Sitting of 29 October 1952

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

  ROCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
  Standing Orders 88 (Copy of Lords Amendments, &c., to be laid before Chairman of Ways and Means, &c.) and 208 (Notices of Consideration of Lords Amendments), relating to Private Business suspended; Lords Amendments to the Bill to be considered forthwith.—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly, and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Accident Rate
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why the accident rate per flying hour in the Royal Air Force compares unfavourably with that of the United States Air Force.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): It would be contrary to the public interest to publish statistics of the accident rate per flying hour in the Royal Air Force. I can, however, assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there is no significant difference between the accident rates for aircraft performing comparable duties under similar flying conditions in the two air forces.
    It is the constant aim of my noble Friend to improve aircraft safety, and there is the closest consultation on questions of safety and accident prevention between the Royal Air Force and the commanders of the Royal Canadian Air Force and United States Air Force squadrons operating in this country.
    Air Commodore Harvey: But is my hon. Friend aware that there is real concern in the country at the increasing rate of accidents in the R.A.F. this year; and how is it that the United States Air Force is able to publish hours flown and the ratio of accidents? Are they publishing secrets or not? If not, cannot we do the same?
    Mr. Ward: This is a matter on which individual Governments can surely be allowed to make up their own minds. I do not think that we are necessarily bound to follow the example even of our closest friends. As regards our own accident rate, I have given repeated assurances lately that our accident rate is falling.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Will the Minister refute the suggestion contained in the Question that the accident rate in the Royal Air Force compares unfavourably with that of the United States Air Force?
    Mr. Ward: We do not accept that assumption.

    Damaged Property (Compensation Negotiations)
    Mr. J. Morrisonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that certain agents are approaching householders after their property has been damaged by aircraft, offering to negotiate compensation on a percentage commission basis; and if he will give publicity to the recognised procedure in order to discourage this practice at a time when people are still suffering from shock.
    Mr. Ward: I am aware that householders have on occasion been exploited in this way. The Air Ministry accepts an automatic responsibility to pay compensation to householders whose property has been damaged by Royal Air Force aircraft. Our assessors are on the spot as soon as possible after an accident to advise householders how to present their claims, which can usually be settled without other assistance.
    Where, however, householders have complicated claims or wish to employ their own agent, they are strongly advised to call in a firm which is a member of one of the recognised professional bodies and does not canvass for custom or work on commission.

    1899
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and I hope that by so doing, he will have done something to check these undesirable activities.
    Mr. Morrison: In thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he will emphasise that it is always unwise in these cases too hastily to employ strangers?
    Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. I hope that the public will take note that anyone who, under these conditions, comes touting for business on a commission basis is not a proper person with whom to deal.

    Married Quarters, Sealand
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why certain married quarters at Sealand, from which former occupants have been evicted, have remained empty for up to 18 months instead of being used to house either British or American families.
    Mr. Ward: To enable essential reconditioning to be done.
    Mrs. White: Is the Minister aware that these particular married quarters, which have been empty for a long time, are within full view of the main road, and are seen daily by families who believe that they have been put back on the local authority housing list to make way for families evicted from these married quarters?
    There is also a rumour current locally that the Americans, who might use them, are not anxious to do so because their lodging allowances are so generous. Will the hon. Gentleman take up the matter with the American forces authorities to see that these houses are occupied as soon as possible?
    Mr. Ward: As the hon. Lady is aware, there are two separate camps on this station. The east camp was quickly vacated and is now fully occupied. On the south camp, quarters were handed over to the Americans from September, 1951, as they became vacant. They remained empty because the greater part of the reconditioning that is to be done to them will not be undertaken until the whole site is completely vacant. This vacating has taken some time because we had to put hardship cases from east camp into that camp for the time being.

    Aerodromes (Property Depreciation)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will introduce legislation which will enable him to compensate owners of property situated near aerodromes who, through no fault of their own, find that owing to the development of jet aeroplanes their premises have become uninhabitable and who are unable to sell their property as the value of them, has been depreciated.
    Mr. Ward: No, Sir.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is my hon. Friend, aware that at Biggin Hill, in my constituency, houses have been destroyed or have had to be evacuated, through no fault of the tenants, because of the development of jet aircraft, that they cannot sell the houses and that their value has depreciated? Will he take steps to compensate these people, because the treatment hitherto received is most unsympathetic, if not unfair?
    Mr. Ward: While I have the greatest possible sympathy with these people, the presence of jet aircraft is by no means the only way in which the value of property can be depreciated. It would be quite impossible to draft any sort of legislation on the matter.
    Sir W. Smithers: It is no good being sympathetic. What we want is proper compensation.

    Films (Expenditure)
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how much is expended on films made for the Royal Air Force per year; and what attempts have been made to bring about savings.
    Mr. Ward: Expenditure on films is at present limited to training films, which represent an effective and economical method of training men in the use of complicated and expensive equipment. In 1951–52, this expenditure amounted to £49,000. There is close liaison with the other Services and outside agencies over the production and exchange of training films, and each proposal for a new film is carefully considered on its merits in the light of its potential value as a training medium.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Does my hon. Friend not consider that if the Royal

    1901
    Air Force had a central library in which to distribute its films, rather on the same lines as the Army, it might be more efficient and more economical?
    Mr. Ward: That is under consideration at the present time.

  HELICOPTER STATION, SOUTH BANK
  Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Civil Aviation what progress has been made in respect to the South Bank site as a helidrome in connection with the proposal to establish a network of helicopter passenger stations.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. R. Maudling): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) on 22nd October, 1952.
  Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that has been made, particularly as the twin-rotor Bristol 173 will be ready in 1955 or before? Cannot he get some of the optimism of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply in respect to the development of helicopters?
  Mr. Maudling: I am satisfied that progress is being made as rapidly as possible in the circumstances, but there are many possible uses for the South Bank site and there are, of course, also many interested parties in its future fate. Therefore, it is not a problem that can be easily and quickly solved.
  Sir Edward Keeling: Would my hon. Friend consider publishing the technical reports which, I believe, have been made about the tests which took place, both in this House and elsewhere, on the noise made by experiments in the use of helicopters on the South Bank?
  Mr. Maudling: I will certainly look into that matter.

  KOREA

    Truce Talks
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the progress of the armistice negotiations in Korea.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): Since my statement of 15th October, the Chinese and North Korean leaders sent a letter on 16th October to the United Nations Command restating their explicit insistence on the principle that all prisoners of war must be repatriated. General Mark Clark replied on 20th October, pointing out that their letter contained nothing new or constructive, and therefore did not constitute a valid basis for the resumption of negotiations.
    Sir I. Fraser: As negotiations on the field of battle have so far failed, and as from the point of view of world strategy the Korean Peninsula may not be the most important battleground, could my right hon. Friend consider transferring the negotiations to Moscow or to China, or to some other more important centre?
    Mr. Eden: That is a question of which I would rather like to have notice. Actually, the negotiations at Panmunjom are in recess, but the staff officers are still in contact. It is also a fact that the whole Korean situation is in process of being, or will be shortly, debated at the United Nations, and I do not think that I ought to go beyond that at present.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: When the Foreign Secretary takes part in the Assembly debates, of which he has spoken, will he make it plain to the world that we desire peace, not only in Korea, but with the whole of Asia, if we could get reasonable terms, and that on the outstanding issue of the prisoners of war we are ready to accept any reasonable proposal which does not involve sending back prisoners by force if they have good reason to believe that their lives would be in danger?
    Mr. Eden: I should have hoped, with such weight as my voice could carry, that that had been said a great many times as being the position of Her Majesty's Government. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman's definition. I would only add that there are detailed Questions on the Paper about the Mexican and the Quakers' proposals, and I should like to reserve any comment about them until I reach them.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the last offer which was made on the United Nations

    1903
    side about the prisoners question, which seemed to be a reasonable proposal, was made on 29th September, and whether it is true that the unfortunate incidents about the shooting of prisoners in an American prisoner-of-war camp happened on 1st October? May not a refusal of the offer be in some way influenced by that second tragic circumstance, and has the Foreign Secretary yet received a report as to what happened on that date?
    Mr. Eden: That is quite a different question from the one on the Paper. As far as my recollection goes, I have not received the report, but I do not think I could say that there was the close relationship that the hon. Member suggests, because, as he will know, the attitude that the Communists are now adopting in respect of this matter is the same as they have adopted all along. I agree that, not one proposal, but three alternative proposals, which the United Nations put forward, and in which we took a considerable part in the negotiations, were, I thought, the most reasonable that human minds could possibly devise.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: In view of the fact that there is only this one item of the prisoners outstanding, has consideration been given to the possibility of suggesting that there should be a truce on the basis of the agreement so far reached and the matter of the prisoners of war being left over for the peace conference which would follow?
    Mr. Eden: We have thought of pretty well every formula that could be thought of, but we must be extremely careful that anything to which we agree does not by any chance jeopardise the return of our own prisoners.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the present state of the Korean truce talks; and what consideration he has given to the official proposals made by the Mexican Government, and the proposals of the Society of Friends, of which he has been informed, for dealing with the question of the exchange of prisoners of war.
    Mr. Eden: As regards the first part of his Question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply already given to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser).
    1904
    Her Majesty's Government have welcomed the Mexican Government's proposal as a sincere attempt to contribute towards a solution of the prisoner-of-war problem. It relates to the disposal of prisoners who are not repatriated after an armistice, and thus does not offer a solution of the immediate problem of principle which stands in the way of agreement.
    The proposals of the Society of Friends have been carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government and were discussed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State with a deputation from the Society on 24th September. Those of their proposals which relate to methods of screening under neutral supervision would be generally acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
    The Communists have, however, always totally rejected the principle of screening. The Society of Friends also suggested the immediate conclusion of an armistice on the basis of the agreement already reached, while remitting forward for later decision the unresolved issue of the release of prisoners of war.
    It goes without saying that such an arrangement would have to provide for the safe return of our own prisoners from North Korea.
    Mr. Driberg: While fully agreeing with what the right hon. Gentleman says, both now and in reply to Question No. 10, that "anything that we do," I think he said, "must not jeopardise the position of our own prisoners," could he explain why, or in what way, it would jeopardise their position to have a ceasefire on the basis of such agreement as already exists, while reserving the question of the exchange of prisoners for the consequent talks?
    Mr. Eden: Unless there is an arrangement that all prisoners that want to return can return; and if we start to negotiate that after we have reached an armistice we may find difficulties arising out of it. We feel that we should clearly understand what the position about prisoners should be, whether we agree about any special arrangements or anything at all. Whatever the special arrangement, we think it ought to be concluded before the armistice is signed, as, otherwise, we may get into serious entanglements which may have serious consequences for our own men.
    Mr. S. Silverman: In the meantime, would the right hon. Gentleman do everything he has the power to do to make certain that incidents in the prison camps under the control of the United Nations are not repeated because they can only have the effect of persuading the Chinese that talk about humanity in relation to prisoners in our hands is pure humbug? One sees only today that there have been further incidents at this camp. Since we share the responsibility for it, is it not time that we should have a full and accurate account of what led up to these tragic incidents?
    Mr. Eden: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will make inquiries about this. I have not seen a report about the incident, but I think we should have it. Our troops are not involved in these matters, and I would say for the information of the House that our troops are not engaged in guarding these prisoners.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Would it be accurate to say that Her Majesty's Government regard this refusal to return as tantamount to application for political asylum which we in this country have always granted?
    Mr. Shinwell: I apologise that I was not present earlier to put my Question.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that there does not appear to be any solution of the problem of the repatriation of prisoners at the present time? Whilst we are not in any way condoning any act of aggression and we realise that some action had to be taken, is it not obvious that alternative diplomatic schemes should now be devised in order to try to bring this to an end? Does not Mr. Acheson's speech the other day offer some opportunity for the United Kingdom Government to take some reciprocal action?
    Mr. Eden: I was going to reply to the right hon. Gentleman that this matter is about to be discussed in the United Nations and I hope to be able to go there myself next week. If I think that there is an opportunity for reaching any kind of arrangement which is satisfactory and just for our own people, for Europe and the world, of course I shall seize it. But I would rather not say anything more about it in the House now because I do not think it will help anything I can do later.

    Peace Settlement
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will enter into consultations with the United States Government and other Governments of the United Nations in order to agree the peace terms which, following an armistice in Korea, would form the basis of a final peace settlement in the Far East.
    Mr. Eden: Her Majesty's Government are in close and continuous consultation with the United States Government and other Governments on these matters. It is, however, the view of Her Majesty's Government that an armistice must be concluded in Korea before progress can be made in discussion of a wider settlement in the Far East.
    Mr. Henderson: Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that, while no statement should be made which appears to be attempting to buy off an aggressor, surely, as regards Her Majesty's Government and the other Governments associated with us in the campaign in Korea, it is highly desirable that a further attempt should be made to secure agreement now, before we go into the peace settlement which is bound to follow any armistice which might be arranged?
    Mr. Eden: We thought, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself in an earlier incarnation thought, that it was necessary to get the armistice terms before we could usefully discuss the wider political settlement, and I think that that is the right position.
    Mr. Henderson: I think the right hon. Gentleman is not clear as to what I am suggesting. I am not suggesting that discussions should take place with Communist China, but that discussions should take place with the United States Government and the other Governments associated with us so that there may be agreement as to the line to be adopted when the time comes.
    Mr. Eden: I misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Some informal discussions of that kind have taken place.

    Chinese Nationalists
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of General Chiang Kai-shek that

    1907
    the Chinese Nationalist authorities are to seek release from the neutralisation of Formosa and permission for a nationalistic invasion of the Chinese mainland; and whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will oppose any such proposals for extending the Korean war.
    Mr. Eden: I assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's statement of 21st October. The view of Her Majesty's Government remains that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 26th February,
    "Few adventures could be less successful or fruitful than for Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek to plunge on to the mainland."
    It remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to seek to prevent the extension of the Korean war.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Foreign Secretary say if there is some kind of a British representative at Formosa in touch with General Chiang Kai-shek and, if so, what exactly is the status of such a representative?
    Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, we have a consular representative, I think, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question and I will check it.

  YUGOSLAVIA (SECRETARY OF STATE'S VISIT)
  Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Yugoslavia and his conversations with Marshal Tito.
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I travelled to Yugoslavia at the invitation of the Yugoslav Government. I did not go for the purpose of conducting negotiations, but to make contact and to exchange views with the Yugoslav leaders. I had a series of frank and cordial talks with Marshal Tito and members of his Government. We reviewed the world situation in general and also many problems of common interest in Europe and elsewhere. I was glad to find that Marshal Tito's views on these matters seemed to be very close to our own. In particular, I welcomed the evident determination of the Yugoslav Government and people to
  1908
  maintain their independence and the steady development of better relations with their neighbours. I told Marshal Tito that I felt sure that understanding and wise statesmanship would be brought to bear on the problems that still remain.
  Her Majesty's Government now look forward to an era of increasingly close co-operation between the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia. I am sure that this, in turn, will strengthen the cause of world peace and will be to the mutual benefit of both countries.
  Mr. Davies: While thanking the Foreign Secretary for that comprehensive reply, the sentiments of which, I am sure, will be shared by Members on this side of the House, may I ask whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the discussions that they had regarding Trieste and whether any progress was made over that problem?
  Mr. Eden: Trieste was discussed, and very fully discussed, but I have nothing more that I want to say about it in public at present. If the hon. Member would like a detailed statement, perhaps he would be good enough to put down a Question, because clearly I shall have to choose my words carefully.
  Mr. Stokes: Did the right hon. Gentleman make any representations to Marshal Tito about restoring full and proper freedom to Archbishop Stepinac?
  Mr. Eden: I will put it this way. I think that the Yugoslav Government are aware of the views that this country holds generally about matters of religious toleration, but I think also that the decisions on those matters are, as the right hon. Gentleman would agree, for the Yugoslav Government to take and not for us.
  Mr. Stokes: But I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he made any representations. I know that his American opposite numbers have done so, and I wanted to feel that Her Majesty's Government were also doing something.
  Mr. Eden: I think that what I have said is a great deal more useful than public declarations about representations.

  PERSIA

    Anglo-Iranian Oil (Sale)
    Mr. R. Bellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement in regard to the activities of an organisation known as E.P.I.M. in respect of the purchase of Anglo-Iranian oil from Persia.
    Mr. Eden: This situation is being kept under close observation. But I have for the present nothing to add to the reply given by the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. F. Maclean) on 23rd July.
    Mr. Bell: May I take it from that reply that my right hon. Friend would agree that recognition by Her Majesty's Government or willingness to recognise the nationalisation of Persian oil will not affect our rights in any way in this respect?
    Mr. Eden: I think our rights still remain as stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in July. There has been no change.

    Political and Economic Relations
    Mr. Edward Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement as to the present state of our political and economic relations with Persia.
    Mr. Eden: As the House is aware. Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government jointly made proposals to the Persian Government which, in their view, offered a fair and reasonable way of resolving the oil dispute which has bedevilled Anglo-Persian relations for the past 18 months. The Persian Government rejected those proposals and afterwards, on 22nd October, broke off diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires and the staff of Her Majesty's Embassy at Tehran are being withdrawn. The Persian Embassy staff are leaving London.
    This action was entirely of the Persian Government's choosing, and they must therefore bear full responsibility for it.
    Captain Duncan: Which country is taking over British interests in Persia?
    Mr. Eden: Switzerland.

    British Community
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British subjects who have intimated their intention to remain in Persia after the withdrawal of the diplomatic mission.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): Apart from the Staff of Her Majesty's Embassy, only four British subjects out of a private British community totalling over 200 have so far intimated their intention to leave the country. I understand that in general the British business community proposes to remain for the present in Persia.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Have any of these British subjects, many of whom have been in Persia a long time, received any kind of assurance from the Persian authorities that they will not be subject to any interference while in pursuit of their lawful occasions?
    Mr. Nutting: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that.

  GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS (CLEMENCY REVIEW)
  Miss Burtonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions have been given to the British High Commissioner in Germany concerning the review of sentences passed on war criminals in the British courts.
  Mr. Eden: A decision was taken in June, 1951, that the delegation of the power of clemency should be withdrawn from the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Germany and exercised on the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The High Commissioner was at the same time instructed to submit for consideration cases in which there is a prima facie case for the exercise of clemency. These instructions are still in force.
  Miss Burton: While thanking the Foreign Secretary for that answer, may I ask him if he is aware that, while there is no nation less vindictive than the British, there is at the moment a feeling of great bewilderment and indignation at the treatment meted out to convicted war criminals, and would he feel able to assure the House and our friends in all countries that it is not the intention that

  1911
  war criminals convicted in the British courts should not only be given their freedom but have compensation as well?
  Mr. Eden: I think there is considerable misunderstanding about this, and I am obliged to the hon. Lady for her supplementary question. Perhaps I may give the House some figures—it will take only two minutes—in order to show what the position is.
  In June, 1951, when the new rule was introduced, there were 200 prisoners in our custody. Of those, 42 were released in December last year as the result of a decision—of which I informed the House and of which there was no criticism—that pre-trial custody should count towards the sentence. Twenty-six were released this year on the normal expiry of their sentences. Prima facie cases for clemency have been submitted by the High Commissioner in 43 cases, and, of these, in 26 a decision was taken in favour of clemency, in 24 of which the decision was taken on my responsibility. In 17 cases, appeals for clemency have been refused.
  The hon. Lady will therefore see that the figures are small.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the Foreign Secretary think that the time has really arrived when we should extend to those in prison in this country for crimes arising out of the war the same measure of clemency?
  Mr. Eden: I do not think that quite arises. I am anxious that the House should realise that there is no question of any alteration of the basic legal position. This clemency review had been initiated for some time, and the chief reason why a large number of cases has come forward is that, last summer, it was impossible to deal with any cases at all, because of the negotiations then going on at Bonn regarding the contractual relationship.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: Would the Foreign Secretary indicate on what basis clemency is being exercised? Does it, for instance, bear any relation to the nature of the crimes for which these people were sentenced?
  Mr. Eden: These cases are only sent forward by the High Commissioner when
  1912
  there is a prima facie case. They are examined by legal officials there, and again by legal officials here, who give me advice. I do my best in each of these cases to arrive at a just conclusion, and I really do not think that I can be asked what my reasons are in a particular case.

  FOREIGN SERVICE

    Embassy Staff, Cairo
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason there are four times as many people employed in the British Embassy in Egypt as there were in 1938.
    Mr. Nutting: The staff required at Embassies abroad necessarily fluctuates with the volume of business arising from the state of our relations with the country concerned. Since 1938, the quantity and range of work falling upon the Embassy in Cairo has greatly increased.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that a very large proportion of these people in Cairo have nothing whatever to do with the Embassy activities, but are engaged in a rather pseudo Middle East organisation which has long since been defunct? Is it not time they were wound up?
    Mr. Nutting: It is true that the actual diplomatic staff in the Chancery, for which the Foreign Office is responsible, has been reduced by two since 1938.
    Mr. Stokes: That is not enough.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is it intended during the coming months to reduce the number of those employed at the Embassy?
    Mr. Nutting: Those for whom we are responsible have been reduced. As to the coming months, we keep all these matters under constant review, but I cannot undertake that any reduction will be made. It depends entirely on the amount of work which will devolve upon the staff.

    Missing Officials
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that, before the appointment of Mr. Burgess and Mr. Maclean to their most recent posts in

    1913
    the Foreign Office, their confidential personal records were consulted, including the periodical reports of their superiors; whether he is satisfied that their records and reports were up to date at the time of their appointments; and whether, after examination, he is satisfied that these records and reports were a true and accurate assessment of the character and qualifications of these two men, in view of subsequent events.
    Mr. Eden: The answer to the first part of the Question is: "Yes, Sir."
    As to the second and third parts of the Question, these records and reports accurately represent the information in the possession of the Foreign Office at the material date; but, in view of information subsequently received from outside sources, they clearly did not represent the full picture.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that one of these persons was, in fact, sent home by the Ambassador in Cairo, and how was it that a man who was then involved in what I call disreputable conduct in connection with the Americans should ever come to be appointed in charge of the American Department at the Foreign Office?
    Mr. Eden: It really was not my responsibility, and it is no good the right hon. Gentleman getting angry with me about it.
    Mr. Stokes: I am not angry about it.
    Mr. Eden: I have looked into these papers very carefully, and what happened was that this officer, who clearly had a very good record previously, had been sent home on medical advice, and it was thought that he had made a sufficient recovery to be entrusted with the work of that Department, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, does not, in fact, despite its name, deal with important confidential American matters.
    Captain Waterhouse: Has my right hon. Friend any information whether or not Mrs. Maclean, who recently left this country, is now in touch with her husband?
    Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I have no reason to believe that she is.
    Mr. Bellenger: Although it is a well-recognised fact that Ministers have to take responsibility for what happens in their Departments, nevertheless is it not strange that those in charge of personnel at the Foreign Office were unaware of very serious incidents which have shocked the public and which have now emerged as, for example, in a debate in another place yesterday?
    Mr. Eden: They were aware of the incidents in Cairo, but as regards the accusations made in another place about a record supposed to have been made by Mr. Maclean, I have been unable to trace any such record at all, though there was, in fact, a record made by Mr. Burgess at a private party. I have not had it played to me, but I understand that it does not contain any professed Communist views, but only, in most part, comic imitations of, in some cases, quite well-known public figures.

    Foreign Office Lecturers
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whom he consults in regard to the selection of speakers sent to the United States of America under the sponsorship of the Foreign Office.
    Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Embassy at Washington, the British Information Services in New York, and, in the case of Parliamentary speakers, the usual channels are consulted.
    Mr. Davies: Have not the usual channels become blocked, in view of the fact that no Members of Parliament have been sent on any missions to the United States since 1950, and is it not possible to revert to the position obtaining during the period 1945–50 when an equal number of hon. Members went from each side of the House? Is there some difficulty about pairing at the present time?
    Mr. Nutting: Perhaps that matter might be considered through the usual channels.
    Sir H. Williams: Does not my hon. Friend think that far too much foreign currency is expended by Members of Parliament on trips to foreign countries?

  VISA ABOLITION AGREEMENTS
  Lieut.-Colonel Hydeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made towards concluding visa abolition agreements between Her Majesty's Government and those European countries which still require British visitors to them to be in possession of visas on their passports.
  Mr. Nutting: Visa abolition agreements have been concluded with the following Western European countries:
  Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, The Netherlands, Norway, San Marino, Sweden, Switzerland (and Liechtenstein).
  An agreement has recently been concluded with Turkey and comes into operation on 9th November. Negotiations with the Federal German authorities are at present in progress with a view to the conclusion of an agreement.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that besides the question of personal convenience to travellers, which is important, the conclusion of these agreements represents a definite step forward towards European unity, and will he undertake to press on with the conclusion of such agreements with the remaining countries?
  Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir.

  N.A.T.O. (FLAG)
  Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to stimulate public interest in the Atlantic Community, he will consult our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, with a view to the adoption of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation flag.
  Mr. Nutting: This proposition is being studied in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
  Mr. Tilney: Would not my hon. Friend agree that N.A.T.O. is as important an association for peace as the United Nations who have a well known flag, and does not he think that by focusing the eyes of the public on one symbol more and more people in the Western World will come to recognise the North
  1916
  Atlantic Treaty Organisation as a partnership for peace and for an expanding oceanic economy?
  Mr. Nutting: No doubt those considerations will be before the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation when considering this matter.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not the purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to support the Charter of the United Nations?
  Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Union Jack has been quite good enough for a great many people up to now?

  U.N. DISARMAMENT COMMISSION REPORT
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay as a White Paper the Second Report of the United Nations Disarmament Commission, which is to be considered by the General Assembly now sitting in New York.
  Mr. Nutting: A copy of this Report, published by the United Nations Secretariat, has been placed in the Library of the House; further copies will shortly be available to the public at Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
  The cost of reprinting this document, which contains some 60,000 words, as a White Paper, would be considerable and, since the United Nations edition will shortly be generally available, I do not think this expense would be justified.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the hon. Gentleman suggest to his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that he should himself take part in the Committee discussions on disarmament at New York and there make it plain to the world that we mean business by the disarmament proposals which we have put forward, that we hope for the total abolition of atomic warfare and of other weapons of mass destruction and for the drastic reduction of manpower if the Russians will agree with reasonable speed?
  Mr. Nutting: I will convey the right hon. Gentleman's sentiments to my right hon. Friend.

  MINISTRY OF FOOD

    Chocolate Bars (Weight)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that shopkeepers retain ration coupons, value 16 oz., for eight chocolate bars which weigh 13 oz.; and if he will take steps to remedy this.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): The actual weight of the bar is so adjusted, bearing in mind the controlled price, as to produce a price per bar requiring no coin smaller than ½d. Therefore some tolerance must be allowed in relating personal points value to weight.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Statutory Order of the Minister of Food now permits a short weight of 4 oz. in every lb. on bar chocolate but that 16 oz. coupons are demanded for 12 oz. of chocolate? Can he say how long his right hon. and gallant Friend will escape imprisonment for committing this fraud?
    Dr. Hill: For the reasons which I have given, tolerance is necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] But it works both ways. For example, the 2 oz. coupon is demanded for sweetmeats weighing 2¼ oz., as well as for those weighing less than 2 oz.
    Mrs. Mann: But is it not the case that the short weight is 24 drams instead of 32 drams, that the statutory maximum is 34 drams and that no manufacturer is giving over-weight and all of them are giving under-weight?
    Dr. Hill: No, that is not the case. It is necessary, if the price control is to be observed and prices are not to involve farthings, that there should be odd weights. Therefore this tolerance, which works both ways, is necessary for the practical working of the scheme.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have here various chocolates offered at net weight and that none of them is over-weight?

    Decontrolled Foods (Prices)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food what steps he has taken to ascertain the changes in prices of food and confectionery occurring since certain items have been de-controlled.
    Dr. Hill: The food section of the Interim Index of Retail Prices already provides a suitable measure of price changes of controlled and de-controlled foods.
    Mrs. Mann: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Minister of Food has stated that control has meant a cheapening of prices when experience is all to the contrary?
    Dr. Hill: To take but one example, the de-control of tea has led to the cheapening of prices.
    Mrs. Mann: Does the Minister consider that 5s. for a lb. of tea is something of which he ought to be proud?
    Dr. Hill: There is tea available at 3s. 6d., 3s. 4d., 3s. and, in some cases, 2s. 6d. per lb.

    Bacon
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food what increase has been authorised in the price of bacon which was sold at 4s. 2d. per lb. before 5th October.
    Dr. Hill: The only type of bacon priced at 4s. 2d. before 5th October was Ayrshire gammon sold without the skin. The increase was 1s. 8d. per lb., in line with the arrangements for sale of cooked gamman free of subsidy and off the ration.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reply given by his right hon. and gallant Friend in the OFFICIAL REPORT last week stated that the price of bacon, 2s. 7d. weighted average, had gone up to 3s. 10d. weighted average and that in fact Ayrshire bacon had gone up from 3s. 4d. per lb. to 5s. 10d. per lb. in one year? How can he justify these figures which appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Dr. Hill: This increase in one of the items within the bacon field follows the decision to release cooked gammon from control and from the ration. This release has been widely appreciated. It became necessary to relate the price of the uncooked to the cooked.
    Mr. Logan: With regard to the price of 4s. 2d. per lb., is the new calculation in the hon. Gentleman's Department now on 14 oz. to the lb.?

    Meat Prices (Display)
    Mr. Keenanasked the Minister of Food if he will now take steps to insist on retail butchers displaying on each piece of meat for sale the price per lb., so that purchasers in the shop may know the weight and the price of what they are buying.
    Dr. Hill: While my right hon. and gallant Friend sympathises with the objectives which the hon. Member has in mind, there are substantial difficulties. The matter is still under consideration.
    Mr. Keenan: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the provision laid down by the Ministry that prices should be displayed in the shop is observed only by displaying a typed list at the back of the shop and that no customer dare go in and have a look at that otherwise he or she is given an inferior quality of meat? Is he aware that, as a result very few customers know what they are paying for in the purchases which they make? Will the Minister do what we have hitherto failed to persuade his Department to do, namely, do something for the customers and not protect the butchers?
    Dr. Hill: There is a good deal of sympathy in the Ministry of Food for this suggested change. The difficulties are considerable and we are examining them with a view to finding a way to resolve them.

    Chemical Compounds
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Food whether he is satisfied that the use of polyoxyethylene compounds as anti-staling agents is not a possible source of ill-health: and what action he is taking in this matter.
    Dr. Hill: As my right hon. and gallant Friend informed the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) last May, we understand that these compounds are used very rarely, if at all, in this country. No action is required at present.
    Dr. Stross: Would the Parliamentary Secretary confer on this matter with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who discusses this matter in his Report which has just been issued where, in Part 2, page 111, it is clearly stated that these compounds are in use both for bread-making and cake-making? If I put the Question down again, can we have a more accurate answer?
    Dr. Hill: I will follow the hon. Member's suggestion about consultation but, as I am at present informed, I understand that there is no evidence that these substances are being used.
    Mr. I. O. Thomas: Would the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to define for the benefit of the House the meaning of "polyoxyethylene compounds"?
    Dr. Hill: Perhaps the hon. Member will ask his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross).
    Mr. Thomas: I put the question to the Minister on the assumption that he understood the Question on the Order Paper before he gave the reply.
    Dr. Hill: It does not follow from the fact that I understand this chemical substance that the hon. Member would understand my description of it.
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the use in bread-making of substances not found in human or animal bodies, such as penta-erythritol derivatives of fatty acids, or cellulose derivatives such as carboxymethyl cellulose; and what steps he is taking to discourage the use of such substances.
    Dr. Hill: The compounds named are not permitted in national bread, and I am advised that they are not used in bread-making in this country. The second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.
    Dr. Stross: In view of the fact that that again does not tally with the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, if I put this Question down again at some future time, will the Parliamentary Secretary explain to me why he has given this advice today? Secondly, will he bear in mind that the Ministry of Food should not accept that the British public will always remain as contented as guinea pigs with these strange and bizarre substances?
    Dr. Hill: I will, of course, seek to answer any Questions that the hon. Member puts down. But I would say to him that the principle embodied in his Question of not using any food substances which are not found in human or animal bodies is a pretty unsafe guide because it would prevent the use of flour in the making of bread.

    Biscuits (Distribution)
    Mr. Baldockasked the Minister of Food why manufacturers of biscuits are still permitted to sell their products only in restricted zones.
    Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend operates no such restrictions.
    Mr. Baldock: Is my hon. Friend aware that some well known makes of biscuits are very hard to obtain in certain areas?
    Dr. Hill: That may be, but it is not the responsibility of my right hon. and gallant Friend to control their distribution.

    Commonwealth Sugar
    Mr. Baldockasked the Minister of Food what increase in sugar deliveries are expected from the Commonwealth and Colonies during the next three years.
    Dr. Hill: It is difficult to make accurate forecasts of increases by calendar years, but we expect half a million tons more sugar by 1955.
    Mr. Baldock: Is my hon. Friend aware of the satisfaction that the public will obtain from this announcement of an increase in food produced in the Empire, and particularly that part of the public who wish to preserve their own homegrown fruit which is at present being wasted?
    Dr. Hill: I am certain that the satisfaction will extend also to the Commonwealth and Colonies producing sugar.

    Tea
    Mr. Baldockasked the Minister of Food what increase in the sale of tea to the public has taken place since the removal of rationing.
    Dr. Hill: It is too soon to say.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Conscientious Objectors
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will amend the existing procedure relating to National Service men who, after completing their full-time service, develop conscientious objections to part-time service; and whether he will take steps to give such
    1922
    men the same rights as those who claim conscientious objections to serving as Z Reservists.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): The hon. Member's suggestion has been carefully considered, but it has been decided that National Service men who claim to have developed conscientious objections after completing their whole-time service shall be treated in the same way as those who develop these objections during their whole-time service. There is a clear distinction to be drawn between these men on the one hand, and Class Z and comparable reservists called up for training on the other, since most of the latter will have been in civilian life for some years since demobilisation.
    Mr. Fletcher: Does that mean that National Service men who develop conscientious objections after their two years period can then present their case to a tribunal before they have to do their part-time service?
    Mr. Birch: No, it does not mean that.

    Pensions
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he will consider instituting a voluntary contributory pension scheme in all three Services in order to augment the present inadequate pensions and to encourage thrift.
    Mr. Birch: I cannot accept the implication in my hon. and gallant Friend's Question. If he is referring to a voluntary life insurance scheme, sponsored by the Government, designed to supplement existing provision, the answer is that we regard this as a personal matter to be arranged by the individual Service man for himself in negotiations with the insurance company of his choice.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does my hon. Friend not appreciate the advantages that would accrue from such a scheme, and does he not know that such a scheme is, I believe, already in force in Her Majesty's Navy?
    Mr. Birch: There is no such scheme in force in Her Majesty's Navy. Her Majesty's Navy do help officers and ratings to insure by making deductions from their pay, but they do not do more than that.
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (1) when he anticipates being able to announce the details of the increases in Service pensions now being examined by the Service Departments;
    (2) what action he is now taking to adjust the Service pensions of those who retired before 1st September, 1950, to bring them in line with those who retired after this date.
    Mr. Birch: With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 41 and 42 together. I regret that I am not at present able to add anything to the answer which I gave on 15th October to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward).
    Brigadier Clarke: On a point of order. Questions Nos. 41 and 42 deal with two entirely different aspects of the matter, and I should like them answered separately.
    Mr. Birch: The answers to both Questions are the same.
    Brigadier Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that ever since the House reassembled I have been trying to get papers relating to this question? Does he appreciate that there is great dissatisfaction amongst pensioners because it is now not possible to draw an additional Service pension until one is over 60? It was never anticipated that that provision would go into the Pensions (Increase) Act.
    Mr. Birch: This is a slightly different question. I should like to look into it.
    Sir E. Keeling: Does my hon. Friend hope to be able to answer my Question three weeks today on officers' pensions?
    Mr. Birch: Hope springs eternal.

    Z Reserve Scheme
    Mr. Beswickasked the Parliamentary to the Ministry of Defence whether, in view of the numbers who have completed National Service training since the Z Reserve training scheme was started, and in view of the advancing age of many of those liable for Z Reserve training, he will consider the winding up of the Z Reserve training scheme; and if he will make a statement about the Government's proposals in this regard for 1953.
    Mr. Birch: The question of refresher training for reservists in 1953 is at present under consideration and the House will in due course be informed of the Government's intentions in this matter.
    Mr. Beswick: Can the Minister assure the House that what began as a temporary measure in an emergency will not harden into a permanent arrangement? Can he tell us when the statement will be made?
    Mr. Birch: I cannot give a definite date. The announcement about Z training by the late Government was only made in January. We hope to be able to do a great deal better than that.
    Mr. Grimond: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is his intention to have an upper limit on the age of those called up for Z training.
    Mr. Birch: No definite upper limit has been imposed for the moment. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are cases of men who have special scientific or other qualifications and who are in a special position. I think I have misinformed the hon. Gentleman. There is an upper limit, but it is a very high one. I am sorry; I was wrong.
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House; I am sure he did so quite unwittingly. Is it not the case that the upper age limit is 40, except in special cases where technical persons are involved?
    Mr. Birch: It was a slip of the tongue to say that there was no upper limit, but there are exceptions for technical personnel.
    Mr. Wigg: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the necessity for the continuation of the Z call-up comes about because the Government completely failed to recruit enough Regulars?
    Mr. Birch: No more than the late Government.

    Land (Military Use)
    Rev. Ll. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what percentage of the total acreage of land in England, Scotland and Wales, respectively, is taken over for military purposes.
    Mr. Birch: The percentages are as follows: England, 2 per cent.; Scotland, 0.4 per cent.; Wales, 1.3 per cent.

    Overseas Service (Children's Education)
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what steps have now been taken to assist Service men overseas with the education of their children.
    Mr. Birch: I regret I am not in a position to make a statement.

    Scientific Manpower
    Mr. M. MacPhersonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what immediate, and what long-term, plans he has for meeting the needs of the Armed Forces for science graduates.
    Mr. Birch: To meet their immediate needs the Services make every effort to induce science and engineering graduates leaving the universities to take on permanent or short-service commissions. Reliance is also being increasingly placed on technical cadet schemes within the Services. Special arrangements are made each year to ensure the best possible use by the Services of science and engineering graduates who become available for call-up under the National Service Acts.
    As regards long-term plans, there is already machinery for reviewing the whole question of the national needs for scientific manpower, of which the requirements of the Forces form only a part.

  UGANDA (COFFEE INDUSTRY)
  Mr. J. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of African representatives on the Uganda Coffee Industry Board, consisting of 13 members.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): I have been asked to reply. According to the proposals which the Uganda Government has published for consideration, members of the Uganda Coffee Industry Board, which has not yet been set up, will be selected as repre-
  1926
  sentatives of the interests concerned and not of racial groups.
  Mr. Hynd: In view of the basis upon which this representation has been announced, is it not quite clear that there is going to be an overwhelming number of officials who are non-Africans? In view of the fact that the African producers produced 29,000 out of 33,000 tons of coffee last year, can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that they will be adequately represented and that they will be properly democratically elected by African bodies?
  Mr. Foster: No statement about the composition of the Board can be made until the local committee reports. Undoubtedly there will be Africans on the Board.
  Mr. J. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the taxation proposals for the reorganisation of the coffee industry in Uganda; and what are the reasons for continuing Income Tax on non-African producers and introducing a production tax on African producers.
  Mr. J. Foster: The scheme as a whole is now being discussed by a local committee, and until they have reported my right hon. Friend is not in a position to make a statement on any part of the taxation proposals.
  Mr. Hynd: Do we understand that it has been decided that the Africans shall pay production tax and the Europeans Income Tax? Does the Minister realise that there is a feeling amongst the Africans that this separate form of taxation will merely perpetuate racial differences and that they would much prefer that everything should be under the export tax?
  Mr. Foster: The evidence on the taxation proposals has been put before an ad hoc committee of the Legislative Council. Undoubtedly many of the proposals will be considerably changed, but one cannot anticipate what those changes will be.

NEW MEMBERS
Arthur Montague Frank Palmer, esquire, for Cleveland.
Phelim Robert Hugh O'Neill, esquire, for North Antrim.

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY POLICY
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House, I should like to make a statement about certain action which I propose should be taken affecting the distribution of industry. The problem and the main lines of action proposed can be quite shortly stated.
I have for some months had under consideration the question whether any, and if so what, new areas of the country ought to be designated as Development Areas. The House will remember that the main advantage accruing to a Development Area is that the Government can give assistance in factory building and that the Treasury can help by loans or grants. In making a decision on a matter of this kind, certain considerations have to be borne in mind. First, it is necessary to look over a wide field in order to compare the claims of one area with another. Secondly, what is given to any Development Area is, in fact, at the expense of the rest of the country; there is not an endless reserve of special advantages to be extended, and, if those advantages are spread too widely, they become meaningless.
As a result of my inquiries, I propose to ask the House to approve the scheduling of one new Development Area. I also propose special treatment, which I shall describe in a moment, for one other area and the adoption of certain measures affecting factory building in certain localities both inside and outside Development Areas.
First, then, I propose that certain parts of north-east Lancashire shall be scheduled as a Development Area. The area concerned embraces the Lancashire towns of Burnley, Nelson, Colne and Padiham, and I shall discuss with the local authority of the neighbouring Yorkshire town of Barnoldswick whether it, too, should be included. The area in question is remote, the rate of wholly unemployed persons in the area has steadily increased, it is abnormally dependent on a single section of a single industry, and thus is peculiarly liable to severe unemployment in bad times.
There is another part of the country which I think requires special treatment.
1928
I refer to the Buckie-Peterhead area of north-east Scotland which is heavily dependent on the fishing industry and which has a hard core of unemployment. I am not satisfied, however, that the Development Area procedure is the right one in this case, and the Secretary of State for Scotland and I agree that we should try an alternative method through the Development Commission. The Commission have agreed to consider sympathetically requests for assistance in the building of small factories in this part of Scotland for industrialists who are prepared to go there, and I am having discussions with the parties concerned, including the Scottish Industrial Estates, Limited, to see how this work can best be done.
The Distribution of Industry Act contemplates both the adding of new areas to those scheduled and the removal of existing areas from the Schedule. This principle of de-scheduling at the appropriate time is clearly right, and I think it is important to re-state it now, but a great many factors are involved which I am at present examining area by area.
Finally, there are places in addition to the two areas which I have mentioned, some inside and some outside Development Areas, where the outlook for employment is such that the attraction of new industries is clearly desirable. The main handicap at the moment is, of course, the stringent limitations on new building required by our existing economic situation. We propose to relax these limitations somewhat in a few places which appear to be in most urgent need.
I am most anxious not to exaggerate the effect or scale of these various proposals. The Government have no power to compel industry to go to any particular place; their object is to attract a few industries to those areas which are the hardest hit. But it does seem to me that these actions are, in existing circumstances, reasonable and proper.
Mr. Dalton: Early in the next Session we shall wish to have an opportunity of discussing the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman and various kindred questions regarding the intention of the Government to use all their powers to steer new industry into those parts of the country where it is most needed, on unemployment or other grounds.

1929
I was rather concerned at the suggestion in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he was contemplating de-scheduling some of the existing Development Areas. I hope that he will think carefully about that. I doubt whether the employment situation is yet such as to justify any such action in any of the existing areas.
On the other hand, I think that we shall generally welcome the intention to schedule some part of north-east Lancashire. I express no view about the details of boundaries. That is a matter about which others will be able to speak with more knowledge. I am glad that something is to be done in north-east Scotland, although I am not satisfied that it would not be better to pursue the matter under the existing provisions of the Distribution of Industry Act and create a new Development Area; but this is exactly the sort of point which we should have an early opportunity to discuss.
Mr. Assheton: Whilst welcoming the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade to help four Lancashire towns which lie within the hundred of Blackburn, I would ask him whether he has given full consideration to the question whether or not Blackburn itself should be included. If it is not to be included, does he appreciate that it would be a grave disappointment to the corporation of Blackburn, which has unanimously voted for the inclusion of Blackburn in an area in which it is the leading town?
Mr. Thorneycroft: I appreciate the point which my right hon. Friend made, but I am sure the House will recognise that if I am to schedule any area, there are bound to be many areas lying outside which hon. Members think could well have been included. If I spread it as wide as that, then the benefits which we as a House of Commons give will become meaningless and we shall defeat the purpose of the Distribution of Industry Act. I felt in the circumstances that Blackburn itself could clearly be distinguished from the very special problem which exists in the area which I propose to schedule.
Mr. Clement Davies: While, of course, one appreciates how necessary it is to meet any cases of unemployment, does the Minister also realise that, while help is given at the expense of the country, not only in material but in income and
1930
capital, there is a danger of attracting people from other parts of the country so that there is a continuous exodus from the rural areas, which increases the difficulties? May I ask him whether we may have an early opportunity of debating the whole of this matter?
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: While I welcome the proposal that steps should be taken for the development of the area of Buckie-Peterhead, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will see that, as far as possible, the factories which go there are such as will take advantage of the particular natural advantages of the area, as, for instance, its exceptional access to stocks of fish and the processing of fish; and will he also bear in mind that unless steps are taken to keep down the high cost of transport from those areas, it will be very difficult to enable factories to establish themselves there or, having established themselves, to continue in operation?
Mr. Thorneycroft: I can assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that both the Secretary of State and I have particularly in mind the desirability of attracting the type of industry to fit in with the natural advantages of that part of Scotland.
Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that some of the hydro-electric works in Scotland have just finished, which is likely to add a considerable number of workers to the available labour supply in the north of Scotland? Before he de-schedules an area, will he take that into account, and will he also bear in mind the difficulty, if any new industries are going there, of getting assistance in the interim period between the two arrangements? I think the Secretary of State for Scotland will assure him that the Development Commission have always been willing to help in this area, and that that is not necessarily a substitute for but a complement to the other arrangements.
Mr. Thorneycroft: I hasten to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not contemplating some early announcement about the de-scheduling of areas. I merely thought it right to re-state the principle, which is an important principle implicit in the Act itself. I mention this in order to bring attention to some of the problems which are involved.
Mr. Duthie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this practical approach to the problem will meet with the greatest satisfaction among the people of Buckle and the other coastal towns in my constituency which are concerned? I can assure my right hon. Friend that we shall watch the experiment with confidence and that we shall wish it every success.
There are one or two things which I am quite sure my constituents would like to know about this decision. Will facilities be provided to ensure that the scheme can be put in hand at once? Secondly, will those advantages which accrue to towns in Development Areas, such as the provision of adequate water supply, also be available to towns which are to be part and parcel of this scheme? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in the event of the scheme not producing speedy and successful results, the area will be considered for scheduling?
Mr. Thorneycroft: All I can tell my hon. Friend is that I am proceeding forthwith, together with the Secretary of State for Scotland, to a discussion with the parties concerned about these various points.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: While I support the suggestion that there should be very full and wide debate on this subject, may I ask the President whether in the meantime he will have further discussions with hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent the areas affected in order that at this late stage we may secure some amendment to his point of view, which does not altogether coincide with ours?
Mr. Thorneycroft: I am, of course, as I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees, always accessible to hon. Members on either side of the House on this or any other subject, but I recognise here that I may well be pressed always to go a little further—and the further I go, the harder it will become to distinguish between the new concession and the next. It was for that reason that I had narrowly to limit this area because of the very special problems concerned.
Mr. Fort: Does my right hon. Friend realise with what acclaim the decision will
1932
be greeted in Padiham, which is the worst affected of any textile town in Lancashire at present, as it was during the past summer? Will he undertake not only to inspect the principle of de-scheduling but to carry out earnest study to see what is possible, so that the facilities can be made available to the newly-scheduled area in east Lancashire?
Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the people of Nelson, Colne and Burnley and the surrounding districts who will benefit by his assistance would desire to express their appreciation to him for having made this decision and to congratulate him upon having resisted the very strong pressure which was brought to bear upon him in some quarters to prevent him from doing so? Will he bear in mind that, among many advantages, one of the principal advantages is that this step will serve to bring to an end or to slow down the drift of labour away from these areas into other places, which has already become of serious proportions?
Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman raising false hopes in view of the fact that the Treasury have already issued a circular saying that no further grants are to be made under Section 3 of the Act to the areas already covered in the Schedule?
Mr. Thorneycroft: All I am saying here is that by scheduling this area, any advantages which can be extended to Development Areas generally will be extended to this area.
Sir D. Robertson: Has my right hon. Friend overlooked the needs of the Highland area, which is the most permanently distressed in Great Britain, and where severe de-population persists owing to the lack of any industry other than agriculture?
Mr. Thorneycroft: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a Development Area in the Highlands, but I am not altogether satisfied about the way in which that piece of scheduling has worked under any Government. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are concerned to attract such industries as we can into that area. We shall continue to do our best to do so.

SPAIN (ARMS SUPPLIES)
Mr. Nutting: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to correct an error in the replies I gave to supplementary questions on 22nd October about the export of arms to Spain.
I stated that the lifting of the ban on the export of arms would apply only to "common-use" material and would not apply to specifically military material. The position is, in fact, as stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State when he said on 7th July 1952:
"Her Majesty's Government have … decided, where this is desirable on economic grounds, to lift the ban on the export of "common-use" material, that is to say, material which can be used for either civilian or military purposes, and of obsolescent war material, where such material is surplus to our own requirements and those of customers such as the Commonwealth and N.A.T.O. countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 884–5.]
As I stated in my reply to the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Dr. Jeger) on 22nd October, however, only "common-use" material has in fact been sent up to the present.
I should like to take this opportunity to apologise through you, Mr. Speaker, for having thus inadvertently misled the House.
Mr. Ernest Davies: While appreciating that slips are made in reply to supplementary questions, may I ask the hon. Gentleman, in view of the uncertainty apparently in his mind when he gave that reply, whether the Government will consider now abandoning this policy of appeasing Franco, which is bringing little
1934
gain to this country economically and causing us loss of prestige abroad?
Mr. Nutting: It is early days to say what economic gain will be acquired. We hope that considerable gain will be.
Mr. J. Hynd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when he gave his original answer, a great many Members felt reassured, but now his answer, of course, shows he is at variance on a matter of very important policy with his right hon. Friend, and in view of this different policy, will he make an early announcement of his position, and bear in mind what was done by the Foreign Secretary in a similar matter affecting Spain a few years ago?
Mr. Nutting: I had hoped that the statement today would clear up any misunderstanding, and I think that if the hon. Gentleman reads it in HANSARD tomorrow he will agree with me.
Mr. G. Jeger: Does not this statement that the hon. Gentleman has made reveal the hopeless muddle in which the Foreign Office is on this matter, since it not only confuses the correct answer to the Question but confuses my constituency with another? I am the hon. Member for Goole and I asked the supplementary question referred to.
Mr. Nutting: I apologise if I created any muddle. I am solely responsible.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock and no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

CIVIL AVIATION
3.52 p.m.
The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move,
That this House, in reviewing the progress of Civil Aviation, takes note of the Reports and Accounts of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation for the year ended 31st March. 1952.
I know that it will not have escaped the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House that for seven of the 12 months under review we had a Socialist Government in power. The Motion that I am moving now is in what is almost time-honoured form, though usually when the Reports have been discussed in the House—the Reports of the two Corporations—it has been in debates on Supply; but the actual phrasing that we are using today returns to the phrases used when other nationalised corporations have been under discussion in the House. I am glad that we have expanded the Motion today a little and added the phrase
"… in reviewing the progress of Civil Aviation.…"
This is done to meet the request of the Opposition, through the usual channels, that there should be a wider review possible than if we were strictly limited to the Reports of the Corporations for the year ended on 31st March last.
I have been Minister of Civil Aviation, along with being Minister of Transport, only for a very few months, and I am glad to know—at least, I understand—that the only other commoner ever to hold my office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), is likely also to take part in this debate. It is not without significance that it falls to the Conservative Party to have two commoners to represent this Department from time to time in the House of Commons.
One side of the work which it falls to me to discharge is of more than usual interest to me, and that is the development, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, of safe and speedy transport between the United Kingdom and the various countries of the British Commonwealth, and I, as a recent Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, am very glad that two events of great Imperial importance have happened during the Recess
1936
and while I have been Minister of Civil Aviation.
The first was the visit to this country a few weeks ago of my friend and colleague Mr. Anthony, the Postmaster-General and Minister for Civil Aviation in the Commonwealth of Australia. I should like to assure him and his fellow countrymen of the great impression that he made on all with whom he came into contact through the charm of his personality and the great knowledge and authority he commands over the field for which he is responsible. While Mr. Anthony was here, he and I, with our various advisers and my colleagues, took the opportunity of reviewing the various partnerships in which the United Kingdom and Australia are both interested.
These include, in particular, the longstanding arrangement on the United Kingdom-Australia route via India and Malaya known generally as the Kangaroo Route—the partnership between British Overseas Airways Corporation and Qantas Empire Airways—and at the same time we took the opportunity of looking also at the tripartite organisation between the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand epitomised in the British Commonwealth Pacific Airways and Tasman Empire Airways, in both of which also New Zealand, of course, has a very great interest.
In the unavoidable absence here of a New Zealand representative the discussions between Mr. Anthony and myself focused mainly, naturally, on the B.O.A.C. and Qantas Empire Airways partnership, but we did also discuss the problems connected with the development of a Commonwealth round-the-world service in which these three countries of the British Commonwealth, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, are deeply interested, and for which the British Empire is quite uniquely placed. It is to me a matter of immense importance that, while recording achievements on the existing routes, we should not lose sight of further opportunities of Imperial integration that other routes may in the forthcoming years provide.
The development of this service to the best possible advantage will involve close integration of the present operations of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and Qantas Empire Airways with the trans-Pacific operations serving New

1937
Zealand and Australia and also with the projection of the British Overseas Airways Corporation's North Atlantic service through to San Francisco, for which the Bermuda Agreement signed between ourselves and the United States had provided.
The arrangements ultimately to be made, involving, as they do, matters of great national importance to these three British territories, may take some time to develop, but I am quite sure—and here I know that I can speak for any alternative Government that may from time to time have a chance of taking our place—that the encouraging process that has always been made in these inter-Imperial affairs will lead, through genuine co-operation, to the benefit of Imperial air transport development, and further widen the sphere of our existing Imperial co-operation; and I can assure all hon. Members and Her Majesty's Government in Australia that the visit of Mr. Anthony did a great deal of good in showing the similarity of approach between our two Governments and the close links that bind us together in the desire to see ever-growing Imperial association.
The other Imperial aspect of my responsibilities which it has fallen to me to discharge in the last few months has been to attend the opening session of the Colonial Civil Air Conference. This was a most memorable occasion. On that occasion, during September, during the Parliamentary Recess, matters of joint concern to all the colonial civil aviation authorities were discussed. I, myself, was very glad indeed to meet again a large number of people who were old friends of mine, and with whom in recent years from the Colonial Office I have been brought into close personal contact. It is my belief that in the blending of public and private enterprise in the field of aviation lies the best hope for the development of our Imperial communication.
Mr. John Rankin: What about Scotland?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am coming to that. As a Scotsman I am not likely to forget it. Even if I did forget it, there are many here who would remind me, so that I am not likely to be able to forget it.
We discussed, among many other issues, the provision of small aircraft,
1938
which are often in danger of being forgotten when we discuss so largely the great lievathans of the air. The colonial authorities made quite clear their obvious interest in planes like the Princes, the Herons and the Doves for their own territories, and the chance of developing within their own spheres the aviation services on which their future destiny in a large part depends.
This second Colonial Civil Aviation Conference took place on the morrow of the great Farnborough aviation display, with its unrivalled exhibition of British craftsmanship. It was almost immediately after the tragedy that marred that meeting, and I know it is the feeling of this House and of all who came from all over the British Commonwealth to that conference that, tragic though that disaster was, it must not be allowed to diminish our respect for the skill and devotion of the designers and craftsmen, and the superb courage of the pilots and the flying test observers who flew at Farnborough, and who are flying all the time in a ceaseless effort to unravel the mysteries of the air.
From talking to Colonial visitors I know something of their immense admiration for the continuing interest and day-to-day productivity of the old firms in British aviation, firms like De Havilland, Handley Page, and many others, which, being pioneers, are still in the van of our aeronautical developments. They refuse to be put off by difficulties, disappointments and tragedies, and they never lose sight of the objectives.
Some of my colleagues went down to Farnborough after the exhibition and attended the memorial service, as I did, in one of the tents which only a day or two before had had an exhibition of aircraft engines. I think that all who were there must have felt that the great prayer of Francis Drake, which most happily was used on that occasion, was never more appropriately used than in that memorial service to those of our fellow countrymen to whom has been, given a chance
"to endeavour any great matter"—
and surely the conquest of the air for peaceful purposes is a very great matter—that they should know
"that it is not the beginning but the continuing in the same until it be thoroughly finished which yieldeth the true glory."

1939
I myself felt on that occasion that pioneers and many now doing these great deeds of heroism were there together in a common service.
This Colonial Civil Air Conference was the second of its kind that has been held. It fell to the credit of the Opposition to call the first ever Colonial Civil Air Conference in 1947, and I should like to congratulate my colleagues on the other side of the House for their good sense in doing so. When they called that Civil Air Conference it was then considered a miracle that one could fly from the United Kingdom to Johannesburg in 78 hours. That was in 1947. Last year one could do the same journey in 33 hours. This year, by Comet one can do it in 23 hours. Day by day the people of the British Empire are being brought ever closer together, and if we believe, as I do most profoundly, that on their integration depends in a large part the survival of the free world, we look with immense respect and delight to the ever-growing unity of the Empire through civil aviation.
Mr. S. O. Davies: Commonwealth, not Empire.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman went somewhat more often round the British Commonwealth or Empire, he would find that the more robust word "Empire" had a good many friends outside the United Kingdom.
We owe a lot to these Commonwealth or Empire Governments for the work that they are doing in helping our Imperial communication. To the Government of East Africa we owe a great deal for the help that they have given in building up the Safari Service, which through private operations is bringing a large number of people home to the United Kingdom—as they do still regard it—who otherwise could not afford to travel. All of those present at this conference realised, I think, what apparently, judging by the wording of the Amendment which I understand is to be moved, some Members of the House do not realise, namely, that the British Government realise the immense importance of the two great British Corporations, British Overseas Airways and British European Airways. We regard these Corporations as
1940
indispensable parts of our civil air effort.
We are today discussing, among other things, the Reports of these two Corporations. I am Minister of Civil Aviation, which includes public and private effort. I am not Minister for any one sector but the Minister responsible for trying to create the conditions under which the people of this country get the best service, to which they are entitled, whether by public or by private action.
I was very glad to be able to accede to the request of the two Chairmen of the Corporations—which I gather has been made for quite a time—that they should be allowed to publish their Reports on separate days, because they are separate trading entities. We know that under present conditions the Press has a great deal of difficulty in finding enough space to deal adequately with many matters, and if the affairs of two Corporations are discussed on the same day, very often the net amount of space available is not as good as if they were discussed on different days. Although if hon. Members look at the two Reports they will see that they were presented to Parliament and ordered to be printed the same day, they were in fact published on different days.
These two Reports make very interesting reading. They speak for themselves. It is the duty of the Minister to create those conditions under which Corporations and private enterprise can alike flourish. Where I think the Corporations are wrong I would say so, just as they feel quite free to criticise the action of the Government of the day, whether it be on airmail rates, or anything else.
No one reading these two Reports can fail to realise certain significant facts. If I might, I should like briefly to deal with various aspects of the two Corporations, taking first the British Overseas Corporation. Up to 1949–50, this Corporation was running nearly £8 million a year in deficit. In the next two years, by almost Herculean leaps, it has got out of the red and has now this year, for the first time, made a substantial profit.
I am delighted to congratulate them on that great achievement. I should like to congratulate all associated with British Overseas Airways Corporation on this result. First and foremost, the Chairman himself, Sir Miles Thomas, whose

1941
immense drive and leadership has played a large part in this highly successful result, and all those concerned with the Corporation whether on the ground or in the air, on the various routes throughout the world, who, by their joint efforts, have brought honour to British aviation.
The Corporation have made it quite plain to what they attribute this "happy turn of events"—the steady equipment of their services with modern and good aeroplanes—and we welcome this. We welcome the great achievements of the Comet which have brought such honour to our country, and the forthcoming supply of Britannias, on which also we pin great faith.
We welcome, too, the other causes of this achievement: the concentration, under Sir Miles Thomas's leadership, of the maintenance bases of B.O.A.C., a re-organisation which has led to some drastic but wholly worth-while economies, the vast increase in individual output for which everyone working for B.O.A.C. is entitled to take their own share of personal credit, the sales drive and the steady insistence on commercial consideration which have made this, though a State-owned enterprise, a thoroughly businesslike operation.
We welcome their achievements and give credit to them, and I know that I speak for all my colleagues when I say that we are not concerned with ideological considerations when dealing with our present problems, but only with that form of service which can provide the best aid to our country in these very difficult times.
Anyone who goes along the London Airport routes and sees the great cantilever building being erected, stage by stage, at which B.O.A.C. will place their various activities, will realise that while the cost of this building will year by year be paid back by the Corporation to the taxpayer, it is evidence of the confidence of the Corporation in their survival and of all British Governments in their essential need.
The other great international airport which affects B.O.A.C. is, of course, the second international airport in the United Kingdom, and that is Prestwick. We had lately quite a lengthy debate on Scottish transport, which was followed by another debate in which Scottish transport occupied quite a lot of time. I hope in a few
1942
days' time to pay my second visit as Minister to Prestwick, and I shall be very glad to do so. I am glad to know that all but the Stratocruisers can, without regard to wind conditions, use the existing, adequate facilities of Prestwick, but I am sorry to note that in the year under review some 5 per cent. of the Stratocruisers had to overfly Prestwick. I can only repeat what I have said in Prestwick, that it is the continuous intention of Her Majesty's Government, as it was of their predecessor, to proceed with the development of Prestwick as the second airport of the United Kingdom as fast as the investment programme allows.
While in Prestwick, I saw with great interest very little, but something, of the new tourist service which has brought such a vivid change in the pattern of aircraft transport over the Atlantic in the last year. Of the 40,000 people carried at tourist rates, which are 32 per cent. less than the ordinary rates, B.O.A.C. last year carried nearly 13,000 or, to be exact, 12,800. As hon. Members know, from time to time tourists have forms to fill up in the aeroplane, and it is our impression that out of every 100 people who came that way in the year under review, 70 would never have crossed the Atlantic at all had it not been for the existence of the tourist service. They either could not have afforded the money to fly to us, or they could not have afforded the time to come cheaply by sea, and this tourist service has opened up a vast field of development.
I am sure that it is the common wish on both sides of the House that this service should go on from strength to strength, for, in the long run, the more that the people on both sides of the Atlantic—and this goes also in very great measure for our fellow countrymen in Canada—have the ability to travel relatively swiftly, easily and cheaply to the United Kingdom, the better it will be for the unravelling of the many complicated problems which in Canada, in the United Kingdom and elsewhere have to be faced. So good luck to the tourist service. In any criticism now being given to private enterprise which the Opposition may feel obliged to make for one reason or another, do let us realise that the facilities now provided for the tourist service over the Atlantic are opening up for the Corporation a very large new field of profitable development.

1943
As to the report of British European Airways, that, unhappily, does not show the same financial result. They have had many difficulties unique to themselves, quite apart from the heavy fuel tax with which every Government has been confronted. I remember asking Questions from the benches opposite on this very thing. As I have asked Questions, so they who were Ministers then may find it difficult to ask knock-out questions now. There are many difficulties in the field of fuel taxation, and another great difficulty which confronts B.E.A. is the restriction on European travel.
One thing which does mark B.E.A. and their sister Corporation—and that is something on which we must all pride ourselves and them above all—is that last year there was not a single fatal accident concerning either of the Corporations. I know that this will go out through the world as an indication that to fly British means, by and large, to fly safely. The Corporation has every reason in that regard to be proud, and I should like to congratulate Lord Douglas and his team in the air and on the ground for the work they have put in. Passenger miles and freight ton miles have jumped by 20 per cent. and they have also, which always seems to me to be a good idea, attempted to get traffic by reducing costs, and both in Scotland and on the routes to Paris they are trying this experiment.
I should like to congratulate the Corporation on the work that it has done in regard to helicopters, of which I have seen quite a lot in the last few months, believing, as I do, that this is going to be the answer to our country's prayer in many fields, if only we can get rid of the frightful problem of noise, which Parliament considered last night. If we can do that, helicopters may well be an answer to the problem of transport between one city and another. They provide a splendid new opportunity. While we welcome the work which has been done in the last few years by Sikorskys made by Westlands, we all watch with great interest the Bristol Company's Sycamore 171 and twinengined 173, which many of us saw with the utmost interest at the Farnborough display.
In regard to the plans of B.E.A., while we know the value of the work that the
1944
Viking has done, we welcome also the arrival and steady service of the Ambassador and the forthcoming service of the Viscount. We realise the problems to which B.E.A. have been subjected because of the late delivery of planes on which they have counted.
There is only one point in regard to their activities to which I should like to draw attention. I myself know, as many others do, of the constant irritation of this new charge that my Department in the interest of national economy have felt bound to levy—the 5s. passenger service charge—which, although it hits all those leaving this country, bears very heavily in the field of B.E.A., not because of any fault on their part, and is particularly irritating in their hops across the Channel.
It is my hope that it will be possible by smooth international arrangement to absorb the charge into the fares. We all regret the need for the charge. For years there has been a similar charge in America but it has not been so widely resented because it has been absorbed in the fare. I hope the time is not far distant when it can be absorbed in the fare here as well. I look with confidence to the co-operation of the two Boards in merging this unwelcome charge in the fare. I feel sure that if political change should ever happen and another Government should come into power, that Government would be unlikely to drop the charge. That being so, and for many other reasons, it would be a good thing to absorb it into the fare as soon as possible.
There is another aspect of B.E.A.'s activities to which I wish to draw attention. I assume that the rather strange wording of the Amendment, which deals with the efficiency and development of British civil aviation and the morale and living standards of its workers, is to a certain extent attached to some doubts which may exist as to what our intentions are in regard to the internal services of British European Airways and also to the whole field of new opportunity opened up to the British independent operators.
At the risk of undue repetition, I should like for the record to repeat once more precisely what our new policy means. We reserve to the Corporation the existing scheduled operations, both first-class and tourist service, and

1945
we are determined that no action shall be taken which will undermine their existing international services. We are also determined that they shall not have a monopoly in the opening up of any new scheduled routes, but, like any other private operator, they shall have to apply to the Air Transport Advisory Council for the right to run a new scheduled service. They have a great deal to do in perfecting their existing services. Experience has shown—the late Government were moving in the same direction—that there are fields where other forms of air transport activity can provide a most useful service. It could not be held to be undermining the efficiency and development of British civil aviation to provide for further opportunities to be given to other people to supplement, in a growing way, the services which the Corporations offer.
We have said that the independent companies will be entitled to apply to the Air Transport Advisory Council to run new scheduled services, and, where there are existing services, to run colonial coach services where they are in a position to tap an altogether new market and bring to this country, or convey between countries of the Colonial Empire, a class of people who would not otherwise be able to travel.
If this is considered unfair, I would draw attention to the many people in East Africa, many of whom I know, who would never have been able to fly home to England had it not been for the service provided recently by Huntings and Airwork, which not only now gives them much the cheapest service on the route but whose introduction had the effect of leading to a reduction in the fare of the B.O.A.C. service as well. If this Parliament really wants to be an Imperial Parliament, it ought to realise that there are hosts of people in our Colonial Territories who look with confidence to further opportunities of keeping in touch with home through the introduction of new services of this kind.
This is largely a development of the very policy for which Lord Pakenham, from the Socialist benches in another place, was responsible. It was expressly legalised by the Act of 1946, but, because of various political predilections, it was never given a fair opportunity of being
1946
approved until the present Administration came into existence.
Mr. F. Beswick: The Minister says that the service to East Africa was expressly provided for in the statute which he mentioned. Is he saying that that service is legal without an associate agreement with B.O.A.C.?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: What I am saying is that this was a natural development of the associate arrangements which were provided for in the Act, and for which Lord Pakenham first provided under his administration. This is the natural development. I did not say that the service was provided for at that time, but the legality of the service, as there has been no legislation, springs from the original Measure in 1946.
Mr. Beswick: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question. I asked if he was saying that the service was legal without there being an associate agreement between the company and B.O.A.C.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not for the Minister or any hon. Member on either side of the House to interpret the law. If we began to do that we should soon get into difficulty. There are many ways in which a person can challenge something that is happening which he thinks is illegal. All I say is that we have created the machinery under which arrangements, made before I became responsible for these matters, can be continued, and I am content to leave it like that.
Mr. Beswick: Then, the right hon. Gentleman is not saying, as he appeared to be saying earlier, that the service is a legal service without there being an associate agreement with B.O.A.C.?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I said that it was not for me to interpret the law. The Act of 1946 clearly laid down certain instructions, and, so far as I know, none of those instructions has been revoked.
New emphasis has been given to the development of freight services. We attach the utmost importance to this field of operation. British European Airways have a whole network of scheduled freight services to Europe, including Germany, but British Overseas Airways Corporation have only one scheduled service

1947
by a series of stopping points to Singapore. It is open to any private operator to apply to fly in parallel on any of the existing freight routes if he can prove to the satisfaction of the Council that a potential traffic is available.
Would anybody say that this is wrong in the light of the development of air freight in every other part of the world? In the United States air freight has jumped in the last four years from 4 million ton miles a year to 45 million ton miles a year, dependent not on their internal services but on their international routes. In K.L.M., in Air France and in B.E.A. as well the huge increase in freights shows that an immense market is available. Is it not reasonable that this market should be tapped by all who can fulfil the proper safety requirements and give a service which our people want, provided that they are not undermining the very few scheduled freight services which exist?
While the policy of the Government has created problems, they are not the sort of problems that are envisaged in the Opposition Amendment. One of our great problems is the provision of aircraft for the private operator, and I am deeply conscious of the magnitude of that problem. If there should be another war, as in any emergency, it will be to the independent operator—as it was in Berlin, India, Persia and elsewhere—to whom this country will in part look for help out of her difficulties. Both as a peace service and as a war potential, independent operators have a most important role to play. I am deeply conscious of their difficulties, particularly in the field of freight operation, in getting suitable aircraft, and we shall not rest until we find some solution to that very great problem.
There are other problems. I know that many independent operators are worried by what they regard as the very narrow gap between the three tiers in the rate structure—first-class, tourist class and the colonial coach service—and they feel that the gap will be so narrowed that it will not be worth while running colonial coach services. I can assure all in that business that we are very conscious of this difficulty.
But despite these problems, the new policy put forward by the Government a few months ago is already having a most
1948
spectacular result. One hundred and four applications have come in to the Air Transport Advisory Council to run services ranging all over the world. If any hon. Members have any questions which they wish to ask about any particular service, they can naturally ask them in the course of the debate, and I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to answer them. This seems to me to be providing the British people with what they most need, a service which does not depend on political considerations but is provided through the best sort of vehicle that the traffic itself demands.
It may be that hon. Gentlemen opposite who devised this Amendment have in mind solely or mainly the internal services of British European Airways. Here I should like to make once more an attempt at clarification. The present services are costing the taxpayer a good deal of money. Although it is difficult to get an exact figure because of the difficulty in arriving at a proportionate share of the overheads, the last report of B.E.A. suggests that they cost some £98,000. The policy of the Government is reduce and as far as possible to eliminate the cost of these services to the taxpayer, always provided that the services can be maintained on a continuing basis.
Those are most exacting conditions to satisfy. We are not starting with a clear slate; we are not able to legislate for internal services from the beginning. I wish we were. If we were free to do that we should do something quite different from what the Labour Government did in 1946. In the last six years, however, British European Airways, with a virtual monopoly, have built up a large network of internal services at very great expense to the taxpayer, and at a time when we are deeply concerned to save every penny we can.
These services cannot be amputated in any one sector without all sorts of repercussions which may well extend far beyond the areas which would otherwise have lent themselves to separate organisation. Our consideration of this problem over the last few months has convinced us more than ever of the mistake of the original monopoly which the Socialist Government carried out internally in 1946.

1949
But Her Majesty's present Government have to reckon with the situation as it has now developed. Some parts of the internal services do pay; others do not. Although I say it has remained an overall loss which is borne by the ordinary taxpayers, a loss which might well have been avoided if a different form of structure had first been devised, the measure of this loss is now substantially reduced.
We have to bear these facts in mind, whether dealing with Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom, and they make it difficult now to find routes or groups of routes which, while attractive to the individual company, would at the same time avoid an increase of costs to the taxpayer on what is left of the B.E.A. services. These are factors to which any responsible Government must pay regard.
Mr. A. Woodburn: Is it not a false assumption to say that something, the provision of which is required, is what is termed a loss? For example, all transport in the Western Highlands is expensive to the country. It might cost £500,000 to build a road to a point of a peninsula which could be reached quite easily by aircraft landing on the shore. If the country is to save the cost of building roads and of building ships, and is to enable that part of the country to be populated and make an economic contribution to the nation, could not such provision be described, not as a loss, but as a reasonable contribution by the country to the services of that area?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a very interesting contribution which was equally applicable to the period when my predecessors, on being asked to treat Scottish services in the same way as the MacBrayne contract, for example, rejected that proposal because the whole situation was totally different. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to consult his colleagues who were then responsible for civil aviation, he will have confirmation of the accuracy of my reply to him.
Meanwhile, while all this is happening in the field of civil aviation, we are confronted with an immense expenditure in aerodrome construction. I should like the latter part of my observations to deal with this problem of aerodrome construction, which I know deeply worries and
1950
perplexes large numbers of people who are anxious that we should play our proper part in the air but are concerned at the immense sums involved. No one can have any doubt of the magnitude of the duties that fall on any Government to keep ourselves pre-eminent in the field of civil aviation.
The problem is, of course, in the first place, but not wholly by any means, the problem of London. I wish to say, as I have said about Prestwick, that certain centres such as Manchester have played a great part in leadership in respect of canals, railways and aviation; and I shall never lose sight of my duty also to great centres of population such as Manchester in the field of aerodrome development. But it is first and foremost the problem of London. Aircraft movements in the London area have increased by 50 per cent. in the last four years and scheduled movements have increased by 100 per cent.
It is now true that more people either come back to Britain or get their first glimpse of Britain through London Airport and Northolt than do through Dover, and this is likely to continue and be accentuated as the years go on. Scheduled movements have doubled in four years. I am told that the expectation is that aircraft movements will double again by 1960 and that the numbers of passengers carried will more than double by that year. No Government can ignore those facts.
In the case of Gatwick, which has aroused a good deal of controversy, the only difference between this Government and their predecessors is that we have come to a definite decision. I do not think it is a mistake to come to a decision. I hope it is the right decision, but surely nothing could be worse than the continual delays of the last few years, which have left the problem of Gatwick unsolved.
Mr. Rankin: What if it is a bad decision?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope to show in a moment that it is not a bad decision. This is a great national issue: it is not a political problem.
I think hon. Members opposite would agree that no Government could indefinitely maintain London Airport and

1951
Northolt as separate civil aviation centres in London. They are only a matter of seconds apart—five miles; their runways cross, and the problems of air traffic control are rapidly becoming intolerable. Something has to be done. We have decided that Northolt must in time cease to be a civil airport. But that will not be enough to meet the problems of London.
I would say to the people in Sussex and any other part of the country where national development in the national interest may be thought to be inevitable in other fields, that the problems must be seen in relation to the interests of Britain as a whole. We all hate the idea of the construction of a large modern aerodrome in the middle of a predominately rural area. I know that the problem is one which affects Members on both sides of the House.
We would all agree that this sort of decision ought to be made only after the most careful examination. When I became Minister, I found that there were seven airports serving London: London Airport, Northolt, Blackbushe, Bovingdon, Stansted, Croydon, and Gatwick. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reduce these seven aerodromes to two, or three. One will be London Airport and Gatwick. We can regard them as either one or two. I prefer to regard Gatwick in its proper sense not as another aerodrome but as alternate to London. There will be another aerodrome, but we must wait a little while until we see the pattern of civil aviation development.
Why is there need of an alternate aerodrome at all? It is unnecessary to say that it is easier for those managing a great aerodrome to accept an aircraft in good weather than in bad, and when it comes in on visual flight rules rather than when it comes in on instrument flight rules. If we are to limit London Airport to the aircraft it can only take in bad weather, with the great expenditure involved, the main airport of Britain will be uneconomic. If, on the other hand, we are to allow London Airport to take all the traffic that it can take in good weather, then it must have an alternate aerodrome available to take the traffic which it cannot take if the weather is bad.
1952
This is a problem on which, I believe, our survival as a great nation depends. If we are to have an alternate aerodrome, what sort of aerodrome ought it to be? It must, first of all, be near London. It is desirable that it should be on the Continental side of London and that it should have good access to London. It is absolutely essential—all parties agree on this—that it should have different weather conditions from London. After the most exhaustive examination—it is fair to say that the late Government came to a tentative conclusion—the Government have come to the definite conclusion that of the 50 sites examined Gatwick fulfils all the requirements better than anywhere else. This country must face certain inescapable facts. By 1959, London Airport will not be able to deal properly with the aircraft that are likely to come to it in good weather, without overcrowding. What is to happen to the aircraft that will come to it in bad weather? It is essential that there should be an alternate aerodrome.
We have had discussions with the local authorities in Sussex. I repeat that I understand their difficulties. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking, Surrey (Sir G. Touche), before I make a definite statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government we must await the recommendations that will be made to us by the local authorities; but I can straight away give certain undertakings. We are deeply anxious to carry local opinion with us as far as possible in any action that we take.
I, as Minister both of Transport and of Civil Aviation, have a particular responsibility in regard to the highways involved. I am open to hear any local advice on the best way in which the highways that have to be diverted can be diverted. In this debate a number of hon. Members will no doubt have various views to put forward. We shall most seriously consider all that is said on both sides of the House, but we must await any representations that the local authorities who came to the meeting in my Department earlier this month make in the matter.
We have no wish whatever to shelter behind the powers and the immunities of Government Departments. We are following, in the case of Gatwick, the procedure laid down in what is called

1953
Circular 100, issued by the then Ministry of Town and Country Planning in December, 1950. It does not provide for a public inquiry or for consideration of local interests other than those that are put forward by a planning authority. However, it does not rule out such an inquiry. I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who has said that he will certainly hold a public inquiry if one is asked for.
Such inquiries have been held into the proposals of all Service Departments for the use of land for training and other purposes. The procedure which is followed in general in those cases might well be appropriate in this case. It provides for representations and objections from the local authorities and others, raised on the ground of public interest whether national or local. It will not be open under this suggested machinery for people to suggest that there is no need for an aerodrome at all or that it should be in another part of the country. Within the limits that I have described, the procedure might well seem the most appropriate in the circumstances. As I have said, we must await the recommendations that will be made to me or to the Government by the local authorities concerned.
I know that in these matters I speak for the good sense of the House as a whole in saying that if this country is to maintain that lead in the air to which the aviators of this nation have made the utmost contribution, and which every Government have done their utmost to forward, there must be an alternate aerodrome to London. Otherwise, we shall have hoped for the end and failed to provide the means. I know that the problem will be looked at locally in the light of these overriding national considerations.
I would not wish to concentrate on the terms of the Amendment. I have from time to time referred to it in the course of my speech. I cannot seriously believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite think that opportunities for private operators, side by side with the great Corporations, to give the services that our people need are undermining the efficiency and the development of civil aviation. Nor can I for a moment believe that conditions of labour or other vital interests of the men are jeopardised by what the Government are doing.
1954
I would put one question to hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the last year under review the trooping movement of British service men overseas on which the maintenance of peace in the world has in large part depended and carried out by those independent aircraft operators, have jumped up by 600 per cent. Would anybody believe that without that service we can play our proper part in the world? If hon. Gentlemen opposite are frightened of the impact of private competition upon State Corporations they must have a poor faith in the nationalised undertakings. In the hope that it will lead to an interesting debate and not necessarily terminate in a Division, I have moved this Motion.
4.48 p.m.
Mr. F. Beswick: In opening the debate the Minister was a good deal less truculent on this subject than he used to be when speaking from this side of the House. Indeed, it almost seemed that he was on the defensive in some parts of his speech, and I wondered why. With most of what he said at the end about airport policy I agree, speaking from this side of the House. With most of the sentiments and the quotation with which he opened his speech I also find myself in agreement. Our difficulty is to reconcile some of the sentiments which he expressed with the information that we get about his movements outside the House.
What we wanted to do was to set aside a day on which we could examine, appraise and criticise the two annual Reports of Britain's publicly-owned air Corporations. We visualised the debate as the annual general meeting of shareholders to look at the achievements of the year under review and to consider objectively the prospect for the future. I would express the personal doubt, if it is permissible to give personal views from this Box, whether it is completely possible to discuss technical Reports of this character in a Chamber of this kind. I sometimes wonder whether we might not get an all-party committee in the future able to discuss these Reports and to have before them not only the Minister as constitutional head but some of the executives as well, and to probe beneath the constitutional surface. If it were possible at all to have a useful, objective debate, it should have peen possible this year.

1955
We have two Reports, one financially very good, one unfortunately less so. Roughly half the time covered by the Reports was during a Labour Administration and the other part, unfortunately, was under a Tory Administration. We could not have anything more evenly balanced than that. I am sorry that against that background it will not be possible for me to concentrate on an objective analysis. I shall not move the Amendment at this stage simply because it would restrict the field of debate. I shall leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) to do afterwards. However, the fact that I cannot concentrate only on the Reports is not our fault.
When we consider the prospect for the future the evidence is that the present Government is trying to hobble the two Corporations. Despite all the honeyed phrases which the Minister used today, and has used on other occasions about the two British Air Corporations, it is becoming clear to us that the activity of the Minister in private is creating uncertainty in the industry, is discouraging the management of the Corporations, and is undermining the morale of the men employed by them.
Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: Prove it.
Mr. Beswick: Now let me turn to the two reports. The B.O.A.C. result is a remarkable achievement. A loss of £3,590,000 has within the year been transformed into a surplus of £1,233,000. We all join with the Minister in congratulating the men and women of the Corporation. I hope especially that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) will be able to congratulate the Corporation. I hope he will express his apologies also, because on an earlier occasion in this House he maintained that it was quite impossible to get this initiative and enterprise in a publicly-owned corporation.
Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman made a similar remark about myself last July. I shall be glad if he will quote the actual paragraph from the OFFICIAL REPORT and, if I am fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, I will refer to it later in detail.
Mr. Beswick: I have made two references and I could give two quotations. The first was made on 1st March, 1949, in column 209, when the hon. and gallant Member said:
"I do not think these Corporations will ever pay their way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 209]
Air Commodore Harvey: On that point, B.E.A. is still losing over £1 million a year and my information is that this year B.O.A.C. has yet to make a profit. I hope they will. I have said so repeatedly.
Mr. Beswick: I understand, then, that the hon. and gallant Member is not prepared to congratulate the Corporations?
Air Commodore Harvey: I have done so time and again.
Mr. Beswick: He is, in fact, saying what he said then, that they will never be able to pay their way. Although all the staff of the Corporations, especially B.O.A.C., have proved the hon. and gallant Member wrong, a special word of praise is due to the Chairman, and I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister. On various occasions I have disagreed with Sir Miles Thomas and have not hesitated to tell him so. Nevertheless, the business grasp and leadership he has shown in what, after all, was a new field of enterprise for him, has commanded universal admiration. The financial results which we are now considering, the sense of achievement which the Corporation must now feel, the respect in which the initials B.O.A.C. are now held in all parts of the world, is in no small measure a tribute to the way in which the Chairman has helped to bring the Corporation round the financial corner.
There are one or two points which I am certain my hon. Friends will have to raise upon the B.O.A.C. Report. I shall content myself with a few words about their associated companies. I am pleased to see that since changes were effected in the British West Indian Airways organisation two years ago, there has been an improvement of nearly £200,000 in their year's working. What is the outlook for the future for this organisation? When is it expected that the other £94,000 deficit will be wiped out? Is the role of that company envisaged as serving only the islands and territories within the

1957
Caribbean or are there more ambitious plans?
The Minister referred to the Colonial Civil Aviation Conference. I was particularly sorry that I was not still in a position to attend that Conference which, I thought, was a most important and useful and interesting one. Was the future of B.W.I.A. discussed there? Can the colonial territories in the area, especially as they are moving towards some form of federation, take a bigger administrative and financial responsibility for B.W.I.A.? Also, we ought to have some explanation about the £101,000 loss of Bahamas Airways. What possible social benefits have we received to justify a loss of that character? What steps are being taken to cut down that loss?
My only other reference to the B.O.A.C. Report at this stage is to paragraph 15 in which it is said that the accountancy of the Corporation was thoroughly overhauled. I do not think that is an overstatement, and much of the credit for this remarkable and essential improvement must go to the firmer policy which Lord Pakenham initiated and which Lord Ogmore pursued. Partly, as I have said, the credit goes to the Chairman, but it would also be fair to mention the excellent influence of the new Financial Comptroller who was brought in two or three years ago and who, I am sorry to hear, is now lying ill in the Middle East, where he went on official duty. I wish him a speedy recovery.
So much, for the moment, for the B.O.A.C. Report. It was good. Of course, we hope that subsequent Reports will be even better and, given the chance, I have absolutely no doubt that greater achievements are possible. All I would say now is, let them get on with the good work. The question is whether they will be allowed to get on with it, and to that I intend to return.
I shall now make one or two observations on the B.E.A. report. It was less satisfactory than we had hoped from a financial point of view and less satisfactory than most of the men and women in the Corporation deserve. I was struck with the sympathetic reception given by the Press to this financially adverse result and I attribute that to the complete honesty and frankness with which the information was set out in the report.
1958
Fundamentally, as the Minister said, the B.E.A. difficulty is lack of modern aircraft. I estimate that 95 per cent. of the revenue in this period was earned with twin-engined, unpressurised aircraft no longer abreast of competitors. I am glad that the position is being improved, but I wish that the rate of improvement was better and that the new aircraft were coming forward more quickly.
There are two sets of figures in that report which are of special significance. The first is with regard to mail payments. B.E.A. are paid less than the sister Corporation because they are acting as short-haul operators. In the early pioneering days it was considered more economical to carry mail over the short rather than over the long stages, but the position today is reversed—it is cheaper to carry mail over the long haul than the short haul—but the old scale of payment remains. If B.E.A. had been paid at the average rate obtained in the United States in 1951 its revenue would have been increased by £1,820,000 and the deficit entirely wiped out. May I ask the Minister what he is doing to get fair play for B.E.A. in this matter? Can he spare time from his arguments with the road hauliers to represent the case of the British civil air transport operator——
Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that it is by international agreement that the mail rates are divided into long and short hauls, so it is not merely a question of our Minister making representations. It must be by general international agreement.
Mr. Beswick: I understand perfectly that there was an international figure laid down, but the payments made by the Postmaster-General in this country to B.E.A. were below the figure laid down by the international agreement—[An HON. MEMBER: "He was a Labour one."] The other figures relate to the break-even load factor and do not reflect so creditably upon the Corporation. The break-even load factor for the year 1951–52 was 73.2 per cent. That is clearly too high. Even in the peak months the revenue is inadequate to cover such a high rate of costs. The position will, of course, improve when we get bigger and more economic aircraft coming into the service, but that is not

1959
the complete reason for the deterioration over the past year.
There is one criticism I want to make about the B.E.A. Report, which is roused by the sort of argument we see set out in a graph on page 15. There we get the statement of all the "ifs"—if the cost of stationery had not gone up; if the cost of fuel had not gone up; if the cost of passenger meals had not increased and if various pay and salary increases had not been awarded, then the loss would have been of the order, they say, of £252,000. With that we would all agree. But what we would really like to know is what steps were taken to offset these increases in the cost of materials? What efforts were efforts were made to eliminate waste in the serving of passenger meals? What efforts were made to save stationery, the cost of which, apparently, went up so sharply?
Then, again, there is the most important single item of increase in pay and salaries. The Corporations are good employers, just how good I think is not always appreciated. We are all pleased that they are good employers, and all that we ask in return is that every effort may be made to see that the labour and equipment is deployed as efficiently as possible. In that deployment I am quite sure that the men in B.E.A. will be very ready to make a contribution and so help in the cutting down of costs. I would hope that next year the productive figure per employee, which slipped back during that time from 7,511 c.t.m.s for March, 1951, to 7,107 for March, 1952, will show an improvement and I believe it will, given the chance.
But if we are to look at this deficit figure for B.E.A. there is another matter which we should look at again and to which the Minister has already made reference. There are various units of measurement of efficiency, the capacity ton-mile, the out-put per man, and so on; but it still remains that for popular purposes the most effective yardstick seems to be this figure of profit or loss. To use the profit figure in this way can, I think, be a very good thing. I am not against profits in private industry. All I complain about is that they are now regarded as exclusively the property of the shareholders and not of the management and men who help to create them.
Sir Wavell Wakefield: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me——
Mr. Beswick: No, not on a side issue.
Here, in this publicly-owned industry it can be a useful unit of measurement and I am asking, as the Minister was asking in earlier debates, that this unit shall be made an accurate one. Many B.E.A. services are not intended to be profitable. They cannot show a profit. They are social services. In Scotland, for example, I believe that the value of the services should be estimated by the Scottish Office and paid for by them. Otherwise, it is quite unfair, and, indeed, damaging, to stick to a profit or loss figure as an accurate indication of the efficiency of B.E.A.
I would ask the Minister again, is he pressing for that for which he used to press when he had unlimited time as an hon. Member of this House without Ministerial responsibility? Is he still pressing for that change, or, as some people would ask, has he time to press for that change? Some people are beginning to believe that the present Ministerial set-up is unsatisfactory. The unions, the Corporations and the independent operators—or some of them—have reason to complain. It really is a rather extraordinary situation.
The Prime Minister decided, apparently, that the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Ministry of Transport have not sufficient work to keep two separate Ministers occupied. He required that the policy of the Ministry of Transport should be completely changed. He required that the policy of the Ministry of Civil Aviation should be changed. And then, when there was this additional work to do, he took away one of the Ministers. One of the first consequences of this appeared to be that the Minister then in charge collapsed under the strain. The next consequence, if we are not careful, is that these two industries will suffer from the muddle caused by an over-worked Minister.
If I may say so, this state of affairs was rather amusingly illustrated at a recent dinner, the annual dinner of the Independent Air Transport Operators. There we had a first-class aviation function. There were three Ministers down to speak, and none of them had anything to do with civil aviation. One of the principal speakers for the industry related

1961
how he had tried to find out the subjects to be referred to in the after-dinner oratory. He had, as one would expect him to do, got on to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. He was referred to the Ministry of Transport and there he eventually learned that the principal Minister speaking for the Government was to be the Home Secretary and Minister for Welsh Affairs. What some of us could not make out was whether this was because we were delinquents, or Welsh.
We had an extremely good and enjoyable speech from the Home Secretary, but it really is not a right and fair way to treat the industry——
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask the hon. Member whether he is surprised to find Ministers speaking with the same voice? Does that come strange to him?
Mr. Beswick: I was surprised to find that at functions of that kind the Minister of Civil Aviation is not able to be present. We know that on this particular occasion he had his other hat on, and was speaking to the road hauliers at Blackpool—and, as I am informed, being booed for his pains.
I say that the Minister of Civil Aviation could well spend his time today demanding additional priority for civil aircraft. He might, for example, be demanding that the delivery rate of the Elizabethans should be quickened. The Minister referred to this new aircraft coming along, but is it realised that it will take eight more months to get the next eight aircraft, and that not until 1954 will the last of the modified Elizabeths be ready for B.E.A. service? Is it so completely impossible to adjust military delivery dates and let the Corporation have the Viscounts a little earlier than the date now promised? The manufacture and operation of civil aircraft could be the corner-stone of British industrial prosperity, but what we want to find out is what the present Minister is doing to see that that corner-stone is laid in time.
On Monday, we had the announcement that more motor cars will be made available for the home market. Can we really afford that? Would not the design and engineering staffs of some motor car firms be better employed in the aircraft manufacturing industry? I am told that de Havillands alone could absorb another 1,000 men and sell more Herons and
1962
Comets abroad if delivery dates were nearer. A realistic policy would require the closing down completely of some motor firms which have only been kept in existence by the artificial demand in post-war years.
Is the Minister finding the time to give attention to the forward-buying policy of the Corporations? After the Comet I, II and III the present outlook seems to be that we shall get a super aircraft for about 1960. Whether this will be the Comet IV, a development of the Delta bomber, or a new concept of Handley Page, I am, of course, not in a position to say.
But what I feel strongly about is that the aircraft which we do select, and which probably will be the vintage aircraft for the next decade, and which could sweep the world markets, should be brought forward in point of time. If we are to keep the lead in civil aviation we want this 1960 machine for about 1957 or 1958. Is the Minister of Civil Aviation staking his claim on productive capacity against those of his Service colleagues?
Mr. I. Mikardo: No, he is not.
Mr. Beswick: Who represents British civil aviation in Cabinet discussions these days? At the moment, there is no evidence at all that the Minister is concentrating on these constructive matters. All the present evidence is that he is spending his time working out ways and means of hobbling the two Corporations. This may seem an extravagant charge to make, but unless the Minister can answer some of the questions put to him, I think the House will agree that the charge is made out.
For a start, what are we to make of the references this afternoon to the position in Scotland? Why has no decision been made before now with regard to the future of the Scottish services? If no firm proposal has been made so far by any private firm to take over these services why has the Minister not been able to assure the B.E.A. that they can plan ahead without the possibility of having their improved organisation taken away for the benefit of some private firm? Is this the method he conceives of creating conditions in which civil aviation

1963
can flourish? Does the Minister really agree with the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary last week that this threat to the Corporation was likely to make them work harder? Is this the new Conservative conception of incentives?
More serious than that, there are some questions I have to ask about the service through East Africa and about freight services across the Atlantic. We discussed the African services in the last debate. The facts are that B.O.A.C. run a service through to the Union of South Africa in parallel partnership with South African Airways. B.O.A.C., as all the world knows, now operate with Comets and the South Africans have been using Constellations. The future plan, as I understand it, was for both South African Airways and B.O.A.C. ultimately to use Comets for the first-class service and for the Constellations to be converted into a high density tourist class machine for both lines.
The Corporations are already operating special rates for certain categories of traffic and an associate company with high density aircraft were to quote a special tourist rate. These ordered, sensible and forward-looking plans have, naturally, taken some time to work out. Considerable interest and enthusiasm have been shown in the Corporation in the working out of these plans. It was into this sphere of operation with the encouragement and blessing of the Conservative Government there started a private operator at a cut-rate fare.
I charged in the last debate that this new service was contrary to the principles of international co-operation, that it would arouse antagonisms with other nations with whom we have agreements and, in any case, to spread the available traffic over additional operators would, in the long run, put up overhead costs and prevent that steady reduction of fares to which the Corporation and other airline operators are committed. The case put from the benches opposite was that this private service was able to offer a lower fare because of all the virtues of private enterprise and that, therefore, it would be able to work an entirely new class of air traffic which otherwise could not afford air travel. That is what the Minister repeated today.
1964
On the face of it if one is capable only of taking a very short-term view, it sounds a very plausible argument. But I understand that the company concerned have asked the Minister if it is not possible for them now, having established themselves on the route, to put up their fares. I ask the Minister if any representation has been made to him from this company to put up the low fares about which he has been talking. As there is no answer I take it from the Minister, therefore, that representations have been made, that some method could be found by which they can put up their fares. They know very well that they cannot put up their fares at the moment and still retain the traffic. If they put up their fares the traffic would immediately go to the Corporation because of the better service which the Corporation are offering.
The next step, therefore, must be for the Corporation to increase their fares. I now ask the Minister if he has made any representation at all to the Corporation in accordance with the wishes of others to put up their fares? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] As I have no reply from the Minister, I now say that he has requested the Corporation to put up their fares artificially and unnecessarily to make room for the private operator.
Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Who gave the hon. Member the information?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) hurls the wildest charges, but must not assume that if I do not get up to reply to every other sentence of his I agree with what he says at all. There is perfectly adequate machinery in the Air Transport Advisory Council before which operators have to make initial application and they take into consideration the fare structure. I pointed out that there is this problem of the three-tier arrangement between first-class, tourist and coach services so that there will be different sectors of the different traffic available on tap by each of the various types of service available. But, as I said, this is existing machinery and it is the proper machinery.
Mr. Beswick: As the Minister knows, that has nothing to do with this matter at all. The Air Transport Advisory Council has no responsibility at all for the fares charged by B.O.A.C. on routes

1965
they are already operating upon. There is no necessity for the Corporation to put in an application to the Air Transport Advisory Council. The fact is that the Corporation are now operating services down to East Africa and I am saying that, according to the request made by Airwork to the Minister, about which many people in the industry are aware, the Minister—and he has not denied it—is requesting the Corporation deliberately to put up their fares to make room for this private operator.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd Mr. Lennox-Boyd indicated dissent.
Mr. Beswick: What about the talk of free competition? Is this free competition? Is this what the Conservative Government visualise as free competition? What about all these new classes of traffic to be brought in by this cut-rate fare? What is happening to that now? If the Corporation can operate this service at this low fare why are they being asked to put up the fare? Why bring in an outside operator at all?
Mr. Norman Smith: Jobs for the pals.
Mr. Beswick: A short time ago we had a similar story about steel prices. We had the illustration about steel prices and the Minister requested a national corporation deliberately to put up their prices. Here again, apparently, we have exactly the same story with this other nationally-owned Corporation.
Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: As I understand the interesting speech which the hon. Member is developing he is asking why the Minister is hobbling the Corporations. In the first instance the Scottish services are making a loss and one would have thought that the Corporation would have liked them taken away. In the second instance he is suggesting that they are trying to make great profits on certain services. How is that hobbling the Corporations?
Mr. Beswick: If the Corporations are compelled to put up their fares that is deliberately restricting the competitive power of the Corporations. It is, therefore, hobbling them and giving an unnatural advantage to the private company.
Mr. Dudley Williams Mr. Dudley Williams (Exeter) rose——
Mr. Beswick: The hon. Member will be able to ask some questions about this matter. There is another matter about which the House and the country should be informed. In the last debate the Minister said that in order to give the private operators an opportunity to establish themselves in the all-freight market the Chairmen of the two Corporations have voluntarily undertaken not to apply for any all-freight services on any new routes for one year. That is what the Minister said. We on this side of the House, in the same debate, said that we did not believe that the two Chairmen would deliberately restrict their own activities in any way which could genuinely be described as voluntary.
It was against the law of nature that a spontaneous offer of this kind should come from the Chairmen on the eve of the debate to help the Minister out of his difficulties. We just could not follow that. In any case, no one dreamed that the North Atlantic would be considered as a new all-freight route within the meaning of that undertaking. But now we have a private company given the right to carry freights across the North Atlantic to the detriment of the Corporations. We immediately wondered why it was that B.O.A.C. were not offering similar facilities.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member quoted something I had said in a previous debate and, for purposes of greater accuracy, I have it here. I said:
"The Chairmen of both Corporations have told me that they appreciate the need to give private operators a chance to compete in this market. They recognise they have been in the business for such a long time that they start with certain advantages and I have the authority of both Chairmen to say that the Corporations will not apply to the A.T.A.C. for all-freight services on any new routes for one year, unless considerations of national importance require them to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 2184.]
That was never challenged by either of the Chairmen and the hon. Member now affects to know what the recommendation of the A.T.A.C. is in regard to the application, I think, from Airwork. No such recommendation from A.T.A.C. has yet reached me, and, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, the next constitutional procedure is that once a recommendation from Lord Terrington's Committee reaches me I make up my mind on it.

1967
I have not had the papers before me as yet and the hon. Gentleman is, I am sure unintentionally, grossly misleading the House.
Mr. Beswick: Perhaps I had better repeat what I have been saying. I am stating that the Minister in our last debate on civil aviation stated that the two Chairmen gave him a certain undertaking, and I am saying that on that occasion we found it difficult to believe that this undertaking was so spontaneously given that it came in time for that particular debate. However, what I am now saying is that no one agrees that the North Atlantic route should be considered a new freight route.
I have not mentioned the right hon. Gentleman's duties. He is jumping a little too soon. There must be some reason why he is so touchy about this matter. I have not mentioned any application from Airwork. What I am saying is that if there were such an application from Airwork, we cannot understand why the Corporations did not apply also for permission to operate an all-freight route across the Atlantic. We know that Airwork have put in an application. It has been in the public Press. That is why I know. What I am saying is common knowledge.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is very important. The hon. Gentleman said it had been granted. He made a definite declaration, but he cannot know that because I alone grant it and I have not yet made up my mind because I have not received the recommendation from Lord Terrington's Committee. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to preserve his rather tarnished reputation for accuracy he had better be a little more careful.
Mr. Beswick: All right, if we are going to talk about tarnished things, would the Minister answer me a question. An application is being considered by Lord Terrington's Committee and if no indication has been given by the Committee, Airwork were a little premature in making their statement to the Press? That is all the information that I gave to the House, and it was contained in the public Press of this country. The information was given to the Press by Airwork themselves. The question which I want to put to the Minister is this—if B.O.A.C. put in an
1968
application to operate a similar service next week or next month would the application be considered?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question and I am grateful to him for giving way. An undertaking was given by the two Chairmen, to which I referred during the last debate. These are the words I used.
"I have the authority of both Chairmen to say that the Corporations will not apply to the A.T.A.C. for all-freight services on any new routes for one year."
I presume that that means they would not apply for one year and I gave that undertaking. I never said it had been done deliberately on the eve of our last debate.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a great deal of give and take between the Chairmen of the Corporations and the Minister responsible, and the hon. Gentleman himself has said that he had disagreed with Sir Miles Thomas. In this particular case this undertaking was given to me quite definitely by both chairmen, and I have no reason to think that they have any wish to go back on it.
Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister saying that what he describes as a new freight route will apply to the North Atlantic?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. If the hon. Gentleman would only look back before he makes these statements he would see that I said:
"B.O.A.C. have one all freight route—London—Nice—Tripoli—Cairo—Bahrein—Bombay—Calcutta—Bangkok—Singapore. B.E.A. have several."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 2184]
Then I said that the Chairman had given me an undertaking that they would not apply for further routes and I have already quoted that. Obviously, that could only mean that they have one freight route that from London to Singapore. It is the only route on which B.O.A.C. will have their monopoly preserved, but if it is agreed that the traffic potential demands it a parallel operation can be recommended by Lord Terrington's Committee.
Mr. Beswick: The Minister will recollect that at one time I had the privilege to fly aircraft for B.O.A.C. and at that time they were operating a freight route over the Atlantic with Liberators. The

1969
fact is that this Corporation and their predecessors, Imperial Airways, developed services, both passenger and freight, over the North Atlantic, and no one believed, when the Minister told us of this undertaking during the last debate, that it applied to the North Atlantic route.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot allow that to go unchallenged. I have no doubt whatever that the two Chairmen, with whom I consulted on this matter, clearly understood that, and if not it should have been challenged at the time. Neither of them did so and the undertaking related only to existing freight routes, the one which B.O.A.C. are running at the moment to Singapore and the several being run by B.E.A. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can put himself in the position of interpreting what is in the mind of either of these Chairmen.
Mr. Beswick: Will the Minister answer this question?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Other hon. Members are waiting to speak.
Mr. Beswick: These services over the North Atlantic, as I have said, have been operated by the chosen instrument of this country since 1937.
Sir W. Wakefield: All-freight routes?
Mr. Beswick: The operational and development work has gone on since 1937. [HON. MEMBERS: "On freight?"] Really, hon. Members ought to realise the amount of work that goes into a service of this kind. It begins long before the first time-table is issued, and it should be realised that this work has been going on since 1937. I am asking the Minister if it is really in the best interests of civil aviation that these Corporations, who have inherited all this experience on a difficult route, should now be told that they must wait another year before operating along that route. Is that creating the circumstances under which civil aviation can develop?
There is just one other aspect of this matter to which I will refer. The Minister himself, in the previous debate, said it was essential that we get the finest standard bearer of the British flag to fly across the North Atlantic. Some of these services by private operators are going to be operated by York aircraft.
1970
B.O.A.C. used to operate these Yorks at an all-up weight of 66,500 lb. For this new private venture the all-up weight of the York is to go up to 70,000 lb. They have never previously been operated over the North Atlantic. Does the Minister tell us that the finest standard bearer we can find is an old York aircraft operating at an all-up weight of 70,000 lb.? Yet according to his statement today he proposes to restrict this route to the private operator.
I am not arguing—and I hope that the House will accept this from me—the merits of private enterprise as against public enterprise. That is not the problem. As I see it the problem is: what is the best for British civil aviation? That is what my hon. Friends are interested in. Our objective is to get the finest services possible across the Atlantic and elsewhere.
I note some interesting expressions of opinion by the journal published by the Air League of the British Empire. It says:
"It would be contrary to sound air line economics to exclude B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. from charter operations."
Again, it remarks:
"It is essential therefore that nothing be done to disturb in any major degree the plans laid by the Corporations for the next few years."
Here we see Government policy, or as some people have described it Government plotting, trying to exclude the Corporation not only from charter work but all such essential work as regular freight carriers over routes on which they have been accumulating experience over years of endeavour.
In conclusion, I say this. No one can say that either B.E.A. or B.O.A.C. have let the country down in effort, in initiative or in imaginative leadership. We were the first to fly a scheduled passenger helicopter service, the first to fly a gas turbine passenger aircraft, the first to fly a turbine-powered freight aircraft and we were the first to fly jet airliners on a world passenger service—all that, with a remarkable safety record. In addition, although these things incur most expensive development costs, we are now beginning to pay our way.
This has been one field of endeavour in which the country has felt proud, and I am genuinely sorry that I have had to

1971
strike the note which I thought it my duty to strike during part of my speech. But the feeling is held strongly that the present Minister is not playing fair with the men and women of Britain's own Corporations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will tell hon. Gentlemen how I know: I have received a deputation of men representing those employed by the Corporations, men and women who work in the hangars, who have a responsibility for flying these aircraft, and they are disappointed in what they consider to be the attitude of mind of the Minister, which is not helpful to the development of aviation and which appears to be discouraging the Corporations' activities.
I therefore say that as far as we are concerned, we shall endeavour to get at the truth of this matter. I hope we shall be able to establish that the two British Air Corporations, who have done so well, will be able to go on developing their own two Corporations for their own satisfaction and for the benefit of the country and of the world at large.
5.32 p.m.
Mr. P. B. Lucas: Listening to the opening speeches in this debate and considering, as we have to do today, the Reports of the two Corporations, I cannot help wondering whether we are preparing ourselves adequately for the great development in civil aviation which, I am sure, all of us here see ahead in the next 10 years. In many ways I think that we are; but in others I feel pretty sure that we are not. And it is to one sector, which has not been mentioned in either of the two opening speeches, in which I think we shall have difficulty in the future if we do not start considering it now, that I wish quite briefly to address myself.
At page 47 in the Report of the British European Airways Corporation, this very significant statement is to be found under the heading "Flight operations":
"The shortage of trained pilots mentioned in the last annual report proved a serious embarrassment to B.E.A. during the training period of the winter of 1951–52.… This shortage of trained pilots will continue to be a very real problem until such time as adequate numbers of National Service men can be made available through the scheme we have now worked out with the R.A.F."
That is a statement which we would do well to examine today.
1972
For several years after the end of the late war, we saw in civil aviation generally a surplus of experienced aircrews. The supply of pilots and navigators, whose exceptional skill and training as a result of the war years made their conversion from military to civil requirements not only a simple but also an inexpensive process, far exceeded the demand. The result of this was that many pilots who had started out in this field with the hope of finding in it a stable and solid career for life, became disillusioned and gradually drifted away to apply their undoubted talents in other and perhaps more lucrative spheres.
The difficulties of the charter companies, the limited requirements of the Corporations, the need to maintain indefinitely an exceptional medical standard; the undeniable hazards of a lifetime spent in civil aviation—all these factors have had the cumulative effect of causing today a shortage in highly trained aircrews, especially pilots.
While I do not intend to suggest that this shortage is yet acute, the Report of the Corporation to which I have referred confirms me in my opinion that unless we tackle seriously this problem now, it may well become a limiting factor in our activities in 10 years' time. After all, it is ahead 10 and 15 years that we must try to look today in all matters regarding aviation.
As far as I am aware, there is no organisation in the country other than the Royal Air Force or, perhaps, Air Service Training at Hamble which exists to teach a young man to become, in the broad sense, a commercial or "career" pilot. To my mind, it is not the answer to say, as I feel B.E.A. are trying to say in their Report, that we shall get all the pilots we want from the Royal Air Force, from the National Service men who have learnt to fly and from those who are being released from the Service after short-term engagements.
That is not the answer, first because the very best of those people, particularly those with A.T.C. scholarships, may well be persuaded to stay on in the Service on a permanent basis. It is quite right that they should be so persuaded. The Royal Air Force needs them; but this will result in the Royal Air Force skimming off the cream and leaving civil aviation, and B.E.A., perhaps, in particular, with

1973
the residue. This will not do, first because first-class commercial pilots must be drawn from young men of the highest quality, and possessing attributes far above the average.
Secondly, I say this answer will not do because it really means that in peacetime we shall be mixing the military with the civil which, for a variety of reasons, is undesirable. In any event, I hope—and in this, perhaps, I shall find some measure of agreement on both sides of the House—that conscription will not be with us for ever. Although it may essential now, one hopes that it will not be a lasting state of affairs.
The needs of training in the military and in the civil fields are parallel considerations. They should not be permitted to overlap, and they should be regarded as complementary one to another. There should be no question, as I feel there is now, of one becoming subservient to, or being dominated by, the other.
It therefore seems to me that a system must be set up, not only to encourage recruits to civil aviation, but to provide them with a stable career to follow from the time that they leave school. There are, obviously, varying ways of doing and encouraging this. I think that it will have to be taken care of by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and the problem seems to me to be separated into two distinct parts.
First, there is the question of education in aviation while a boy is still at school. When I was last in the United States three years ago, I was astonished at the thought they have given to this problem there, even to the length of aeronautical courses being incorporated into the normal curriculum of American schools. I cannot believe that it would be very difficult to organise similar courses in our schools here. The main thing, as I see it, is to establish, early in a boy's life, a knowledge of aviation. From this will flow not only the interest but also, I believe, the enthusiasm.
The second step would be for the Ministry of Civil Aviation to make courses available for boys on leaving school through establishments such as Air Service Training, Hamble, or, if necessary, by forming schools of their own with the help of the private flying clubs. I am not
1974
at all sure that a scholarship scheme on the same lines as that organised by the Air Ministry for selected A.T.C. cadets might not be worked out jointly by the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Ministry of Education, and, in such circumstances, I think there would be grounds—though I know this is difficult to argue—for exempting the successful candidates from their periods of National Service, and instead permitting them to continue uninterruptedly their training for a career which is vital to the nation.
I do not believe that we in this country have been paying nearly enough attention to the need for encouraging youth in civil aviation, and I believe that we may have to pay for this in 10 or 15 years' time. Nor do I personally think that we have here a sufficient appreciation of how few opportunities are given to young men or boys after leaving school to learn to fly, other than through the Royal Air Force. How many people can afford to learn to fly at £3 an hour with a private flying club? Certainly, very few young men in the early 20's. For a nation with a great future ahead of it in civil aviation, this is a most disquieting thought.
I hope that the excellent scheme started through firms' sports clubs by the Association of British Aero Clubs, under the energetic direction of the Executive Chairman, Mr. Eustace Miles, who I am proud to say is a constituent of mine, will get the support which it deserves. With a company making an annual contribution to a flying club which is an allowable expense against Income Tax, Schedule D, it is the only means that I know whereby a young man employed by a firm can, for a comparatively moderate weekly sum, get regular flying with a private flying club.
Indeed, I personally take the view that it is so important to the pilot problem referred to in this Report that it would be worth while my right hon. Friend having a talk with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, and also, I think, with the President of the Board of Trade, to see whether this project could not be more effectively explained to some of the likelier firms up and down the country, for I believe that very few of them know anything about it at the present time.
The benefits of such a plan seem to me to be two-fold. Not only does it enable a man to qualify for a private

1975
licence and to fly regularly at a reasonable cost, but it would also mean, if well supported, that the flying clubs would be eased in some of their difficulties today.
Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the big aircraft manufacturers and constructors themselves are not supporting the scheme as they should do? Therefore, we welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter.
Mr. Lucas: I have much interest in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, but my information is that one or two of the aircraft companies are, in fact, supporting this scheme. I feel, however, that it should go much wider and outside the aircraft industry, and I hope that perhaps some of the remarks that are made here today will make it possible for a greater impulse to be given to this scheme than at present seems to be the case.
I think it is a significant fact that, whereas in Britain there is only one pilot for approximately every 6,000 persons, in the United States there is one pilot to approximately every 350 of the population. Let there be no mistake about it. The private flying clubs will still have their indispensable part to play in the future of both military and civil aviation, as they have had in the past. All I wonder is whether we are making the best use of them, having regard to the period of expansion which must lie ahead of us.
Certainly, I believe that more could be done in the way of employing them to give additional air experience to A.T.C. cadets, although I appreciate that much has already been done along these lines. To my mind, for a boy of 14 or 16 years of age, there is something more exhilarating and practical in being able to spend 10 minutes in an Auster flying round the local airfield sitting beside the pilot and in getting a feel of the controls than in merely flying about the countryside in the back of an Anson and not seeing a great deal, although I do not say this in any way disparagingly of this particular aircraft. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will have a word with the Secretary of State for Air to see whether some greater use could not be made of the flying clubs in this way.
This debate and that which preceded it in July have both laid great emphasis
1976
upon the development of civil aviation which is bound to follow during the next decade. Our gaze is fastened on the aircraft of the future, but let us be sure that, in 10 or 15 years' time from now, we shall have the crews to match, not only in quality but also in numbers, the incomparable machines which British inventive genius can surely provide.
5.48 p.m.
Mr. Edward Shackleton: I am sure that the House will largely agree with the very thoughtful speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas), and I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention to a problem which is likely, I fear, to be somewhat overlooked in this House in the discussion which will take place today mainly on the future of the Airways Corporations.
I fear that I shall have a number of controversial remarks to make in support of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), but may I say that what I have to say has been arrived at completely independently of my hon. Friend. Indeed, I know, as do most hon. Members, the degree of disquiet that exists in the Corporations at the moment. But I will keep these controversial remarks till the end.
There are certain matters on which I think there will be a large measure of agreement. We are all agreed that great credit is due to the public Corporations for their achievements, and great credit to B.O.A.C. this year for showing a favourable balance. I think that one special word of praise ought to go not only to B.O.A.C. generally, but to the individuals in it who took an extremely brave decision in ordering the Comet so far ahead. We know that the Comet is produced by the De Havilland Aircraft Company, which should have the main credit, but none the less B.O.A.C. did show great courage in ordering the aircraft at a very early stage and enabling production to be started. This air liner, which is now publicly showing its paces, is a world beater.
It is also worth noting that the recent accident at Rome, which we all regret, has shown the great superiority from a safety point of view of an aircraft which is not using a highly inflammable fuel. I understand that all the main petrol

1977
tanks burst when the aircraft crashed, and that if it had been an ordinary petrol-driven machine there might well have been no survivors. Therefore, we can all be proud, both in this House and nationally, of the Comet aircraft.
I now want to turn to this much vexed question of airmail. I think that all of us who are interested in civil aviation will take the view that this Government and the last Government have both tended to take a somewhat conservative, with a small "c," view of this matter, and I would urge the present Minister, as I urged his Labour predecessor, to seek all the allies he can in this matter and try to get justice for British airlines.
It may be argued that this is only an accounting matter, but the fact that B.E.A. made a loss this year is none the less a factor affecting our discussions and tending to influence attitudes. Indeed, it is bound to influence the attitude of the people in the Corporations who certainly know of this difficulty from which they suffer as compared with other lines, and it may in certain circumstances work disadvantageously in respect to the pay and conditions of those employed. I urge the Minister to continue to fight on this particular point. The arguments are set out very fully in the B.E.A. Report, and I do not need to weary the House with them.
On this question of the favourable financial balance of the Corporation, we turn once again to this problem of "social" air services. I think we all agree that it is right that the country as a whole should play its part in providing air services in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and in areas where an efficient air service might make a great deal of difference to the prosperity of those regions and might help to stop the drift away from them, which is such a serious factor in the Highlands.
None the less, they are social air services, and I can see no reason why that matter should not be clearly indicated and why there should not be a specific subsidy borne on the Scottish Vote. I realise that the Treasury have many good reasons administratively for not following a particular course, but I urge that this should be borne in mind. When the Minister says he regrets the decision which gave the internal lines exclusively
1978
to B.E.A., and when he inferred that if something different had been done less serious losses would have been made, then I can only say that he is being grossly unfair to British European Airways. Indeed, if he holds that view, it is up to the Government to indicate how B.E.A. have been wasteful or inefficient in the operation of their internal services. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will either substantiate or withdraw this unfortunate remark.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. R. Maudling): I do not think my right hon. Friend meant inefficiency on the part of the British European Airways Corporation, but that what he was saying was that the framework of monopoly in which they were asked to operate by the previous Government was not the best that could be devised for operating internal air services.
Mr. Shackleton: He clearly indicated that there would have been a less serious charge to the taxpayers if another system had been adopted. I should like to know how he thinks economy could be achieved in the internal services, and, since that charge has been made and attributed to the framework of monopoly, let us hear what could have been done to prevent it.
There seems to be a considerable variation in the methods in which these Reports are prepared. I suggest that, while I would not wish to tie down either of the Corporations as to how these Reports should be prepared, there should be some further examination as to whether B.O.A.C. should give a fuller and more detailed report such as the kind given by B.E.A. or whether, in the case of B.E.A., there should be a more economic means of expression. One or two points in the Report are rather unconvincing and badly expressed. For instance, on the subject of organisation, there is a sentence on page 58 which reads:
"The basic principle is that while, administratively or technically, no man has two masters, full decentralisation and delegation of authority is maintained …"
What they mean is that the basic principle is that every man has two masters, one of which is administrative and the other technical. I think that in a controversial issue of this kind a little less wrapping up

1979
might help us to judge the matter more fairly.
Quite frankly, after reading that Report I am left with the feeling that on this aspect a rather unsatisfactory state of affairs exists. I hope it does not. Indeed, I have reason to believe that a satisfactory compromise has probably been arrived at. But this is one of the most complex problems, and though I fully agree that a functional or technical influence should extend right through a body, there is always the danger of a functional empire being built up which overweighs the authority of those concerned on the spot basicly with operational and administrative responsibilities.
There is another particular point to which I wish to refer, the performance of the Hermes aircraft. Here again—and I am not giving additional publicity to it—there is a certain amount of growing anxiety with regard to certain accidents that it has suffered. I think it would be helpful if the Minister could make some reassuring statement with regard to the difficulty they have had with the propeller couplings. I believe that both Airwork and B.O.A.C. have suffered some serious difficulties as a result of this particular technical defect. Whether that be so or not, I think that an authoritative statement made at some time or other to the effect that inquiries into particular accidents have been completed would be of value.
Mr. Maudling: A number of technical modifications to cope with these problems have been introduced and are to be finally introduced by 31st of this month, which, I hope, disposes satisfactorily of the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Shackleton: That is very good, and I hope publicity will be given to that remark, because of the anxiety that exists.
I now want to deal with the main contentious issue between my hon. Friends on this side of the House and the Government. There is no question that there is a feeling at all levels in the Corporations to a greater or lesser extent, that there is a tendency to nibble at the Corporations and to reduce their prospects and their influence.
The Minister made a somewhat gibing remark in which he suggested that we on
1980
this side were afraid to subject the Corporations to competition. I am staggered that he should make such a remark because, quite clearly, the one thing which has been firmly inculcated into the members of the Corporations is that they are competing with the foreigner in the national interest. And this is not a question of internal competition. It is a question of our putting forward the best national show. Anything which tends to weaken our purpose, or gives rise to a fear that that purpose will be weakened, is bound to have a demoralising effect, even though only slightly, on the personnel, whether they be on the sales side or in the workshops of these great Corporations.
I think that we have all agreed that there is a place for the independent air operators as charter companies. It may be that some limited expansion here and there may be granted, but there is little doubt that what has happened in East Africa has given cause for serious alarm among some people in B.O.A.C. It is up to the Minister to give what I hope will be a straight answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, who asked whether in fact pressure has been brought upon or suggestions have been made to the Corporation to raise fares in order to give a bigger price differential between the charter line company service in East Africa and the existing scheduled airlines. I believe that that has been done, and we should like to know the answer.
Indeed the Minister gave an indication of sympathy to this problem when he said that he understood the difficulties of the independent air operators arising out of the narrow profit margin of "coach services." If he understands the difficulty that they are in, then it is not a very far cry for him to attempt to do something about it; and I believe that something has been attempted to be done about it in order to maintain the profitability of these independent services.
We have also heard again of the problem that arose over the statement of the Chairmen of the Corporations on the subject of new freight services. There again, there is very strong reason to believe that there has been some misunderstanding in the matter.
Mr. Maudling Mr. Maudling indicated dissent.
Mr. Shackleton: The Parliamentary Secretary nods his head in a negative way and implies that there is no misunderstanding. Can we not have some sort of a statement in which the Chairmen can concur as to what is their attitude?
I suggest that in this case the Minister, perhaps in his enthusiasm and his desire to get something going for the independent operator, has not thrashed the matter out fully. The result is that another event has taken place, the threatened extension of an independent air company into the North Atlantic air service, into an area where I am sure B.O.A.C. would much prefer to develop their own services further. I hope that in due course we shall have a statement from the Minister, backed by the Chairmen, as to what is their collective attitude on this point.
I would end on this note. We are proud of the Corporations. I think it is quite clear that they have done a good job. Quite honestly, we on this side of the House are not concerned in this debate whether they are privately or publicly owned. If we wanted, we on this side of the House could make many political points on the subject of the value of public ownership, but I do not think that we are concerned with that angle today. We are very much concerned, however, for the future development and success of these British Corporations. I say with all the seriousness that I can command that the policy which the Minister appears to be following is tending to weaken the morale, and therefore to lessen the success, of these Corporations.
I ask the Minister to consider his policy very closely and, if necessary, to discuss it in private and in a friendly way with the Chairmen and members of the Corporations. I am sure that if he does so it will be possible to maintain a satisfactory balance. He can give a little of the traffic to his friends in the independent air companies, but he can do it in a way which does not weaken, as I fear it now does, the competitive standing of our Corporations who are competing in a highly competitive world market.
6.5 p.m.
Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: I will be very brief. In following the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), I should
1982
like to say that I was very pleased to hear him declare that he thought that on all sides of the House we were out to make the best of the two Corporations and to recognise their value and their excellent work. I believe that everybody in the House agrees with that.
The hon. Member also touched on a point which I want to develop very briefly. It is the question of the Scottish services, which is a very sore point indeed, whatever Government are in power. The hon. Member called it a social air service, and indeed in scattered parts of Scotland there is an element of social service about aircraft linking up these outlying places. We have to realise that it is essential that, for the purpose of dealing with Scottish traffic, particularly in outlying places, the aircraft should be designed to suit the air strips or airfields that may be available. The Stratocruiser attitude of mind when dealing with small areas and outlying places in Scotland is all wrong. It should be the other way round. What is wanted is a service to link those areas to the great air services so that there is a network over Scotland, whether places are isolated or not.
There is an area in Scotland which is not isolated but which at present is entirely free from an air service. It is bounded by Edinburgh in the south, Glasgow in the west, Aberdeen in the north and Dundee in the east. That area is entirely without any form of air service whatsoever. The airlines fly over it, but that is small comfort to the people of Dundee, Perth and other busy areas who are hoping to have an air service.
It was promised that when these services were nationalised at the time of the 1945 Government, one of the great things that would happen would be that places which were unable to pay under private enterprise would be catered for by this great national service. I do not think that we can say that that has happened. This was a place covered by private enterprise very efficiently and the service paid, but from the day that it was nationalised there has been no service at all. Surely that is a fair indictment and shows that there is something wrong with the nationalised service on behalf of which so much was promised for Scotland, and particularly for the area which I have mentioned.

1983
I think that it was in 1946 that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who is not in his place in the House at the moment, was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation He met at Perth airport the Lord Provost of that city and myself with a view to deciding whether Perth should be the airport for that part of Scotland or whether another place should be chosen which would serve both Perth and Dundee.
He arrived by air, and we sat on a couch together and had photographs taken, the Lord Provost in the centre, keeping the parties apart, as he said, though we were all smiling in the photograph. We discussed things fully, the Lord Provost being an expert in air matters. It was agreed that the Minister should visit an alternative airfield at Errol, about half-way between Perth and Dundee. That is a place which can be guaranteed to have fog when no other fog is available in Scotland. Therefore, it seemed an admirable place to choose as an airport for that service. We drove round the aerodrome in the dark, splashing through the water, and it was decided that that was the place.
We in Scotland thought it was not as good as Perth, which was built as an airport and which has no fog at all. But in order to obtain an airport to serve Dundee and Perth together and in the interest of economy, and, above all, in order to obtain a service quickly, we were prepared to accept Errol. That was the last we heard of it, except in the interim the airfield at Errol has been thoroughly looted from one end to the other.
I think that the Government of the day are sympathetic to Scottish problems in this connection and particularly to the problems of this part of Scotland, but then so was the Government whom they succeeded. I hope that we are going to hear a little more tonight from the Minister as to what is proposed in order to cover this important centre of Scotland with air services. I do not want to press the point any more. I hope I have made it clear that it was promised and that nothing has been fulfilled. Errol airport is still there—just—but if we are not very quick it will not be there at all. The buildings have been looted, the run-
1984
ways will require to be re-made and the years have taken their toll in no uncertain way.
I should like now to turn to the question of the changes that were made, according to page 30 of the B.E.A. Report. The Report states:
"Other changes: (c) the Glasgow—Perth service, which produced very little traffic, was not reinstituted during 1951."
Why should it be? It is 72 miles from Glasgow to Perth, and also from Perth to Glasgow. Why should we have a service between those two cities? That is not what we are looking for. We want to get beyond Glasgow. We can take the bus or the train to Glasgow. We want an air service which will link up the cities of Perth and Dundee with Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, and through them, on the big services, to the other parts of the world. Today, if I wish to go by air from anywhere in Perthshire, I have to go either to Renfrew or Turnhouse near Edinburgh.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Or Prestwick.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Prestwick is even further than Renfrew. Dundee is a large city; I do not need to represent Dundee. Indeed, it is well represented already, although we have our views on the representatives. At least they are loyal in their efforts to do their best for Dundee. We should realise that it is high time that a great area, well populated, busy and active, not only with agriculture but with industries of all kinds, should be served by the air in this year 1952.
When the Report says that changes have been made between Glasgow and Perth, I should like to assure B.E.A. that we do not much mind about that. But there is a danger which is always growing, and that is that when this service was supposed to be tried out in 1950 it was said by the Corporation officials that the people did not take advantage of it. The fact of the matter is that for 12 years at least there had been no air service to Perth or the area of Dundee either, and the people had rather ceased to be air-minded.
If people have no air service at all they do not bother to think about going by air, and if they go for 12 years without any air service the tendency in the public

1985
mind is to regard it as out of the question. Therefore, it should not have been judged straightaway by the fact that the people did not patronise the air service as much as they might have done, because it is necessary to encourage in the public mind the fact that there is an air service between these places in order to get people air-minded. I hope that next time whatever is tried will be given a longer trial than the air service was on that occasion.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) stated that he was sure that the Amendment, which will come along later, referring to the morale and living standards of the workers being affected by the proposals of the Government, reflected a genuine fear on the part of the workers concerned, and in answer to an interjection he said that a deputation had told him so. I have also met a deputation of workers from the airfields who said the same thing. They informed us that they were told by Lord Douglas of Kirtleside that their conditions, wages and situations if a change of Government came about, would be very adversely affected. That is not the sort of thing for the Chairman of a Corporation to tell the workers of that Corporation.
Mr. Shackleton: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman taken any steps to substantiate whether Lord Douglas did, in fact, say that?
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I am accepting the opinion and the evidence of the workers, in the same way as the hon. Member for Uxbridge accepted it. Lord Douglas is perfectly capable of looking after himself.
Mr. Rankin: He is not here.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: He is not here, but he can do it in another place.
Mr. Mikardo: We are not supposed to criticise Members of another place.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I shall not develop that because I should get into trouble with the Chair if I did, but I think, coming from the hon. Member, that is a bit stiff. It is most reprehensible that the head of a great Corporation, which has done a good job under his leadership, should inform the workers on a purely party political basis of these things that they have complained of.
Mr. Rankin: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has no proof of that.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I accept the workers' word for it.
In any case, I want to say a word to the Minister about the Scottish Advisory Council who have had several meetings from time to time with Lord Douglas, and they have found him invariably extremely difficult to deal with and unsympathetic to Scotland. He is a Scotsman, and that makes it all the more reprehensible. I think it is time to look into the question whether this distinguished gentleman is the right person for this job. I do not wish to say it in any carping spirit but merely as a matter which I believe to be true, and I hope the Minister will consider that very carefully.
I do not wish in any way to go into the technical details of these Reports, because I am not competent to do so. I have often in public, in my small way, expressed great admiration for the work of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. all over the world, and I shall go on doing so, because I believe they are two very great institutions. But that does not mean they should not be subjected to vigorous competition. It will do them no harm, and I believe it will do them a lot of good.
That is why I think that anything which can be arranged to stir them up to better efforts still can never do them any harm at all. I believe that if they worry about competition, it is a sure sign that there is something which could be improved in their organisation. If they wish to prove that they are doing the best which can be done for our country—and I honestly believe they hope to do their best—then do not let them worry about competition. If they are good enough to face up to it, they will win. If they are not, they will go out, and so they should. That is the way to look at it.
6.18 p.m.
Mr. G. Lindgren: I must apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). I understand from some of my colleagues that he referred to statements that I had made, but as I did not hear them, I am certain that he will forgive me if I do not attempt to assess very quickly what I have been told by my colleagues. I am certain that he will accept from me that any statement I made as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation was made with the full authority of the Department at

1987
that time, and that if subsequently an intention had to be changed, that was in the light of the circumstances at that time.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech. I appreciate what he has said. I was criticising him in a friendly way, I think it will be agreed, as representing his Department and not as an individual, of course.
Mr. Lindgren: I accept that entirely.
I want to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and the Minister in congratulating both Corporations on these two excellent Reports which we have before us—British European Airways no less than B.O.A.C. Having had a very difficult period in which to work in the past 12 months, and having had to contend with circumstances over which they had not the slightest control as a Corporation, perhaps their achievement is the greater. I think the House will join in congratulating them as much as B.O.A.C., B.O.A.C. now have reached a stage of profit.
I must admit to being a little envious this afternoon. For four years I stood at the Dispatch Box opposite and had to defend the Corporations and their personnel against the unfair gibes of hon. and right hon. Members opposite. The Minister must be a little nervous this afternoon, wondering whether or not I am going to quote some of the things that he said in regard to the Corporations in earlier days. So that he will not have any attack of nerves I shall say straight away that I am not going to do so, because I have not had the time to turn up the debates. But if I did read out some of the statements that were made by hon. Members opposite, they would have to eat their words today.
I am delighted to know that the Corporations, in such a short period of time, have brought themselves to this pitch of efficiency and are operating in such an excellent manner. A statement from a Conservative Minister—especially one of the standing, status and outlook of the present Minister—complimenting B.O.A.C. on their extreme efficiency in spite of being nationalised, is perhaps the highest compliment that could really be paid.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In spite of being nationalised.
Mr. Lindgren: The Minister said "in spite of," but I say it is because they were nationalised and because they were given the opportunity to work.
This fine achievement has been brought about by the co-operation—as the Minister quite generously accepted—of the boards, the management and the employees. Following up the reference which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge to the part played by the Ministers of Civil Aviation, it must be very pleasing to Lord Nathan and Lord Pakenham to see that the work they initiated, with the full co-operation of the various Chairmen and chief executives of the boards, is bearing fruit today.
Air Commodore Harvey: And Lord Winster.
Mr. Lindgren: I did not have the privilege and honour of working with him. I am trying to keep my remarks to those about whom I know something and of whom I can speak from first-hand experience. I had the privilege of working both with Lord Nathan and Lord Pakenham and saw the policy which they initiated as Ministers. That policy, which was worked out in full co-operation and in conjunction with the managements of the three Corporations—as they were at one time—has now borne fruit.
The achievement of the Corporations has been made more easy by the very high degree of joint consultation that has taken place between the managements and the staffs of the Corporations. Joint consultation in industry is one of those developments which is really in its infancy and, so far as the two Corporations are concerned, we should recognise the high degree of joint consultation which they have achieved and the fact that practically every employee feels he has a vital part to play and that he is playing that vital part in bringing the Corporations to their very satisfactory position.
That consultation was not only with the Corporations but also with the Ministers of the day. During the period of the Labour Government consultation both with the Corporations and the trade unions who were represented on the

1989
National Council for Civil Air Transport—dealing with wages and conditions and matters which were likely to affect the industry—was continuous and very effective. The door of the Ministry was always open both to the Corporations and to the trade union representatives.
That, too, had a very good effect in the early days, when measures of economy had to be adopted, because the trade unions representing the workers understood what was being done and why it was being done. I am sorry that I cannot compliment the Minister on carrying on that very effective policy. I understand that when serious decisions are made in regard to the future of the industry today, decisions which are likely to affect the livelihood of the men within the industry, consultation does not take place with the trade unions in the same effective and ready manner as it did during the period of the Labour Government.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to give details so that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can deal with them? It is obvious that the fact that I have also responsibility in the Ministry of Transport reduces the amount of time available to me from the point of view of both Departments; but there is no reason to think that under our present arrangements just as much consideration is not given, by my hon. Friend and myself, as was given before.
Mr. Lindgren: I am delighted to be able to give the evidence so far as I can. I have received from the trade union side of the N.J.C. a letter dated 1st October, signed by Mr. J. Matthews, the Secretary, and addressed to the Ministry, complaining of the lack of consultation when decisions were made affecting the livelihood of men and women in the industry. I also have a letter from the Ministry dated 20th October and signed by one of the Ministry officials. I am certain that the Ministry will be able to supply the Parliamentary Secretary with a copy of that letter.
I ask quite definitely that the Ministry should continue to consult the men and women in the industry. Hon. Members opposite have their ideas about private enterprise, but here we are dealing with the livelihood of men and women. The
1990
workers engaged in the industry, whose wage packets, conditions of home life and all the rest are dependent upon what is going on in the industry and what is the future of the industry, surely have the right to be consulted. But the only people who appear to have free and open access to the Minister are the independent air charter associations.
Mr. Dudley Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that the Minister should interfere in all the industrial relations existing in these Corporations? I have always understood that the object and principle of the operation of nationalised undertakings was that Ministers did not interfere with the day-to-day affairs of the undertakings.
Mr. Lindgren: That is quite true. I concede that point straight away; but what the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate—and I should have thought he would have done, judging from the period during which he has been in the House and the fact that he has shown some interest in these subjects—is that the action of the Minister can affect what is done by the Corporations. If, for instance, ihe Minister says that the Corporations must or must not do certain things, the livelihood of the men and women in the industry is affected.
During the lifetime of the Labour Government, if the Minister was going to take some action in conjunction with the Corporations which was likely to affect the general structure, the wage structure, the availability or stability of employment, the fullest consultation was carried on with the trade unions representing the workers in order that the trade unions could consult with their members and bring them fully into the picture as to what was happening and why it was happening. I am proud that that was so.
That system should be continued now. The suggestion is—and it is made quite freely within civil aviation at the present time—that that is not so, and it is not liked by those who are affected by it. It is equally true that the improvement that the Corporations have been able to bring about has been due to the greater utilisation they have been able to obtain from aircraft, the greater use they have been able to make of the ground facilities which have to be provided along the various routes they operate, and the

1991
higher payloads they can get from their aircraft. They are, in fact, making greater use of the capital provided within the industry. As far as aircraft are concerned, the economics of the industry are such that the greater number of hours they fly, the greater likelihood of a profit; and the greater the payload which an aircraft can carry, the more economic are the operations carried out.
This is an industry not only for scheduled services in the normal sense of the word; it is an industry which has to make arrangements to carry peak loads of traffic in exactly the same way as any other method of transport, shipping, road or rail. If they are to deal with that peak load, it means that a range of capital equipment is necessary which involves some of it lying idle for certain periods. If they are to get the highest possible utilisation out of aircraft, the Corporations must at all times be free, and without any hindrance whatever from the Minister, to use fully their aircraft and the other facilities which they have. It may be that they would do that by consultation with various groups of people or organisations for special traffic arrangements, and so on.
Equally, they should be completely free to enter the open market for either passenger or freight charter work. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite accused us of being afraid of competition, but it is they who are afraid of competition. They are trying to put a ring-wall around the independent operator and to prevent the Corporations from entering the field on fair and equal terms with him. All we ask is that there should be competition on fair and equal terms. I had to meet from that Box a criticism that the Corporations were in a privileged position.
Sir W. Wakefield: They were.
Mr. Lindgren: If the hon. Member behaved on a rugby field as he is behaving now, the referee would send him off. I am sorry if that remark was out of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Corporations were considered to be in a privileged position because they had State capital behind them and the stability and the prestige which comes from being a State airline. Many air charter operators are engaged not only in
1992
the work of civil air transport but also in certain maintenance and manufacturing operations, and it has been reported to me that certain of these independent air charter companies, which are engaged in work other than civil air operations, charge the losses on civil air operations to their more profitable business of manufacture and repair.
Mr. Dudley Williams: Name them.
Mr. Lindgren: We are not going to give names in the House today.
Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman cannot.
Mr. Lindgren: There are firms, which are well known, which are engaged in manufacture and repair and also in the general operations of civil air transport.
Mr. Maudling: If these Corporations are making losses on their charter operations, why do they want to continue?
Mr. Lindgren: They want to develop their operations. One of the firms concerned is Airwork, to which reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. This firm deliberately got into the East African field, and it is now asking for increased fares and is complaining that B.O.A.C. fares are too low. That statement has been made and it has not been denied by the Minister. If it is not unfair competition for these independent charter companies to enter a field, deliberately attempting to create a situation in which they can operate to the exclusion of other people, then I do not know what is. I suggest that the Corporations ought to have the most free and full opportunity to deal with the work which is available in the light of their experience as operators and of the aircraft which they have available.
The Minister referred to trooping. Look at the foolish way in which we carry on. Here we have a national activity—that of moving troops from place to place and of moving Government servants from place to place. On the other side, we have Government equipment—the Corporations' aircraft. Rather than bring together Government activity and Government aircraft—for the aircraft are available and could be used—we deliberately place between them an independent charter operator and pay at a rate much

1993
higher than that at which the job could be done by the Corporation.
Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong there. When this trooping started, the Corporations quoted competitively with private operators, and the private operators obtained the contract because their quotations were lower.
Mr. Mikardo: They cut wages.
Mr. Lindgren: To a certain degree, what the Parliamentary Secretary said is correct, but in certain fields the Corporations have been excluded from tendering. The Minister, in a previous statement—I wish I had it with me so that I could quote from it—said that, as far as charter corporations were concerned, the Corporations were to be excluded from tendering in order to give this field, which was not that of scheduled operations, to the independent operator rather than to the Corporation.
I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary intervened to state that in certain instances the rates of the independent charter operators are lower than those of the Corporations. That is true. Why is it so? Because not a single independent air charter operator is paying fair wages and providing fair conditions of service—not one. The Minister indicates that that statement is a little beyond the realm of fact. Let me say quite definitely and deliberately that there is not a single charter operator who is recognised as fair by the trade unions within the industry.
There was the Industrial Court award in 1949 which went against the independent air charter operators. They have never implemented that award, although it went in favour of the trade unions. Let me be fair about this: after that Industrial Court award, the trade unions met the operators, because the latter were not honouring it, and, as a result of the discussions between them, it was agreed not to press the award because it was admitted—there then being a Labour Government in power and Labour Ministers in control of the Ministry—that the field of operations of the charter companies was restricted. The trade unions said, "We agree that we got the Industrial Court award against you in the light of your carrying out operations comparable with those of the Corporation. As long as you do not carry out operations comparable with those of the
1994
Corporation, we shall not press the award."
With the encouragement of the Minister, the independent air charter firms are now entering exactly the same field as the Corporations and are undertaking work which could and should be carried out by the Corporations. If in fact these people are doing that, I would remind the Minister of Section 19 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946. Section 19 ought to be implemented if these people are doing work comparable to that of the Corporations.
There is not only the question of the rates of pay. It is true that in some instances one or two charter firms are giving comparable rates of pay, but rates of pay are not the only conditions of service. [Interruption.] I said they were not considered as fair. There are conditions of service in regard to pensions as well as to rates of pay.
Mr. Dudley Williams: Just now the hon. Gentleman said there was not a single charter firm paying fair rates of pay. What does he mean by that?
Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman must try to remember what folk say across the Floor of the Chamber.
Mr. Williams: I do.
Mr. Lindgren: What I said, and what I repeated in order to be clear, was that there was not a single independent air charter operator that was recognised as fair—a fair employer—by the trades unions in the industry. The question of a fair employer relates to rates of pay and conditions of employment. I admit that in one or two instances—only one or two instances—the rates of pay are comparable. In none of the instances are the conditions of employment comparable. One of the most important conditions of employment is that of pensions, and particularly is it so in the case of pilots, whose life as a pilot is comparatively short and whose risk with regard to accident is high.
I say that if the Government are to encourage air charter operators to enter work which is now that of the Corporations, to exclude the Corporations from work normally open to them, they should see to it that the independent operators observe fair rates of pay and conditions of employment in

1995
the industry. I was going to say just now, when I was interrupted, that, in so far as the charter companies are concerned, there is an accountancy shuffle which is really a hidden subsidy.
I want now to refer to the general question of the sale of aircraft. The Minister himself referred to the fact that these charter operators wanted aircraft, and he wanted to see what facilities could be given for those aircraft to be provided for them. Those aircraft are extremely costly. I notice from the B.O.A.C. Report that the Corporation made available to Airwork a number of Hermes aircraft, and has made arrangements for Air-work to hire-purchase the aircraft because Airwork could not afford to pay for them.
I am all in favour of friendly relations in the industry and everywhere else, but this does seem to me a little strange, that here we have a Corporation which buys the aircraft and then helps a competitor, who is going into the same field as itself, sells the aircraft to the competitor and, because the competitor cannot buy them, makes them available to the competitor on hire-purchase arrangements. I should like to ask the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, how it comes about that the Corporation is engaged in this arrangement of hire purchase, and whether or not it got it from the Ministry to make available to the charter operators the type of aircraft to make it possible for the competitor to enter the particular field which is normally that of the Corporation.
There is, too, I see from the B.O.A.C. Report, an arrangement for selling Tudor aircraft to the charter operators. Can we be told in this House the terms and conditions and price at which those Tudor aircraft are being made available to the independent air charter operators?
Mr. Maudling: Most of the Tudors, if not all of them, from the days of the previous Government, have been awaiting a purchaser to take them.
Mr. Lindgren: I agree. That is not the fault of the Government. It is the fault of the manufacturer. I do not want to go into the unfortunate story of the Tudor. After all, I think the Corporation was correct in the decision not to operate the Tudors. That decision was made in conjunction with the Minister of that time.
1996
There were two unfortunate disappearances in South America, and confidence in the aircraft was gone, and therefore the Corporation would not operate them. What I am asking now is this: why and on what conditions are these aircraft, in which the Corporation had no confidence, being sold to independent operators? What price is being charged to the independent operators? Under what conditions are they being sold? Is there a hidden subsidy in the sale, through these aircraft being sold at a cheap rate?
Mr. Maudling: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those aircraft have been on public offer for sale with no price named for a very long time. We have not received any firm offer at all from anyone to buy them.
Mr. Lindgren: Then they are only on offer to the charter operators and they have not purchased them yet, and the only reason is the price being asked for them. After all, there was a price offered for Tudor aircraft a long while ago, and if the Ministry at that time had been prepared to sell them at the price offered at that time, they would have gone. What I am asking is, what price the Ministry are going to sell them at. It is not an unfair question, because the price at which the aircraft are sold may be a hidden subsidy to the operator—because of the price he pays.
I think I ought to say a word before I close on the subject of Gatwick. For my part, I welcome the decision of the Minister in regard to having Gatwick as an alternate airport. I think it is unfortunate that the Ministry earlier, when I was associated with it, and when Lord Pakenham was the Minister, decided not to use Gatwick airport. That decision was made because B.E.A. at that time said it had no use for it. I think that Gatwick is the only correctly sited airport in relation to surface transport——
Sir Harold Webbe: Nonsense.
Mr. Lindgren: It is the only airport in this country which has good road and rail facilities, particularly rail facilities.
Sir H. Webbe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the rail facilities from Gatwick are completely hopeless? It is perfectly true that there are sidings to put trains in, but the visitors do not want to

1997
sit in sidings; they want to get to London. If he will go to Clapham Junction or London Bridge, the hon. Gentleman will see the complete bottlenecks there through which the Southern Region cannot bring any more trains whatever.
Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman, perhaps, has a vested interest in whether Gatwick can operate as an airport or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say that Gatwick, in relation to surface transport, is very good indeed. It was good enough to cope with the extensive peak load difficulties when it was a racecourse. If it could handle that sort of traffic, it can handle the normal traffic likely to arise at an airport such as this. I think it was unfortunate that the Ministry made the decision that it would not be required, because, but for that decision, the new town of Crawley which is in association with it would not have been developed there—to the same extent, at least, as that at which it is being developed at the present time.
But on the creation of the aerodrome itself—its siting—that is a decision which, I think, the Ministry ought to have taken to provide an alternate for London Airport. For that alternate is urgent, and for my part, having had some experience within the Ministry itself, I give my fullest support to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary in the decision they have made. I think it is a wise one, and I hope it will go forward, and go forward quickly.
I close on the note on which I opened, and that is that the Reports of these Corporations are Reports of which the Corporations themselves, the House and the country can be proud. I am proud to have had an opportunity of working in association with those who made this happy day possible, and I hope we shall go forward to the day when both Corporations are showing an extremely good profit, to the benefit of this country and the services it renders to those who need air transport. This is assured, provided that the work of the two Corporations is not unduly interfered with, or their range of activity crippled, by the Minister at the present time. I ask, even at this stage, that the Corporations be allowed to carry on normal commercial activities, to do the work available to them, and to have free and open competition
1998
with anyone and everyone in the field in which they can operate.
6.50 p.m.
Mr. John Maclay: I am very conscious, Mr. Speaker, that it is some considerable time since I attempted to catch your eye in this Chamber. I can only assure that it is not from any lack of interest in the proceedings of this House that that has been so. I would add, if I may, that it was inevitably, and is still, a great disappointment to me that ill-health should not only have curtailed my normal activities but have forced my resignation from an office which I consider it a great and proud privilege to have held, even for a relatively short time.
I do not think that anyone who has ever held office with the Ministry of Civil Aviation could leave it without great regret. I shall always treasure a memory of fascinatingly interesting work and the best possible co-operation from the Department. I would also pay tribute to the co-operation and constructive help I had from the Corporations, the Chairmen, staff and members of the boards, and all those in the industry with whom I was privileged to come in contact.
Before I go further, may I, with all humility, offer my congratulations to my successor on the admirable work he has already done? In spite of some of the things said in the debate today, I know that the whole House realises that his great abilities will always be used to serve what he believes to be the very best interests of every sector of civil aviation.
I do not propose to detain the House for very long this evening. Obviously, everybody on both sides of the House wants to join in the congratulations that have been offered to the Corporations on the results shown in their Reports this year. That the British Overseas Airways Corporation should be running at a profit is a source of immense satisfaction to everybody in the country, regardless of their feelings about the Corporations when they were started, and regardless of their political beliefs.
I would add one thing about British Overseas Airways. It has been an immense personal satisfaction recently to hear from foreigners who have travelled by B.O.A.C., particularly on the North Atlantic routes, a very different

1999
story from the one we heard two or three years ago. They are now full of praise. The evidence of that is in the number of passengers B.O.A.C. have attracted on the North Atlantic routes. In a period when all traffic was rising on the North Atlantic routes, B.O.A.C. have taken the cream against the most acute competition, particularly from our American competitors. That is a source of great satisfaction.
Equally with B.E.A., realising the difficulties they have been up against in the last year, we are all extremely happy that they have done as well as they have. They have had a difficult period, and one wants to see them with their new planes delivered and a fair chance to get going with them.
Having said that, I want to make this point. In an international service, there is, of course, extreme competition, and competition has a very stimulating effect. The Minister spoke about things which might possibly have been different with regard to the internal structure in the post-war years. I profoundly agree. It is not just a question of whether losses might have been greater or less, or whether profits might have been made. The issue is whether the structure of the internal services after the war has been such as to achieve the best development of civil aviation of every form internally, and to reduce costs and produce the best types of aircraft.
It has been very noticeable that latterly the D.H.89 has not been an economic plane, and has not been able to give Scotland the service needed. Is it not conceivable that if the structure had been different in the past there would have been a greater concentration on getting a suitable plane for Scottish services than there has been? After all, it was an astonishing position to find oneself in only a few months ago when asked what would take the place of the D.H.89, the Rapide, to find out that our predecessors in Government had produced no answer whatever.
Mr. Lindgren: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want in any way to do B.E.A. or the then Government an injustice. B.E.A. got out a D.H.89 replacement. They put it out to tender and Shorts' tender for a type of aircraft was accepted. The Labour Government
2000
of the day, in the light of the national investment programme, suggested, with some pressure from the Ministry of Supply, that the Marathon rather than the D.H.89 replacement should be made.
Mr. Maclay: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that remark. I was going on to say that I had no intention of casting any reflection on B.E.A. in this because I know well the facts to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. The point is, had there been some other operator in existence, or some other groups of operators, would that position have arisen? Would there have been the concentration on the Marathon? I rather doubt it. There would have been every inducement to study, without paying too much attention to the Government of the day, what was the plane most likely to be useful in that part of the world, and development might have been well ahead.
Mr. Rankin: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the cost of the plane which would be economically possible was quite well known to manufacturers, and that they did not or could not produce the plane at a cost which would make it economically effective? And why not?
Mr. Maclay: I do not know the answer to the question, "Why not?"—unless it is that they were given no encouragement to produce that type of plane under the structure which existed between 1945 and 1950. I know it is a very difficult question as to whether we could have got the right plane by now. All I would submit is that if there is one tight structure covering the whole country for the scheduled services one cannot expect, no matter how good they are, particularly when tied very tightly to the Government of the day, to get the maximum flexibility in searching for the best type of plane.
Mr. Rankin: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent the situation. We did not control the manufacturers of the machines. It was the operators who were controlled. The manufacturers were free.
Mr. Maclay: Who has ever known a manufacturer to work ahead regardless of potential purchasers? Development of aircraft must to a great extent depend on co-operation between the manufacturer and the potential customer.

2001
I think some Scottish Members will certainly agree that at one time there was an attempt to construct Scottish services too much on the Stratocruiser complex, which somebody mentioned, or on the Rolls Royce type of service, rather than going for that best suited to some of the Scottish services, more or less a good Austin rather than a Rolls Royce.
Mr. Rankin: What about the Dakota?
Mr. Maclay: The Dakotas are there, but it has taken a long time to get them there.
Mr. Rankin: They have never been anywhere else but there.
Mr. Maclay: What is to happen in future? The Minister has stated the position about the internal services very clearly. He is prepared to consider any suggestions which conform to the requirements he stated today in introducing the debate. I must say that I sincerely hope that something will evolve which will enable those in Scotland who take an acute interest in civil aviation to see that Scotland's best interests are and will be served. Whether there can today be any profound change I would not like to say; it is impossible to know at this stage. But if not, there are other things which must be studied.
The Minister has mentioned the question of the advisory councils. These have done excellent work, and all the members are to be congratulated on the time and work given to them. Without making any reflection whatsoever on these excellent people, I should like to suggest that it is worth examining whether, if these councils continue, the Chairmen of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Councils should also be members of the Board of B.E.A. That is not a reflection on anybody, but I feel that if the advisory council is expected to become to some extent a consumers' council it must detract from the confidence placed in this council if the chairman and others are members of the Board of the Corporation which the Council may have constructively to criticise. That is no reflection on anything that has happened in the past, but it is a point which requires careful examination.
Turning to the speech of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and other hon. Members who followed him, surely the objective of every one of us is to find the best means of advancing
2002
British civil aviation. That is what we are all after. I find it difficult to believe that in the light of the Government's proposals the Amendment on the Order Paper could be put down in this year of grace, but now that I have heard the speeches of hon. Members opposite I am beginning to understand why it has been put down. It is, of course, a criticism of the very moderate proposals made by the Government to widen the field for independent operators.
The thought behind the Amendment seems to be that civil aviation is in a very advanced stage, and it is now only a question of regulating, controlling and keeping in a tight grip its future development. We in this House are really in much the same position today as those who were here 80 or 100 years ago, when they were discussing the railways. No one can tell what is coming in the future.
All we can say is that civil aviation has an enormously expanding future, and we must search for the best way of encouraging the maximum British share in the future. Some say that the international passenger structure is too tight. Since the war there has grown up a structure based on the chosen instrument and bilateral treaties with reciprocal rights, and it is not much of an exaggeration to say that the greater part of the international passenger service is already rather tightly frozen. One can argue whether that is inevitable, and whether it is right or wrong. All I would say is that within that structure it is very important that British civil aviation should make every possible advance. I know that the opportunity is very limited for the independents, but surely it is no threat to the Corporation to say that if there is a new service not covered by them, at least the independents should have the opportunity to tender for it.
Mr. Beswick: I think we ought to be fair. The threat, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to regard it as a threat, is not in respect of that at all. My complaint was about two things. First, I adduced, from the reluctance of the Minister to contradict me, that B.O.A.C. were being asked artificially to put up their fares to make room for private operators; second, that there was to be a restriction so that B.O.A.C. were not to be allowed to develop their North Atlantic Service for one year.
Mr. Maclay: It would appear that, subject to two reservations, the hon. Gentleman accepts the Government's policy in relation to international services. If that is so, I am delighted to hear it, and I hope that the Opposition Amendment will not be moved. The two points which he raises are points of detail and not points of principle, and it seems to me right and essential, if we are to get the proper development of British civil aviation, that not only the Corporations but everyone willing to take part in it should be given an opportunity, and that we should try to find new methods of extending the scheduled operations.
Mr. Beswick: The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about the necessity for expansion as against restriction. Is he in favour of restricting our British Corporation from operating on freight rates over the North Atlantic in the next immediate months?
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will realise that the Corporation have had a very long start in all this work. During the six years since the war, the independents have had a very small field in which they could do any development at all. It is a tribute to those who have survived that period that they have done so. All that the Government are saying now, if I understand the speech of my right hon. Friend correctly, is that for a period the independents should have a full chance of getting into this all-freight service.
It is obvious that the Corporations, with their infinitely greater resources of aircraft, could stifle the independents before they have a chance to get going. But if there was the risk that if the Corporations did not get into this field some other nation would, that must be and is guarded against. In the meantime, it is the greatest relief to me to know that an independent operator has made an application for such a service, whether he gets it or not.
Why are we one of the nations which has no transatlantic freight service operating? Our competitors are in there now. During the time that I was in my job at the Ministry, I realised the tremendous future which there is for freight in the air. It is now for Britain to establish her position as quickly as possible before too many people get in.
I think that the Government's proposals are entirely admirable and fair to the
2004
Corporation. Perhaps the best way to prove that is to have a look in the Library at the terms of the new directive to the A.T.A.C. There, there are set out very clearly the conditions on which independents can apply and be accepted for new services. Some people think that the protection of the Corporation is excessive. I do not share that view. I think that a structure has emerged from which we can start and develop. Before any hon. Member opposite argues that this policy can upset the Corporations, he should make certain that the conditions that have to be observed if an independent company is to get an agreement are thoroughly understood.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) can see in the Library the provisions with regard to terms and conditions of service to which he referred. The terms and conditions of service of employees are one of the tests which A.T.A.C. has to apply before submitting recommendations to the Minister, and terms of service must be not less favourable than those negotiated through the National Joint Council on Civil Aviation.
Mr. Lindgren: Not one of them is abiding by it.
Mr. Maclay: The conditions are laid down and the hon. Member should prove a thing like that before he says it even in this House. This industry has a tremendous future. Should we not co-operate without bringing in political differences in trying to get the very best out of the Corporations and the very best opportunity for the independents to play their part?
There has been very little said today from the other side which should be difficult to reconcile with what we are trying to do, provided there is good will. If hon. Members opposite are going to search for every difficulty and make political capital out of it, that is one thing, and it can be very disastrous. If they are going to search for new, constructive criticism, that is the duty of the Opposition, and I feel sure that if they approach the matter in that way they will withdraw their Amendment tonight.
7.10 p.m.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am glad that I have been fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, because it is high time that Wales was

2005
mentioned in these civil aviation debates. In the debate in March last year Wales received no mention and the same omission occurred in the debate last July. In opening the debate last July the Minister mentioned England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, but he left Wales out. I am sure that if his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs had known about that, he would have refused to represent the right hon. Gentleman at the dinner which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick).
I want straight away to correct any impression which may exist that there is no interest in civil aviation in the Principality, and to remind the House that the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation is doing an excellent job and is very much alive to the needs of the Principality in this sphere. I want to pay tribute to Mr. Kenneth Davies, Secretary to the Welsh Council, who has played a pioneering part in civil aviation in Wales. Tribute should also be paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) who has for many years made an important contribution. Cambrian Airways also deserves a compliment. It is not generally appreciated that it was the first private charter company to begin operating in the United Kingdom after the war, and for a considerable time it kept certain services going, although they were being run at a loss.
Wales has her special problems and her special needs in civil aviation. I have come to the conclusion that the only medium which can effectively unite North and South Wales and bring those areas closer together commercially and culturally is air transport. I should even look with greater favour upon Cardiff as a potential capital for Wales if it were easier of access. I do not know how many hon. Members have made the journey by road or even by train from Anglesey to Cardiff, Swansea and Haverfordwest. It is an extremely romantic journey, but after one has said that one has said everything. I once flew from a South Wales airfield to Anglesey and the journey took about one hour. I had to travel back by train and that took over 10 hours.
The ideal aircraft for Wales is the helicopter, for it would be ideally suited to
2006
the fairly short stops and to our difficult terrain. That is the considered opinion of the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation. An effective passenger-carrying helicopter could do a round North and South Wales trip taking in all the larger centres of population.
A great deal has been heard in the House recently about experiments to find a suitable helicopter. The Bristol 173 and a larger passenger-carrying helicopter have been mentioned in the House. Replying to Questions about them on Monday, the Minister of Supply said that experiments were now proceeding. We all appreciate that these things take time and that there are considerations of safety and cost which are of paramount importance, but I wish the Minister could be rather more specific in his estimate of the time it will take to produce the right helicopter. We have taken the lead in the world with jet aircraft and I believe we can also take the lead in this other, possibly less spectacular but no less important, sphere as well.
Wales pioneered a passenger-carrying helicopter service. The Minister may remember the Liverpool-Wrexham-Pengam Moor-Cardiff service which operated for a short time. When helicopter services begin to operate in earnest in this country, Wales deserves first priority, because she was the pioneer. I believe that Lord Pakenham, when Minister of Civil Aviation, promised the Advisory Council that priority would be given to the Principality. Apart from any other consideration, an effective, safe and economic helicopter would undoubtedly be a great dollar earner for us, and I urge the Government to do everything possible to hasten the production of the right machine.
When internal air services are discussed in this country, it is invariably the great cities which are mentioned. The Minister referred to them this afternoon. I realise that that is inevitable and natural, but it would be a mistake to have an exclusively urban outlook when considering British internal services. If only the great cities are to be catered for, almost the whole of Wales will be excluded from consideration. There ought to be a considered policy for our market towns and other rural centres. Some small towns have already selected sites for airfields. It might be argued that this is uneconomical, but we must also remember the

2007
social implications of ignoring the needs of the rural areas. Last July the Minister said that social factors as well as economic factors had to be considered.
My final point may be regarded as a constituency matter, but I feel it is more than that. In the last debate the Minister said that as international airports London with Gatwick came first and Prestwick came second, and he has said substantially the same thing today. No one will quarrel with that. I hope Prestwick will be developed and fully used, and I think that is the intention of the Ministry, but I also want to plead for two airfields in Anglesey which are admirably suited to become trans-Atlantic airports.
After the war Valley airfield in Anglesey was scheduled as a reserve base for Prestwick and was so used on many occasions when it was impossible to use Prestwick because of adverse weather conditions. If the Minister studies the records, he will find that Valley is an ideal airfield for this purpose for it has a remarkable history of freedom from fog.
There on the West coast of Britain we have a first-class airfield which could be used as a reserve base for Prestwick. I am not suggesting for a moment—when I look at my hon. Friends representing Scottish divisions I realise that it would be dangerous to do so—that it should replace Prestwick. I merely suggest that it should be a reserve base, for it would suit the purpose admirably. I should like the Minister to tell us what the position about Valley is today. Is it still scheduled as a reserve base for Prestwick, or is it now being exclusively used by the Royal Air Force? If the latter is the case, I ask the Minister to look at the airfield at Mona which is only seven miles away from Valley. I should be grateful to know whether Customs facilities exist today at Valley or Mona.
May I conclude by asking three questions? Firstly, I should like to know the position with regard to Rhoose in South Wales. This is another well-equipped airfield, and the Ministry of Civil Aviation have dilly-dallied over it for a very long time.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can deal with that at once. If there was any dilly-dallying, I brought it to an end, and I invited Lord Ogmore to deputise for me
2008
in a recent important event in the history of Rhoose to show solidarity in Wales.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that information and to know that the Minister appreciates that there has been a considerable amount of delay about Rhoose. I am glad that some action is now being taken.
Secondly, when is the Minister going to have Wrexham airfield cleared up? Lastly, can he say when we can hope for an airfield in North Wales near to the coastal resorts of North Wales, say Abergele, which will enable the people from the Midlands to visit that part of the Principality and avoid the ever-increasing traffic congestion on the roads? These are some of the questions affecting Wales, and I hope that the Minister will comment on them.
7.21 p.m.
Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: I should begin by declaring my interest in the aircraft industry both as a constructor and as an operator. I think it is well known in the House, but I should like to emphasise it at the outset. We have enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes). He certainly spoke up for the Principality, and I was very glad to hear him support an independent operator, Cambrian Airways, which is a small company that has rendered good service both to this country and to Wales. I hope it will go on and succeed and prosper, and I am glad to see the hon. Member is interested in an independent company.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) in his speech, as is his usual custom, referred to some remarks I made previously. Since 1945 he and I have spoken in most of the civil aviation debates. He quoted a reference, which I cannot find, where I said that the Corporations would for ever make a loss, but to that I would refer later. Today, he said that I never congratulated the Corporations. Like the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), I have not the time to go through every HANSARD since 1945, but I found one remark I made on 19th March last year, when I said:
"I should like to congratulate Lord Douglas and Mr. Peter Masefield, his very able lieutenant in B.E.A., on what they have done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 2158–9.]
Mr. Beswick: I do not think I said that the hon. and gallant Member never congratulated the Corporations because I know full well that on various occasions he has, but I quoted his words when he said that he did not think they would ever make a profit.
Air Commodore Harvey: I do not look ahead for more than eight or 10 years at a time, and up to the present B.E.A. have not made a profit. Fortunately, B.O.A.C. have, for the first time last year, but I will go into that in the course of my remarks.
The hon. Member referred to York aircraft which might be operated, if given permission, over the North Atlantic. I see nothing wrong with the York carrying freight over the North Atlantic. If it is an aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness it should be able to do the job all right. It will be flying at night and carrying freight, thus earning money for its operators and for the country. After all, all the cargo steamers are not good to look at. If aircraft are airworthy and can earn foreign currency the sooner they get on to the job the better.
I think it is a little unfair to refer to the all-up weight of these aircraft. I remember, in the days of the British South American Airways, having an argument about this in the House and all-up weight came into it. I assume that the Registration Board and the authorities concerned will agree on the permissible amount of all-up weight, and I do not think that as Members of Parliament it is for us to criticise technical features of that nature. I prefer to leave it to the Minister's advisers to decide what is the correct weight.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), spoke about the Chairmen of the Corporations being forced to do certain things under pressure from the Minister. If the Chairmen of these Corporations have a grudge they are perfectly entitled to come into the open and say what it is. They run the businesses we hope as any other business is run, and if they want to say something let them state quite clearly what is wrong.
I am quite satisfied with the statement made by my right hon. Friend, that they recognise that they have got a great monopoly and have got their work fully cut out for them in the next year or two to compete in the international field with
2010
such well-known lines as Pan-American and Trans-World, so that a breathing space is not a bad thing to enable the small independent company to get going in certain directions.
I do not think that the Corporations will lose any traffic at all. There is business for everybody provided that there is good will on all sides. Someone said that the morale of B.O.A.C. has gone down. I do not believe it. They have an operating record second to none for safety, and they are the first airline in the world to fly jet liners. Morale is as high as it can be, and for Opposition Members to talk about the morale of B.O.A.C. being low because of interference does not stand examination for one moment.
Since the end of the war civil air transportation has made tremendous strides that in 1945 we never thought possible. We differed with the Labour Party policy when they brought in the Act of 1946. We fought in Committee upstairs and we disagreed, but whatever we said was not considered in those days. The Bill was steamrollered through the 1945–50 Parliament by the large Government majority, but the fact is that, as I see it now, the Labour Party object to the smallest alteration taking place in the set-up which they then established.
Surely as this great industry progresses, as it has done in the past six years, changes are bound to take place. We may not like them and the Opposition may not like them, but here is an industry which, now that we have declining industries such as textiles, may well be the salvation of our economy and of our livelihood. But we must be broadminded and look at it in the right way. I can see exports from this industry amounting to £120 million a year in the matter of three or four years, if, in this industry, we are wise about our business. Apart from the invisible exports earned by insurance and the selling of British wares, we are leading the world in our airliners.
As I see it, the policy for this great industry has got to be governed by strategic, commercial and business considerations and the less politics that are brought into it the better. I have been as guilty as anybody in this House in the last seven years, but, generally speaking. I have tried to be constructive in my view. I am sure that it will please the hon. Member for Uxbridge to know that on

2011
my notes I have a reminder to congratulate the management and workers of both Corporations. But do not let us forget that in the last six years it was the Tory Opposition which prodded the Labour Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, that is perfectly true. We prodded the Government to reduce the staff of B.O.A.C., and it has gone down from 24,000 to 16,000. Questions were put about this subject and it was also mentioned in debates. When the new Chairman, Sir Miles Thomas, was appointed effective steps were taken to reduce the numbers of the staff.
I do not want to take away in any degree from the improvement in the B.O.A.C. balance sheet, but the mail rate was increased from the beginning of last year and there was a back lag which will not recur this year. We ought to appreciate that point in considering the final figures. Also, B.O.A.C. have had hidden subsidies for a number of years. One I can mention is that of the Solents, which were purchased for approximately £220,000 from Short and Harland in Belfast.
Eighteen months ago the policy was changed completely, and these aircraft were discarded. Eight of these brand new aircraft are lying rotting in Belfast today. They are offered to independent operators for £30,000 each. But these aircraft were hired by B.O.A.C. from the Minister of Supply, and it is not the Corporations which are paying the bill. That charge falls on the taxpayer, but if that had to be taken into account then B.O.A.C.'s balance sheet would not look as good as it does today.
Mr. Beswick: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman telling the House that it was a mistake to switch to Hermes?
Air Commodore Harvey: I am not saying anything of the kind. Men are paid high salaries in the Corporation to formulate a policy and it should be the right policy. Nevertheless, they must have made mistakes in one direction or another. I do not think that the Hermes is a bad aircraft, or the Solent either. Both are very good.
Last year, the Post Office agreed to pay retrospectively from 1st January, 1951, an extra 3s. 1d. per ton for first-
2012
class mails, bringing the rate up to 14s. 2d. per ton. This rate is equivalent to 4.17 gold francs, while the international rate is six gold francs a ton. Why are the Post Office paying so little to the Corporations for the carriage of mails? The Americans pay well over five gold francs per ton. We have had a Labour Postmaster-General for the last six years, so hon. Members opposite have to carry some responsibility for this state of affairs. I hope that this point will be considered, because, today, the fare-paying passenger is subsidising the carriage of mails. This is not a businesslike arrangement and I hope that it will be looked into.
The balance sheet of the B.O.A.C. is admirably drawn up and gives a lot of detail. There is a reference on page 47 to pay, allowances, accommodation, advertising and other publicity, and to "other costs," which are given as £180,238. What are these other costs? It looks like an item dealing with the petty cash. This debate is the equivalent of a shareholders' meeting. It is the only chance we have of discussing the accounts. No doubt £180,000 is chicken feed in comparison with the millions of pounds in these accounts, but I hope that the item will be explained to the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when he winds up the debate.
The other thing I criticise in the accounts is on page 40, where reference is made to the cost of charters. Last year, the expenditure for charters was £491,708 against the previous year's expenditure of just over £441,000. The revenue obtained last year was £962,000, almost double that of the previous year, £450,000. It looks as if the expenditure has been exactly the same while the revenue is doubled. Does that mean that overhead charges and expenditure are being absorbed by the scheduled services, and the revenue is being obtained from charters, without the point being made quite clear? I hope to have some explanation here also.
On the B.E.A.'s account, I agree that their loss is not a true picture because their traffic is seasonal. They carry the bulk of their traffic in six months of the year. They have to pay in fuel tax some £267,000, mostly on domestic runs, which

2013
sum strikes me as being quite exorbitant. In fact, it is greater than any other international airline in the world. I cannot see why an airline should have to pay a petrol tax for the upkeep of the roads. This is merely the money of the taxpayer going from one pocket to another.
On the accounts themselves, I have one criticism. The accounts are quite different from those of the B.O.A.C. They have 12 pages of pictures. I do not mean of Lord Douglas holding the baby with the teddy bear and the air hostess looking very charming. To have 12 pages of photographs set out in a balance sheet is quite an unnecessary expense. It is a waste of money, and shows a lack of appreciation of how to produce a balance sheet. Otherwise, I think the reading material is excellent and describes in great detail how the Corporation is going on.
At this stage I do not want to see the structure of the Corporations altered in any way. They have their work cut out in meeting severe foreign competition from the major airlines of the world, but I suggest that there is room for both the independents and the Corporations. I do not see why, in the North Atlantic freight trade, the Corporation and the independent companies should not work together, pooling their resources in a joint effort. I put that forward as a suggestion, because I think there would be a great deal of traffic offering.
With regard to Gatwick, I think that is probably the right choice. I put it to my right hon. Friend that in considering Blackbushe Airport, has he considered using a mono-rail from Blackbushe to the centre of London? We have tried to think in terms of electric railways and even of buses, but they are quite useless, if they take one and a half hours to get from the airfield to central London.
I suggest that he seriously considers a mono-rail from Blackbushe, through Camberley and up to London, joining with a similar rail coming in from Heathrow to the centre of London. It would bring passengers up from Camberley in 20 minutes and I believe that the expense would not be very great. Let us be original. Let us not say, "We are going to use electric trains from Gatwick," when there is a possibility that we
2014
can show the world what we can really do in transportation.
I want to refer briefly to the Air Registration Board. I feel that we have a very fine set-up in that Board, which is run by a most efficient director, Mr. Hardingham, and a board of outside helpers. Usually, if there is a difference of opinion between the operator and the Government on a technically of an aeroplane or an engine, the matter goes before the Air Registration Board and is sorted out. A recommendation is made to the Ministry. But I am informed that the Air Safety Board, which is in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, is duplicating this work and that it makes recommendation also to the Minister.
The policy of my party was to reduce the number of staff in the Ministry of Civil Aviation if possible, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not lose sight of this point. We cannot have these mushroom departments springing up in the Ministry duplicating the work of a very efficient department which is run outside as an advisory body. I hope that that point will be looked into.
Yesterday, in the "Daily Telegraph" the air correspondent referred to the Air Registration Board, but not very accurately. The air correspondent, who is Air Commodore Payne, said that the Air Registration Board was:
"largely composed of representatives of airlines and aircraft manufacturers."
That is not really the case at all. The Air Registration Board is composed of four operators, including two Corporations, the Royal Aero Club and the charter companies; four manufacturers, two of engines and two of aircraft; four insurance companies, two Lloyds and two other insurance companies, and four representatives of the general public and general interests.
Of these, one is Lord Brabazon. The others are Sir Maurice Denny, Mr. Guy Johnson, Chairman of the Accident Offices Association, Mr. Roland Thornton, shipowner, and also a pilots' representative, Captain Alderson. Finally, there is the Minister's appointee, Mr. Taylor, of the Workers' Travel Association. I do not think that we could have a more representative body of the industry.

2015
I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to delegate as much work as he can to outside bodies such as this. Its members are paid very little and they give a lot of time and thought to their work. I do not believe anyone can possibly point a finger at the Air Registration Board since the end of the war. It has been extremely careful and diligent in its work.
I would make a final appeal to the House. Airline economies are not yet fully established. There is expansion for both the Corporations and the independent operators, and given the lead, I believe that the business can be built up to tremendous proportions. Do not let us forget that our American friends are getting knowledge from us and the technique of building jet engines and operating jet aircraft and that they may, in five or six years' time, come out with something quite original and bigger than we have got. We shall need every bit of help and resourcefulness that we can possibly obtain in that case.
I hope that the Government will encourage young men to go into the aircraft industry and will try to give them stability of tenure. The industry has had ups and downs, with many Governments changing their minds.
Mr. Mikardo: It is going to have some more now.
Air Commodore Harvey: It has had quite a few in the last six years. Some of them are perhaps too confidential to mention in this House, including what was said two or three years ago by the then Minister of Defence. Changes have taken place which have meant workers being put out of work and transferred to other parts of the industry.
Britain has to lead six or seven years ahead of the rest of the world in this industry. We have to live by our brains, by ingenuity and "know how." That is the only way we can maintain our standard of living, let alone improve on it. I hope that priority will be given to the construction of civil aircraft, both for export and operation at home. Let the Government look upon this industry as something that may save us. We need a life-saver, and I believe that the British aircraft industry can play its part in providing it.
7.41 p.m.
Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the remarks he has made, which were very interesting, as we have come to expect from one who is an expert on matters connected with aviation and has had a distinguished flying career.
I was one of a party of Members of Parliament who, in June this year, had the pleasure of a trip in the Comet jet airliner of British Overseas Airways Corporation. More recently I have travelled with some of my colleagues to and from Holland by British European Airways. Admittedly, that is not a great deal of recent flying on which to base a judgment, but from that limited experience of the two airways I consider that they deserve our congratulations. I noticed that all passengers are treated with care and courtesy, and I was impressed by the high standard of efficiency that was to be seen in all who serve in the airways.
Having paid my tribute to all responsible for the safety, speed and comfort of present day air travel by the two airways, I now wish to draw attention to one aspect of the two annual Reports under review which has not yet been mentioned in this debate. The Report of B.O.A.C. contains a list of experts who serve on the executive management panel.
I was pleased to find that there is a Director of Medical Services. Yet when I turned to subsequent pages of the Report to read about the work of those services, I found no mention of them. Judging by this Report alone, it would appear that the Director of Medical Services has no medical services to direct, but I happen to know from other sources that B.O.A.C. has efficient medical services and I regret the omission of any mention of them in the Report.
In the Report of B.E.A. 15 lines are devoted to their medical service, on pages 64 and 65. I do not question that being a fair proportion of space to give to that service, but all we can read about it deals with the pre-selection medical examination of all prospective employees as pilots and radio officers. The work of medically screening candidates is certainly important, but is that really all the medical services did?

2017
Were there no minor injuries among ground staff requiring treatment? Did no passengers develop illness of one kind or another during a flight and need attention on arrival at the airport? Were there no inoculations of air crew and passengers? I think there were, because there is a charming photograph of a nursing sister which suggests preparation for an inoculation. Were there not a score of other duties capably performed by the medical service? Does it not appear from these two Reports that no one has been interested in these matters? And if that is so, then the medical services of the Corporations are not receiving the help and encouragement that they need.
Perhaps my most important question is: can the Minister tell us whether there was any research in the field of aviation medicine? When I spoke in the debate on the Air Estimates earlier this year, I tried to point out to the House the importance of aviation medicine. All that I said then in relation to the Royal Air Force applies equally to civil aviation. As aircraft reach higher altitudes and travel faster and farther, stress and strain in different forms is thrown upon the human body, a body designed by nature for locomotion on two legs with feet placed firmly on the ground.
To overcome the difficulties encountered in modern aviation, expert advice from medical officers with a knowledge of physiology and experience of flying can be most helpful. Therefore, I want to know whether the study of aviation medicine is being encouraged by the Minister and by the Corporations. For example, are medical officers sent on flights to study the conditions from the position of passengers? Are they ever allowed to fly sitting beside the pilot to learn something of his task and to study his physical and mental problems?
The two Airways Corporations have a remarkably good record for rarity of accidents and, of course, we are most desirous that they should maintain and even improve upon that record. I suggest, however, that it will not be easy for them to do so because competition forces the invention of aircraft capable of flying at still greater speeds.
We have heard recently of an aircraft leaving the British Isles early in the morning, flying to the other side of the
2018
Atlantic Ocean and being back in the United Kingdom in time for tea. I think it possible that within the next few years an hon. Member may be able to make a speech in this House, then fly across the Atlantic to the United States of America where, by reason of having to put his watch back to conform with American time, he can subsequently make a speech at an hour earlier than the one made here.
Such is the type of transport and the speed of transit that is developing and, in order that it shall remain safe and comfortable, difficult human problems have to be solved. Specialists in aviation medicine have a vitally important part to play in solving these problems. One of my reasons for being opposed to the extension of privately-owned airways is my fear that the medical services would be neglected for the sake of economy. That should not be so in our two great nationalised Airways Corporations.
These Reports do not tell me as much as I should like to know about medical services of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I would ask the Minister, therefore, whether it is possible for him to give me an assurance that the medical services of the two Corporations are regarded as efficient, that they are regarded as of value and that the best possible use is being made of the medical personnel.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Gough: The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the somewhat technical but highly interesting speech with which he has just regaled us. I was extremely interested in his thesis that, with the development of the speed of aircraft, eventually one will, so to speak, land before one takes off. I can only add that it is rather a horrifying thought in these days that if one flies round the Equator from east to west one will eventually, in the course of time, achieve a new form of second childhood.
It is my intention not to follow the trend of the majority of the speeches which have dealt with the past, but to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) and try to look into the future. In what I think was a very notable contribution, he dealt with the personnel problem, the problem of looking 10 and 15 years

2019
ahead and encouraging the youth of our land to take the place of the great captains of our air liners today. I wish to deal with the problem which certainly affects me in my constituency and which also is a problem dealing with the question of personnel. It is no use training the youth of this country for the future if we do not also have the best and finest airports for them to operate to and from.
It is on the basis of the Gatwick project that I wish to make one or two observations. I agree that my right hon. Friend should be congratulated on having stopped the vacillation we all know has been going on over the past three or four years and on taking an important decision with regard to Gatwick as another airport. I was also delighted to hear for the first time this afternoon that he has given an assurance that if the local authorities desire it—and I think that is a true interpretation of what he said—the Minister of Housing and Local Government will arrange for a public inquiry. There is no doubt there has been considerable public apprehension that, owing to the very rapid growth of civil aviation, we might not have learned from some of our previous mistakes, about which I am making no criticism now, and which are inherent in anything developing so fast as civil aviation has developed over the past seven or eight years.
I also have certain misgivings about Gatwick. It may well be the right answer, but I still have these misgivings. The first is that there seems to be conflict of opinion as to its use between the Ministry and British European Airways. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—I think I am quoting him correctly—said that the use of Gatwick is a twofold one; first, as a bad weather alternate, and secondly for a restricted use by B.E.A. for their short-haul services to France particularly, and also for a certain amount of charter work. Furthermore, the Ministry have told us that the first phase—that, I suppose, is the runway—will not be ready for at least eight years.
Mr. Maudling: I think I said that the first runway we hoped to have operating in 1954 or 1955.
Mr. Gough: I am sorry. I did not understand that. What I had in mind
2020
was that the first phase would not be completed for eight years.
In "The Times" last Friday there appeared a very constructive letter from the Chairman of B.E.A. He stated that the object of Gatwick was that it should be an alternate for London Airport which would be over-spilling by 1956; not necessarily, as I read the letter, to be a bad weather alternate but that London Airport would reach saturation point, and that therefore Gatwick must be an alternate. Secondly, he proposed from there to build up the service of B.E.A. and the whole gravamen of his argument was that unless we had two main airports for London, this country would become merely a feeder line. Therefore, the object of Gatwick is not necessarily an alternate, but a second big London airport.
Mr. Maudling: I should not like it to be thought there is any difference on this matter between the Government and the Chairman of B.E.A., because there certainly is not. Perhaps I have not explained the point clearly enough before. We consider that Gatwick will serve two useful purposes; one as an alternative when aircraft need to be diverted from London Airport in bad weather conditions, and also for the secondary purpose of providing a base from which could be transferred a certain amount of the regular load now carried at London Airport. I am quite certain that Lord Douglas's letter was intended to convey precisely the same impression.
Mr. Gough: I am sorry, I thought that was precisely what I had just said. Nevertheless, let me assume I have understood B.E.A. rightly. I believe, with respect to my hon. Friend, that if one looks ahead 10 or 15 years—and it is essential to do so—it is essential to have a second airport in the area of London larger, in my submission, than London Airport itself. If that is a true definition, I fear that the estimate of £6 million for the first phase is hopelessly inadequate. I fear also that the actual siting of Gatwick may, in the long run, be just as bad a siting as that of London Airport has turned out to be through its environment, and from being surrounded completely by houses.
As I see it, the disadvantages of London Airport—and this is no criticism of the siting of London Airport in its

2021
day—are first its inability to expand, because it is completely surrounded by houses, and secondly, because it is rapidly becoming a nuisance and a danger to the local population——
Mr. Reader Harris: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gough: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I feel that I carry the House with me when I say that if we are to make civil aviation a success, we must carry public opinion with us and try to avoid, or to minimise, nuisance as much as we can.
I added that it is also a danger to the public, because much of the criticism has been in regard to those who live on the ground. One of the most important things that an airport needs is a safe run-in and it is not safe to run in over highly developed property. I understand that over 66 per cent. of flying accidents occur in connection with take off or landing. Indeed, I am reminded of the saying we used to have in the war among parachute troops that the mere act of parachuting reduced the risk of flying by 50 per cent. I say that because I have the greatest doubts whether the siting of Gatwick, bearing in mind its possibilities in 10 or 15 years, is sound in respect of its adjacency not only to Crawley but also to Horley.
I notice that it has been put forward that the runways will go east and west but development is going on on the ground and I cannot help but feel that if Gatwick is to grow into another large airport we shall have multiple runways. If we do not have multiple runways, I feel that the cost, for the first phase, of £6 million is a terrible price which is much too large merely to provide an alternate in bad weather for London Airport. There must be other alternates already existing which would be less expensive.
My right hon. Friend has very rightly referred to the problem—whether it is Gatwick or anywhere else—as national development in the national interest. I put to him that the whole theory of new towns which has been accepted on both sides of the House is also national development in the national interest. There is very serious concern in local opinion and amongst local authorities that the development of Gatwick airport will,
2022
to say the least, hamper the orderly development of the Crawley new town.
When I say "orderly development" I mean that one must cast one's mind back and see that when these new towns were considered it was said that they were to be balanced communities. Crawley will have a population of something up to 60,000 and I feel that the development of an enormous airport in the area would very seriously jeopardise the conception of that balanced community. That is borne out by the Crawley Development Corporation who, in their 1950 Report, stated that they had irrevocable objections to the development of Gatwick as an airport.
I have referred to the question of cost, but again I think we should profit by experience and realise the warning from London Airport where the cost of the development has far exceeded what was originally estimated and they are still spending millions of pounds in development. So far as I know, no mention has so far been made of the cost of deflecting the London—Brighton Road, nor do we know anything about the cost of the second phase.
I believe this problem should be tackled in two stages because, as my hon. Friend said, it is a twofold problem. The first problem is to provide an alternate, a suitable bad weather alternate, for London Airport. I believe there are other solutions. They may not be very popular and they may not be perfect, but in these days they would save us a great deal of money. There is a white elephant at Filton near Bristol. I cannot see why our long-distance services, the Comet services, to the ends of our Commonwealth, should not start from Filton.
There would be far more comfort in catching a train at Paddington, having the appropriate refreshments during the course of that train journey from Paddington to Bristol and going through the aggravating business of having one's passport checked and luggage checked and looked into by the Customs on that journey. I do not think that more than 20 minutes difference would be discovered in the time if one compared that with the present arrangements of jogging down to London Airport in a coach. I think seriously that if B.O.A.C. Comet services were run from Filton, it might

2023
at least relieve the pressure for a little further time on London Airport.
I could not agree more with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) in regard to Blackbushe. There is also the question of the mono-rail. Blackbushe is only five miles further from London than Crawley. It seems to me that we should put up with that little inconvenience rather than embark on £6 million for the first phase of the scheme which is now put forward. There are other airports about which I should like to hear. Bovingdon in the North of London might well be used and the City of London have had Fairlop on their hands for many years, I believe at the request of the Ministry.
In my opinion the first stage should be met out of our existing resources. The second stage is a far bigger affair. I am convinced that this second airport is necessary and I am convinced that it should be a bigger affair than London Airport. But I think its siting and complete designation is a matter which requires the very greatest of vision and wisdom. It is something about which we should be most careful. Because it is immensely important, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks about the holding of a public inquiry. I wish to ask him one or two questions about that.
I understood from him that the public inquiry would be instituted by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I should like to know whether the inquiry will be limited to the question of whether the airport shall be at Gatwick or not or whether the inquiry can advise the Government, if Gatwick is not the most suitable place, that somewhere else is the most suitable.
Another question I ask involves no denigration of Ministry officials. I hope the public inquiry will be under independent chairmanship and that that chairman will be someone like a learned judge who is capable of understanding, appreciating and sifting evidence so that the very best independent brains and ingenuity avilable can be brought to help us with these problems.
I wish to put some of these problems under separate headings. The first is that of siting. I noticed—and I think it is a common fallacy—that my right hon.
2024
Friend said that one of the advantages of Gatwick is that it is on the continental side of London. Actually it is not. The main European airways which come into London come from Scandinavia in the North right down to France and, as far as the North of France is concerned, the nearest approach is on the east or the north-east side. That is a basic fact and, if we could find a suitable alternate somewhere on the east, somewhere perhaps on the London estuary, another fallacy would be exploded because there are parts of the Thames estuary which are no worse from a fog point of view than the present London Airport. That would save 30 miles of flying-in cost and 30 miles of flying-out cost. That, over a year, would run into a saving of millions of pounds. On the question of siting, the geographical position in the South is not necessarily the best. I think it much more important that the site should be safe. When I say safe, I mean that it should have good ways of approach.
I wish to say another word about mono-rail. I think it essential that the airport should have its own control over transport to the city centre. I do not believe that this business of a rail service will work, however good it is. Aeroplanes, unfortunately, have an aggravating habit of being late and train services must run punctually or the system will completely break down. That is why we should try with the greatest intensity to develop a mono-rail service. If that can be developed, it would mean that we should have a far wider area around London in which to look for the first-class site. Further, it would mean that we should get a better site, as the further it is from London the safer it is, because it would be further from town development.
There are two other points to which I should like to refer. I believe that this second airport, if it possibly can be, should be sited somewhere near water. Whether that water should be a river or a canal or a reservoir I am not going to say now. But I do not believe that the day of the flying boat is over. I believe that, looking 10 or 15 years ahead, with the developments which we have seen already, it may well be that design will go back to the flying boat, particularly in the case of this nation and the great Empire and Commonwealth which it serves.

2025
I should like to end on the note that I am so grateful to my right hon. Friend that he has taken the broadminded view of saying that, if necessary, he will have a public inquiry. I believe that this is one of the most important decisions that we have to make. A hundred years ago it was essential for us to be the centre of world communications by sea. It is even more essential for us today to be the centre of world communications by air, so let us not, through any lack of effort or of vision, fail in that object.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. John Taylor: It would have been interesting and indeed pleasant for me to follow the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough), because he has raised so many interesting points. He and I were elected to this House on the same day and that gives us an interest in each other which transcends all the normal divisions of this Chamber. I should like to have followed the pro-and con-Gatwick dispute, but I think it is better for me to leave it to the Front Bench and back benches opposite and to get back to our chief job today, which is a review of these two annual Reports as they strike an ordinary Member, one who is neither a Minister nor a junior Minister or an ex-Minister or a future Minister, but who is just an ordinary shareholder in these concerns.
Taking a general review of these Reports, one gathers certain broad impressions. It has already been said that the B.O.A.C. Report is admirable. I find it terse, competent, impregnated with the confidence of a success story and reporting a most remarkable achievement. We should be indeed boorish curmudgeons if we did not extend to Sir Miles Thomas, his executive and staff our thanks and our grateful appreciation. Even if we hold certain reservations on some points of detail we can give warm praise for a good job very well done. Having said that, I do not think I need take up any more of the time of the House in mentioning the B.O.A.C. Report.
I should like to say a few words about the B.E.A. Report. This Report supplies us with enough material for a week's full debate. It is a comprehensive document recording a constant endeavour to "get out of the red." It seems to me to contain a certain querulous note, an over-
2026
stressing of difficulties, of frustrations, of delays and of disappointments. There is not the slightest need for such querulousness.
I do not think there is any need for B.E.A. to feel sorry for themselves. Their achievements, in spite of the difficulties, also deserve our words of praise and encouragement. If I advance a few words of criticism they are not intended to detract from our warm appreciation of a courageous struggle against many adverse circumstances.
First, I should like to mention a few small points which might be called minor irritants. Last Wednesday at Question time, I drew attention to one of them. I referred to the 1s. 6d. parking fee at Northolt Airport for a period of one hour during lunch time. The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to agree with my suggestion that the period should be extended by half an hour. He was good enough to see me afterwards privately and have a talk about the agreement governing the charging of that fee. May I suggest that he might instruct that the alteration be made? After all, a Parliamentary Secretary should occasionally use his authority. I do not know what Parliamentary Secretaries are for if they do not do so.
Mr. Maudling: If I may interrupt on that rather happy note, the fact is that this is a question of a contract. While I can issue instructions to those who serve under the Ministry I cannot issue instructions to those who are carrying out part of a contract.
Mr. Taylor: I will leave that as it is, since I have so many other matters to which I wish to refer.
I should like to mention, first, the passenger charge of 5s. for external flights to which the Minister referred and to the transport charges between the terminals and the airports. I recognise that these are matters for international agreement but surely to make separate charges on them is a bit of a nuisance and a bit of an irritant. They ought to be included in the ticket rate. It would cut overheads if this were done and certainly it would be less irritating to the passenger.
At present, B.E.A. are conducting a very extensive advertising campaign in Scotland for their £8 return fare, Glasgow to London, Edinburgh to London, and

2027
they are very excellent services indeed. But the advertisements are so worded, both in the Press and on hoardings, as to give the intending passenger the idea that the journey will cost him £8. In fact, it costs him 2s. 6d. for the fare from the air station in Princes Street, Edinburgh to Renfrew or Turnhouse and another 2s. 6d. on the return journey. There is a charge of 5s. from Northolt to Kensington High Street terminal and another 5s. on the return journey. So the passenger has to pay £8 15s.
It seems to me that having been told that his fare is £8 he has every reason to regard these extras as something very unfair and savouring of sharp practice. I think that B.E.A. should assert themselves and remove these charges and risk the displeasure of the other contracting parties on a minor detail of that kind.
Surely a 5s. charge between Northolt and Kensington is a bit stiff. I should say that it is about 100 per cent. more than it ought to be and that 2s. 6d. would be a reasonable rate. I know that it is said that it is very much cheaper than a taxi, but these coaches are used by people who wish to travel cheaper than by taxi.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: It is not cheaper than a taxi if four people take the taxi.
Mr. Taylor: Precisely; and when one wants to travel quickly and alone it is an imposition.
I should like to come now to a personal hobby-horse of mine and, with all the emphasis I can possibly command, deeply deplore the introduction of "gobbledegook" into the Report of a British nationalised industry. Gobbledegook, in case hon. Members do not know, is Americanese for bureaucratese; and if a more horrible juxtapositioning of misuses of the Queen's English can possibly be imagined I do not want to hear it.
Let me give an example. When the B.E.A. Report discusses an analysis of traffic details it describes this as a "break down of traffic." That is a phrase which has an entirely different, and in air transport, a much more sinister meaning, to the non-bureaucratic mind. It is perfectly true that there is not much gobbledegook in this Report, but for goodness' sake do not let us have any at all in any Government document or in any document
2028
issued by a nationalised industry. I am trying to strangle this horrible tendency at birth.
So much for detail. Let us take a brief glance at some of B.E.A's difficulties. Dealing only with critical route operating costs, external services, that is international services, show a surplus of over £2 million. That is excellent. The internal domestic services show a C.R.O. deficit of just over £98,000 as the Minister pointed out. If we analyse the domestic section we find that the Scottish internal service deficit is £176,000. The deficit on the English services, the Irish Sea services and the Northern Ireland Irish services is £70,000, a total deficit of £246,000, offset by a surplus—a most remarkable achievement—of no less than £125,600 on Channel Island services and £22,200 on freighter services, thus reducing the overall C.R.O. deficit on domestic air services to £98,400.
It has been mentioned that the loss on the Scottish services seems substantial, but it must be remembered that these include the social service section—services to the Islands and ambulance services which, by their very nature, cannot possibly pay. In this connection the B.E.A. Report on page 18, very properly draws attention to the fact that the domestic services in France for the whole of 1951—our year runs from March to March—received a grant of no less than £2,629,000 and that, despite that, the declared profit in 1951 was only £53,000. Therefore, by our methods of accountancy and financial allocation, Air France's loss would have been £2,576,000, and had that been the loss on the British domestic air services there would have been a terrific row about it, very rightly, in this House.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the application of the MacBrayne grant system. Someone else mentioned that roads would otherwise have to be paid for if the Islands had been part of the mainland. The sea route and the road route "by Tummel, and Loch Rannoch and Lochaber" are not the only roads to the Isles. The skyway is now also the highway. The strategic importance of the Isles, particularly of the Shetlands and Orkneys, ought not to be lost sight of in the public financial responsibility for these transport ways to remote but nevertheless very important parts of these islands.

2029
Every previous Report of the Corporations that I have read has contained complaints of delays in aircraft deliveries. There is a complaint which occurs frequently in the B.E.A. Report. I do not see much of it in the B.O.A.C. Report. On page 11 it mentions the "costly delay in the introduction of new aircraft" as a substantial factor in operational losses.
At the top of page 12 is the following statement:
"The fact that the Elizabethan was delayed by more than a year in coming into service has meant that, although heavy costs have been incurred on its account in 1951–52, no such substantial revenue could be earned by the Elizabethan to offset this expenditure during the 116 hours it flew in service up to the 31st March, 1952. In fact, the delays in the delivery of new aircraft have over-shadowed the whole workings of B.E.A. during the past year—increasing costs in many directions.…"
There are many other references in the Report to delays in the delivery of aircraft. I believe it is true that both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have loyally and as a matter of deliberate policy restricted themselves to British aircraft. It is quite true—I should think it is almost certain—that they could have bought cheaper elsewhere. Certainly, they would have received speedier deliveries from other markets. But this adherence to a "buy British" policy, which I wholeheartedly support, has been of the utmost value to the British aircraft industry, and surely it is reasonable to ask the industry that they should make greater endeavours to offer a quid pro quo in the shape of speedier deliveries.
We were assured by the Minister of Supply at Question time on Monday that there is no shortage of materials in the aircraft industry. It may be argued that the urgent needs of the defence programme have a prior claim on the industry's manpower and that that is the reason why there have been delays in the delivery of civil aircraft. But is it not time now, by arrangement with the Ministry of Supply, that a higher priority should be given to civil aircraft production? I suggest that this can now be done with no great adverse effect on our defence programme.
May I make one last point about the incidence of the fuel tax on civil aviation? It is clear that this burden on our native civil aircraft industry is very much greater than is shared by any other competing airline of any other country. Indeed, I think it
2030
is becoming increasingly clear that all public transport undertakings—surface or air—suffer from the heavy incidence of this tax.
It may be administratively difficult to operate a reduced tax for public transport, including air transport, but if any section of the transport industry deserves a tax reduction, and has a logical case for such a reduction, it is the aircraft industry, because of the argument that has already been advanced in this debate and which is none the worse for being underlined and repeated—namely, that the Petrol Duty was originally levied for road maintenance, and aircraft do not use roads, even on the airports, and if they do use them on the airports the cost comes out of the industry and not out of any tax. Therefore, there is a very strong case for a special arrangement in the application of this tax to the aircraft industry.
At this late period in the debate, I shall jettison the other points I have prepared and conclude by saying that the Reports which are before us indicate how progress can be made if the difficulties are frankly faced. When we overcome these difficulties, as I believe we shall, we shall have in our civil airlines a magnificent national asset which will be the envy of other nations throughout the world. Already, in many respects—and I like to think in practically every respect—the modern British way of handling our civil air services, owned and controlled by the nation, is proving to be an example to the most progressive nations in the world.
8.29 p.m.
Major D. McCallum: I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I want to raise one or two points. The first is in answer to a statement made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) that there was not a single charter company whose conditions of service and rate of pay were equivalent to those of either of the Corporations. I do not know whether he has received a letter today but I suppose that every hon. Member has received the letter. It was a Roneod letter. I have received it and I am sure that my Scottish colleagues have. It concerns a certain individual who has been working for B.E.A. at Renfrew Aerodrome. There was a strike recently about him and he is now working for a private charter firm and getting 6d. more per hour than he was with B.E.A.,

2031
and his working conditions are considerably better. I mention that in answer to the hon. Member who was so emphatic about conditions in the charter companies.
I think that this is the first debate on civil aviation when there have been so many references to the helicopter and its development. I welcome that phase. I and other hon. Members on both sides of the House have pressed for the development of the helicopter for years past. It is particularly necessary in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I fully agree with what was said by the Secretary of State for Scotland when he was addressing a meeting during the Summer Recess and said that he looked forward to the development of the helicopter as being one of the best solutions of the communications difficulties in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I am glad to know that my right hon. Friend thinks that, and I hope that he will continue spurring on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and also the Parliamentary Secretary on this point.
Certain of my hon. Friends have just spoken on the subject of installing a £6 million mono-rail to bring passengers into London from Gatwick or Blackbushe aerodromes. I would ask them what is wrong with the helicopter. If it is developed as it should be, it could meet passengers as they get out of one aircraft and deposit them in the centre of London, or wherever they may be going.
I agree that the time has not yet arrived when we can expect to have main or through air services by helicopter. The period of research and experiment for such helicopters is by no means complete and probably will not be for some years yet; but our own Services—the Army, the Navy and the Air Force—the American Services and our own Government Departments are using helicopters. The single rotor type is being used every day. Is there any reason why the Ministry of Civil Aviation should not request B.E.A. to carry out experiments in that part of the country where the helicopter will be of the greatest value in the future. That is, on the west coast of Scotland.
It is going to be of very little value to run helicopters from Birmingham to
2032
London when one can get into a train and do the journey almost as quickly, and with very little extra travel, but in areas without communications, where there are no trains and very often no roads to enable people to get from one place to another—such as in the Highlands and Islands—the helicopter is the ideal machine.
We are told that it is not safe to experiment with the helicopter over water, and yet recently two helicopters at least were flown across the Atlantic and arrived here quite safely. On the west coast of Scotland we do not ask for helicopters to be flown over distances greater than the Straits of Dover. If they can cross the Straits safely, there is no reason why they should not be used to do ambulance work and similar operations in the Islands and the west coast of Scotland.
The first development of the helicopters should be carried out on those lines. They should be used as feeder services, as local taxis from the main aerodromes—where the fixed-wing aircraft deposits the passengers—to the destinations on the various nearby Islands or those parts of the mainland where it is geographically and physically impossible to have an airstrip or landing ground for the use of the fixed-wing aircraft. We are also told that the insurance companies will not accept insurance from anybody who is operating with these single rotor helicopters. That is as may be, but I cannot believe that the Government or B.E.A. could not somehow or other solve that problem.
Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the internal services in Scotland, and I find them mentioned on page 17 of the Report of B.E.A. They are referred to as "social services." I cannot understand why B.E.A. refer to the services to the Islands and the western mainland as social services. They were never looked upon as social services in the days of Scottish Airways. On page 1 of the maps, I see there is a much better name for them—the domestic services. It is a small point, but if one sees these services referred to as social services the tendency is not to be bothered about them very much; to feel that it does not matter whether they pay or not; and that there is no urgency about them. Then one fears that the attitude towards them is wrong. In the

2033
old days of private enterprise they were not looked upon as social services; they were profitable services. A wonderful service was provided in those days, much better than we have had in recent years—certainly until quite recently.
In the last few weeks we have had Pionairs—modified Dakotas—brought on to some of the island services, and these aircraft carry more passengers. We are flying 34-seaters where five-seaters flew before. I am told that the passenger traffic is now of the order of 20 passengers a day on the Renfrew—Campbelltown—Islay route. I wonder whether that could not be increased much more if, instead of regarding them as social services, we regarded them as profitable services by replanning them. In the north many of us give them a different name—the badly planned services, or the inefficient services.
May I make two suggestions which B.E.A. might consider? The service Renfrew—Campbehown—Islay could well be continued to Belfast, the Renfrew—Belfast and Renfrew—Campbelltown—Islay services could be one service, With the Dakota, with its seating capacity and the speed at which it flies, the service should be quite capable of keeping up to timetable at less expense and earning more money.
Another service is to Tiree and the Outer Islands. The Pionair is flying on that service now. Why is there not a halt at Oban to take up passengers either on the outward journey or on the return journey? As I have mentioned in the House time and again, a perfectly good airfield is available near Oban which has never been used since the end of the war. It was a satellite landing ground for big bombers and fighter aircraft during the battle of the Atlantic, and I am told by my aviation friends that it is quite suitable for these modified Dakotas or for other civil aircraft which fly on these routes. Is there any reason why there should not be a halt there? After all, Oban is the capital town of the West Highlands of Scotland, and at the moment it has no air service whatever. There could be quite a considerable traffic, both out to the Outer Islands and into Glasgow.
Very few of the people from the Outer Islands and the Inner Hebrides and from the Oban area and the Highlands want
2034
to travel to London. They do not in the least want a connection provided with London. When the new Dakota services are run out to the Islands from Renfrew, they are run by the same machines that arrive at Renfrew from London, and great pride is taken in the fact that there is a connection with London. We do bother about that connection. Most of the passengers—90 per cent. of them—who are travelling on these services are travelling to and from Glasgow and Edinburgh. I suggest that more attention should be paid by B.E.A. to planning this service and to encouraging more traffic on it. They would then find that they could take it out of their social services and call it a domestic service.
Finally, I want the Minister to tell me—I see no mention of it in the Report—what is being done about providing a more suitable aircraft for the Scottish internal services. We were told long ago that a new machine—a 14-seater—was to be developed for these services. That, I suggest, is ample for these services. If a machine of that sort could be produced in the near future, then the Scottish internal services could at least pay their way, even if the present loss on them were not turned into a profit.
I know it is an unpopular thing to mention Scottish Aviation, Limited. Government Departments do not like Scottish Aviation, Limited, for some reason or another, but Scottish Aviation, Limited, has now an aeroplane, the Pioneer, that lands within 100 yards or 125 yards, and takes off within the same distance. There are not many machines—even the Rapides—that can land or take off in that space. There are many places in Scotland where it is necessary to land or take off in that space. Is anything being done by way of research to find an aircraft capable of doing that? What is being done to find a suitable machine for the Scottish internal services in place of the Rapide, or of the Pionair (Dakota), which is much too big for the service?
8.41 p.m.
Mr. Ralph Morley: I shall not detain the House very long. In fact, I have not much time in which to detain the House at all, because I understand that very shortly my

2035
hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) is to rise to make one of his eloquent speeches which always have such a devastating effect on his political opponents.
I shall, therefore, confine myself to asking a few questions of the Parliamentary Secretary with reference to the future of Southampton Marine Airport and the future use of flying boats in the whole of our civil aviation services. I hope that he will be able to answer these questions when he replies to the debate, and I can assure him that I have a very deep thirst for information upon these particular subjects.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), in his speech, referred to the Solent flying boats. For some years the Solent flying boats were based upon Southampton Marine Airport, and then, in their wisdom, B.O.A.C. decided to substitute Hermes land planes for the Solent flying boats, and also decided that they should be so substituted on the grounds of economy.
The first question I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is: what has happened to those Solent flying boats? Have they been disposed of, and if they have been disposed of what sum was received for the sale? The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield said just now that they were rotting in the port of Belfast, and he said they cost £35,000 each, and I think there were 10 of them.
It makes no difference whether the charge was incurred by the Ministry of Civil Aviation or some other Department—say, the Ministry of Supply. It is, in effect, the public purse, and it is the public purse that has lost some £350,000 by the decision to change from the Solent flying boats to the Hermes land craft. Therefore, the argument that this was done in the interests of economy seems to have become rather blown up by circumstances.
When the Solent flying boats were dispensed with—for some time since then—Southampton Marine Airport was used partly by the Royal Air Force and partly by the Aquila Flying Boat Company which, I think, now is the only flying boat civil service in this country. The Aquila
2036
flying boat has been taking military personnel and their wives and children to and from Singapore, and it has also been running a useful schedule service to Madeira; and, on the whole, although it is a private company, and, therefore, opposed to my ideological outlook, I think the Aquila Flying Boat Company is doing a very useful job at Southampton Marine Airport.
But the Royal Air Force and the Aquila Flying Boat Company between them do not take up all the space and all the installations of the Southampton Marine Airport. In 1949, when my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation—an office which, we all know, he fulfilled with meticulous attention to detail and generally acceptably to both sides—my hon. Friend told me that he thought the Princess flying boats would be in operation by 1953.
He also told me that he hoped they would be operated from the Southampton Marine Airport, and that they would probably be used for passages to Africa and South America. With that assurance my hon. Friend cheered me very much, because I thought there would be only a short interregnum in the Southampton Marine Airport between the discontinuance between the Solent flying boats and the arrival of the Princess flying boats.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), who later occupied the office of Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation—and filled it, if I may say so without offence, with great dignity, acceptance and industry—told me, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, that Southampton Marine Airport was to be preserved on a care and maintenance basis, and that all care would be taken to see that any installation which would be of use for the Princess flying boat would be carefully maintained. That, again, gave me hope that when the Princess flying boats were in operation they would be based on Southampton Marine Airport. Apparently only one Princess flying boat is to be put into operation, and I hope that it soon will be.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can give the House any information tonight about the use

2037
Princess flying boat is to be put to when it is finally in operation. I hope it will be used for civil aviation, and that it will be based on Southampton Marine Airport. If that is not so, it might be used by the R.A.F. for trooping purposes. I think that was one of the original intentions after it was decided some time ago that it might not be altogether advisable to use them for civil aviation purposes. I understand that the R.A.F. are willing to provide instructors to train the crews of the Princess flying boats in the necessary duties of troop transport. Will the Minister tell us what is to be the future of these Princess flying boats?
Will the Minister also tell us if he is going to stop at the one Princess flying boat? After all, something like £10 million of public money has been spent in perfecting these flying boats to the stage they have reached at present. That is a very large sum of public money. Besides that, it is generally agreed that the Princess flying boats are one of the greatest successes of our considerable engineering skill, and they should not be allowed to go unused. What is to be the future use of the Princess flying boats?
I also wish to ask the Minister what is to be the future use of flying boats generally in publicly-owned civil aviation, or even in privately-owned civil aviation as the adjunct to the publicly-owned civil aviation service. I believe I am right in saying that this country was the pioneer of flying boats, and that to date we have spent about £1 million on flying boat bases at Southampton, Karachi and Singapore. Surely that money is not to be entirely wasted. As far as I know, there is only one flying boat service in the British Commonwealth of nations in which Her Majesty's Government and the Australian and New Zealand Governments have a financial interest, and that is the Tasman Empire Line.
I believe that line is doing very useful service. I am told that it has taken hundreds of thousands of passengers from Australia to New Zealand and back without a single accident and that its fares are low—on the average about 4½d. per mile. The manager of that line claims that the operational cost of flying boats
2038
need not be higher than the operational cost of land planes, and that if in some instances the operational costs are higher that is more than compensated for by the lower ground costs.
It seems to me that there should be a future for the development of flying boats in the British Commonwealth of Nations. After all, we are an island surrounded by water and we have our Empire, if I may still use that much discredited word, which is a far-flung Empire, embracing great spaces of various oceans, many Pacific Islands and many areas in which flying boats could be usefully operated. I, therefore, ask the Minister of Transport to be good enough to answer my questions about the future of the Southampton Marine Airport and also about the future of flying boats generally in the British civil aviation service.
8.52 p.m.
Mr. I. Mikardo: Some of the observations I shall make this evening will have some relation to an Amendment which stands on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and in my name—at the end of the Motion to add
"but regrets that the efficiency and development of British Civil Aviation, and the morale and living standards of its workers, are being gravely threatened by the present policy of Her Majesty's Government."
I am advised that if I now move the Amendment the effect of that would be so restrictive that neither I nor the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to reply, would be able to refer much of what has gone on in the debate or to the Reports of the Corporations. Although I do not suppose that any inhibition of my own speech would be any great loss to the House, I am sure that we should all regret missing any of the pearls of wisdom which will undoubtedly fall from the lips of the Parliamentary Secretary. I therefore refrain, at this stage, from moving the Amendment, and I will later on, Sir, seek your permission and that of the House formally to move it before our proceedings close.
Those of us who sat through the Parliament of 1945 to 1950 will readily remember that the standard approach of Conservative Members in that Parliament to any question of nationalisation was that we ought to "leave well alone."

2039
That was the regular phrase used. They argued that it was wrong to disturb the existing harmony and efficiency of an industry in order to change its ownership, as they used to put it, for purely doctrinaire reasons. What I want to do in my observations this evening is to invite hon. Members opposite to judge the action of their own Government in relation to civil aviation by precisely their own criterion.
I want to ask them whether there is any advantage in disturbing the progress and efficiency of a healthy industry for purely doctrinaire reasons. That is precisely what the Government are doing to civil aviation at the present time. Their action in threatening to break up the work of the Corporations is such a grave threat to the stability of the industry that everyone in the industry, in both the public sector and the private sector of the industry, is in the greatest doubt and uncertainty. Nobody in civil aviation, however much he may try, can assess precisely what are to be the effects of the Government's policy.
Because nobody is capable of forecasting the best, very naturally everybody fears the worst, and it is that which has caused dislocation, doubt and uncertainty. It is no use the Minister protesting that he has given assurances to the two Corporations which ought to satisfy their boards, managers and work people that their development is not threatened by his policy. Nobody in the two Corporations is at all relieved of anxiety by the Minister's so-called assurances. That is because they know that in a complex, highly technical, delicately balanced industry like civil air transport one cannot nibble away at the edges without imposing an impossible strain at the centre.
For example, what is the value of the Minister's assurance that the existing overseas passenger networks of the two Corporations will not be cut into? That may sound very good, but in practice there are serious snags in it. One concerns the word "existing." It is not much use ensuring the continuance of present networks of the Corporations if some inhibition is placed on their future development. An airline network is not a static but a dynamic thing, and if it does not grow it withers away.
2040
Changes in the pattern of world trade, the location of military and administrative personnel, people's holiday habits and a host of other things are always causing some routes to increase in importance and others to decline. Because of that, it is always important for an airline—both Corporations devote a great deal of time and money to this aspect of their work—to look out for and do preparatory work on new routes which are to be developed, some of them a long time ahead. That preliminary work is by no means easy and it is very costly in manpower and money.
An airline has to survey any prospective new routes and examine the facilities available for intermediate stops, to go into local problems of Government regulations and currency considerations, and all the facilities which are available for what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) called "surface transportation," by which I suppose he meant surface transport, and, most difficult of all, the airline has to pioneer and develop a suitable new type of aircraft or invent modifications to an existing type of aircraft in order to cover the special demands of the new route.
The Corporations do this work as a regular part of their job. I ask the House whether, leaving politics entirely aside, and looking at it as a piece of straightforward practical business common sense, one can expect the Corporations to continue this pioneering work under the Government's new policy? When that work has been done and the Corporations have paid for the job, some competitor will be allowed to cash in on their work and run an airline on the foundations laid by the Corporations. I ask any businessman among hon. Gentlemen opposite whether, in his own business, he would be prepared to do a great deal of pioneering research and development work if he knew that when he had finished it might fall as a present into the lap of one of his competitors.
It would not be so bad if the Minister were doing what he is pretending to do, if he were, in fact, establishing a fair field for free competition, with no unfair advantages to either side, between the private companies and the publicly-owned airlines. But it is clear from much that has been said in the debate that

2041
what he is doing is to give unfair advantages to the private owner. His objective is to get restrictions put on the two Corporations so that they will hold back from offering themselves in competition on many routes with the private companies.
Hon. Members will know that sometimes I am accused of being the sort of person who calls a spade a spade. The description which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) gave this afternoon of what is going on in East Africa at the present time can only be called, in plain English, a "wangle." Is is a great pity that the Minister is lending his authority to it. The Corporation can see this happening and, indeed, if one looks at the Report we can see in paragraph 116 that they drop a broad hint on the subject.
When talking about future prospects they say:
"During the year we were able to develop and to sell the capacity of our fleet without undue external checks to our progress; it is earnestly hoped that the period of stability will continue untrammelled by restrictions upon our freedom to develop operations to the best public advantage in accordance with our statutory duty. Any restrictions upon the free flow of our services—passenger, freight, or mail—would make even more difficult our task of earning further profits."
That is a clear statement, and it is no use hon. Members opposite trying to say, as some of them did today, that the Corporations are not worrying about the present situation and that they like the present position.
Air Commodore Harvey: This Report was published at the end of last March, and I think I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend had not made any statement at the time that this Report was written.
Mr. Mikardo: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not quite as "green" as he tries to make out. Paragraph 116 was not written on the basis of Divine inspiration. A Minister of the Government had exchanged views anyhow with the people who had the responsibility of writing that Report.
One thing I am afraid of is that some of the private companies, in their feverish scramble to earn profits, will operate on lower standards of maintenance of safety
2042
than those which we have become used to in British Airways Corporations. This is a serious matter, because if that happens we shall start to lose some of the great reputation which has been built up, and to which the Minister rightly referred, for having the safest flying in the world.
It is true of course, as has been mentioned in the debate, that all private companies, like the two publicly-owned air lines, will have to satisfy the minimum requirements of the Air Registration Board, but the unique reputation which British aviation has built up for safety has not been built up merely by conforming to minimum standards. It has been built up by our doing much more than the minimum standards.
Already—I am deeply sorry to say this; I take no pleasure in saying it—there is some evidence that the work of some of the private companies is adulterating our reputation in this field. One of them is hoping to fly the Tudor, which has been in a kind of cold storage for three or four years because of doubts about its safety. Then there is the case of the York aircraft, which, on the strength of only one or two minor modifications, is to have an all-up weight increase to 70,000 lb. I do not know what hon. Members feel about this, but from my own knowledge of this problem I assure the House that I would not want to be in a York aircraft of 70,000 lb. all-up weight taking off from Gander on a mid-winter day.
And that is not all. One does not feel happy about a charter company which lost half its Hermes fleet in accidents, and about some other unfortunate happenings recently which I do not want to dwell on because one does not want to give them any further publicity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why mention them?"] They are all publicly known, anyway. I have not said anything here which has not been available to be read by any literate man, woman or child.
The fact is that some of these private companies are in danger of biting off more than they can chew, with the aircraft at their disposal. The net result will be that Britain will eventually lose business, because when it becomes apparent that they cannot chew what they have bitten off the business will be transferred, not to the British airline Corporations but to competing foreign companies.

2043
There has been scarcely a reference from the Government benches today to the foreign competition which the airline Corporations are facing. Hon. Gentlemen have talked about the Corporations not wanting to face competition; the Corporations are in the most competitive business in the world. No mention of that has been made from the benches behind the Government. I have sat here all day without going out for so much as a cup of tea, and I cannot recall one expression from the benches opposite which appeared to indicate the least concern about the maintenance of British power to compete against foreign competition.
This is a very serious situation for British aviation. We can all agree about, and take pleasure in, the fact that the prestige of British aviation has greatly increased in the last few years. Immaculate British airliners, flying the house flags of the B.O.A.C. and the B.E.A., have been coming down at airports all over the world, carrying with them permanent and striking examples of British workmanship and standards of service. It is of the highest importance that those advertisements should be spread further and wider, but if the Government go on with this ill-conceived nibbling away policy that will not happen. The operations of British airlines will be fossilised in their present pattern. Very few new routes, and perhaps none at all, will be opened up.
The Corporations will not pioneer any new routes, for the reasons I have already given, mainly because they will not be willing to bear the preliminary expenses for their competitors to cash in on the results. The private companies will not do this preparatory work because, from their point of view, it would not be a justified speculation, and, secondly, because they have not the facilities, anyway.
The result will be that nobody will do this pioneering and that, as new routes become important in airline transport, they will be developed by our competitors from other countries. The Minister ought to consider whether what he is creating is not fair competition between the British public sector and the British private sector, but civil war in British air transport, in which both sectors will cut each other's throats and let the foreign competitor in
2044
That is a very real danger which the Minister ought not to overlook.
The other part of the Minister's so-called assurance to the Corporations concerning future freight services was very vague indeed. It is an extremely important part of the Corporation's revenue and they are doing a great deal of work on it. For example, British Overseas Airways Corporation have started a very complex study of the possibility of developing the new Bristol Britannia as a freighter. Why should they continue with this work when they are to be in danger, when they have spent time and money on it, of somebody else stepping in at the last minute and getting all the benefit of it?
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to answer categorically this straight question: is he or is he not broadly satisfied with British Overseas Airways and British European Airways? I know he will reply that one should never be completely satisfied with anything, that there is room for improvement—I know all the bromides—in both organisations and that we all want to see them improved. I agree with all that, but within these reservations I ask him again, is he or is he not broadly satisfied with British Overseas Airways and British European Airways?
If his answer to that question is no, then the responsibility is his to put right what he believes to be wrong. If the answer is yes, as I think it will be, then I ask him bluntly, why is he mucking about with these two satisfactory organisations for the purely doctrinaire purpose of giving gratuitous and protected profits to some private enterprise company?
There have been many references during the debate to the Reports of the Corporations and I have very little to add to the many pertinent things that have been said on them by hon. Members on both sides of the House. These Reports tell the story of a very great achievement, an achievement of which every Briton, of whatever political views, has every right to be proud—indeed, almost a duty to be proud.
The two Corporations have had to cope with an appalling succession of difficulties outside their control, some of which the Minister mentioned in his opening statement. There was trouble in Persia, there

2045
were riots in Cairo and there was a petrol strike in the United States of America. There was a cut in the tourist allowance and there has been the heavy taxation of petrol. There has been the late delivery of aircraft, the serious effects of which were described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor), and then there have been the inevitable effects of the defence programme which has restricted some of the Corporations routes and which has made it hard for them to get skilled personnel and new designs and spares for their aircraft. All these difficulties, heaped on top of one another, have been faced and dealt with by the two Corporations by an unusual combination of ingenuity and enthusiasm on the part of almost everybody who works in them.
The one thing that has done most to fashion the success of the Corporations is the spirit which permeates both these organisations and which strikes one most forcibly the first time one has anything to do with them. That is a spirit of burning desire on the part of almost all the personnel to make the Corporations successful and profitable. I can honestly say that in all my business experience I have never come across any other organisation, publicly owned or privately owned, which has such a high working morale and such a highly developed esprit de corps as there is in British civil aviation.
That spirit is the most valuable asset which the British air transport industry has, and it is precisely that spirit which the present policy of the Government is starting to break down. Because of their policy, everybody in air transport is in a state of doubt and uncertainty. There has been some dispute about this, but I shall bring some evidence before the House because there is already evidence that working morale is suffering. There was recently a meeting between B.O.A.C. and representatives of the trade unions in the industry and the minutes of their meeting recall that both sides were conscious that
"if the Corporations were going to have a continued atmosphere of instability, then staff morale would inevitably suffer badly, with the result that they would be prevented from obtaining the productivity which was essential to achieving and maintaining solvency."
In the face of that, how can any hon. Member opposite pretend that there is not the beginnings, the unhappy begin-
2046
nings, of a loss of working morale inside the Corporations? What makes this matter all the more serious is that this dislocation in the industry could not possibly have come at a worse time than at present; just at the moment when the Corporations are bringing into service some new and revolutionary types of aircraft of which the Comet is only one example. I beg the House to realise that the introduction of these aircraft creates an absolute maze of new technical and organisational problems.
In B.O.A.C. the organisation structure is divided, not by functions, but by types of aircraft. Every new type that comes along involves a mass of detailed work in technical planning and personnel training that sometimes has to start a year, or a year and a half, before the first day that the new type comes into service. It is at this moment above all, with all these problems being tackled by the management and workers in civil aviation, that the Government ought to leave them alone, undisturbed, to get on with the job.
It is of some importance that the House should consider the attitude which has been expressed by the workers in the industry and by their trade unions. If I may strike a personal note, I hope I may say that I have the advantage of being a member of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport, on which I represent more than 2,000 of the key men working in British aviation, many on the administrative side, nearly all the supervisors, nearly all the technicians and nearly all the licensed ground engineers.
I hope that that will give me some title to express an opinion of what is being thought by the people who work in the industry; perhaps almost as much title as the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) who, on the basis of meeting for a little while a small deputation of workers in the industry, launched an honourable and gallant personal attack on a member of another place which, I think, must have been just, and only just, inside the rules of order.
On the trade union side of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport there are 16 different unions. They all unanimously—and they include some people who are by no means adherents

2047
of the Labour Party—condemned the Government's policy in an official statement issued by the trade union side, which we know carries the full support of the overwhelming majority of the workers in the industry. The trade union side of the National Joint Council, in issuing that statement, was careful, as the Minister knows, not to express a political opinion on the merits or demerits of the Minister's policy.
We took the view that if the workers in the industry, as citizens, had political views about the Government's policy they should make those views known through the media available to citizens—by nagging their Members of Parliament, and by all the other means about which we know. But so far as the trade union side as a body was concerned, we carefully confined ourselves in our discussions and in our statement to the industrial effects of the Minister's policy, and to the repercussions of that policy on the lives and livelihoods of our members.
The Minister has argued on another occasion that even if there is some transfer of work between the Corporations and private companies the global volume of employment available will not diminish and, therefore, the workers will not be disadvantaged. He has also argued—so did the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay)—that, as the Civil Aviation Act requires private employers to pay the same wages and observe the same conditions as the Corporations, no worker who becomes redundant in one of the Corporations and transfers to a private employer should be any worse off.
When we come to look at these arguments in practice and see how they work out we find that neither of them is soundly based. Section 15 of the Civil Aviation Act, which regulates wages and conditions, is, I am sorry to say, not at all watertight. I do not want to go into all the reasons for that here because, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, we have had some discussion about it. This is a highly technical business. The fact is that it is quite possible to evade the requirement that private employers shall not get their maintenance work done at cut prices. Indeed, a number of them
2048
have been hauled before the Industrial Court precisely for doing that.
Again, there is the idea that if a man loses his job with a Corporation because of the new policy of the Government he can get a job the following day with a private aviation company somewhere else. It is all very well talking like that, but, in practice, a man cannot shift about so easily as that with the problem of finding a house to live in and a school to which to send his children. Unhappily, a large number of the older and more experienced workers of the Corporations have already had to do a lot of shifting round in the last few years as older bases have closed down and new ones opened.
At this moment, 800 men at Filton Airport are to be brought to London Airport, with all the trouble and dislocation of private life that that involves. In the last year or two, because of the increase of permanent concentration of maintenance work at London Airport, some of these men were beginning to hope that at long last, after eight or 10 years of being nomad Bedouins, they could settle down. But this change in Government policy has put a spanner in the works all over again.
I must warn the Minister—I am measuring my words carefully and with a full sense of responsibility—that I shall be very surprised if the highly intelligent and lively bunch of workers in this industry take all this lying down. I cannot forecast what their attitude will be and the way they may consider they ought to go in order to prevent being disadvantaged in this way, but, whatever they say or do, it will be really useless for anyone to decry it as the use of industrial weapons for political ends.
I am, of course, totally opposed—so are all my hon. Friends and, I am sure, hon. Members opposite—totally and implacably opposed to the policy which some people advocate of using industrial action for political ends. I believe that that is totally wrong and I am sure we all do. But, if we are to be sensible and not merely emotional about this, we have to draw a clear distinction between a political decision and the industrial consequences of that decision.
On civil air transport the Government have taken a party political decision. Three direct industrial consequences of that decision are: firstly, that some of

2049
the work of the industry will be done at lower wages than it is being done at present; secondly, some men may be forced to give up their homes and live elsewhere; and, thirdly, some men may lose their jobs altogether. Men have a right to protest against that sort of thing. They have the right to protest by every legal and legitimate means at their disposal.
Already, the trade union side of the National Joint Council, a highly responsible body to which successive Ministers have been glad to pay tribute, have notified the authorities that they cannot recognise any of the charter companies as being a fair employer under the terms of Section 15 of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Renfrew, West was a little cross with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) for saying that. The fact is that the trade union side has given official notification, to the effect stated by my hon. Friend, that they no longer recognise any charter company as being a fair employer under that Section of the Act.
To be frank about this, in the past the trade unions have allowed some of these private employers to get away with substandard wages and conditions, because that did not matter so much so long as the private companies were not threatening and attacking the livelihoods of the employees of the Corporations. But, of course, that situation is changed now; and it is the Minister who has changed it. I beg the House to remember that in some cases the conditions in charter companies are seriously worse than they are in the Corporations.
That applies to wages, leave, sickness pay, insurance against accidents and pension schemes. If one takes pension schemes as an example, some of these companies have no pension schemes at all and some have very bad schemes. One charter company pensions off some of its pilots at 60 years of age. That is why the trade unions are going to exercise their statutory rights, the rights which they have under the law, to oppose applications made to the Air Transport Advisory Council by wage-cutting employers; and if this process holds up the implementation of the Minister's policy, he has nobody to blame for it but himself.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough pointed out, what has
2050
particularly annoyed the workers in civil aviation is that in spite of his past promises the Minister has virtually ignored the trade union side of the National Joint Council for the industry. Almost as soon as he was appointed, he said a lot of fine words about being willing to talk to the trade unions at any time, but fine words lubricate no engines. In his period of office and in the whole term of this Government, the right hon. Gentleman has only once met the trade union side. Since that meeting he has issued a directive which may, and almost certainly will, seriously and adversely affect the wages and conditions of many workers in the industry. And he did it without exchanging so much as a single word with a single trade union representative in the industry. That is a serious, and, I think, valid criticism of the Minister.
Another one is that he is failing to stick up for the air transport industry, whose interests he is supposed to represent in relations with other Government Departments. There is absolutely no doubt, and everybody in the industry knows it, that civil aviation is in a much weaker position vis-à-vis other Government Departments since the present Government came into power and since the industry ceased to have a senior Minister of its own.
We shall feel well justified in asking the House, in something like half an hour's time, to register a protest against this foolish policy and against the Minister's neglect of civil aviation. We know why he is neglecting it. It is because he has enough trouble on his hands already with surface transport. He is going to have enough headaches in steering his much-condemned Transport Bill through the House without, in addition, charging into civil aviation like a bull into a control cabin. He may be doing a bit of good for his party by his policy, though I doubt even that. But if he is, he is doing it at the cost of weakening British air transport in its job of carrying the flag all over the world.
The people who are most delighted with the Minister are not the private enterprise flying companies of Great Britain but the great airline organisations of foreign countries, because they can see in his policy a weakening of the competition which they could expect from British civil airlines. What the Minister is pro-

2051
posing to do is surely the most ill-advised, the most gratuitiously harmful and, above all, the most emptily doctrinaire thing that even this incompetent Government has put before us.
9.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. R. Maudling): We have had an extremely interesting debate on this subject which has maintained to the end its interest, even if it has somewhat changed in temper and mode of expression. I shall try to deal with as many points as I can in the course of my reply, but so many interesting points have been raised by hon. Members in various parts of the House that it may not be possible to deal with all of them.
I was particularly glad to hear the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay). I may say quite sincerely that one of my personal disappointments has been that, as I was only in the Department for a few days before he had to resign, I missed the opportunity that I would very much have valued of learning something about my job under his humane and wise guidance, and certainly I shall take careful note of the suggestions that he has made today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) made some very interesting suggestions about the training of pilots which I will carefully study. We have heard the voice of Scotland in its vigorous and sometimes rather familiar tones from my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) and Argyll (Major McCallum), and we also heard on this occasion the voice of Wales in the person of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes).
I should like to say to the hon. Member for Anglesey that the Valley airfield in which he is interested is still one of our diversions; Customs facilities are available there and we have joint user rights at Mona, although I understand that no one has recently applied to use them.
The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) raised the question of aviation medicine, and I am glad to be able to tell him that both Corporations have on their staff very distinguished medical officers who apply a
2052
great deal of thought and study to the problems of aviation medicine as they affect both passengers and aircrew, and they carry out a great deal of research in conjunction with the Royal Air Force.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) raised the question of flying boats, and I hope he will not think I am evading the issue by pointing out that there is to be a debate on the Adjournment Motion on this subject in the future, in which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply will be giving of his wisdom on this particular subject.
I was very interested to hear the winding-up speech of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo). I was very interested indeed to find him winding up. I must say that I am always interested in the political position of the hon. Member, because although he tends to hunt with the hounds he usually sits with the hares. I do not think we shall have any more hares after the High Wycombe by-election. The hon. Member speaks with a great deal of practical knowledge of trade union policy, and I want first of all to devote a short time to the trade union points that have arisen.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) first suggested that my right hon. Friend has departed from previous precedent and has ignored or overlooked the trade unions. I do not believe that that is correct. My right hon. Friend, as I understand, followed previous practice in meeting and consulting with the trade union side of the National Joint Council before he announced his new policy which involved substantial changes in the existing policy. The recent announcement of the terms of reference to which the hon. Member for Reading, South referred was not a new development of policy; it was merely setting out in the terms of reference the policy already explained to the trade union side of the National Joint Council.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough referred to certain correspondence and I should like to read the last two sentences of a letter which was sent to the trade union side on 20th October, which said that:
"The Minister has every intention of consulting the trade union side of the National Joint Council further on any possible future

2053
changes in policy affecting their interests that may emerge. If the trade union side feel that another meeting would be useful in the near future, the Minister would be happy to arrange this."
That offer remains open.
With regard to the question to which the hon. Member alluded in passing—maintenance contracts—I said in a previous debate that the Department will be very glad to resume the negotiations on this subject with the trade unions that were taking place before the General Election. Although we have made this offer, I understand that no further approach has been made to us.
On the question of terms and conditions, it is most important that we should understand this matter correctly and that there should not be any unnecessary and avoidable misunderstanding about people engaged in the civil aviation industry. The new terms of reference of the Air Transport Advisory Council made it quite clear that before the Minister will approve any Associate agreement or any new service he must be satisfied that the firm in question maintains terms and conditions in accordance with the National Joint Council provisions for people employed in that capacity. I do not think more could be asked than that. The Minister is going to insist that the National Joint Council terms and conditions are applied by companies taking advantage of these new opportunities, and if the trade unions feel that in any particular instance those terms and conditions are not being observed, they can ask, through the Minister, to refer the matter to the Industrial Court, which will most certainly be done.
From what the hon. Member for Reading, South said, I presume that the trade union side are giving notice to terminate the present arrangement. That is a matter for them. This is a matter of voluntary wage negotiation through established machinery, with which this Government would not want to interfere in any way. If the trade unions feel that they must give notice to terminate these arrangements in this way, it is entirely up to them. I am glad to have the assurance of the hon. Member that this in no way represents any possible form of political action against the Government's political decisions.
In making the first speech for the Opposition, the hon. Member for
2054
Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) raised points which I should like to answer. First, there is the question of Bahamas Airways and their losses. It is true that the losses they show in the Report currently under discussion were substantial and much too heavy. For that reason, some months ago the Chairman of the British Overseas Airways Corporation himself visited the area and made substantial rearrangements. The trouble was that this particular company was trying to do too much at once. It was trying simultaneously to operate the internal airlines and the more substantial trunk routes between the Bahamas and the mainland. The new arrangements confine Bahamas Airways to the internal routes and leave B.O.A.C. to run the external routes. The Corporation believe that in this way they will be able to eliminate the large deficit appearing in the 1951–52 accounts, or at any rate to make substantial progress in the direction of eliminating them.
The hon. Member also raised the question of British West India Airways and asked whether that had been referred to at the Colonial Conference. It was not specifically referred to at that conference, but there was a discussion on the general problems of this cabotage area—to use that rather unpleasant term—and it has been suggested that a regional advisory council on civil aviation problems should be set up in that area. I understand that proposals to this end have been sent to the Corporation by the Colonial Office.
The hon. Member then referred to the question of mail payments—as did the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton). I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Member for Uxbridge challenging us to produce fair play for the Corporation — particularly B.E.A.—in this matter of the rate of mail payments. The present rate of mail payments is determined by an agreement made by his Government. If that is not fair play, what is? Personally, I think the agreement is not at all unreasonable.
I must say, speaking also for my right hon. Friend, that we do not necessarily accept all that is said by the Corporations in their Reports. They are entitled to their point of view, but we do not necessarily accept it. I may add that this Government have made one change already. Criticism is made in the Report that the rate given to B.E.A. was 2.9 gold francs,

2055
which is below the international rate of 3 gold francs. We have now brought that up to the international rate. If that is fair play, we have already given it.
Hon. Members must bear in mind that comparisons between the mail rates for different companies can be somewhat misleading. There is a great difference between the surcharged mail carried largely by B.O.A.C., where the customer is prepared to pay an additional charge in order to ensure that it is carried by air, and the short haul, all-up mail which is carried by British European Airways. Although in that case the rate is lower, they get the benefit of a very substantial increase in the volume of traffic.
Furthermore, comparisons with rates paid to the American airlines are most misleading, because American mail rates are admitted to contain a very large element of subsidy to a number of airlines. That was brought out recently in a Report I think, in June, by the Civil Aeronautics Board, which showed clearly what a large element of subsidy is contained in the mail rates paid to United States carriers.
The general burden of the argument against the Government on civil aviation today has been in line with the Amendment, which I understand is duly to be moved when I have concluded my speech. It would be difficult to find an Amendment supported in more extravagant exaggeration of language. It bears no relation whatever to the facts, and I will try to explain why that is so.
We, as a party, as is well known, are supporters of private enterprise. We are accused of being doctrinaire. When we came into power we found that the civil aviation of this country was very largely entrusted to two State Corporations. We accept that fact. We recognise—and here I am answering the hon. Member for Reading, South—that the work done by the Corporations—B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.C.—has been and is excellent work. My right hon. Friend has said that on numerous, almost innumerable, occasions. Those nationalised Corporations have been and are doing a good job.
That is precisely why we are not breaking them up. That is precisely why we are continuing them. That is precisely
2056
why we are guaranteeing them immunity from British competition in their main activities, which are their scheduled services for passengers, both first class and tourist. That is the bulk of their activities. Their passenger scheduled services already cover the whole of the globe. There is a network of routes operated by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.C. all over the globe. That is their main activity, and it has been recognised as their main activity—and that we have explicitly protected them against incursion or whittling away or hobbling or nibbling or many of the other rather odd phrases employed from time to time today by hon. Members opposite.
But when we say that the Corporations are doing a good job—because we are happy to recognise that—it does not necessarily follow that they have a monopoly of wisdom. That, I think, is the crux of the issue between the two sides of the House. Running through the remarks of the hon. Member for Reading, South, I detected this strange idea that because the nationalised Corporations are doing a good job, they are the only people who can do anything. That is very far from being the case, because, quite apart from the activities of the nationalised Corporations, there has been a remarkable growth already of independent air operations in this country.
If we study the recent Report of the British Independent Air Transport Association, we see that in the last year under review their freight carrying activities increased by over 100 per cent., and their carriage of troops increased in some cases by nearly 1,000 per cent.—which, incidentally, is the answer to some people who maintain, rather in contrast with the hon. Member for Reading, South, that the independent operators have been given no greater opportunities.
They have made great strides and are making great strides, and the contribution of the independent operators to British civil aviation as a whole has been very great indeed. We believe it should be greater. We believe that independence can develop new lines and new ideas and new services which will contribute to British prosperity, which will complement and add to the services of the Corpora-lions, and which need not and will not undermine the existing networks of the Corporation. We do not want to set

2057
one against the other. We want to use a combination of both
I protest against the restrictive attitude which so many people take on this question of civil aviation. We are just at the beginning of its development. We do not know over what horizons it is going to range. We cannot foretell the range or the limits to be developed in the coming years. We want to see it making use of every opportunity and every method of development that the genius and the enterprise of our people can provide.
Mr. Beswick: The hon. Gentleman is presenting his case in a most reasonable way, and I wonder whether he will allow me to ask a question. He has spoken of the two types of service, tourist and coach. Can he say what there is in the charge, as the Minister admitted, that the companies operating down to East Africa are now planning their coach route services rather too near the price of the tourist services of the Corporation?
Mr. Maudling: I am coming to that precise point. It is a most important point, on which the House should be clear. I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding.
As I was saying, we consider that the independent operators can do more without detriment to the Corporations and be given greater opportunities, and our objective has been to give them greater security—to give them, as we intend to do, a system of agreement to take them over a period of seven to 10 years, which is a longer period, and necessary in modern conditions, when aircraft cost so much and when it is quite impossible for any company to amortise the cost of aircraft over a relatively small period of operations.
The hon. Member for Reading, South talked of the Corporations making plans and then of some private charter company coming along and taking away their business. How they got the equipment I do not know. He said himself that they had not got the equipment But how about the private companies putting their capital and their ideas into services and having them taken away by the Corporations? We do want to give the private operators longer term security, as we believe they need that, and we believe it is important to enable them to develop
2058
the most appropriate forms of activity, particularly charter, colonial coach services and freight services.
If we are to get simultaneous development, in the national interest, both of the Corporations and of the independent operators, there is bound to be a certain degree of competition. We do not think that that is necessarily a bad thing, but what we are most anxious to avoid is cut-throat competition of the type to which the hon. Member referred, and which, I entirely agree with him, would be to the detriment of this country's aviation as a whole and would be of benefit to foreign airlines. We want to avoid that cut-throat competition. That cut-throat competition is liable to arise if either the independent operators should attempt to undermine the position of the Corporations, or if the Corporations should seek to bring their tremendous resources in competitive power down directly, crushing the independent operators at this stage. In either case that could be cut-throat competition of the type we want to avoid.
Take the question of charter work. It is often said that the Corporations engage more than they should in this form of activity. I have studied this question very closely. The Corporations have said, particularly B.O.A.C., that it is not their intention to maintain aircraft specifically for charter operations, and I am convinced, after studying it, that they are carrying out that policy.
It is also sometimes said that they offer unnaturally low quotations on their non-schedule operations to knock out the independents and subsidise themselves with the relatively high charges they make on scheduled services. There again, I do not think that on examination that charge stands up. In the first place, practically every relevant overhead is included in the quotations made for nonscheduled services by the Corporations; and secondly, the reason the Corporations, can show these low costs on charter operations is because they are largely carried out by aircraft which are obsolescent, and therefore show substantially lower costs.
The point we must bear in mind in this charter connection is that it is, I think, agreed on both sides—I always understood it was accepted by hon. Members opposite—that charter is the proper

2059
domain of the private operators. It will be bad if the Corporations use their competitive power to squeeze the private companies out of charter operations; and it will be bad for the nation as a whole. Equally, it would be bad to stop the Corporations from using that stand-by availability of their normal aircraft, and prevent them from quoting for contracts which, if they did not quote, would go to foreign operators. I call the attention of all engaged in civil aviation to the growing charter activities of some foreign airlines, particularly K.L.M., a most efficient company. Here is a danger to be faced; here is a danger which all engaged in British aviation might unite in facing.
Now I come to the service to Africa. It has been agreed that the Corporation should maintain intact its first-class and tourist-class services. We consider that there is scope for a third-class service, a Colonial coach service. We want to keep a three-tier fare structure. Obviously, if that is to be done a proper differential must be maintained between the tourist class and the coach class, and the whole idea would be undermined if either the coach-class operator produced a tourist service disguised as a coach service or the tourist-class operator produced a coach-class service disguised as a tourist service.
That is what we are trying to avoid. Although it is true that we have had representations from independent companies against the Corporations, we have equally received representations from the Corporations against some independent companies. In fact we have pressed one independent company not to increase its fares but to bring down its baggage allowance and its give-aways, in order to be able to reduce its fare, because we think its fare could be lower, and thus increase the differential.
I have discussed the matter with the Corporations, and as a result no request has been made to the Corporations to reduce any of their existing fares, but we have asked them to bear in mind, as I am sure they will, in framing their tourist fares, the necessity for having a genuine tourist fare in order to maintain the differential between one and the other. If there is a three-tier fare structure, the duty of the Ministry is to prevent the
2060
coach-class service from becoming a disguised tourist service, and to prevent the tourist service from becoming a disguised coach service. That seems to me to be an entirely proper thing for the Department to do.
Mr. Beswick: The question I asked was not whether the Minister had asked the Corporation to reduce their fare but whether he had asked them to increase the fare. I understand the Parliamentary Secretary is now saying that the Corporation are now operating down there at a rate which is too low.
Mr. Maudling: That was a slip of the tongue. I meant to say that we have not asked the Corporation to increase any of their existing fares. What I have now said stands as an accurate statement of the position at the present time.
I want to come now to the question of freight, which has also been raised in the debate. There was an agreement between the Minister and the two Chairmen of the Corporations. They undertook not to apply for any new all-freight services for one year. That was to give the independents a chance to get in on this freight business and to try to establish their freight business, which we all think would be in the interests of the country.
The question arises whether the North Atlantic is an existing all-freight route. I do not see how there can be any confusion on this matter. It is true that B.O.A.C. at one time operated an all-freight route for a time across the Atlantic. This ended more than three years ago, and at the latter stages was, in fact, merely a training operation on which a certain amount of freight was carried to make up. What makes the matter quite beyond dispute, and what is more important, is that in the terms of reference to the Air Transport Advisory Council—which are available and published for all to see—a clear distinction was always made between existing routes and new routes, and a list of existing routes is annexed as an appendix to those terms of reference.
So there can be no possible misunderstanding, so far as I can see, on this particular matter. Any licence given, if it should be given, to a private company to operate across the North Atlantic would not be exclusive. If the Corporation could say that there was more traffic to

2061
be carried than was being carried, and a large market which they could meet, they obviously would also be able to operate. If we consider the freight potentialities of the North Atlantic, there can be no question that there is immense room for operators of all kinds, both for the Corporation and for the independent operator.
The Amendment seems to me to be framed in rather strong words. It has, I consider, few virtues; it has certainly no relation at all to the facts. It is liable to create and extend precisely that type of uncertainty, worry and loss of morale in the Corporations about which hon. Members opposite express so much concern. Their Amendment and their speeches on it are frustrating and create this uncertainty which should never have existed.
Mr. Mikardo: It is the facts that we fear, not the speeches.
Mr. Maudling: There is very little to be said on this side for those particular speeches. This Amendment has one virtue in the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is wholly destructive in character and offers no positive suggestions. Although they sit divided it will enable them to go into the Lobby together this evening, if they press it to a Division, as undoubtedly they will. I hope that they will not do so even now, because in the development of British civil aviation, which is of common interest
to all of us, it is surely a necessity to avoid any discord or any rancour that we can eliminate. It is quite wrong to go about deliberately creating discord and rancour.
One thing brought home to me during my short time in office is that the decisions we are taking now will have great significance. We are at the beginning of the development of British civil aviation. That development will be carried out, not in this House, but by the men and women who are engaged in it. It is our duty to give them the opportunity to exercise the genius, initiative and daring which in a maritime age built this country up into a great maritime Power. We have to create conditions in which British aircraft and British aviation can prosper, and it is in that spirit that I ask the House decisively to reject this mischievous and ill-founded Amendment.
Mr. Mikardo: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
"but regrets that the efficiency and development of British Civil Aviation, and the morale and living-standards of its workers, are being gravely threatened by the present policy of Her Majesty's Government."
Mr. Beswick: I beg to second the Amendment.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 248.

Division No. 245.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Collick, P. H.

Follick, M.

Albu, A. H.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Foot, M. M.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Forman, J. C.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Crosland, C. A. R.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Awbery, S. S.

Daines, P.

Gibson, C. W.

Bartley, P.

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Glanville, James

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Gooch, E. G.

Bence, C. R.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Benn, Wedgwood

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

Benson, G.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Beswick, F.

Deer, G.

Grey, C. F.

Bing, G. H. C.

Delargy, H. J.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Blackburn, F.

Dodds, N. N.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Blyton, W. R.

Donnelly, D. L.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Boardman, H.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

Bowles, F. G.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hamilton, W. W.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Edelman, M.

Hannan, W.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Hardy, E. A.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Hargreaves, A.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Hastings, S.

Carmichael, J.

Ewart, R.

Hayman, F. H.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Fernyhough, E.

Healey, Dennis (Leeds, S. E.)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Fienburgh, W.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

Clunie, J.

Finch, H. J.

Herbison, Miss M.

Coldrick, W.

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Holman, P.

Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

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

Sparks, J. A.

Houghton, Douglas

Mort, D. L.

Steele, T.

Hoy, J. H.

Moyle, A.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Hubbard, T. F.

Mulley, F. W.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Murray, J. D.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Nally, W.

Swingler, S. T.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Sylvester, G. O.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Oldfield, W. H.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Oliver, G. H.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Janner, B.

Oswald, T.

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Paget, R. T.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Pannell, Charles

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Pargiter, G. A.

Thurtle, Ernest

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Parker, J.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Paton, J.

Viant, S. P.

Keenan, W.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Wallace, H. W.

Key, Rt. Hon. C W

Poole, C. C.

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

King, Dr. H. M.

Popplewell, E.

Weitzman, D.

Kinley, J.

Porter, G.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Proctor, W. T.

Wells, William (Walsall)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

West, D. G.

Lewis, Arthur

Rankin, John

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

Lindgren, G. S.

Reeves, J.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Logan, D. G.

Rhodes, H.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

MacColl, J. E.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Wigg, George

McGhee, H. G.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

McInnes, J.

Ross, William

Wilkins, W. A.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Royle, C.

Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

McLeavy, F.

Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

Williams, David (Neath)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Short, E. W.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Manuel, A. C.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Mikardo, Ian

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Yates, V. F.

Mitchison, G. R.

Slater, J.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Moody, A. S.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Snow, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Morley, R.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Mr. Bowden and

Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Burden, F. F. A.

Fisher, Nigel

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Alport, C. J. M.

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Cary, Sir Robert

Fort, R.

Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Channon, H.

Foster, John

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Arbuthnot, John

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollock)

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

Cole, Norman

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Baker, P. A. D.

Colegate, W. A.

George, Rt. Hon Maj. G. Lloyd

Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Godber, J. B.

Baldwin, A. E.

Cooper, Sqn-Ldr. Albert

Gomme-Duncan, Col A.

Banks, Col. C.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Gough, C. F. H.

Barber, Anthony

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Gower, H. R.

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Crosthwaite Eyre, Col. O. E.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Crouch, R. F.

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Grimond, J.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Davidson, Viscountess

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Deedes, W. F.

Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)

Birch, Nigel

Digby, S. Wingfield

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Bishop, F. P.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Black, C. W.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Hay, John

Bowen, E. R.

Donner, P. W.

Heald, Sir Lionel

Boyle, Sir Edward

Braine, B. R.

Doughty, C. J. A

Heath, Edward

Braithewaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Drayson, G. B.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)

Drewe, C.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Bullard, D. G.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Bullock, Capt. M.

Erroll, F. J.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Fell A.

Hollis, M. C.

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Maudling, R.

Snadden, W. McN.

Holt, A. F.

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Soames, Capt. C.

Hope, Lord John

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Mellor, Sir John

Speir, R. M.

Horobin, I. M.

Molson, A. H. E.

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Waller

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Stevens, G. P.

Hudson, W. R. A. Hull, N.)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Hurd, A. R.

Nicholls, Harmar

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Studholme, H. G.

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Summers, G. S.

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

Sutcliffe, H.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Oakshott, H. D.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Odey, G. W.

Teeling, W.

Kaberry, D.

O'Neill, P. R. H. (Antrim, N.)

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

Keeling, Sir Edward

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

Lambton, Viscount

Osborne, C.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Partridge, E.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Thornton Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Tilney, John

Leather, E. H. C.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Touche, Sir Gordon

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

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Turton, R. H.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

Pitman, I. J.

Vane, W. M. F.

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Powell, J. Enoch

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Lindsay, Martin

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Vosper, D. F.

Linstead, H. N.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Wade, D. W.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Raikes, H. V.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Rayner, Brig. R.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Redmayne, M.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

McAdden, S. J.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

McCallum, Major D.

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

Robertson, Sir David

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Watkinson, H. A.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Roper, Sir Harold

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Wellwood, W.

Maclean, Fitzroy

Russell, R. S.

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

Wills, G.

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

Scott, R. Donald

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Markham, Major S. F.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Wood, Hon. R.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Shepherd, William

Marples, A. E.

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Maude, Angus

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and

Mr. Butcher.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, in reviewing the progress of Civil Aviation, takes note of the Reports and Accounts of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation for the year ended 31st March, 1952.

FLYING BOATS
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]
10.9 p.m.
Dr. Reginald Bennett: I am raising an appropriate subject with which to conclude a day which has been devoted to aviation, namely, that of flying boats. I have a personal conviction about this matter which makes me glad to bring it up. It is a matter which is not susceptible to party differences on any basis whatever, but I have a feeling that the future
2066
development of our country's aviation is in danger of being to some extent vitiated by the failure to develop the flying boat, which I regard as a weapon and a vehicle of the future.
I am happy to say that since I raised this subject last, which was 18 months ago on a Whitsun Adjournment many opinions have been brought forward to support the few words I said then. In the Brancker Memorial Lecture, last February, that great seaman and airman, Sir Frederick Bowhill, said he thought that the long-distance transport plane must become larger, and that this would accentuate the runway problem at airports and favour the employment of flying boats.
Sir Harry Garner, chief scientist to the Department whose Parliamentary Secretary is going to be kind enough to reply to me tonight, said recently that it was his opinion that the flying boat would play a great part in the civil aviation of the

2067
future and that he saw in it a formidable competitor to the land plane for long-distance transport.
The flying boat holds the secret of the future for large transport aircraft, and I seek to put forward a few arguments to justify that opinion. On a previous occasion I alleged that the aircraft of the future would become ever bigger. The then Under-Secretary of State for Air replied that he did not agree that aircraft would get bigger. He said:
"As a matter of fact, it looks as if the pendulum has gone the other way and that they will get smaller. It is the Comet and not the Brabazon which looks like succeeding in civil aviation, and if one is talking of fighters, the tendency is to smaller aircraft."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 2405.]
Those who saw the Farnborough Air Show this year will find those remarks about fighter aircraft somewhat mistaken. Some of the planes have already proved him wrong. In commercial aviation, progress is inevitably towards larger aircraft. Just as the big ships of yesterday are the ordinary ships of today, so I am sure that the biggest aircraft we can think of now will become a matter of course in the near future.
Why this progress in size should take place is surely a matter of the performance which size makes possible, performance being a complex of range, speed and propulsion, and of structure and aerodynamics, and in this case the hydro-dynamics, of the machine. In recent weeks there has been a great contribution to the country's knowledge in the address delivered to the British Association, at Belfast by Mr. Henry Knowler, on 8th September last.
Perhaps the first big requirement of aircraft is range, whether the aircraft is military or civil. The goal of everybody in that respect is surely to be able to accomplish the London-New York stage in one hop with a good margin. That is 5,150 miles, allowing not only for head-winds but for keeping fuel in reserve in case of diversions. The only aircraft we have that approaches that performance is the astonishing Britannia, which is one of the great successes of this year. It will do the 5,000 miles run, but it only does it at a speed of 350 miles per honr. Speeds will have to be higher. The Comet does about 500 miles an hour,
2068
and this must be regarded as the minimum for future aircraft.
Experts who have worked it out seem to consider that a speed of Mach number 0.83 to 0.85 is likely to be the fastest below the sonic barrier which permits flights. This aircraft will have to be driven by jets. The piston engine is now the paddle-wheel of aviation, but the pure jet is a very wasteful appliance because it burns up too much fuel too fast.
The turbo-prop engine is at a disadvantage because of tip-speed trouble at the speeds required. It will probably be a new form of engine, such as the bypass, whose existence has only just been adumbrated, which is likely to do the job. With this kind of range, and with the kind of speed and propulsion we need, it has been worked out that the minimum size of aircraft with a reasonable payload of, say, 150 passengers would be 150 tons, certainly no less.
In these large sizes I believe that the problems of aircraft change in their relative significance. On the one hand we have in the land aircraft the great structural handicap of the undercarriage, that vast contraption which is only useful for a few seconds at each end of the trip, although vitally useful at those times. And they get ever bigger, ever heavier, with all the strengthening points needed in the airframe for their attachment, and all the gear and jacks, and so on, that make them work, apart altogether from considerations of the possibility of failure.
On the other hand, we have the sea ship, the flying boat, which has the handicap of its queer shape and the step which is necessary from a hydro-dynamic point of view and, hitherto, the very high, narrow hull needed to keep the propellors out of the spray. A great deal of work has been done both in this country and in America in this direction. Researches on the step have given us some new things greatly to the advantage of the flying boat. I have walked around under the hull of the Princess and I found the step there to be a metallic ribbon of about 1 in. deep, but sufficient to interrupt the passage of water under the hull, and it sets up much less drag than the step on the older fashioned flying boats.
As to the hull, now that we do not have propellers the hull can be very much lower and it can be much rounder. We can now have what is known as a blended wing type of construction where the wings

2069
grow out level with the fuselage rather like the parasol of the Catalina flying boat. We have now new proportions, and all of us are deeply indebted for the article in "Air Pictorial" recently, which showed much of the research which America is doing on this. With the new proportions we can have a hull whose length is 12½ times the beam instead of only six times the beam, as was hitherto thought necessary. This will allow us to get a more slender aircraft, cheaper and easier to build and lighter and easier to drive.
The aggregate of all this is that whereas the undercarriage is becoming an increasing incubus and reaching about 12 per cent. of the weight of the aircraft, the relative give-away of a flying boat's hull is decreasing and is now getting down to about 10 per cent. So that the curves of inefficiency cross, and once we reach a certain size, it is the flying boat which will be mechanically more efficient. I do not think anybody will attempt to deny that now.
Of course, the paramount consideration in this matter of large aircraft is also the matter of terminals. In the last Adjournment debate I was fortunate enough to initiate, I said that runways had become half as thick, half as wide, and half as long again in the few years which had then elapsed since the war. That means some three and a half times as much concrete. So what would have cost in 1945, £2½ million must cost, in 1950, £9 million. And they are becoming ever larger. There is one of unheard of proportions being put down in Los Angeles at this moment.
It is a solemn thought that at Heathrow there will be more than five square miles of concrete by the time it is finished, and that the maintenance of that land, over and above the landing fees received, will be £2.8 million a year—and this at a time when 500 or 600 ordinary sized farms a year are being swallowed up for the expansion of factories and houses and runways.
This country can scarcely afford to give up that enormous quantity of space. Here we have the problems which have been referred to today, the traffic densities, the necessity for alternate airports, and so on. The difficulty, for instance, is that in these high speed jet aircraft, such as the Comet flying to Singapore,
2070
there are perhaps 12 aerodromes on the route at which it can land, whereas the flying boat on the same route can have at least 24 organised bases at which it can land should it so require.
Another point is that the water base for aircraft allows plenty of space for overrunning, and for low flat approaches in thick weather. It also gives safety in forced landings; the recent accident at Rome might well have not happened, or there would not have been any damage, if the machine concerned had been a flying boat. There is also the question of noise which was the subject of an Adjournment debate last night. I feel that, all in all, the problem of runways in this country is becoming quite intolerable. I am aware that the advents of the Delta wing, in which I must confess a certain interest, and of the bypass engine give rise to a certain pause in the inevitable progress towards longer and bigger runways.
There are other points in the question of operating these boats. It has often been said that it is an expensive thing to keep up a whole chain of small bases especially for boats. But a big boat has a long range and the cost per mile drops steadily as the range increases. Let us take the example of our neighbour, France, where they are now operating six-engined Latécòere flying boats from Bordeaux to Saigon with one stop at Bahrein. We might ask now to be allowed to share those facilities rather than to take the whole cost of making new ones for ourselves.
In the military and strategic field the problems of transport are, of course, those of civil transport. I am prepared to agree with the former Under-Secretary of State for Air that there is nothing that the Sunderland can do that the Shackleton could not do as well. But for Transport Command, for our reserve fleet of merchant aircraft, and for the Corporations' fleets in time of war the arguments for the flying boat hold very strongly. In military circumstances there would be no need for repairing runways, no immobilisation of aircraft through damage to runways, and no need to build new ones in forward operation areas. Moreover, the problem of dispersal is easily solved.
As long ago as 1947 that far-sighted and imaginative man, Mr. Seversky, started pushing this particular point as

2071
one for the future and I think he is proving right. I would ask my hon. Friend, in this connection, to tell me what happened to the project of the four-engined turbo-prop flying boat which the former Secretary of State for Air assured me in a Question on 9th May, Col. 1924 of HANSARD, was forthcoming for the Air Force. Has that lapsed, and can my hon. Friend give me any indication whether any new requirement is in contemplation?
The point we have to reckon with finally as a structural matter is that we are not so far from the days of nuclear power. Nuclear aircraft will need very heavy reactors with very heavy screening, it may be 100 tons for an aircraft. That means the landing weight of the aircraft is the same as the take-off weight which is unheard of and only contemplated on water-landing hitherto. The boat must be at least 250 tons to carry it. The Americans are known to be putting into production two prototypes, by Convair and Boeing, and we must not be left behind.
I submit that we have ports from which we could operate. The Langstone harbour scheme is not perhaps now in the realm of practical possibility being too small, too narrow and shallow. Besides, Portsmouth is an obstacle and, also, the Navy would not stand for it anyway. In the Solent we have a system of runways which is quite permanent and can scarcely be damaged and, in the West Solent, which is 12 miles long, we have a runway which is little used and always "into wind," to my personal knowledge. There are plenty of alternative landings around our coast, the approaches are flat, and over run is a simple matter.
Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend if he will give some assurance that our well-known "know how" in flying operation and development and the men used to it are not going to be wasted. The time has come, as I remarked 18 months ago, when both in the civil and military field only Governments can intervene and secure research. May I have an assurance that research and development are being undertaken? Can we be assured that the vital engines of the Princesses, without which they cannot fly, are forthcoming as an investment not merely for the present but vital to the future; and that someone—private company or Cor-
2072
poration, I do not mind who—will operate them?
I believe that a private company and the B.O.A.C. are both willing to undertake operational tests on them. All I ask is that in the brilliant 1960s, which teem with possibilities for aviation, we-should not lose the lead we have captured so gallantly in the 1950s.
10.28 p.m.
Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcock: I am sure all of us in this House are grateful to the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) for raising this interesting subject tonight. He is quite right; from the moment that the economist proved—as he did at one time—that the flying boat was an uneconomical proposition, the development of the flying boat has languished. But there were and are other issues besides financial ones; historical geographical and even psychological reasons—very good reasons indeed—why we should always watch very closely and encourage this development of the flying boat.
It is, of course, asking too much to, expect aircraft constructors with the very full order books they now have of land aircraft, to pay very much interest in the construction of flying boats or the introduction of new types of flying boats, but I suggest that ship builders should now very seriously think of this matter of the production of flying boats. I think they would be very wise indeed to have over the desk of every ship builder in this country the fact that last year more people came to this country across the sea by air than by ship.
It may be that very shortly, although there has been a sellers' market for the last six years, saturation point will be reached in the matter of ship construction. I want, and we all want, the ship builders, with their great experience of hull construction and their valuable technical personnel, now to start interesting themselves in this matter of flying boats.
I did not hear the hon. Member make-reference to the possibility of a flying base near the London area; if he did so, I did not catch it. It would be of interest to know what has happened to the suggestion that there should be a flying base on the Thames not far from London. It was put forward as an alternative to the Solent because the Navy in their stupidity thought that Gosport or anywhere in the

2073
vicinity of Portsmouth should not be used as a flying base. I think they were out-of-date and I hope that they will have another think about that.
The hon. Member was right in saying that there must be a limit to the question of landing strips and the material used and the increasing width and length of them, and so on. Undoubtedly, in nearly every part of the world, and certainly throughout the Dominions and the British Empire, good flying boat bases could be constructed and kept clear at a very reasonable cost—a cost which will not compare anything like with the present cost of runways.
A large number of people in this country do like and will always like to travel by flying boat. The sea does not change like the land contours and that is quite a consideration from the point of view of safety. When one flies over the sea, one does not fly into mountains or anything else. This is a pertinent thought.
The last point I should like to make in this very quick speech relates to density of air traffic. The hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham mentioned it and it is a very important point indeed. No matter what efficiency we have in air control, no matter how many landing strips there are, we still have the problem of density of air traffic and it is a very serious one. If we had flying boats bringing certain traffic up the Thames, we would have gone some way to meet that problem in so far as London is concerned.
I was glad to hear the name of the great Sir Frederick Bowhill mentioned in this debate. The Minister should consult him and also Mr. B. Aikman who runs Aquila Airways, the only flying boat concern in this country, an ex-Wing Commander of the Air Force, and a brilliant man. They could give advice on this problem of the future of the flying boat which is of concern to us all.
10.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I am sorry to intervene at this moment, but I do not think that I have very long and I should like to treat the two speeches which we have just heard with the proper consideration that is their due. I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Derby. North (Group Captain Wilcock) joined in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport
2074
and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) is, of course, well known for his interest in this subject. As he told us, he raised it about 18 months ago. He has given us an interesting speech again this evening, and I can assure him that we find his remarks most interesting and valuable and I will take full account of what the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North said as well.
I can congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham on a certain pertinacity in dealing with the subject of flying boats. I think he shares that with another gallant Gentleman outside the House who also shares his name. I think that he knows to whom I am referring.
Mr. Ralph Morley Mr. Ralph Morley (Southampton, Hitchin) rose——
Mr. Low: I really must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to let me get on. I should like to deal with the first of the changes which have taken place in the past 18 months. The first is that the first Princess, engined with Proteus II has flown. During this period the Government decided that work on the other two Princesses had to be postponed for the time being until the coupled Proteus III engines are available. The House knows that this project has cost about £7½ million so far. The programme of flight testing for the first Princess will cost a further £250,000.
General research goes on, but, apart from general research, Government development work on flying boats is at present concentrated on the Princess project. We have not been asked to start on any other project, such as the Sunderland replacement, which was the subject of a Parliamentary Question last year and which my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham mentioned.
I know that the possibility of a flying boat being required for this purpose is not excluded by the Air Council, but other factors have to be considered of which the most obvious are cost and the conflicting demands on the available research and development resources. There are, of course, other types of aircraft which may be able to perform maritime duties comtemplated by my hon. Friend. We expect to learn much about the Princess from flying tests, and much about flying boats generally, including the shapes of their hulls.

2075
I should like to say a word about the general arguments in favour of the flying-boat which my hon. Friend and the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North have put forward to the House. I have no time to deal with them in detail. I might have liked to have done so. If I had I should not have taken sides, and it is a matter on which I do not wish to take sides tonight. But I have a brief comment to make on the general line of the argument.
If we have to consider the tug-of-war between the flying boat advocates on the one hand and the land plane advocates on the other, there are many factors to be taken into account other than direct operating costs. It may be that for air liners of the size now contemplated, with 100 or more seats and 200,000 lb. in weight, a flying boat's direct operating costs are comparable with those of a corresponding land plane. The problems of runway lengths and strengths are, of course, relevant.
Future technical developments, such as deflected and reversed thrusts of jet engines, may come to the land plane's assistance, but in comparing costs of marine air bases and land airports we cannot overlook the enormous investment already made in land airports and the fact that on any argument these airports will always be needed and will always have the advantage of being near the big cities and centres. Moreover, marine bases, each of them, cost a great deal, and if we operate flying boats, alone amongst the major air operating countries, we shall have to pay the cost of all marine bases outside Britain as well.
My hon. Friend mentioned the figure of 150 tons as the maximum for land planes. Above that weight he thinks flying boats should replace the land planes. Last year he put the figure at 60 to 80 tons. Maybe in a year or two my hon. Friend may come before us and be using the same arguments and say that the right figure is 200 tons. I mention those figures, not to score off him, but to point out the changing arguments.
He spoke of the Delta wing which has the advantage of low wing loading for take-off and landing, and the bypass engine that has the advantage of saving in fuel and, therefore, in weight. Both
2076
these developments will, I think, favour the land plane, other things being equal.
The House may be wondering whether there has recently been a change of view amongst experts and prospective users to the advantage of the flying boat. The Princess' first flight was bound to provoke interest and well deserved congratulations. The comments of the Chairman of B.O.A.C. at the time of the maiden flight showed that B.O.A.C. shared the general interest and joined in the well-earned tributes that were being paid, though I must say that I do not recollect him congratulating the Minister of Supply. B.O.A.C. will, no doubt, watch the development of the first Princess, but I know of no indication that B.O.A.C. are once again considering the possibilities of using the Princesses on scheduled airlines.
The single Proteus III engine is required for the Britannia, for which there may well be a considerable demand overseas. Bristol's have a big job to do in completing the development of this engine and the Olympus engine, which is very important. Further work will be needed after that to couple the Proteus III which is required in coupled form for the second and third Princesses. If we asked them to do this all at once, the Britannia and the users of the other engine would suffer. It may well be that the Princesses will have to wait, and I am sure the House and my hon. Friend would agree that that is right.
There is, I think, little between my hon. Friend and myself. The question whether in different circumstances the Ministry of Supply would take special steps to see that the flying boat did not die is a hypothetical question. At present we have the first Princess, and we intend in due course to go on with the other two. Smaller flying boats which may be required for military and commercial purposes will gain from the work on the Princess just as the Britannia has gained from work on the Brabazon. Those responsible for development and the potential users will be able to learn from the development work in tests on the Princess and take the next steps accordingly.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

CIVIL AVIATION
  Hermes Aircraft Accident, Mauritania
  Hermes Aircraft Accident, Mauritania
  Tripoli—Kano Route (Ground Aids)
  Tripoli—Kano Route (Ground Aids)
  Trans-Atlantic Air Freight Service
  Trans-Atlantic Air Freight Service
  KOREAN WAR (U.N. ASSEMBLY DEBATE)
  KOREAN WAR (U.N. ASSEMBLY DEBATE)
  AMBASSADOR, MOSCOW (FRAIS DE REPRESENTATION)
  AMBASSADOR, MOSCOW (FRAIS DE REPRESENTATION)
  FOREIGN GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES (TAX REIMBURSEMENT)
  FOREIGN GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES (TAX REIMBURSEMENT)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Milk (Consumption)
  Milk (Consumption)
  Home-grown Fruit (Railway Sales)
  Home-grown Fruit (Railway Sales)
TANGANYIKA
  Constitution
  Constitution
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
EAST AFRICA
  Groundnut Scheme
  Groundnut Scheme
  Housing, Nairobi
  Housing, Nairobi
  Kenya (Disturbances)
  Kenya (Disturbances)
  FALKLAND ISLANDS (ADMINISTRATION)
  FALKLAND ISLANDS (ADMINISTRATION)
CENTRAL AFRICA
  Northern Rhodesia (Dalgleish Report)
  Northern Rhodesia (Dalgleish Report)
  Federation (Capricorn Society)
  Federation (Capricorn Society)
  Nyasaland Provincial Councils
  Nyasaland Provincial Councils
  African Press, Ltd., Nyasaland
  African Press, Ltd., Nyasaland
  GEORGETOWN, BRITISH GUIANA (RADIOLOGIST)
  GEORGETOWN, BRITISH GUIANA (RADIOLOGIST)
  SEAL KILLING, SOUTH GEORGIA
  SEAL KILLING, SOUTH GEORGIA
  SEYCHELLES FISHERIES SCHEME
  SEYCHELLES FISHERIES SCHEME
  LAGOS (SEWERAGE SYSTEM)
  LAGOS (SEWERAGE SYSTEM)
  SHIPPING CONSTRUCTION
  SHIPPING CONSTRUCTION
ROYAL NAVY
  Requisitioned Land, Polgwidden Cove
  Requisitioned Land, Polgwidden Cove
  Labour Union, Singapore (Claims)
  Labour Union, Singapore (Claims)
  Sailors, Korea (Allowance)
  Sailors, Korea (Allowance)
POST OFFICE
  Stamp Books
  Stamp Books
  Charges
  Charges
  Telegrams (Delivery)
  Telegrams (Delivery)
  Troops, Korea (Parcel Post)
  Troops, Korea (Parcel Post)
  Printed Paper (Postage Receipts)
  Printed Paper (Postage Receipts)
  Members (Overseas Broadcasts)
  Members (Overseas Broadcasts)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks, Cardiff
  Kiosks, Cardiff
  Underground Cables
  Underground Cables
  Ruislip—Northwood
  Ruislip—Northwood
TELEVISION
  Belfast Station
  Belfast Station
  Booster Station, Princetown
  Booster Station, Princetown
  Pontop Pike Service
  Pontop Pike Service
  Relay Stations, Southern England
  Relay Stations, Southern England
  Advisory Committee
  Advisory Committee
  £ STERLING (LEVEL)
  £ STERLING (LEVEL)
AGRICULTURE
  Butter (Marking)
  Butter (Marking)
  Day-Old Chicks (Import)
  Day-Old Chicks (Import)
  FLYING BOATS (ENGINE DEVELOPMENT)
  FLYING BOATS (ENGINE DEVELOPMENT)
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE ACT (OPERATION)
  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE ACT (OPERATION)
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (STRENGTH)
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (STRENGTH)
BRITISH ARMY
  Tea (Price)
  Tea (Price)
  N.A.A.F.I. Profits
  N.A.A.F.I. Profits
  FUEL AND POWER CHARGES
  FUEL AND POWER CHARGES
  SCHOOL BUILDING, SCOTLAND (STEEL)
  SCHOOL BUILDING, SCOTLAND (STEEL)
  POTTERY EXPORTS (DECLINE)
  POTTERY EXPORTS (DECLINE)
  WEST HAM (RECONSTRUCTION)
  WEST HAM (RECONSTRUCTION)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER
  Alwyn Terrell Petre, Lord Bishop of Winchester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

  LORD FREYBERG
  Lieutenant-General Sir Bernard Freyberg, V.C., G.C.M.G., K.C.B., K.B.E., D.S.O., having been created Baron Freyberg of Wellington, New Zealand, and of Munstead in the County of Surrey—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
  The Earl Jellicoe—Took the Oath.
  The Lord Farnham—Took the Oath.

  TELEVISION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  2.53 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the following Question, of which I have given private notice—namely, whether Her Majesty's Government have any statement to make about the Television Advisory Committee.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I have reconstituted the Television Advisory Committee with the following terms of reference:
  "To advise the Postmaster General on the development of television and sound broadcasting at frequencies above 30 megacycles per second and related matters, including competitive television services and television for public showing in cinemas and elsewhere."
  I am glad to say that Admiral Sir Charles Daniel, K.C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O., has agreed to act as Chairman. There will be nine members, as follows: three members with wide experience in industry—namely, Sir Edward Herbert, Kt., O.B.E., the
  1064
  Honourable Charles McLaren and E.M. Fraser, Esq., C.B.E.; and G. Darnley Smith, Esq., and C. O. Stanley, Esq., C.B.E., of the Radio Industry Council. The remaining four members will be the Director General of the B.B.C., and a senior official from the Treasury, the Ministry of Supply and the Post Office.

  LICENSED PREMISES IN NEW TOWNS BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
  INTESTATES' ESTATES BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  ROCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  MARMALADE SALE PROSECUTION
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they gave Miss Dorothy Carter any warning before prosecuting her for the production and sale of excellent marmalade from a special recipe requiring a lesser quantity of sugar than that laid down by Ministry of Food regulations.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, responsibility for enforcing legal standards of composition for food rests with the local food and drugs authority. Before instituting the proceedings on September 3 last, the East Sussex County Council had warned Miss Carter in 1950, 1951 and again in 1952 that her preserves did not conform to the requirements of the Food Standards (Preserves) Order, 1944. The requirements of the legal standard were

  1065
  also explained to Miss Carter in a letter which the Ministry of Food sent her on May 8, 1950
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask if he will convey to his right honourable friend that the general public would be greatly reassured if they knew that the Minister personally gave attention to these matters before any prosecution was launched?
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will draw my right honourable friend's attention to what my noble friend has said.

  FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE
  2.55 p.m.
  VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the recent serious outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, there are in force any regulations to ensure that all motor cars entering this country are disinfected at the United Kingdom port or aerodrome of arrival.]
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, there are no such regulations in force. The suggestion that motor cars from the Continent should be disinfected has been given much thought, but my Department's veterinary staff consider that the risk of their spreading foot and mouth disease is negligible. My right honourable friend has, therefore, taken the view that special regulations for disinfection, which would interfere considerably with the normal course of traffic, would not he justified. This is, however, one of the questions which will be considered by the Gowers Committee on Foot and Mouth Disease which are now taking evidence.
  VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I say that I am glad to note that there is to be a Committee on this question. May I ask, whatever that Committee decide, would it not be a wise thing that, as an experiment—and it would cost nothing—cars going to the Continent, especially by air for one day and coming
  1066
  back into Kent and Surrey, should go through the usual precautionary disinfection which all of us have to go through when foot and mouth disease is near our farms?
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it would be better to wait until this expert Committee have reported. They are inquiring into this sort of thing. That is what the Committee were set up to do, and perhaps, if we waited, we should obtain further information about the question.

  PROTECTION OF REFUGEES
  2.57 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the assurance given in this House on 15th July that refugees could count the full protection of our courts. Messrs. Sychev and Ogorodnev have now been asked to leave this country; and whether the Foreign Office will take the elementary precaution, before granting any further permits for Soviet or satellite representatives to exceed the 25-mile radius, of ascertaining the real purpose of such excursions.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, I have received reports about the recent visits of officials of the Soviet Embassy to Derby and Bradford. These visits are a matter of public concern and have caused alarm among the refugees from Eastern Europe living there. I accordingly requested the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires to call, and I have drawn his attention to the highly undesirable nature of these activities. I trust that these representations will be effective.
  The answer I gave in your Lordships' House on July 15 still applies. And I repeat that refugees are in no sense obliged to entertain such approaches, let alone yield to them, and should report to the police any cases in which they consider that improper pressure is being exercised on them. I would also repeat

  1067
  that refugees resident in this country can rest assured that they have the full protection of our courts and that no foreign authority can by arbitrary action force them to leave this country against their will.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, when the noble Marquess gave me that assurance about the protection of our courts on July 15, I presumed he realised that such an assurance is quite inoperative when the transgressors are members of a foreign Embassy, because there is no court that has jurisdiction over them. Therefore, in such a case as this the assurance is quite illusory. I should also like to ask the noble Marquess whether he realises that this kind of thing is going on the whole time. I have here in my pocket details of another three or four such cases. The scandal is a very grave one. These people live in considerable apprehension, and I would ask him again whether more effective steps cannot be taken to remedy this situation.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I confess that I had rather hoped the noble Lord would share my view that in the circumstances it would be right and proper, before pursuing the matter further, to see what was the effect of the representations made to the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires. I hope that these representations may not prove wholly ineffective.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I propose to send to the noble Marquess a collection of other cases of intimidation which have taken place in this country since he last gave me that assurance. If there are any further cases after the notice which he served on the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires, I shall be compelled to raise the matter again in a more serious form in your Lordships' House.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the noble Lord must not take it that we do not know of any cases. I have said that we know of these cases, and they are the kind of cases upon which my conversation with the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires was conducted. As regards the rather admonitory remark with which he finished—I was going to say his question, but I think I may say his speech, all I will say is that if he thinks fit to raise this matter, after having seen whether the present representations
  1068
  have any effect, of course, I shall be delighted to discuss the matter with him.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, the noble Marquess has not, in any case, answered the second part of my question. May I have an answer to that?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, as regards these two individuals, there is at the present moment no evidence on which we could ask for their recall. As regards the question of permits, the noble Lord, if I may say so, is not quite accurate in referring to permits. It is not a question of permits. It is a question of those members of the Soviet Embassy who desire to move outside the twenty-five miles radius notifying the Foreign Office that they desire so to do. That notification does not call for any statement as to the purpose of a particular journey. Before the noble Lord puts a supplementary on that, I would ask him to bear carefully in mind that the regulations which we have made in that regard are similar to the ones which are applicable to the members of our Embassy in Moscow.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, is not such a limitation quite ineffective, if a man has only to ask for a permit and can go off and do something highly undesirable, like this episode in Bradford, which does not stand alone—there are heaps going on in other towns?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, it is not wholly ineffective, because it enables us to know that the man has gone there.

  VISITING FORCES BILL [H.L.]
  3.3 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. There are a substantial number of Amendments which have been made to this Bill in the Commons. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I am prepared to accept all the Amendments which were made. I do not know whether it would be in accordance with your Lordships' wishes that I should take them en bloc, giving to your Lordships the opportunity, of course, to raise any point in regard to any particular Amendment, or whether you would wish me

  1069
  to go through the Amendments one by one, putting the question upon each Amendment. I can tell your Lordships this: the Amendments make no substantial alteration to the principle of the Bill, and in many respects I think they improve it. In particular, they carry out some suggestions that I made when I was introducing this Bill to your Lordships, and in other respects I think they go some way to satisfy the demands that were made, both in this House and in the other place, to secure additional safeguards for the liberty of the subject. I do not know whether I might venture to ask the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, whether he would wish me to take one course or the other for the convenience of the House.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, so far as I am concerned, since I am asked, I feel that it would be better if the Lord Chancellor put the various clauses separately. I will say why I take that view. I think that some of these Amendments are exceedingly difficult to understand. So far as I am concerned, I have read and re-read them, and I do not know what they do at all. If I am in that position, it is possible that some other members of the House are in the same position. I feel that it would be useful to have some sort of explanation from the Lord Chancellor as we deal with the various clauses.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  VISITING FORCES BILL [H.L.]

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    [The references are to Bill No. 141 as first printed for the House of Commons.]
    Clause 1, page 2, line 6, after ("such") insert ("limitations").
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the first Amendment is one which was proposed by the Opposition in the other place as an additional safeguard, and was accepted by Her Majesty's Government. I do not think there can be any difficulty about accepting this Amendment. I beg to move.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    Clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
    ("Provided that for the purposes of this subsection a person shall not be treated as a member of a visiting force of a country if he became (or last became) a member of that country's forces at a time when he was in the United Kingdom unless it is shown that he then became a member of those forces with his consent.")
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is possible that this is one of the Amendments to which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, referred. This Amendment is intended to cover a case of this kind—and if I mention any particular country I do riot do so in an invidious sense. Let me take Greece. Suppose that by the law of Greece every man, whether resident in Greece or elsewhere, is called up and becomes a member of the Greek forces; and suppose that there was a Greek visiting force in this country. That would operate to make a Greek waiter in Soho, against his will, a member of the visiting forces, and subject to the jurisdiction of the authority of those forces. It was thought proper not to include such a man in the scope of the Bill. For that reason the proviso was inserted. It was inserted, I may say, to meet a suggestion made by the Opposition in the other place. I beg to move.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    Clause 2, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
    ("(4) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, a sentence of death passed by a service court of a country to which this section applies shall not be carried out in the United Kingdom unless under United Kingdom law a sentence of death could have been passed in a similar case.")
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment covers a case of this kind. It might be that under the law of the visiting force the penalty of death could be imposed for what we should regard as a minor crime—at any rate, a crime which did not carry a capital sentence in this country. The Agreement itself provided that in such a case the death penalty should not be inflicted. This is merely writing into the Bill the term of the Agreement itself. I beg to move.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I agree with this Amendment. May I say that I suggested to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that, for the convenience of the House, he should take the various clauses separately? I do not think it necessary that he should go into each Amendment individually. He will realise that some clauses do raise difficulties, and if he puts the particular clause we will raise any difficulty which we may feel in relation to that clause. I say that merely to save the Lord Chancellor any trouble, so far as I can.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, whatever is convenient for the House is convenient to me. I want to assist the House in any way that I can.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    Clause 3, page 3, line 20, leave out ("was committed in the course of") and insert ("arose out of and in the course of his")
    Page 3, line 36, at end insert—
    ("Provided that this subsection shall not apply if at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed the alleged offender was a person not subject to the jurisdiction of the service courts of the country in question in accordance with the last foregoing section.")
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, adopting the suggestion of the noble and learned Earl, I will put the Amendments to Clause 3 together. I beg to move.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I confess that I am a little uneasy about the first Amendment, and I wonder if the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, can help me about this. We are making an alteration. We originally said if the alleged offence committed
    "was committed in the course of duty."
    We propose to strike out those words and to substitute the words
    "arose out of and in the course of his duty "—
    therefore adding something, as I understand it. That is to say, it is not enough to say that it "arose in the course of." but must also "arise out of." This
    1072
    Amendment may have been moved by the Opposition in another place—I am afraid that I have not checked it, and I want to know what it means. Could the Lord Chancellor tell us what is the effect of this Amendment, because, after all, we are a revising Chamber, and we should understand what we are doing. I do not intend to object to any of these Amendments. I ask the Lord Chancellor this question: What, in his view, is the effect of this Amendment? We are no longer content to say "in the course of" and we now add the words "arose out of." For the moment I do not realise the sort of case to which that would apply.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I can help the noble and learned Earl in this. Indeed, I can do so by way of reminder, because when the matter was before this House on a previous occasion it was the noble and learned Earl himself who suggested that it may be an insufficient safeguard to say "in the course of his duty." The noble Earl gave as an example an offence of rape committed by a soldier. It might be suggested that as he was on duty the offence was committed "in the course of his duty." Nobody, I suppose, could suggest that it "arose out of" his duty, and accordingly these words were inserted. I do not think if I may say so with great respect, that the proposition of the noble and learned Earl was a sound one.
    EARL JOWITT: Neither do I.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment makes the position abundantly clear. That is why those words have been put in.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    Clause 5, page 5, line 6, at end insert ("or bail bond")
    Clause 5, page 5,line 12, leave out lines 12 to 14.
    Clause 5, page 5,line 25, leave out ("four") and insert ("three")
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    Clause 8, page 7, line 17, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
    ("(1) Where under any enactment a power is exercisable by any authority or person—

    (a) as respects any of the home forces or their members or service courts or other persons in any way connected therewith, or

    (b) as respects any property used or to be used for the purposes of any of the home forces, or for taking possession of arty property to be so used, or for acquiring (whether by agreement or compulsorily) any property so used or to be so used,

    Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for securing that subject to any conditions specified by or under the Order the power shall be exercisable by that authority or person in the case of any visiting force to which the Order applies to any extent to which it would be so exercisable if the visiting force were a part of any of the home forces.
    (2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council made as respects any visiting force make provision—

    (a) for exempting that force or members or service courts thereof or other persons in any way connected therewith, or property used or to be used for the purposes thereof, from the operation of any enactment specified in the Order to any extent to which the force, members, courts, persons or property would be, or would be capable of being, exempted therefrom if the force were a part of any of the home forces;

    (b) for conferring on that force or any such members, courts, persons or property as aforesaid any other privilege or immunity specified in the Order, being a privilege or immunity which would be enjoyed by, or would be capable of being conferred on, the force, members, courts, persons or property it the force were a part of any of the home forces,

    subject however to any conditions specified by or under the Order.
    (3) Where by any enactment the doing of anything is prohibited, restricted or required in relation to—

    (a) any of the home forces or their members or service courts or other persons in any way connected therewith,

    (b) any property used or to be used for the purposes of any of the home forces,

    Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provisions for securing that the prohibition, restriction or requirement shall have effect in the case of any visiting force to which the Order applies to any extent to which it so would have effect if the visiting force were a part of any of the home forces.
    (4) An Order in Council under this section—

    (a) may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as appear to Her Majesty in Council expedient for the purposes of the Order, including provisions for applying. Modifying, adapting or suspending any enactment;

    1074

    (b) may make financial provision in respect of the exercise of any power, or the discharge of any duty, conferred or imposed by the Order.")

    Page 7, line 39, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
    ("(7) In this section—
    "enactment" means an enactment (passed either before or after the passing of this Act) of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and includes any instrument having effect under an enactment;
    "property" includes both real and personal property, or in Scotland both heritable and moveable property.
    (8) Subsections (1) and (3) of this section apply whether the power in question is exercisable, or the prohibition restriction or requirement in question is imposed, by provision expressly relating to the home forces or by more general provision, and subsection (2) of this section applies whether the exemption, privilege or immunity in question would subsist, or he capable of being conferred, by virtue of any such provision or by reason of any enactment's not binding the Crown.")
    3.13 p.m.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Clause 8 has been almost entirely rewritten. If I may say so, there is a great improvement in drafting, but the principle of the clause is not in any way altered. It has two main purposes, and they are important: first, to make it abundantly plain (upon which some doubt was expressed originally) that visiting forces should not themselves be able to exercise the compulsory powers which are referred to in the clause, and, secondly, to put them in no better position than that in which the home forces themselves could be put. Those are the two objects of the clause, which I think must commend themselves to everybody, and I think the way in which it has been done is an improvement upon the previous way. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    EARL JOWITT: My Lords, this is the clause which I had in mind in my earlier remarks, I am bound to say that when I read the new clause I did not understand it, and I very much doubt whether any member of this House understands it now. But if the noble and learned Lord tells us that it is merely drafting—as I gather he does—that the substance of what we did before is

    1075
    being reproduced in rather better words, and that there is no substantial alteration to what we have already agreed, then I am prepared on that statement to accept the clause. I must say that I think it is a great pity—and I said this when I occupied the Woolsack—that these ideas have to be cast in such very obscure language. So far as I am concerned, it might almost be a foreign tongue with which we are dealing here, and if your Lordships look at the wording you will see what I mean. Nevertheless, the Lord Chancellor tells us it is all right, and we can rely upon him: he would not say that unless he were quite satisfied that it was all right. That being so I will not ask any further questions.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot assure your Lordships that everybody will understand the clause as now worded. I can assure your Lordships that it carries the matter no further than the clause of which it takes the place, except in this respect: that I think it provides some modification precisely on the lines indicated by Her Majesty's Opposition, both in this House and in another place.
    EARL JOWITT: Before the Lord Chancellor sits down may I say this? I do not suppose we are concerned with grammar, but is he satisfied with the phrase which appears at the end of this Amendment:
    "…or by reason of any enactment's"—
    apostrophe "s"—
    "not binding the Crown."
    I venture to think that if in his younger days he had written that piece of English at Winchester he would have got into trouble.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will take the noble Earl's word for it.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    Clause 9, page 8, line 32, at end insert—
    ("(2) The said Minister shall take such steps as may be requisite for securing that persons concerned with any arrangements made by him under this section shall be informed of the nature and operation of the arrangements.")
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the clause relates to civil claims upon which we had a good deal of discussion when the matter was last before your Lordships. I gave an assurance that
    1076
    something of this kind would be added. This has been added, and I hope that it will be satisfactory to your Lordships. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    Clause 10, page 8, line 38, at end insert ("not being a passport issued by the passport authorities of the United Kingdom or an colony;").
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Lords, I beg, to move that this House do agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    Clause 11, page 9, line 40, leave out from ("be") to end of line and insert ("sufficient evidence of the fact so stated unless the contrary is proved.")
    Clause 11,page 10, line 23, leave out ("was committed in the course of") and insert ("arose out of and in the course of his")
    Clause 11,page 10,line 26, leave out ("conclusive evidence of that fact.") and insert ("sufficient evidence of that fact unless the contrary is proved")
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in these Amendments.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    EARL JOWITT: My Lords, the difficulty here arises on the last Amendment. If I understand it aright the position is as follows. Speaking broadly, under Clause 3 of this Bill an offence committed by a member of a visiting force in the course of his duty is not liable to be the subject of a trial before our courts. I believe that is the substance of it. There may be exceptions. What I have always been anxious about in this procedure is that there should not be a sort of battledore and shuttlecock between the two courts. There should not be uncertainty whether the case should be tried by the Service courts of the United States or

    1077
    by the courts of this country, because I can imagine nothing which is more likely to establish difficulties than our courts in this country granting what I suppose would be writs of prohibition and the like to the Service courts of the United States. I think that would be undesirable. I also think it is very undesirable that, if a man is to be tried, there should be real reason for doubt as to which court he is to be tried by.
    As the Bill stood, we made the matter simple, because we said that a statement or certificate issued subsequently by the appropriate authority was to be conclusive evidence of the fact that the alleged offence was committed by the man in the course of his duty as a member of that force. Now we have altered that. I quite understand the reasons which have impelled the alteration, but I am very anxious that, because we have made the alteration, we shall not fall into the difficulty I have indicated. Instead of making the certificate conclusive evidence, we have made it sufficient evidence unless the contrary is proved. I think we can leave out the bizarre cases; the common case will be one of driving a motor car and causing damage; dangerous driving, or driving while under the influence of drink, or running, someone down, committing manslaughter and so on. The difficulty arises whether the soldier has driven that motor car in the course of his duty or whether, to use a phrase familiar to lawyers, he took an army vehicle "on a frolic of his own," and it is not easy to decide which of the two is right. I want some certainty that we may know beyond a peradventure which court is going to try this man, if he is in this country and is accused of manslaughter.
    Suppose the Service courts take the view that what happened was, broadly speaking, in the course of the man's duty, and that he argues the contrary and says it was not in the course of his duty but was a little adventure of his own. The point is taken; the Service courts convict him. Then, having raised the point, he can come to our courts here and ask our courts to grant a prohibition against the Service court on the ground that he is prepared now to establish the contrary—that is to say, that he was not acting in the course of his duty. If I understand the matter aright—and I do not think
    1078
    this is a fanciful case; it might well arise—our courts will have to embark on the question again, and if they think it proper they will grant a prohibition to that Service court and say, "You ought not to have dealt with that case." I am not saying we should not accept this Amendment—we have to. But I should like to be reassured that this very practical difficulty will not arise. I am anxious that we should have a clear line of demarcation in order that we may know which court is going to try the case. I do not think we should have this battledore and shuttlecock between the two courts. I shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell me that my doubts are unnecessary and that there is no ambiguity. If he will do that I shall be perfectly happy; but in any case, as I have said, we quite realise that we have to accept this Amendment.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I can allay my noble and learned friend's anxiety. The question of a certificate is irrelevant to the jurisdiction of the court of the visiting forces. It arises only where a man is brought before a court of this country and it is said that he is a member of the visiting forces or that he has committed an offence in the course of his duty. When the Bill left this House we made the certificate of the authority of the visiting force conclusive of the fact that he was a member of the visiting force or that he had done that act in the course of his duty as a member of that force. We thought that was the best way to cut the knot, and not to let it be a matter of issue before the English court whether he was or was not a member of the visiting forces or had committed the act in his capacity as a member of that force. That was objected to by the noble and learned Earl in this House, and by members of the Opposition in another place, who said that it should not be left to the ipse dixit of an officer of the visiting force to say whether the man was a member of that force or not and that what he had done had been done by him as a member of that force. It should be made only prima facie evidence, which could be displaced by his own evidence. Therefore we have altered the Bill to give effect to that suggestion and have made the certificate not conclusive but sufficient evidence until it is displaced. I hope that that explanation

    1079
    entirely meets the objection of the noble and learned Earl. There is no question of going from one court to another, or anything of that kind.
    EARL JOWITT: My Lords, under Clause 3 (1) (a) of the Bill our courts have no jurisdiction if the alleged offence was committed "in the course of duty." Now, of course, the wording is to be
    "arose out of and in the course of his duty as a member of that force…"
    Our proposal was that the certificate should be conclusive evidence of that fact. If the certificate can be displaced it is doubtful whether or not the matter comes under Clause 3 (1) (a). There may be a conflict between the courts, the issue being whether the act was committed in the course of the man's duty. You have not now a binding certificate but only a provisional certificate, which can be objected to, and there might be an argument as to whether or not the act was committed in the course of his duty. You might have a case of an American soldier, when the American court would deal with it, and you might argue by prohibition in our court by saying, in effect, "You ought not to have dealt with this case; we shall now show that the certificate was wrongly given." I am afraid that the Lord Chancellor has not quite removed that doubt.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that I have not quite removed the noble and learned Earl's doubts. Where a soldier who is an alleged member of a visiting force is brought before a United Kingdom court a certificate could be given, according to the Bill as it originally stood, by the officer of the visiting forces, saying, "This is a member of a visiting force." That, when this Bill left this House before, was conclusive. Now, the man is brought before a court in the United Kingdom and that court can say, "No, it is not conclusive; we will show that the certificate is wrong." That is the only result of the Amendment. I do not think it should do more than give pleasure to the noble and learned Earl, since it gives effect to the suggestion he made.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    Clause 14, page 13, line 14, leave out from ("be") to second ("and") in line 16 and insert ("sufficient evidence, unless the contrary is proved, that the request has been made and of its effect.")
    Clause 14, page 13, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("of") in line 24 and insert ("sufficient evidence, unless the contrary is proved.")
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these are drafting Amendments. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    Clause 17, page 14, line 47, leave out from ("country") to ("the") in line 2 on page 15.
    Clause 17, page 15, line 7, at end insert—
    ("(2) For the purposes of this Act a member of a force of any country which (by whatever name called) is in the nature of a reserve or auxiliary force shall be deemed to be a member of that country's forces so long as but only so long as, he is called into actual service (by whatever expression described) or is called out for training; and any reference in this Act to a person's becoming a member of a country's forces shall be construed accordingly.")
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

  CINEMATOGRAPH BILL [H.L.]
  3.30 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I bee to move that this House do now consider the Commons Amendments to the Cinematograph Bill.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  CINEMATOGRAPH BILL [H.L.]

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    [The references are to Bill No. 64 as first printed for the House of Commons.]
    Clause 2, page 1, line 22, at end insert—
    ("(2) Any statutory instrument containing such regulations as aforesaid shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
    THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment makes the regulations which the Secretary of State will make, both in regard to safety and in regard to the health and welfare of children, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure of Parliament. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
    LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, we have no objection to this Amendment. In fact, if it would expedite the business of your Lordships' House, I can inform the noble Earl that we have no objection to any of the other Amendments except that under Clause 5 at page 3, line 35. That Amendment appears to me substantially to alter subsection (3) of Clause 5. If the noble Earl would be kind enough, when he comes to that Amendment, to give your Lordships some explanation, I feel sure that that will be satisfactory.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENTS
    Clause 5, page 2, line 39, leave out ("other than children's cinema club exhibitions,")
    Clause 5, page 3, line 10, at end insert ("and regulations made by the Secretary of State under that Act, being regulations made by virtue of paragraph (a) of the said section two, shall not apply in relation to an exempted exhibition unless given in premises in respect of which a licence under the Act of 1909 is in force;")
    Clause 5, page 3, line 24, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—
    ("(2) For the purposes of this section an exhibition shall not be treated as an exempted exhibition if")
    Clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out ("except that it does not include,") and insert ("so however that this subsection shall not apply to")
    Clause 5, page 3, line 31, after ("educational,") insert ("or religious")
    Clause 5, page 3, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("an") and insert ("Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection")
    Clause 5, page 3, line 33, leave out from ("by") to ("shall") in line 34 and insert ("an exempted organisation in any premises")
    Clause 5, page 3, line 34, after ("treated") insert ("for the purposes of this section")
    THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg formally to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    Clause 5, page 3, line 35, leave out from ("thereto,") to end of line 40 and insert—
    ("Provided that an exhibition shall not be treated for those purposes as an exempted exhibition by virtue of this subsection if on more than three out of the last preceding seven days the premises in question were used for the giving of a cinematograph exhibition which fell to be treated as an exempted exhibition by virtue of this subsection.
    (4) In the last foregoing subsection the expression "exempted organisation" means a society, institution, committee or other organisation as respects which there is in force at the time of the exhibition in question a certificate of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise certifying that the Commissioners are satisfied that the organisation is not conducted or established for profit.")
    THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for expediting the procedure. There is nothing of substantial importance here. I can explain quite shortly what has happened in this particular case. We were considering in Clause 5 exemption from the main purposes of the Act. The main purposes of the Act are contained in the first three clauses—that is to say, those which deal with questions of regulation, particularly of non-inflammable films, and the powers of the local authorities. We are now dealing with a matter which is inevitably susceptible of adjustment: which type of film should be exempted and which type should not. The other place has taken a slightly more liberal view of this than we did, for good or for bad. I do not think it is of great consequence because these are only exemptions from the main purposes of the Act. The line of exemption might have been drawn a little to one side or a little to the other.
    The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to subsection (3). Previously, we had said that organisations sliming cinematograph exhibitions which, under a certificate of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, were free of entertainment duty, would be regarded as exempted, but we have now changed that provision. We say that even in cases where the public are admitted and charges are made by non-profit-making organisations, they will be regarded as exempted exhibitions, and therefore will not be subject to the

    1083
    licensing regulations. But we also have the proviso which the noble Lord will see on the paper, that they must not show exhibitions for more than three days a week. The object of that is this. There are a certain number of non-profit-making organisations, such as, for instance, The Highland Film Guild and I might even say political Parties, who might, from time to time, want to show exhibitions.
    EARL JOWITT: And educational bodies.
    THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Educational films would not, I think, come directly under this clause. They might do, but I do not think they would do so directly at this moment. But these other organisations would be able to show films without any licensing at all. We think that even a non-profit-making organisation, if it shows films every day of the week, is in fact making a business of it, and anybody who, so to speak, makes a business of regularly showing films should, in respect of public safety and the welfare of children, be subject to precisely the same sort of regulation. Therefore, we are restricting exemption to non-profit-making organisations which do not show more than three times a week. It is a change slightly on the side of freedom, slightly on the side of making rather more organisations free from licensing, but I do not consider the alterations are of great substance. I beg to move that this House do agree to the Commons Amendment.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
    LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask whether the non-profit-making organisation can show a film upon three occasions without coming within the licensing provisions of this Bill, even although that film is shown in an establishment which shows commercial films for the other four days and which comes under all the regulations of licensing?
    THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No. Perhaps I should not have taken the noble Lord quite at his word. He has already agreed to accept an Amendment at an earlier stage which altered that. That comes under Clause 5 (1) (c). There is an addition to that subsection. That subsection,
    1084
    as we passed it originally, dealt with exempted exhibitions and provided that the Secretary of State could issue a regulation in regard to exempted places in so far as it concerned safety but not in so far as it concerned welfare. Those are the two things upon which, under Clause 2, he has power to make regulations. The matter has since been taken further, and now he can issue no regulations in regard to exempted exhibitions, either in regard to welfare or in regard to safety, except in the case where the premises are already licensed as a cinema under the 1909 Act. If one took one of the big cinemas in London, the safety regulations would apply in the same way; but if one took some other hall that would not be the case, and safety regulations pertaining to that hall would remain as they were.
    LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his lucid explanation which clears up the point I had in mind.
    EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am all for freedom in these matters and cutting out all unnecessary permissions, but I am also for safety, particularly so far as children are concerned. There will probably be an increasing number of films, I should imagine, for educational purposes. Can the noble Earl reassure me that there are adequate provisions here for seeing that those films are not exhibited unless there is power to make proper regulations for the safety of the children seeing them? If that power is not in this Bill, I think it ought to be in some other Bill, because if any disaster should happen in this regard, we should all join together in deploring it. Are there adequate powers to deal with that situation, or does the fact that we have this exemption now mean that in respect of a body which is showing films in a cinema for children, but not for profit, there are no powers to make proper safety regulations, as there ought to be?
    THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Strictly speaking, my answer to the noble and learned Earl must be "No." There are no provisions in this Bill to deal with the precise point which he raises. This Bill deals essentially with the licensing of commercial cinemas. That is the object of the Bill, and that is the main provisions contained up to Clause 4. So far as children are concerned, we agree of course with what the noble and learned Earl has

    1085
    said; but children's cinemas—that is, the ordinary Saturday morning cinemas with which we are familiar—are fully covered under Clause 4. Secondly, whenever children's films are shown to children in regular cinemas licensed in the proper way, they are equally covered. The question asked is outside that. That position is not covered by this Bill. If the noble and learned Earl wished to know what the position was in regard to any particular case, for the moment I should have to ask for notice of the question, because there are a large number of different cases. It would not be appropriate, for instance, in this Bill to cover schools or religious organisations. They can be dealt with under different arrangements, but they are not covered by this Bill. The anxiety which the noble and learned Earl feels is apparent, but there was an overwhelming opinion, from outside as well as in another place, that the centre of gravity should be moved rather further on the side of liberty, even in regard to safety regulations and welfare, by allowing private or non-profit-making organisations to be free from regulations under Clause 2. That is the position as it stands. I know it is not entirely satisfactory to the noble Earl, but I think in practice there are other factors which will protect the children.
    EARL JOWITT: Before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him this question? I do not think there is the slightest difference between us. We are all for liberty in this matter, but we do not in any way want to imperil the safety of children. Perhaps he will see whether he can combine the two things, either now or on some future occasion. Will he bear this matter in mind? Because if any disaster did happen, it would be absolutely deplorable. Let us safeguard it before it happens and not merely deplore it afterwards.
    THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I quite agree with the noble and learned Earl. He will, of course, appreciate that this Bill deals only with cinemas. With regard to public halls and other such places there are regulations which cover the point. But I will certainly look into the matter.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    Clause 5, page 3, line 41, leave out subsection (4).
    THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    Clause 10, page 5, line 24, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
    ("(3) This Act shall come into operation in England and Wales on such date as the Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument, appoint for those countries, and in Scotland, on such date as the Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument, appoint for Scotland.")
    THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the point that this Act should be brought into force in England and Wales on the one hand, and in Scotland on the other, at different times. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

    COMMONS AMENDMENT
    In the Schedule, page 6, line 29, leave out line 29.
    THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
    Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

  DEFAMATION BILL
  3.44 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, this Bill was a Private Member's Bill, and as I took charge of it in your Lordships' House, it falls to me to move that the Amendments and a Reason be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Simon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
  [The References are to Bill No. 99 as first printed by the House of Lords.]

  LORDS AMENDMENTS
  In the Schedule, page 7, line 8, at end insert ("or of any foreign country or province or state of a foreign country")
  In the Schedule, page 7,line 24, at end insert ("or of any foreign country or province or state of a foreign country")
  The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
  Because their effect would be unduly to widen the privilege of newspaper reports.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, the particular clause in the Defamation Bill, as we returned it to the Commons, which is now objected to in another place is the clause which was originally contained in the Bill and was based on the Porter Report, to the effect that a newspaper which, without malice, published a fair and accurate report of the proceedings of a foreign Legislature should be entitled to the defence of qualified privilege. There were arguments in favour of, and some objections to, that course. When we returned the Bill to the Commons we reinserted this provision which was, as I have said, recommended by the Committee on defamation over which my noble and learned friend Lord Porter presided. In another place, objection was taken to this provision and it has been expunged. We are now to consider whether we shall accept that position and agree to it, thereby getting the Defamation Bill on to the Statute Book as a whole, or whether the controversy on this clause, which is not very important, should be persisted in. I am going to propose that we do not insist on the Amendment which this House inserted and with which the Commons have disagreed.
  I must, in frankness, say that I regret the omission from the Statute of this clause, and I think other noble Lords regret it, too. When, on July 28, we inserted into the Bill a clause to the effect that a fair and accurate report of any proceedings in public of the Legislature of any foreign country or province or state of a foreign country should be protected by privilege. I was authorised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, to say that, though he had to be absent from the House, he entirely agreed with the Amendment. At the end of a short
  1088
  discussion the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, speaking from the Front Opposition Bench, said this (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol.178, Col. 376):
  "I think it is right that if this is going back it should go back with the agreement of the whole Committee. I should, therefore, like to express, certainly my own view and, I believe, the views of those with me, that this is not only an acceptable Amendment but a good one."
  None the less, my Lords, I feel that at this period of the Session it would be a pity to instigate a controversy on what is a very minor point, and I therefore beg to move that your Lordships' House do not insist upon the Amendment which we made in the Bill and to which the Commons have disagreed.
  Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Viscount Simon.)
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I rise with somewhat mixed feelings here, because I have never attempted to conceal the fact that I think this is a very disappointing Bill, and to my mind there would be some attraction in losing it, because, as things are, I know quite well what will happen. When there is passed a Bill dealing with the law of libel, it means that for the next thirty years or so everybody will be saying that the topic has been dealt with, and that it cannot be dealt with again. And as I think this is a disappointing Bill, I am a little sorry that it is going to appear on the Statute Book. On the other hand, it is a question of compromise, and perhaps it is better than nothing. Therefore, on the whole, I think I should be sorry to lose this Bill. However, I do not feel strongly about it.
  On this Amendment, I may say that feel that this House was clearly right. It is, of course, a question of the balance of convenience. Long ago, we in this country established that the public convenience was best suited by there being complete freedom to report the proceedings of our own Parliament, even though proceedings in Parliament might involve a slur on some individual. I believe that enshrined in that principle is something which is of the utmost importance to democracy. Disputes about Hansard, and the rest of it, are all a matter of history. No one today doubts that the public advantage is best suited by allowing Parliamentary proceedings to be

  1089
  reported by the newspapers, even though that may involve some slur upon an individual. We are not going to be parochially minded here. We have got to consider what goes on abroad. The various nations of the world have become very close to each other, and I say, quite frankly, that the old principle which we have set, so far as our own Legislature is concerned, should be extended to the Legislatures of foreign countries. I think it should be permissible for the newspapers of this country to report, for instance, what goes on in Congress in the United States, or what goes on in the French Parliament. There may be a risk, as of course there may in our own Parliament, of some injustice to an individual, but to my mind it is an advantage for the public to know what is going on in foreign countries and to know what their Legislatures are talking about That far outweighs the possible risk, which I agree is there, of injustice to an individual.
  Let me take this illustration. Suppose that Dr. Mossadeq and the Majlis should be discussing the efforts which Mr. Eden has recently been making to solve the Persian oil difficulty. I do not know what would be said there by Dr. Mossadeq, and I should not like to hazard a guess. But suppose that he said, as he might well say, that the offer was wholly improper and unreasonable, that Mr. Eden was not honest, or that he must have been in his cups when he made it, or that Mr. Eden was obviously anticipating a rake-off from somewhere, or that Dr. Mossadeq made any other equally ridiculous statement. What of it? Is it not much better that the people in this country should know the grounds which Dr. Mossadeq gave for refusing our offer, because, in the case I have given, everyone would know that the statement about Mr. Eden was so ridiculous that no one would take any notice of it. On balance, it seems to me desirable that we should be able to learn frankly about what goes on in the world we are living in, and that newspapers should be entitled to tell us, without fear of libel actions, what goes on in foreign Legislatures. That was the recommendation of the Porter Committee, and that recommendation we inserted in the Bill, following out the advice of the Porter Committee. And it is that recommendation that is now going. From
  1090
  what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has said, I believe that in this matter, at any rate, I am being consistent—a virtue which I do not always demonstrate—because I am saying now what I said on the last occasion, through him. And I am still unrepentant. I still think that we were absolutely right, and I still think that what we did was much better than what the Commons have done.
  Now I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord Chancellor this question—having myself had to pronounce on these matters for so many years, it is pleasant now to be able to turn to him and to get an authoritative pronouncement. Suppose that someone in the Parliament of a foreign country—the Congress of the United States or the Majlis of Persia, whatever you will—makes some statement which might be considered as strongly derogatory of somebody over here. If a newspaper reports, with complete accuracy and fairness, what has been said in that foreign Legislature, and if what has been said in that foreign Legislature does cast some slur upon someone in this country, would that someone be entitled to bring an action in our courts to recover damages? Or would the fact that it was a perfectly fair and accurate report of what was said in a foreign Legislature give the newspaper so reporting a defence? That is a problem which, as a mere Common Law lawyer, I have the greatest pleasure in handing over to my Chancery brother who can, in his position, authoritatively lay down the law and tell me what the position is. Whatever his answer may be, I feel, with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, that though I deeply regret this decision of the Commons, which I think is a bad one, I do not think we ought to oppose it, and that, after the Lord Chancellor has answered my question, we must accept it as gracefully as we can.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think this is really the occasion for me to answer such a question from my Common Law brother, but I shall answer it in this way: that it is a question of which I should require notice but that, in the meantime, I will take counsel of my learned brethren in the Common Law.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  KENYA: MAU MAU ACTIVITIES
  3.55 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to the political and security situations in Kenya, with special reference to the reported activities of the Mau Mau society, and to the emergency legislation lately passed in the Colony; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I venture to bring before your Lordships this afternoon the situation in Kenya, which appears from the Press and radio reports to be one of gravity. We hear that over forty people have been murdered, including two white women and one or perhaps more settlers, and that two of the three Kikuyu chiefs have also been assassinated. A campaign of terror has been waged in which there have been brutal beatings of Africans, attempted murders, suicides, three attempts to burn churches or missions, over twenty cases of but burning, and killing and maiming of cattle. The object, we are told, is to drive the white people from Kenya and to attack the Christian religion. Africans have either voluntarily taken or in many cases been forced to take certain oaths. They have taken or have had to take an oath in these terms:
  "If I am asked to bring the head of a European and I refuse, this oath will kill me.
  If I am called at any time during the night and do not go, this oath will kill me.
  If I reveal any secrets of Africans who are Mau Mau members, this oath will kill me.
  If I am called during the night and I am naked I will go naked.
  If I see anyone stealing European property I will not tell about it, instead I will assist him to hide it.
  If the members agree to do anything, whether good or bad, and I refuse to obey, this oath will kill me.
  I will always say that the land belongs to none but the Kikuyu."
  To meet this situation the Government has enacted emergency legislation providing for restrictions on freedom of association, and on speech, meeting, writing and movement. It is enacted that printing presses are to be licensed, and all societies with more than ten members are to be registered. Provincial commissioners have power to deport to restricted areas persons who they are satisfied are members of secret organisations. A curfew has been imposed
  1092
  in districts adjacent to European communities. Public meetings have been banned, security forces have been reinforced, armed police have been increased and there has been a strengthening of the special police organisation. A Home Guard has been created and, I presume, though I have not seen a statement to this effect, the Kenya Regiment has been mobilised. Police have been brought in from elsewhere. The Lancashire Fusiliers have been flown into Nairobi, Her Majesty's cruiser "Kenya" is now lying at Mombasa, and the ship's company have been ordered to take duty in the town as and when required. All officials of the Kenya African Union have been arrested and sent to the Northern Territory and also many other leading Kikuyu personalities in the Kikuyu reserves. Few young men are to be seen, and thousands, we are told, have moved off to the Aberdare range of mountains, driving cattle and goats before them. The terrorism continues and almost certainly every day there are fresh outbursts somewhere or other of these frightful happenings.
  Before dealing any further with this part of the problem, I should like to refer to the curious attitude of the Government in this matter. Previous to the last month or so, though one would have thought that the danger might have been foreseen, there was an attempt to allay public concern. Mr. Davis, the Member for African affairs, who I may say from my own personal knowledge is an excellent officer, came over here to see the Secretary of State for the Colonies in September. Speaking of these emergency regulations which I have mentioned, he said—and I quote his words:
  "They are not needed now so much, but they are a safeguard against future subversion."
  Then there was the very leisurely replacement of Governors. The present Governor's appointment was decided upon in 1951 and was announced in April of this year. Sir Philip Mitchell, the retiring Governor, retired in June of this year, and Sir Evelyn Baring, the new Governor, left for Kenya at the end of September. So that during the latter part of June, July, August and September—during three crucial months, as we now know—the Colony was without a Governor on the spot. I am not suggesting for one

  1093
  moment that this was in any way the fault of Sir Evelyn Baring. Obviously, he would want to get to his post as quickly as possible.
  I should like to know from the Under-Secretary what the reason for the delay was, but I would hazard a guess that it was the obsolete, archaic financial system under which the Colonies are run. In other words, neither the Colony nor the Home Government would pay the salary of the new Governor for three months. I should be very surprised if that was not the fact, and if it is not, perhaps the noble Earl will tell us. It seems extraordinary that in a position of so much danger and complexity as this the new Governor was not allowed to go to his post because no one would pay his salary for three months. It is disappointing, because the same sort of thing was inclined to happen in the early days in Malaya, and we had hoped that the lesson had been learned by both the Colonial Office and the Colonial Governments.
  Then we have the official spokesman, who I think must he a near relative of the Cairo spokesman during the war, because he continually blows hot and cold. At the end of last week we were told by him that "the situation is more than disturbing." At the beginning of this week he said, "It is on the whole stable and gives no cause for alarm and despondency." How the situation could have changed over the week-end, with terrorist activity still continuing in this way, one fails to understand. I am not making any Party point of this at all, and to prove that, I should like to quote from the Daily Telegraph, which is a paper not unduly critical of the present Government. On October 22 it said this in the leading article:
  "Some of the credit for the Kenya Government's belated initiative must go to the white settlers, who, seeing the issue dearly from the start, have prodded the officials without mercy or cease."
  According to that, I am sure, quite unbiased authority, it seems that the Government have been a little lax in the manner in which they have tackled this problem. Then we are told that a Royal Commission are to be appointed, but month after month goes by and the names are not announced. We learn now that the Commission are not to start their work until January next.
  The position of the Kenya African Union is a peculiar one. All officials have been arrested, but the Union is not proscribed. That must give great satisfaction to the members, but it leaves the Union rather in the position of the Cheshire cat, with only the grin left. Finally, there is the curious incident of the Secretary of State and the missionaries. I am sorry that the Secretary of State said in a statement in another place that to some extent the missionaries were to blame for this problem. I do not consider that that is so. I think that that is an unfortunate statement to make, particularly with regard to the Kikuyu. Many of us know something of the difficulties that the missionaries have had and recognise the fact that there is now a definite attack on the Christian religion. It is an easy thing to blame the missionaries. It is often done, even by those who should know about the work our missionaries are doing, particularly the fine work they are doing with regard to education and health. I do not think it helps to make statements of that kind.
  I should now like to turn to the Kikuyu, because the present agitation or terrorism is chiefly confined to that tribe. Many of your Lordships know them well, but some of your Lordships may not, and I should like you to look at them for a moment. Out of between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 people in Kenya, the Kikuyu have a population of some 1,000,000. In their area there is a tremendous pressure on the land because of the constant increase in population, at the rate of over 2 per cent. per annum, and because of the tsetse fly, which, in this part of Africa, as in others, is the real ruler. The tsetse fly area covers a band of Africa twice the size of the United States, and a very large part of Kenya is under the tsetse fly. That is why so much of the high land is cultivated while good land on the lower parts of the country—all the way from Mombasa to Nairobi—is uncultivated. The high land is subject to great erosion because of bad agricultural methods on the part of the Africans, because of over-crowding, and also because of ancient tribal customs, whereby the men of the tribe hunt and protect the tribe in war and prepare the land up to the planting of the seed. We have taken from them the first two responsibilities, and there is not enough

  1095
  work in the third. The women are very hard workers. It is very difficult in this area, as we found in the Fort Hall experiment many years ago, to get African men to take up new methods of agriculture, as they regard agriculture as work women should do and not men.
  The Kikuyu have increased enormously under British rule, largely because we have protected them from their ancient enemies, the Masai, and the Arab slavers, who used to come up from Zanzibar. I think that the underlying difficulties with the Kikuyu and with other African tribes is that Western civilisation has been, I will not say imposed upon them, but brought to them too suddenly. In this country we had hundreds of years to get used to new methods and ways of thought. I feel sorry for the Africans who have had to "concertina" into a lifetime the experience we had over many hundreds of years. There is no doubt at all that the traditional tribal customs, whereby a man always knew his position in society, have entirely changed. Where once he knew that he was a big fish in a small pool, now a man is only a small fish in a very large pool whose edges he cannot see, or even imagine. I mentioned the same thing a year or two ago in regard to Basutoland, when the diretlo murders, or medicine murders, as they were wrongly called, took place. I believe that those arose from the fear of insecurity of certain chiefs, who found they could not stand up under the pressure of modern conditions and reverted to the old magic and witchcraft to reassert their power and position. Some of the same tendencies are behind the difficulties among the Kikuyu, but on a much larger scale.
  The young men are unable to get fresh land and so they drift into the towns, particularly into Nairobi, where they become unemployed—there are at least 10,000 unemployed Africans in Nairobi. Poverty stricken, they seek or are found by bad company, and become criminals. There has been no clear demarcation in official minds, so far as we can learn, between the Kenya African Union, which is a reformist body believing in the inevitability of gradualness; the Mau Mau, which is a terrorist body; and between the ordinary criminals who are cashing in on the situation which has been evoked
  1096
  by the Mau Mau organisation. If the Under-Secretary is able to tell us, it would be most interesting to know just where the lines of demarcation can be drawn. In other words, in a varying degree the causes of the unrest, it seems to many of us, are political, social and economic. The Kikuyu are, of course, an intensely political tribe. A few years ago I addressed a very large baraza—a gathering—near Kiambu, in Kenya, and Jomo Kinyatta and many other leaders were present. I have never addressed an audience in my life when there was such an intensity of interest, not particularly in what I was saying but in the fact that there was a meeting and they were present, and that their future was being discussed. Certainly we are often led to wonder whether there is African opinion. I feel there is no doubt that among the male members of the Kikuyu tribe there is definitely a strong African opinion on these matters.
  Kenya differs considerably from the other Colonies, except perhaps the two Rhodesias. There are 30,000 white colonists there. There are Indians and Arabs. On the coast, at all events, if you have to put up a school, a housing estate, or even a wash-house, you have to put up four. The number of races there, of course, adds greatly to the problem. The white settler element is highly criticised in certain quarters, but they have been an active element, and they have played, and are playing, an important part in the economy of the Colony. I am certain that were it not for them Kenya would starve, because what surplus there is for the towns comes largely from the European farms. The African farms are on a purely subsistence basis. I am sure that we shall all agree that all these communities have a great part to play. They depend upon one another and statesmanship is necessary to ensure that they do so harmoniously.
  I have tried to set out the problem as I see it. I should like now to make some suggestions to Her Majesty's Government, if I may, as to the action which they should take. First of all, and most important in the immediate future, we trust, of course, that they will do what is necessary to restore and preserve law and order. They must use what force is necessary for this purpose, and they must use it properly and wisely. Let us be under no illusion about this: nothing can

  1097
  take place properly unless law and order is restored. They must settle the financial problem arising out of the emergency. In Malaya, to some extent, we were lucky, because the terrorist campaign there coincided largely with the great increase in commodity prices, particularly of rubber and tin. But that is not the case in Kenya. I can visualise the fact that the Kenya Government must be handicapped financially in dealing with this matter. I am glad that the Secretary of State has gone to Kenya, because this is the sort of problem with which he can help. They may omit to take what steps they should take merely through fear of the resulting financial obligation.
  The Government must then settle the police problem. The force may have to be considerably extended. As we found in Malaya, it is necessary to be careful about fitting in the newcomers (if there are any) to the existing pattern. There again, the Secretary of State can help. Then I would say that we must not postpone action on progressive measures. We must resist the temptation to say, "This is all right, but we cannot think of it until the emergency is over." I am glad to say that the Government have resisted that temptation in Malaya, and so has General Templer. General Harding, in his address last week to the Somerset Light Infantry (I think it was) made this point quite clearly. So the military realise this situation in Malaya. I hope it will also be realised that the same rule applies in Kenya: that education, agriculture, health and housing have to be dealt with, and the necessary improvements catered for in order to tackle the real problem underlying this compaign. The Governor made a statement yesterday to the Legislative Council on what I venture to suggest are absolutely the right lines, and he did make this point clearly. I hope that public opinion in Kenya will accept what he says in this matter.
  Then, I think, Her Majesty's Government should strengthen the hands of the moderates, who are having a most difficult time at this moment. It is important that we should do so, because the information I get from Africans, some of whom are closely in touch with Kikuyu opinion, is that they are very anxious for a settlement; that the broad
  1098
  mass of Africans desire a settlement along the right lines, and want to go back to peaceful conditions. Therefore, I ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the suggestions made by the Legislative Council members, and also by the newly-formed Executive Committee of the Kenya African Union. I see from a despatch to The Times to-day that this latter Executive is no longer confined to the Kikuyu. That is probably a good thing, and I hope that we shall help them and support them in every way. It may be necessary to arrange for the moderate opinion—Mr. Mathu and the others—to address meetings, which they cannot do at the moment. I think it is desirable as soon as possible to screen those who have been arrested, because there is reason to suspect that some, at least, have no sympathy at all with the Mau Mau. We want in some way to calm those Africans who are frightened. I am told—again perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will be able either to confirm or deny it—that the Africans who fled to the Aberdare range have gone there because they are frightened, and not because they intend in any way to set up a sort of base. In any event they would be incapable of doing that, and with the rains coming on, it would not be a particularly healthy spot. I suggest that the leaders of the communities—Mr. Blundell, Mr. Patel and Mr. Mathu—and perhaps Government representatives, should meet round the table and have a discussion as a sort of conciliation group to see whether the communities can form a proper basis for future action.
  We then come to the question of the 400 independent schools, with a school population of 62,000 children. For years this has been a vexed question in Kenya. I think the Government should make up their mind what they are going to do. If these schools are subversive and not educating the children, then close them down. If they are doing a good job, then keep them going; give them financial support and all the assistance that is necessary. But it is no good keeping on these schools and muttering that they are subversive. One must take action one way or the other, and I think it is time that the Government of Kenya made up their mind to take the necessary action. I think, too, that they ought to consider

  1099
  a Commission of Inquiry. The Royal Commission which is belatedly going to Africa next year has a very wide field to cover, ranging over the whole of East African problems—it may be too wide a field for this particular purpose. I should have thought there was enough to do to decide on Kenya matters, rather than taking in Tanganyika and Uganda as well. The Government should also, where possible, relax the Emergency Regulations as soon as practicable. They affect societies and individuals who are innocent; they may alienate moderate opinion, or make it more difficult to take the action which they would like to take; and they may affect other tribes. I am sorry to say that the Philippines in the United Nations attacked the position in Kenya with the ignorance and intemperateness we have learned to expect from that quarter. I have suffered myself a good deal from the Philippines, and I am not particularly surprised, although I am sorry, to see that they attacked the Kenya Government in the United Nations.
  Then we have, lastly, the problem of these multi-racial communities. It is a most difficult problem, especially where races are at such different stages of development. I think we must persevere and try to insure a co-operative spirit in partnership. It took us a long time to do it in this country. Whenever I go abroad and speak to Colonials, they talk about the English. I say: "Well, I am not English, and I can sympathise with you. But you must remember that their good points far outweigh their bad." I do not know whether they would say that about me and my race. I tell them, too, that it took us a very long time—our brothers the Scots and us and the English—to settle down, and that these matters cannot be done in five minutes. It takes a long time. We must have patience, and we must realise that where you have multi-racial communities you cannot expect quick results. Finally, may I sum up and say that I submit to the House that it is necessary for the Government to take action to restore and preserve law and order, and that this action must he prompt, vigorous and thorough? In addition, this action must be accompanied by a real attempt to discover and, if possible, to satisfy, the underlying discontent of which this is a symptom. I beg to move for Papers.
  4.22 p.m.
  LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, my intervention in this debate will be brief and, I hope, to the point. Of course, we are all united in our detestation of the savage crimes of the Mau Mau and of the organised brutality of that secret and subversive society. But other than to add that I hope that the Government in its action will be swift and unflinching, and unhesitating in its firm decision to restore law and order, I do not propose to say any more about the crimes. In that respect I echo the feelings of the noble Lord who moved this Motion. After all, murder should be no stepping stone to power or to further political responsibilities, and secret, subversive and criminal societies are no new thing in Africa. The country is fortunate in having a Governor who is fully capable of handling the situation. To save the noble Earl who is to reply to the debate, may I say in passing that in my personal experience there have been many occasions when a Colony has paid two Governors at the same time, if circumstances warranted that action. I am quite certain that no mere financial reason of that kind can have been at the back of any delay—if there was one—in the appointment being actively filled. It remains for us to give the present Governor our complete confidence and support and not to embarrass him in any way. Those of us who have been on the receiving end of a job of this kind know how inimical it is to the cause of law and order to have intervention—inevitably half-informed intervention—even of one's own friends.
  I wish to say one or two words about the background of these disorders, and once more to enter a plea against excessive speed in forcing races, who only yesterday emerged from savagery, along the untried roads of Western democracy. I am not trying to use the present emergency as an excuse for denying progress to the Africans. I am saying, and saying it with due thought and consideration, that the present emergency underlines only too clearly the dangers of giving responsibility, or of encouraging the idea that responsibility can be given, long before the recipient is capable of using it or undertaking its duties. In short, I am trying, to underline the necessity in these matters for a little sociological common sense. There is, if I may be allowed to

  1101
  say so, no true analogy with Malaya, because in Malaya we are dealing with races with a far longer access to culture and civilization, and whose general position is not comparable with that of the Africans, as I shall hope shortly to point out to your Lordships with greater force.
  Nature has herself set a speed limit on the pace at which the adolescent races can absorb the complete change in outlook, habits and social structure involved in integrating races, which really belong to the time B.C., in the political and economic life evolved by 2,000 years of Western progress. After all, you cannot swallow 2,000 years of progress in the course of a generation or so without suffering from severe indigestion. I say once again that the true friends of Africa are in Africa—they are not in this country. Race relations cannot be decreed by doctrinaires from office chairs or armchairs in this country. I suggest that they have to be evolved in the day-to-day contact of living together in the country of their domicile, whatever may be their colour or race. In my opinion and experience, that is the only way to produce amicable relations between races: by their living together and finding out on the spot a way of evolving amicable compromises for the difficulties that arise.
  I take it that all your Lordships have read the recent articles in The Times and elsewhere by Sir Philip Mitchell. He draws, with inimitable skill and unrivalled knowledge and, indeed, with deep sympathy, the complex problems which have arisen to haunt the Administration of Kenya—problems inevitably aggravated by the very success of European enterprise and skill in agriculture, commerce and industry and, may I add, unnecessarily complicated by the irresponsibility of high thinking and loose talking in this country. It was, I think, Elspeth Huxley who said very wisely that Time takes his revenge for all the councils to which he is not called. If you reflect how far we have brought these Africans—the Kikuyu of whom we are talking—in a bare fifty years, and their immensely improved lot today you get a better perspective of present discontents. But let us be reasonable. There are discontents and maladjustments in every land on earth, and nowhere is a more honest effort being made to deal with them than in Kenya—the agrarian problem, the urban housing problem, the social problems
  1102
  arising from the weakening of old tribal restrictions, the need for soil conservation and skilled husbandry and so on. The basic fact of the situation to-day is not that the African has been held back by racial discrimination but that he has travelled too far too quickly; and gross misrepresentation of the facts by men like Mr. Fenner Brockway cannot conceal the dependence of the African, not only for the preservation of his present standards but also for the hope of better ones, upon an expansion of European guidance and enterprise and, may I say, control.
  The key to a high wage economy, of the necessity for which we read so much, in Africa as elsewhere, is hard, efficient and skilled work; and no starry-eyed theorists can evade this necessity. The African in Kenya, may I say too, sets a higher value on leisure than is customary with Western races. We are told that in our economy to-day there is no room for the idle rich. I should be inclined to agree with that statement and to say, with equal emphasis, that there is no room for the idle poor. Nowadays (and this is a lesson that, especially in Africa, we have to teach) a higher standard of living, and everything they want, can come only from skilled and harder work. The Kikuyu African is unused to a money economy. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said, he needs industrial opportunities to earn a living otherwise than by peasant cultivation, with all the consequent changes in social structure that this involves. But in the main event the destiny of man in East Africa will depend on his treatment of the land, land development, utilisation and conservation, with all the skill and capital investment that such a programme involves. I remember the words of a Nigerian chieftain who said, "I conceive the land as belonging to a vast family, of whom many are dead, few are alive, and countless numbers are still unborn." That Nigerian chieftain had, I think, the whole root of the matter in that simple sentence. That is the altitude which we have to inculcate in Africa: that the resources of the country are not there to be wasted and abused, as the land throughout Africa has been, by the African, but that they are there as a trust, to be utilised by human ability and handed on to their successors. That is

  1103
  the lesson which, by example and precept, the European has been teaching in Kenya. But there is a long way yet to go.
  I think that insufficient credit has been taken for our achievements in Kenya. Perhaps I may be allowed again to quote Sir Philip Mitchell. He emphasised this aspect in a speech some six years ago. He pointed out that fifty years ago, when we arrived, there was not a road, nor a railway, nor a wheel; not a school, nor even an alphabet; no equipment save hoes, knives and axes: not a hospital nor a shop nor a business; no peace, nor any means or desire to enforce peace. Since then, as he says, we have been doing our best to emancipate them from insecurity, superstition, ignorance and ill-health, and to bring peace and safety to their land. The progress has been amazing, but the work is still less than half done. Are we then to abandon it, and to let it all sink back into jungle at the bidding of impatient idealists who talk blandly and blindly of self-government and do infinite damage to the cause they profess to uphold? There is surely no merit in ignoring the inescapable facts of the present situation. The European settlers who have made Kenya their home are the main authors and architects of its present successful economy. They come of a race with a long tradition of responsible self-government and a great national talent for its exercise. I suggest that they should be given more power to exercise it, not less. It is vitally to their interest to help the Africans on their road to an effective share in civilised government.
  The only hope, as I see it, for a peaceful future in that country lies in what is called qualitative democracy, not in quantitative democracy—the principle of Cecil Rhodes: equal rights for all civilised men; in other words, the aim of Sir Godfrey Huggins in Central Africa, which is the slow evolution of a multiracial society in which there will be parties no doubt differing from each other, but divided from each other by considerations of policy and not of colour. One cannot but deplore the attitude of certain sections of the Press of this country: on the one hand, an almost hysterical exaggeration of present troubles and, on the other, an affectation of disbelief in the very existence of the
  1104
  Mau Mau at all. Strange though it may seem, for calm and unruffled wisdom one has to leave this country and go to Kenya. The Kenya Government has a difficult, but not an impossible task, unless it is made so by interference from this country.
  I should like, in concluding, to refer to the sort of interference that I mean. I read in the Press that two gentlemen who are members of the executive committee of a non-Party organisation, which calls itself the Union of Democratic Control, are proceeding to Kenya on the invitation of the Kenya African Union for a visit lasting from October 28 to November 9. Their published statement reads as follows—I should like to read it because it is so emblematic of the folly of the attitude of certain people. These are the words:
  "The visit has three purposes. First, we desire to learn the facts of the present situation in Kenya and what steps can be taken to remove the causes of unrest; secondly, we desire to strengthen the hands of the great main body of African opinion, which is strongly opposed to violence and is eager to advance, along constructive educational, social, and political lines, to racial equality: and thirdly, we desire to meet people of good will, of all races, who believe that the only effective solution rests in a common understanding, a sincere effort at the fullest measure of racial co-operation and a progressive approach to full democracy."
  These gentlemen go on to say that they hope while in Kenya
  "to see the Governor and Ministers, members of the four races in the Legislative Council, representatives of the leading organisations, including the Churches, and to visit districts in Kenya which reflect the economic, social and political problems as related to the present unrest."
  Not a bad programme for twelve days' work! I feel it difficult to take it seriously, especially as I see that they are to take in Uganda for three days on their way back.
  But one has to be serious about these apparently foolish things. All these incantations about "a progressive approach to full democracy" have no helpful meaning at all in this background. They are just the mumbo-jumbo of the interfering doctrinaire. Let us grant that they may mean well, but the probable results of such unqualified intervention are hound to be pernicious. It may be that they have been led astray by the recent history of West Africa but, as we have repeatedly said in this House, there is no analogy

  1105
  whatever between the circumstances of West Africa and those of East Africa. It is quite impossible to apply anything that is happening on the outside to East Africa.
  We are also, I think, entitled to remember that the political representatives of the Africans, the unofficial African Members of Council, failed in their hour of trial recently. It is no good the noble Earl, if I may be allowed to say so, suggesting that the European Members of Council meet these gentlemen at a round table and hammer out some suitable solution of the difficulties, when these are the very men who have shown that they cannot face the responsibilities of the position which they occupy. They refused to be associated with any responsibility for the, powers taken by Government to legalise resolute action in this emergency—and that despite the fact that the chief sufferers from the Mau Mau activities were people of their own race. I do not want to condemn them too harshly or too hastily, but I do suggest that it is necessary for African leaders to realise that, if they claim a position of leadership and responsibility, they must be capable of shouldering responsibility and showing leadership before they can claim any advance of that kind. I am confident that the Kenya Government will use their powers wisely. I have no fears for them. But I am apprehensive lest people in this country should be misled into leaving their work—"our work," may I say?—half done and a very solemn trust unfulfilled. That indeed would be a tragedy and a betrayal—the tragedy of a people that decided to drown in words what it had achieved by deeds, and lost its faith in the moment of its greatest challenge.
  4.45 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that the Kenya Government are acting wisely and in a far-sighted fashion in not waiting until law and order have been fully restored before putting in hand measures of social improvement. The new Governor's announcement, which we read in the Press this morning, about immediate steps to improve housing and social services, and to help the African farmers, indicates that the policy of the Kenya Government is to remedy grievances as well as to put an end to violence. I think, judging from what we have already heard
  1106
  this afternoon, that it is the view of your Lordships that these two policies—social reform and redressing grievances, and the restoration of law and order with all the firmness required for that purpose—should march hand in hand. Of course, any opinion we may express about the present situation must be qualified by a very limited knowledge of the facts, and any remarks we may make will, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said in the earlier part of his speech, be intended to be helpful and not to make the present situation more difficult or add to the really tremendous strain under which people in Kenya must now be living.
  I should like to make one comment, following in the footsteps of my noble friend Lord Ogmore. It does appear to us and to a good many other outside observers that this reversion to a primitive form of nationalism and tribal superstition and violence among the Kikuyus might possibly be checked by rallying the reasonable elements in the tribe and trying to restrain the fanatics. It is clear that the only people who would have a chance of doing this with success are their fellow Africans.
  I am reinforced in this view by the Nairobi correspondent of The Times. I dare say your Lordships read the report in The Times newspaper this morning. In the course of that report, if I may quote his words as coming from some body on the spot, he says:
  "One of the most urgent needs here is undoubtedly the formation of a responsible African body to whom sensible Africans can look for leadership."
  There is now apparently a committee of the Kenya African Union composed of these moderate men, which might serve this purpose. It was reported earlier, I think sonic time last week, that the African members of the Legislative Council have offered to visit the disturbed areas in the Kikuyu reserve. They have already appealed to Africans to give up violence and to refrain from reprisals. I do not see the weight of the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, against the African members of the Kenya Legislative Council. Quite clearly, their position in relation to their own people must be very delicate, and I hope that that factor will be taken into consideration. It is difficult to see how much further they could go than to declare publicly that they are against these Mau Mau

  1107
  acts of barbarism, and to ask the members of the Kikuyu tribe to co-operate with the forces of law and order and to help to restrain the more fanatical of their members. But it is surely worth an effort to re-establish this moderate African leadership. One cannot, of course, guarantee that their intervention would succeed, but it surely would be worth trying. I cannot help thinking that their efforts will be facilitated by the social improvements which the Government, of which, of course, several of these gentlemen are members, have decided to put in hand.
  I think it would be generally agreed that this is an occasion when we should consider the long view of policy. We must try to ascertain the root causes of this African discontent; and having done so, to decide what action should be taken to remove the hatred and distrust which have provoked these outbreaks of violence against the European community. Hence the very great importance of the Royal Commission which I understand is shortly to be appointed, to inquire into land use and other economic problems. I hope, as does my noble friend Lord Ogmore, that there will be no unnecessary delay in appointing the Commission. I hope it may be able to start its work before January, although that is the date we have been given at the moment. I hope also that it will be able to complete its work with the least possible delay, because every day that is wasted aggravates the evil which the Commission will examine and set out to remedy. I, too, should like to express the hope, as the members of the Commission have not yet been appointed, that the personnel will not be entirely British, but that if possible a person of other than British origin with suitable qualifications may be included.
  For my part—this is of course a personal opinion—I cannot help regretting that the terms of reference of the Commission will be limited to matters connected with the standard of living and conditions of employment in East Africa. This limitation will prevent the Commission from considering many burning issues which are causing friction and discontent, and which must be settled in the long run if Kenya is to progress on a basis of racial co-operation. I hope your Lordships will allow me to give one or two examples of what I mean. So far
  1108
  as I understand—if my information is incorrect I hope the noble Earl will put me right—the Commission will not be able to deal with the question of land use in the so-called White Highlands. This Crown Land is leased exclusively to Europeans, but I am informed that some of it is either unoccupied or not properly cultivated and developed by existing tenants. If this is the case, it would surely be right to turn out the bad farmers, as we do in this country. Any land available for development, either because it is not occupied or because it is badly farmed, might be offered to African farmers. A gesture of this kind would surely show everyone that white farmers do not desire to monopolise this area of extremely fertile land. It would have an excellent psychological effect—I am not, of course, under-estimating the economical effect—by lessening the sense of injustice about land use which embitters many Africans.
  May I at this point ask the noble Earl a question about the squatters, who I believe have occupied pieces of land in the White Highlands? Has it been considered whether any of them might be offered a legal title to any portion of land in that part of Kenya? If not, what is the policy in relation to these people, who at the moment have no legal title to the land they occupy? Another matter which I feel would be outside the Commission's competence is education. The Africans regard education as the key to equality of opportunity. They feel that too little money is being spent on African education, and that consequently they are denied the chance of acquiring the qualifications needed for skilled employment and for entering into the professions and the Government service. The fact that this grievance exists, whether or not it can be justified, is surely a sufficient reason for inquiry into the whole problem of the provision of educational facilities for the African population.
  Your Lordships may have observed in yesterday's Times an article by the well-known authority on Africa, Miss Margery Perham, in the course of which she pointed out that the problem we are facing in British Africa is primarily one of political psychology rather than of material need. I share that view, in all humility, because I do not believe that the problem we want to solve can be

  1109
  solved entirely by improving social conditions. Of course, that is clearly part of the problem, and a solution must be found for this problem of raising opportunity and improving social conditions. As Miss Perham pointed out, in India and many Asian countries the standard of living is much lower than it is in Kenya, and yet these wretched conditions of life are not accompanied by outbreaks of violence. What has happened is that, for better or worse, we have indoctrinated British Africa with our own ideas of political and social equality. This striving for equality is at the root of African nationalism. Africans will distrust Europeans so long as they believe that their rule means permanent inferiority of status. They are rejecting partnership—the word "partnership" has a rather unfortunate association in many parts of Africa—because we have failed to convince them that they will not always be a subordinate partner.
  How are we going to persuade them of our good faith (because that is the important thing) that we really intend that the present unequal partnership—which is inevitable when two races mix, one having reached such different levels of social and cultural development—will eventually become an equal partnership? In my view, we can prove this only by deeds, not by words. It is no good talking of partnership unless we are prepared to practise it. There must be a gradual lifting of the many varieties of racial discrimination. It is the humiliation and resentment caused by colour bars, whether they are social, administrative or in the law itself, which produce the dangerous and exclusive type of African nationalism which we must guard against in time to come. If the spirit of nationalism in Africa is to grow along healthy lines of racial co-operation, as we all desire, it must be recognised by the other communities as a force to be encouraged rather than checked. Discriminative practices seriously wound national pride, and they should be terminated at the earliest possible opportunity. Political activity should be directed into instructive and constitutional, channels. An adequate and a growing place should be found in Legislative and Executive Councils for members of the African community. Indeed, this is being done. But it is noticeable that the representation of Africans in
  1110
  the Kenya Legislature is smaller in relation to the African population than in the neighbouring territory of Uganda. This matter will no doubt be considered by the committee of its own members, under an outside chairman, which the Kenya Legislature decided to appoint within, I think, a year from last March. I hope that agreement between tile communities to appoint this committee will not be delayed by the present disturbances.
  What I should like to emphasise, in relation both to this racial discrimination and to constitutional advance in East Africa, is that these are ideological issues and in the long run issues of no less importance to tranquillity and racial co-operation than the material issues with which the Royal Commission will deal when it is appointed. The suggestion I wish to make, and which I hope the Government will consider, is this. I believe that what we really need is a Royal Commission with the wide terms of reference of the Royal Commission of 1938, which was sent out, as the noble Earl will remember, to the West Indies—the Moyne Commission, as it was called, after its Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Moyne. Your Lordships will recall that the Commissioners on that occasion were authorised to take evidence about any matter connected with social and economic conditions in the whole of the British Caribbean. A Royal Commission with this scope of inquiry would be able to cover everything it might consider relevant to the economic and social progress of our East African territories, and to the furtherance of racial co-operation in that great area. It would no doubt include among its subjects of inquiry the problems of education, land use, racial discrimination and constitutional development to which I have already alluded.
  I hope the Government will consider this proposal from a wider standpoint than that of Kenya alone. We have to remember that this outbreak of racial violence in Kenya is the most serious outbreak of this kind in any British territory since the war. The future of race relations in East Africa is not a matter that will affect only the local communities and their relationship with the United Kingdom; it is a matter of profound concern to the whole British Commonwealth, and to the outside world. One day these African territories will reach the stage of self-government. The choice,

  1111
  whether or not to sever the Commonwealth connection, will rest with an African majority. Among our greatest sources of strength and usefulness is the fact that we are a multi-racial Commonwealth, and it would be a disaster if the Commonwealth were to begin to break up and disintegrate on racial lines.
  To the outside world, race relations are causing increasing anxiety. One has only to look at the General Assembly of the United Nations which is now in session for proof of that. I do not share the view expressed by some members of the United Nations that there is an immediate threat to peace from this quarter, but I think your Lordships will agree that in the long run there is a very real danger of war if race relations, generally, continue to deteriorate. It is surely our duty to the Commonwealth, and to the rest of the world, to do everything in our power, before it is too late, to promote friendly co-operation between the races and communities in East Africa, and I hope that the noble Earl will ask his colleague, the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, when he returns from East Africa, to give serious consideration to the possibility of an inquiry that will cover all sources of friction and discontent in East Africa and which will make recommendations which, whether they are followed or not, will, at any rate, be the recommendations of an impartial body which will have done its best in the interests of racial harmony.
  5.4 p.m.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I shall detain you for only a very short time. I think each one of us, in any part of the House, believes it to have been absolutely right for the Colonial Secretary to have flown out to Kenya, at this juncture, to confer with Sir Evelyn Baring. These two men bear primary responsibility for the solving of those pressing problems. But in the last instance, responsibility for the good guidance, and governance, of the people of Kenya rests on the people of Britain, through the British Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, professed himself to be somewhat mystified by various communiqués emanating from the Kenya Government. If he is mystified, how much more mystified
  1112
  must many of the people of Britain be, in endeavouring to see the dimensions of this problem, in view of the vast number of conflicting stories which they have heard! Taking the words of some publicists, the Communists have endeavoured to make out that there is no such thing as Mau Mau, in spite of the fact that the blood of no fewer than forty-six East Africans of different races has been spilled in the last two months. They say, rather quaintly: "It cannot be so, because there is no such word as Mau Mau in the Kikuyu language." There are some extremely powerful and well-known bodies in this country, and outside it, whose names are not to he found in the Oxford dictionary. One is N.A.T.O., a second Toc H and a third, perhaps, the T.U.C.
  Then there are what I may call the slightly lesser extremists who have written of the "hysteria" of the settlers in queueing up to buy firearms to protect themselves and their wives and children. In fact these same settlers have behaved with most commendable coolness. There is in the minds of many a curious distrust of what the Briton overseas may be doing. It is a compound of the reading of inaccurate history and the curse of over-simplification of what we would all agree to be a most difficult and complicated problem. I think it is very widely believed in this country that the land which is farmed in the White Highlands was actually wrested from the tribesmen of the Kikuyu. I think it is also believed, though probably by fewer, that opportunity for advancement of all kinds, social and political and such, has been purposely blocked since the war. On this assumption, some people in this country are being tempted to argue that Mau Mau is a natural outcome and one to which a moderate man might subscribe.
  The facts are known to all of us here. The land of the White Highlands was completely empty when the white settlers were granted it, with the solitary exception of small pieces of marginal land near Nairobi. The advancement of Kenya since the war, and before it, has gone on steadily. To say that it has not does far less than justice to a very great Colonial Governor, Sir Philip Mitchell, to four hard working and distinguished Colonial Secretaries whom he

  1113
  served, to the multi-racial Legislature, and to a devoted and highly efficient band of Colonial civil servants. To blame the Government of Kenya for not being superhuman may be a possible thing to do, but it is no more sensible than it would be to blame the medical profession because they have not yet succeeded in curing cancer or even rheumatism.
  Mau Mau is one of the diseases of Africa. It is a secret society which lifts the curtain on the old dark clays before the white man came. As I say, it is a disease. Some of the societies, like the Hyena Society, the Baboon Society and, last of all, the most widespread and sinister, the Leopard Society, have been going on, if not for hundreds of years, at any rate for generations. Societies that have sprung up in recent years have in nearly every case come from relapsed Christians. Often they have been based on a misreading or re-writing of the Scriptures, hut, whatever their origin, their observance has taken the form of blasphemous parodies of the Christian ritual, as indeed does the Black Mass itself. No amount of reforms, no amount of concession, will ever affect the man who voluntarily joins such a society as this, in the same way that no offer of a high standard of living, however high, will ever change the mind of the really convinced intellectual Communist. The revulsion of the ordinary decent African tribesman against Mau Mau, and all secret societies like it, is just as great as that of any member of your Lordships' House, as noble Lords who have spoken to-day have already said. So the first objective must be to restore the rule of law, one of the greatest gifts we ever brought to the African Continent. We must make it clear that we will take every step to restore it and, having restored it, to maintain it. Though I am entirely in sympathy with what Lord Ogmore has said about strengthening the hands of the moderates in every respect, yet we should make the gravest error if we were to make any apparent concession which could be construed as reacting to the terrorism of Mau Mau. If you appear to react to the threat of arson, mutilation and murder, you strike at the very basis of the rule of law. There always have been murderers and there always will be murderers, but let it never be said that we tried to traffic with them.
  1114
  The second objective is the steady advancement of Kenya, which inevitably will be somewhat slowed up by the present problem. I think we all read with great interest Sir Evelyn Baring's speech to the Legislative Council. I think there were some who believed—for it was the first time such a speech had been fully reported in The Times—that this was the first Governor's speech that ever carried a really strong content of social and economic reform. Actually that process has been perfectly steady and continuous, but there is a very long road to go. It will do no harm for the world to know that the Colonial Service is an instrument of perpetual change and not one of obstruction; that the people who live in Kenya, surprisingly enough, know a little bit about Kenya and that it is not the sole preserve of wandering publicists.
  There are two mighty problems to solve. Other speakers have referred to them. One is concerned with the land and the other with the city. In the British Colonial Empire there are many places, such as Malta, Mauritius, Barbados, and the Ibo district of Nigeria, where the pressure of population on the land is so great that the whole question of supporting life is becoming more and more difficult. In the African territories the population is advancing far ahead of production, at a speed which means that in most territories it will have doubled itself in thirty years' time; and it is far from clear where double the food is coming from. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was concerned because the Royal Commission are to confine themselves to the use of land. If they consider the other subjects he suggests, the Report will take so long to write that much of it will be irrelevant when produced.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to misrepresent me. I was not suggesting that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission which is about to be appointed should be changed or that the Commission should cover the ground I have mentioned. What I was suggesting was that another Royal Commission should be appointed to discuss the wider issues which this Royal Commission would not be authorised to touch upon.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I am obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation; I entirely misunderstood him. I thought

  1115
  he suggested that these further spheres should be added to the already enormous subject of land utilisation. It seems fantastic, in a country as vast as Africa, that there should be a shortage of land. I remember a most interesting speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about two years ago, in which he described how many visitors, seeing a vast African plain dotted with thorn bushes, would suggest that the bushes should be cut down and the ground planted—only to find that in no circumstances would anything but thorn bushes grow. If science is able to neutralise the tsetse fly and make available the sterile land which is so much of East Africa, more of the land will become usable; but that is only part of the answer. We have to accustom ourselves to making much better use of the land we have. I was in Kiambu about two years ago, and went round with the District Commissioner, and I say without the slightest disrespect to the Kikuyu people, who at that time were loudly asking that more land be made available to them, that because of the way they are handling their land they are producing from it only about one-tenth of what their land could produce if properly put down to agriculture. That is one of the great problems.
  The second is urbanisation. The economy of Kenya, as of so many of our Colonies, has been tied to the products of the soil. Not only does that leave it wide open to the buffets of boom and slump, but to the fearful catastrophes of nature, such as locusts and drought. I think that everybody agrees that the only wise step for broadening the basis of the economy of this Colony is to attract to it as many secondary industries as possible. In Nairobi, which has an extremely interesting industrial area growing up on its edge, and it is growing apace, this development is bringing with it its own kind of industrial revolution. It is beginning to have what there has never been in those latitudes of Africa before—an urban proletariat, about which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has already spoken. When the Africans no to the cities, they may do so in such numbers that the new urban population will far outstrip any possibility of keeping pace with them in the building of houses. They lose their own tribal loyalties and there they end, with a vacuum of loyalty which evil men will
  1116
  do their best to fill. I shall weary your Lordships no more, but before I sit down I should like to say this. It is my firm conviction that no one race alone can hope to see Kenya through her problems. It will be done only by the good will of moderate men of all races. On that we must rely, and for that we must hope.
  5.17 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, one part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, is very familiar. No doubt it was expressed in this Chamber at the first signs of the revolt of the British Colonies in North America; and we have had it again and again—on India, Ireland, Egypt, and every other Colony where we have had this sort of trouble. It is always: "We must not give way to violence." The result is that we have been too late in our measures of reform, and we have paid the penalty. The sentiments of the noble Lord are unimpeachable, familiar and fatal. I have in my hand the Hansard of the Kenya Legislative Council for the proceedings of September 25 and 26. To read the English newspapers one would suppose that the whole of Kenya is up in flames, that there has been a complete breakdown of order and that the country is in chaos. But listen to the words of the Member for Law and Order himself, who was over here himself and had just returned to Nairobi.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: What is the name?
  LORD STRABOLGI: Mr. Davis. He said:
  "To read some reports in the Press, particularly in the overseas Press, as I did in London last week"—
  that was when the Member for Law and Order was over here—
  "one might easily gain the erroneous impression that there was a widespread disregard of law and order throughout the Colony. That is not so. It would be equally misleading to believe the reports which suggest that there is no subversive activity or intimidation in the Colony at the present time. The truth, as is so often the case, lies between the two extremes. There is a degree of unrest and tension in certain parts of the Colony, but not to such an extent as to justify panic."
  That was the Member for Law and Order, speaking only a few weeks ago.
  LORD OGMORE: I am sorry to interrupt, but when the noble Lord was asked for the name he said Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis is the Member for African Affairs, not the Member for Law and Order.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I should now like to quote from the remarks of Mr. Awori, one of the unofficial African Members of the Legislature, speaking in the Council the next day, in which he quotes a statement of the Commissioner of Police. This is what the Commissioner of Police is reported to have said, without any contradiction:
  "There is always a certain amount of secret society activity in this part of Africa. We have a special branch to keep watch for it, but the Mau Mau is not the great threat so many people make it out to be. We believe the robberies and assaults which take place are the work of ordinary criminal gangs which have no connection whatever with any secret society."
  The conclusion which I reach—and I hope your Lordships will agree with me—is that there has been a great deal of sensationalism and exaggeration about the unrest and violence, and that it has been made the excuse for these repressive measures by a certain section among the white settlers who want at all costs to prevent any kind of constitutional advance in that Colony. That is the danger, as I see it, and it is a terrible danger indeed. If we attempt indefinitely to sit on this safety valve, and always say that we cannot pander to crime and murder, as we have said again and again in similar cases, then we shall have the most serious trouble there, and I tremble for the consequences.
  I should like to break off for one moment to make a comment on what was said by my noble friend Lord Ogmore, in a speech which I am sure delighted all your Lordships, and certainly delighted me, and by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, about the tsetse fly. I have been hearing for some years of a means of preventing the ravages of the tsetse fly. What progress are we making? How much money is being spent on research? Is there a joint effort with the other parts of Africa affected, under different sovereignty, for a combined attack on this terrible pest? I would hazard a guess that if about one-tenth of the money and energy we have spent on developing nuclear fission in order to produce the atomic bomb had been devoted to dealing with, and finding a method of preventing, this loss from the tsetse fly, the problem would have been solved.
  That is only one example of what I fear has been a great lack of imagination, leadership and progress on the part of the Colonial Office for generations. We
  1118
  have been most unfortunate—I say this with great respect to the present incumbent—in not finding great men to be Colonial Ministers. The Colonial Minister of the greatest Colonial Empire of the world should be a very great man. I can think of Joseph Chamberlain; I can think of the Ninth Duke of Devonshire—these were great Colonial Ministers—and I can think of my right honourable friend Mr. James Griffiths, who I believe would have done great things if he had been longer in that office. But apart from those, I have missed the great constructive work that one saw, for example, at the beginning of this century in North Africa under the leadership of such a person as Marshall Lyautey. I have missed (and I am sure your Lordships have noted it also) the presence of great constructive minds and great leadership at the Colonial Office in the political incumbents of the past. Needless to say, I have the greatest confidence in the noble Earl who is to reply to this debate—he might be the fourth if he were the Minister. But there has not been the energy, drive and imagination in the Colonial Office that the situation has required.
  Let us make no mistake about it: this matter in Kenya is only one of many examples of a trouble that is already afflicting great parts of the world; and there will be more of it. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and I am sure he realises the causes of it as well as any of us. Over most of Africa, in Asia Minor, and in large parts of the Continent of Asia itself, you have this revolt against poverty and racial discrimination, and particularly against the latter. In the more advanced communities it takes a different form. It has been one of our troubles in Persia; it has been one of our troubles in the East—although I believe we have avoided it by timely action in West Africa, despite the obvious differences between East and West Africa. The French are having this trouble in their well-managed colonies in North Africa; the Dutch have had it in the East Indies. It is the revolt of the Asiatic, the African, the Arab and the Indian against white European domination. In some cases it is unreasonable. In some cases it takes the form of blind xenophobia. In other cases it is more responsible: the people, or their leaders understand that the process must be gradual, and that the European can offer

  1119
  great help and guidance in this period of development and transition. What we must guard against is alienating those more moderate elements, wherever they are to be found, who can co-operate with us, with whom we should sympathise and whom we should assist, and who can assist us.
  That brings me to the arrest of the leader of the Kenya African Union, Mr. Kinyatta, who I am informed by those who know him and know his work (I have not had the pleasure of meeting him, and I can only believe what I am told) has had no connection whatever with the Mau Mau outrages and is, in fact, one of those far-sighted Africans who could be a great leader. He is at present under arrest without charge, and he should be brought to trial. That is a demand which my colleagues in another place, and I believe my colleagues in your Lordships' House, support as a minimum.
  This problem of resistance to racial discrimination, as I say, takes different forms, but it is very widespread, and I venture to prophesy that by the end of this century every vestige of white racial discrimination will have disappeared from all these countries. How are we to help forward this double movement for racial equality and for the alleviation of extreme poverty, without disorder, breakdown and disaster? That I suggest is the great problem which faces all Parties in this country and in all the Colony-owning nations. It will require the wisest statesmanship, wide vision, tremendous patience, and care, and, above all, courage. The mistakes made are not peculiar to this country—I admit that—or to any Party. Here in Kenya we have this immediate manifestation of the apparent increase of lawlessness which we all agree must be dealt with at once. But if this is made an opportunity, and not an excuse for retarding progress and constitutional development; if this is made an opportunity to find out the real grievances which must exist amongst Africans in Kenya, and to seek to remedy them, there may be a happy outcome from this very unfortunate situation.
  5.30 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I, for one, welcome the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, at this time, even if it is not possible for Her Majesty's
  1120
  Government's representatives to answer the many points which have been raised in the debate in your Lordships' House. I welcome it, nevertheless, because it may serve to ask and get answers to certain questions, and help the Secretary of State to elucidate in Kenya itself some of the points which certainly puzzle me and. I think, puzzle many of your Lordships, about the outbreak there—a problem to which no adequate answer has yet been given for the very probable reason that no adequate answers exist here in London to-day.
  The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—and I propose, as strictly as possible, to confine myself to that Motion—is:
  "To call attention to the political and security situations in Kenya with special reference to the reported activities of the Mau Mau Society and to the emergency legislation.…"
  The first question which I should like the noble Earl to answer, if he can, is one designed to put this outbreak in its proper perspective. The Press and the representatives of public opinion, both in Kenya and in this country, have painted the picture either as one of a reign of terror throughout the country or as a sporadic outbreak of gangsterism of no particular political significance. As other speakers have said, the truth probably lies between the two. But in order to elucidate that point, there are certain questions which I, for one, consider pertinent and should like to ask.
  We have been led to believe that the Mau Mau is a secret society among the Kikuyu. It is perfectly obvious that there are a large number of Kikuyu who are completely opposed to Mau Mau and anything to do with it, and the proof of that resides in the murder of two of the principal chiefs. When the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke about the desirability of collecting African moderate opinion together in order to withstand and oppose the Mau Mau movement, he was, of course, perfectly right. But it is also clear from what has happened that the Mau Mau, or the instigators and leaders of this secret society, regard that moderate element among their own people as possibly their own principal enemy, and that is why they have concentrated on two of the three principal chiefs and have murdered them. I should like to know whether this secret society

  1121
  is, so far as Her Majesty's Government know, limited to the Kikuyu people only, or whether there is any evidence of its having spread to any of the many other racial groups in Kenya and beyond the borders of Kenya. That is very important. If it is limited to the Kikuyu and, as we know, obviously limited to only a small part of them, the organisation can surely be dealt with by police measures and ought to be dealt with—pace other speakers—by police measures as being a manifestation of a small group of people who are terrorists and gangsters and who do not, therefore, represent the large body even of Kikuyu opinion, with whatever grievances, real or exaggerated, they may have.
  The second point, and very much allied with it, is the question which, frankly, puzzles me very much. As the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, has said, secret societies are endemic in Africa, and have been endemic in all African peoples, so far as we know, from the beginning of European contact with them. They are, perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, I am sure will confirm, more particularly powerful and widespread in West Africa, and though they have existed and do exist in other parts of Africa, they have never assumed either the political, social or economic prominence which they have in West Africa. Is there any evidence either way to show whether Mau Mau is a spontaneous local manifestation in the form of a secret society, or whether it has any affiliations with secret societies in other parts of Africa or among other racial groups in Africa? I repeat that if it is limited to the Kikuyu, or to only part of the Kikuyu, obviously police measures—emergency police measures, if necessary—are the appropriate remedy.
  In that same context of ideas I should like to ask for elucidation of another point which has certainly puzzled me very much. So far as one can gather, both from correspondence from Kenya and from the Press, this outbreak of terrorism and gangsterism of Mau Mau appears to be rather sudden. What police evidence is there of this society before, say, the beginning of this year? Was it known? What were the police reports—if the noble Earl is in a position to disclose them—which were made to the late Governor, Sir Philip Mitchell,
  1122
  before he left, and to the Acting Governor in the interregnum between the two Governors? Was the police force adequately equipped—and I will come to what I mean in a moment—to find out what was going on? By "adequately equipped," I mean, was the police force up to strength? Was there sufficient police personnel, African and European, to deal with ordinary, everyday affairs in Kenya, including an outbreak or a recrudescence of gangsterism, and was the machinery available to the police adequate and sufficient to obtain information? In particular, were the funds which were available to the police department adequate to do its work, or is there any evidence that the police department was starved of funds?
  At this point, I must interject that I have a personal experience and knowledge of the fact that, over the last few years, the Kenya Legislature has been inclined to be parsimonious in expenditure in many directions, notably in the payment of salaries to people who were wanted and who were unwilling to serve there at the rates of remuneration which were offered by the Legislature. The same point arises, but indirectly, over a question which was, I think, referred to in the first place by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and by other speakers—whether the delay in the arrival of the second Governor, Sir Evelyn Baring, was in any way connected with the difficulty of salaries. I am sure it was not, but we should all like to be reassured that that was the case.
  The main point about which we have to clear our minds concerning Mau Mau is—what is it? Is it a new thing? Is it a sudden thing? And why have we not had, or why have the Governments of Kenya and this country not had, adequate warning of what appears to be a sudden flowering of a terrorist organisation? Incidentally, if the noble Lord is in a position to reply to this point, it would naturally be of great interest to your Lordships and to the general public to know whether any of the old subversive organisations with which many of your Lordships were extremely familiar in the past, such as the Watch Tower Organisation, can be traced at ad in this present manifestation. That the police force can cope with gangsterism and terrorism on a small scale I have no doubt whatsoever. The police force in Kenya certainly enjoyed in the past a first-class reputation,

  1123
  and to-day it is under the command of one of the best police officers in the Commonwealth. I happen to know him personally, and I know that his wide experience, not only in Africa but in many other parts of the world, well qualifies him for the appointment which he now enjoys. I am sure that he and his officers will succeed if they are given the equipment and material with which to make success possible.
  That brings me to a second group of points. I should like to ask whether the Governor and the Government of Kenya are to-day endowed with adequate powers to stop the growth of this filthy disease which has infected part of the Kikuyu people. Have the Government there any particular powers to remove from Kenya temporary visitors from all parts of the world who are calculated to produce in Kenya subversive and unpleasant results? In other words, can visitors be removed under the present powers? If they cannot, I suggest that Her Majesty's Government should consider enacting such legislation as is necessary to have them removed—or, indeed, prevented from going there. If it is true that the Mau Mau secret society really owes its origin to economic and sociological problems, which I am personally inclined to doubt (that is not to say that there are not economic and sociological problems which have got to be dealt with), I think it is only fair to say in this House—and I feel sure the noble Earl who is going to reply for Her Majesty's Government would also say—that terrorism is riot the best method of achieving progress.
  Those of your Lordships who have lived in Kenya will know that any race or group of people against whom a secret society or a small body of people in Kenya have directed their particular activities must naturally go in fear. Even those who live on the edge of a great city such as Nairobi (I do not know how many of your Lordships have lived on the outskirts of that town, as I have, and have had a house with a garden running down to the forest reserves into which anybody could come by day or night and which it is physically impossible for the Kenya or any other police force to guard) must live in terror of their lives. That there has not been a panic—and I do not believe there has been a panic—argues very much
  1124
  for the sanity of those people who are in that position.
  But may it not also be said, not only to the Africans—who, I am sure, deplore as much as do your Lordships and all of us in this country this outbreak of terrorism—but also to the Indian and the European elements in Kenya, that those who have the better education must be wise enough also not to be infected with reaction but must remain in that same liberal-minded frame in which they were, in spite of what is going on? That is very important. I asked my noble friend the Leader of the House how I should say what I wished to say, but he was not able to find a Parliamentary equivalent. I should like to say to those right-minded people, of whom Kenya is full, that in spite of what has happened we beg of them not to become bad-minded. The word I used when I spoke to the noble Marquess was not "bad"; it was another word which your Lordships may, I think, be able to suggest. That is the advice which I am sure everyone would give them; and that is of the utmost importance for the restoration of order and the progress of that Colony.
  I regret also that what may be interpreted as a criticism of missionaries should have found a place in the Press of this country. If some missionaries have merited criticism, one can only say that, as in every other walk of life, there are among missionaries the good, the bad and the indifferent. May I draw your Lordships' attention to something which appeared in The Times to-day? It is a message which was timely and happily phrased. It is a message from Rome, to the effect that Monseigneur John McCarthy, Apostolic Vicar of Zanzibar, has:
  "… in a pastoral letter, warned the faithful under his care against secret societies in general and the Mau Mau in particular. He emphasises that the Mau Mau has assumed an anti-religious and especially an anti-Christian character and that for this reason 'whoever of the faithful becomes a member of it is liable ipso facto? to the penalty of ex-communication'."
  If other churches were to take an early opportunity of saying the same thing to those under their care, I am sure it would have a very considerable effect; and that is true, perhaps, of very large numbers of true and superficial Christians who exist in Africa—and not only in Kenya.

  1125
  There is one last point which I should like to make. If this is really a manifestation of an economic or a sociological ill, I would express the hope that even if the terms of reference of the Royal Commission are not widened as much as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, suggested, they should at least be widened to take into consideration the whole question of land tenure, and not only land tenure in the White Highlands.
  This may not be known to all of your Lordships, but it arises directly out of a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. He understated what Sir Philip Mitchell said in his speech of some six years ago about the progress of Africa and Africans. Without going into historical and anthropological subjects on which it is mach too late to touch, it is nevertheless worth remembering that the progress of Africans in Africa is approximately sixty years old. It is also a very curious and interesting historical fact that in spite of the contact which Africans had over many thousands of years with highly civilised outside peoples, it was not until sixty years ago that they showed even by imitation any particular desire to copy or to learn. It is perfectly true that until sixty years ago neither the wheel, the plough nor the alphabet was known anywhere in Africa, nor had any African race anywhere attempted to make a pictographic or ideographic alphabet—and that in spite of the contract with traders and commerce dating from the historic time of the Egyptian dynasties, through the forests and up the rivers and on the coast; contact with the China trade on the coast round Mombasa; contact for centuries with the Moslem world, both in trade and by settlement on the coast, and contact with the Portuguese. It was not until sixty years ago, mainly by contact with the British, that the African showed any desire to learn to read or write, make a wheel, use a keystone or use a plough. The progress in those sixty years has admittedly been immense, but it has been by the assimilation of what to Africa is obviously an extraneous civilisation. It is within the Africans' own organisation that unfortunately little progress has taken place.
  Your Lordships may wonder what on earth this history lecture has to do with land tenure. It has very much to do with
  1126
  land tenure there. Land tenure in Kenya is still, as many of your Lordships may know, largely communal tenure; it is not individual tenure. Under the system of communal or tribal tenure, agricultural progress is practically impossible. It is practically impossible, because if a Kikuyu with a piece of land wished to improve that land by building a house, and putting in irrigation and a terrace, he would be liable to lose possession of the land. The land, being a piece of land under communal ownership, reverts to the community. He cannot get out of his community or his group compensation for the capital he has put in, or the worth of the capital or anything else. It is one of the gravest, most difficult and most intractable problems in Kenya to-day. The African within his own branch of the communal organisation has made no progress in sixty years, in spite of the assimilation of outside conditions.
  That is one—not the only one, but one—of the reasons for the land hunger among the Kikuyu to-day. It is perfectly true there is land hunger. That land hunger, however, is not necessarily remedied by giving more land to the Kikuyu for subsistence farming and for improving the product of their agriculture, which cannot be improved under the system of communal tenure. If there were individual tenure in the land which is farmed by the Kikuyu, the product of that land could at the moment more than support the existing population. I do not say it would do so in thirty years' time, but it could to-day. The cure for that is a modification of tribal custom and law, and not, in the first place, the allotting of other land which may or may not be more highly farmed but which, if allotted, would produce only subsistence farming. That is not the answer to overpopulation; that is not the answer to under-nourishment. It is not the answer to what has been created into a controversy between the settlers farming in certain parts and the Kikuyu farming in certain other parts.
  Nor is it true to say, as so many people do say and think, that the White Highlands are the best of all the land in Kenya. That is by no means the case. A great deal of the land of the Kikuyu in the neighbourhood of Nairobi is as good as, if not a great deal better than, the vast majority of the land in the White

  1127
  Highlands, but it does not produce the same crops or the same out-turn, and it will not so long as it is farmed as it is now, which will always lead to overpopulation. If the economic and the sociological difficulties in Kenya, with which we are all only too familiar, are at the back of this Mau Mau upsurgence, that is a subject which the Royal Commission ought to tackle, and ought to tackle now; but it is not the answer to say that there ought to be Kikuyu settlement in the White Highlands. It is nothing at all to do with the question. It neither is an economic answer nor is it justice. Take the case of other overpopulated parts of the world. What are the efforts that are being made in India to cure over-population and improve agriculture in areas which are overpopulated? Not to go and get other bits of somebody else's land and take that because it has not been properly farmed. Let us get the perspective of this matter right. In the first place, let us get right the perspective of the Mau Mau, what this outbreak means, and what the cures are, and not go back and say: "All this is merely the result of a lot of dissatisfaction because the white farmers are farming in Kenya." Indeed, they are producing the food on which most of the African population in the cities is at the present time living.
  I should like, in conclusion, to ask the noble Lord questions in addition to those of which I think he has taken note, because I have had an opportunity of talking to him about them before. I should like to ask whether the Royal Commission's membership will be announced in the near future, and whether even if their report is not complete in measurable time they can be invited to address to, I imagine, the Governor of Kenya an Interim Report dealing with such points as may affect the Mau Mau outbreak. I say "may" because I should like to be assured that this Royal Commission will confine its activities to the terms of reference which are given to it, and not indulge in recommendations for constitutional reform which will, in the first place, delay the Report and, in the second place, be likely to engender false hopes and disappointments.
  5.58 p.m.
  LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I have listened, as have your Lordships, with close interest to this debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. May I say that during the last several years I have been closely concerned with an engineering development in Kenya. Such work, which relates to the production of cement in the Masai Reserve, from deposits of limestone discovered by Mr. Cull, brought me into close discussion with the then Governor. Sir Philip Mitchell, and the members of the Government. I should like to take this opportunity of joining with the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in paying high tribute to that most able administrator, Sir Philip Mitchell. Your Lordships will realise that the setting up of a large enterprise of such nature in a Native Reserve is no simple matter; many difficult questions are involved. The Government's first consideration, very properly, was the interests of the Masai. To see the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Chief Native Commissioner, the District Native Commissioner, and several from that remarkable body of men, the District Officers, in action, filled me with great pride and an unshakeable conviction that the interests of the Masai, or for that matter any or all of the other tribes, could not be in better hands. The Masai, whom I like and came to know quite well, are a happy people. I lived in and went through the length and breadth of their Reserve by day and by night, sometimes alone. I would not do so in Hyde Park at night.
  The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, referred to Sir Philip Mitchell's recent articles in the Press. I think he might have quoted with advantage one phrase so that we might keep the issue of to-day in its proper perspective. What Sir Philip said, in substance, was that the British sphere of influence covers an area equivalent to that of Europe, and in this frame the Kikuyu tribal area is the size of Suffolk. The noble Lord also stated that at certain times unwise things had been said. I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to reply in a moment, whether he can give some guidance in this matter. When I was in Kenya, I came into touch with a leading figure in the commercial field there, Sir Edgar Vincent, who is the

  1129
  Kenya Member for the East African Central Legislative Assembly. Very recently in Nairobi, Sir Edgar made a statement from which, with your Lordships' permission, I quote the following words:
  "The alarming encouragement given to subversive factions by certain members of both Houses of Parliament during their visits here. …"
  Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to give some guidance in respect of this matter, about which he must know a great deal more than I do. It seems to me that Sir Edgar hits the nail on the head and his remarks are reinforced by the noble Lord, Lard Milverton.
  6.3 p.m.
  LORD BADEN-POWELL: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord who has just spoken, out of his turn, I will occupy your attention for a very few minutes. I was somewhat disconcerted when, only a few hours ago, I was approached to add my voice to this debate. Apparently it was felt that with my experience in Colonial affairs, in Central Africa and Southern Rhodesia in particular, and my police experience, I should have some useful contribution, albeit very brief, to make to this debate. We are deeply indebted this afternoon to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for initiating this most interesting debate, and to other noble Lords who have spoken. For some years I had the honour of serving in the ranks of the British South Africa Police in Southern Rhodesia, and I feel that, although Southern Rhodesia is far removed from Kenya, there must be a considerable similarity between the general work of the Kenya police and the force in which I had the honour to serve. I regret that I have little or no knowledge of Kenya, beyond the fact that I have paid two extremely brief visits to that most wonderful Colony. My father, when he retired from public life, went to live there; I have a number of relatives living there, as well as many friends. But as I have just explained, my knowledge of the Colony is not as extensive as I should wish.
  We have heard it said that a "policeman's lot is not a happy one." I fully believe that in Africa, and particularly in Kenya at the present time, that rings very true. As may well be imagined, in Kenya, as in other parts of Africa, the duties of the police are very varied, and difficult to perform effectively. European and
  1130
  African members of the force have to cover vast areas of country in the execution of their duty. I can well recollect how in Rhodesia we used to patrol on horseback these enormous areas of the countryside. This necessitated many lonely patrols, often with nothing to do—but equally often with quite a lot to do. So, too, in Kenya have these police patrols vast areas of country to cover, in which the same difficulties may confront them at almost every turn. Fighting crime is an extremely difficult job at the best of times, but when you are dealing with Africans, whose mentality is perhaps not the same as that of people with whom we are accustomed to deal in the normal course of events, your Lordships can appreciate that the difficulties are enormous.
  The bulk of the Africans, many of whom live in the widely scattered native reserves, are childlike in their mentality. They need careful, but extremely firm handling. Quite often it is difficult to obtain from them statements bordering anywhere near the truth. You find that they will hedge, they will lie, without any argument at all. You will find that they will never give one another away. It is extremely difficult to gain the full truth from them. In the case of the present Mau Mau terrorism in Kenya, it must be an added burden, and I think a very difficult one, on the police to endeavour to gain anything like the information needed to be able to stamp out this vicious and quite unnecessary evil. I remember that on one occasion in Rhodesia we had the first vestiges of a similar form of unrest. Art unruly section of the community decided to start up some sort of—I will not say terrorism, but something definitely semi-seditious. We nipped it in the bud while the going was good and before it was allowed to grow too big. I feel that had there not been quite the vacillation that there must have been in Kenya, and had more active and energetic action been taken earlier, this absolutely vicious problem which at present confronts us would not now be in existence.
  Knowing; their mentality, I think perhaps that, taken by and large, Africans are not capable of careful organisation in a body such as the Mau Mau. So it is perhaps questionable as to who are the authorities behind the vicious reign

  1131
  of terror which the Mau Mau are at present conducting in the unfortunate Colony of Kenya. It is a very simple matter for Africans, with their great knowledge of bushcraft, to disappear into the mountain regions or into the dense jungle. They can get right away, out of all knowledge of the authorities. In spite of the fact that the movements of Africans are supposed to be controlled, they can still find their way right off the beaten track. I think there is something in the so-called "bush telegraph" of the Africans. They seem to have an amazing knack of being able to tell if any authority is coming anywhere near them when they are having one of their secret meetings. I remember a personal incident, when on one occasion in Rhodesia I was on a long patrol to a mine some ninety miles away from the police station. When I arrived at the mine three days later, on horseback, the manager told me that he had heard from his Africans the very moment I left the police station. That, I think, is some indication, just in parenthesis, of the operation of the so-called "bush telegraph."
  The position, as I understand it, of the Mau Mau at the moment is somewhat analogous to that of the Matabele in Southern Rhodesia, who rose in rebellion in 1896. The Matabele had their headquarters, their hide-out, in the Matoppo Hills, near Bulawayo, in just the same way as the Mau Mau seem to be getting together in remote places in Kenya. The Matabele rebellion is, of course, a matter of past history. They rose in revolt when the European settlers first took over what is to-day the Colony of Southern Rhodesia. In the case of the Mau Mau, who are operating in the midst of a highly civilised community, it is a rather different story, perhaps, but I feel that there is some analogy between the two.
  Very much of what I was going to say, particularly in regard to the police in Kenya, has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, and that will enable me to shorten my remarks very considerably. With regard to the matter generally, I think that, perhaps, there must be a certain similarity between the Mau Mau terrorists and the so-called Amalaita gangs in Johannesburg. These Amalaita gangs have been carrying out a regular programme of murder, violence, robbery and
  1132
  disorder over a period of many years. The police have been endeavouring to crush them, but it is still difficult to know whether or not they have had any marked measure of success. In the case of the Mau Mau, no doubt only when the ringleaders have been rounded up, and the whole thing crushed, will the people of Kenya be able once more to live peacefully and happily, and the police in that unfortunate country resume their normal job.
  6.12 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I feel that every member of your Lordships' House will feel grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for the manner in which he introduced the Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper this afternoon. Other noble Lords who followed have. I think, without exception, intimate knowledge concerning Kenya, and therefore were able to speak from first-hand information. In any event, I feel sure that your Lordships will have been much impressed with the whole standard of our discussion this afternoon, which was certainly very high indeed. On October 16, and again on October 21, I made a statement in your Lordships' House similar to that which was made in another place by my right honourable friend on the general situation in Kenya. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who leads the Opposition and who followed me on the second occasion, assured me that Her Majesty's Government could expect co-operation and support from the Opposition, in any action which might be taken to restore law and order, and to enable law-abiding citizens to go about their peaceful avocations. That statement was repeated again, not in identical words, but with the same meaning, by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. And let me say at once that the statements made, both in this House and in another place, have been received with much satisfaction by the Government of Kenya, as well as by Her Majesty's Government at home.
  I suppose it was only natural that the House would require at an early date a debate upon the whole situation in Kenya, but I hope your Lordships will not think me discourteous if I am not able to reply to all the questions which have been addressed to me to-day. As noble Lords

  1133
  will know, my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary left yesterday afternoon for Kenya, where he is to study at first hand all that is happening, and where he will consider, with the Government of Kenya, plans for the future development of the Colony. I would, however, make it clear once again that the Colonial Secretary will not discuss the present measures, which were taken with his prior knowledge, and indeed with his full approval, and which have been brought into operation entirely to deal with an unusual situation. I should not like it to be thought for one moment by any noble Lord in the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that these special ordinances were passed other than merely to try to give extra power to the Government to destroy this terrorism which has arisen in their midst. I hope the House will permit ma, on the return of my right honourable friend from Kenya, to make another statement dealing with the various subject matters which have been discussed during his absence in Kenya.
  I think it is only natural that the members of the House should be interested to know something of the activities of this terrorist organisation which is absolutely and solely responsible for the present troubles in Kenya. Let me say here, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, that so far as we are aware, to all intents the Kikuyu are the only tribe who have been associated with the Mau Mau terrorism. But it should not be thought that the tribe have all taken the oath to this organisation, for many of them, I have no doubt, are still loyal to authority and order. But there is no doubt whatever that the Mau Mau is one of the most powerful of the known secret societies in Kenya, which came into prominence a few years after the end of the war. As was pointed out by the noble Lord who moved the Motion, every member of the organisation is required to swear on oath that he will undertake a number of important things, and each one of those is directed in some form or another to destroying all form of law and order other than Mau Mau. For instance, he is asked not to disclose the workings of Mau Mau to Government or to any European. He is asked not to inform against a fellow member of the organisation, not to sell land to any European, not to assist any European;
  1134
  and, finally, he is asked to chase the Europeans from Kenya. Other conditions, of course, have been attached to these oaths, as mentioned by my right honourable friend in another place, which I need not repeat here. So far as we are aware, the ceremonies at which the oath is administered usually take place after dark, in an extremely barbarous fashion.
  Let there be no mistake or misconception in anyone's mind. This organisation is pledged to put an end to all lawful government, and to murder, destroy or liquidate persons who are opposed to their principles. It is, therefore, obvious at once that it is far worse than any spasmodic outbreak of gangsterism, which the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, seemed to think it might possibly be. It is also noticeable that Mau Mau have concentrated their attacks upon Africans who hold official positions as chiefs and headmen, in an obvious attempt to break down all forms of administration. We thought—and I suppose every member of your Lordships' House thought as well—that this challenge of Mau Mau had to be met with a strong hand, for a body which will resort to murder, and to other brutal and inhuman crimes, as a means of securing its aim, is obviously challenging lawful authority; and no Government worthy of their name, whatever their complexion, could possibly allow the lives of a great number of law-abiding citizens, Africans, Europeans and Asians, to be placed in danger. I think the House will be interested to learn that the Indian and Pakistan communities have shown their support for Government and, moreover, many hundreds of Africans have volunteered for extra duty.
  It is sometimes said that Mau Mau is a demonstration of African nationalism, but it does not seem to me that a return to the law of the jungle by an organisation whose background is associated with many of the evils of tribal witchcraft, as has been pointed out to-day, is the kind of nationalism which would commend itself to any of those who may be seeking the political advancement of the African, more especially in a multi-racial community where confidence and partnership between the races is essential. I have heard it said (fortunately it has not been mentioned in this House to-day) that the action which Her Majesty's

  1135
  Government, together with the Kenya Government, have taken to put down these acts of terrorism is merely designed to hide political or economic grievances which are current, or may be current, within the Colony. We are all aware, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is just as well aware as I am, that there are both political and economic grievances in existence, but the activities of Mau Mau can only aggravate them and in no sense whatever can they act as a cure.
  I have also heard it suggested (articles have appeared in print, and this was the basis of Lord Ogmore's complaint to-day) that there has been complacency on the part of Her Majesty's Government and the Government in Kenya in dealing with this outbreak. I would ask the House to bear with me for a little time while I study the full facts of the case. I think they will indicate clearly that the Government were not lax and that no spirit of complacency existed at all. There is no doubt that early action was taken to deal with this outbreak of terrorism which, unfortunately, gradually increased month after month. A short time ago, the activities of Mau Mau did not appear to be such that the body could not be controlled. But on August 17 the acting Governor, Mr. Potter, reported a deterioration of law and order in the Kikuyu areas and that the introduction of special legislation was contemplated to deal with it. A copy of the proposed legislation arrived in this country from Kenya on September 8, and a few days later, the Attorney-General, Mr. Wyatt, and the Chief Native Commissioner, Mr. Davis, came to London to discuss the matter with my right honourable friend. On September 16—that is eight days later—the Secretary of State's comments were sent to Kenya; and the proposed Bids were published in the Colony two days later. On the 25th of the same month the Legislative Council began their discussion on these ordinances, and all of them, with the exception of the Societies' Bill, were assented to by the Governor on October 3. So that from September 8, when the original copy of the proposed legislation arrived in this country, it was barely a month before it had become law.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I say, on behalf of the Daily Telegraph
  1136
  and myself, that the noble Earl has not quite got our complaint, which was not that the Government were lax in the time in which legislation germinated, but that they did not bring in legislative and other measures early enough?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think if the noble Lord had listened to what I had said, he would have heard me make the statement that the Acting Governor in Kenya was satisfied up to August 17 that the powers which he had were sufficient to deal with these acts of terrorism, which had, unfortunately, started to increase. It was not until after the middle of September that the number of murders started to rise and that a large number of European-owned cattle were slaughtered and mutilated. As your Lordships will remember, it was at the beginning of October that the Senior Chief Waruhiu was murdered. On September 27 the new Governor of Kenya left for the Colony, and on his arrival there he immediately carried out an extensive tour of various parts of the Colony. His own personal investigation confirmed to him that Mau Mau terrorism was carefully planned and centrally directed, and that its object was to destroy all authority other than Mau Mau. Although up to that time intensive police action had kept the situation in urban areas under control, law and order in the native reserves had undoubtedly deteriorated. I have been informed that at all times there are very few police in the native reserves, and most of the administration is carried on by African chiefs, headmen and sub-headmen. These men are not hereditary chiefs and office holders but are appointed by Government, and therefore are Government servants.
  It was not very long before Mau Mau directed their attacks upon these men, and the number of headmen and sub-headmen who have been murdered or reported missing during September and October is alarmingly high. It was obvious to everyone that if these attacks were to continue much longer, there would be a serious risk of a breakdown of the administration of the native reserves. The Governor came to the conclusion that the ordinary process of law proceeded too slowly and that the lack of time would allow opportunity for those who were behind outrages to organise widespread disturbances in which large

  1137
  numbers of innocent people might well have been killed. Therefore, it was decided, with the agreement of my right honourable friend and of Her Majesty's Government, to declare a state of emergency and to arrest what were believed to be the ringleaders of Mau Mau. The Governor was satisfied that the military forces were adequate to control the situation as it then was, but that additional reinforcements from the Middle East, and from Tanganyika and Uganda, would enable him to display an overwhelming show of force so that all forms of violence would be seriously discouraged. It was under these changed conditions that it was decided to bring in these reinforcements.
  So far I have endeavoured to give your Lordships a brief outline of the situation which has led up to the present trouble. I feel that I must now endeavour to reply to some of the many questions which were addressed to me. One of the charges which was levelled against Her Majesty's Government by the mover of the Motion concerned the interregnum in the departure of Sir Philip Mitchell and the arrival of Sir Evelyn Baring. The noble Lord, who quoted the dates, was accurate in his detail. Sir Philip Mitchell left Kenya on June 21, and Sir Evelyn Baring arrived in Kenya on September 29, and took over the administration of the Government on the following day. The Chief Secretary had been administering the Government up to that time, and he had certainly shown a considerable firmness and discretion in carrying on the Government. I do not think it could be said—I agree with other noble Lords, including Lord Milverton—that money is the sole concern in this matter. It is obvious that if it were really necessary and urgent that a Governor should arrive in a Colonial territory the day after the outgoing Governor had left, arrangements could quite easily be made to meet that situation. But for many years there has been this interregnum. While these interregna in themselves are not unusual, or even at times disadvantageous, my right honourable friend has now issued instructions to secure that the intervals between the departure of one Governor and the arrival of his successor should be no longer than the public interest demands.
  LORD OGMORE: Does that imply that in this case public interest demanded that the Governor should be there earlier? And if it was not for financial reasons—in other words, if no one would pay the Governor's salary as from the middle of June—why did the Governor not go out immediately Sir Philip Mitchell left? It was always the practice in India that an incoming Governor went immediately the outgoing Governor left. In any case, I agree with the noble Earl that it is a highly desirable practice that there should not be these interregna.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: As I say, I hope there will no longer be these interregna, and it is the effort of my noble friend to reduce them to the barest minimum. But I do not think that the work and activities of the Chief Secretary at that time would have made any difference whatever, because the special ordinances, which were afterwards promulgated before the arrival of the new Governor within the territory, would have received the sanction of the Legislative Council whether he had been there, or whether he had not.
  I should now like to come to the question of the appointment of the Royal Commission. I hope that in the course of a few days it will be possible to announce the name of the Chairman of the Royal Commission, and also the terms of reference. Therefore, I ask the House not to press me to speculate upon what those terms of reference may be, other than to tell your Lordships that the Royal Commission will consider, among other things, systems of land tenure, and will also, at the same time, consider the urban population in the various territories concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked me what were to be the financial arrangements for the expenses that would be incurred in this outbreak of terrorism which has unhappily arisen. At the moment, I should not like to give him a full statement, in case of any inaccuracies. But the matter is now being seriously considered, and I hope that before long a statement may be made upon this question.
  A number of questions of some importance were raised by my noble friend Lord Rennell. Part of the information which he required concerned the Kenya police. I am told that at the beginning of 1952 the Kenya police force, with a total

  1139
  strength (excluding the Kenya police reserve) of just over 5,600, was almost up to establishment. Since then—that was about the end of August—the establishment has been increased by a total of 1,000, of which approximately 10 per cent. will be European. I have not at the moment any further information which I can give the noble Lord as to how the recruiting is progressing, but I will certainly see that the noble Lord is in possession of the facts in due course. I might add that the Kenya police reserve, with a total strength of 3,500, is also up to establishment. My noble friend asked, further, whether the Governor had powers to remove temporary visitors to the Colony. The principal immigration officer, who in this case may be the chief of police as well, might, if he had reliable information which would justify him in so doing, declare a visitor a prohibited immigrant and cancel his visitor's pass. Naturally, the visitor must then leave the Colony. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, and the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, will observe that the Governor has sufficient powers to deal with that subject as well.
  Finally, I should like to deal with what I think was the last matter addressed to me—namely, the observations that were made in another place by my right honourable friend in dealing with the missionary societies. I believe it is obvious now that my right honourable friend had no intention whatever of criticising the missionary societies or the activities of the Kenya Government. But he has stated that it remains important to understand that if the African is denied emotional outlets he will find them in other ways, including membership of secret societies. A large number of observers have testified that this aspect is an important part of the social problem, and it must be included in any survey of the causes for unrest. I regret that I have not been able to reply to all the questions which were addressed to me, but I hope to make a further statement to the House on the return of my right honourable friend from Kenya. May I add this? It must not be thought that during this time of unrest and anxiety all social and economic improvements will be postponed. On the contrary, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, and of the Government of Kenya, that the existing plans should be imple-
  1140
  mented, and that other improvements should not be jeopardised by this outbreak of violence.
  I hope that this debate will have impressed upon all law-abiding citizens of the Colony—as I believe it will—the determination of Her Majesty's Government, and indeed, of the whole of your Lordships' House, to maintain law and order; and further that, in spite of all the difficulties and complexities of the situation, our policy is to continue to improve, by social and economic measures, the lot of all the peoples within the Colony. Naturally, we shall all, irrespective of Party allegiance, hope that the present outburst of disorder may quickly subside and that lawful authority will be restored. While we shall do all that is humanly possible to protect lives and property, I cannot, of course, guarantee that further violence will not be experienced before this unhappy chapter in the history of Kenya is finally closed. But I can again assure the House, and the citizens of the Colony, of our determination to stamp out the disorders which have been caused by Mau Mau. I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will be discussing with the Governor all the points which have been brought up in the course of to-day's debate, and I will certainly see that the views which have been expressed by noble Lords from all parts of the House are conveyed to my right honourable friend as early as possible, and certainly during the course of his stay in Kenya. I feel sure that it will be of immense satisfaction to the inhabitants of the Colony to learn that the whole of this House is united in the support of the policy which we intend to pursue to reestablish the security and happiness of that land.
  6.42 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in to-day's debate, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl who has replied for the Government. Whether my noble friend Lord Strabolgi is right or not when he says that Colonial Ministers are great men, they are at least very busy men. The noble Earl is, I believe, the only Minister now at the Colonial Office. I can well understand how fully his time must be occupied, and he has certainly given us his attention to-day. I hope that this debate will have

  1141
  had the effect that he thinks it will—that is, to support all men of good will in Kenya—and I trust that the message which goes from this House will be received by them there and will strengthen them in the work they have to do.
  It was quite clearly shown that all noble Lords who have spoken believe that we must be firm in restoring and preserving law and order, but that we must also ensure that a progressive policy is pursued. It is most important, as nearly everybody (except, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Milverton) has pointed out, that moderate opinion be fortified. Lord Milverton, unhappily I thought—he has explained that he could not be here and apologises to the House—suggested that moderate opinion had run away from its responsibilities. Noble Lord after noble Lord has pointed out that moderate opinion has been assassinated for standing up to its responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said that two moderate chiefs had been assassinated. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, also said so, and pointed out that headmen had been assassinated. Mr. Mathu stood up and attacked the Mau Mau. Therefore I think it is unfortunate to say that men of moderate opinion have not shared responsibility. They have not only shared responsibility, but have lost their lives doing so. I cannot think of any greater test than that.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, spoke in a very interesting way about the fundamental questions, and I hope that after the Secretary of State returns from Kenya we may have a debate on those questions. It would be most interesting to discuss some of the sociological problems that have to be faced in places like Kenya, but I do not think the present is a suitable opportunity. The wheel and the alphabet were mentioned, and when that debate takes place I hope to put forward what I believe is the reason why the Africans did not evolve either the wheel or the alphabet—a reason which does not at all reflect on their intelligence but has an entirely different basis.
  I am afraid that the public in this country takes an interest in the Colonies only when something goes wrong. If any of your Lordships ever speaks to a public meeting on the Colonies, you realise that
  1142
  fact. I have mentioned it before. Their eyes glaze when the word "Colonies" is mentioned, and those near the door take the opportunity to slip out. In this regard, the Press of this country is far ahead of public opinion. It is no good blaming the Press, because when I was in the noble Earl's position I found that the Press very often gave more space to Colonial matters than public opinion warranted. It is our responsibility as a House of Parliament to enlighten and lead public opinion in an interest in Colonial affairs. I have nothing left to add, but before asking your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Motion I should like, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, and I am sure noble Lords opposite would like to join in, to send a message of support and sympathy to all men and women of good will in Kenya, to whatever race they belong, whether they are officials or unofficials, whether they are soldiers, sailors or police. I believe if that message goes out it will do a great deal to reinforce them in the difficult task with which they are faced. With that, I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND INSANITY
  CRIMINAL LAW AND INSANITY