.
    There seem to me to be three particularly interesting features of the Soviet air force which, in relation to Vote 7, of these Estimates, appear to assume great importance. First of all, there is
    286
    the speed with which they have advanced in aerodynamic design; second, the fact that they have a four-engined jet bomber flying; third, the suggested rate of production of their front line military aircraft. I should like to take these three features into consideration.
    I shall not attempt to weary the House with any technicalities of design. All I say is that it appears the Russians have had swept-wing fighters of an advanced design, with all that that means, in service for nearly two years. One Russian-built type we know has been operated in Korea, and it is believed that others are now in service in Russia. Yet at this time the Royal Air Force—and I think it is necessary that we should consider this tonight—has no British swept-wing fighter in squadron service.
    One of the outstanding wing-leaders of the Royal Air Force in the late war has recently been observing in Korea— I am inclined to think he has been doing something more than just observing. This most experienced officer, whose word on the subject of aircraft I personally respect very greatly, is reported publicly as saying of the Russian-built MiG-15:
    "It is as good or equal to the American Sabre jet. The Sabre is the best fighter in the Western world. The MiG-15 will give it a good run for its money."
    In plain words, that means that if the Russians were to attack in Western Europe this summer there would be no British fighter in the Royal Air Force squadrons equal in performance to the MiG-15. I understand the indications are that the production of this aircraft may now be reaching some 200 a month, with a potential and possible monthly capacity of some 400.
    But the story does not end here. There are American reports—and I repeat that my information is based on facts published in the technical Press of Britain and America—of two later single-seat fighters, the YAK-25 and the Lovochkin-17. The indications are that the YAK-25 is superior in performance even to the MiG-15 which has been so highly praised. There are further suggestions of a twin jet fighter-bomber in service based on the Messerschmitt-262 and the later plans of the Messerschmitt-363. There

    287
    are also reports of tests being pressed forward with all vigour with the YAK-21 and a rocket-propelled fighter developed from the German experimental aircraft the Junkers 8–248.
    Lest I might appear to be pessimistic let me say at once that, in my own mind, I have no doubt that the genius of the British aircraft industry, given the right opportunity and the right lead, will find the answer to these problems. Indeed, it is my own opinion that they have already found the answer in the fighter field with the development of the Hawker 1081 and the Supermarine 535. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides who saw these aircraft fly at Farn-borough in the great R.A.F. display last summer will agree that in this field we shall lead again, as surely as we once led with the Spitfire and Hurricane. It is the plain duty of the Government to press forward and get these British aircraft into British squadrons as quickly as they can. Personally, I am very glad indeed of the possibility of the North American Sabre becoming available in this dangerous interim period, but I say it is the development of the Hawker 1081 and the Supermarine 535 that we want in our own squadrons.
    My next point relating to the Soviet air force concerns the considerable progress they have made in their jet bombers, particularly in the advance of their four-engined jet aircraft. Perhaps whoever winds up for the Government can confirm or deny this, but from what we can see they apparently have had a prototype of the Ilyushin-16 flying since 1947. From what we know of the time it takes to get an aircraft from the drawing board into the squadrons, I would say that the Russians must very soon be thinking about bringing this aircraft into service.
    The Minister of Defence has indicated that orders have been placed for our own four-engined jet bomber, and that is very good news; but it has not yet flown, and it must be three or four years away from the squadrons—and this at a time when the Russians may well be bringing their aircraft into service, and at a time when our heavy bomber strength rests on a force of obsolete aircraft.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not all this elaborate description of the power of the Russian air force an extraordinary tribute to the efficiency of industry and invention under Russian Communism?
    Mr. Lucas: I thought I had made it clear in my opening remarks that it was my belief that much of this Russian development had been born out of German engineering ability and genius, which I personally think has made a great contribution to the present position in Russian air strength.
    My third and last point concerns production, and on this I must say I am very concerned. Wing Commander Asher Lee, who had a great deal of experience in the intelligence service at the Air Ministry in the late war, whose work was of such infinite value to the British and American Air Forces, has written a book entitled "The Soviet Air Force." It was published last year, and of production he says:
    "The capacity of the [Russian] aircraft industry, including the satellite countries, enables it to produce between 30,000 and 50,000 planes a year, and it is doing so… It can be taken with certainty that the Soviet are producing not less than 7,500 single and twin-jet aircraft a year."
    I am not so concerned with the over-all output of aircraft as I am with the production of advanced military types. If it is true that the Russians are producing approximately 7,500 jet aircraft a year, then I say that these are indeed sinister figures. Their importance can only be seen when they are related to British and German production at the end of the last war.
    In 1944 the approximate monthly output of service aircraft in Germany was between 2,000 and 2,500; in Britain it was of the order of 2,500—a bit more than it was in Germany. Now it is suggested that the Russian monthly output of front line military aircraft is between 1,500 and 1,700, and that approximately 600 of these are single or twin-jet aircraft. It is interesting to consider at this stage that in 1939, on the outbreak of war, when the Germans were pressing forward for all they were worth with the production of front line military aircraft, they were producing 800 a month, or half the apparent and suggested present Russian figure.

    289
    In the light of such comparisons I think we are entitled to ask ourselves: What is our paramount concern today? I say it is without any doubt the security of this British island, and with it the defence of the whole of the land mass west of the River Elbe, for this is most important to our defence in depth. But in our endeavour to secure our own defence let us bewar of concentrating too much upon short-range low-endurance defensive fighter aircraft and not enough upon the establishment of a long-range striking force. The development of rocket and jet propulsion, in all its modern and most hideous forms has increased immeasurably the difficulties of interception by fighters alone; and the more I think of this problem—and I have given it a great deal of thought in recent months—the more certain do I become that the place to meet modern aerial attack is at its source
    Lord Trenchard, with all the weight which his authority can bring, has said in a letter to "The Times":
    "The vital over-riding defensive measure to prevent war and in the event of war to win it, is an overwhelming, unchallengeable Air Force of long-range machines."
    There must be, I take it, some over-all strategic concept with the United States— and in reply the right hon. Gentleman may be able to say something in general terms about this—regarding the responsibility for long-range bombing. I believe that the whole conception of strategic attack in these and future days must be planned on a global and not on a continental basis. I do not believe that we can leave this to the Americans alone. Should a supreme emergency arise in the next year or two, we must be prepared within the British Empire to make our own contribution in this field on a fair basis with the Americans.
    In 1942, the moment when Allied bombing compelled the Germans to concentrate on fighter production to the detriment of their bomber production, we knew that we were round the corner, and thereafter we got the upper hand. The confirmation of the effect of our air superiority came, of all places, from the German army. One does not expect it to come from the army. It was Field Marshal Von Rundstedt who said: "Air
    290
    power was the first decisive factor in German's defeat."
    So I say, let us profit from this experience. And while the strength of the Soviet air force grows daily, let us resolve with Lord Trenchard that
    "the vital, over-riding defensive measure… is an Air Force of long-range machines,"
    and in the interests of national security let us provide these aircraft while time still remains.
    6.2 p.m.
    Mr. Shackleton: When I heard the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. P. B. Lucas) beginning his speech, I did not feel inclined to take his words on the strength of the Russian air force with much seriousness, but I must confess that as I listened to him I found that he had gone a long way towards convincing me of some of the facts which he was presenting. One of the points which was of particular interest to me was his reference to Wing Commander Asher Lee, who knew more about the German Air Force during the last war than probably any other man in any country. I found the figures he gave rather alarming. I do not propose to go into that, not because I am not interested, or that I would attempt to deny the seriousness of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but because there are other points which I want to make.
    I would say one thing which I think should be of some encouragement in the present situation vis-à-vis a possible attack from Russia, and that is that, although undoubtedly from what has been said there is great strength in their fighter force, men who had experience in the last war in the Royal Air Force will realise that the provision of fighter squadrons is quite different from the provision of effective long-range bomber squadrons. The duties that bomber crews are called upon to perform, the navigational skill and so on, call for a much higher form of team work—and I am not deprecating the activities of the people in Fighter Command—and for a much higher level of educational standard throughout the community, and of training, which did not exist in the last war in the Russian air force. Indeed, their bombing units in the last war were of very little account at all, and no

    291
    amount of provision of new aircraft will overcome the difficulty which they will have in providing the highly-skilled personnel which will be necessary to man that long-range bomber air force. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will perhaps agree with me that there is some point in that statement, not that I wish in any way to deprecate the seriousness of the situation.
    I should like to deal with a number of points which have been raised in debate. First, I want to refer to the Canberra. I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Amery), has left the Chamber, but since I am the Member for Preston, South. I may say that we take a great pride in the fact that the Canberra is manufactured in Preston by English Electric. It is a remarkable achievement because up to that date this firm had not hitherto designed aircraft themselves. It is a source of satisfaction to the country that at least in that field we have produced an aircraft which is second to none in the world.
    Leading on from the reference to the Canberra, I want to take up a remark of the Minister when he was referring to the use of the Canberra in photographic reconnaissance. He was careful to stress that photographic reconnaissance work was of the greatest importance, as he said, for Bomber Command. I am sure that that was a slip on his part. I think that he will realise that photographic reconnaissance is of the utmost importance not only for Bomber Command but for every branch of the Armed Forces, and not least the Navy. I remember the agonies which we went through in trying to watch the "Gneisenau" and the "Scharnhorst" in Brest, until at last they both slipped out and were a long way up the Channel before anyone knew. I am encouraged by the remark of the Minister that photographic reconnaissance is certainly much in his mind, and I congratulate some hon. Members opposite for having impressed this matter on him so successfully on a previous occasion.
    I should now like to turn to the question of Coastal Command. It is a subject, I know, which comes up very regularly. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) raised it, as I do, and rather
    292
    reluctantly I feel obliged to refer to the Shackleton. The reason I do so is to protest against the aircraft which is undoubtedly a Lincoln, being called by any other name. Having said that, may I say that my family appreciate the honour which has been done to them in using this name. The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and the hon. Member for Wycombe referred to the fact that faster U-boats called for faster aircraft, but I would point out that the fact remains that there is yet no U-boat that can catch an aircraft. Indeed, it is of no concern how fast a U-boat travels. That has no effect on the speed of the aircraft. What is of importance is that the aircraft should have long endurance. Indeed, the smaller the aircraft and the longer it can stay up, broadly speaking, the better it is from Coastal Command point of view, and to this extent the Shackleton, like the Sunderland, will, I believe, be very suitable, provided it has the endurance.
    It is interesting to note hon. Gentlemen opposite making these pleas for flying boats. During the war the Boating Union was a strongly organised body in Coastal Command, and there will always be people who want flying boats. One has the same sort of sentimental feeling for the flying boat as, I suppose, the Navy has for its battleships. There are great operational conveniences in connection with the flying boat, and however far it is necessary at this stage to drop development of them, I hope, nonetheless, that the technique and operation of flying boats will not disappear entirely from the Air Force.
    I hope that it will be possible to get back at least some units equipped with flying boats, because this controversy of land versus sea taking-off aircraft is one which, in my opinion, is by no means settled. New developments in the future may return us to the flying boat. In this connection, in view of the possibility of U-boat warfare, I should have liked at this point to go at more length into the whole question of the strength of the Russian U-boat fleet, but since I am hoping to make an incursion into the debate on the Naval Estimates, if I am fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, I shall reserve my remarks until then.

    293
    I would point out to hon. Members opposite and to the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) when talking about the strength of the Russian U-boat fleet that since they admit that their sources of information are "Jane's" and the naval annuals they should compare the pre-war "Jane's" with the postwar "Jane's." They will find exactly the same U-boats in the 1939"Jane's"as they will find in the 1950"Jane's."A number of these types were there before the war, and from the operational point of view they are of no threat whatsoever in the event of a possible war. I am prepared to say that with the greatest conviction, because I believe that the real menace will only come from new U-boats in the event of new types being available, and I do not believe that there are many of these or that many are likely to be deployed in the near future in a possible war.
    On the subject of Coastal Command, I wish to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he has anything to say on the position in regard to joint air-naval liaison, particularly in the area combined headquarters. This is an annual plea of mine, that the Navy and the Air Force should be mixed up operationally as far as possible, and that it should be possible for the Navy to serve on Coastal Command stations and for the Air Force to go to sea. I believe it to be of the greatest importance to do that now, because there will not be time to do it in war.
    I wish to comment briefly on the question of personnel and recruiting for the Royal Air Force. One of the problems the Minister has been up against in getting recruits is the conditions which National Service men find at certain Air Force stations. We all know of these stations. I am sure that other Members have been approached by constituents, perhaps by earnest fathers who have themselves served in the Air Force and wish to see their sons serving in the Air Force, but who are discouraged from doing so by their experience at their first Air Force station. I know a good number of these stations, but it would be unfair to mention them because the difficulties are not necessarily due to the commanding officers.
    I urge my right hon. Friend to do his utmost to improve the amenities at stations where conditions are known to
    294
    be bad. I urge him to give real priority in trying to improve conditions and to compensate to some extent for the wide dispersal in an area where there is very little by way of recreation. I am sure that this is something that will help him in his problem in getting recruits.
    There is little doubt that the new trades structure in the Air Force is a great success from what I have heard of it, and other hon. Members have no doubt had a similar experience. It has been exceedingly well received, as have naturally the new rates of pay. Is there any way by which something similar to the trades structure for the ranks could be made available for officers? I realise that the situation is quite different, but there are a number of officers, many of whom are ex-pilots, serving in ground trades who want to make the Royal Air Force a career but are bogged down on the question of rank, knowing that it will be years before they can get any promotion—not all can scale the greater heights. I suggest that there should be some additional incentive.
    I know that there are difficulties and that there are increases in the rates of pay as the years pass. I suggest that this idea should be considered and, if at all possible, should be extended. There should be some sort of recognition for proficiency, even if promotion does not necessarily follow. If something could be done on these lines, it might help some of these people who might become disgruntled.
    There is one other aspect connected with ground trades, particularly in the light of the Class G call-up, and that is the position of intelligence officers. During the last war it was necessary very rapidly to fill this branch of the Service largely from amateurs. I suggest that some sort of reserve in this field should be built up. I know that men can join the R.A.F.V.R., but I hope there are some who would be willing to go into this branch in the event of war, men who are unable now to take on an annual training commitment for good reasons of their own. It would be a good thing if some of these men were being called up under the Class G Reserve. I suggest that as an example to the country some Members should be called under Class G. I am quite sure that Members on both sides would be

    295
    only too willing to go into the Air Force and play their part and show their willingness to contribute towards the preparedness of the country.
    My right hon. Friend made a few remarks on the A.T.C. I would urge him to consider the expenditure of more money when the time comes to make greater use of the funds which will be available under the extended scheme of military preparedness. As far as I can see from the Estimates, it is proposed to spend £260,000 to £270,000 on the A.T.C. and the Combined Cadet Force. This is again a very important source of supply, particularly for aircrew. The money may well be spent, particularly on developing some of the week-end flying and, above all, on the A.T.C. scholarship schemes to which the Minister referred. I believe these scholarship schemes to be of very great value. They provide a tremendous incentive to efficiency in the A.T.C, and they are a useful method of selecting people in advance for aircrew, because it will be possible to judge aptitude in the course of that scholarship air training. I believe that an increase in the money spent on the A.T.C. at this moment will well repay the Air Force and the country.
    There is a small matter on which I should like to make a protest. It is already causing a good deal of bitterness among the Air Force personnel who are serving in neighbouring aerodromes to the Navy that the Navy are able to obtain their cigarettes and liquor at a much lower price than the Air Force. Personally, I think it is quite disgraceful that the Navy should have this privilege at all, but if they are to have it, then the Air Force should also have it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear this in mind. I understand that this concession applies to those serving in the Navy while at sea, where special conditions apply, but I understand that their concession has been reduced in order to spread it over those on land as well as at sea. I suggest that this principle should be adopted throughout the Services and that everyone should benefit equally.
    Air Commodore Harvey: There would be civil war.
    Mr. Shackleton: I shall have a chance to develop this, I hope, on another occasion.
    296
    In conclusion, I should like to return to the basic problem that confronts us all, the fact that we have to debate air matters under the cloak of security. I do not see how this difficulty is ever to be resolved. Whatever Government is in power, there is no doubt that the Opposition will invariably complain that they are being given no information. There will always be a good deal of truth in it. One thing is quite certain, and that is that no information should be given which could be any indication of our order of battle. I am quite certain that that is something of the utmost military importance, something which the Germans did not have in the last war to their great misfortune, when they grossly miscalculated the strength of the Royal Air Force in the days leading up to the Battle of Britain.
    At the same time, I support the pleas from the other side of the House that the Minister will join with the Minister of Defence and will really have a go at the Chiefs of Staff to see if there is not a bit more information they can give. I am sure that the broad categories of security have to be safeguarded, but when I hear some of the points which come out quite casually, sometimes in answer to questions and sometimes in reply to cross-examination by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), I think that there might be some more information available. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend not to allow the Chiefs of Staff always to put the veil of secrecy over everything.
    In conclusion I should like to congratulate the Minister and the Royal Air Force on the undoubted advance that has been made in re-armament. Our rearmament programme is essentially something which cannot be completed overnight. It is a long-term plan, and it will not be until next year or the year after that we shall see the full fruits of our present planning. It is also obvious now that there are certain real accretions to the strength of the Royal Air Force and the country and we should be very grateful for those at a time when the danger, although it may not be very near, is none the less real, and could suddenly arise in circumstances in which the Royal Air Force will be called upon to meet the first onslaught and play a decisive part in protecting this country.
    6.21 p.m.
    Surgeon Lieut-Commander Bennett: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) has raised a number of interesting points, at which none of us would cavil very much, and I should like to support a number of his observations. He certainly had a lot to say about Coastal Command and he has every right to say it, but I should like to take him up on the question of flying boats and with him the Government, because it seems to me that it is a post-war phenomenon that the flying boat is simply fading out of our civil and military aviation. Surely we should consider whether in the unforeseen contingencies of war we shall always be able to produce air strips of strength and of a thick weight-bearing nature wherever we want them, whereas the flying boat can operate from the most obscure places without any arrangement beforehand. I therefore plead with the Under-Secretary that we should have flying boats, not from their aesthetic point of view, but for the useful work for which they are most essential and because they are compatible with our seafaring traditions.
    The hon. Member for Preston, South, mentioned with scepticism the Russian U-boats which, of course, do not strictly come under the Air Estimates, but are covered by Coastal Command when it exists. The hon. Member will not deny that the Russians have inherited them as they have inherited the German aircraft industry or very much of it, and it is giving rise to results such as were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas). In addition, they have also got the skill and the production of the navy yards of the old German Navy, and have been able to take on where the Germans left off.
    The most recent information which has come to me reveals that such submarines as may exist will no doubt include those fast electrolytic ones and the high speed battery submarine, and they are very largely to be manned by Germans and not by Russians, a not very pleasant or hopeful thing to hear. I certainly support the remarks of the hon. Gentleman about liaison between the Navy and Coastal Command. I had an intimate acquaintance with the Western Approaches during
    298
    the war, and I know where the snags tended to crop up, as indeed they did. We have on both sides a certain amount which is bound to create controversy, particularly in the matter of ship recognition. We have the heroic story of the Herefords flying out to attack H.M.S. "Walker" when that vessel was watching the "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" and only leaving off when they were attacked by a force of Messerschmitt 101s. Then we know the story of the attack which was unfortunately carried out by a squadron of Swordfish aircraft from the "Ark Royal" on the "Sheffield" when that vessel was shadowing the "Bismark." I believe that in these Services, ship recognition should be encouraged until each Service is acquainted with the other so that they can act as one, although the "light blues" and the "dark blues" live under different conditions, some on the bounding deep and some on terra firma.
    We have heard from the hon. Member about recruits and the conditions which greet them when they arrive at an Air Force station. I should like to direct the attention of the House to a very disconcerting phenomenon which undoubtedly does occur, and that is where headmasters of schools turn up their noses at the idea of the entry of a young man into the Royal Air Force and sneer at the R.A.F. as a career for a boy leaving school. That is where most harm has been done in the past. I have heard of such instances, and surely we must attempt to educate the educator in this respect. The best way to do so is to make it quite clear that the Service conditions will be those suitable for a full career.
    We have also had complaints about the A.T.C., and I should like the Under-Secretary to understand the grievance of the many young men, who have joined the A.T.C. and have energetically followed its courses, giving up a lot of their spare time for it. It is that they find themselves liable to be drafted into the Army. Could we not have some assurance that the young enthusiasts for aircraft will be allowed to continue when they are called up for National Service and will be able to go into the Air Force and not the Army. If there is no such safeguard, may I suggest that it be made now.
    We have heard many remarks about the atomic age. This has been called the atomic age and the atom bomb has been

    299
    [SURGEON LIEUT.-COMMANDER BENNETT.] called the ultimate weapon. One thing that we want to bear in mind is that the atom bomb may be a very powerful weapon, but it is not going to be any good unless it is transported to its destination. The atomic bomb is useless in America or England unless we have the aircraft that will take it to the proper place. That indeed seems to be the weakness of the present situation.
    As regards conditions in modern warfare and the part which air power will play, which may well be conclusive, I cannot do better than quote my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who made some remarks on the subject when addressing the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on 31st March, 1939. The words which he used then sum up the situation:
    "Air mastery is today the supreme expression of military power, and fleets and armies, however, necessary, must accept a subordinate rank."
    I cannot feel that any degree of complacency is appropriate at the present time at the fact that the Air Force gets one-third of the Estimates for the Fighting Services. I am inclined to feel that the function of air power is paramount and is going to be the biggest factor in any future struggle or in any near struggle. We know that in any future war conquest of the air over the enemy's territory will be the first thing necessary.
    I, personally, am not of the opinion that air power means that we shall be in a position in which we can drop bombs on the enemy. I feel that conquest of the air over the enemy's territory will have to be fought for, and that we must have aircraft of much longer range. Indeed, in the future we shall have to have aircraft of global range, and those aircraft will not necessarily be bombers and fighters but battleships and cruisers of the air, which will only fly in after the defeat of the enemy force, which will get our own bombers through to detroy his bases, his factories and the source of his air power as well as the source of the rest of his military strength.
    I feel sure that the large long-range aircraft is the weapon that we need. We must have a large, independent air force, a strategic air force, of aircraft of that kind We do not want to restrict ourselves by failure to develop the longest-range machines, leading to bloody battles
    300
    for atolls, the sort of fighting that occurred during the last war when we were fighting for bases, and in which we suffered most of our losses. We had far fewer losses in actually punishing the enemy. We want to have long-range aircraft of global range developed from the very first. Apart from those, we need fighters.
    What have we in the way of the bombers that we need? We have the Canberra, an excellent aircraft but surely a bit of a fly-weight for the undertakings that we are considering. We have heard with a degree of satisfaction that orders have been placed for four-jet bombers comparable with those that Russia has been operating for some time. During the last war we used four-engined aircraft as bombers. During the 1914–18 war we used twin-engined bombers. In the future we may have a few more engines and produce aicraft of sufficient size to have the range we need.
    When engine efficiency has been developed sufficiently, no doubt the actual size of the aircraft will be diminished, but we need not hamstring ourselves by sticking to four-engined aircraft. The B.36 which is operated in this country has no fewer than 10 engines, and it does not seem to suffer from having all those engines by having a short range. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to direct his attention to this matter in the future and also to the question of having full-sized aircraft of strategic value.
    We have said in this House that the bombers that exist are either the old propeller-driven aircraft of 1945 vintage, or the American ten-engined bombers. Are we to consider ourselves entirely dependent upon the United States for bombers for some years until, after, say, three or four years, the four-jet bomber, such as it is, may come into service with us? Have we a joint programme with the United States in which the United States provides the bombers and we provide the fighters, and other nations perhaps come in as well? If we have such a joint programme may I ask the Under-Secretary of State: Where are the fighters that we ought to be producing? Surely we have reached rock bottom in this matter.
    We are told that we have a very large number of fighters, more than we had in September, 1939. Where are they, and

    301
    what kind are they? We know that there are plenty of Vampires and Meteors, but the Meteor was breaking the world's speed record six years ago. We know about the Venom but surely that is a night fighter. What fighters have we in this country to carry us over the next few years before these wonderful drawing-board aircraft come into existence? Surely the Russians are not likely to wait patiently until these drawing-board aircraft are produced.
    Is it not a fact that this country is, under the present regime, actually dependent upon the Americans not only for bombers but for fighters too? Is it not a fact that we shall require these Sabres? We know there is a lack of strength in our fighter forces in this country, when we discover that the aircraft which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas), the MiG-15, and other aircraft, have a performance which has been described by an expert in these matters as equal to that of the Sabre. Is it not a fact that British fighers now in service are actually 100 miles an hour slower than the MiG-15, which is in quantity production? That is my belief and I should like to be disabused of that belief if I am wrong.
    On the subject of the MiG-15 it has been asked whether the aircraft is in fact driven by a Junkers type of axial or centrifugal engine. The answer appears to to be unknown, but there is no reason to suppose that the MiG-15 is a Junkers derivative or a Nene derivative. We know that the Russians are not very happy about their production of turbo-driven types and regard their engines as expendable after flying for about 300 hours.
    I should like the Under-Secretary to inform the House about the specifications for the special alloys going to Russia. Possibly this has been the greatest disservice that has ever been done to this country in this matter. We know that Whittle has told us that we have saved the Russians up to 14 years' research in connection with aerojet engine development by giving them the "know-how."
    Mr. Shackleton: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that the details and the methods of making those alloys were given to the Russians? If so what evidence has he for making that suggestion?
    Surgeon Lieut-Commander Bennett: I was asking a question whether the specifications have gone. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me will ask the Minister a question on that point.
    We want to know what is happening in Transport Command and whether the run-down has been halted, and there is to be an upward swing. We have seen no evidence of that and we have certain misgivings about the way air charter companies have been treated. They have been progressively snuffed out by what we consider to be the unfair competition of the Corporation, and they have not the strength now to supply Transport Command with the reinforcements that are required. I should like to know when the Shackleton is coming into service on Coastal Command, but I must deplore the excrescences that seem to decorate that honourable aeroplane all over.
    It seems that we in this country have been sabre-rattling, talking big and doing little in this air programme, and that we shall continue to do so for some time to come. With all respect to the very courteous and amiable gentleman who is the Secretary of State for Air, he may reasonably be described as "Big chief. Him big smoke but no fire." If we are sabre-rattling like this, it is my submission that we are rattling in an empty scabbard at the moment, and that every time we do it, the Russians can come back on us with very real reinforcements, not paper ones. I have the least possible confidence in the way in which the Government are conducting the development of our Air Force and its deployment. Even though we are at peace—heaven knows none of us wants war—the time and money which are being spent could be very much better used. I hope that we shall sooner or later get a new Administration that will use it better.
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. Tomney: Most hon. Members who have spoken have been members of the Forces, but if a contribution made by a civilian is of any assistance, I want to make that contribution, and I shall base it primarily on operational efficiency, the standard of technical equipment and the necessity for developing technical resources and educating the men to the needs of those who man the equipment. We give all credit to the men who flew the machines in the

    303
    Battle of Britain, but another battle was going on behind the scenes, and that was chiefly concerned with the manning of the machines and keeping them in the air. One of the most important factors at that time was the installation, the efficiency and the performance of electronic equipment in Spitfires and Hurricanes——
    Mr. J. N. Browne: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), attempting to make my speech for me on my Amendment calling attention to the need for improving the standard of technical personnel in the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Speaker: I have not been listening very carefully, but I do not think so.
    Mr. Tomney: I want to bring to the notice of the Committee the importance to the Fighting Services of electronic equipment. The remarks that I make about the Royal Air Force could equally well be made about the other Services. Despite the educational schemes instituted by the Ministry and the co-operation between headmasters, there is something lacking in the standards of technicians recruited for the Air Force. They may have the "know-how," but they have not the "know-all" background from the factory.
    Electronic equipment, which is the brain of the Fighting Services, should be the subject of closer co-operation between the Ministry, the manufacturers and the education authorities. Its production is concentrated chiefly in the hands of a few manufacturers, and I know of no machinery and equipment for testing, development and exploration in the Air Force or Air Force establishments and depots comparable to that in industry. Radar and submarine detection apparatus were two matters of technical importance resulting from good performance by industry which sustained our Forces during the war, but there seems to be no link between the Ministry and industry which is concerned with the manufacture of transmitting valves, cathode-ray tubes and electronic apparatus for radar.
    Technicians go to the universities and then to the factories. They attain a certain standard of excellence, but, because of the narrow scope and the limited advancement possible, they are unable to progress as quickly as they would like.
    304
    I should like to see a special range of scholarship instituted on behalf of the Royal Air Force for these people so that the knowledge and skill which they gain in the factories can be taken into the Royal Air Force, where there should be a central technical chief who would have under his command a full technical staff well grounded in the manufacture of electronic equipment. I have seen how some Service men can knock valuable equipment about. If there was a better understanding of what is involved in the manufacture, more care would be taken in the actual use of this equipment.
    I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) that the Sabre has a better performance than certain types of British aircraft. If it is necessary for the integration of the Fighting Services that we should have the use of American jet aircraft or vice versa,we should make sure that the radio and electronic equipment going into the aircraft is of British design and manufacture. It was suggested just after the war that scientific development for war purposes in this field should in future be vested in the United States. I should deprecate any suggestion of that character. The equipment we manufacture is of the highest possible standard, and even the Americans would admit that. When they came into the war they quickly installed our radar systems, which they found to be superior to their own.
    I am not at all sure that the standard of the MiG-15 is what was stated by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas). It is obvious that, as he stated, German technicians who were shanghaied into Russia have been at work. They may produce excellent prototypes, but the progress that they will make in bringing those prototypes into production must be a matter of conjecture. The industrial might of this country and the United States is far in excess of anything which the Russians can attain. The Russians may have 400 or 500 front-line aircraft of that type, but their production-line capacity is far inferior to anything of ours and I do not think that we need have any undue worry on that score. Until these machines are tested in actual performance, we cannot arrive at any conclusions.
    I am sure we shall agree that in air warfare, which is essentially a matter of

    305
    personal combat, no matter how good the man is his machine must be better. I agree that we must use every endeavour to promote better and better standards. I do not know the capabilities of American manufacturers of aircraft, but I do know that during the war when they were charged with the responsibility for putting the Rolls-Royce Merlin on the production line and they saw the prototype, they did not believe that such a machine was possible, and they did not believe that it could be done. Whatever we do, let us not sacrifice the excellence of British equipment to American design or production methods. That would be fatal.
    In the Battle of Britain the pilots relied on their machines because they knew that they were good. Future fliers must also have that reliance, and we must ensure that they know that their machines are the best that British industry can produce and are better than anything else in the world. Despite the drawbacks that we may have, if we can do that, we shall have achieved our major battle because the morale of the man in the air is paramount.
    I know that I have introduced a new note into this debate, but I was concerned in the production of this electrical equipment with the backroom boys during the last war. I know how nearly we lost the Battle of Britain, not through pilots, not through machines, but because, when the planes were landing, we had to solve the difficulty of making the filaments strong enough in the transmitting valves to sustain the shock. Everyone was working many hours of the day; and I know what is going on today. If hon. Members also knew they would be as satisfied as I am. I left the workshop only 12 months ago and I know that the work is of excellent quality.
    Let us not surrender this vital field, the brains of the Fighting Services. The Navy have always recognised it. At Portsmouth they put in their own production plant for testing signalling valves. No doubt they have had to depend on signalling more than the Army and Air Force. That is why I appeal to the Minister for a director general of technical education in the Air Force who will be responsible, if necessary, for the recruitment from industry of technicians with electronic knowledge. If that is done,
    306
    and if ever hostilities commence, we can be sure that the machines in the air are equal to the men and that the brains behind the machines are as good as we can get them.
    6.52 p.m.
    Sir Peter Macdonald: The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), has dealt with one aspect of our discussion which is extremely interesting in view of his special knowledge of the subject. It is one to which I hope the Government will pay attention, because it is vital to the future of our Air Force that we should pay more attention to the radar side of our Fighting Forces than we have done in the last few years. I have been shocked at some of the reports I have read about how the radar service has been neglected since the war. I was still more shocked to learn the other day that £50,000 worth of equipment had been stolen from an air station where, obviously, it had been left unguarded for a considerable time.
    I want to know how much attention is being paid to that service, because I had a report about a year ago that at many stations radar equipment, so vital to our defence, was being neglected, allowed to rust, and left exposed to anybody who wanted to take it away.
    Mr. Tomney: The point made by the hon. Gentleman is quite right, but it is the quality of the materials that matters, especially of copper for high vacuum work. It is so valuable that every ounce should be salvaged.
    Sir P. Macdonald: That is the point I am trying to make. The quality of our radar equipment after the war was second to none in the world. It was vital that we should have preserved it but I am afraid, from reports I have had from various sources, that this is not being done. Should another war occur we might find ourselves, at the beginning of it, in a perilous position because of that neglect.
    I intend, in the short time I shall detain the House, to deal with another aspect of our debate, to which reference has been made, but somewhat sketchily, especially by the Secretary of State. I expected that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make a statement today about the Princess flying boat. When he referred to Coastal Command I thought then that

    307
    we should hear something about what I consider to be vital to this maritime nation—flying boats, which have played a great part in the hunting of submarines in the past. I was amazed to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that there was no prospect of any flying boats being used for this purpose by Coastal Command. If that is so, I consider it to be a serious thing. There may be a few old Sunderlands, but they are so out of date that they are not being used. Would it not be possible to adapt the abandoned Solent for that purpose? It is a tragedy that this side of our aircraft industry has been so neglected in recent years.
    A couple of years' ago, at Farnborough, the machine which startled everybody and stole the show, was not a land plane at all but a jet fighter flying boat. Air attachés from all over the world considered it the most astonishing feature of the show. Certainly, it put up a tremendous performance. Why has that machine been neglected? Only three were ordered. Only one exists today. I believe that that is exactly the type of fighter which is wanted at present in the Royal Air Force, and this is confirmed by many of my friends in the Service.
    For instance, the only aerodrome at Hong Kong might be put out of action overnight. In that case where should we operate from? The S.R.A.1 is just the type of machine which is of vital importance in an operation of that kind or anywhere else in the Far East, if only the people in charge of the Air Ministry had had the foresight to order a couple of squadrons of them at that time. Is any other type of flying boat being developed? Only about two firms in Britain today make them. One happens to be in my constituency. I have no personal interest apart from that, but I have had an opportunity of seeing what work they are doing, and they are doing a magnificent job in trying to develop new military types. They did not get much encouragement for the S.A.R.l. They are still trying to produce types, still without much encouragement, but they are building the Princess flying boat.
    I have read certain newspaper reports to the effect that these are being taken over by the Royal Air Force. I hope that is true. If so, why did not the Minister say so? It is important to the
    308
    House that we should know. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington asked questions about it. What is the mystery that the Minister should make no reference to it? I ask whoever winds up the debate to tell us what is to happen to the Princess flying boat. Further, what steps are being taken to develop new military types of flying boats? I am quite convinced that the time will come when we shall have to rely upon flying boats in the many parts of the world which we have to defend.
    It is certainly true that with the growth of size and weight of the land plane, the cost of building aerodromes and concrete runways is becoming so prohibitive, especially as the distance required for the latter is so long, that many countries will not be able to afford to put them down. I was out in Africa not long ago when somebody arrived from B.O.A.C. to choose an aerodrome to take the new Comet. There are countries in Central Africa—I will not name them—which have small budgets and cannot afford to put down aerodromes or runways which will take these heavy aircraft. That makes it all the more vital that we should have flying boats which can operate from lakes or stretches of sea, without incurring the extreme cost of putting down great runways.
    I hope that some attention will be paid to this matter by the Minister and that he will give us some idea of what is happening and what part flying boats will play in the future history of the defence of this country.
    7.1 p.m.
    Squadron Leader Kinghorn: I do not propose to delay the House very long. I should have liked to refer to almost every topic which has been mentioned in this debate, for they have all been very interesting. In fact, I feel that most of the topics which have been mentioned by hon. Members have been more interesting than the facts which have come from the official source.
    I join with hon. Members who have said that in these air debates since the end of the war we have overdone this secrecy business. There are at this moment people in various embassies who know far more about these matters than we ourselves do. I myself favour the adoption of some system similar to that

    309
    which is followed by some of our Allies. I should like hon. Members to meet the Secretary of State and some of his high officials, as some of us already have at some gatherings in this House, and talk round a table; we should be treated as grown-ups and we should be given a certain amount of confidence, since we have the interest of the country at heart. There are many of us who know something about these matters, and we should not let the country down.
    We have to rely often on reports in newspapers about the performance of Russian aircraft, and how, according to some statements, they are better than our own aircraft; about the existence of the radar chain; about the use of flying boats, and all those topics which are so vital to the interests of the country. Yet the further one gets from one's own serving days and the longer one stays in this House, the less knowledge one seems to get about these things. I wish the Minister of Defence and his colleagues would get together and try to open out a bit more. These decisions which we are making are vital to the interest of our country—just as vital as the decisions which were made prior to the last war.
    I appreciate that if it had not been for the fact that the Royal Air Force was quietly getting on with its business, not forgetting the scientists, things might have been different. I know there was great secrecy even in those days. There are many things which have come as great news to us, for instance, in the wireless programme "Now it Can be Told," such as the activities of our scientists including Sir Robert Watson-Watt. But hon. Members of this House during the last war who joined the Services could come back and speak with authority in this House without giving secrets away, because they were security minded as we should be. One suggestion has already been made that we should set an example to the country by offering to be called up as G Reserve men. I agree with that suggestion, and I hope that some of us will be called up. We should then find ourselves on a station and we should know what goes on; then when we came back to this House we should be able to speak authoritatively in these debates, but we should not give away secrets.
    310
    The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) trespassed on a topic which I have never heard him mention in this House before. I did not know that he regarded himself as an expert on long-range bombing. It seems that he has been influenced by statements made recently by Lord Trenchard, and evidently he has fallen hook, line and sinker for long-range bombing. Lord Trenchard, as usual, may be right. It is most likely he is right in regarding long-range bombing as the technical weapon which we shall have to use in the future, and that we shall have to go ahead with the development of such a weapon. On the other hand, I wish that at some time we could have in this House a statement on our long-range bombing results in the last war.
    Some of us, including myself, could follow the results of long-range bombing day by day in the last war. We have followed investigations, especially American investigations since the war ended, and I have not made up my mind whether long-range bombing achieved the purposes we expected it to achieve. We ought to be considering that now. Perhaps it was worth while. It may be, with these great, modern four-engined jet aircraft which are coming out of the factories, in the changed conditions of modern war, that it is essential that we should get in first and stop the atom bomb leaving for this country. In the later stages of the last war when we were bombing the Pas de Calais and other such places we certainly stopped V.2s coming here in hundreds, and they only landed in tens. We know we did that, and in a future war we may have to do something similar.
    In that case we should want long-range aircraft. I am still undecided myself; I try to follow these things, but I wish we could have some guidance. I wish the experts in the Air Ministry would get down to this problem and decide one way or the other. If we are going in for that policy we must applaud the decision to develop the aircraft which is evidently coming off the drawing board—the four engined jet successor to the Canberra. We proved last week that the Canberra is a winner, and we must congratulate the hon. Members for Preston on the fact that their constituency can produce such a wonderful aircraft.

    311
    Nowadays there is some danger in the statements about splitting up the resources of this country and the resources of America. It has been said here more than once, "Let the Americans make the bombers and we will make the fighters." Somebody else might say, "Let America make the fighters and we will make the bombers." I would say from my experience that we ought to go all out for a well-balanced Air Force all round. We have led in technique in many directions, and we have never given up that lead. The Canberra is a case in point. The Americans evidently are now accepting the Canberra; it is a world winner. It may be that on the drawing board we have a fighter aircraft which will be a winner, beating everything the Americans and the Russians can produce.
    As for our experience, it is self-evident that in the last war our experience in the various air commands was unequalled by that of any other fighting force, whether Fighter Command, Bomber Command, Coastal Command—and I wish I could say Transport Command, but we made one mistake; we allowed America to develop the transport aircraft and that is why we have had the Dakota ever since. We ought to have developed a transport aircraft akin to the bombers which we produced, such as the Lancaster.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: It was a production problem.
    Squadron Leader Kinghorn: That may be, but we should be so arranging our production that we are not faced with last-minute problems of that kind.
    I come to my last topic. I know it will interest two hon. Members opposite because we went together to visit a station which is used for photographic reconnaissance. I am sure those hon. Members will have a lot to say on this subject if they catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and I shall content myself with one or two remarks. First of all, we can all agree that in modern aerial warfare —that is, counting all the Services under the heading of aerial warfare—reconnaissance is essential from the very beginning.
    I do not know what target maps are stored up in the Air Ministry these days, but I am sure the public would be amazed if they knew what target maps were ready
    312
    and available when the last war began. It seems to me, however, that there are many other targets in other fields which are more formidable than the targets we had in Germany. There must be many places which are far more secret than probably PeenemŰnde. I hope that we have targets ready if necessary, but to have a prepared target means that it is necessary to have one's aircraft taking pictures. I was glad to hear that the Canberra is going to P.R. squadrons. I hope there will be something even better for those squadrons.
    I think we can leave it to the people who run the photographic reconnaissance squadrons to do so properly provided that they are given the necessary powers. I plead with my right hon. and learned Friend to look into the matter at the Air Ministry and to see whether representatives of the reconnaissance squadrons cannot be placed at the very highest level. I should be in favour of their having a representative in the Ministry of Defence. Whoever was there, could budget for all reconnaissance requirements of the three Services and for Civil Defence if necessary. He should also be able to stand up, with all the necessary rings on his arm, when all the arms of the Service are fighting for their contribution out of the industrial production of this country and have an equal say with them in the matter. Indeed it is vital that his statement of his requirements must be the first, and once he is satisfied the others can come along; they can perhaps wait a little longer than he can.
    I have been rather surprised to find the question of flying boats cropping up in this debate to the extent that it has done. It is only two years ago that many of us went to see the mock-up of the Princess flying boat and had the experience of flying across to the constituency of one of the hon. Members opposite in one of the flying boats in the service of B.O.A.C. It was most interesting to study the pros and cons put up by the experts for the continued use or the abolition of the flying boat.
    There is no doubt that up to recently there was no more comfortable way of flying than by flying boat. I think that was the main attraction that drew people towards it. On that occasion two years ago to which I have referred, we were even told that in respect of speed the

    313
    new flying boat could compete with the land planes and, therefore, the pros and cons seemed to be pretty well equal. It is obvious that one snag about flying boats, if they are to be used for military purposes, is that they will have to face the same difficulty as the battleship. That difficulty is that a battleship floats on the sea for another battleship to knock a hole in it, and when a hole is knocked in it it sinks. It is a simple process. Is not the danger about the flying boat that if a small hole is made in it, and it comes down on the sea it sinks?
    Sir P. Macdonald: Does not the hon. and gallant Member think that it would be as easy to camouflage a flying boat at sea or elsewhere on the water as it is to camouflage a plane on the ground? Has it not been done before?
    Squadron Leader Kinghorn: That may be so, but suppose the hole is not caused by gunnery or machine gun fire. Suppose one is landing on a lake, and presumably flying boats would use the lakes of Africa, inland seas, etc. Suppose one runs into a log, as Sir Malcolm Campbell did when he was attempting to break the water speed record on Lake Windermere. On that occasion that stretch of water was being swept, but the accident meant the finish of the effort. Those are dangers. I am not trying to dismiss the flying boat but these are some of the cons; we have already heard so many of the pros this afternoon.
    Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: I agree that a flying boat may hit a log but it is not unknown for a land plane to hit a bowser or some other object on an aerodrome.
    Squadron Leader Kinghorn: Oh, yes. I am not attempting to express a view against the flying boat but to correct any impression that the arguments are all on one side. I will state another consideration which we might envisage in the near future. Here we are on a floating aerodrome, if one cares to call it that, situated at the edge of a great land mass. If we are involved in a long war we may have to repeat the long experience we had of the Maquis and the Resistance movements in various countries. Presumably it might be necessary to penetrate even further into Europe than we did in the last war. We might even have to keep in touch with countries such as
    314
    Sweden which were neutral in the last war.
    If there were smaller flying boats than the Princess type, if we developed two-seater machines of about the size of the Oxford or some other small aircraft of that kind, in order to keep in touch with people fighting for liberty behind an iron curtain, they would be useful for landing in fjords and inland lakes, from which they could take off more easily than some of our people were able to take off from emergency landing strips in France. That is a suggestion which might bear examination. I recommend the Under-Secretary to go back to the Air Ministry and see if he can find a paper on this topic prepared by Air Commodore Whitney Straight some years ago. If that were looked into, it would repay investigation and help us to reach a more balanced view on the question of the flying boat.
    One would like to speak longer about flying boats. I hope that it will be possible for some of us to go again and see how far progress has been made on the Princess flying boats. I hope that they will not be abolished out of hand, perhaps because of undue influence on the part of the people running the North Atlantic traffic, who never regard the North Atlantic as a place for their machines to land and who think that they have land planes powerful enough to cross easily and land without mishap on the other side. It is only two or three years ago that we lost a Tudor in the Atlantic. It disappeared without trace. Yet, when a flying boat which was taking emigrants across the Atlantic came down, it was able to float long enough for the passengers to be picked up. That is another argument in favour of flying boats.
    A good deal has been said about the Reserves, auxiliaries, etc. It is obvious that as the years go by that it is our schools that are providing the future members of the R.A.F., and many of the schools have working arrangements with the A.T.C. About three years ago the A.T.C. was in very low water indeed, and there is much to be said for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in that in the last three years he has helped to build up the A.T.C. to what it is today. Its members are coming forward and taking their place in the R.A.F. From the little A.T.C. in my constituency three went last year to do their National

    315
    Service, five went as boy entrants, two as apprentices and two joined the R.A.F. as Regulars out of a strength of 28. That is not bad going. If that is the general average over the whole country it is pretty good.
    I wish to make one plea for the A.T.C. in a matter which affects areas like that which I represent. Our's is a small seaport, and there is a naval tradition. It is also one of the smaller centres for the Royal Norfolk Regiment, which has a long county association. Yet we have for our A.T.C. a rather poor sort of wooden building which has been very difficult to maintain. There was an attempt to put down concrete but the Air Ministry would not co-operate and the A.T.C. had to do without. The building is on marshy ground, as one would expect in Yarmouth, and it is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
    The Air Ministry should spend a little more money on these people. In comparison with that state of affairs, I am told that the Army Cadet Force has the full use of the two local Territorial drill halls, and the Sea Cadets have a very good brick building acquired by means of moneys left to the unit, while the Sea Cadets in a neighbouring village have a converted trawler moored in the river. The Army and Navy are much better off. I wish we could come here next year and find that the A.T.C. beats them both.
    I was rather surprised to find a fall proportionately in the figures for the Women's Royal Air Force. I thought that after we had dealt with this matter two years ago and complained about the dinginess of their uniforms and the need for at least parity with their Canadian and American colleagues, we had seen the last of those uniforms and that there would be an improvement in the position. Evidently there is something wrong. The Service was attractive enough in the war to secure all the recruits it needed; the Service, was as attractive to young women as it was to young men. I repeat that something is evidently wrong and I hope that we shall be told why that is so. Why are we not in the position of seeing that we have too many volunteers, that we have to turn some away? We should be aiming at reaching that position, and I hope we shall be able to reach it in the near future.
    7.20 p.m.
    Squadron Leader Burden: The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth (Squadron Leader Kinghorn) will excuse me if I do not follow him the whole way, but he was one of a party, including myself, who went recently to a certain Royal Air Force station to look at photographic reconnaissance. I was rather surprised to hear him say that he has not yet made up his mind about the efficiency and the benefit to be derived from long-range bombing. I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member carries his excursion to P.R.U. a little further and looks at "Evidence in Camera," published by the photographic reconnaissance units during the war, where he will see the results of some of our long-range bombing at that time.
    Squadron Leader Kinghorn: The hon. and gallant Member must have misunderstood me. I was not questioning the accuracy of the bombing, and so on—I could talk on that for a long time. What I am questioning is the long-term policy and whether, when we have bombed and knocked out the factories, we have in the end really achieved the object we are after.
    Squadron Leader Burden: That must be for future events to decide. I think that that object was achieved in the last war. The Germans admitted that. It certainly deadened the effect of their blows on us, and perhaps as I proceed with my remarks the hon. and gallant Member will come to agree still further on that point.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) is not now in his place. He, too, mentioned photographic reconnaissance, and he was rather surprised by the remarks of the Secretary of State for Air in referring to photographic reconnaissance as being necessary for Bomber Command to carry out its function. I was appalled by that remark of the hon. Member, for it showed a tragic lack of appreciation of the tremendous importance of photographic reconnaissance and of the intelligence which is derived from this source. I and my hon. Friends on this side feel very strongly about this question and we have given it considerable study. I hope that the Government also will look very closely into this important arm of the Service.

    317
    Quite obviously, one of the first essentials of war is that one's forces should be provided with accurate intelligence and that that intelligence should be designed and examined by experts in order that it meets the requirements of the various Services. Intelligence from any source or by any one method can never be complete nor conclusive. Indeed, in the last war, when the Germans came down to the Channel ports, there were difficulties in obtaining accurate intelligence quickly from occupied territories against which we might have to carry out an attack. It may well be that in the next war the Iron Curtain will even more efficiently screen our most courageous and valiant efforts to obtain information.
    In no small measure, intelligence for the higher direction of the war and the practical deployment, not only of our soldiers, sailors and airmen, but also, our Civil Defence workers, was made possible by photographic intelligence. It gives the greatest advantage with the greatest economy of life and material. It did so in the last war, and I feel sure that in the next war it may well be even more important.
    At the outbreak of the last war there was no provision for photography from the air as a primary rÔle nor for the trained interpreters capable of extracting the information that the photographs could give. Soon after the outbreak of war, a special flight was established and a few aircraft were modified with equipment for long-range photography. Photographs that were obtained gave accurate information. They could be obtained quickly and gave much more speedy information to our defence chiefs than was obtainable from ground or other sources. In this small way was begun the organisation that became so valuable to us in the last war.
    But the state of our preparedness at the beginning of the last war must not be allowed to exist at the beginning of any future war. It is now that we must look into the whole question of photographic reconnaisance. In the last war, when we had developed this arm to a certain extent, and certainly at the end of the war, it was possible for us to maintain constant vigilance by photographic aircraft over enemy centres that otherwise would have been completely closed to our intelligence chiefs.
    318
    We were able to obtain information of the enemy's intentions and activities. His concentrations were made obvious by the photographs taken by these aircraft and thus was denied to the enemy the element of surprise that is so valuable in warfare.
    Our striking forces were enabled to be directed when the enemy's efforts were most vulnerable to attack and the destruction of his preparations most costly to him. But those attacks, because of the intelligence that could be obtained from the photographs, were carried on only as long as it was necessary to destroy the enemy's efforts to try to launch attacks. Furthermore, the attacks of Bomber Command aircraft could be switched elsewhere as a result of a new threat which might be disclosed by photographs taken in some other area.
    Economy was achieved by this new method of intelligence. It enabled us to sharpen our weapons, while it blunted the weapons and the attack of the enemy. Without knowing the complete history of photographic intelligence at home and overseas, we do not know the full contribution it made to our intelligence services. Many people, however, will know of the daily watch which was kept on enemy naval vessels. Confirmation that the "Tirpitz," the "Scharnhorst" and the "Gneisenau" were not at sea gave some assurance to the Royal Navy in carrying out its task and ensured the most economical and efficient deployment of our escort vessels.
    After the fall of France, the threat of the French Fleet entering the lists to our detriment was constantly viewed through the camera over Toulon and Dakar. Convoys in the Mediterranean were kept informed of Italian ships in Taranto until those ships were finally disposed of. Atlantic convoys were given information concerning submarines and harbours, and we were kept aware of vessels under construction. It was also made clear that progress was being made by the Germans in their submarine yards in the construction of the long-range submarines which have been referred to in the debate today.
    The deployment of our own submarines was made possible and aided by reports on the movements of enemy merchantmen as disclosed by our photographic reconnaissance units. From air photographs the Army revised maps

    319
    which were required for operations, and models of terrain were made on which detailed plans for operations were worked out and briefing given. Armies in the field obtained details concerning the enemy's armour, troops and supplies. The Royal Engineers were able to calculate the quantities of materials needed for the repair of docks, railways, bridges, etc., which might be destroyed by the enemy when we carried out the invasion and which might be essential to our own communications.
    From photographic intelligence the enemy's naval, military, air force and industrial targets were selected, and the crews of the appropriate R.A.F. Command were briefed. The enemy's defence and warning systems were examined in detail and measures taken to dislocate his organisation and to secure less opposition for our own aircraft. The attack on the Mohne Dam, which caused the flooding of the Ruhr Valley, was planned from air photographs and models which were made from them. Before the landings in Normandy were planned, the beaches and gradients were calculated, strong points were marked down for special attention, and the enemy's warning system was pinpointed.
    Civil Defence was given information regarding the V.l and the V.2, and the impact of those weapons on the morale of our civil population was blunted. Indeed, as many hon. Members on both sides now know, as a result of photography over Peenemunde, attacks on Peenemunde itself and on the launching sites of the V.l and V.2 bases were carried out and many of these weapons were destroyed.
    The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire), referred to this as being the atomic age and the age of the rocket projectile. Far more than any words of mine that illustrates the importance of photographic reconnaissance and photographic intelligence. By that means we can seek out and destroy those weapons before they are unleashed on our population. Photographic intelligence supplied the public, through the Press, with accurate details and photographs of damage inflicted on the enemy, to the benefit of the morale of the housewife, the man in the factory and the Service man abroad.
    320
    I have given this brief indication of the way this arm served the Royal Air Force in the war. In 1939 it was an acorn and it grew to a flourishing oak at the end of the war, but, because of economy since the war, its branches have been lopped and much of its benefits have been lost. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, in reply to the debate, will be able to give the House an assurance that that position is realised and that this matter will be put right.
    I turn for a moment to the question of organisation. The organisation of the Royal Air Force at home is based on function and in Transport Command we see the formation responsible on a global basis for the role of air transportation. A separate group is responsible for R.A.F. signals throughout the world. It seems to me, and I believe that my view is shared by hon. Friends, that for photographic intelligence in the Department there should be an officer solely responsible and under him there should be a group operationally responsible to no one command. In that respect, I would refer to the remark the Minister made in opening the debate when he said—and this discloses the danger more clearly perhaps than I could—that it is not necessary for Bomber Command to carry out its proper functions.
    What I want to avoid and what I believe my hon. Friends want to avoid is that P.R.U. should be looked upon as ancillary to and under the domination of Bomber Command. If that is done I feel that it will ensure that photographic intelligence has a primary role and will receive full representation at the correct level. By this arrangement the user will then be the master and requirements will be adequately presented to ensure correct selection of personnel refresher courses for reserves in flying maintenance and interpretation, correct design and supply of aircraft capable of the speed, range and height to meet the demands of our own services and our Allies. We shall also ensure the development of supply of special equipment in cameras and, moreover, the stockpiling of essential raw materials.
    I would like the Minister to assure the House that it is recognised that photographic reconnaissance is a primary role for special units of the R.A.F. I would like him to assure the House that the

    321
    intelligence department at the Air Ministry has, or will have, a director solely responsible for policy and planning of photographic intelligence throughout the world to meet the demands of all our Services and Allies. I would like to be assured that there will be appointed a director to be responsible, through the Ministry, for co-ordination with other Services and that this director will through the Ministry of Defence, be responsible for standardisation, through S.H.A.P.E., and that a group will be formed with Command status and—this is very important— responsible directly to the Air Ministry for operations of photographic intelligence and for general supervision of, and advice to, overseas units.
    I would also like an assurance that suitable aircraft will be ordered at the drawing-board level and that we shall not rely on obsolescent bombers and fighters, which would be shot out of the sky if sent overseas to their missions. I would like an assurance that cameras and processing equipment will be developed and provisioned to meet in full the necessary requirements immediately on the outbreak of war, if it should come—and we all pray it never will. I also ask that the selection and training of an adequate number of personnel of the Regular and R.A.F.V.R. is being provided, that stockpiling of essential materials is now in hand, that adequate and suitable accommodation for photographic work will be provided and that full co-ordination and co-operation will be provided through the Department of Industrial and Scientific Research, the universities and other capable bodies, for research in technical development.
    I believe that any economy in photographic intelligence would be the greatest folly, for it is an insurance that will enable our Forces to be used decisively and economically and, in short, blunt the weapons of the enemy and sharpen our own.
    7.36 p.m.
    Mr. Paget: I do not think any of us will dispute the importance of photographic reconnaissance, nor indeed do I think that anybody will dispute the value of bombing which resulted from photographic reconnaissance. Whereas at Peenemunde we attacked a pin-pointed target, on many other occasions the bombing on the value of
    322
    which there is dispute, did not result from photographic reconnaissance, but was indiscriminate bombing. I believe that not only was that type of bombing a great crime, but I think it was also a crime which did not pay.
    I think the most interesting speech, the most informative speech and, if I may say so, the best speech we have had in this debate, came from the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas). I want mainly to devote myself to what he said. Broadly speaking, I agree with the figures and the descriptions of aeroplanes which he gave. I do not know if my sources of information are the same as his, but they are from Germany and, broadly, they coincide with what he said. But I would bring out some additional features and suggest that we should not be too frightened of the Russians numbers of machines or, indeed, of the quality of their machines.
    We hear of 175 Russian divisions, and enormous numbers of tanks, very high quality tanks. It is one thing to have a lot of divisions, but another thing to be able to move them, supply them and command them. I hope to say something on that question on Thursday. The same argument applies with regard to the Russian air force. They have this very large number of very high quality planes so far as design is concerned, but my information is that the testing, both of the planes and of the parts, is very inferior indeed, that people's necks are involved in a particular production level and that a great many of these machines would be apt to blow up if anyone actually flew them. It is also my information that there is very little training or flying time in the Russian squadrons. The sort of row that happens when there is an accident, when planes are lost and it becomes a question of industrial or military sabotage because a plane has been lost in an accident, has resulted in very little training flying being done.
    There are these large number of aircraft, but I believe that the flying crews are nothing like up to the standard of training which we require. Theirs is an organisation which has not had the experience of conducting bombing operations, because Russia really did not have bombers in the war, and has not the signals or the aerodromes or the whole organisation that goes to make up

    323
    Bomber Command. One does not have a striking force in the air just by having so many aeroplanes. It is the whole organisation, the experienced, highly educated and trained personnel, which goes to make up these things, and I believe they are in rather short supply in Russia.
    So, while we must not under-rate our enemy do not let us be frightened of him. Let us look at his weaknesses as well as his strength. This would not detract from the important defence function of long-distance attack. His bottleneck is in organisation; it is on the ground rather than in the air. Therefore, attacks on that bottleneck will show a bigger dividend than if he had an ordinarily balanced and controlled air force, and that makes it even more important to defend ourselves in that way.
    While emphasising the importance of the long-range bomber, I do not think it ought to be our function to produce that bomber. I profoundly disagree with the statement that we ought to have a balanced Air Force in Britain. I believe that Atlantic defence requires a balanced Air Force. By having a balanced Air Force in Italy, a balanced Air Force in Germany, and France and in Britain, and then balanced again in America, the whole defence force is unbalanced.
    We must conceive this as Atlantic defence and believe in Atlantic defence. We give lip service to it, but we find the most extraordinary attitude adopted towards it. For instance, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) attacked us the other day for not having produced atom bombs in Britain. If we think of Atlantic defence as a unit what could be more absurd than producing atom bombs in Britain? That is something that should be produced in the back areas, areas which are not subject to attack. I would say that that applied equally to the bomber.
    We have a forward area of defence. We in Britain are in that forward area. We have to have ready here what the Americans can make immediately available, and that, in my submission, is the short-range fighter, the fighter-bomber; planes like the Canberra. We also want to have ready and available bases equipped for the Americans from which their heavy bombers can operate. That
    324
    should be our contribution to the long-range bomber programme. The strategic planning of that area would put the long-range flank back across the Atlantic where it could develop in safety and where it is not vulnerable. That is where its bases should be, and this country should be its transit base in going to the attack.
    On the question of manufacture, the industrial organisation of this country has the result that we produce aeroplanes here. We have a potential for producing them here and we cannot afford to waste it. If we had ideal strategic planning we would not produce a single aeroplane in this country. They would be produced in the Americas where they would be out of range and very much safer. That is where we should put our essential production plants. The heavy propelled things would be built in America and this country would produce the sort of things difficult to transport here.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend a question?
    Mr. Paget: No, I am sorry but there is not time.
    Then there is the question of training. I am delighted that the Empire training scheme is going again. Training is something we want to get out of the forward area and I hope that all training can be distributed about the Empire. There is one other quite different point. A total of 270,000 men is a very heavy call upon the manpower budget of this country. I would suggest that everything possible should be done to reduce that call upon our manpower budget, because that is really much more important in the long run than any financial provision.
    So far as ground crews are concerned at any rate, National Service is totally unsatisfactory. It may be necessary, so far as air crews are concerned, to give an opportunity for alternative short training —two years may be enough—so as to have a reserve in the community. But so far as ground crews are concerned time wasted in training, and passing them out in the change-over means that one volunteer long-term man can, on the average, do as much as two National Service men. If we had all National Service men or all long-term men we could do with just half the number of long-term Service men. I

    325
    am glad to hear that the percentage has risen to 70 per cent, and I hope we can get it up to 100 per cent.
    On this point I wish to ask my right hon. Friend certain specific questions. I was glad he said that there is no colour bar operating in the Air Force. In the war we had a very large contribution from Jamaica. Is not it the fact that in the Air Force those coloured men from Jamaica proved every bit as good, on the average, as His Majesty's white subjects? Is not it also the fact they are now as welcome to join the Air Force as they were then? May we have an answer to that? I am told there are 10,000 of those men who were trained in the war on ground services now in Jamaica and that a large proportion of them are only too anxious to join up. Will my right hon. and learned Friend open a recruiting office in Jamaica to collect these men who are most anxious to join?
    Further, is it or is it not the fact that Jamaicans wishing to join the Royal Air Force have no transport at their disposal; that they cannot join in Jamaica and that there no provision is made to bring them over here to join when they wish to volunteer? May we be told whether this can be put right? The Royal Air Force, have no right to call upon the manpower of this country when they have available in Jamaica these trained personnel, who proved themselves under war conditions. These men did very well here. They went back to conditions of unemployment and poverty in Jamaica which are inconceivable in this country. Almost nothing was done for them. We owe them a debt and I hope that this matter may be brought into consideration.
    Special legislation, which has been continued periodically by Order in Council, enables the Royal Air Force to enlist foreigners. We have had admirable service from Poles and Czechs, who did extremely well in the R.A.F. As far as I can discover, that legislation expired on 10th December last. Has another Order in Council been made prolonging it and, if not, will one be made at once? It would be a great wrong to exclude these Poles and Czechs who were driven from their own country in the cause of liberty, and who have built up for themselves an honourable tradition in His Majesty's Royal Air Force. It would be shady to exclude them now.
    Mr. A. Henderson: If my hon. and learned Friend is referring to Czechs who have already served in the R.A.F., I can say now that those who have to flee their country are given facilities to come here and to rejoin the R.A.F.
    Mr. Paget: So the Act has been prolonged. There has been an Order in Council. I looked, but I could not find it. Does it also apply to their sons?
    Mr. Henderson: No, because they have not served in the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Paget: Will they be accepted as recruits? Many Poles who served in the R.A.F. have brought their families over here. There are among them young boys of admirable quality who are anxious to serve in the R.A.F. We are short of manpower. Why should not they be allowed to join? I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider this matter.

  TECHNICAL PERSONNEL
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, recognising the increasing complexity of Air Force equipment and the need for exceptional measures to achieve a high standard of operational efficiency, urges His Majesty's Government to give special attention to morale, technical ability and career prospects of officers and other ranks in the Royal Air Force."
  Those in the R.A.F. responsible for technical training realise perhaps better than most people the need, first of all, for a basic training in citizenship. They realise that war conditions, which none of us could help, and the evacuation of children affected the standard of the youth of this country. The concept of right and wrong has, for many of these young men, been replaced by a concept of expediency. For that reason, character training is becoming more than ever before the first essential. I want to deal with only one aspect. Unit activities alone build esprit de corps.A unit is an entity, and the only way in which a unit can express itself is by a parade. Units in the R.A.F. today are deprived, under present regulations, from expressing one necessary feeling, and that is the community of the spirit.

  327
  I am referring to the cancellation of compulsory church parades. At present church parades are confined to apprentices and boy entrants—except on special occasions, and Sunday is not a special occasion. I have read with great interest the debate which took place on 29th March, 1946, when the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), speaking on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, introduced an Amendment on this question. There was then, as there will be today, a sincere and honest conflict between the belief in the value of corporate attendance and the importance of freedom of personal religion and choice. The then Secretary of State did not accept the Amendment, but he caused a modification to be made in King's Regulations. That was five years ago.
  I think that many command A.O.C.s would like compulsory church attendance to be reintroduced. I should like to have it brought back, with due regard to weekend leave. I draw the attention of the Minister to an admirable article by the Bishop of Croydon in the "Church Times" of 16th February, in which he said:
  "Ninety-six per cent. of senior officers would like to see a return of compulsory Church attendance, shorn of its ceremonial parade. Padres are divided on this subject. Numbers at worship may be small today, but those who go are genuine and keen."
  I ask the Minister to examine this question. We have had five years under the present regulations and I should like him to consider whether those regulations met the needs of the hour—the need for a basic training in citizenship.
  I turn now to the new trade structure. Clearly, the new idea of pay for technical efficiency with, running parallel to it, pay for disciplinary authority is on the right lines. I have investigated this matter and I do not think that this structure is sufficiently well understood to give the greatest incentive to promotion. That remark applies particularly to new Regular entrants who sign for three years' service. For example, there is a very serious shortage of Regulars in important radio groups—ground radio signals, radio operator and especially radio engineer. There is a danger here. We are relying too much for safety, in all trades, on the National Service Act entry.
  328
  That entry is of a higher standard than the Regular entry. That is understandable. Therefore, it is understandable that the National Service man should take advantage of this excellent new trade structure. But the National Service entrant is in the Service for only two years, and that is the danger. I ask the Minister to take more energetic measures to explain the details and advantages of this new avenue of trade promotion to those who join the Service as Regulars, so that they can take the full benefit of it and give the country full advantage of this new trade structure.
  I come to the subject of officers. It is clear that this new trade structure has caused difficulties among technical officers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) raised this matter, and I wish to emphasise it. We are not achieving the required standard of officer. We in the Royal Air Force are falling behind the Army and the Royal Navy. We are not getting the right material. At present we are drawing, in the main, upon ex-aircrew and ex-apprentices who, in broad terms, are not the right material for the highly skilled technical officers that we require. Where are we to get them? There are few direct entrants from the universities, and it is as well to remember that.
  Will the Minister examine the field of recruitment, to see whether he is satisfied that he is learning from the experience of commerce and other Services? I would like him to examine all the sources from which these highly skilled officers can be drawn. For example, there are direct entrants from the universities, schools and technical colleges and from the General Duties and lower grade technical branches. I would like the Minister, if he thinks it is right, to lower the physical standard and not to allow it, or the fact that a man may not be able to afford to complete his education at the university or technical college, to stand in the way. Unless we get the right type of highly skilled technical officer in the R.A.F., the thoughts, plans and ideas of industry and science cannot be interpreted to the R.A.F., and, in the same way, the thoughts ideas and experience of the R.A.F. cannot be interpreted to industry and science.

  329
  Two types of officer are needed—a lower grade, with practical and specialist experience, who is drawn from the ranks after 10 or 15 years' service; and the high grade qualified engineer theorist, who is commissioned early in life and who has had instruction in these matters enabling him to qualify for technical posts in civil life, and who would qualify for membership of or recognition by professional institutes, so that, when he comes out of the Service, he will be sure to get a job and recognition for his training.
  I want to deal specifically and in a little more detail with the lower grade officer. Many hon. Members both on this side of the House and the other, when they knew that I was to move this Amendment, spoke to me about the difficulty of getting officers fully qualified to control all the men under them. I have taken a great deal of trouble to examine this question. There are approximately 52 R.A.F. technical trades, and it is hard for any officer to be fully conversant with the work of the men in these 52 trades. Again, although the need for specialists is very essential, there is another and equally essential need for a career, as I am sure the Minister will agree, and specialisation is against that, because as the rank rises so the scope must widen.
  The present situation, however, is not unsatisfactory. There are three sections —Armament, Signals and Engineering. The Armament grade includes a photographic officer, whether senior or junior, who has to control three other ranks with different trades, and has one senior n.c.o. If he happens to have charge of photography, then he has three other ranks whose work he is expected to understand.
  The Signals section is divided into two branches—radio ground and radio air. Radio ground has eight other rank trades, with four senior n.c.os. and three warrant officers. Radio air has four other rank trades, with three senior n.c.os. and three warrant officers, that is not unsatisfactory. Engineering Aircraft has seven other rank trades, four senior n.c.os. and four warrant officers. This branch includes Fabric with six other rank trades and one warrant officer which, I know, is satisfactory for this special trade. Engineering (Electrical and Instruments), has four other rank trades, with six senior n.c.os. and one warrant officer.
  330
  When one comes to the junior officer in the Engineer general trade, he has to know the trades of 11 workshop other ranks, six M.T. other ranks and six Marine other ranks. Therefore, he has to know the details of 23 trades. It is quite likely, of course, that not all these trades will be on the same station at the same time, but the officer would have to know the work in case they were. I would ask the Minister to examine whether there should not be some further specialisation in the engineering general type officer. I would suggest that the trade could be divided into two, and the junior officer should always be "workshops" but that he should be a specialist either for M.T. or Marine.
  Now, about the higher grade officer? He is a man who must be able to hold any position at all as an engineer officer. He needs to be a qualified engineer and to be capable of filling any post at all, and, to my mind, he needs to know as much as do the experts in industry about general principles, though not necessarily specific items of detail. His training should not be on the same basis as that of airmen and lower grade officers, but, if a division has to be made—and these qualified engineering officers are most necessary—I suggest that it should be, in accordance with the pattern of the human mind, Electrical and Mechanical, and not Armaments, Signals and Engineering.
  There is another point about technical training. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) raised a very interesting point. I think he thought he was speaking to the Amendment at the time. I would like to make two points. Equipment has become so complicated, and it changes so rapidly, that we have to ask ourselves whether we can possibly train men on all the types of equipment available. I ask the Minister to consider these matters. First, I know that standardisation is difficult, but we need the greatest possible standardisation. We should make the greatest use of jack in components—the least possible use of those that screw in. There should be the greatest possible use of sealed components, which can be easily replaced and on which it is decided that no training need be given.
  I come now to my last point, which concerns the W.R.A.F. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and

  331
  Leamington and the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth (Squadron Leader Kinghorn) both raised this question. The proportion of women in the Royal Air Force is astonishingly and alarmingly small. According to my figures, it is in the proportion of one in 20, whereas in 1944 we had one in five of the ground staff and in industry one in three. In these islands, as we discovered during the war, the problem of manpower is an acute one, and I am therefore very glad to know that the Air Ministry have adopted a one-for-one substitution and that they are not going back to the war proportion of three women for two men. Today, a woman is just as valuable in the defence of the country as a man, provided that she is used in the right job. I think the Minister has failed here. We should build up our Regular women's service to a much greater degree.
  The Minister said that a proportion of women were employed in the reporting system, at which women are better than men, but he did not say how many. I would like the Minister to re-examine entirely the methods of recruitment of women to the Royal Air Force. I would like to deal with the suitability of women in the Services from my own experience. They possess a degree of loyalty which is just as great as that of any other Royal Air Force personnel. They have an ability to do routine jobs, in my experience, better than the men, but in placing women in the Services one must also take into consideration what is against them.
  To begin with, anyone who has taught women a complicated operation knows that they learn quickly, but that they tend to learned like parrots and tend to forget almost equally quickly. That was the experience of the war. Secondly, they are mainly suitable for sedentary jobs. In jobs in which they have to move about, they are not so good as men. Thirdly, they are not good at technical work requiring emergency skill. They cannot deal with anything that goes wrong on the spur of the moment. Fourthly, they do not possess what one might term the quality of captaincy. A crew of women could, for example, sail a boat just as well as men but if a squall arose and there was no man on board, the whole crew would go to pieces. That was the ex-
  332
  perience of balloon command during the war.
  Therefore, in talking about the use of women in the Royal Air Force, one has to be realistic and base one's policy on their capacity. They are certainly better than men at plotting, and radar reporting, as clerks, G.D., telephonists, and medical and dental duties. It should be the duty of the Minister to see that women are established in those trades to as great a degree as possible. Women are good as men as M.T. drivers, and as Safety Equipment workers, no man can fold a parachute as well as a woman. They also make good as batmen, and at certain equipment jobs, and as cooks. In the jobs in which they are better than men, their strength should be raised to the limit after filling, as far as practicable, the trades in which they are better than men. Women are not so good as men in the trades requiring ingenuity, such as general mechanic, radar mechanic, radio mechanic, air frame mechanic, M.T. mechanic.
  In those trades in which it is decided that they are not as good as men, I would ask the Minister to make no establishment provision at all for women. There are plenty of jobs for which men are better than women. I am not saying that some women are not as good M.T. mechanics as men, but the percentage is so small that it does not justify their being trained or an establishment being provided for them.
  Lastly, the problem of women in the Forces is, as hon. Members on both sides have said, not one of morals, but of accommodation and lavatories. I would ask the Minister to revise his policy. I know that he must have regard to the home Royal Air Force Reserve and to the needs of mobilisation, but, having had regard to those two points, I would ask him to take steps to enrol every available woman into the Royal Air Force to the limit of the Women's Royal Air Force accommodation already available.
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I beg to second the Amendment.
  In doing so, I wish to rectify what I think is a misapprehension, or, perhaps an impression which might have been given to the House. I do not think my

  333
  hon. Friend wished to suggest that women were not good at improvising. I think he wished to submit that they were not so good in the highly technical trades. Those of us who during the last six years have seen our womenfolk improvise in the matter of food, fuel and "make-do-and-mend" would, I am sure, bear out the fact that in improvisation they are second to none.
  Before I turn to the question of technical manpower, I should like to deal shortly with the background with which such manpower will have to cope. In the last war, our fighter defences, which had almost a year of operational practice before they were put to the test, never succeeded in destroying more than 10 per cent. of an enemy attack. On any future occasion, that percentage will be totally unacceptable. The power of bombs has gready increased, and we shall have to intercept and destroy some 50 per cent. of the attacking aircraft before they reach our shores.
  That being the case, how are we to achieve it? I do not believe that we have paid nearly sufficient attention since the Brussels Pact was signed nearly three years ago to the co-ordination of our Air Forces and the control systems in Western Europe. I know there are many economic and other reasons why that co-ordination should be brought about. But today this House is discussing not that, but the question of getting defensive value for the large sums of money which are to be spent; and to get defensive value, cooperation and co-ordination are essential. I have absolutely no faith in the modern edition of the Little Englander who believes in "back behind the Channel and the Pyrenees." It may come to that; it may be necessary, but if we are forced into that position, our task of defending this island will be 20 or 30 times more difficult.
  In the foreseeable future, the efficiency of our air defence will fall with the number of attackers. I will illustrate that point. In the last war, both the American bomber forces and our own attempted to concentrate over the target as many as 1,000 aircraft in a period of 20 minutes. That was done for a very valid reason. It was done because a smaller number of aircraft could be intercepted with a fairly high percentage of planes destroyed, but when the defences were saturated, the
  334
  percentage destroyed was very much smaller.
  Our first task is to keep a potential enemy as far away as possible. In this particular instance we have a very good reason for doing that because the Russian Air Force, as we have heard today from hon. Members on both sides of the House, has 10 times as many tactical bombers as it has strategic bombers. Therefore, if we can keep them at arm's length, we are tactically reducing the scale of attack in the ratio of 10–1, and that is very worth while. Not only shall we thus reduce the scale of attack, but, with a co-ordinated defence in Western Europe, we can harry them over 600 miles in place of 10, 20, or, perhaps, 100 miles which might separate us if they were allowed to proceed to Western France. Therefore, the scale of attack can be reduced to 10–1 and we can harry and attack them, which we should need to do owing to the extra speeds, over 600 instead of 100 miles, so that the problem of air defence is perhaps simplified in the ratio of 50–1.
  Regarding the money we are to spend, there is one point which has been overlooked by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that is, what are we doing about the armament of our fighter defences? What armaments are these fighters going to carry? We have heard and read recently of German experts who say that at one time during the war the Germans were losing one Focke-Wulf 190 for every strategic bomber they shot down. We cannot afford that in the future. If we have 1,000 front line fighters and the Russians have 1,000 bombers in the first instance, we cannot afford to lose one for one, because at the end of that period we should be wide open for anything that might be brought against us. Therefore, I hope we are going to give the highest priority to the development of air-to-air weapons.
  What is being done about defence against guided missiles? It may be that we shall have to defend ourselves not against aircraft but against guided missiles. In that case there is nothing more important than to keep the potential launching platforms as far away from this country as is conceivably possible. Not only is accuracy going to decrease if we keep the platforms at arm's length but also the size of the V.2 or whatever the

  335
  weapon may be will grow to enormous proportions. In the last war there was a 70 tons weapon with a one ton war-head; and a 70 tons weapon is not difficult for our intelligence force to discover. That is where I come to the point so ably made from the back benches on this side today on the need to attack potential launching areas. It may be that it is not economical to attack the platforms themselves, but we shall have to pick out the railway bridges and lines of communication from the storage units to the potential launching sites.
  If we are to get value for money in our Defence Forces ought we not to proceed with greater haste with the co-ordination of the Western Europe defensive system? Three years have elapsed and we do not see very much evidence of progress. It might be said with reason that there is no specific reason why an attacking force should approach across Western Europe. That is a logical argument, but if we make it more difficult and make them approach from the north or from the north-west or even the west, we make the weight of the attack in bombs and aircraft against this country infinitely less. We should shut the front door first and perhaps then look to other defences in other areas.
  This Amendment seeks to draw attention to the vital importance of technical personnel in our defence scheme. Many of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to anti-submarine warfare. In each of these spheres, in bombing, fighting, photographic reconnaissance, the antisubmarine role and in home defence, the job of the technical personnel is absolutely vital. The performance and reliability of the engines of the aircraft which our pilots will fly depend upon the crews having confidence that the engineering personnel have done their job well. The performance and reliability of the radio when the aircraft is being guided to its target or brought back to its base again depends on the Signals personnel. The performance and reliability of radar which enables the fighter not only to be guided to its target but to find it and attack it when it is in the zone depends upon the squadron and ground radar personnel. The performance and reliability of the armaments when the fighter has found its target depends upon the armaments
  336
  personnel. So, in every sphere we are absolutely dependent upon the technical personnel being of the highest quality.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Browne) has so well covered the main matters that I shall only dot the i's and pick out a few salient points. After the war, the Royal Air Force realised the importance of this subject. The personnel was divided into a technical branch and a G.D. branch, and the technical officers specialised in signals, armaments and engineering. Unfortunately, we read in the Memorandum that accompanies these Estimates that the Royal Air Force has not succeeded in attracting the highest grade of technical personnel from the universities. I am sure all hon. Members would agree that in every sphere we want high ability and first-class leadership and so we want to bring these people to the Service.
  Mr. Tomney: While it is desirable that we should get recruitment of technical personnel from the universities, is it not much better in this specialised field of technical warfare that men should go to the factories and then to the universities?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I feel that is a little aside from the main argument. The universities particularly encourage practical work in the factories during the long vacations. I feel that strengthens my point.
  Mr. Tomney: We have had experience of this in industry. When these people come from the universities with theoretical knowledge which they have to apply in the workshops, they almost have to start all over again. That is why I think it' would be better to go to the workshop first, then to the university and then to the Royal Air Force.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is a course which I followed myself, and I think it stands one in good stead; but I do not think the Royal Air Force have the time to allow men to serve an apprenticeship in industry and then come back to the Royal Air Force for their training. It is desirable of course that they should gain experience.
  I wonder whether the Royal Air Force has drifted too far in separating the G.D. sheep from the technical goats. The G.D. officers used to take a long technical

  337
  course which we found in the last war made them eminently suitable for the higher staff duties and work in specialised spheres. Paragraph 26 of the Memorandum to the Air Estimates says:
  "Membership of university air squadrons, hitherto confined to candidates for pilot training, is being extended in some cases to include training as navigators and in certain other duties."
  Surely, what we want to do is to encourage our technicians and high-grade engineers to fly. We should not only allow them to fly but encourage them to do so. One of the great weaknesses is the fact that those people responsible for technical decisions may not have experience of flying themselves. There would be nothing that would strengthen that experience more than to encourage them to fly during university training. They might even join an operational squadron for a year before proceeding back to their specialised rÔle. If I might mention one name—we have heard many names mentioned during the debate—surely the great strength of Group Captain John Cunningham was that he had not only outstanding flying ability but also the trained brain and the inquiring mind behind it which made every lesson well learnt and well thought out.
  It is essential that technical officers of the R.A.F. should have close contact with industry. Speaking from the industrial side, I know that we would understand the problems much better if R.A.F. officers coming to us to order highly specialised equipment knew exactly what they wanted and how to make it, and also knew the flying side and the problem as applied in the operational sphere. As a secondary point, it would also be of great interest to those technical officers to get experience and knowledge of industry, because at the end of their period with the R.A.F. they may want to find jobs in industry.
  I am afraid that scientific staff officers will always be scarce, and I believe that at present they may be spread over too many Ministries and in too many jobs. As an instance, I take the Signals branch of the Air Ministry. There is a policy staff as part of the Air Staff who raise the operational requirement. It is then passed to the technical staff at another portion of the Air Ministry. It goes from the technical staff, is fashioned into shape and sent to the Ministry of Supply. The Ministry of Supply technicians, who are
  338
  all too scarce, go to industry to ask whether industry can develop the idea or not. In industry we come back with queries, saying, "We cannot develop what you want. May we make the operational requirement a little differently?" There is a long chain of command from the policy staff to the technical staff to the Ministry of Supply and then in reverse, with the result that industry finds it very difficult to know exactly what the R.A.F. wants in its operational squadrons, and also the urgency with which the various things are required. The procedure of placing a contract with industry from the moment it is raised as an operational requirement in the Air Ministry to the time it reaches a firm may take six months, so that not only is there a waste of technical personnel and technical man-hours, but also this awful waste of time.
  In this country we must use technical personnel as economically as possible. I have mentioned this before, but I should like to underline it now since visiting the United States. I do not believe we shall ever attract the highest possible grade of technicians with industrial experience into the Air Force except in the smallest numbers. I therefore wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not again consider recruiting technicians in uniform but without rank insignia to do attachments to the Service of perhaps one or two years. This practice has been widely followed in the United States Air Force. One company is supplying no fewer than 440 technicians, incidentally at an annual cost of five million dollars.
  This might be said to be expensive, but it achieves not only good liaison between industry and the operational units but also a very high degree of performance from the equipment, which is well maintained. It uses those civilian technicians to train the station personnel. At the end of their period of service those technicians go back to industry with experience of the operational conditions and those portions of equipment which break down, and they build their experience into the future marks of equipment designed for the Service. I think that on four scores that is a sound plan. I know it is expensive, but I believe it is worth while if we are to get industry to understand the Service and the Service to understand industry.
  Lastly, I want to dwell for a few moments on storage. Vote 4 G shows that there were 31,700 civilian employees,

  339
  and on page 125 of the second Report of the Select Committee on Estimates we see that the Air Ministry informed the Committee that there were 11,000 further Service personnel working on maintenance and stores. Vote 7 of the present Estimates shows that on materials and packaging we are to spend £2.1 million this year. Vote 8 shows that we are to spend another £1.8 million on storage services. This is a very large expenditure of money, men and materials, and it seems strange that the Air Ministry have not made use of the more modern methods developed in the States for protecting modern equipment. I refer particularly to the plastic protective coating, or cocoons as they are sometimes called. This method was developed in the States soon after 1944, and Air Ministry have had it under trial ever since.
  It is seven years since this was used operationally in the United States. All the big aircraft firms—Rolls Royce, Bristol, De Havillands, when carrying out civilian contracts or export contracts—use this method of packing. Why has the Air Ministry turned its face against it? The Admiralty use it. Why, therefore, have the Air Ministry and the War Office set their face against it? I notice incidentally that the Air Ministry, in rejecting this form of plastic covering, are using enormous steel containers for their jet engines, measuring 10 feet by six feet, and the weight of the steel container is almost equal to the weight of the engine. Surely that is a very important point when we may have to fly these engines to any part of the world to replace breakdowns. I ask the Air Ministry to look at this question again.
  On page 16 of the Select Committee's Report, an Air Ministry expert witness states that it take 1,400 technical man hours to overhaul a fighter plane after it has been in storage before it is sent to an operational squadron. Fourteen hundred man hours of technical time is an enormous expense to the country. At that rate, it takes three men working on a fighter plane 45 hours a week, 2½months. Are we sure that we shall have 2½ months before we need reinforcements for our operational squadrons? How does this compare with the Norwegian Air Force which has accepted this method? They had a Spitfire stored for two years. At the end of that period, they uncovered it in
  340
  less than one hour, and in less than two weeks that aircraft was flying, and all its technical equipment was found to be in excellent order.
  We are told that the Royal Air Force has now placed large orders. We see it in every Vote in the Estimates. There is always a chance that the defence which we are now building up may not be needed immediately and that we may have to keep this equipment. I hope that on this occasion we shall not see it sold in junk shops all over London and allow it to be squandered away in that manner, because every time it is renewed it seems to cost more. We see it wasted and sold at uneconomic prices in the shops; and although we are assured that it is not in good condition it would appear to many of us to be in quite excellent condition. So will the Air Ministry look into this question of storage?
  I come to my last argument on this issue. Can we afford to divert the building effort—bricks and manpower—to building expensive and permanent storage? Have we the fuel to provide permanent heating for these storage units? With this modern protective covering, it is possible to leave aircraft out in the open for five years, and, therefore, by its use we would not have to divert effort from vital defence projects or from the almost equally vital needs of those waiting for houses.
  Therefore, for the following reasons, I would ask the Air Ministry to re-examine these methods: it saves engineering manpower on overhauls and reconditioning; it keeps equipment in good condition and it may need to be kept for several years before we use it; it saves the need for expensive permanent buildings; it allows aircraft to be taken from storage units into squadrons in a matter of days instead of months, and it may be that the last is the most vital need in the defence of this country in the future. In the immediate future we cannot quickly increase our technical manpower, and it is, therefore, of the greatest importance that we should devise organisational methods by which we can make the optimum use of the technical manpower that at present exists in this country.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Both hon. Members who spoke in support of the Amendment have made extremely interesting speeches,

  341
  and have shown how many problems arise in connection with a technical force like the Royal Air Force. I listened with very great interest to what the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) had to say about the mothball system, or "cocooning" as we call it. He is quite right. It has been found very difficult by the Royal Air Force to come to a final decision whether or not it is worth it.
  I have personally visited stations where maintenance units have been experimenting with different methods of cocooning, and there seems to be a difference of opinion among the experts whether it is the right way to deal with the storage of aeroplanes. I am bound to say that I am not prepared at this moment to express a final opinion as to which school is correct. The hon. Member has made his point, as well as other points, as has the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Browne), and they will be carefully considered by my advisers.
  Perhaps it may be better for me to deal with the criticisms that have been made at this stage and not with the more constructive proposals, although I am not suggesting that what I am now dealing with is not constructive. The first point of the hon. Member for Govan was in regard to the trade structure. He argued that we did not seem to be putting it over so far as the Regulars are concerned, and he thought that emphasis was being placed on the appeal to the National Service men.
  Mr. Browne: My point was that the Regular does not seem fully to understand the new trade structure.
  Mr. Henderson: Having studied it carefully myself, I am not sure that I do. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no need to be quite so pessimistic. After all, this scheme has only been in operation since 1st January, and everything possible has been attempted by the Royal Air Force authorities by way of booklets and lectures at every station. The hon. Member, like myself, has served, and he will know perfectly well that it is not always easy to put something over to all the men in a particular unit. I am not going to say that it is a tremendously large number, but 6,000 Regulars have applied to re-engage in
  342
  the three months as a result of their appreciation of the advantages contained in the trade structure. While there is a long way to go before we are satisfied, that is not a bad beginning in three months.
  The hon. Member then referred to the question of technical officers. He suggested that we should examine all the sources of recruitment to see whether we could not improve the present position. I can tell him that the views and the misgivings he has expressed, as well as the suggestions he has made, are very much in tune with current thought in the Air Ministry, very largely as a result of the experience that the Royal Air Force officers concerned with this problem have had since the war.
  The basic problem of the technical branch is to improve the intake of fully qualified officers, and at the same time to provide an outlet to commissioned rank for the Regular airman tradesman. This is a problem to be considered not only in relation to the intake of possible technical officers of the future from the universities. I think experience has shown that some of the best technical officers the R.A.F. ever possessed came from men who started out as apprentices from Halton. The post-war scheme contemplated for university graduates with a full career as technical officers was that they should be university graduates with an honours degree in a technical subject. That is how they started off, but as has been said, that does not always deliver the goods, and consequently it is now accepted that that is not absolutely essential, and that the higher national certificate plus practical experience, such as is regarded by industry as an accepted standard for technicians, is also accepted for Royal Air Force purposes.
  Consequently we introduced last year a short service scheme for candidates from civil life with the qualifications to which I have referred, and these candidates were appointed to short service commissions for three, four or five years at their option, with a proportion of them able eventually to qualify for permanent commissions. The results of this new scheme so far have been most encouraging. Although the scheme has only been open for two or three months we have already accepted 25 candidates, and I am advised that there is every reason to sup-

  343
  pose it will prove a valuable course of recruitment for permanent officers.
  I said we wanted to provide an outlet to commissioned ranks for the best of our Regular tradesmen, technical airmen. The policy since the war has been to select such airmen for permanent commissions at the average age of 28 after they have served their apprenticeship and had some years' experience as tradesman. Then they were sent for a junior specialist course. That is the policy, with modifications, that we are adopting so as to secure a large a number of the best skilled and experienced men for careers as technical officers, and we draw a large number from the apprentices who go through our schools, many of whom have certainly proved their worth when given an opportunity.
  The hon. Member was concerned with the employment of more women in the Service. I listened very carefully to what he had to say, and he is entitled to his views and to place the responsibility on me. I notice, however, that in the many suggestions which he put forward there was none as to how we should get them.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Increase their pay.
  Mr. Henderson: The hon. and gallant Member says that we should increase their pay, but if we are going to do it for the women we will have to do it for the men. The policy in the R.A.F. is to employ women in peace-time in those duties and responsibilities which they would be required to do in time of war. Almost all the technical trade groups under the new trade system are open to airwomen. I think it was the hon. Member for Govan who suggested that certain trades should be closed to women. I am sure that we cannot get away with that in the 20th Century. We have made a basis of equal service for airmen and airwomen in the R.A.F., and the airwoman today is as much a member of the R.A.F. as the airman. It would be a very doubtful proposition to put to an airwoman.
  I should like to know what trades there are for which a woman is not fitted. I remember during the days of the Berlin Air Lift, when I was visiting stations in Germany, coming across members of the
  344
  W.R.A.F. as fitters and mechanics, and doing every conceivable job that one had thought were almost the monopoly of men. It would be very difficult, and I should not like to accept responsibility for it, to select this trade and that trade and say that this was suitable for women and that was not. We do not feel at this moment that we could consider barring any particular trade from women.
  Perhaps it is only right to add that there are certain activities requiring heavy manual labour which obviously, even today and under our rules, we would not ask women to undertake. It may be that the hon. Member was seeking to extend that idea rather than to do it on a basis of skill or lack of it.
  Mr. J. N. Browne: I should like the Minister to look at this point again. I still believe that there are certain trades in which it is wasteful to use women, and that it is to greater advantage to use women only in the trades for which they are best fitted.
  Mr. Henderson: There might be substance in that point. In so far as there is a shortage of women in the W.R.A.F. it is in the interests of the Royal Air Force to make the best use of them. It may be desirable to put them into certain trades where we are short of them rather than to spread them out more thinly over all the trades of the Royal Air Force.
  The other point to which the hon. Gentleman referred was the much more thorny subject of compulsory church parades and the need for improving the morale of the Royal Air Force by restoring them. The decision to abolish compulsory church parades was taken at the beginning of the last Parliament. It was not a party issue. Hon. and gallant Members on both sides—I think there were 200 of them—tabled an Amendment calling for the removal of compulsory attendance at church parade or religious service. The hon. Member has reminded us that the then Secretary of State for War promised that both the Army and the Royal Air Force would amend their regulations so as to accord with what was thought to be the view of the majority of the House of Commons.
  This was not a decision which was lightly taken. It has been reviewed by Ministers and Service authorities from time to time. I know that there is a

  345
  difference of opinion even among the Service authorities but, despite the many powerful arguments which might be adduced in favour of compulsory attendance at divine worship, I feel that the right course is to allow the individual, whether he be civilian or Service man. to worship in his own way and, as far as possible, in his own time. Certainly, I could not hold out any hope of a real likelihood at the moment of a reversal of the present policy.
  I promise the hon. Members for Govan and Hendon, North, that the other points in their speeches with which I have not dealt will receive the consideration for which they have asked.
  Mr. Browne: In view of the assurances given by the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. George Ward: To return to the Motion before the House, I want briefly to make two points on personnel matters which I believe to be important. This is the first Air Estimates debate since 1945 when it has not been necessary for the Opposition to make two of the main points which they have hammered at the Government year after year since the war. The first one was the need to attract more Regulars into the Service by increasing their pay, including flying pay, and the second was the need for a new trade structure in the Royal Air Force to improve the chances of promotion in certain trades. Both those things have been done.
  I am particularly pleased to see the improvement in recruiting which is already apparent and I am quite sure that after the new trade structure has been operating for a little while the balance of the Royal Air Force will be considerably better than it has been in the past. The Government are to be congratulated upon taking the advice of the Opposition and at last putting these matters right.
  There are still one or two matters which continue to give rise to a certain amount of anxiety. I believe that they even give rise to anxiety on the part of the Secretary of State for Air. In his speech he mentioned that he was still
  346
  anxious about deficiencies in skilled trades such as radar and wireless fitters, armourers, instrument repairers, and so on. I hope that the Under-Secretary, when he replies, will give us a little better idea of the actual position in those trades, and I hope that the Government will not hesitate to take any further steps which they may think necessary, in addition to the extra pay and the new trade structure, to attract people of the right type into these vitally important trades. Aircraft can be grounded, even though the whole over-all position is quite healthy, by lack of a few men in these trades. Although I understand from the Secretary of State that he is remustering certain people from overmanned trades to the undermanned ones, that does not meet the case unless he is certain of getting the right type of men in these highly skilled trades. It is no good remustering anybody; he must be the right type.
  These highly technical trades were, before the war, generally filled from ex-Halton apprentices, and a fine type of man they were. The Secretary of State has already paid a tribute to them. Paragraph 20 of the Memorandum states that the number of apprentices entering the Service is improving slightly, but the intake still falls far short of the large numbers needed. I find that worrying, too. It needs careful watching and the Government must make every effort not only to build up Halton to what it was before the war as regards quantity, but also in regard to quality, in order to try to restore to Halton apprentices the great prestige and reputation which they enjoyed in those days.
  I find it a matter for anxiety that the number of university graduates needed are not coming forward as officers. That, also, has been touched on by other speakers. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that the quality of the officers in the Royal Air Force can affect the quality of the entire Force. It is vital, therefore, to get the best type of officer. Before the war some of the best were provided by the universities. I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us later what steps the Government are taking, in conjunction with the university authorities to try to encourage some of these young men to make the Royal Air Force their career when they leave the university.

  347
  Paragraph 25 of the Memorandum says that:
  "The strength of the Royal Air Force reserves will increase rapidly with the influx of National Service officers and men who have completed their full-time service."
  I understand that will begin to make itself felt about next month. That is good, but it would be interesting to know exactly how many of these National Service men have volunteered to stay in in the Regular Air Force. It seems to me that the best way of attracting the right type of Regular officer and Service man is by giving him a taste of life in the Service and then, if he finds it good, letting him stay on voluntarily because he likes the life. But he has to find the life good, otherwise he will come out and will do the Service untold harm by what he tells his friends about the conditions he found there while he was doing his National Service.
  I think the Government would admit that there are far too many National Service men at the moment finding life in the Service unpleasant for reasons which could so easily be avoided. I want to read the House two short paragraphs from a letter from a Birmingham man whose son has started doing his National Service in the Royal Air Force. He says:
  "The flight, in which my son was included, were asked to state a number of trades which they desired to enter. They were also interviewed by an officer. Just before leaving Innesworth these 100 boys were informed of the "trades" they were being placed in and this resulted as follows: 20 messing orderlies (these are rough figures), 40 administrative orderlies (my son in this category) and the remainder in other trades. A party of seven, which included my son, from this flight were posted to R.A.F. Abingdon where the accommodation is so limited that it is almost impossible for a new comer to find room in any billet. These boys (administrative orderlies) are now being employed in the following manner: two as stokers (on shift work), two working in the sergeants' mess, two road sweeping, and my son gardening with a civilian at squadron headquarters. This kind of treatment is disgraceful and I should like to ask the Air Minister what incentive there is for young recruits to show enthusiasm for their National Service, and if he thinks it is likely that anyone would volunteer for further service no matter what inducements are offered in the way of pay."
  The Government are asking the House this evening to vote a very large sum of money indeed to strengthen our air defences. In spite of the great sacrifices which this will entail for every man, woman and child in the country, I have
  348
  no doubt whatever that the House will willingly vote this money if, and only if, it is satisfied that not one penny of it is to be wasted.
  Moreover, these young men are being asked to give up two years of their life at a time when every moment is precious, because they want to train themselves for their careers in civilian life. They will only give up these years willingly if they are certain that their time will not be wasted. But examples like that which I have just read to the House make the taxpayer wonder whether the money which he is being asked to find for strengthening our defences will not be wasted and whether it is all worth while in view of the time which the son of this correspondent, for instance, is wasting in kicking his heels about in the Service.
  I do not say that all the necessary chores which have to be done in every service should all be done by the Regulars and none by the National Service men. All I am saying—and the Government really must take action on this—is that the necessary chores should be fairly shared by the National Service man and the Regular alike. More important still, the National Service man should feel quite sure that he is doing no more than his fair share.
  Before leaving the question of personnel, I want to touch for a moment on the Air Training Corps, which has not had much comment this afternoon but which is extremely important. I find myself quite unable to share the optimism and even the complacency, of paragraph 28 of the Memorandum. Nor is it shared on page 35 of the Estimates, where it states:
  "The estimated average strength of the Air Training Corps in 1951–52 is 39,000, of whom 30,000 will probably be qualified cadets."
  Last year, however, the estimated average strength for 1950–51 was 45,000, of which 37,000 were to be qualified cadets.
  Why does paragraph 28 of the Memorandum say how wonderfully well the Air Cadet Corps are doing? The fact is that there has been a considerable falling off in the strength of the A.T.C. That is worrying, because so much depends on getting these boys air-minded and keen on the idea of the Air Force before they start their National Service. I am told that the reason for this falling

  349
  off in the strength of the A.T.C. is that they simply do not see enough of aeroplanes and of flying. Boys of that age join the A.T.C. because they want to have a look at aeroplanes and to fly in them. They get very disheartened if, year in and year out, they seldom, if ever, see an aeroplane.' The gliding which some of them do is not enough to keep them keen.
  The Memorandum speaks of 200 air scholarships. That is very good, but what about the rest of the 39,000 cadets? The most they can hope for is an occasional "flip" in the back of an Anson, of which, I understand, there are only 12 or 15 to cover the whole country. That is my information and I hope the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong. My information is that there are about 12 or 15 Ansons and a few Moths. There is nothing more boring in the world than sitting in the back of an Anson. Not only is it very boring, but what can possibly be learned about the technique of flying in the back of an Anson.
  What is needed to keep them keen and make them join is, I submit, practical demonstrations of flying in conjunction with the syllabus of the principles of flight so that boys can be given the chance of seeing the effect of the controls being worked by the pilot in the air at the same time as they are learning the effects of those controls in the theory of flight. I believe that would do a tremendous amount of good from the point of view of teaching them about flying, and it would also keep them keen.
  I believe it is the experience of most flying instructors that boys who have had a good grounding in the principles of flight and have had demonstrated to them the workings of the controls can be taught in about half the time when it comes actually to teaching them to fly. In building up our air defences full use should be made of the A.T.C, and I ask the Government to turn their attention to this and to stop this decrease in the numbers which has taken place in the last 12 months.
  Turning from personnel to equipment, I will not say very much because so much has been said on it by previous speakers, but I would like to put on record my view that the key to the whole question is production. The emphasis must be
  350
  on production. The time has come when we must get the aircraft ordered and coming out of the factory and we have to make sure that the vital raw materials are provided. That is a headache from which the Government are already suffering, but it is essential that the raw materials should be there, and that the machine tools should be there, even if they cost us precious dollars to provide them. We must sweep aside administrative difficulties and restrictions and get the aircraft built and into the squadrons as quickly as possible. Speed is essential in this matter, because time must be against us.
  For much too long, in my view, we have been telling ourselves, our friends and the people of the country that the Royal Air Force is the finest in the world and that British aeroplanes are better than those of anyone else. That is true and I do not deny it, but when people go to Farnborough, to the Royal Air Force Display, or the S.B.A.C. display, and see a wonderful aeroplane performing miracles of flying skill, they do not realise that the aeroplane they are looking at is the only one of its type in existence. It is high time that while we say in one breath that the Air Force is really wonderful because it flies better than anyone else, and our designers are better than anyone else, we should realise that we have only one of a particular type of aircraft and that we must do something about it.
  I share the confidence in the aircraft industry which the Secretary of State and everyone in the House has, but let us face one unpleasant fact—it will not do us any harm. We were told after the war that the reason we had to buy air liners from the United States and Canada at the cost of precious dollars was because we had put all our skill and resources into the building of fighters and bombers during the war, to the neglect of our transport aircraft industry. That was very understandable, and I supported the Government in their purchase of Canadian aircraft.
  But what is the position today? Not only are our airlines equipped with American aeroplanes, but we are also having to use American bombers and now American fighters as well, and that is not a very creditable thing. Surely it is time we stopped relying on the Americans to

  351
  give us transport planes and bombers and fighters and started to produce one or the other ourselves. The British aircraft industry is quite capable of making aeroplanes, but they simply have not had the orders from the Government.
  Anyone who listened this afternoon to the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) must have had brought home to him the realities of the situation and a sense of urgency and the fact that there cannot be any doubt as to the danger facing this country. But it is not the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick who ought to be doing that. It is the Secretary of State for Air who should be instilling into us that sense of urgency, emphasising the dangers which confront us and telling us what he is going to do about it.
  What happened? The right hon. Gentleman produced, to go with the Estimates, a Memorandum which is a mass of complacency, a mass of vague phrases which tell us nothing. References are made to "increases," and to "more substantial increases" and" in due course "and" substantial increases." They mean absolutely nothing. It leads one to think "Everything is perfectly all right. There is really nothing to worry about. It is very silly to ask us to pay this money to strengthen our defences when we do not need it at all, because everything is quite all right." That is very misleading indeed.
  The Government must make up their minds now to tell the public the truth in this matter. It is their duty to bring home to the public the dangers which confront them as it has been brought home to us from our back benches this afternoon. It is our experience that if we tell the people the truth they will take it quite cheerfully, but they do not like to be deceived by woolly phrases such as those contained in this Memorandum. If we tell them the truth they will react as they did in the war and it is time the Government did that. The sooner that is done the better it will be, not only for the Royal Air Force but for the country as a whole.
  9.18 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I agree with the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) when he says that what
  352
  the country wants is the truth. I also agree with his tribute to the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas). The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick drew an alarming picture of a huge efficient Soviet air force with wonderful jet bombers, wonderful fighters which are ever so much faster and ever so much superior to those produced in capitalist Britain under private enterprise. I wondered how all these wonderful aeroplanes were produced and if the production in Communist countries the other side of the Iron Curtain is not more efficient than production in Britain. I submit that if the picture drawn by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick is in any way correct, we ought to revise our opinions and the best thing to do would be to nationalise our aircraft factories immediately without compensation.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Surely, the hon. Gentleman would admit that his own Government sold 52 British jet engines to Soviet Russia?
  Mr. Hughes: I admit that the Government have not done as many wise things as they would have done if they had taken my advice on many occasions. If Soviet industry has succeeded in producing this wonderful air fleet it must have reached a very high level of technique, efficiency and production. If on the other side of the Iron Curtain there has been this amazing piece of industrial initiative and incentive, we may yet have a lot to learn from the Soviet Union which has been so much maligned and regarded as inefficient and hopeless from the point of view of industrial production. I know that hon. Gentlemen have said that German brains were responsible. Even if we admit that the Germans taught the Russians the technique of aircraft production, it is still obvious that an immense amount of industrial production has been carried out in State-owned factories.
  Tonight we are asked to provide a sum of £328,750,000, which is £105,750,000 more than last year. I agree that we are entitled to demand that this money should be wisely spent. If we spend over £328 million we are justified in demanding a clear statement that we shall have a greater measure of national security. I believe that, as these Air Estimates go by, we are getting less security than ever before. I am fortified in that contention

  353
  by the argument put forward in this House by the Leader of the Opposition in the Defence debate.
  The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) expressed great satisfaction at the fact that the Americans were over here to protect us. I feel no satisfaction at all about that. I believe that the more we make this country an air base for the operation of American atom bombers, which are presumably to leave this country to destroy the industrial production of Russia, the more dangerous we make this country. That was the argument of the Leader of the Opposition who said in the Defence debate:
  "We must not forget that by creating the American atomic base in East Anglia we have made ourselves a target, and perhaps the bull's eye, of a Soviet attack."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 632.]
  That is what this country has become as the result of being the base for American operations. What a fate for this great country of Great Britain to be regarded as a bull's eye. That is precisely the danger. The Leader of the Opposition recognised this in a speech last year when he said:
  "If, for instance, the United States had a stock-pile of 1,000 atomic bombs—I use the figure as an illustration merely; I have no knowledge of any sort or kind of what they have—and Russia had 50, and we got those 50, fearful experiences, far beyond anything we have ever endured, would be our lot."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1950; Vol. 473, c. 201.]
  I believe that that is the realist estimate of the position. As a result of our becoming a base for possible American operations in war against Russia, the Russians will regard us as a target that must be destroyed, and that was the danger which the Leader of the Opposition outlined to us in the defence debate.
  I submit that today we have heard nothing relevant to the grave danger inherent in that situation, for which the Leader of the Opposition had no remedy either. He went on to argue that we needed atomic bomb plants in this country, which I assume means more targets, more bulls' eyes, more potential threats to Russia, and would be regarded by the Russians as a greater incentive for them to attack us. I presume that, if we knew where the atomic bomb bases of the U.S.S.R. were, if we knew the location of the production plants behind the Iron
  354
  Curtain for producing aeroplanes and atomic bombs, it would be our strategy for the Royal Air Force in this country and American aeroplanes as well to bomb those bases and those production plants.
  I submit that the Leader of the Opposition was absolutely correct in seeing this frightful peril to the people of this country, because we are not a huge country like the United States or the U.S.S.R., with their centres of production scattered over thousands of square miles. We are a highly concentrated industrial area, and if we have 50 Hiroshimas or Nagasakis in this country, I presume that all the present ideas of strategy would simply be wiped out.
  Spokesmen for the Opposition have quoted Lord Trenchard, and have argued that he is one of our great authorities on modern air warfare. It was Lord Trenchard who was asked two years ago how many millions of a nation's men would have to be destroyed before peace could be assured, and he replied:
  "Is there any doubt in any man's mind-that the atomic bomb today could probably destroy over 10 million and up to 20 million people in a month?"
  Mr. Speaker: We are discussing the Royal Air Force, and not the atomic bomb. The hon. Gentleman must come back to the Estimates.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I submit that it was argued in this debate that the purpose of the Royal Air Force is to defend us from attacks from other countries, and I submit that we are justified in believing that aeroplanes from other countries would presumably drop atom bombs on us. I submit that the atom bomb will be brought by enemy aircraft, and so I argue that we are entitled to take this into consideration. The very fact that Lord Trenchard used this argument in another place seems to me to make it relevant to this debate. In another place, at another time, Lord Trenchard said:
  "I am not over-estimating; nor am I try ing to be unnecessarily brutal, I say that a nation which lost that amount of manpower in such a short period could not exist, and would have to submit."
  The point was cleared up by one of our great military writers, Captain Liddell Hart, who, in his book "The Defence of the West," outlined the kind of war that will have to be faced and the possible effects of combat between the air forces

  355
  of the world. Captain Liddell Hart takes up what Lord Trenchard said, and, in his chapter dealing with aerial warfare, says:
  "Lord Trenchard's estimate of the probable casualties was reasonable. His conclusion as to the effect in compelling a country's submission is questionable as applied to Russia. Even 20 million dead would be a small fraction of her population. Moreover, that figure might not be attained as Russia's cities are relatively few and widely scattered. On the other hand, his conclusion applies only too clearly to the congested cities of Western Europe. A scale of 20 million killed would wipe out half the population of England or France, and the whole population of Belgium and Holland combined."
  That is the estimate, not of an anti-war writer, but of a gentleman who is recognised as being one of our greatest military authorities.
  He also poses this question:
  "In these awkward circumstances, it seems a trifle muddle-headed, to put it mildly, for anyone to advocate that we should start the throwing of atom bombs, if war began in a more old-fashioned way. It would be the most madly up-to-date version of the proverb that 'Those who live in glass-houses should not throw stones.'"
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is discussing the use of the atom bomb. That is not the subject under discussion now. We are discussing the Royal Air Force, and not the use of the atom bomb.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I always assumed that the atom bomb would be delivered by an aeroplane. I will leave it at that. All I will say is that when Lord Trenchard was speaking in this way, he was arguing in a debate on the Royal Air Force in another place, but I presume that this House is more realistic than that.
  The following is what Captain Liddell-Hart says about the dropping of bombs from possible Russian aircraft:
  "If American leaders wish to start chucking stones about, ours would be wiser to restrain them, and if any of our leaders favour it, they would appear qualified for being put under restraint in a padded cell."
  That is a very commonsense indictment of the present policy of spending £380 million this year on the Royal Air Force, because nobody has yet replied to the question I once put to an hon. and gallant Member opposite asking what aeroplanes can stop what are called guided missiles.
  356
  In what way is there any protection at all from rockets? We have not had that subject discussed in this debate today, and, therefore, I believe that a great deal of the debate has been unrealistic.
  I challenge the whole assumption that £380 million spent in this way is going to give protection to the industrial populations of Liverpool, the Midlands, the North or the industrial areas of Glasgow. We have had no real information in the speech made by the Secretary of State for Air today. I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to enlighten me about the cost of one of these Canberra bombers. He looked at me in a pained way, almost as though I had asked him an indecent question. Are we not entitled to know the cost of some of these machines? The Under-Secretary of State for Air knows the cost, because, before he went into office, he told us that one of these modern bombers cost £230,000 at that time. What would it cost today?
  We have seen these Estimates mount up to astronomical figures and if another war comes I believe that as a result of this expenditure the people of this country and of London will be less safe than the people of Ireland who have no air force at all. Our ways of thinking will have to be changed. We are not getting protection, we are not getting security for the people of this country by this gigantic expenditure, and this point of view should be stressed, and stressed by hon. Members' in this House.
  9.35 p.m.
  Mr. Perkins: I hope that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his interesting discourse on air tactics, on which he is obviously a great expert. I want to have a row with the Secretary of State for Air, but before that I should like to thank the Secretary of State for meeting me more than half way last year by withdrawing his opposition to the safety lines for civil aircraft in the air. I much appreciate the way he has withdrawn opposition to this scheme and has allowed it to go forward.
  I want to raise the whole question of the training of Royal Air Force reservists. I accuse the Ministry of attempting to train these reservists with cheap labour.

  357
  I am a vice-president of a trade union, the British Airline Pilots' Association. It is an odd trade union. It is affiliated to the T.U.C. and it has as its president the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon. I started this trade union many years ago and my information comes from it.
  I am informed that instructors employed at Reserve flying schools, for which the Secretary of State must take responsibility as he does the paying, were paid a salary of approximately £600 a year, plus flying pay, plus bonuses, before the war. On the average an instructor would probably earn between £750 and £1,000 at that time. It is impossible to give exact figures, because they vary from school to school, but I am told that today these men earn less than that. In fact, they are earning only about £600 a year. They have a very low insurance and there is no bonus scheme.
  Mr. James Hudson: Then what is the good of a trade union?
  Mr. Perkins: That is the point. I am glad the hon. Member has brought that up, because it is the point to which I was coming. I am not accusing the Secretary of State of employing sweated labour, but I am accusing him of trying to get training done on the cheap. He will say, "Ah, but we always insist on a fair wages clause." That is quite true. Every Air Ministry contract has a fair wages clause in it, but unless there is an agreed rate for the job that fair wages clause is absolutely meaningless. That is what is happening today. These men are getting far less than they were getting before the war and they are very unhappy.
  When he issues contracts the Secretary of State has the power to lay down a minimum standard of life for these pilots. If he would give contracts only on that understanding the pilots would be happy. They would get the kind of wages they had before the war and there would be contentment and happiness in this industry. I appeal to the Secretary of State to see whether he cannot use that power and settle this dispute.
  If he cannot settle the dispute it will have to go to an industrial court. Some time ago my Association took the B.O.A.C. and the Ministry of Civil Aviation, who are responsible for the Corporation, into an industrial court to have another matter settled. We shall
  358
  not hesitate to take the Secretary of State for Air, with his chosen instrument, to the industrial court to obtain a settlement, but I believe that this matter can be settled round the table without the fuss and paraphernalia of going into an industrial court. If only he will take the initiative and ask the pilots' trade union to meet him at a round table conference this matter would be settled in half an hour. I appeal to him to see what he can do, and to ask us to meet him so that we can get a settlement.
  My second point is, I am afraid, highly controversial and raises the whole question of Coastal Command. The importance of Coastal Command is not, I believe, realised by the people of this country. I am certain that it is not realised by the Air Ministry, who regard it as a sideline, as a kind of unwanted child. On 10th June, 1945, the Admiralty issued a statement giving the total number of U-boats sunk during the war. Out of a total of 781 U-boats sunk, 284 were sunk by warships or mines, 413 were sunk by bombing or aircraft attack, or aircraft attack working with warships, and 83 were sunk from other causes. In other words, over 400 were sunk by aircraft or warships working in conjunction with aircraft, and it must be obvious to anyone that the aircraft is a far greater danger to the submarine than the battleship.
  What is the position of Coastal Command today? Is it any better than it was in 1939? In 1939 I was called away from this House as a humble sergeant pilot to fly Tiger Moths to look for submarines in the approaches to the Clyde. We were unarmed; we had nothing but Verey pistols; we had these obsolete aircraft because Coastal Command had nothing else, and we could but go 90 miles out to sea and 90 miles back again. What is the position today? Is it any better than that? I believe that it is far worse than it was then. How many operational aircraft are there today in Coastal Command?
  I know the answer, but I cannot tell the House, nor can the Under-Secretary. Is it 50? Is it 20? The hon. Gentleman will say, "We are going to double it. We are increasing it by 100 per cent." But twice "nowt" is "nowt." These percentage increases are valueless unless we know the basis upon which

  359
  they are calculated. I believe that the Air Ministry are guilty of gross neglect on the whole question of Coastal Command. The position of Coastal Command today is, I believe, extremely grim, and the only thing to do is to take it away from the Air Ministry and to give it to the Admiralty, together with the three flying-boats which were handed to them yesterday.
  Thirdly, I refer to the whole question of the defence of England. On the Air Estimates of 15 or 16 years ago the late Lord Baldwin, speaking from that Box when he was Prime Minister, stated that the bomber will aways get through. That statement was true then, but it is ten thousand times truer today, with the high speed of bombers and the development of modern rockets. There are only three ways in which we can protect our country from hostile attack. The first two, the fighter aircraft and the anti-aircraft defences, are both defensive and are both becoming obsolete. I believe that they are obsolete today, and that that is the reason why the Air Ministry have not ordered a single swept-wing fighter. I agree that these defensive arrangements of the fighter aircraft and the anti-aircraft defences will destroy a lot of enemy aircraft coming over this country, but they will never stop them coming.
  I think that a fair analogy is that of a wasps nest in one's garden. All the jam pots in the kitchen put together and full of water, with honey round the rims, will kill an immense number of wasps, but they will never stop the wasps from coming. The only way to stop them from coming is to burn out the nest. I believe that fighters and anti-aircraft defence are becoming obsolescent, and I believe that there are only two ways in which we can ensure the safety of our country. I believe that we must attack the bombers in their nests, in their breeding grounds—in their factories and on their launching bases. The only hope of preventing the wholesale bombing of this country is to blow them up before they can get through. That being so, I welcome the statement made on behalf of the Government a fortnight ago that we are to have a four-engined jet long-range bomber. I welcome that; that is grand. But can the Secretary of State tell us when we are going to get it, how many we are to get and when they will be in the squadrons?
  360
  Lastly, the third method of defending our country was touched on by an hon. Member opposite. It is a dangerous subject to talk about—one of the things which we must not mention—the whole question of rockets and rocket defence. I observed in the "Illustrated London News" of a fortnight ago that the Government are hard at work producing a defensive type of rocket that will seek out and destroy at long range and great altitudes enemy bombers coming to this country. I am not going to ask the hon. Gentleman for detailed information, but I think that we can fairly ask him this: Is he satisfied with the present progress of rocket defence? If he says, "Yes," then, so far as I am concerned, I am satisfied, but I ask him that question.
  I think that the House is entitled to a broad statement as to whether the Government are satisfied with these rockets which are to search out and destroy the enemy. I believe, that the only hope of defending our country lies not in fighters, not in anti-aircraft defence, but in a combination of the long-range bomber to destroy the enemy nests and breeding grounds, and ultimately the rockets which will pick up the odd machine which escapes the bombers.
  9.48 p.m.
  Mr. Lionel Heald: I would ask the House to concentrate its attention for a few minutes on a subject which has already been mentioned, but which has not been dealt with quite completely. It is the subject of the Air Training Corps, on which, I am glad to say, I know there is complete agreement in principle between hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  It may be said that simply in terms of money the expenditure on the A.T.C. represents only a tiny fraction of the huge total of the Estimates, and so, indeed, it does—less than £300,000 out of a total of £300 million—but I think that the A.T.C. has a value both strategic and moral out of all proportion to the actual cost. I believe that view is shared by hon. Members in all parts of the House, particularly those who had, as I had, the honour of serving in the Royal Air Force during the war, and seeing the results there of the Air Training Corps.
  We all know what the A.T.C. did during the war in providing 50,000 air crew

  361
  and collecting over 500 decorations of all kinds, including the Victoria Cross. But the important point, in my opinion, is that the A.T.C. did not spring fully-armed out of the head of the Secretary of State in February, 1941. It was based on the foundation of no fewer than 200 squadrons of the Air Defence Cadet Corps which started before Munich as a voluntary and entirely private enterprise organisation.
  The moral of that is surely this: We must start in plenty of time. We must start years ahead. It was the work done in 1938 and 1939 by the Air Defence Cadet Corps that was responsible for our ability to develop so quickly during the war, when there was built up very soon a body of 200,000 cadets and no fewer than 30,000 officers and instructors. I suggest that the same thing holds good today, if we are to have the necessary potential strength to deal with the real possibility of war in the years immediately ahead.
  That is the background against which we must regard the Estimates and we do so in the light of the Memorandum, which tells us two things. It tells us, in the first place, that the Estimates as a whole are to be increased by no less than £100 million, based on the £3,600 million programme, which is only the first instalment. In the second place, we are told that the
  "build-up and support of this expanded force requires a big increase in the supporting training organisation,"
  and, in paragraph 16, that there is a real shortage of pilots today. Therefore, one turns to the Estimates to see how the A.T.C, again and again described during past years by successive Secretaries of State as an essential ingredient in the training organisation, is to be expanded. What do we find? We find to our astonishment, that there is to be a net increase of £2,000 only in the provision for the A.T.C. and the R.A.F. component of the Combined Cadet Force—from £265,000 to £267,000.
  The first question I should like to put, and I do so in no spirit of hostility but with real sincerity and anxiety, is whether the right hon. Gentleman can seriously contend that this will enable the A.T.C. to meet the needs of 1953 and 1954, assuming, as we are bound to assume, that we may be in the middle of a war
  362
  by then. When we find that there is relatively no increase contemplated in the activities of the A.T.C. we cannot help wondering if the Air Ministry has really adjusted its horizon to the realities of today, remembering that last year all the emphasis was on economy and that the Estimates for the A.T.C. must have been cut to the bone.
  Can the Secretary of State really assure the House that he has given proper scope to the function that the A.T.C. ought to perform? No doubt, a year ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the man with the big stick and it was necessary to treat him with very great respect. He may well be entitled to be treated with respect today, but I suggest that perhaps a rather firmer attitude with him might be possible. Can the House be assured that the provision for the A.T.C. is adequate, and if not will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider the matter?
  My second question is more specific, although to the same purpose. It relates to the measures already taken and to be taken to improve the quality of the Corps, and to attract the best material which, as the Memorandum says, is so desirable. After the war, we know that the A.T.C. fell off badly. Its numbers went down very much, and I am afraid that we must admit that its quality went off also. I am sure that all those concerned with A.T.C. would wish to acknowledge that in the beginning of 1950 the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary took energetic and successful steps to improve morale by paying a number of personal visits to squadrons and conferences with the local A.T.C. committees. I should like to acknowledge that this had a good effect.
  I think it was evident to them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) has pointed out, that the most effective factor in the encouragement of the young is that they should be able to see the possibility in the A.T.C. of being able to fly and not merely to be passengers. Every department in the A.T.C. in important—drill, discipline, up to aero-dynamics—but there is nothing at all to compare in effect with the actual experience of learning to fly. For some years past there has been limited opportunity, and complaints have been made

  363
  that the opportunity was so limited, for young men in the A.T.C. actually to learn to fly aircraft. Last year was introduced this scheme, which is called "the scholarship scheme" and is quite different from anything that has ever been known before. It showed imagination worthy of those who deal with the air. It is referred to in paragraph 28 of the Memorandum. It is there made clear that these young men get serious training. That is done through the civil flying clubs, and I believe that the House will have been delighted, although not surprised, to hear today that the scheme has proved to be an immense success.
  I am not going to do more now, and it would not be polite or fair to do more, than refer to the fact that, a year ago, the Under-Secretary of State made a statement in this House to the effect that the training which could be produced under this scheme was not of real practical use to the Royal Air Force. It is in column 1917 of HANSARD for 21st March, 1950. I am sure that that statement was made on information which the Minister had received, and I am certain that he would like to have the opportunity this evening of telling the House that that training has turned out to be extremely useful and successful.
  One of the great things about this scheme is that R.A.F. officers of all ranks, not only senior officers but those at squadron level who may be even more important in this matter, acknowledge that the boys who go through this course actually learn something worth while. The boys pass through their training in record time. I am told that there has hardly been a single case where the boys have not been selected by the Air Crew Selection Board to be pilots.
  In regard to the air training scheme, many of us have read with nothing short of dismay the reference to this matter in the Memorandum. It states that it is intended in 1951 to train a number similar to that trained in 1950. Considering that in 1950 the scheme did not start operating till July—according to an answer which I had in the House, in June last, at that time the training had not started, but it was hoped to begin it the next month—and the fact that 200 young men had been put into training in six months, to be told, as we have now been told
  364
  today, that only 250 are to be trained this year, is very saddening.
  I hope that we may hear from the Minister that something better will be done. Remembering that the scheme was experimental, that it was undertaken before the Korean crisis, and that it has only operated for six months, how can it be right, if it is such a good thing, that we are only getting the same number as in 1951? It should be double that number, and I would suggest that the target should really be 750.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman should consider this matter with the greatest possible care. There is nothing more encouraging to these young men than the opportunity of flying. It is producing a magnificent esprit de corps.I met one lad the other day at an airfield. He had been through the course already and was proving a tremendous success. There was another boy there and he had been told that he could not have one of these scholarships because there were not enough to go round. That is not what we expect. From all sides of the House we ought to urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider the matter and see whether he cannot now expand the A.T.C, when it is so badly needed. We should produce a plan worthy of the corps and of the elder brothers of these boys who are now in the Royal Air Force and worthy of the tremendous possibilities of the situation.
  10.2 p.m.
  Air Commodore Harvey: We have had a very interesting debate, but it would have been of greater interest if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air had told us a little more about what he intends to do with the expansion of the Royal Air Force. I recognise that in an emergency such as we have at this present time his security officers advise him what he ought to say, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman, after all, is in charge of the Royal Air Force. He is elected to Parliament and he holds his high office by the will of the people, who expect to know something more than they have been told today.
  We have had many interesting and forceful speeches from back bench Members. One hon. Member I should like particularly to congratulate is my hon.

  365
  Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas). We served together in the war and I know he led his fighter wing very well. The House will agree with me that he made his speech tonight with the same standard of efficiency. He got straight to the point, and obviously he had taken tremendous trouble in getting the information which the House was pleased to hear, though it was depressing in detail. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who opened the debate, is appreciated by the Royal Air Force, and particularly by No. 500 Squadron of the county of Kent, of which he is hon. Air Commodore. He made many references to the Auxiliary Air Force, about which we shall hear from the Under-Secretary of State when he replies.
  This year the Air Estimates debate took a rather different line, because the Minister of Defence the week before last said that the Air Force was to have priority over the other two Services. That is quite right and proper. I am not belittling the efforts of the other two Services, because all of us interested in these matters want to see the three Services so far as is possible become one force. By so doing they will be more effective. Should a third world war be forced upon us we shall have no comfortable margin for error. There may not be even the time to change our plans, as happened in the first nine or ten months of the 1939– but we must have a strategy with our Allies geared to global command of the air. It is generally recognised that today the air is the most efficient medium through which to overcome geography and carry the war directly to the enemy.
  Reference has been made to the letters and speeches of Viscount Trenchard and it should be remembered that if it had not been for him and his work 30 years ago we should not have had an Air Force. He fought a battle for an independent Air Force with the generals who intended to combine it with the Army. We should thank him that we have an Air Force at all. There is no doubt at all that the Air Force today is our prime military force. I do not belittle the other Services at all, but the Royal Air Force is our first line of defence. Whatever may happen afterwards, the immediate safety of Britain
  366
  depends entirely on the efficiency and strength of the Royal Air Force.
  Three or four years ago the Secretary of State for Air told us that the morale of the Royal Air Force was not as good as it might be, but today he has told us that the morale is good. We are very pleased indeed to hear it. All of us who have associations with the Royal Air Force are satisfied that something has come back into that Service which disappeared, for a short period at any rate, after the war. But, if the Royal Air Force had to wage war during the next 12 months, I do not believe that it has operational units in sufficient number to carry out that role. If it has not, it is far better for us to realise that we must get busy, have a sense of urgency and scrape the barrel and get together what we can, and not utter all these platitudes and cliches about considerable quantities" and all the things that may happen in two, three or four years' time.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us very little, but I noticed that he told us that 44 Vampires had flown to the Far East. We read that in yesterday's newspapers. I was a little surprised how it got into the newspapers. The Chief of Air Staff was congratulating the Commander-in-Chief of Bomber Command on ferrying these machines out to the Far East. It has told any potential enemies of ours exactly how many jet fighters we have in the Far East, and yet we are not allowed to know how many we have in the home Command.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Perhaps I might explain to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the 44 Vampires were routed through an airport in a foreign country—through Mingaladon in Burma. It is obvious that we cannot keep secret the fact that 44 aeroplanes land at a foreign airport and go on somewhere else.
  Air Commodore Harvey: I also recognise that members of the Russian Embassy can drive their cars anywhere in these islands and can count the aircraft on the airfields, and also the radar stations. It makes no sense that this House and the people of Britain, who pay for the Royal Air Force, should know so little about it.
  I believe that there must be a change commensurate with the situation. As I see it, there are two considerations, a short-term one and a long-term one. To

  367
  deal first with the short-term consideration, it is obvious that at the moment there is a shortage of practically all aircraft and almost all equipment. This is the penalty for lack of foresight and, to some extent, neglect in the last three or four years. It is not as if money has not been voted for these things. Money has been voted, and I cannot understand where it has gone in the last 5½years.
  A lot of equipment was left over at the end of the war. Spitfires and other aircraft were melted down on the airfields for scrap. Such aircraft would today be most useful for towing targets, training and many other purposes for which we have now to look around for aircraft. I should be glad if the Under-Secretary would tell us if everything is being done to improvise for the immediate future. By that I mean: Are old aircraft being brought out of storage? They may be eight or nine years old, but, no matter how old they are, they are better than nothing at all. We are told that, with the Royal Navy, and Coastal Command has a great problem in conducting antisubmarine warfare. Should we unfortunately have a war, performance is important, but I suggest that in Coastal Command it is perhaps not quite so important as in other commands, and that there are Lancasters and other aircraft which could be overhauled and brought into use, at least for training aircrews in carrying out the role of detecting submarines.
  An hon. Gentleman opposite referred to the Shackleton aircraft. I thought he was a little unkind when he said it was a rehash of the Lincoln. Of course, when a follow-on type is produced every aeroplane is an improvement on the previous design. We do not, as a rule, build a new aeroplane out of the blue. It would be unfortunate if this got back to the workers and designers at A. V. Roe that their new Coastal Command aircraft, the Shackleton, was a rehash of the Lincoln. I am told it is much faster and bigger and has a much greater range. I only wish we had more of them, because I think they would do the job well.
  The Minister told us that there is to be no expansion in Transport Command. That is the most depressing thing he said this afternoon. About a year ago the contracts with Vickers and Handley Page for Valettas and Hastings were cancelled.
  368
  I do not know why. Yet we had a pointer in the Berlin airlift that relations with the Russians were unpleasant and the last thing we should have done was to cancel contracts for aircraft. In the last war in my own squadron we borrowed and took out to France two or three Han-nibals from British Airways. There was no transport at all as far as Transport Command was concerned. I should have thought we had learnt our lesson in that respect. But no, the contracts were cancelled a year ago, the production line was thrown completely out of order, and in the autumn the Government had to replace the contracts with these two companies.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the Princess flying boat. All the newspapers, in the last two days, have said that Transport Command will get these fine aircraft, but still the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said nothing about them. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us tonight. After all, we know that one or two senior executives of the nationalised airline B.O.A.C. pretend they are interested in flying boats when they are discussing this matter, but behind the scenes they do everything they can to belittle them. In my humble view, the Princess flying boat is one of the greatest feats of British engineering since the end of the war. When it flies, later this year, all of us will have something of which we can be really proud. It is far better for these boats to go to the Air Ministry, a willing customer, than to the Air Corporation which is not willing. The Corporation may regret its decision, but I have no doubt that the next Government will remedy things in that direction.
  Command Paper 8162, the Memorandum for the Air Estimates, said:
  "The formation of further auxiliary transport squadrons is being planned in conjunction with air charter firms."
  We were delighted to read that. I believe that four are to be formed as transport units. That is liable to give the impression that when they are formed we shall have four complete squadrons, but I am told that it is nothing of the kind, that there will be two aircraft in each squadron with a certain number of officers and men training at week-ends. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to review this matter and go much further. He would be far better advised to form

  369
  auxiliary squadrons with a complete complement of aircraft, and to use those squadrons not commercially but entirely for the Air Ministry and the Air Force and the other air services, so that we have four ready-made squadrons supplied with civilian personnel who would be wearing Auxiliary Air Force uniform.
  On long-term policy, it is much more difficult to decide what is to be done. There has been a lack of urgency in placing orders. We know, and it is generally known, that recently orders have been telephoned through to manufacturers under an I.T.P.—"We will discuss the price later, but for heaven's sake get on with it." That has happened only since Christmas. The problem in manufacturing aircraft is, and always has been, to decide when to go into production. They make two or three prototypes, quite rightly, to get the best one, but if one allows the scientists and technicians to continue, they will go on for ever adding bits to it, trying to improve it. It needs great wisdom to say, "All right. We are going into production and it is to be made as it is without further alteration."
  The Government have waited far too long over the prototypes, which gave great performances at the Farnborough display, so that we have one or two of each instead of having squadrons fully equipped. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us, when he replies, that the aircraft now being ordered, for which orders have recently been placed, will be comparable when we get them in two or three years' time, or whatever the period may be, to aircraft of foreign Powers after a lapse of another three years? Design and technique are being improved all the time and rockets are being added to jet fighters to give them extra performance in interception; improvements are continually being devised. In the 1914–18 war a fighter aircraft was designed and built within three months. Now, with all the modern technique involved, it takes something like three to five years.
  The Minister of Defence, speaking in the defence debate, said that we were nearing the complete re-equipment of our fighter squadrons. But he said that the Meteor and Vampire aircraft had been in production for some years and that we could not expect them to carry the main burden much longer. That was the point at issue earlier today, when my
  370
  right hon. Friend was speaking. By that, I read that the Meteor and the Vampire are virtually out of date, but that we are keeping them on because we must have something to be matched against the enemy's fighters. While their performance is good, it is not as good in combat as that of the Sabre and the MiG-15, and we had better face up to this rather than do otherwise. We are told that the MiG-15 is superior to our existing fighters, has a performance of something like 640 miles an hour, and that because it has a swept-back wing it is very manoeuvrable at high altitudes. Not a single fighter in British squadrons today has the swept-back wing. It is very easy to understand—I am not trying to be unduly technical. The fact remains that we are really behind.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) spoke of what the Russians have achieved in building new aircraft. What they have achieved has been brought about almost entirely with the aid of complete German units and German scientists, who were taken to Russia and made to work in the aircraft factories there. It is a German effort mainly, and not Russian, so I hope we shall hear no more about what the Russians have achieved under nationalised industry.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: But is not the whole organisation of aircraft production enormous? It must be done in Russian factories, and with Russian organisation. The percentage of German people in it is very small indeed.
  Air Commodore Harvey: It is not entirely in Russian factories. Do not forget that when the Russians grabbed Czechoslovakia they took over the great Skoda works and many other factories. They have been stolen from the Czechs by the Russians, who are producing modern aircraft of German design at the Skoda works.
  Mr. Hughes: Nationalised factories.
  Air Commodore Harvey: I do not mind whether it is nationalised or not—it is stolen property.
  The Secretary of State for Air referred to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and said that five squadrons out of 20 are to get Vampire Vs. That is really cheerful news, but I should like to know when

  371
  the other 15 squadrons will get new aircraft. My information is that some of the squadrons are still flying the original Vampires which have been brought home from the Middle East, discarded by Regular units, at the same time as we were sending out new Vampires to the Egyptian Air Force and to South America. Strong arguments were put forward in the House to try to justify that production of machines for other countries. It would have been justified, surely, had those aircraft been ordered, in addition, for the Auxiliary Air Force. As it is, these 15 squadrons, I believe, except one or two units, are flying aircraft which ought to be replaced at the very earliest opportunity.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted today that Royal Air Force Auxiliary fighter squadrons are remaining on a one flight basis. If I understood him rightly, however, two or three weeks ago, when questioned on this point, he said that that was not the case but that they were up to establishment. Of course, one can make establishment anything one likes, but the fact is that one flight is not a complete squadron. When we are constantly told by the Minister of Defence and others that Fighter Command is being doubled, it is nothing of the kind because 20 auxiliary squadrons are in Fighter Command and if they are on a one flight basis we ought not to be told that the whole thing is being doubled. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands and knows what I am getting at. He seems to be in some doubt.
  Mr, A. Henderson: Perhaps I might remove a doubt which seems to be in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member. I can assure him that I was entirely correct when I said that the Auxiliary squadrons were 90 per cent, of the establishment on air crews and 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. as regards ground crews. When the establishment of the post-war Auxiliary Air Force squadrons was settled it was done on the basis of one operational flight and one training flight. It is quite right to say that they are working on that establishment today. If we are able, as I hope we shall be able one of these days, to have two operational flights, we shall have to readjust the establishment.
  Air Commodore Harvey: I was not taken in by that, but I know that many
  372
  hon. Members on both sides of the House, and many people outside, think of a fighter squadron as consisting of two flights, not one. I hope that after what has been said today every effort will be made to bring them up to a two flight standard.
  I should also like to be assured on this. When these squadrons are called up for three months are they to get a reasonable amount of air to air firing? I know that some pilots have only fired their guns from air to air on one occasion. It is not good enough, with expensive equipment costing £20,000, £30,000 or £40,000, if pilots are not taught to fire their guns accurately in air to air practice and I should have thought that extra target camps ought to be laid down.
  I would quote Mr. Sopwith, one of the original flyers and now chairman of the Hawker-Siddeley Group, the companies which constructed jet engines:
  "If the situation deteriorates—and it may deteriorate rapidly—are we as a nation and a Commonwealth prepared?
  Have the R.A.F. and Commonwealth Air Forces the defensive strength they require to preserve the security and freedom of our peoples?
  We believe that the answer is no."
  I suggest that hon. Members on both sides of the House should read what was said by Mr. Sopwith, because it was very outspoken and he was right to make the speech. I believe that it was not accepted by the Minister of Supply and some of his colleagues, but only public opinion can bring a sense of urgency and get things speeded up.
  Reference has been made to Bomber Command and the picture is anything but reassuring. The Memorandum says:
  "Meanwhile, the medium bomber force will be maintained on Washingtons and Lincolns until the later types come into service"
  "The Prime Minister's statement on defence said:
  "The first order is being placed for a four-engined jet bomber."
  It does not say "has been placed," but "is being placed."
  Mr. A. Henderson: It has been.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Perhaps that is since the Prime Minister made his statement: I imagine that it was only in recent weeks that it has been altered. We were told that they would be flying

  373
  this year and I am delighted that we shall have at least one four-engined jet fighter flying this year. But it will take a long time for it to come through all its teething troubles at Boscombe Down and elsewhere. I think the statement is far too vague and I cannot see the aircraft coming into squadrons for three or four years. I hope they will do so, but I shall be very much surprised. Let us try to do something with our American friends if we are not to have a four-engined jet bomber. We have to cope with a certain band of hon. Members who are always crabbing the Americans, but who would be well advised to inquire a little more into what they have in the way of equipment.
  A few weeks ago I was privileged to go to Lakenheath and inspect a ten-engine B.36. I spent the whole day crawling over and in this aeroplane. There was no question about not telling us how much it cost. They told me they cost £1¼ million each. It had a crew of 19. Full details were published and released to the Press. It could carry 80,000 lb. weight of bombs and could fly 10,000 miles non-stop with a smaller load. If I were President Truman I should invite some of the senior Russian executives to go for a ride in this B.36. Having spent the day at Lakenheath I went home that evening far more cheerful than I had been for months, to think that we had Allies and friends who possessed such equipment. I am told that they have already made 60 or 70. Let hon. Members opposite who are constantly criticising our American friends think twice about that in the future, because it is the Americans who will help us if we get into serious trouble.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us something about the radar chain. I know he cannot go into great detail, but it is useless having an elaborate fighter command unless we have radar with which to pick up the enemy force and with which to direct our own pilots. I am most unhappy about it, and I would like an assurance that everything possible is being done to complete the radar chain round our coasts. As I see it, there is not a moment to lose in this re-armament programme. We may have conferences with these potential enemies and things may appear to be going better. If they do, I believe that that will be the dangerous time.
  374
  Let us look upon these Estimates as an insurance policy. We have to pay a bit of extra taxation, but let us do it willingly provided the money is well spent and we are getting value for it. I am not happy that this has been done in the past six years. The present emergency calls for speed. I suggest that we cut out our peace-time administrative mentality and get production under way; otherwise, our sacrifices and efforts may be wasted.
  10.28 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Crawley): The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has taken a prominent part in these debates on the Air Estimates for the last six years and has always made well-informed speeches. I must not insult him by saying we regard him as an old friend, but at least we do regard him as an old hand on these occasions. The same cannot be said of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). I am not sure whether this was his "solo" in his Parliamentary career in the Air Estimates, but I am sure that it is the first time he has spoken about them since the war. Being not far enough from the "maiden stakes" at this Box myself not to feel nervous, I was looking hopefully for signs of nervousness from him. I must confess I was disappointed.
  I was also disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. While welcoming his interest in these matters, as I am sure all of us who take part in these debates must do, I had hoped he would make a really original contribution. But having confessed that he could not follow the great wealth of information which my right hon. and learned Friend gave to him he then fell back on the hoary annual of security. Every Opposition since time began has asked for more information and every Government has had to consider carefully about how much information to give. The right hon. Gentleman also asked for some specific information and I will try to give it.
  Mr. Eden: This is rather important, and the Prime Minister is present. All I really asked was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should give the same information as our Allies. It is fantastic that the Americans can give the price of their machines and the French can do the

  375
  same but we say we cannot. It is inexplicable that security should make any difference.
  Mr. Crawley: I am not sure even that is a sound reason. If our Allies give some information it does not mean that we must follow suit. Therefore, an unknown factor in the total amount of information is a very good thing, even if only a marginal factor: it may be the decisive margin.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield made two general criticisms that have been made in these debates since the war, both of which I should like to try to answer. The first was that the expansion of the Air Force now taking place should have taken place sooner. The second was the general argument that we have not been giving value for money. There are many answers to the first criticism and some of them, particularly the economic ones, would take me into fields which would be out of order in this debate. I want to give as direct an answer as I can.
  I believe that such an expansion made two or three years ago would have been a mistake. It has been said very often since the war that a country fights a war with the weapons with which it begins the war. That was broadly true of the last war, as the constant development of the Spitfire and other aircraft showed. It is not only true because of the length of time the development of aircraft takes, but because of the character of the whole production process. Once lines of production have been laid down and geared up and are going at full swing, it takes a very long time and is a very laborious process to change over to completely new types.
  Remembering that, it is the planning point at which you begin an expansion of the Air Force which is of critical importance. Development constantly goes on, but it does not go on at a constant speed. If an expansion is begun towards the end of a cycle of development of types which were the best in the world when first produced, we should no doubt have a very formidable Air Force but one which would be obsolete when reaching its peak. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield made just this point in the early days after the war about the French Air Force before the war.
  376
  On the other hand, if we can begin our expansion—and there is a good deal of luck as well as of judgment in this— just when the new types have completed their trials, we have a much better chance of reaching the peak with some types in the Air Force superior to anything else in the world. If, therefore, we had begun our expansion, as the Opposition say we should have done, in 1947 and 1948, we should have been building an Air Force which even at its peak could have consisted only of aircraft which had been produced just after the war. They would have been much more fully developed types and would have been very formidable, but the expansion needed to produce the full front line now would have meant unduly postponing the introduction of new types. For instance, the Canberra had not even done its flying trials in 1948, and how could we have used our factory space which was being used for the production of types we had already constructed—and there is a limit to the amount we can spend in the production of aircraft —for the introduction of the Canberra and other new types for which production lines are being laid down at this moment?
  Squadron Leader Burden: If that argument were true, no motor car firm could produce new cars at the same time as it was producing its current models.
  Mr. Crawley: What I am saying is that, while we go on exploring developments, there is a limit at any time to the amount of factory space we can turn over to the production of aircraft and if we are trying to reach peak at a certain point, we must use all that capacity and postpone the introduction of new types for longer than would otherwise be the case. It is always a matter of judgment of the world situation as well as of the development of aircraft. I claim that at the moment it looks as if our judgment had not been far wrong and as if in a sense we were getting the best of two worlds in that, as we are expanding and reaching our peak, we are having very good aircraft which have reached the last stages of their development, as well as brand new aircraft which, as they come forward, will be better than anything in the world.
  Therefore, I claim that we have done what the most knowledgeable of hon. Members opposite have pressed us to do

  377
  for some years past. We have built up, and are continuing to build, a "quality" Air Force which should satisfy the demands which I remember the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) made of our Air Force some time ago. He said that it should be capable of rapid and smooth expansion. Well, the expansion now going on will be rapid and smooth, and in the very near future we shall have an Air Force which I think we shall be able to claim is a greater deterrent to aggression than any other weapon this country has ever possessed.
  Another point which I think was raised by the hon. Member, or by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield, was about the reserve of old aircraft. Of course, we have a very large reserve of old aircraft, and those are being refurbished and they could be put into action very quickly should the need arise.
  I should like now to say a little about the American aircraft. I was glad that the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington in his speech did not take the view—sometimes unfortunately taken —that the fact that we were using some American aircraft, and considering the use of others, was in any sense at all a reflection either on this country or our own aircraft industry. The hon. and gallant Member for Gosport (Surgeon-Lieut.-Commander Bennett) often talks about this, and seems to imply that the fact that we are considering the use of American aircraft is something of a disgrace to us. I cannot imagine any attitude calculated to be more harmful to this country.
  Of course, there must be competition between countries in aircraft production and design; it is essential; and we hope that British aircraft will always be the best. But it is unreasonable to expect that at every stage of aircraft development we should be best; and where we are concerned with a friendly Power—an Ally— and that Ally produces an aircraft which is in some respects better than our own, then it is fantastic to suggest that we must not even consider using that aircraft. If we adopted that attitude, how could we expect them to use our aircraft when ours are better than theirs? The whole basis of a common defence policy, such as is inherent in the Atlantic Treaty, is in sharing the effort at all stages, and the more advantage that is
  378
  taken of that, the better. It may well be that at one moment one partner may be able to fill in some gap.
  This leads me to long-range bombing, about which several hon. Members have spoken in relation to American tactics. The Prime Minister has said that we have placed orders for four-engined jet bombers, and the fact that we have had a considerable development in this type of aircraft shows the importance which His Majesty's Government attach to that, and to strategic bombing. It is quite clearly absurd to suggest that we should tackle the problem of strategic bombing without considering the help we can get from the Americans. Largely from their strategic needs in the world, they have put strategic bombing very high, whereas this country has found it necessary to give equally high priority to the building of a fighter force. They have developed heavy bombers, and it is an immense addition to our own strength; bearing in mind the great success of the Canberra, I hope will give our aircraft constructors time to develop something even better. I must say that I deplore what I can only describe as a spirit of narrow nationalism which has recently crept into these debates on defence. This has been one of the great obstacles in building up Western defences, and it is one we have all to make every effort to overcome.
  Then there has been the complaint that we are not getting value for money. In a world which is undergoing such rapid development as the world of the air at the moment, I must say it is difficult sometimes to keep one's sense of values. Just for a moment I should like to try to remind the House of the immense developments that have taken place in aircraft in the last decade. Although, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, in 1936–39 the average spent on aircraft was less than now, taking into consideration the change in the value of money the actual amount spent in 1939 itself was probably just about the same as now. Yet if one looks back to the aircraft flying then and at the aircraft now, there really is a colossal development which represents an enormous increase in value.
  Think of the Wellington bomber. I know that many hon. Members knew its capabilities at first hand, but it came to me as rather a shock to find that it was never able to reach Berlin from this

  379
  country, though carrying an infinitesimal load compared with those of today. Today we have the B.36, which is American, and which can get half-way around the world without stopping. But we have the Canberra, which is an interesting comparison because the Wellington was our heavy bomber then. The Canberra today is a light bomber, weighs half as much again, has twice the range, flies three times as high, is faster than the latest Spitfire, and flies at a greater height. That aircraft is coming into squadrons this year, and if it does not represent value for money, I do not know what does.
  The comparison of fighters is equally interesting. The Meteor VIII, to take one, is a really remarkable and efficient aircraft and it climbs to 40,000 ft. in half the time the latest Spitfire does, and what is interesting and what surprises me is that it has a slightly greater range at that height at this moment; and a far greater weight of armament due to improved gun-sights and so on.
  Regarding the MiG-15, I have no doubt whatever that our fighters—the type we are now using—will give a very adequate account of themselves against the MiG-15 or any other aircraft. I am not going to indulge in a lot of speculation about the performance of the MiG-15. Some of the very interesting figures given by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) and by others cannot be described as anything more than an estimate and a speculation. Of the MiG-15, on the other hand, we have had a little real experience. It is an aircraft which has been seen and met in action in quite considerable numbers in the Far East. Although we must take this experience with caution, because we do not know who the pilots were and there are certain limitations to their radius of action in that theatre, I would rather base such estimates on that experience rather than on pure speculation.
  It is perfectly true to say that on the experience that we have so far, not only have aircraft, exactly or nearly comparable to those we are using fared very well against the MiG-15, but no aircraft that the Americans have put up against them have appeared to be outclassed. That was a very limited experience but it is at least something to go on and it is
  380
  not such a gloomy or depressing picture as some hon. Members opposite try to suggest.
  Another thing in which we are getting better value for money even than before is in the skill of our pilots. Obviously the machines are no good unless the men can live up to the improvements in them. The fact is—and I think it is most remarkable —that the technical skill of our pilots seems to be keeping pace with the technical improvements in the machines. When jet aircraft came into service, their short range presented a good many problems. Their lack of fuel gave the fighter pilots going up in them, if they were to carry out any operations, very limited time to get back to their bases, and if they were to fly in bad as well as fair weather a vastly improved technique had to be developed.
  The truth is that new technique really has been developed to a remarkable degree. Even at the end of the war cloud-flying by fighter pilots was not really a common event. Today, it is an everyday order. Whole squadrons take off and fly through 20,000 feet of cloud or more, carrying out their exercises and returning to base, with ground to air control, with an accuracy which is quite astonishing, remembering that for fighter aircraft there is only one man to use the instruments.
  I believe that this is the greatest improvement of all—the training of the pilots themselves and the value they are giving. Underneath all this development in the air is the immense development on the ground in technique. One example is the number of items of equipment there used to be in the R.A.F. at the beginning of the last war, which was about a quarter of a million. It is now about three quarters of a million. That, of course, emphasises the vital part that radio and radar and auxiliary equipment plays. But it also means we have to have a much larger technical branch. It is true that there are more people now in the Air Force per aircraft than there were before the war but it is also true that each aircraft is far more efficient and can do many, many times more than the aircraft of those days. I think nothing would be farther from the truth than to suggest that, technically, we are not getting value for money.
  Lastly, there is the field of research. This is, in a sense, outside the sphere of the Air Ministry, but it is very hard to

  381
  resist peeping into the future, and all I would say about this today is that the possibility of the guided missile and other developments is even more revolutionary than the possibilities brought into being by the jet. The speed of development is actually increasing, so that we may find ourselves up against those possibilities rather sooner than many think.
  I would like to say one or two words about the questions which the right hon. Gentleman asked about the Auxiliary Air Force. There are to be 20 squadrons and there are also the other units, such as observation units, which will be under other commands, and the transport squadrons, which will be under Transport Command The pilots for the auxiliary squadrons will come, we hope, to a large extent from pre-selected National Service men, and from conversations I have had with the commanding officers of these squadrons, I believe that the system will work. The commanding officers seem to be quite satisfied that they can get the number of men they want, provided they can get the lists of those to be called up in time, and so on.
  I would like to pay a tribute myself to the Auxiliary Air Force and say how immensely I admire the spirit in which they have taken their call-up I have been visiting a good many squadrons and I have not found anywhere people jibbing at it or making objections. The only objections I have had are from people who are desperately keen to do it, but are finding it hard, for business or domestic reasons. We are doing all we can to help them.
  I was asked whether it was possible for these squadrons to cope with modern fighter flying. Many people have questioned this since the war, but my own view, on what I have heard recently, is that it can be done. It is perfectly true that the flying is very difficult. In the days before the war it used to be done with biplanes and the range of control from the ground was so short that a few minutes away from the aerodrome the pilot was left to his own devices. If things went wrong he could always find a field to get down by himself. But today the whole thing is changed. It is highly technical, and these men are judged by Regular standards. They are judged as Regulars, although they fly in their spare time. They do a full week's
  382
  work, and yet they are considered, are accounted, and are a part of our front line defence.
  In the circumstances, I wonder whether the term "auxiliary" has not become out of date. Indeed, I am told by those responsible for their training that some squadrons are already at a level equal to Regular squadrons, and if it is true of some, it ought to be true of all in time. I think, therefore, that we can answer that question hopefully, and say that in spite of the immense difficulties it is likely that the auxiliary squadrons will be able to keep up to the standard.
  Mr. Eden: I would not like anything I said to be taken to indicate that the present squadrons cannot do the job, but there is the problem looming up that with the increased technical difficulties lying ahead it will not be possible to ask these people to do the training. I am sure that they can do the job now.
  Mr. Crawley: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter. I think that we shall have to wait and see—if equipment comes on at the present rate, even with the newest types it may be possible for them to continue.
  I do not think that many people quite realise how much time these auxiliaries do give to their training. I went into the question of what they were statutorily obliged to do and what, in fact, they were doing. According to a cross-section, both officers and men were doing between three and four times more than they were supposed to do, and I am sure that I can say, on behalf of the House, how much we appreciate their efforts.
  I was asked many questions, and one particularly about flying boats. About flying boats, I can only say, in general, that the experts now consider that the demands of Coastal Command and other commands can be better met by land-based aircraft. Land-based aircraft now have a longer range, and are lighter and cheaper to produce and man. At the moment, replacements for flying boats have not got high priority. That does not mean to say that the R.A.F. thinks that they will disappear forever, or that we shall not develop prototypes, but it does mean that in this present expansion—and the Americans agree with us—the work can better be done by land-based aircraft

  383
  There is no mystery at all about the Princess flying boat, but a final decision has not been taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We are giving favourable consideration to the possibility of using these boats as a war-time reserve for military transports, and I hope that a decision will be taken very soon.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Have the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal New Zealand Air Force been consulted as to whether they might need flying boats on Coastal Command duties in their waters, where they are a greater factor than here?
  Mr. Crawley: We have not consulted them, and I cannot say offhand whether they consulted us, but undoubtedly they would consult us if they wanted these aircraft.
  Sir P. Macdonald: Does the hon. Gentleman realise what his statement means to those who have been engaged for years in the building up of these flying boats to be told by one Government Department after another that the boats were to be carried on and completed? Are they, or are they not to be completed; or are they to be abandoned? Something has to be said soon.
  Mr. Crawley: I can assure the hon. Member, with whose interest I fully sympathise, that we hope to give a decision very soon. The R.A.F. was not asked to consider this question until very recently.
  I was asked a good many questions about both the A.T.C. and photographic reconnaissance. About the A.T.C, I would make this point. Since the war we have concentrated on quality rather than on quantity. I admit that for the last three years there has been a slight decrease in the total numbers, but recently numbers have been going up again and, more important, the number of proficient cadets has also been going up. With regard to flying experience, it is possible for A.T.C. squadrons to get Link trainer and we shall try to help them to do so to a greater extent. In Link trainer, although on the ground, one can get more interesting flying experience than in most other forms of training open to the A.T.C. I welcome the speeches on photographic reconnaissance, and I can assure hon. Members
  384
  who take an interest in the subject that we do not under-estimate its importance. My right hon. Friend pointed out that the photographic units will soon be getting the Canberra as their aircraft, and one cannot imagine a better aircraft.
  Lastly I will turn to Transport Command. I cannot help feeling that people are rather misled by comparison with the war-time Transport Command. One is apt to forget that there is a very big reserve of civil aircraft operating in this country now which could and would be taken over by Transport Command when war broke out. We believe that the actual carrying capacity at this moment is big enough for all the needs we can foresee, at least in the early stages of any possible war.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman quite certain that the Corporations would be taken over at the outbreak of war? Surely our lines of communication would need civil aircraft?
  Mr. Crawley: I do not say that the Corporations would, in so many words, be taken over. I said that we have plans for taking over a large part of this civil reserve and, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, we have plans for using as much or as little of the Corporations' capacity as we should think necessary for the war if it came. We have also a very large reserve of civil aircraft and a large reserve of crews who can fly them. Therefore, I cannot view with any sense of depression the fact that Transport Command has been allowed to be run down. It can be expanded very rapidly and the carrying capacity is there. After all, in an expansion such as the present, one must put first things first, and we do not for present purposes need a larger regular Transport Command.
  I end by saying that the picture I have tried to paint shows not only that we are expanding our Air Force at the right time in the right way, but that we have, in fact, as hon. Members on all sides have asked for, a very high-quality Air Force which is capable of further expansion and improvement and is a real deterrent now to any aggressor.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Profumo: I hope the House will forgive me for intervening, but before we agree to sanction expenditure of the astronomical figure presented to us

  385
  today, we are entitled to more discussion, particularly with regard to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State. I have listened to all of the debate, and have been profoundly depressed and upset. We had an opening speech from the Secretary of State, who told us very little, and we expected the Under-Secretary to try to deal with some of the questions raised by hon. Members on this side. I am not at all impressed by the Under-Secretary's argument that the Government have delayed re-armament on purpose, in order to start it when Britain's designs were better than those of any other countries. One can always wait for something better, but if we go on waiting, what is going to happen if we are subjected to attack from a foreign invader?
  Mr. Woodburn: Is the suggestion that we should have used our capacity to produce obsolete aircraft merely because we have not up-to-date designs?
  Mr. Profumo: Of course not What we have been told today by the Secretary of State is that the aeroplanes in Fighter Command and Bomber Command are obsolete already. In a world which changes as speedily as this one does, aircraft are going to become obsolete very shortly after they are the latest thing, but one dare not go on waiting for ever and ever. It is a false argument that this has been done on purpose. Of course it has not. We have had speeches from the two political heads of this great Service, but instead of coming here like shining lights telling the House what wonderful things the Service is doing, they have dodged around like tired boxers, defending themselves. It has been the same all through this Government's period of office. It has always been hon. Members on this side who have been urging the Government to take action.
  I want to go back to the argument used at the beginning of this debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) about secrecy. It cropped up again in the Under-Secretary's speech. Really we have had enough of this. We have been handicapped in our deliberations in the past by the Government always drawing the blanket of secrecy over our air strength. We shall want to discuss this in greater
  386
  detail than before because of the re-armament programme, and I hope that we shall not be fobbed off with meaningless comparisons. Other countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation do not act as we are acting. They are giving a great deal more information about the strength of their Air Forces and the speed of the build-up of their re-armament programmes.
  We should look at it this way. What is our re-armament programme for? It is not because we are contemplating an attack on any country. It is for defence, in order that we may deter any potential aggressor. It seems to me that we ought to tell any potential aggressor more about our fighting strength than we have done so far. It is also important that there should be no room for suspicion among our allies that this country is not pulling its full weight in our concerted rearmament programme. The only way we shall get the maximum results from the people of this country is by being perfectly frank, taking them into the confidence of the Government, and thus re-establishing some of the confidence that existed in the past. I hope we shall stop playing guessing games, and be told in future the frank truth.
  The proposed call up under the new defence scheme can amount only to window-dressing unless the greatest possible use is made of the time these men are serving with the forces. The question we have to ask today is—whether there is enough equipment to occupy these men when they are called up? The Estimates tell us that there are 10,000 people being called up for 15 days' service. We have been told by the Secretary of State that under 9,000 are to be called up. Does that reduction of 1,000 means that the Government have decided that there is not enough radar equipment on which these people can train, and therefore that they have to cut down the force? If not, I hope that at some opportunity we shall be reassured about that.
  In regard to the R.A.F.V.R. and R.A.F. Reserve personnel to be called up for three months, it is again a question of the right sort of equipment. These people are by and large trained at reserve schools operated by civilian companies and up to now these reserve schools have had only very out-of-date aircraft. In the Air Estimates last year the Secretary of State

  387
  told the House that it was not possible to allocate modern type trainers, except to Regular schools. Can we have an assurance that there will be up-to-date modern training types of aircraft for these schools and that civilian instructors will be better treated than in the past? I believe that any man who spends his three months' training in this way on elementary aircraft when he has already served in the Air Force will be wasting his time and it will be the worst possible advertisement for this training scheme.
  There are two other things which arise out of this call-up. It is clear that there can only be rough justice, but I find there is a lot of dissatisfaction among people who are unhappy that the burden of service is not being fairly shared. We have not been told what are the reserved occupations, but we have been told there is a schedule of reserved occupations. I ask the Government to consider those men who were in reserved occupations during the last war and who are no longer in reserved occupations and to call them up under the National Service scheme each year, although they might be over the ages of those in the call-up. If the country felt that this was being fairly shared, we should get a better response.
  On the question of pay, I think that particularly in the R.A.F. those men who are being called up for 18 months service will be liable to suffer. In many cases they are earning very high salaries in private life and for 18 months they will receive much lower remuneration. I cannot see why the Government do not arrange with the firms who are now employing these men that they should make up the pay. I believe one reason is that the nationalised industries do not wish to do so. I think this should be a statutory charge on the Treasury.
  We have heard mention tonight of Air Observation Post squadrons, and as far as I can calculate from the Auxiliary Reserve figures we have been given, there are two such squadrons. Are they manned by Auster aeroplanes as they were during the war, or are they to have helicopters, or something more modern? Is the Air Force to be responsible for the aeroplanes flown, or are they to be manned from the artillery, as during the war? Two squadrons is far too small a number. We must see that there is more
  388
  adequate provision of Air Observation Post squadrons than at present appears from the Estimates.
  Finally, may I emphasise what I think is the most important of all air problems? I refer to the production of large numbers of aircraft. We have heard a great deal about the situation in Fighter Command and in Bomber Command, and no statement from the Government Front Bench has changed the opinion formed by my hon. Friends that this situation is far from satisfactory. Our present fighter aircraft certainly do not come up to those which they may have to engage in any potential enemy Air Force. We have been told that a four-jet-engine long-range bomber is on order, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that it will soon be flying. Presumably he meant the prototype which has not yet flown. One question was repeatedly asked by my hon. Friends—when can we expect to have this four-jet-engine long-range bomber in service with the squadrons? We have had no answer and I do not believe that the Minister knows. Until we get an answer to that question, we shall not be satisfied.
  I believe that the Government have wasted a great deal of time by procrastination and by building political castles in the air, when we might have had aeroplanes in the air. How are we to put that right? First, the aircraft industry must be given proper instructions. We have been told that the industry still does not know what is expected of it. Secondly, nothing must be allowed to clog the wheels of production. The very highest priority must be given for raw materials and manpower required by this vital industry.
  I am not sure that the present Government are capable of such a scheme, but if they are, I suggest that the Ministry of Supply must have a more highly developed aircraft section capable of deciding on the proportion of bombers to fighters. It must be capable of knocking peoples' heads together and seeing that production lines are maintained at top pitch. Industry must be given its instructions, and we must get the aircraft, both bombers and fighters, to the squadrons as soon as possible, so that we do not have to rely on the Americans to lend or sell us aeroplanes for ever. It will be very dangerous if we do not maintain our

  389
  old tradition of having a balanced and independent Air Force. Only by making this project one of the very highest national urgency can we hope to complete what one might call "Operation Airworthy."
  11.14 p.m.
  Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: The Under-Secretary of State must have had an agreement with his right hon. and learned Friend because he gave us no more information than his right hon. and learned Friend had given us. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo), I am not very impressed with the reason given for not having started the expansion sooner. The Government have been living in a kind of fool's paradise. They have shown excessive trust. Why else did they sell our latest type jet engines to Russia? They have been living on phrases like, "Left understands Left." They have been believing that there never is to be any more war. The other day the Minister of Labour said he was a student of Karl Marx. Probably he has also read a certain amount of Lenin and perhaps this particular paragraph from Lenin's "War Programme of the Proletarian Revolution." In certain cases, writes Lenin, war on the part of Soviet Russia:
  "Would be a just war, would be a war for Socialism, for the liberation of other nations from the bourgeoisie."
  Mr. Porter: Everyone says that.
  Lord Douglas-Hamilton: I can assure the House that for all practical purposes the Russians would consider hon. Members sitting opposite just as much bourgeois as we are, and their intentions towards them would be exactly the same. The Government have been living in a fool's paradise and that is the real reason we have not had enough done.
  We have always the problem of when aircraft should go into production. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) pointed that out. That is a difficulty which has to be solved; but the real difficulty is that we did not get down to the realisation of the danger until too late. The Under-Secretary said that we have a quality Air Force and that a rapid expansion is to take place; but we know that we are not going to get a heavy
  390
  bomber of our own for three or four years. We have to depend on the Americans for this. I have no objection to depending on the Americans. They are our allies, and we have to use the best aircraft available. But we must not lose the "know-how" of making these bombers.
  This type of aircraft with a radius of action of 5,000 miles, has revolutionised military history, and with this type of bomber we can command the air to a great extent over enemy territory. The problem in a country like Russia will be the vast distances, and finding targets by day and night. There will be one snag in this. The Russians have no doubt foreseen this and probably already have a number of targets underground. The great principle in bombing is to hit war material before it leaves the factories. The next best place to hit it is when it is on its way to the front, to hit the transport; and the worst place is when it is at the front.
  There is this immediate problem. The first danger we would have to face in war is attack by air and submarine. Therefore, I regret that we have not the best fighters in the world in service. In regard to the MiG-15, the Under-Secretary of State said that it was doubtful how this aircraft performed. I have here an account written by General Vandenberg, Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, in which he compares the MiG-58 with the American Sabre, and we have to admit that an aircraft like the Sabre is something we have not got in the R.A.F. today. General Vandenberg says:
  "There's very little to choose between the Russian MiG-15 and our own F-86 Sabre. The F-86 has a slight edge in speed, range and diving ability. Our F-84 trades some of the speed of these two planes for much greater range and load capacity, but even so its record against MiG's is highly favourable. … The fact that the margin of superiority can be slim sometimes, or temporarily cease to exist, is a strong argument for achieving as close a parity in operational strength as possible."
  I think that posing of the problem by a man whose Air Force has been in action against this type of aircraft is sound. The hon. Gentleman said that we on this side had claimed that we were not getting value for money, and there is a good deal of validity in that. In the debate on defence, the Minister of Labour said

  391
  something which I think is misleading the country. He said:
  "I am not frightened by the situation."— {OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 735.]
  He based that statement on the fact that Russia has a narrower technological front than we have. I think that is a remark calculated to allay fears in this country at a time when the truth should be told and the country should be aware of the danger we are in. I congratulate the Secretary of State on being the first Front Bench speaker to speak on defence who has used the word "urgent" in talking about defence needs. What are we going to do if the emergency comes in a few months or within the next two years? Have we got any kind of 'plane ready to cope with it? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any knowledge of the airborne divisions of Soviet Russia? I have heard it indicated that Russia can, on mobilisation, get together 100 airborne divisions. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any information on that point?
  Several hon. Members have spoken about the run-down of Coastal Command. One hon. Member produced evidence of the number of U-boats which Coastal Command sank during the last war. None of us would deny that Coastal Command is one of the most effective ways of sinking U-boats; but I would disagree with the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Mr. Perkins) in his suggestion that Coastal Command should be under the Royal Navy. No one admires the Royal Navy more than I do, but I think Coastal Command should remain in the R.A.F. Coastal Command is vitally important for our protection against U-boats, but we should have today, if we are to be secure, something like six operational aircraft for every possible enemy U-boat. I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he thinks we have one operational aircraft for every 10 enemy U-boats—for that is the most likely figure.
  There is another factor in discussing rearmament. I believe that with the help of the Americans—and make no mistake about it, the Americans have realised the danger sooner than we have—we are likely to be in a position sooner than we might have been to give a reasonable
  392
  account of ourselves. We are arming for the purpose of maintaining peace. That is absolutely clear, and while we are doing that we must make sure that we are scrupulously fair in our dealings in every way with other nations. I do not think this should in any way mean that we should kotow to aggressors in any shape or form. There were one or two hon. Members in the defence debate who said they would rather label the Chinese as aggressors, and not brand them as such. I think our feelings on this side of the House are summed up very well, although we support these Estimates, in the words Tennyson wrote rather more than 100 years ago. Those words were:
  "Not ours the fault if we have feeble hosts— If easy patrons of their kin,
  Have left the last free race with naked coasts,
  They knew the precious things they had to guard,
  For us, we will not spare the tyrant one hard word."
  11.23 p.m.
  Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke first this afternoon, some of us on this side of the House who were interested in the problem of photographic reconnaissance thought that we were to get some more detailed consideration for this very important arm of the R.A.F., and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was fortified by support from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Squadron Leader Kinghorn) and a very cogent argument from the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham (Squadron Leader Burden), we thought that the Under-Secretary of State would give us some positive response. But what have we had? We have had the simple statement that the hon. Gentleman cannot imagine a better aircraft than the Canberra. That is all the response that the Air Ministry are able to give the House on this vital question of photographic reconnaissance —"they cannot imagine a better aircraft than the Canberra."
  It seems to me that photographic reconnaissance is still regarded as the Cinderella of the R.A.F. There cannot be a more vital arm of our Defence Forces at this time. I am bound to say that my right hon. and hon. Friends are profoundly disturbed at the unprepared-ness of the photographic reconnaissance

  393
  units at this time. It is not sufficient to say that one cannot imagine a better aircraft than the Canberra. I should like to point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I am sure he knows this, but perhaps hon. Members behind him may not know it—that photographic reconnaissance planes are forced to fly deep into the enemy territory by day unarmed, and it is essential that we have in the sky the fastest aeroplanes at all times with very considerable endurance.
  It really is throwing lives away to suppose at this time that we can put aircraft in the sky—such as light bombers like the Canberra—to be opposed by aeroplanes such as the Russian MiGs. It really is not good enough to ask men of the Royal Air Force to be subjected to such risks as that. At every stage of aircraft development of this country, the first priority, and I have no hesitation in saying, should always be the photographic reconnaissance units. They should always have, year by year, the finest and fastest aircraft available.
  This particular arm of the Royal Air Force grew up in the last war partly by accident, but towards the end it achieved a great importance. When it was necessary for the Government to economise in military forces a year or two back, one of the first things they did was to disband the organisation which had proved so valuable in war. If another war were unfortunately to break out, the first thing the Government would probably have to do would be to reinstate the photographic reconnaissance squadrons on exactly the same basis as during 1939–45. It seems to be the height of folly that we should do away with an organisation that proved so effective in the last war.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth and the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham, with considerable argument, made a case for the creation within the Air Ministry of a director of reconnaissance, and I add my own words to theirs. It is important, indeed it is vital, that this particular branch of the Service should be taken out of one particular command—in this case Bomber Command. It is not an adjunct of Bomber Command, or any one command. It is a service which has developed for all the Services, whether Royal Air Force, Army, Navy, or Ministry of Economic Warfare, as in the last war.
  394
  This must be a service which is dealt with at Air Ministry level under its own command, and it is not sufficient to have it relegated to some particular part of Bomber Command where its problems will be related to the problems of Bomber Command and to those of no one else. I must say that we are exceedingly disappointed and depressed that the Under-Secretary, in his reply, should have treated the argument put forward from both sides of the House, with so little consideration. I hope sincerely that something more will be done in this field.
  I want next to deal for a few moments with the question of the photographic equipment. I am advised—and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman can contradict me—that the equipment we are using for this vital service is inferior to that used by the Americans and by any other country. We are today still using equipment, both in the air and on the ground, which was not the best even in 1939–45. We were not at all impressed by an Air Ministry "hand-out" a few days ago when the right hon. and learned Gentleman took a delegation from, I think it was Yugoslavia, to an air station. This Air Ministry official "hand-out" was about our photographic reconnaissance units and their equipment, and the statement in "The Times" was that the aircraft which we used were the best obtainable, and that the same could be said of the photographic equipment.
  The Russians, against whom we are presumably defending ourselves, must know that, when one talks of Meteor 10's as being our short-range planes, and says that one day we shall have Canberras, our readiness in photographic reconnaissance is about nil. That "hand-out" can only have created the worst possible impression overseas, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman should make a very close examination of the standard of equipment being used today.
  Then I should like to ask what is being done in the field of radar photography. Something has been done in all countries over the past few years, but are we, as a nation, making sufficient effort in this field? During the war considerable effort was made with night photography, but for one reason or another it did not get very far. In radar photography considerable strides were being made both

  395
  at the end of the war, and just afterwards, but in the last few years little has been done. It may well be that not much more effort is required to get us up to considerable efficiency in this field, and I hope that at any rate attention will be paid to it.
  I should like to say a few words on the question of the recall of "G" reservists. The photographic interpreters are specialists, and the work which they did was the result of much experience and cannot be gained overnight. It was the result of many months of training and effort, and these particular men and women who had such specialised knowledge should be considered at the present time and, if necessary, given refresher training. I urge the Air Ministry not to consider photographic reconnaissance any longer as the Cinderella of the Service; I urge them to give it the highest possible priority, but we shall not be able to get all we want unless and until a Director of Reconnaissance is appointed either in the Air Ministry or in the Ministry of Defence.
  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1951–52

  VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE
  Resolved:
  "That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 270,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1952."

  VOTE 1. PAY, &C, OF THE AIR FORCE
  Resolved:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £77,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c, of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1952."

  VOTE 2. RESERVE AND AUXILIARY SERVICES
  Resolved:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,569,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 76,800, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve and 13,100, 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 1952."

  VOTE 7. AIRCRAFT AND STORES
  Resolved:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £132,750,000, 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 1952."

  VOTE 8. WORKS AND LANDS
  Resolved:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £37,500,000, 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 1952."

  VOTE 9. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES
  Resolved:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,195,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid to the Royal Society, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1952."

  VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES
  Resolved:
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,045,000, 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 1952."

  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 come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1952."
  Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

ESTIMATES
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd discharged from the Select Committee; Mr. G. P. Stevens added.—[Mr. Royle.]

YORKSHIRE ELECTRICITY BOARD (BUILDING EXTENSIONS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Royle.]
11.38 p.m.
Wing Commander Bullus: After hours in the air we come down to earth for 30 minutes, but in a similar strain, in that it is genuine criticism of the Government. There is widespread concern in this country at the present time concerning many Government buildings which are in course of erection and the considerable extensions which are being made to buildings occupied by the boards of nationalised undertakings. Public opinion is disturbed that so much labour and materials are being used for such purposes when they might more usefully be diverted to the building of much-needed houses.
From time to time hon. Members call attention to specific cases where Government building could have been postponed. Some of them concern nationalised electricity undertakings. In December last, by Parliamentary question and answer, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Kaberry) directed attention to building extensions at the headquarters of the Yorkshire Electricity Board at Scarcroft, near Leeds. Investigations made by my hon. Friend have revealed that a considerable amount of this building has been done without the necessary building licence. The Minister of Fuel and Power has admitted that work done at the Scarcroft headquarters and at offices nearby at Bramhope have exceeded the amount authorised by almost £42,000. It is probably true that the figure is almost double that amount.
I raise the question tonight because I have been fortunate in the ballot for the Adjournment debate, but my remarks are brief in order that my hon. Friend may have the opportunity—successful, I hope —to catch your eye to give details of his research, which are of especial concern to his part of the country.
Two principles are involved. Should the Government build elaborate offices when so many houses are required; and the more important issue, whether with regard to building licences there should be one law for the Government and its agents, and one law for the people? Is it
398
the Government's intention that the private person should be penalised for building without a licence while the Government can flout the law with impunity? An inquiry is called for, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will state that his right hon. Friend is prepared to call for an inquiry.
11.41 p.m.
Mr. Kaberry: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his brevity, because an opportunity is provided for me to put forward a few facts about the building activities of the Yorkshire Electricity Board at their headquarters at Scarcroft, near Leeds, and on other buildings near Leeds, at Bramhope. The facts are so serious that I would prefer to be charged with under-statement rather than with over-statement.
I think we know sufficient of the shortages which the war and the following years have brought about in the building industry, particularly shortages of timber and cement, and of the necessity for strict rationing and order of priority. We know, too, of the consequences which have fallen on many people who have ignored the requirement of a building licence before going on with any building work. Under Defence Regulation 56A, the Ministry of Fuel and Power are the licensing authority at present for all electrical undertaking works, and I think it is common ground that the Courts have clearly laid down that all licences must precede any building work. Written permission must be obtained for the work. Mere verbal intimation is not sufficient, and it necessarily follows that if these two conditions are not observed, then any work subsequently done must be illegal. For example, payment cannot be enforced for any work done.
When, therefore, I found that large-scale building operations had been in progress at the headquarters of the Yorkshire Electricity Board at Scarcroft Lodge, there was every reason to question the necessity for it, or the degree of priority, and there was every reason to feel that it may have been done either without a licence, or that the licence may have been exceeded. The Yorkshire Electricity Board may well have money available to warrant its providing lavish restaurant accommodation for 130 clerical staff, but the question may well be asked, Is this the time for such amenities to be provided?

399
The splendour, the comfort, and the luxury of its headquarters, including the most up-to-date and well-preserved conservatory and refreshment bar, and the manner in which these extensions have been carried out, have become a by-word in Leeds and district. A three-storey building—the east wing—has been constructed out of the previous country lodge. There is no doubt whatever that re-decoration work has been done throughout the whole of the building.
Many questions were being asked publically in this district and in the whole of the West Riding. For example, why should certain building work be finished off by flood-lighting. Was the work so urgent that it had to be completed before a power conference at Harrogate? Why should a four-faced clock be placed on a tower which is not visible from the road, and can only be seen by the staff during the short midday break? I believe there was still available a suitable hall, formerly used for a ballroom, where staff meals had been served. A licence for a new canteen had been refused because that accommodation was considered sufficient. In spite of that, a new canteen and a new kitchen that must have cost many thousands of pounds have been built. Since their completion the previous ballroom stood empty about nine months and has only recently been put into use, and is called a lecture hall. The furnishings and fittings of the rest room are sumptuous enough to put any hotel or club to shame. Examples are so many that I will mention no more at present.
I believe that about £130,000 has been spent by the Yorkshire Electricity Board on alterations and extensions since it first occupied the place. To us in Leeds, where there are some 26,000 people still waiting for houses, that represents approximately the capital cost of 60 new houses. Presumably the Minister considered all these matters, and on 4th December I put a Question in the House asking for the amount of the licences, the dates of them, and the total cost. I do not wish to be disrespectful, but I think I got an evasive answer. I got the dates of the licences as January and September, 1949, authorising £7,250 and £32,000 respectively. I did not get an answer about the amount spent in all up to that date.
400
Owing to certain difficulties encountered in tabling Questions, I had to pursue the matter by letter. After some delay—it may not have been entirely the fault of the Minister—I was informed that work had been done amounting to £78,178 which should have been licensed. That represents about £40,000 over and above the licences which had been granted. Let me say at once that I do not except that figure, excessive as it is. The Minister seeks to cover up the expenditure by suggesting that he must not inquire into the day-to-day maintenance figures. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us those figures, which he must have obtained, of the day-to-day maintenance for the past two or three years. I would venture to advise him that it is another £40,000. For the moment, let me accept the admitted excess of £40,000. That is illegal work over the past two or three years.
What are the excuses put forward? I am told that if application had been made in proper form and in a competent way at the beginning, the Minister might have been able to issue licences to cover most of the cost. Excuses are found for most of the over-spending on grounds of incompetence by the Board's officials in improperly applying for amounts for licences under the amount actually spent. They put forward excuses of apparent innocence in thinking that oral permission or comments of visiting Ministry officials were enough, and we were finally told that the Minister thinks that the work was sensibly planned and carried out without extravagance. It is admitted, I understand, that there has been what is described as "technical breaches" of the law. What an admission on behalf of officials of a public board who can have recourse if necessary to a learned clerk who was previously a town clerk and in addition have on the permanent staff a solicitor and an assistant solicitor.
It is not enough to be told that a lesson has been learned and that such things will not occur again. Is this not exactly the sort of thing which must necessarily arise when the Ministry is in the position of representing the accused and being judge and jury as well? I have no doubt there is a desire to put up the best case possible to protect the Board, but what is the result of this endeavour to cloak the gross breaches of building regulations?

401
Surely it must mean that every man today in the country who waits patiently for the opportunity of a building licence for some necessary alteration to his own house, or some of those people who have been punished for breaches of the building regulations, will feel that there is one law for him and one for public boards.
The Minister would be well advised, even at this late stage, to order an outside inquiry and, if necessary, to allow the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether there is a case for legal action. This is a case, not of innocent transgression in haste or error—it has been going on deliberately for two or three years. I look upon this case as a gross breach of duty on the part of the officers concerned, and I hope that the Ministry will not lack a sense of appreciation of the necessity of demonstrating beyond all doubt that there should be no difference in the administration of the law as between private persons and public servants.
If it is right that men of all walks of life, in high positions of public service, indeed of all kinds, should be dragged through the courts, their characters taken away from them by stern decisions of the courts, then to condone offences of even larger dimensions by public officials who ought to know and do in fact know better means that the law is being flouted. I therefore ask the Minister to appoint an independent inquiry into the illegal activities at Scarcroft and Bramhope, and to let the public know its findings.
I am, of course, speaking only of one board and one case tonight, but it is natural to ask, "If this happens in one case, in how many others is it happening?". Is it a habit of electricity and gas boards to ignore special building regulations and the priorities which those regulations envisage? Is an attempt to be made to cover up the activities of the Board? On 26th February the Minister was asked to state the amount by which the licences had been exceeded. The written answer did not state the exact amount but proceeded to make various excuses. The remedy is apparently that "a salutary lesson" is to be enough to teach the Board and its officials not to do it again; but it appears to have had little effect on the Board and its officials, because at the time that the "salutary lesson" was being
402
administered the Board still kept on illegal building activities at another headquarters, at Bramhope near Leeds.
In this case no licence at all had been granted. I believe that work amounting to £15.000 has been done. The Minister has informed me that work amounting to just over £10,000 has been done, of which £3,250 should have been the subject of a licence. The excuse brought forward is that
"unfortunately the officers of the Board made the same kind of mistake as they had made at Scarcroft."
The "salutary lesson" is little consolation to the hundreds of others who have been prosecuted for spending their own money while the officers of the Board have been illegally spending public money.
May I ask the Minister to say whether this is a case which the Government will wish to show as an example of their policy of "fair shares for all"? At any rate, are the Government anxious to use this case as an example of fair play for all? What is to happen to those who counselled, abetted or aided the illegal act? Are they still to be left loose to flout regulations in the future? Why should these little tsars of the Government's creation be allowed illegally to build their Kremlins behind the walls of which they can shrink from the wrath of public opinion and bask in doubly-protected safety and anonymity? How long are the Government to excuse, shield and condone the illegality of their creatures of the public boards and make them different from the ordinary taxpayer and his strictly imposed code of conduct? Is this "salutary lesson" to be one for the thousands in the country who today are waiting for the raw materials that they may have houses built for them?
Since I first raised the matter, I have received letters from all over the country. In the country generally, and more particularly in the West Riding the public conscience is shocked at the manner in which a nationalised board has flouted the present building regulations; and the manner in which the Government, so far, have dealt with the offence. The whole case calls for the closest investigation. I hope the Minister will accept my suggestion and appoint an independent committee of inquiry so that at least justice may appear to be done.
11.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that in the limited time at my disposal it is completely impossible for me to reply to all the points raised, but at least I hope to deal with the main questions.
I would not disagree with the contention that there should be no difference in treatment in law in relation to a nationalised industry or public utility company and any private enterprise. They should both be treated the same. So far as the Ministry of Fuel and Power is concerned, its authority is for the licence and the authorisation of the work. I am not able to go into the question of the furnishings in this particular place. If the Board have decided that certain furnishings are necessary, they have done that in their wisdom or otherwise, and the matter will no doubt be raised when the accounts of the Board are debated. My responsibility at the moment is to deal with that part of the work for which the Ministry must accept responsibility, and that is the authorisation of the licence.
There are two charges made; one of extravagance, and the other of doing work without a licence. The hon. Member made it perfectly clear what was the responsibility of the Ministry under Regulation 56A. I would say right away that the development at Scarcroft Lodge was development which was taken over from the old Yorkshire Electric Power Company. I have seen the artist's design for the old company—in fact I have it with me now. The development actually carried out by the Board is on a very much more modest scale than that proposed by the Yorkshire Electric Power Company.
Mr. W. J. Taylor: Would the Parliamentary Secretary say whether that development envisaged was pre-war or post-war?
Mr. Robens: I could not say whether it was pre-war or post-war.
Mr. Taylor: Then I will tell the hon. Gentleman. It was pre-war.
Mr. Robens: It does not matter whether it was pre-war or post-war——
Mr. Taylor: Oh, yes it does.
Mr. Robens: With respect, it does not matter for the sake of this argument whether it was pre-war or post-war. The fact was that the Yorkshire Electric Power Company had decided on the place as a headquarters and they had ideas as to how it should be developed. The Company had said that it should be their headquarters, and it was right that it should be. As I say, the development post-war was very much more modest than the pre-war conception, and that is right, too. I do not think there can be any argument about there being a necessity for a headquarters.
Mr. Kaberry: An application was made for a licence for a certain figure, which has been exceeded. That is the point.
Mr. Robens: I was developing this on two grounds. Two points were raised. One as to extravagance—that was the first charge—and the second of exceeding the licence. I am dealing with both charges. On the first charge, I am accepting that they should have a headquarters, but on the grounds of extravagance I would not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It is perfectly true that when an authorisation was given, that authorisation was exceeded by about £39,000. That is admitted, and I do not want to say anything not true in that respect. The excess arose from a number of items which I should like to give in detail, running through them quickly, so that they may be put down on the record.
Contractors' charges higher than estimates, £8,534; building work done by the Board's own labour, £4,094; electrical installation by the Board's own contracting department, £7,316; thermal storage heating in the extension, £7,717; thermal storage heating in the old building, £6,218; improvements to the drainage required by the local authority, £2,969; and the moving and re-erection of two outbuildings to make room for the new extension, £2,080. All those were in excess of authorisation.
It is true that authorisation should have been obtained. The chief engineer, who was with the old Yorkshire Electric Power Company and came over to the Yorkshire Electricity Board, was the responsible official for doing this job. It must be remembered that it was done in the early days of the Board. The chief engineer was a hard-working, hard-

405
pressed official. He has since retired from the Board's service, so that the answer to the hon. Gentleman who wanted to have some people dismissed——
Mr. Kaberry: Who are the other people who authorised the work to be done? It would take at least two years.
Mr. Robens: This job was in the charge of the chief engineer. One would assume that a chief engineer responsible for that kind of work would know all there was to know about licensing and it was his responsibility to do that. The authorisations were not sought, but if they had been sought, they would have been granted. It is the function of the Minister of Works to initiate prosecutions and on the basis that the nationalised industries and public utilities should not be treated differently from anybody else. But these were technical breaches of the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is all right for hon. Gentlemen to say "nonsense."[An HON. MEMBER: "What about Lord Peel?"] I do not want to discuss Lord Peel's case. I know nothing about it. It does not come within my jurisdiction at the Ministry of Fuel and Power. But I can tell the hon. Member about this case, because I accept responsibility in the Ministry of Fuel and Power in respect of the authorisations.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman talks about technical breaches of the law. Has the opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions been obtained in this matter?
Mr. Robens: I was going on to explain that the Minister of Works is responsible for prosecutions and it was his view that in cases like this no prosecution should take place, and we accepted his view. He is experienced in these matters. There are many cases of technical breaches where prosecutions have not taken place. If my memory serves me right, there was a case of this kind in court a few weeks ago and it was dismissed. Where there is a purely technical breach and not a wilful misuse of materials——
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I asked the hon. Gentleman whether in this case he
406
had ever asked for the opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mr. Robens: I do not think it would have been obtained, because the Minister of Works, in considering the case, would take the same view of it as of any other case which was purely a technical breach as distinct from wilful misuse of materials. After all, if we take the second case, which was the one at Bramhope to which the hon. Gentleman referred, this was a case of temporary wooden huts being used, and the object of the renovations which took place was to make these places habitable. In point of fact, if the work had been merely repairs, no licence would have been required. What did happen was that the line was overstepped as regards alterations and additions.
When a good deal of this work was being done at Scarcroft, as the old buildings were being taken down and floors had to be made good and so on, other problems were thrown up and, as a consequence, they did exceed the estimates. There is no doubt about it—they did in fact execute a very large amount of work without a licence—and I can only say that the advice of the Minister of Works is that in this case—treating it as he would treat any other case—he did not feel it was a case for prosecution.
Clearly the administrative machinery of the Board was not efficient. I ought to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power has been assured by the Board that they are taking steps to see that their administrative arrangements are such that this technical breach cannot possibly occur again; and I hope that the House will recognise the facts and that this explanation will suffice.
Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that the very embarrassing way in which——
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Tuesday evening, 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 Six Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Housing, Hamburg
  Housing, Hamburg
  Courts-Martial
  Courts-Martial
  Service Personnel (Members' Letters)
  Service Personnel (Members' Letters)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Class Z Reserve
  Class Z Reserve
FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  Strikes
  Strikes
  Pleasure Gardens
  Pleasure Gardens
NATIONAL FINANCE
  "Report to Women"
  "Report to Women"
  Canadian Credit
  Canadian Credit
  Foreigners (Blocked Capital)
  Foreigners (Blocked Capital)
  War Damage Claim, London
  War Damage Claim, London
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Horticultural Industry
  Horticultural Industry
  Savings Certificates (Young Children)
  Savings Certificates (Young Children)
  Miners' Concessionary Coal
  Miners' Concessionary Coal
  Double Taxation
  Double Taxation
  Banking Department (Profits)
  Banking Department (Profits)
  Mr. Gardiner (Conversations)
  Mr. Gardiner (Conversations)
  Germany (Balance of Payments)
  Germany (Balance of Payments)
  South African Gold
  South African Gold
  Revenue Protection Vessel
  Revenue Protection Vessel
  Valuation
  Valuation
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  Retired Staff (Employment)
  Retired Staff (Employment)
  Stationery Office (Report)
  Stationery Office (Report)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Canadian Footwear (Tax)
  Canadian Footwear (Tax)
  Exports (Prices)
  Exports (Prices)
  Wool (Price)
  Wool (Price)
  Fertiliser Imports
  Fertiliser Imports
  Furniture
  Furniture
  Companies Act
  Companies Act
  Estate, Kilwinning
  Estate, Kilwinning
  Ministry Staff
  Ministry Staff
  Pit Props (Imports)
  Pit Props (Imports)
  Outsize Garments
  Outsize Garments
  Hotel, Sittingbourne
  Hotel, Sittingbourne
HOUSING
  Bungalows, Sevenoaks
  Bungalows, Sevenoaks
  Mining Areas
  Mining Areas
  Kingston-upon-Hull
  Kingston-upon-Hull
  Estates (Health Centres)
  Estates (Health Centres)
  Allocations
  Allocations
  Aerodrome, Yorkshire
  Aerodrome, Yorkshire
  Ministry Architects
  Ministry Architects
  Tynemouth
  Tynemouth
  Tenancies (Exchange)
  Tenancies (Exchange)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Road Improvements, Bristol
  Road Improvements, Bristol
  Bedlington Council (Auditor's Report)
  Bedlington Council (Auditor's Report)
  Local Authorities (Members' Expenses)
  Local Authorities (Members' Expenses)
  Water Scheme, Lincolnshire
  Water Scheme, Lincolnshire
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS, CUMBERLAND AND WESTMORLAND
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS, CUMBERLAND AND WESTMORLAND
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Coal Board Offices, Doncaster
  Coal Board Offices, Doncaster
  New Factories
  New Factories
  House of Commons (Air Conditioning)
  House of Commons (Air Conditioning)
  Slaughterhouses, Cornwall
  Slaughterhouses, Cornwall
  Building Industry (Defence Programme)
  Building Industry (Defence Programme)
  Accidents, Liverpool
  Accidents, Liverpool
  Form CCC/Wks/1 (Amendments)
  Form CCC/Wks/1 (Amendments)
  Statutory Instruments
  Statutory Instruments
  New Colonial Office (Model)
  New Colonial Office (Model)
  Taps
  Taps
EMPLOYMENT
  Bakery Trade (Boys)
  Bakery Trade (Boys)
  Retired Civil Servants
  Retired Civil Servants
  Gloucestershire
  Gloucestershire
  Southend-on-Sea
  Southend-on-Sea
  NATIONAL SERVICE (ENLISTMENT NOTICES)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (ENLISTMENT NOTICES)
SCOTLAND
  Tomato Imports
  Tomato Imports
  Timber Felling Licences
  Timber Felling Licences
  Housing
  Housing
  Bull (Sale)
  Bull (Sale)
  COLOMBO PLAN
  COLOMBO PLAN
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (STAFF)
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (STAFF)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (STAFF)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (STAFF)
ROADS
  Closure
  Closure
  Improvements
  Improvements
  MID-WEEK HORSE-RACING
  MID-WEEK HORSE-RACING
  AGRICULTURE (SACKS)
  AGRICULTURE (SACKS)
  CANTON (RUBBER IMPORTS)
  CANTON (RUBBER IMPORTS)
  DUTCH BACON IMPORTS
  DUTCH BACON IMPORTS
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Glentoran—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TAXATION OF ANNUITIES
2.35 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in ray name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the large number of persons who are endeavouring to provide for their old age by purchasing an annuity; whether they are aware that as the law stands at present the whole of the periodical payments received by the annuitant are treated as income and taxed accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that included in these payments is a return of capital; and in view of the unfairness of treating a return of capital as ordinary income, whether the Government will take steps to remove this hardship as has been done in like cases both in Canada and the U.S.A.]
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, ever since income tax was introduced in this country in 1799 by Pitt the Younger, annuities have been subject to tax in their entirety. These provisions of the law have been made the subject of detailed inquiries by numerous Committees since that time, including the Royal Commission on the Income Tax in 1920, but not one of these bodies has recommended any change in the law. It therefore remains to-day substantially the same as it has been throughout. I do not propose to go over the arguments for or against a change in the law, as I wish to remind your Lordships that another Committee is new considering this matter. In his Budget speech last year, Sir Stafford Cripps announced that he proposed to set up a Committee to consider various
810
aspects of the treatment for taxation purposes of provisions which people make to secure them benefits in their old age or retirement. This Committee was appointed last August under the chairmanship of Mr. Millard Tucker, K.C. In the circumstances, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it would not be proper for His Majesty's Government to comment on the matter at the present time until this Committee has made its report.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether it would not be possible for the Government to inquire of Canada and the United States how they have found it possible to differentiate return of capital from ordinary income and to give annuitants the benefit, so that they are not taxed on receiving back the capital which they have put into the annuity?
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I will certainly mention that point to my right honourable friend, but I am sure that the Committee to which I have alluded will deal with all these matters in the fullest possible way.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: Can the noble Lord say when it is likely that the Report of the Committee will be published? Consideration has been going on for so long—the matter has gone from Committee to Committee and nothing seems ever to be done.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I have told the noble Lord that the Committee was set up in August. I am afraid I cannot give him any more information about it at the moment.

DIOCESAN EDUCATION COMMITTEES MEASURE, 1943(AMENDMENT) MEASURE. 1950
2.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Diocesan Education Committees Measure, 1943 (Amendment) Measure, 1950, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a purely uncontroversial Measure dealing with a small piece of administrative machinery. It has passed the Church

811
Assembly without division. In 1943 your Lordships passed a Measure setting up Diocesan Education Committees to look after all the Church schools in every diocese. That was done in contemplation of the forthcoming Education Bill. When your Lordships passed the Education Act in 1944, it specifically provided for the recognition of the Diocesan Education Committees and enabled the local authorities and the Ministry of Education to negotiate with them on the subject of the voluntary schools. Experience in the working of the Education Act has shown that in certain respects the Diocesan Education Committees are capable of improvement, and the sole purpose of this Measure is to bring up to date these committees, which were set up before the Act, so that their powers and composition may tally with the provisions and requirements of the Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Diocesan Education Committees Measure, 1943 (Amendment) Measure, 1950, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

RAG FLOCK AND OTHER FILLING MATERIALS BILL [H.L.]
2.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, I noticed that the original Rag Flock Act was first before your Lordships' House forty years ago, in 1911. On reading the debate on that occasion I was impressed with the celerity with which your Lordships got through the business of the House in those days—less than seven minutes for the Second Reading, and less than four minutes for the remaining stages. But your Lordships' House did even better in 1928, on the second occasion when a similar Bill was before the House. All stages, including Second Reading, were disposed of in less than four minutes. I know that there are ten noble Lords who hope to-day that we shall not spend too much time on this Bill, because they are anxious to take
812
us round Carlton House Terrace. I can promise them that it is not my intention to delay the proceedings for more than a minimum of time.
Since the days of 1911 and 1928, we have the distinct advantage of the very helpful Report of the inter-Departmental Committee on Rag Flock Acts. I know that noble Lords who have had the time and inclination to read this Report would wish me to pay tribute to all the members of the Committee, and in particular to its Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. It is a most helpful Report, and I think I may say that seldom has a Bill kept more faithfully to a Report than this Bill does. It does not attempt to do all that is suggested in the Report, but there are few matters of any importance which are not included in the Bill. The Report was completed in 1946, and the Bill has been introduced in Parliament in 1951. It may be of help to say at once that the only reason for what looks like a long delay has been very heavy pressure on Parliamentary time.
The first question that arises—at least, it is the question that I have been asked by many noble Lords present—is what exactly we mean by rag flock. I can assure your Lordships that I, too, asked that question, and I received an official reply—which I believe is the best type of reply—which, paraphrased, is that rag flock is the result of a process of tearing up woven or knitted or felted materials. Some of these materials may be clean, others oftimes are dirty; some are new and some are very old. The tearing-up process is done by a machine known as a laniator, which tears the materials into shreds so that they emerge as a fluffy resilient mass. That is the reply I have received, and I hope it satisfies all your Lordships. To cleanse these materials thoroughly, as your Lordships will appreciate, costs more than to leave the flock in a dirty condition—and that is at the root of this Bill. According to the Merthyr Report,
"dirty flock can be produced for about £4 to £5 a ton less than a properly washed flock."
Your Lordships will appreciate the temptation there, but I am sure you will agree that it is entirely wrong that those who are using or producing dirty fillings should have a financial advantage over those who are using or producing clean fillings. There is also a health aspect which ought not

813
to be ignored. Dirt and disease are still connected, and this form of dirt, besides containing dust, must contain, in the words of the Merthyr Report—in an expressive but not very attractive phrase—"much infection, filth and excreta."
The present position of the law as regards rag flock is that it is an offence to sell or use, or have for sale or use, rag flock which falls below a prescribed standard. There is a defence on grounds of warranty. Local sanitary authorities have the duty of enforcement. But the passing of time has shown clearly that such safeguards are inadequate. For instance, in the first place, the requirement applies only to rag flock used or to be used in upholstery, cushions or bedding. But all filling materials of which there is any substantial use should be clean; the range of articles in which they are used and which is covered by the law as it stands should not be so limited, and clearly those articles also should be controlled. One might group together certain administrative weaknesses: too limited powers of entry, inadequate penalties, and so forth. There is a further weakness in the existing law, not emphasised by the Merthyr Committee but with which we are trying to deal in this Bill, and this explains the form of the new Bill in certain respects. In the existing law a man's intentions have to be proved, and, as your Lordships know, it is never very easy to do that. In the Bill that difficulty has in most places been avoided. Lastly, there is the difficulty of prescribing an adequate test. This is a weakness not so much of the Act itself, but in the administration, and it has largely been remedied by the ingenuity and public spirit of a number of persons associated with an institution which ought to be named in this House—namely, the British Standards Institution, a body which is doing a fine job of work to ensure cleanliness.
With regard to the provisions of the Bill, they provide in the main for registration and licensing. Premises where upholstery and kindred activities are to be carried on must be registered with the local authority. Premises where rag flock is to be made or stored for use in upholstery are to be licensed by the local authority. The difference between the terms "registration" and "licence" is simply this: premises will be registered unconditionally on demand; premises
814
will be licensed unless they are lacking in adequate appliances or are part of a building another part of which "involves or may involve the use or keeping of rag flock." Here we need to be quite clear beyond any possibility of being misunderstood. If the rag flock makers intend to make rag flock for use in upholstery, they must get a licence; if they intend to make rag flock for some other purpose, they need not get a licence. To complete the control, rag flock can be used in upholstery only if it comes from licensed premises. It may be said that little or no rag flock is made to-day except for upholstery. There is much truth in that statement. The importance of the provisions lies, however, in the fact that they make it impossible—and this has been happening—for a man to produce dirty rag flock for upholstery and to pretend that he was producing it for some other purpose.
May I recapitulate? First of all, filling materials on premises used for upholstery must be clean. To that, no objection can be taken. Secondly, the upholsterer must get his rag flock from licensed premises; and, thirdly, all rag flock in licensed premises must be clean. Thus, no proof of intention is required as it is at present under the Act. The licensing provisions are made specially applicable to rag flock because of the special problems of con-trolling its manufacture and cleansing. Registration and licensing will also help the authorities to enforce the Act. They can enter and inspect such premises, and take samples and have them tested; and on all such premises records must be kept which will help the authorities to track down any offending material to its source. The Merthyr Committee referred to the inadequate powers of entry. In the Bill wider powers are given which include power to enter premises where the authority have reasonable grounds for thinking that the Act should apply.
Many of the machinery provisions of the Bill follow the general lines of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. It has been said by a number of your Lordships that, as compared with the present Rag Flock Acts, the Bill increases the number of things which are made criminal offences. That is true, but it cannot be put forward as a ground for objecting to the Bill. Existing legislation had so narrow an application that it was ineffective, and

815
the Merthyr Committee recommended, and the Bill proposes, that the legislation should apply at all relevant stages of the manufacturing and distributing process, and to all materials commonly used for upholstery, et cetera, the purpose being to give general protection to the consumer. Without such provisions the Bill would be far less effective. It must be possible to deal with salesmen dealing in articles containing dirty materials. Any other course would mean less protection to the public, and would be unfair on the good upholstery firms and the manufacturers of clean rag flock. Let it be clearly understood by your Lordships that this Bill in no way penalises any salesman who deals with reputable firms of upholsterers and secures proper warranties. But if he deals knowingly in articles containing dirty materials, then such conduct, as I feel sure your Lordships will agree, should be covered by the Bill.
There are three matters with which the Bill does not deal in the way sometimes advocated. One concerns second-hand articles. This question has been given careful study, and it has been discovered that it would be almost impossible to deal effectively with them. But, of course, a new article which is stuffed with filling material taken from second-hand articles is not itself second-hand, and the Bill will apply to such an article. Then there is the question of imports. There is no restriction on the actual importation of filling materials. But those which are used in upholstery and kindred trades, or stored in licensed premises, must be clean. It will be noticed that cleanliness is the outstanding feature of the Bill right through. In the case of a warranty given by someone outside the United Kingdom, the person who relies on it must prove that he had taken reasonable steps to ascertain, and did in fact believe in, the accuracy of the statement in it. Imported materials will thus become subject to control as soon as they enter the channel of production for upholstery and so forth.
The Bill also departs from the Merthyr Committee's recommendations as to labelling or marking, and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has indicated that he will make reference to this matter. The reason is that at this very moment the President of the Board of Trade is considering
816
legislation of a much wider and more general scope in regard to marking at the present time. Clearly, we do not want to overlap, and anything left undone which ought to be done in this Bill can, we have no doubt, be taken up in that wider context—which will doubtless refer to quality as well as to cleanliness.
Since the Merthyr Committee reported, there is one activity which has taken place to which I ought to refer. As a result of the enthusiasm of people in the trade itself—both management and workers—and in the Board of Trade, a remarkable development relating to utility furniture and bedding has taken place. It works under the ægis of the British Standards Institution, which has succeeded in establishing standard cleanliness specifications and methods of testing for a wide range of filling materials. This is in addition to the original Fenton test, mentioned in the Merthyr Report, for rag flock which has been refined and improved upon. The vast majority of actual producers of filling materials co-operate in a scheme under which the British Standards Institution inspectors inspect their machinery and test their products, and a B.S.I. certificate is given only to those who come up to standard: this certificate can then be shown in a mark on the product. This scheme has received the official backing of the Board of Trade in its Orders controlling utility furniture, et cetera. The present Bill will not prevent that good work going on. In administering this Bill when enacted, the Government will encourage local authorities to work in with the scheme—within the framework of the Act. In prescribing test and standards under the Bill the Minister will keep in close touch with the British Standards Institution, and will place great reliance on the standards that they have worked out. I have given, as briefly as possible, a rough outline of the Bill, and I trust that it will meet with the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor)
2.58 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, in rising to welcome this Bill I should like first to say a word of thanks to the noble Lord who has moved the second reading for his kindly reference to the Committee over which I had the honour to preside.

817
This Committee started work in 1938 but, like many others, were interrupted by the war; and it was not until 1946 that we were able to complete our task. Therefore, including the interruption, it took eight years. When I was asked to be Chairman of the Committee the first thing I had to do was to look in the dictionary to see the meaning of the words "rag flock." After doing so. I protested that I was unfitted for the task, because I knew nothing of the subject. I gathered from the reply that I received that that was exactly what was wanted, and that what was wanted was a strictly impartial chairman.
May I say—and I am very pleased to say it—that I think a great deal is owed to all those experts (because, other than myself, the members were all experts in one way or another) who sat on the Committee? There were fourteen gentlemen, who have not been named to-day, and I think a debt of gratitude is owed to all of them. I remember that four of them were Doctors of Medicine, and there were experts in many other fields. After I had learned some of the language which these experts were talking, we got along very well, in spite of the long delay, and we were able to produce a unanimous Report. I think the Government are to be congratulated on introducing this Bill, when they are so preoccupied, as we all know, in many other graver matters. The noble Lord half apologised for the fact that five years had elapsed since the publication of the Report. I always understood that the average length of time for the Report of a Royal Commission or Departmental Committee to appear in the shape of legislation was thirty years—so I think that on this occasion the average has been satisfactorily reduced.
I learned much from the work of that Committee. I learned that in a certain rather congested area of the country there is a very useful and honourable trade being carried on, an industry that does not come much into the eye of the public but which, nevertheless, fulfils a most useful function. We visited one or two factories where rag flock is made. We saw redundant clothes (some of them very redundant) going in at one end of the machine and rag flock coming out at the other. What we saw there persuaded us without any difficulty of the importance of this subject and of the necessity for legislation on these lines. There is no
818
doubt how important it is to prevent the small amount of dishonest practice that may go on in the preparation of upholstery, bedding and other furniture filling materials. Therefore I think that this Bill is very necessary and very welcome. Consideration of the matter certainly opened my eyes to a number of things. I wonder whether, in assessing the importance of this matter, your Lordships have considered the fact that we all spend at least a third of our lives reclining on some form of material filled with rag flock or the various other fillings enumerated in Clause 32 of the Bill. We are all apt to take for granted the upholstery, pillows, cushions and so forth, in the furniture we buy, but one has only to consider this question a little to realise the risks that the public run. The most discerning housewife cannot be expected properly to inspect the inside of every piece of furniture and such materials which she has purchased Even in your Lordships' House, how many noble Lords know with what material the Benches we occupy are filled? Is it not a fact that a few years ago one of our less responsible but more popular newspapers discovered that the Woolsack was entirely innocent of wool? The matter was, I understand, very hurriedly remedied by the department of the noble Lord the Lord Great Chamberlain.
I think that this Bill will do a good deal to make it easier for people to buy clean materials. The legal doctrine caveat emptor might be very difficult to apply in this particular instance, where it is impossible to see exactly what you are buying—at any rate without causing at least some material damage to the article concerned. And when the article is opened up and it is found to be perfectly clean, the question arises, who is to pay for the damage? Therefore, I think that if there is a case where the public should be protected by the State by means of legislation of this nature, this is that case. It is imperative to establish and to keep the confidence of the general public in all articles of this nature; and it has been found, as the noble Lord has said, that the Acts of 1911 and of 1928 have not been found adequate for the purpose.
One of the principal difficulties is to decide what is meant by the word "clean." It is extremely difficult to define. I gather from medical experts that in this particular connection it has

819
never been proved that disease has resulted from dirty fillings. I understand that two noble Lords who have studied this question from the medical angle are to speak to-day. It will be interesting to hear their views. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to understand how desirable it is that all kinds of fillings should be clean. The next difficulty is bound up with the proper study of cleanliness. I hope that whatever standards are laid down will be kept very elastic, because as time goes on and experience is gained it may be possible to raise these standards; and if the standards are laid down too rigidly, either in an Act of Parliament or elsewhere, we shall suffer because they cannot be easily altered. I think it is of the utmost importance that they should be elastic so that they can be raised or lowered, as the case may require. If they are too high it may be harsh and hard on the trade; if they are too low the public are not adequately protected. Therefore, let us make it possible to adjust the standards easily so that they are just right.
Since our Report was published in 1946, much has happened, as the noble Lord who introduced the Bill here has indicated. The noble Lord made sympathetic reference—and I am glad he did—to the British Standards Institution which, I understand, is a public organisation, having the support of the Government, though it is not a Government Department or a part of one. I should be the first to agree that some Amendments are necessary, not only to the Bill but also to the proposals put forward by the Committee. The Bill is largely based on the Report of an inter-Departmental Committee, and the noble Lord has mentioned one or two ways in which it departs from that Report. He mentioned one point that I was going to raise, that of labelling. After hearing his explanation of the provisions made in the Bill, however, I am perfectly satisfied; I did not know, until he spoke, the reason for this omission. If this labelling requirement can be made general, and not applied only to this particular class of article, we shall all be better satisfied.
I hope that in one particular, the Government will seriously consider making even further use of the British Standards Institution. I hope that this Bill may ensure that, so far as the licensing of
820
manufacturers' premises is concerned, a licence should be obtained not from the local authority but from the British Standards Institution—or, as a second best, that if it must be obtained from the local authority, then the grant of a licence to a manufacturer of rag flock will be automatic if the manufacturer has already obtained a licence from the British Standards Institution. I feel that the British Standards Institution is in a better position than even the best of the local authorities to judge as to the standards of manufacture and cleanliness. I admit that what I am saying now is slightly contrary to the Report, but the reason is simply that during the last five years there have been these developments and improvements.
There are one or two other points I wish to make. In the first place, it is important to realise that, relatively speaking, the use of rag flock is diminishing—not actually, but relatively. In the old days, perhaps fifty or more years ago, almost all upholstery was filled with rag flock. Now there are a great number of other materials—about twenty of them are enumerated in Clause 32 of the Bill—and, relatively, they are displacing rag flock. Consequently, I venture to suggest that at least some of those other materials should occupy a higher place in this Bill. In particular, I should like to see hair and feathers, to name only two, included in Clause 4, because your Lordships will appreciate that hair and feathers get very dirty and can be difficult to clean. I feel that it is important that the relative positions of some of these materials should be reviewed. In fact, I go so far as to suggest that the Title of this Bill should be altered; that it should not be called the Rag Flock Act (because that is what it will be called), but that the words "Rag Flock" should be omitted from the Title which should be, when it is passed into law, the Filling Materials Act. I believe that that Title would be more correct, more comprehensive and less misleading than the present Title. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will be good enough to consider that suggestion on its merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has mentioned the penalties in Clause 17. I agree with him that nobody wants a large number of prosecutions under this Bill. If the machinery which I have suggested is adopted, if licensing is done by the

821
British Standards Institution, which, as the noble Lord said, has the support of all sides of the industry, then I believe that the number of prosecutions will be few, because it is only a small group or proportion of people who are getting on the wrong side of the law in this matter. On the other hand, I think that the penalties in Clause 17 are too low. After all, one may find that once in a while a large firm is involved, and it seems to me that in the rare event of a large firm being convicted a fine of £50 is much too small a maximum penalty. There is no necessity for the maximum to be imposed, but I feel that in these days, when the value of money has changed, the maximum penalties should be substantially increased. I will not detain the House longer upon the Second Reading of this Bill. On the whole, I think it is a very good Bill. I hope that it will be passed into law and that some, at least, of the points which I have made will be favourably considered by His Majesty's Government before the Bill reaches its further stages and is sent to another place.
3.15 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we have now heard both the Government spokesman introducing this measure and the Chairman of the Committee upon whose Report it is so largely based. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, that we ought all to sympathise with him in the large amount of work he must have had to do as Chairman of this Committee. I was one of those who had the time (to use the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald's, words), if not the inclination, to read through this Report from cover to cover when I knew that I should be dealing with this Bill. I am glad to think that your Lordships are taking more time about it than was the case with the two earlier Bills, as we were told by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. In fact, he himself, I think, exceeded the time which was taken on both measures on the earlier occasions in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord gave us a definition of rag flock. Of course, a number of your Lordships wondered what rag flock was. One of my colleagues said: "I suppose it is the same thing in sheep as a scrub bull is in cattle." But that was not, of course, the definition that we were given this afternoon. We shall all agree that one
822
of the things we ought to ensure is that no unclean material finds its way into mattresses, pillows, toys or any article of that kind. I am not sure that the Title, "Rag Flock And Other Filling Materials Bill" is not rather widely drawn. As at present drawn it seems to me that it includes the meat in a sausage, and the tobacco in a cigarette, to name just two examples of things with which, obviously, this measure is not intended to deal.
In this case, if the British Standards Institution are right, we are dealing with only 5 per cent., for the remaining 95 per cent. of the filling materials now used for the articles with which this Bill is intended to deal are, I am told, perfectly clean. But it is important to deal with the other 5 per cent. No one wishes the manufacturers of the filling, or indeed those making articles out of the filling, to get away with a cheaper article because they market goods which are not clean. I have my doubts whether we are not rather using a sledgehammer to knock in a small tintack, with the amount of registration and everything else that is provided for in this measure. If I may say so, and I think all Parties have been guilty of this, we are inclined to put more and more duties upon local authorities, and not realise that that means the employment of more staff and an increase in the rates. When we have this Bill passed into law, it will give the local sanitary inspectors an opportunity of saying: "I must increase my staff." So, from those points of view, in these days when economy is more and more essential in view of our rearmament programme, we ought to consider whether we are not using too elaborate a machinery to cure an evil—though an evil which I believe is not a very extensive one, because, after all, the majority of the manufacturers and traders in this country are honest men, and will not sell unclean material.
I should have thought that if we increased the amount of the penalties, and said that it was illegal to use for any article (I am not now using a definition that could be inserted in the Bill) a filling which was unclean, that might well suffice to cure the 5 per cent. who may be offending at the present time. In regard to the majority of cases, I should have thought that we could rely on the factory inspectors and their staff, who are extremely good, and who have the right of entry

823
into any manufacturing premises at any time, to report if they considered that the articles from a particular place needed to be inspected as being likely not to be clean. However, those are perhaps matters that we should look into on Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, said that he thought it was greatly to the credit of the Government that, when they were preoccupied with grave matters, they introduced a Bill of this sort. In my experience, when the Government of the day are preoccupied with grave matters of administration they have a tendency to wish to keep Parliament quiet by pulling Bills out of pigeon-holes to give Parliament something to talk about. This looks to me like a Bill that has come out of some such pigeon-hole of the Ministry of Health. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, suggested—and there may be something in his suggestion—that the British Standards Institution should be the body to approve or license (I am not certain which word is applicable), the manufacturers, since the Institution had the support of all sides of the industry. I am not sure that that is quite right. Although they are a much respected body, I have heard that the committee which deals with matters of this kind is not representative of the whole industry, and that in justice there would have to be some alteration in the membership of that committee before these powers could properly be entrusted to it.
I have three other points to raise. I shall be raising them on the Committee stage, and it may be of advantage if I just refer to them now. I believe that Clause 1 will put the small artisan upholsterer out of business—I refer to the men who come round to a person's own house and re-stuff the sofa or mattress, or whatever it may be. In nearly every case the mattress or sofa, or whatever it is, needs some additional filling put in after it has been used for some time; and that will not now be allowed except on registered premises. There are a number of cases where it is much cheaper for the householder to have this work done at home. Indeed, I think we do not want to stamp out the trade in which the small man comes round, in town or village, and re-stuffs furniture in a person's own house. I am not suggesting that the man should be allowed to take the work to his own
824
premises—that would make too big a loophole. But I think we ought to have an Amendment to allow this work to be done in the house or on the premises of the person wanting the work done; otherwise, as Clause 1 is at present drawn, we shall put a lot of these worthy craftsmen out of business.
My Lords, I take a slightly different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, about how the standard of cleanliness should be prescribed. In the Bill it is left to be done by Regulation or Order in Council, or by some other procedure. I do not know whether the Ministry of Health are responsible—
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The Ministry of Local Government and Planning.
LORD LLEWELLIN: At any rate, it was the Ministry of Health. I believe the Ministry have had plenty of time to ascertain the proper standard of cleanliness and to provide for it in the measure. I do not like the main ingredients of a criminal offence not to be dealt with in the measure which we are passing but to be left to subsequent regulations. That is fundamentally a bad thing. This Bill establishes something as a criminal offence and I do not think that criminal offences should be easily variable by regulations. If in ten or twenty years a new standard arises, by all means amend the Act and let everybody know. The manufacturer is put in the position of perhaps buying and equipping his factory with machinery which will produce stuff according to the standard of cleanliness required, and he ought to have a little security against the possibility that within a year or eighteen months all that expense will be made void because some other standard of cleanliness is adopted. With all the advice and authoritative knowledge which Government Departments can obtain, they ought by this time to have established a standard of cleanliness which can be laid down in the Bill itself. After all, since 1948 the British Standards Institution has had a standard of cleanliness which I gather has been quite effective.
I should like to ask one question in regard to Clause 4—namely, whether as drafted it means that no one may clean rag flock who also uses it as a filling material. So far as I can see, rag flock

825
used for filling must come from a licensee store or other licensed premises, and I should have thought there was no real harm in the people who use rag flock cleansing it themselves, if necessary. I dislike Clause 6 (6) and Clause 7 (5). If a man is pat out of his business the only appeal is to a Ministry. I am not saying anything critical of the Ministries, but the man in the Ministry who will deal with this matter will almost certainly know the local sanitary inspector and will say, "If that is what the sanitary inspector recommends, I cannot do anything else than uphold him when the matter comes to me." That, again, is no real appeal. The person who is being refused or who is losing his licence is put out of business without any openly heard appeal. It is merely an appeal which is placed on a file at a Ministry and is dealt with by some official there. That is not the kind of thing I like to see. If there is any real ground of appeal the man should have an appeal to a court, and the local sanitary inspector would know that he has to give his evidence there. That has a good effect; if he knows that he can be cross-examined in open court it may make him rather more careful of putting some firm out of business. That has always been our system, and I hope it will continue to be. I know that Lord Merthyr's Committee recommended the course that has been adopted in this Bill, and said that it would give some measure of uniformity, but I do not believe that that is the way to get uniformity. The right way is for the Ministry concerned to send round circulars to the health authorities in the different districts, and give them, in those circulars, the general line on which it is suggested they should proceed. If that is done, uniformity will be secured.
Clause 9 and Clause 19 both gave me some amusement when I read them. I see that a sheriff or a bailiff, if he has taken any goods in satisfaction of a writ of execution, may do what he likes with them. He can sell them just as he likes, even though they may be known to be unclean. It amused me to read in Clause 19 that a local authority can dispose of any articles which are found to be unclean "in such manner as they think fit." That, of course, is very wide. If the clause said, "may destroy them," there would be something to be said for it. Actually,
826
the words have a much wider meaning than that, because they give the local authority power to use the goods in question in "such manner as they think lit." This might mean that if the authorities of this House were not as cautious as we know they are, some of these goods might be sold to us and used to stuff the Woolsack on which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor sits.
Those are a few brief observations on. the drafting of the Bill. I am not suggesting that we are getting into such a bureaucratic state that we are allowing local authorities to sell the material to anyone. I think it is the case, simply, that there has been a mistake in the drafting in this connection; I do not accuse the Government of anything beyond that. The only other thing I wish to mention, in passing, is that I should have thought that Clause 13 was wrong. True, this is only a Committee point but I should have thought that it was always the third sample which was used in the court proceedings. I have always understood that one sample was retained by the local authority, one was handed to the supplier and the third kept to produce in court. As I say, that is a Committee point and it is one on which I shall put in an Amendment at the Committee stage; but I thought it was just as well to draw attention to it now. Let me say at once that we are not going to oppose this measure on Second Reading. We all want to see nothing but clean filling materials used. We all want to see that no one gets away with any laxity in this connection; we want to ensure that people who use filling materials are not provided with dirty ones, and that the manufacturers of such materials give a real and proper service to their customers. There are some points into which we shall wish to go carefully during the Committee stage, and these I have outlined to your Lordships to-day. But, so far as we on these Benches are concerned, this Bill, will, of course, get a Second Reading this afternoon.
3.35 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am sure that we here give a very warm welcome to the Bill which is before us now. It is a comparatively simple measure and is certainly not of a controversial nature. There are just one or two points which I should like to make, First, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that it is a case of taking rather a big

827
weapon to deal with a comparatively small trouble. No one would deny that it is very important that filling materials should be clean, but we have to be careful that we take the steps we deem necessary not purely as a health matter. It is a strange and curious thing that, so far as I know, there is no evidence at all that any sickness or disease has been brought about by people having filling materials which are not up to the standard here laid down. The point is extremely well put by Lord Merthyr in paragraph 16 of his Committee's Report. In that paragraph it is said that from an æsthetic point of view it is repugnant that one should have one's chairs or upholstery filled with filthy material. That seems to me to be a very telling point and what we are trying to do by this measure is to ensure that nothing of the sort shall happen. That is the main purpose of the Bill.
I have been rather worried—and perhaps the noble Lord who is going to reply can enlighten me on this point—about the rather stringent powers of entry which the Bill gives. This matter is dealt with in Clause 12. Your Lordships will see that it is there stated that an authorised officer of a local authority can enter premises for various reasons which are given in four paragraphs. I am not sure that those reasons are not rather exaggerated. I admit that similar powers of entry are given in the Public Health Act, 1936, but that measure deals with much more serious matters than are dealt with by this Bill. Perhaps some explanation of that point will be given when the noble Lord who is to speak for the Government replies to the debate. Another matter which I think rather strange—I do not know whether it has ever occurred before—is that Clause 15 provides that an authorised officer from a local authority may go into the province of another local authority to inspect premises there. I admit that that can be done only with the consent of the other local authority, but it seems to me rather breaking down something in local government if officers from one local authority can go into the area of a neighbouring authority and do work which they could do themselves. I should like to conclude by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, on the fact that his Report, even though it has been pigeon-holed for some time, appears
828
now to have been taken out and made good use of.
3.38 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government one or two questions. Clause 35 of this Bill deals with the application of the Bill to Scotland. In Clause 11 is laid down the duty of local authorities to enforce the measure. By subsection (3) of Clause 11 it is provided that:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising a local authority in Scotland to institute proceedings for an offence against this Act."
If the authorities in Scotland cannot institute proceedings, how can they enforce the Act? What is the object of making this exception in the case of Scotland? I do not understand why Scotland should be treated in this way, if authorities elsewhere have power to enforce the measure.
3.39 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, the welcome that has been given to this Bill is certainly satisfactory to noble Lords in all quarters of the House. It seems to me to be a very useful measure, and by its reception this afternoon it is guaranteed a passage through this House and a place on the Statute Book. If the time were available one might spend a considerable period in developing points which have been raised in the discussion. But, as your Lordships know, another discussion is to follow this. Therefore, I shall have to abbreviate my remarks as much as possible in dealing with the matters which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has already been thanked by my noble friend Lord Macdonald, and I also give him my thanks for the extremely good work he did as Chairman of that Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, suggested that licensing might be done not by the local authority but by the British Standards Institution. That is an interesting suggestion which will have to be explored In detail at the Committee stage. His other suggestion in regard to the Title of the Bill is also a matter that can be considered then. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said that everyone is agreed that no unclean material should be used for fillings. For the members of your Lordships' House, and for the general public, that is true; but those who use

829
unclean filling in upholstery and bedding do not agree, because they find it profitable to do so. In past years, as a doctor, I saw something of the conditions in this work, and it was alarming. The noble Lord said that we are dealing with only 5 per cent. of the trade. I do not pretend to know whether 5 per cent. is an exact figure or not. I agree that not a large percentage is involved, although undoubtedly it is a percentage which; needs control.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, also put forward a number of points in Clause 1. The first was the question of whether artisan upholsterers would be put out of business by the Bill. That is a matter which can, if necessary, be safeguarded by a suitable Amendment at the Committee stage. He also brought up a point with regard to the standard of cleanliness, and that I think is also a Committee point. On Clauses 9 and l9, he suggested that the local authorities might use their powers to sell material. It seems to me that the noble Lord does not give sufficient consideration to the good intention of the local authorities; no authority will be likely to do that kind of thing.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, the point I made was that here we put in words that would allow them to do so. I believe the words are meant to cover only the destroying of material known to be unclean, and if that is all we mean, that is all we should say. I cast no reflection on the local authorities. But I think we should word Acts of Parliament to say what we mean.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: I did not gather that the noble Lord was casting reflections on the local authorities, but I thought he had overlooked the fact that the local authorities had already disapproved of the use of these materials, and were therefore hardly likely to do the work themselves. With regard to the question about samples of testing, I think that is also a Committee point. The noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, asked me why the procedure was different in Scotland. It is because in Scotland all proceedings are taken by the Crown.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, considered that the powers of entry given in the Bill are too wide. It is necessary for the powers of entry to be considerable.
830
One of the reasons for the introduction of the Bill is that it has been found that the powers of entry given under the provisions of the 1911 Act are not sufficient. The power now proposed would not be used unless there was very good reason for it, but authority has to be given, so that the power may be used when required. The noble Lord also raised the question of the officers of one authority going into the area of another authority. That may be a novelty, but to my mind it is an advantage, as an economy of convenience. That brings me to another point brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who asked whether it would be necessary to have larger staffs. It is clearly laid down in the Report of the Merthyr Committee, which went into this matter in some detail, that the amount of additional work would not make necessary the engaging of additional staff, and that it could be done by the staff of the local authorities. I have tried briefly to sum up the debate. I think that we can now proceed with the Second Reading, and all these matters can be gone into in the necessary detail at the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LIVESTOCK REARING BILL
3.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Extension of class of land for improvement of which grants may be made under the principal Act
(3) In this section—
(a) the expression "livestock rearing land" means 'and situated in an area consisting predominantly of mountains, hills or heath. being land which is, or by improvement could be made, suitable for use for the breeding, rearing and maintenance of sheep or cattle but not for the carrying on. to any material extent, of dairy farming, the production, to any material extent, of fat sheep

831
or fat cattle or the production of crops in quantity materially greater than that necessary to feed the number of sheep or cattle capable of being maintained on the land;
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, to add to paragraph (a) of subsection (3):
"Provided that livestock rearing land to which improvements have been made under an approved scheme under the principal Act shall not, by reason only of the making of such improvements, be deemed to be "excepted land" within the definition in subsection (5) of section sixty of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. 1949."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I shall detain the House for only a few minutes. Section 59, subsection (2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949. defines the words "open country," in a very important definition, as land consisting
"wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath, down, cliff or foreshore."
Section 60, subsection (1) provides that there shall be an exception, and in subsection (5) of the same section, the first type of "excepted land" is defined as
"(a) agricultural land, other than such land which is agricultural land by reason only that it affords rough grazing for livestock; "
Turning to the Livestock Rearing Bill, we see that in Clause 1 (3) (a), some of the words that I have mentioned occur again. On this occasion they are "mountains, hills or heath." The Bill contemplates making improvements in land which falls under that description.
I am wholeheartedly in favour of improving such land, and I have not the slightest criticism of any such improvements—in fact, I think they are now overdue. What I am worried about is lest this Bill, when it becomes law, may to some extent nullify the access provisions of the National Parks Act. Having achieved a considerable measure of access under that Act, I am apprehensive lest some access shall be taken away by the passing of this Bill. I put down this Amendment to try to secure that that shall not happen, and to ask whether His Majesty's Government have considered this particular point. I have ventured to put down what I think to be an acceptable Amendment in order to achieve the object. The wording may not be perfect, but no doubt I shall be told whether the Amendment can be accepted or not. I should like to draw
832
attention to the third line of the Amendment, which says:
"… by reason only of the making of such improvements …"
This is my attempt to bring about a small point, but one which I feel is one of some importance. I am most anxious that the public shall not be denied access to a large area of land simply by the passing of this Bill. It seems to me possible for the land to be improved in the way contemplated without that access being denied. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35. at end insert the said pro-viso.—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARI OF LISTOWEL): I am sure that we all share the noble Lord's desire that people should be able to wander as freely as possible over our hills and moorlands, and that, so far as possible, the rights which they enjoy under the National Parks Act should be maintained. But we must consider the interests of food production. That is why the public do not have free access to agricultural land. I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment, because we feel that if it were included in the Bill the effect would be harmful to agriculture. I believe that we have the support of noble Lords opposite for the line which we feel obliged to take in regard to this Amendment. If it were accepted it would mean that a sheep or cattle farmer who had improved his land under the scheme, possibly making rough grazing into good pasture, would find that his land would still be accessible to hikers and visitors from the neighbouring towns. That would be most undesirable. It would put the farmer who has improved his land under the scheme, and who received a grant from public funds, in quite a different position from the farmer who had improved his land out of his own pocket. Moreover, there would be a grave risk that these visitors, if they were allowed to walk freely about the farm, would do damage to newly-seeded land; and even more serious would the result be if farmers were deterred from promoting improvement schemes because they knew that hikers would be allowed to wander about on their land. This would possibly prejudice the production of the amount of meat which we hope

833
to secure under the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will see the force of the objections to his proposal, and that in the light of what I have said, in which I have the support of the noble Lords opposite, who are equally anxious to safeguard the interests of fanning, he will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: I must say that the noble Earl has not reduced my apprehension in this matter. Certainly I will not press the Amendment to a Division, but I am still glad that I put it down, because it has elicited from the Government something of the true position, which can low be studied. What I am worried about now is this. Supposing that pasture on a mountain or fell is improved by the production of better grass, by whatever means, does that mean that under the Bill that land, which would have been access land under the National Parks Act, will automatically not be access land? If I am right in this assumption it will be a very important change indeed, and one which may affect large areas. To my mind that point is worthy of close study. I would make only one further point. I think I should be right in suggesting that when the National Parks Act was before your Lordships' House the underlying principle of access land was that there should be access to unenclosed land—in fact, I am not sure that it was not suggested that a re-definition of the words should be made. Surely, the whole point was that people should be allowed to have access to unenclosed land. Under this present Bill it seems to me that a great deal of unenclosed land can be, and I hope will be, improved. Does that mean that thousands of acres of this land will cease to be access land, merely because the grass has improved? I do not want to make the point again, but I believe that it is important and will need to be closely studied by all those who take an interest in the matter. I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD HARLECH: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I should like to ask whether the Government have consulted the National Park Commissioners on this point. I agree that we do not want this access to be granted outside the National Park areas, but in the limited National Parks there seems to be a strong case for the National Parks idea being allowed
834
to have at any rate reasonable predominance.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning has been consulted on this matter.
LORD MERTHYR: With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has said. I should like to remind him that Part V of the National Parks Act does not apply only to National Parks, but to the whole country. Therefore, the point I am making applies to the whole country. I agree that it is all the more important in National Parks. I notice that the noble Earl, in his reply a moment ago, did not state that the National Parks Commission had been consulted, from which I gather that they have not been.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.59 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (TRAINING) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.

CARLTON HOUSE TERRACE
4.1 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT rose to call attention to the proposed reconstruction of Carlton House Terrace; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on January 31 last a debate was initiated in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Mottistone upon the subject of the proposed new building for

835
the Colonial Office on the site of the old Westminster Hospital, opposite Westminster Abbey. A long and full debate took place, with the vast weight of opinion being in favour of some modification of the scheme. The debate was replied to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, Lord Morrison, and he answered in his usual courteous and careful way. He held out little hope that what we wanted could be achieved. The next day The Times newspaper published a leading article, which has since attracted a good deal of attention, entitled "Lost Battles." The leader writer said:
"This is not the first time that public opinion, having expressed itself strongly against the proposed destruction of one of the nation's architectural treasures, and having felt with some justification that it has made out a good case for a change of policy, has found itself defeated by the official technique of letting the protests die down and then quietly proceeding almost as though none had been made."
In that particular case the accusation was not wholly fair, because, as the noble Lord. Lord Morrison, pointed out in the debate, the matter had been before Parliament and we had missed our opportunity of making the protest which we were then making. The Times went on:
"The lesson of the latest happenings is once more that new and effective measures are needed to make sure that schemes affecting fine or famous sites or buildings are exposed for public scrutiny as soon as possible."
Very shortly afterwards, His Majesty's Government, to the intense pleasure of nearly everybody, changed their minds and produced a much modified scheme which met with wide approval.
What new means should be produced for effecting what The Times requires I do not know, and will not try to imagine, but I would suggest that a debate in your Lordships' House seems as effective means as any for achieving the alteration to this plan that we seek to-day. There is no need for me to describe in any detail the proposals to which I am calling your Lordships' attention—the proposals to build a new Foreign Office building on top of the Carlton House Terrace of John Nash. They have been widely ventilated in the correspondence columns of the Press: there has been a lengthy correspondence in The Times, and there has been published an authoritative and helpful article in Country Life which I
836
see the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has placed at our disposal to-day. I would point out that this article by Mr. Robert Lutyens contains the only really coherent support for these proposals that I have yet read. The Government have taken some pains not to put in our hands any of the articles opposing the scheme, and I give His Majesty's Government full marks for low cunning.
It is the word "scrutiny" which I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention. Until the New Year, when the Press published these pictures, only the vaguest rumours had reached us of what was afoot with regard to Carlton House Terrace. It is perfectly true that the plans had been exhibited two years ago in the Royal Academy, but the architectural room at the Royal Academy contains many plans, some possible, some impossible, some probable and some improbable. They tend to be overlooked in the general brouhaha which the exhibition normally arouses, and this particular year I believe the Press was full of a particularly vociferous argument between Sir Alfred Munnings and some other gentleman, whose name has slipped my memory, who was maintaining that it was normal that a horse should have five legs, and purple ones at that. Therefore, one can hardly be blamed for having overlooked these plans when they were placed in the Royal Academy. There was also a Parliamentary Question in another place some nine months ago, and that had faded from memory. Therefore, when the protagonists of this scheme accuse the critics of not having sufficiently informed themselves of what was afoot, I would only ask: How is it possible to inform yourself of what is afoot? You do not know what is afoot until it is too late. I believe that that is what has happened in this case. It was not until The Times published these photographs that we realised that this scheme—I almost said "plot" but perhaps that is too strong a word to use—was afoot to bustle the arrangements through without the public really having a chance to understand what was happening.
I will not weary your Lordships with a description of the complicated negotiations which have gone on behind the scenes between the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Local Government and Planning, the Ministry of Works, the Royal

837
Fine Art Society, the Westminster City Council, the London County Council, the Georgian Group and the person who comes out of the whole business with the greatest credit, the honourable gentleman the Member for Twickenham. It is rather of the future I wish to speak. I have put this Motion down merely to find out, in the vernacular, "what goes on." How far are these plans advanced? What is the Goverment's intention? How much money has so far been expended, and how much will be expended? Who has been given notice to quit Carlton House Terrace? If these plans are approved, when is it expected that building will begin? When will the building be completed? Will Parliament be allowed to scrutinise the final plans before the decision is taken?
May I continue to quote from The Times leading article:
"Not only must the question be asked how the Government, the proper guardians of our national monuments, have come to assume so often the role of their assailants; it has also to be asked why public opinion always seems to rally too late to the defence."
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, is thinking of the remarks he made in the last debate, that His Majesty's present Administration are not the only repositories of vandalism; other Governments are equally to blame. If the noble Lord reminds me that the Pinchin Johnson building, which was put up in 4, Carlton Gardens, in 1933–34, was put up under Conservative Government ægis, I would have to say: "Touché." In order to escape any accusation of vandalism, it seems to me that His Majesty's Government have to answer three questions. The first is: Is a new building for the Foreign Office really necessary? If the answer to that question is "Yes," then they must answer this question: Is Carlton House Terrace the right location and area for that building? And if the answer to that question is, "Yes," are the plans which are now before us the. right answer?
Let me take the first question. Two arguments have been put forward in support of the scheme for a new Foreign Office. In 1868 the Foreign Office staff was 150, and 28,000 despatches were received in the course of a year. To-day the Foreign Office staff has swollen to 2,500, and 570,000 despatches are received in the course of a year. Is all this realty necessary? Is no economy possible
838
in the swollen ranks, swollen files and swollen waste paper baskets of the Foreign Office? If they only want somewhere to store their despatches, could they not take over the Dome of Discovery on the South Bank when it is finished with? The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in speaking in the recent debate on the subject of the new Colonial Office, remarked sadly that as the Colonial Empire grew smaller the Colonial Office got larger. It would be dangerous to carry that simile into the realm of the Foreign Office; but I cannot refrain from saying that in 1868 we certainly had both a Foreign Secretary and a foreign policy.
The next argument is that the Foreign Office is apparently, at present, spread over six buildings. I can appreciate that, in certain circumstances, that may be inconvenient and a cause of extravagance in overheads. But during the war many Government Departments were quite satisfactorily housed in several different buildings. And is it really desirable always to concentrate all your buildings in one centre? I do not argue the point strongly; I merely ask His Majesty's Government to prove that they really need this building. They must prove it in the face of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Badeley, in a recent debate. He spoke of the insatiable appetite for office premises which His Majesty's Government seem to possess. In July, 1950, so far as I can discover, there were 66 buildings under construction in this country for use by His Majesty's Government as offices. They occupied 3,000,000 square feet and were going to cost the taxpayer £15,000,000. Those figures do not include the proposal for a new Foreign Office and a new Colonial Office. And whilst this vast orgy of bureaucratic buildings continues, the private business-man and the private home-seeker wait. I suggest that in face of the figures I have given, the Government should, as regards the scheme for a new Foreign Office and a new Colonial Office, take their place in the queue.
And is Carlton House Terrace really the right place? Have the Government tried any other place? Is there nowhere in Whitehall where the Foreign Office could go? There are a large number of offices going up in Whitehall Gardens and other places; there is Lacon House,

839
Charles House, Fortress House and others. Would it not be possible to move the Foreign Office into one of those areas. Or what of the South Bank? Would it not help, incidentally, in the question of dispersal if the South Bank were used? And, on this subject of dispersal, to place another Government Department in Central London is surely going to cause much more traffic congestion. The Carlton House Terrace area lies at the bottom of Lower Regent Street and near Trafalgar Square, Charing Cross and Piccadilly Circus. Is not the intrusion into this area of another Government Department, with 2,500 civil servants and all their visitors and transport, going to cause further congestion? I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, that he should go to the bottom of Lower Regent Street at about a quarter to five any evening, taking with him the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, and get aboard a bus. I will promise to go along an hour later and take them cups of tea and buns, because they will still be there. Moreover, apart from the question of traffic congestion, is it right that yet another Government Department should move into this area? After all, it is a social and residential area and I suggest that it will be completely spoilt if further Government offices are erected there.
The third question which the Government have to answer is this: Assuming that they need a new Foreign Office and that this is the right place to put it, are these plans the right answer? Here we are involved in a matter of taste, and when one is involved in a matter of taste one must go warily. I do not think there is any need to idolise John Nash. We all know what John Nash was; he was an inspired jerry-builder. But his buildings have stood up pretty well. Carlton House Terrace may have been jerry-built, but it has survived successfully the ravages of 130 years, two major wars and several Government Departments. His work is considered by the experts to be slapdash, coarse and defective in scholarship. One expert has said that the Carlton House Terrace columns are sloppily executed and that the central pediments are redundant. Anybody can see that the roof is a mess, that there are far too many chimneys. Cannot some of the chimneys be taken down? Are all the fireplaces
840
still in use? Is there no gas or electricity? And if the fireplaces are all in use, may we be told the name of the coal merchant? We are also told that the north front of Carlton House Terrace is undistinguished, and I agree. It may not even have been designed by Nash at all. It may have been designed by a pupil or by another architect who had access to Nash's plans. I am told that even the authorship of the south façade is in doubt. That problem need no longer trouble us; after the publication of this scheme I think there need no longer be any doubt whether Nash did or did not design Carlton House Terrace: we have only to open his grave and, if he has turned in it, he did.
Taking all this for granted, Carlton House Terrace as it now stands does provide the finest piece of monumental civic design in London or in the whole of England. It forms a splendid background to our only and really effective processional way. Architecture depends upon form and proportion as well as upon detail, and I suggest that the relation of the Terrace to Wyatt's Duke of York's Column as regards measurement and outline is really successful. The whole conception is most successfully proportioned and beautifully adjusted. The proportion of the height and length to the Duke of York's Column seems to me wholly satisfactory; and the whole group behind—the four clubs: the Athenaeum, the Travellers, the Reform and the Senior, and Waterloo Place and its gardens—seem to me a very satisfactory area of great urbanity and unity, and a very strong case must be made out before that urbanity and unity is touched.
Now a word about the scheme which Mr. de Soissons, the architect, has produced. He has produced plans of tact and taste, the sort of plans one would expect from an architect of his proven merit and ability. I say nothing against him on that score. What I do say is that he is trying to tackle a problem which ought never to have been set. I understand that the Royal Fine Art Commission have approved the plans, but what we have not yet been told is whether they were allowed to reject the whole plans as they were with Coventry Cathedral, or whether they were merely asked whether this was the best that could be made of a bad job.
It has been difficult to get details of the plans. Until I saw the plan in the Royal Gallery I had not been able to study the layout of the back of Carlton House Terrace, the north side, as it is now proposed. With the new buildings round the sides I have no great quarrel. The existing ones are admittedly undistinguished, but what about this proposal for a traffic ramp running right through the centre? I am inclined to think the word "ramp" is well chosen. I am also thinking of another ramp, the one that goes down the centre of Kingsway. It is very unpleasant to have a traffic ramp in the centre of a street. Apparently this one is to dive down under the Duke of York's Column, and in and out of it will run civil servants' little cars, like so many beetles coming out of a compost heap. One can see that it is going to make the Duke of York's Column look absolutely ridiculous, previously standing fair and square on a broad footing but now (if I have the plans correctly) with this huge ramp running underneath the base of the Column, and the noble Duke himself poised precariously, waiting for some unknown force to topple him at any moment into an abyss. That is a most unenviable situation, and one with which His Majesty's present Government must themselves have the fullest sympathy.
Then take the south front—I understand that the total overall height of the south front is to be increased by only 14 feet, but it is my submission that by doing that the full proportion of the Terrace will be wrecked. The Terrace is to step down, towards the Duke of York's Column, instead of up, as it now does. The whole relationship with the Column will be spoilt. The proportion of height to length will be spoilt. The climax of the whole composition will be ruined, and we shall be presented, instead of with this lovely building, with a bland, expressionless building, a Government building, lifted up by this to three storeys—rather like the face of a pretty woman that has been lifted. The essential character of the whole of Nash's work is to be ruined, and this makes mockery of the remark in another place nine months ago, that the essential condition of Nash's work would be preserved. It is not going to be preserved. It is difficult to put new buildings on to old foundations.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosse, who for constitutional reasons is unfortunately unable to speak here for himself, has put the matter very cogently in a letter to Country Life and to The Times. He points out that to put a few extra feet ore to a Poussin or a Raphael and still preserve the proportion is not possible. You cannot do that. You cannot put a top hat on top of a Greek statue. In someway our ancestors managed to do this better. Three hundred years after it was built, a perpendicular tower was added to Fountains Abbey, and greatly improved the whole building. The thirteenth century architects welded their West Front with the Norman base of Lincoln Cathedral, with spectacular success. In 1745 Hawksmoor added to Westminster Abbey two towers. They are not a success. May I also mention the Victorian vandal who added a spit of a spire on to the Church of St. Peter Mancroft? That did not improve its magnificent perpendicular tower. One Bank of England is quite enough. It is an example to us of what can happen when a modern architect tries to build on his forefathers' foundations. In no other country can one imagine this sort of thing being done. Can one imagine what the French would say if the Minister of Marine, as I am sure he would like to, asked that another storey should be put on to the top of the Ministry abutting on to La Place de la Concorde?
Some queer arguments have been put forward in defence of this scheme and, since your Lordships have in your hands copies of a document which I have here, perhaps I may quote one of the oddest. Mr. Robert Lutyens says:
"The factual points to be recapitulated are these. First, the set-back of the proposed new top storey is so considerable that it will be almost invisible from the Mall, except when seen from an oblique angle. From across the Park it will even look like a well-designed building rising beyond an intervening street."
That is far and away the oddest praise of a building I have ever heard in my life. First, you cannot see it unless you are very unlucky, and, even if you can see it, you will not think it is part of the building. It seems to be carrying to the nth point the argument advanced once by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, when he said that the success of your Lordships' deliberations was largely due to

843
the persistent absenteeism of 75 per cent. of the members of your Lordships' House.
That is the argument advanced for this building. It is also said that in the designs which your Lordships are now looking at the trees have been omitted. If, therefore, you walk down the Mall, and you get behind a good large tree, you will find that the new Foreign Office is a very good building not to look at. I am put in mind by all this of what the learned judge in Trial by Jury said:
" 'You'll soon get used to her looks', said he,
'And a very nice girl you'll find her!
She may very well pass for forty-three
In the dusk, with a light behind her!'"
Mr. Osbert Lancaster has also hit the nail firmly on the head, as he usually does, in saying that the existing building is quite unsuitable for office accommodation. Anybody who walks down Bryanston Square or the Nash terraces in Regent's Park will soon discover how unsuitable Regency buildings are for Government office accommodation, how ugly they look with their naked lights and dustbins. Mr. Lancaster also points out that an enormous amount of expensive underpinning and structural alteration will be required before the buildings can be used as Government offices.
I suspect that in their heart of hearts what the Government would really like is that the whole building should be pulled down and that they should start again. If town planning, as I understand it, means anything, these proposals are a travesty of good planning. Can anybody suggest that a private member of the public, or any speculative builder, would be allowed to carry out plans like these, and get away with it? Of course he would not. It is my submission to the House that this is an unnecessary scheme, that it is discreditable, unjustifiable, impracticable and unpopular. Unless an extremely strong case can be made out for its inevitability, I suggest most earnestly to the Government that they should abandon the whole scheme and start again. It is new proposals and new plans that I should like to see upon the Papers for which I now beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, before I speak on the Motion raised by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, I should like to apologise for my temerity in speaking to
844
your Lordships a second time this afternoon, although it is on an entirely different subject. I think I speak for all your Lordships when I say that I should also like to voice the debt of gratitude that we owe to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for having put so extremely clearly the case against the proposed new building in Carlton House Terrace. There, again, I feel rather a personal debt of gratitude, in that he has dealt with the problem so well and so thoroughly that it does not leave me a great deal to say. and I shall not take up a great deal of your Lordships' time.
There are just two points to which I should like to refer. The first is rather one of detail, and deals with the question of the Nash façade. It does not matter whether that façade was or was not designed by Nash; the fact is that it was built with a certain purpose in mind, and had about it a certain architectural unity and conception. One can see plainly what was the intention of Nash or the architect. There were to be two pavilions at each end of the block of buildings, and there was to be a lower piece in the middle. That really formed the effect. Consequently, one did not notice that rather dark attic roof which appeared above the stucco facade. The question of chimneys has been dealt with by Lord Mancroft, and I need not go into that matter. Quite obviously, the building was designed to be seen only from some distance away. Somebody made the most extraordinary statement that the new building could not be seen until one was halfway across the Mall. It was never intended to be seen close at hand. It is impossible to see Carlton House Terrace, as it exists now, until you are more than halfway across the Mall. The building was designed to be seen from the south side of the Mall, and from St. James's Park.
Another argument put forward is that the building cannot be properly seen because the plane trees in the Mall have grown so tall. That seems to be a totally irrelevant argument, because the one part that can be seen above the plane trees is the proposed new building on the terrace. The intention was that there were to be two pavilions at the end, with the building coming down in the middle. Now, of course, the central building is in the middle, and the excuse is that it does not

845
rise up more than fourteen feet. I cannot see that the fact that it rises one foot, fourteen or forty feet is going to make a great deal of difference. The proposed scheme means changing the essential shape of the building, and it is extremely difficult to do that without spoiling its architectural outline altogether. As an illustration of what can occur to a building when an extra storey is put on top, it is interesting to visit Berkeley Square, and to take a look at Lansdowne House. There was an eighteenth century house which, at some time between the two wars, was sold; and upon its pediment was placed a large roof with windows. It is not easy to see nowadays, because Fitzmaurice Street is a very narrow street, but from certain places one can see how the whole point of Lansdowne House has been completely ruined by trying to put this new building on top. So far as I remember, at that time the same argument was put forward—namely, that the facade was to be kept unchanged.
Another point is that one is not too sure of what this new building on Carlton House Terrace is to be made. I see in the copy of Country Life which has been given us by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, that it is to be made of some kind of artificial stone, which is being used now for some of the other stuccoed buildings in London. There is a good example of that in Belgrave Square. One of the buildings on the west side of Belgrave Square, which I think was the Imperial Austrian Embassy and is now the Austrian Legation, had a porch which was demolished by a bomb during the war. The porch has now been rebuilt with this stone composition placed on the stucco painted front, and the effect is most unpleasant. If that is the sort of thing we are to see on the top of Carlton House Terrace, the effect will be even more grotesque.
I should like to reinforce the point made by my noble friend on the question of the car park in the Mall. That will do a great deal of damage to Waterloo Place, which at present provides such an interesting architectural outlook from the steps coming up from the Mall, and at the same time from Regent Street coming down from Piccadilly Circus. One finds there this rather solid open space, with two sets of buildings on each side. There is the very big open space, with the statue of King Edward, and then the steps. If,
846
instead of that, you come up the steps and find yourself in a car park the whole vista will be spoilt. And the same thing will be apparent on coming down Regent Street. It seems to me that if you are going to have a car park underground it would be more reasonable to approach it from the ground floor, than, as it were, from the upper storeys. I think that point should be considered. One is particularly sorry that this scheme has come before us now, because this is just the time when the Ministry of Local Government and Planning are doing a great deal of very good work in seeing what buildings should be preserved in London and various parts of the country. At the same time, it is to be regretted that Parliament, taking powers above the Town and Country Planning Act, is taking a stand about what is a fine architectural building, and I should like most seriously to support the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his determination to preserve these two extremely fine blocks of buildings, one of the great possessions of London.
4.39 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this House is generally at its best in discussing questions of æsthetics, the preservation of beautiful buildings and the countryside. A few weeks ago we had a most effective debate upon The Colonial Office. The noble Lord who opened the debate was himself surprised at its effectiveness. Within a very few days of the discussions here, the words that had been uttered did reach the Ministry of Works, with satisfactory results. To-day I feel that the speech opening the discussion was much more concerned with using a weapon to attack His Majesty's Government than with the æsthetics of the question. Under the guise of asking a number of questions, the noble Lord himself provided most definite answers, to his own satisfaction. He asked whether the new Foreign Office was really necessary, and in asking that question he delivered—as I understand other noble Lords propose to deliver—a general attack on all Government offices. I think their view is that no Government office is really necessary, and that no Government office at all should be provided in present circumstances. I thought that was really the logic of what the noble Lord said to the House.
In my submission, there can be no possible doubt in the minds of any noble

847
Lord who examines the question objectively that a new Foreign Office is necessary. How can you defend a situation in which the Foreign Office of the British Commonwealth of Nations is scattered over nearly a dozen different places? Some of the officials are housed in wooden huts, a portion of the Foreign Office is close to Waterloo Station, another part is in Petty France, and various other bits are to be found all over the place. How can effective administration be secured when it takes a quarter of an hour or a half an hour, possibly, to get in touch with an official whom you may wish to see urgently? I am sure that if this had been a private scheme for the benefit of a private commercial firm, which wanted to get the whole of its administration under one roof, it would have been justified by every noble Lord in this House. The noble Lord referred to there being 2,500 members of the staff of the Foreign Office. I think his figure is exaggerated; there are not so many as that. In any case, it is not proposed to put large numbers of additional people into this place.
If the unsatisfactory traffic conditions which have been mentioned do exist—and I do not dispute that they do—it is surely not because of the Foreign Office or because of any new persons being brought into the area; it is because for so long the traffic conditions have remained unimproved, because they are, to a large extent, much as they were in the days before the internal combustion engine came into general use. But that is a separate problem, and if the noble Lord had stood up in this House, and had raised the question of traffic conditions, I should have been very much with him and should have done my best to support him in pressing upon His Majesty's Government the need to do something in the matter. So I am satisfied myself—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, who is to reply to the debate will satisfy the House also—as to the need for a new Foreign Office. The noble Marquess who spoke last week in the Foreign Affairs debate suggested that at this moment we were without a Foreign Secretary. If the noble Lord who opened the debate to-day had his way we should also be without a Foreign Office, or without an effective one in both places.
848
Now, as to whether there is any alternative site. In the last debate a suggestion was made that we could use the place where Doulton's Pottery Works formerly functioned for a Colonial Office. But even the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has not suggested that as a suitable site for the Foreign Office. Nor did he suggest any other. I wish that he would tell us what he has in mind.
LORD MANCROFT: Perhaps as the noble Lord has said that, he will allow me to interrupt him. I do suggest the South Bank of the River, and now that the noble Lord has put the idea of Doulton's Pottery Works into my mind I must say that it seems to me a very good idea, and I suggest it back to him. If I may continue interrupting him, may I say that the figure of 2,500 with which he differed must not be blamed on me? I extracted it from an answer given in another place by the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Works. The noble Lord must take up that quarrel with him.
LORD SILKIN: On that last point, may I say that it is not proposed to put 2.500 persons in this particular building? I am sorry if I have put unsatisfactory ideas into the head of the noble Lord, but would he seriously wish to place the Foreign Office in Doulton's Pottery Works or on the South Bank? Does he really think that those are satisfactory sites for the Foreign Office of this not unimportant nation? Does he not think that the Foreign Office ought to be situated right in the centre of this capital city, and not relegated to some unimportant spot on the other side of the River?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Next to Lambeth Palace.
LORD SILKIN: Well, even so, is it really suggested as a satisfactory site? In fact, it is essential that the Foreign Office, which is visited by large numbers of representatives of foreign countries, should be right in the centre of things, and there is no alternative site that I can think of. I know of no alternative site, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will be able to satisfy the House that he knows of none either. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, may ridicule the number of despatches and the number of boxes which are brought to the Foreign Office, but they come from all over the

849
world, and it is an indication of the increasing importance of this Department. I see nothing to sneer at in this connection, or any justification for the suggestion that these documents should be put into some place where they would not be regarded as mattering very much. The Foreign Office is our most important. Government Department, and, as such, should be housed on a site which is worthy of that Department, a site which is convenient and where it can do its work efficiently.
I should like next to say a word or two about the esthetic side of this question. I am glad that the noble Lord who opened the debate did not put that first. His main contention, apparently, was first, that a new Foreign Office was not necessary, and secondly, if it was it need not be set up on this site. On the aesthetic side, I feel that the Government are entitled to some credit for having attempted to preserve this ceremonial way and the very fine composition of John Nash—or whoever it was—and for not taking the easier course of destroying them. Obviously, in preserving this architecture there has had to be some compromise. If the Government had tried merely to build on to this facade without any alteration whatever, then they could not have put up such a building as was necessary. They would not have been able thus to provide for even their minimum requirements. If, as I think I have established, this is the only available site, and if a Foreign Office really is necessary, then the only choice for the Government would be either to pull down this fine historic piece of architecture and build an entirely new building on the site, which I am sure this House would have deplored, or to do what they are doing—trying to use the facade to the best advantage and accommodate the maximum number of people in the new building consistent with the broad preservation of this piece of architecture. I know that the plans for the new building do not preserve the facade in its entirety. Some alterations will be made.
Incidentally, I would say to the noble Lord that he and those who support him have rather dragged their feet. Instead of the resolute, determined, speedy action which has been enjoined upon His Majesty's Government, they have taken
850
a long time to make up their minds. The excuses which the noble Lord put forward for not having seen the plans in the Royal Academy three years ago. when they were exhibited to the public, and presumably advertised, are not an indication of the extreme vigilance of himself, or of the Georgian Society and the other pundits who have now come forward at this late hour of the day. If they are so much concerned about the beauty of the structure, they might have discovered it two or three years ago. To say that, the Royal Academy was overloaded, and that therefore they were not able to discover the plans in the architectural room, is rather thin.
I could not help feeling that the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Amulree, made rather heavy going with the adaptation which will be necessary to secure an efficient building. It is a"difficult, intricate and challenging piece of work to preserve the facade and put up a modern building inside it. and I think that Mr. de Soissons and his associates are to be congratulated on the very fine job they have made. It is a real architectural triumph to have achieved this with the minimum amount of modification suggested. I could not help feeling that the noble Lord was inclined to brush aside the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission, who after all are a statutory body, appointed by Parliament to examine plans of this kind and to report upon them. They have examined these plans, and to say that they were not asked the right question, and therefore could not give the right answer, is somewhat disingenuous. In my experience the Royal Fine Art Commission have always been willing to come forward and say that they think a building should not be in a certain place. Here I am perhaps standing in a white sheet, for I believe that they said something of the kind about the power station on the South Bank. Whatever the question put to them then, they did not hesitate to say that they did not think a power station should be there at all. If the Royal Fine Art Commission had thought there should not be this new building, it seems to me rather an insult to them to suggest that they would not have said so. They are in favour of this building. They have made their comments and certain suggestions. They have accepted the principle of the additional fourteen feet.

851
They made some suggestion about the pediment, and the Minister of Works has accepted that suggestion, which was that the pediment should not be pulled down until the building was complete. Subject to that, the statutory body appointed for the express purpose of advising the nation on matters of this kind have recommended that building should go forward.
While, of course, it is open to this House to challenge it, I suggest that they should do it rather gently, and should pay proper respect to the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission. What is the criticism? Æsthetically, the criticism comes under two heads. The first is that fourteen feet will be added to the height of the existing facade, making something like 100 feet in all. It is true that it may alter the appearance of the facade; and it may alter the view from the Mall. But it may alter it in two ways: it may improve it or otherwise; and it is an open question whether it will improve it or not. In my opinion, for what that is worth, it will improve it. It will get rid of the broken and rather unsightly skyline with its chimneys, and will provide a much more pleasant top to the building. After all, when one looks at Carlton House Terrace, and I submit to the House that it has never been looked at so much as it has been in the last few days—
LORD MANCROFT: Nobody has tried to spoil it before.
LORD SILKIN: Nobody noticed it very much before. During the last few days I have spoken to architects who work in London, and who have not been at all familiar with the fine points of this facade. Is it not a matter of habit? The noble Lord quoted Gilbert's words. I think there is a lot of truth in them. I think we do get used to something and come to like it because we have become used to it. Some months ago I was speaking to a famous modern painter and asking about some of his works. I asked him to explain something which seemed to me to be rather unintelligible. I asked him what a picture meant, and what there was about it that was charming and attractive. He replied that he could not tell me, but that if I would hang the picture in my room for three months, at the end of the three months I should enjoy it. That may or may not be, but there
852
was considerable wisdom in what he said. I am certain that if this additional fourteen feet had been on the building as Nash planned it and there had been a proposal now to pull it down, the noble Lord would have made the same kind of speech in opposing it as he has made this afternoon. I would challenge the noble Lord on a Gallup Poll of the architects of this country. If they really understood the alternative plan, I believe that we should find that the majority of architects, and other people who understand something about architecture, are in favour of these plans as against retaining Carlton House Terrace as it is.
There is one other point that I should like to put before the House. What is the alternative future of Carlton House Terrace itself? Here you have a number of separate buildings of which the facade is fine. But what about the back? That is just a jumble of single houses, put to rather miscellaneous uses, most of them being used as emergency Government offices. They have attics at the top, which were regarded even in the last generation as quite unsuitable for occupation by domestic servants, but which are to-day being occupied by a number of civil servants. The noble Lord, who obviously does not like civil servants, may say: "Serve them right."But the fact remains that one cannot get the best kind of work from people who are housed in conditions of that kind. There is no really satisfactory alternative use for these houses. They are extravagant in upkeep, and the rooms are inconveniently large. The time will inevitably come when they will have to be pulled down, and we shall then be faced with exactly the same position as that with which we are faced to-day. I submit, therefore, that in this case the Government are doing the wise, the sensible and the prudent thing in making the best possible use of this site, largely preserving the facade (and in so far as alterations are being made, I believe they are for the better) while at the same time securing a new Foreign Office on the most appropriate site that they can find. And thereby, I believe, they are providing for the people of this Commonwealth an improvement in the ceremonial way and a pleasure to the eye of future generations whenever they have occasion to come this way. Therefore, I hope that on this occasion the Government will not give way, but will go on with their proposals, which

853
I feel are in the public interest. While obviously the last word has not necessarily been said on the details of the plan, I hope that, broadly, the Government will accept the proposals that have been put forward by Mr. Louis de Soissons.
5.3 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, from what we have already heard it is plain that we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for raising this question, whatever view we may take about it. The noble Lord has become almost the watchdog of the country in matters of this kind, and very little escapes him. At this point I would turn aside to say something to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has just spoken. He accused the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. and I suppose those of us who support him, of treating this as a political question, and as a stick with which to beat the Government. I am sure the noble Lord said what he did sincerely, but I can assure him that there is not a word of truth in it—that is not the basis on which we approach this matter. Indeed, I thought the noble Lord rather fell into the same error himself when he said that, if private firms had been concerned, the attitude of ruble Lords on this side of the House would be quite different. So in accusing the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, it was really a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said—and I must say that it made me sceptical of the whole of his aesthetic argument—that he had not noticed Carlton House Terrace very much; that a lot of his friends had never noticed it; and that he had talked to some architects, and they had not noticed it either. That to me is very queer, if he will allow me to say so. Most of us have always noticed it and admired it as a great public monument, whatever may be said about the details.
LORD SILKIN: If I may interrupt the noble Marquess, what I said was that they had no. appreciated the details. Of course, you cannot help but notice Carlton House Terrace.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I may amend my words: they did not notice the beauty or monumental character of the building. Most of us
854
have noticed that. Those of us who live in London have seen it every day; we see it practically each time we come to this House. To those of us who are Londoners it is not an exaggeration to say that it has become part of the fabric of our lives. Therefore, I do not think it is surprising that we should be perturbed by the news that it is to be fundamentally altered.
It is true—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said it—that most of us in this country, whatever our politics may be, have an element of conservatism, with a small"c", in our make-up, and dislike change in matters of this kind unless the changes are well justified. That is not confined to the Party to which I belong. It undoubtedly has some general advantages: it is what makes us, on the whole, an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary country. But I would agree with the noble Lord that this small"c" conservatism might on certain occasions unduly prejudice or warp our judgment. I would equally agree with the noble Lord that in a matter of this character it is most necessary that we should keep such instincts under control, and try, so far as we can. to look with an objective mind at these plans which have been put forward by the Government. I have tried to do this, and I should like to offer to your Lordships, with all deference, some observations, which I hope will not be regarded as too violently biased on one side or the other.
The first thing I would say is this. I feel that we must all fairly face the fact that the arguments are not entirely on one side. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that in any case there can be no question of confining the Foreign Office, as it is at present constituted, within the original building. That, to my mind, is absolutely true. Indeed, long ago the Foreign Office spread its bounds, and at present, as I think the noble Lord indicated, it sprawls all over the West End of London. That has the additional disadvantage that it involves a certain measure of extra expenditure, as some of these buildings have to be hired and rents have to be paid for them. It is also said, by those who are directly-concerned, to be most inconvenient. These are in fact, material arguments on the side of doing something about the matter, which I hope that I have put fairly.

855
Nor is there, apparently, any immediate question of returning Carlton House Terrace to its original use as private dwellings, unless it can foe sub-divided into flats; for practically no one, in modern days, is rich enough to live in these very imposing mansions. That, as I understand it—put briefly—is the Government's case. They hope to kill two birds with one stone: they hope to make use of the Carlton House Terrace site, and also to provide a new Government office. No doubt there is substance in that contention, and I would not wish to deny it. On the other hand, I submit that there are weighty arguments on the other side, to which it may seem to many of us the Government have not attached sufficient importance. These arguments have already been stressed in the debate by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, and by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and I do not want to traverse again at any great length the ground they have covered.
As I see it, the criticisms to the proposals of the Government fall under two heads—one aesthetic and the other financial. I should like to say a word on both of them. On the aesthetic side, I myself cannot pretend to be a great expert, and I am certain that others will speak with far more authority than I do. But I confess that I have been entirely unconvinced by the letters and articles of architects and others who in the public Press have been good enough to give their sup-port to this scheme. Indeed, I found some of them so Olympian as to be somewhat irritating. They seem to think that no one who is not himself an architect has a right to hold any opinion of the matter at all. I really cannot accept that. One might as well say that no one who had not made a lady's hat had a right to have any opinion about such a hat: but we all hold very strong opinions on that subject. Moreover, the arguments which have been raised by these experts appear to me largely to contradict each other. At one moment they say: "Nash was in any case a rotten architect. These buildings were jerry-built and ill-conceived. They had the wrong capitals over the wrong pillars, and they were made of cast-iron at that." The next moment they are saying with pride that the new plans incorporate nearly all of the old work. These arguments appear just about to cancel each other out.
856
If Nash is really such a bad architect, why preserve any of his old work at all? Moreover, it is patently untrue to say that Nash was such a bad architect as all that. He is probably far better, from the purely scenic point of view, than any architect alive to-day, and comes, I should have thought, in the first rank of British scenic architects in the whole of our history. The Nash terraces in Regent's Park (which were saved only by the greatest of good luck from the maw of the Government) are a perpetual joy to the beholder, and the destruction of Nash's Regent Street, I should have thought, was now widely regarded as a major disaster. Nor is it true to say, as has been pointed out by Lord Mancroft, that to incorporate the majority of the old work necessarily produces the same effect. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, talks about a compromise, but it is quite possible that compromise in design will ruin the beauty and historical interest of a building. All these things are matters of opinion; but I would point out that many of the greatest experts do not share the view which the noble Lord expressed.
In its present form, to me. one of the merits of Carlton House Terrace—whether it was built by Nash or one of his pupils I do not care—is that it is instinct with the spirit of the Regency period, with all its flamboyancy, and perhaps a certain element of tawdriness. The new design—at which I have looked, as have other noble Lords—with the pediments re-moved, and nice, neat penthouses added on top, is not Regency at all. It has, if I may say so, an element of a mongrel, no doubt a very elegant mongrel, but still a mongrel. It was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the Fine Art Commission had approved this new plan and, therefore, if I understood him aright, none of us had any proper reason or right to say any more on the subject. I cannot accept that view. With Lord Mancroft, I assume—unless the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will tell me definitely the opposite—that the question which was put to the Fine Art Commission, as is usual in these cases, was not whether they preferred the original Nash or the new design, but: "Here is a new plan. Do you like it, or can you suggest improvements? "That is the usual question which is put to the Fine Art Commission. No doubt the Commission very properly suggested amendments and

857
improvements, and I feel sure that the design has greatly benefited from their advice. But I should greatly doubt whether they all thought it a definite improvement upon Nash. From the purely aesthetic point of view, therefore, in spite of all the powerful advocacy of architects in support of this scheme, I cannot feel that the case for a change has been completely made up to now.
Nor was I convinced by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that there is no alternative site. How far have the Government looked for an alternative site? If it be of any assistance to the Government, I can suggest one. Opposite the House of Commons, on the other side of Bridge Street, there is a mass of small, rather mean houses, most of them converted into shops and not a bit worthy of the position in which they stand—a great corner block stretching down to Scotland Yard. Have the Government considered that site? If not, why not? In one respect, it is far more convenient than the one they are now considering. I have worked in the Foreign Office: I know that it is above all important that the Foreign Secretary should be in close contact with the Prime Minister: and this site is far closer to Downing Street. I have suggested one possible site, and I have no doubt that other noble Lords could suggest others.
Nor am I happy about the financial aspect. I really feel that the time has come when Parliament must consider this vast and increasing expenditure on Government building. How much can we afford to spend in these times? There is already a huge new edifice in Whitehall, either on the site of Montagu House or opposite where Montagu House was; and another one appears to be going up at this very moment. Then there is the Colonial Office, which we discussed so fully a few weeks ago; and finally there is this new design for a Foreign Office in Carlton House Terrace. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will tell us what these three or four schemes are going to cost—I do not mean to a penny, but the provisional estimate for the Montagu House Scheme, the Colonial Office Scheme, and now for the Carlton House Terrace Scheme. I should also like to ask the noble Lord to tell us for what purpose the present Foreign Office is going to be used, If the Government build this great new building in Carlton House
858
Terrace which I understand is to house practically the whole of the Foreign Office—indeed, the whole point of the scheme, according to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is that the staff should all be under the same roof—then the present Foreign Office will have to be vacated and presumably, nature abhorring a vacuum, civil servants will flow in from somewhere.
My Lords, there is a. fact we must not forget—I do not say this as a Party political point, but just as a sober fact. The country is more and more heavily taxed with every year which passes; and we are now threatened with most formidable new burdens to pay for our rearmament. There is a limit to what any country can stand. We have already been warned by the Government that there must be grievous sacrifices by all sections of the population. We have already had hints that the ordinary housing programme may have to be cut, or at any rate postponed. Is this really the time-to embark upon such vast expenditure on Government offices? It seems to me that the contrast is almost too glaring. I fully appreciate that this projected building in Carlton House Terrace and the other new buildings which the Government are proliferating will be much more convenient for the administration of Government Departments: and I agree that full weight has to be given to that fact. But we are all living under conditions of the maximum inconvenience at the present time. Why should Government Departments alone be exempt?
Such are the thoughts which have been arising in my mind as I have studied this question. This obviously is an occasion for balancing conflicting considerations, but I should have thought—and I suggest this very diffidently—that it would be far wiser to go on as at present, at any rate over the height of the present emergency, using Carlton House Terrace, as it is being used to-day, for supplementary Government offices. If and when things get better, and we have broken the back of rearmament, then will be the time to start with these larger plans, when circumstances are more appropriate. By that lime, possibly, another Nash will have arisen—perhaps even a Nash who does not use cast-iron for the capitals of his columns—one to whom can be entrusted the replanning of this most import-

859
tant site. I appeal to His Majesty's Government most sincerely, having regard to the times in which we live, to give to the course which I have suggested their serious consideration.
5.21 p.m.
LORD BADELEY: My Lords, on the last occasion when a debate of this kind took place in your Lordships' House—on the subject of the Westminster site—the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, having given way, with his usual grace, to the opinions expressed, rather deprecated the intervention of what he called"voluntary advisers."I think he must have had his fill of them to-day. The answer, I think, is a simple one: where the advice of the professional advisers to the Ministry runs counter to the wishes of a great number of the public, the public have an old and constitutional right to have their views aired on the floor of either House of Parliament. That, I think, has been fully vindicated in the present instance.
Another case is now before your Lordships. It seems as if there were all over London utilitarian architectural ideas which have little in the way of taste and no veneration for the past. It is said that Homer sometimes nods; and one cannot help wondering whether the Fine Art Commission is not suffering from an attack of drowsiness. The daily and weekly Press has been full of articles and letters on the subject of the Carlton House Terrace scheme. To "read, mark, learn and inwardly digest "all the comments that have appeared in the various papers would be difficult indeed, but I have done my best. One fact certainly emerges clearly, and that is that there is a strong body of public opinion opposed to this scheme; and so long as that opinion exists it has to be taken into account.
One point which I must refer to again, although I have spoken of it recently, is the growth of the Civil Service. I must, in fairness, admit that, since I had a talk with a noble Lord opposite, I have had some reason to doubt that I was right in my supposition that the Civil Service was still growing. He told me that the graph of the numbers of civil servants shows a steep decline—unlike that of local government officials, which was showing a rapid rise. I only hope that the former of these statements is correct and also that before long there
860
will be a vacating of the numberless hotels, houses and other buildings which have been tenanted by branches of Government Departments, and that there will be a return of these buildings to their original use and owners.
I do not, personally, feel qualified to speak on the merits or demerits of Nash's architecture, other than as a man in the street. I get a good deal of enjoyment in the Terrace and in Regent's Park. I have studied the various drawings and I must say I cannot see that any improvement will accrue from the proposed scheme. It seems to me a very bad argument to say that the roof line is untidy. After all, people do not wander about staring at roof tops without a good deal of risk to their own persons. Surely it would be possible for the roofs to be tidied up without much trouble or expense. It is the frontage on the Mall side which is really in question. Some of your Lordships may have seen recently in the Spectator an interesting article by Mr. Harold Nicolson, in which he warns people not to talk too much about the northern elevation—and I rather agree with him. The house at the end does not appear to have much to be said for it. What we are concerned with is the frontage which overlooks the processional route. I do not see any need for change in that, and I hope that no change will be effected.
We are told that the Foreign Office needs further accommodation. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said that some of the members of the staff have to work in wooden huts. One only hopes that working in wooden huts does not affect the mentality of those responsible for our foreign policy. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has suggested an alternative site. Perhaps I may be allowed to suggest another. There is a vacant space adjoining the new building in Whitehall: the building to be erected there might take the overflow from the Foreign Office, a stone's throw away, and any new Government Department might be housed on the Doulton's Works site on the south side of the river. There is already one Ministry there—the Ministry of Works—and Lambeth Palace would be a respect-able neighbour for them.
Carlton House Terrace can no longer be used for private residences. In-comes nowadays are more commensurate to a flat and a "daily" than

861
to a house and a staff of liveried servants. There is no likelihood that Carlton House Terrace will be used again for great residences. Surely it would not be a matter of great difficulty to provide homes for some of our museums there. The London Museum, for instance, has been homeless since Lancaster House has been occupied: the United Services Museum night be transferred and the Banqueting Hall could be used in all its beauty. The building in Carlton House Terrace certainly need not be wasted.
I come back to the question asked by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York on a previous occasion, and again by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to-day: Is all this really necessary? There is such a strong volume of public opinion against the scheme that I am tempted to ask, perhaps resuming for a moment the mantle of my former official post, whether it would not be well to stretch the rule applied to proceedings in this House: that is to say, when votes are even nearly equal and no good reason for a change has been shown, let matters stand as they are.
5.29 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I wish to add my voice, as an ex-Minister, to the expressions of grave anxiety about this scheme. I desire, first, to put in an urgent plea to the Government not to move the Foreign Secretary and his Department from Downing Street. Before the War the quadrangle of the Prime Minister's house and the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Colonial Office and the Home Office was sufficient for those four important offices. On the other side was the Treasury. I am perfectly certain that for the day-to-day working of government it is vital that the senior staff of the Foreign Office should be close to No. 10, Downing Street and that it should occupy, if necessary, the whole of that quadrangle The Colonial Office has already gone. The India Office has ceased to exist. The Home Office, illustrious by reason of seniority, is much easier to house away from there than the Foreign Office. I put in an urgent plea as a matter of policy to keep the Foreign Office in Downing Street in the building that was built for it, designed for it and which in every way has been its home since the present buildings were erected.
862
As to Carlton House Terrace, when I went to the Office of Works in 1934 as First Commissioner, the building known as the Pinchin Johnson Building at the corner of Carlton Gardens was just beginning to rise. However, I asked about it and I was informed that it was nothing to do with the Ministry of Works; that Carlton House Terrace and Carlton Gardens belonged entirely to the Commissioners of Crown Lands. The Commissioners of Crown Lands were, for the most part, Treasury officials whose first job was to get the maximum of rent—they are, of course, the most notorious rack-renters in the world, as we know from Regent Street—to swell the Exchequer. That is why the posts of Commissioners of Crown Lands are manned by Treasury officials. But they are answerable to Parliament through the Minister of Agriculture. It so happened that hardly had I arrived at the Office of Works when the then Minister of Agriculture had to go with many of his most senior colleagues to the Ottawa Conference, and I was asked to take over temporarily the administration of the Ministry of Agriculture as well as that of the Office of Works, which I proceeded to do. Here was my chance to find out what was going on. The Ministry of Agriculture knew nothing about it, of course, but I got in touch with the Treasury officials concerned, as I had to answer for them in Parliament. They showed me Sir Reginald Blomfield's design for an entirely new Carlton House Terrace. Then I got busy. By then, the Pinchin Johnson building was complete, but we heard no more about the other scheme and Carlton House Terrace was saved.
Admittedly the arguments raised to-day for drastically reorganising the interior of Carlton House Terrace were fairly urgent then. It was designed for the use of ambassadors, for the great landlords—the Lord Lonsdale of the time always lived there, one of the last of the Mohicans. The late Marquess of Curzon also occupied a house there. Those days are gone for ever. The trouble to-day is that the Government are asking your Lordships' House and Parliament to approve a compromise, a hybrid. I cannot believe that it will succeed. One thing I am not going to stand for is the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that because we have a Royal Fine Art

863
Commission and they have approved the scheme and recognise it, none of us ought to say a word on these matters. It is intolerable. The noble Lord says the Commission have statutory authority to express the final view. I say that every member of either House of Parliament has an absolute right in any public matter like this to differ from the Royal Fine Art Commission, if he does differ; and on this occasion I differ from them profoundly. Either have Nash or do away with Nash altogether and, as the result of a free and open competition among the younger architects of to-day, get an entirely new building for the great processional site in the Mall.
With reference to the putting of "pepper pots" on the top, I ask noble Lords not to be misled by the drawings in the Academy and those which have been displayed to us outside this Chamber to-day. I have had to study so many of them. One can make almost anything of a sort of vista of what the building will look like when it is finally erected. If you have had considerable training, and can see the architect's drawings, the elevations, dimensions and structure, without any attempt to picture trees, decoration, sky and so on, then you can get an idea of what the building will look like. But drawings of the sort which have been displayed are misleading. I am convinced that the attempt to put additional storeys and other architectural features on top of the existing Nash façade, taken as a whole, will be absolutely disastrous; and if any of Nash's work is retained, you will be left with the appalling problem of how to deal with the interior walls and the interior building.
I say, keep the Nash building as a national monument. Make it into a museum, or two museums—and I want to say a word about that in a moment—or pull the whole thing down and build Government offices designed primarily as offices and functioning as offices; and, above all, build them of Portland stone. When I was at the Office of Works I was insistent that no major building built by the Government should be erected in London that was not clothed with Portland stone. The new big building on the site of Whitehall Gardens, though it has a seal of concrete and yellow brick, was
864
designed to be clothed entirely in Portland stone. If we stick to Portland stone, it is only a question of time before we get another Horse Guards, because the climate of London in the course of time converts Portland stone into the most beautiful building stone in the world. I think the idea of having these Nash columns stuccoed, painted, and with cast-iron capitals, and then these "pepper-pots" and all the rest of it, is a mad one, if you destroy the proportion of the present design and fiddle about with it. You had much better have an entirely new design. In the long-run, it will be cheaper, from the point of view of office accommodation. Rather than adapt the insides of these houses for office accommodation, it will be more economical in the long-run to design the building as office accommodation. I am sure that that is the right thing to do.
My alternative suggestion has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Badeley. The museums problem is acute. The wretched London Museum has never had a proper home. Lancaster House was made into a most unsuitable museum. Museums are things that have to be de-signed for their purpose. To convert these houses you would have to take the whole of the inside out of Carlton House Terrace, but the facade is much more the shape and size of a good museum than of a single, high block. In a museum only two floors are required; it is most unfortunate to have many floors. The top of the museum should have skylights, and the lower floor should have artificial lights and side lights. Quite apart from the homelessness of the London Museum, the congestion in our museums is getting worse and worse. The British Museum is notorious. It has the most wonderful collections in the world but only a fraction of them can be shown. All sorts of proposals have been made to deal with the examples of Indian and Oriental art which are in store and belong to the museums of this country, but there are no places in which to put them. There are vast masses of treasure in packing cases, in the basements of London houses, because there is no museum space. By making two floors and constructing large galleries in the existing buildings that state of affairs could be remedied. If that is not done. I agree that the days of Carlton House Terrace are numbered, and it would be far better to have the courage

865
to pull the whole thing down and hold a competition for a really good new design by a young architect, provided the new structure is to be built in Portland stone.
Let me conclude by saying how much I agree with noble Lords on this side of the House, who are increasingly of the opinion that to-day the efficiency of government is greatly impeded and Ministers are seriously handicapped by having far larger staffs than they can possibly control. The growth of paper matter, a great deal of unnecessary routine, tea ceremonies and all kinds of things that are growing up with these enormous offices of to-day, are really defeating the efficiency of government. I believe the Foreign Office is far better run by a Foreign Secretary and about a hundred first-class civil servants, with fewer clerical and first division people, than by having thousands of advisers on this, liaisons on that, departments of cultural relations, and all kinds of frills. It seems to me that one of the perils of government to-day is that the Minister, busy with Parliament and with the political life that he has to lead, is being choked by ever-growing masses of personnel in Government Departments—by growing masses of circumlocution, of "passed to you," of endless minutes, not, as in the old days, signed by two or three people, but with signatures running into double figures. The task of government is becoming absolutely hopeless. Government takes the form of administration as well as of politics, and I say that a drastic reduction of the staffs in Government Departments is one of the paramount needs of the body politic in Britain to-day.
5.44 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Mancroft has rendered a really valuable service in bringing this question of Carlton House Terrace to your Lordships' attention this afternoon. My feelings on this matter are similar to those expressed by him and by many other noble Lords on these Benches—that is to say, I admire Carlton House Terrace as it stands and I think that the alteration and the pro-posed additions would destroy a fine building. In this view I realise that I may differ from some other noble Lords who have much greater knowledge of architectural matters than I have. If it
866
were a question only of taste and knowledge I should be hesitant about putting forward my opinions this afternoon, but I feel that something more than a mere matter of taste is here involved. I suggest that there are two important matters of principle.
In the first place, I cannot help feeling—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will agree with me—that a good architect should be regarded as much an artist as is a good painter, musician or writer. If that be so. clearly Carlton House Terrace is a work of art by an artist known as John Nash. Some people may regard it as a very indifferent work of art, and as one which ought to be entirely demolished. Such a view is I think mistaken, but it is a perfectly understandable and logical view. In fact the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said exactly that. Others think that it has merit and should be preserved, and that also, I think, is a perfectly logical point of view. But what is entirely illogical and unjustifiable is the attitude of those who want to tinker with Nash's work. If it were suggested, for example, that some of the old masters in the National Gallery should be touched up by a modern painter there would be a general outcry; but because a place is lived in, and therefore serves a utilitarian purpose, a great many people seem to be prepared to do to it things that they would not think of doing to pictures and other works of art.
Of course, the modernisation of the interiors of buildings is inevitable, and it is not undesirable provided that it is carried out with proper discretion and sense. But it is quite another matter to change the exterior of a building so that the architect's original conception is entirely lost—and that is what I suggest is being done in this matter of Carlton House Terrace. I cannot believe that any contemporary architect would like to contemplate his own best work receiving such cavalier treatment from future generations. I am more than surprised when I see contemporary architects doing what I should always imagine they would not wish to be done to them. For that reason. I sincerely hope that we shall keep to the original intention of the architect, and that we shall not have pinned upon it some "variations on a theme by Nash, arranged by the Ministry of Works." That is one principle.

867
There is another principle bound up in this matter, and perhaps it is the most important of all—namely, that it is not Carlton House Terrace alone that is involved. Personally, I have no extravagant attachment for the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947, but if it did little else it certainly maintained the great advance towards the preservation of buildings of historic and architectural interest which was marked by the Act of 1944. I have always felt that up to 1944 we did not do nearly enough in this direction, and I am certain that we have never taken anything like the interest in our great buildings that the French for so many years past have taken in theirs. Nevertheless, the efficiency of Sections 29 and 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act in preserving our finest buildings must depend to a very great extent upon the enthusiasm engendered and the example set by the Government of the day.
There are two reasons why I think this must be so. In the first place, by that Act planning is decentralised, and lies almost entirely in the hands of local authorities, who are not elected because of their artistic knowledge or merits but for other reasons and who, therefore, cannot be expected to have either the enthusiasm or the knowledge to preserve what needs to be preserved. Secondly, although the Minister is compelled under the Act to compile a list of buildings which ought to be preserved, the local authority are not compelled under the Act to issue a preservation order for all or any of these buildings unless they so desire. As a result, while in some cases the local authority take a keen interest in these matters. and in many areas I think the situation has greatly improved, elsewhere buildings of great architectural merit are being allowed to be damaged or demolished by their owners; and in some cases they are actually being destroyed by local authorities themselves. I heard the other day of a dreadful case concerning a small but beautiful Vanburgh house which was acquired by a city council five years ago. No repairs were carried out during those five years, and the general decay of the house was hastened by hooliganism. Then, at the end of last year, quite suddenly, on the pretext that the house was now unsafe, it was demolished almost overnight.
868
Nor is this simply a matter of actual preservation; much damage can be done by the erection of unsuitable buildings next door to beautiful houses. For all these reasons, I say that it is essential that local authorities should be made to feel that these things really matter, that it is very important that our architectural heritage should be preserved. Local authorities should be given every assistance by the experts in the Ministry and by the expert committee which was set up for this purpose by the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and they should be urged, whenever they are in doubt, to seek advice before allowing old buildings to be demolished. If this is essential, I think the Government must set an example. I do not see how the Government can expect local authorities, with the kind of example that they now have in front of them, to follow the right course in this matter. I do not know, in this case, to what extent the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, as it then was, was consulted by the Ministry of Works, or if, indeed, there was consultation at all. If there was not consultation there should have been. If the former Ministry were consulted, and they approved this scheme, then I think they have set a very bad example to local planning authorities. A great deal has been said about accommodation for the Foreign Office. In my view several noble Lords on this side of the House have given very satisfactory replies on that question. Certainly, even if new accommodation is necessary for the Foreign Office I do not believe that it should be provided at the expense of Carlton House Terrace, or in a manner which, in my opinion, is entirely contrary to the spirit of Sections 29 and 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
5.52 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, if you will allow me to say so, I believe that at all costs the Nash facades should be saved. There is no question in my mind, and I do not think there is any question in the minds of the vast majority of those who love the artistic heritage of this country, that these façades are beautiful. They should be saved; they can be saved. But I do not feel that at this stage in the debate I, as an architect, should argue about what should be done behind the facades of the buildings, and who should

869
occupy them. A great many noble Lords have put forward some admirable suggestions, and I will not add to them, except to say that I am certain that we must try at all costs to save the Nash façades. We should not even consider, as Lord Harlech has suggested, pulling them down and erecting a new building. We must take all the trouble we can to save them—and I am sure that we can do so. With regard to what may go behind, may I say that I wholeheartedly endorse Lord Badeley's suggestion about the Banqueting House? That is a step which most certainly should be taken; that most beautiful of all buildings should be cleared, so that it can be used for its proper purpose as a banqueting house and not as a museum. Perhaps the United Services Museum could go into a bit of Carlton House Terrace if that is not used for a Foreign Office.
There is one thing, in particular, which I should like to ask His Majesty's Government. I do not know whether or not a model is to be exhibited. I think that a model would help us all if it could be set up at the right height, so that we could see the place as it would appear from the ground. Lord Silkin mentioned that a number of architects do not look at buildings such as Carlton House Terrace. I know that we are all very busy in these days and it is difficult to find time to study beautiful buildings of the past as we should like to study them. But as a matter of fact I think that the majority of architects, if asked, would say of this project that at all costs the Nash facades should be saved, and the original pediments retained. If that can be achieved well and good. With regard to the question of looking at buildings like these, I should like to mention that I myself, as a humble architect, have been watching Carlton House Terrace very closely for a long time. I noticed that, just after the war, wire guards were being put about the capitals of the columns. I wrote to the Ministry of Works and pointed this out. They graciously agreed with my view, and gave instructions that the wire guards should be immediately taken down. We can now see this façade as it should be, without wire guards. So someone has been looking at it.
May I just say this about the façades? The South side is the side which I and most of us care particularly about. I want
870
to make one special plea for the sloping roofs and the two great pediments. I think they should be retained in any alterations that are mace to the Terrace. The roof is part of the building. If it is a sloping roof it should remain sloping. I do not know why it is suggested that this should be taken off, and that in future the roof should be flat. If your Lordships look at the plans you will see, as we all know, that the proposed upper storeys are set far back—approximately seventy feet—so there is plenty of room for the original sloping roofs in front. Even if, regretfully, the high back has to be pulled down, I see no reason why a great flat terrace, seventy feet wide, should be built at the top. There is an enormous terrace down below for the inmates to play about on—they cannot need the other, as well. I think that if the roofs can be tidied up and improved—they must be tidied up; I agree that the chimneys are in a shocking state—as the Ministry have so excellently tidied up some of the roofs in the Regent's Park Terraces it would be a very different thing. I should like to pay a tribute, which I think is overdue, to the Ministry of Works for the wonderful work they are doing in Regent's Park. I hope that they will continue it and finish it: it is splendid. At least those buildings are now being seen as they once were.
With regard to the pediments, some people have suggested that perhaps they are not necessary, or are not even part of Nash's design. I should like to point out that the pediments and the roof are one. If you look at the eastern pediment you will see the roof comes forward on to it. The western pediment, which I think is the one most people look at, has no roof behind it because that has been destroyed. Therefore, although it looks like a plaster affair, it is really part of the roof. Mr. Robert Lutyens refers to it as a plaster addition, and not of much consequence. But the pediments are of great importance to the general design of the building. They are magnificent in themselves, and they are part of Nash's original design—I say "Nash's" advisedly. The buildings were designed by Nash, and the man about whom I think some noble Lords are thinking is Sir James Pennythorne. He was Nash's adopted son, and he worked in his office. As a matter of fact, he was what we should now, perhaps, call the "job supervisor" of Carlton

871
House Terrace; he saw the work through. The whole design, however, emanated from Nash's office. I should like to finish by stressing that both the pediments and the roof are essential to the whole composition, and they should undoubtedly, be retained, repaired and tidied up.
6.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but there are two matters to which I feel that I should like to draw attention. In the first place, I do not think that the Government have had a fair deal in this debate to-day, because nearly all the speeches have not given them the credit they deserve. The Government have saved Carlton House Terrace, although there was every reason why they should pull it down. They had all the excuses necessary for a Government to commit such an atrocity. They could have said that, as they had decided not to make use of it, and as no alternative use could be found, the building would be pulled down. They could also have used the excuse that was used for pulling down Nash's Regent Street, that the interiors were ill-adapted for modern life. It would have been easy for the Government to destroy Carlton House Terrace, and it is most discouraging for a naturally unæsthetic lot of people like a Government Department, when they do try to do the right thing, to receive no credit for it from this House.
Secondly, I was appalled by the advocacy of chaos indulged in by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. No one has a greater admiration for your Lordships' House than I have. I am one of the few people who think it so perfect that it cannot be improved. Nevertheless, I feel that if we are going to set ourselves up as a committee of taste we should do so in the earlier stages, when a useful and informative debate such as we have had this afternoon would have had some effect on the results. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, says he could not be expected to notice the fact that the plans were put before the Royal Academy. If a plan is put before the Royal Academy, surely it is the business of people who take an interest in these things to find out that it is there, and when they do find out it is there, to raise the matter in your Lordships' House at an early stage,
872
before the plans have been made and all the bodies concerned have made up their minds about the matter. I consider that both the debate on the Colonial Office and the debate this afternoon have been held much too late in the process of implementing these plans.
I do not deny for a moment that any one of your Lordships has the right to give his opinion on these questions. I have no desire to prevent the disagreement that invariably arises from these debates. But ultimately somebody has to decide these questions. In the old days the decisions were perfectly easy. When it came to pulling down Regent Street, commercial ideas were supreme. The business people thought that the buildings were not adequate: no question of æsthetics arose and purely commercial considerations decided that the buildings should be pulled down. But in these days, when we consider ourselves to be more enlightened, someone has ultimately to decide these questions, and that task is put upon the Royal Fine Art Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has a perfect right to disagree with the Royal Fine Art Commission. I think he was on it once.
LORD HARLECH: Never.
VISCOUNT ESHER: Well, you ought to have been if you were not. The noble Lord has the right to disagree with the Royal Fine Art Commission, but they have been appointed as the statutory body for making these ultimate decisions. I have the greatest confidence in the Royal Fine Art Commission. If noble Lords have no confidence in them, they should agitate for people in whom they have confidence to be put on the Commission. In a question of this sort, where æsthetic and artistic opinions differ to such an extent, it seems to me that a body of this kind is absolutely necessary, and when, after infinite debate, a decision has been made, that decision should be accepted. Rightly or wrongly, the Royal Fine Art Commission have accepted this design, and I think we cannot at this late date ask the Government to alter the plan which has been accepted by the statutory artistic authority.
6.5 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, if I may begin at the end, instead of at the beginning,

873
I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, for his spirited defence of the Government's policy in this matter. I should also like to say to him that while we have received several severe blows during this debate we are not unduly dispirited thereat. It is common for noble Lords in every part of the House to attack the Government, and I have every sympathy with it, because I was brought up in a school which taught me that the proper line for a politician to take was, "When you see a head, hit it." I make no complaint whatever. I do not think anyone can complain that this debate has lacked variety. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, last week your Lordships spent two days in a discussion on Foreign Affairs, a debate which seemed to me to be largely concerned with the question of whether a new Foreign Secretary was necessary. To-day we are discussing whether a new Foreign Office is necessary; if it is necessary, whether it should be in Carlton House Terrace; and, if it is in Carlton House Terrace, whether the reconstructed building will detrimentally affect the exterior beauty of the Terrace as seen from the Mall. That seems to me to summarise fairly our discussion.
I hope, therefore, it may suit the convenience of noble Lords if I do not make detailed comments upon each of the excellent speeches, which would take me a long time, but confine myself to a broad statement covering the three points I have mentioned—namely, the need for a new Foreign Office; the reasons why Carlton House Terrace site is suitable; and, finally, why it is a practical scheme which will preserve for posterity the architectural beauty of Carlton House Terrace. I am optimistic enough to hope that noble Lords will find that in my statement most of their questions have been dealt with.
I am sure it will be admitted that the Foreign Office is a Department which the country cannot afford to have working under a handicap. The noble Lord gave some figures, and I am not going to repeat them. The handling of the nation's foreign affairs needs a building specially designed and equipped, incorporating the numerous improvements in office organisation and machinery which have been evolved in the last few years. A building internally designed in the style of 1868 could never be made really suitable for the Foreign Office of 1951. It may be suggested that the Foreign Office could
874
be rebuilt on its present site. That has been one of the numerous suggestions made in the course of this debate, but there are two difficulties about this.
First of all, in our present financial position we cannot afford to spend money on pulling down and reconstructing buildings which, although admittedly not ideal for Foreign Office purposes, were none the less constructed as Government offices and have a good many years of useful life left in them. I think it will be agreed that Sir Gilbert Scott was no jerry-builder and that the present building is very solidly constructed. The second difficulty is that the proposal would mean rehousing the Foreign Office in the immediate future for a number of years, and I know of nowhere where we could do this adequately. When the present building is vacated by the Foreign Office (this answers a question of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury) it can be used in a number of ways, but no decision has been taken on this matter, because it will be some years before Carlton House Terrace is finished, and times change. One obvious way would be to enable the staffs of the Home Office to be concentrated under one roof, instead of in ten buildings as at present.
I hardly think I need occupy much time in this House to justify the growth of the Foreign Office, to explain the causes of the increased work, or the fundamental reasons for the increase of staff. As examples of the increasing points of contact between Governments and between peoples even since the war, I need remind noble Lords only of the vast and complex development of the United Nations machinery, the European Recovery Plan, the Brussels Pact, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and numerous conventions on social welfare and cultural matters. Since the second half of the nineteenth century world politics have become much more difficult and complex; politics and economics have become in-separable and the scope of foreign affairs immensely widened. It is estimated that the present work of the Foreign Office is approximately nineteen times as great as it was in 1868, and two and a half times as great as in 1938.
Perhaps at this point I may answer one or two questons that have been put to me, and, incidentally, give some information on one that was not put, which

875
I am sure will be of interest to noble Lords. I took the trouble to find out how the figures, to which my noble friend Lord Mancroft referred rather disparagingly, of the so-called horde of bureaucrats employed in the Foreign Office com-pared with those for the United States of America, with whom we are doing our best, under certain difficulties, to keep in step. The figures I have are that the staff employed on foreign affairs in the United States Department in 1913 was 267; in 1937, 948; in 1940, 971; and in 1950, 8.595. As to Lord Mancroft's remark about the "vast orgy of bureaucratic building," I want to tell him that the Foreign Office will take its place in the queue, along with others. All Government buildings now going up are solely to enable requisitioned property to be released. Is the noble Lord not in favour of that? If he is not, I have very much mistaken his line. I presume that he sympathises with that end. The noble Lord asked whether the Royal Fine Art Commission were allowed to reject the whole scheme. The answer is that the Commission suggested the whole scheme, and Mr. de Soissons was asked to plan according to their recommendation.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, asked how far the Government had looked for an alternative site, and proceeded to suggest one. I do not think his was a very fortunate suggestion, if I may be bold enough to say so, particularly as it came soon after Lord Mancroft had been making our hair stand on end (those of us who have any) with stories of the tremendous congestion that would ensue if the Foreign Office were moved to Carl-ton House Terrace. Lord Salisbury suggested the site immediately opposite the House of Commons. The answer to that is that it is at present fully occupied by private lessees, whom we do not propose to expropriate, and who have long leases. I am sure that the noble Marquess would be on the side of the Ministry of Works in not desiring to disturb people who have long leases on their present property. I would also point out that if the Foreign Office were put in the corner that he suggested it would create a far graver traffic problem than that which would be created in Waterloo Place.
Perhaps I may now answer Lord Mancroft's question about the cost of new buildings. He asked for the cost of the new Whitehall Government offices, and
876
I am advised that it will be about £5,500,000. The cost of the new Colonial Office, I am advised, will be approximately £2,500,000, and of the new Foreign Office between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000, spread over several years. While I am answering questions perhaps I may answer that put by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as to whether there is to be a model. I think the easiest way to answer his question is to quote a reply made by the Minister of Works in another place on Tuesday, January 23, in which he said:
"A model of the proposed reconstruction of Carlton House Terrace has not yet been made, but I propose to have one made and to exhibit it as the honourable Member suggests. I understand that it will take a considerable time to construct the model, but meanwhile I will arrange for the architect's drawings to be exhibited in the Members' Tea Room."
We are concerned not only with the problem of rehousing the Foreign Office but also with the problem of what is to be done with Carlton House Terrace. I have listened to every speech that has been made this afternoon, but I have not heard one practical suggestion of what we arc to do with Carlton House Terrace. This extremely valuable site, which is the property of the Commissioners of Crown Lands, was in danger of becoming a net loss to the taxpayer even before the war. In 1932 the Commissioners of Crown Lands were advised that it would be very difficult to re-let any of the houses as houses when the present leases fell in. Leaving the houses empty hits the taxpayer in two ways. First, of course, there is the loss of rent; but even more serious are the ever increasing maintenance charges which have to be met from the land revenues of the Crown. This wasting process would go on until a site which was, or should be, a national asset became a heavy liability. At one time or another the Commissioners of Crown Lands have considered all possible uses for these buildings. As private residences they are out of date, and practically unlettable. The possibility of finding enough clubs to occupy the whole Terrace is remote, since most clubs at present have club houses, and, moreover, some are (so it is rumoured) in financial difficulties. To have two or three of the houses occupied by clubs would militate against any sensible policy for the use of the Terrace as a whole. The same thing applies to Embassies.

877
One of Lord Mancroft's questions was whether anybody had been given notice to quit. The answer is that no one has. The occupiers are leaseholders. They have been warned that re-development is intended, and negotiations have been offered for early surrender, but only one lessee, the Union Club, has actually been bought out. Again it has been considered whether the terraces could be converted into blocks of residential flats. Here, however, we are up against the floor levels, which were appropriate in the days of great receptions, rich aristocracy and plentiful servants. The position of the windows would raise insuperable difficulties in the way of an economic scheme for converting the existing building into flats. It has even been considered whether the existing buildings could be converted into a hotel or two separate hotels, but here again any conversion which was economic would involve a reconstruction quite as radical as that involved in the conversion into offices. The only specific proposal of this kind which has been made in recent years involved the complete demolition of the existing buildings, of which I understood the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, to be in favour.
Even in 1939 the Commissioners of Crown Lands and their lessees had been driven to the conclusion that the best hope of keeping the existing buildings lay in allowing them to be used as high-class offices, but anyone who is acquainted with the interior of the houses will realise how inappropriate they are for office use. It can scarcely be suggested that they should be used for offices for all time, as they stand now. The Government's proposals, therefore, are designed to solve two problems: the Foreign Office accommodation problem and the problem of Carlton House Terrace. A report of the Royal Fine Art Commission in 1945 recognised that at any rate partial reconstruction of the terraces would be necessary for any modern use, but suggested the retention of the Mall elevation. The report said:
"The Commission recommend the adoption of this scheme with the retention of the south and end elevations and the return wings to the north as shown on the plans so far as is practicable, having regard to the disturbing factor of the Pinchin Johnson Building at the end of the western Terrace. This recommendation is, however, subject to the approval by the Commission of the new north elevation to which the Conmissioners attached considerable
878
importance and such other details as may be prepared which have not yet been submitted."
It appeared possible, within the terms of this recommendation, to evolve a scheme which, while retaining the essential character of Nash's work, allowed a proper use to be made of the site.
The Ministry of Works therefore consulted the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects as to a suitable choice of architect for tarrying out such a scheme, for which it was recognised that special qualifications would be needed. In accordance with the advice given, the Minister decided to appoint Mr. Louis de Soissons, A.R.A., a recognized authority on Georgean architecture and a member of the Royal Fine Art Commission. Mr. de Soissons was asked to replan Carlton House Terrace on the basis suggested by the Royal Fine Art Commission, and the result is the proposal which we are considering to-day, and which has been approved, in general without qualification, by the Royal Fine Art Commission. I fear there will always be those who regard any form of modernisation or addition to fine old buildings as anathema. People who hold this view are unfortunately often the worst enemies of the buildings they seek to preserve. We cannot convert the centre of London into a sort of museum, containing buildings which at one time or another may have had their uses but which are now almost entirely ornamental. By reconstructing Carlton House Terrace the Government would give a new lease of life to the best part of Nash's work—the elevations facing the Park, which would be preserved for posterity.
What is the alternative? The buildings were put up by speculative builders, and every year they become more expensive to maintain. There is no use for them which is is not wasteful and uneconomic, and in the end they would inevitably—as the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, forecast this afternoon—have to be pulled down, just as Carlton House, which occupied the site before them, had to be swept away because it was shabby, inconvenient and unsafe. I only wish some of the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this afternoon had been with me one day last week when I spent several hours, not looking at the view from the outside in the Mall, but going through the houses from the inside and seeing the state of dilapidation into which

879
many of the houses have already fallen. It seems to me that the true friends of fine architecture are surely those who, by combining a modern use with the least possible change, arrest the progress of decay which ultimately must lead to demolition. The reconstructed building would house 1,560 staff, which would just take the main Foreign Office, excluding the Passport Office and excluding also the German Section, which it may be hoped will have come to an end by the time the new premises are ready. The Government have already spent approximately £100,000—again this is in reply to the noble Marquess—on buying leasehold interests in Carlton House Terrace, and if the scheme were not proceeded with this money would probably be wasted.
Now may I very timidly venture a few words about the architectural issue? In matters of aesthetics it is notoriously difficult to arrive at final truth, and it is also noticeable that one architect is seldom found praising wholeheartedly the work of another. That is why the Royal Fine Art Commission was set up, so that we could have some impartial and authoritative body to which these matters could be referred. A layman, if he is wise, does not venture too far on this delicate ground. But in view of the many misleading statements of fact which have appeared in the Press, I think it would be useful if I were to recapitulate a few of the more important facts. The appearance of Carlton House Terrace from the Mall will be unchanged. From further back the upper storey on the Carlton Gardens side will be visible and will take the place of the present untidy skyline, with its jumble of chimney pots and attic windows. It will rise only 14 ft. above the existing roof in the centre of the Terraces, and is set back 78 ft. from the front. The end pavilions will remain as at present. All these facts were excellently set out and illustrated in a recent article by Robert Lutyens in Country Life.
One of the features of the present controversy which has caused me some amusement is the appearance recently in the Press of accusations—which, to my surprise, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, appears to have fallen for—that this has been a hole and corner business; that the scheme has been hatched out by "back room boys" behind locked doors
880
and has suddenly burst upon the world with all the appalling suddenness of an atom bomb. May I be allowed to quote a few words from the Sunday Times? It says:
"The 'news' that the Foreign Office is to be rebuilt in Carlton House Terrace is not new. The plan has been under consideration for some time. Like other plans it will, with our depleted resources, be a long time before it reaches completion. Even lovers of the old building must admit that the reform is badly needed."
In case noble Lords find something a little surprising about the tone of the extract, I should add that it appeared in the Sunday Times on May 25, 1947. And lest it should be thought that the Sunday Times affords only a limited publicity to this furtive plot of His Majesty's Government, and as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has referred to the Royal Academy, noble Lords may care to hear another extract from the Daily Express of May 20, 1947, over three and a half years ago. This is what they said:
"Carlton House Terrace, as Royalty, Society, Diplomats and Club men have known it for over a century, is to go. On its site, just off Pall Mall, overlooking the Mall and St. James's Park and on either side of the Duke of York's Steps. Britain's new Foreign Office will be built."
That is an extract of three and a half years ago, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, comes down to your Lordships' House this afternoon and says that this has been sprung upon the public and that nobody knew. That is not very complimentary to the Daily Express.
But I am not going for one instance to blame the Daily Express, because I am going to show you now that those responsible for newspapers in the same offices apparently do not themselves read their main paper. Newspaper ownership has always been something of a mystery to me; almost the only thing I know is that the Daily Express and the Evening Standard belong to the same noble Lord. Therefore, your Lordships can imagine my surprise and bewilderment to read in a leading article in the Evening Standard of only eight days ago:
"… the whole business has been conducted in an atmosphere of hugger-mugger and security…."
I did not learn the word "hugger-mugger" when I was at school, so I looked it up in my dictionary and I find it defined as "secrecy." I am left wondering whether the left hand of the

881
noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, knows what his right hand has been up to. May I add, as another glaring example of the secrecy mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that a drawing illustrating the proposals was exhibited in the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition of 1948?
The present plans show a vehicle access to the loading bay in the basement of the new building down a ramp from Waterloo Place. For reasons of internal communication, it is important that mail bags and so on should be delivered at a central point; and the present proposal, which is tentative, is to do this by having a ramp in Waterloo Place. The Athenaeum have expressed concern about this proposal, as have other clubs in the neighbourhood—the United Service and the Travellers'. We are examining alternative ways of providing a vehicle access. The question will probably turn on expense, but the Government are in no way wedded to the present proposal. There is also a proposal to widen the roadway in Carlton Gardens, which would mean diminishing the area of the Gardens. Here again, the present proposals are not yet entirely firm, and we have promised to consider any points which are raised. We are not yet in a position to put firm proposals to the interested authorities, which include the Crown Estate Paving Commission.
To sum up: a new Foreign Office is badly needed. I hope that I have been able to prove that, if it is to be placed within reasonable distance of Downing Street and the Palace of Westminster—as. for reasons of efficiency, it must be—the only site available for it is Carlton House Terrace, which is also handy for Embassies. Nash's buildings were not, unfortunately, built to last, and they have reached the end of their natural life. In addition they are, as they stand, a white elephant, instead of yielding, as they should, a substantial revenue to the tax-payer. The Government's proposals, which are based on recommendations of the Royal Fine Art Commission and have received the Commission's unqualified approval, preserve the best of Nash while making a fully economic use of the site. The present position of the scheme, therefore, is that preliminary sketch plans have been prepared by the architects and approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission. Some expenditure on securing vacant possession has been incurred, and consultations with the
882
planning authorities are proceeding. It had been intended to make a start with the reconstruction in 1952, but owing to the necessity to restrict capital investment in the interests of the defence programme, it is unlikely that work can be started until 1954. When they do start, the cost of the building operations will be between £3,000,000' and £4.000,000, spread over several years. I hope that I have said enough to assist the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in deciding to ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
6.35 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am sure you will agree that we have had a most interesting and useful debate, and I think you would wish me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrison for his trouble and care in giving us an answer which, if it does not satisfy everybody, has at least cleared up many of our doubts and answered many of our questions. I should like, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to make it clear that I had no intention or desire—as I am sure that anybody who listened to me with a sense of humour will realise—to raise this matter as a political stick with which to beat the Government. I made it clear that the Conservative Party had committed many crimes of this nature, and that if Lord Morrison chose to raise them I should plead guilty. I am beginning to have great faith in the noble Lord and his colleagues at the Ministry of Works. I think they are promising well—and that is why I was so disappointed in this scheme.
I would not have Lord Silkin believe that I wish to level any attack on civil servants. Civil servants are a good thing—but one can have too much of a good thing. My argument was. not against them at all. Nor did I suggest that civil servants should not be comfortably housed—though no more so than the next man. That was the gist of my argument. Lord Morrison is stirring up trouble when he gently chides us for not laving read our papers carefully, or looked sufficiently closely at pictures in the Royal Academy. When the Royal Academy opens I am going to take the noble Lord and some of his colleagues with me into the Architectural Room; and I shall threaten him with a debate on every one of these plans which I see and which I do not like the look of, however probable or improbable

883
it may be. I am not entirely happy, helpful though Lord Morrison has been. He knows there is uneasiness in this House and in the country. He must therefore forgive me if, whilst I ask leave to withdraw my Motion, I say that this is not the last he has heard of this matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  BRITISH TRAVEL AND HOLIDAYS ASSOCIATION PUBLICITY
  BRITISH TRAVEL AND HOLIDAYS ASSOCIATION PUBLICITY
  EXPORTS OF MEAT FROM BRITAIN
  EXPORTS OF MEAT FROM BRITAIN