Sitting of 12 March 1953

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

NEW WRITS
For Hayes and Harlington, in the room of Walter Henry Ayles, Esquire (Manor of Northstead).
For Barnsley, in the room of Sidney Schofield, Esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).
For Stoke-on-Trent, North, in the room of Albert Edward Davies, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Whiteley.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  RHOANGLO GROUP BILL
    UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Coal Miners
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour the average adult wage per shift in the coal mines for piece work and day work at the most recent convenient date; and what were the corresponding wage rates at nationalisation.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): Average earnings per shift for adult pieceworkers and day wage men are not separately available; nor are average wage rates. For the week ended 18th October, 1952, the estimated average cash earnings per shift of adult male workers in the coal-mining industry were 43s. 9d. The corresponding figure during the last week in April, 1947, was 26s. 5d. The values of allowances in kind for the corresponding periods (Is. 10d. in October, 1952, and 1 s. 4d. in April, 1947) are not included in these figures.
    Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that the average pit-head price of coal has increased from 38s. 11d. to 60s. 6d. since nationalisation, can the Minister hold out any hope of getting the miners to see that if more wages are paid to them for the same work, whatever they produce will cost more and will cause the cost of living to rise still further?
    Sir W. Monckton: The National Coal Board, in conjunction and co-operation with the National Union of Mineworkers, are now entering upon a campaign to get better productivity from the mines, which is what I think my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that attempts are being made in certain quarters, political and otherwise, to create prejudice against the miners in order to create prejudice against nationalisation?
    Sir W. Monckton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acquit me in my answer from taking any such course.
    Mr. Shinwell indicated assent.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is not the real point what the figures which my right hon. and learned Friend has just given are worth? Is not the real trouble that the purchasing power of the £ sterling has nearly halved, because of six years of Socialist Government, which killed initiative and ruined our credit?
    Mr. G. Jeger: Could the Minister make arrangements for hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House to go down a coal mine and do a few shifts in order to make up their minds whether they think the miners earn their money?
    Mr. Osborne: On a point of order. Could I be allowed to say, in view of some of the remarks——
    Hon. Members: No.
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Labour how many vacancies there are for experienced coal miners in Scotland; and in which areas these vacancies occur.
    Sir W. Monckton: One hundred and sixty-four additional experienced coal miners are required. The vacancies are in East and West Ayr.
    Mr. Hamilton: In view of the fact that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) and other hon. Members opposite seem to think that the wages in the coalmining industry are so very attractive, how does the right hon. and learned Gentleman account for these vacancies?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am glad to say, whatever the reason, that the number of wage-earners on the colliery books in Scotland remains steady at about 85,000.

    Statistics
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed at the latest convenient stated date; how this compares with October, 1951; what was the percentage of dock workers unemployed on both dates; and whether he will make a comprehensive statement on the Government's plan for bringing about full employment.
    Sir W. Monckton: On 16th February, 1953, 428,820 persons were registered as unemployed compared with 263,756 at October, 1951. In the week ended 14th February, 1953, the average number of dock workers surplus to requirements each day amounted to 15.8 per cent. of the total of registered dock workers; the corresponding figure for the week ended 13th October, 1951, was 7.4 per cent.
    The hon. Member may perhaps agree that a reply to the third part of his Question can hardly be given within the compass of an answer to a Parliamentary Question, and he will remember that a debate on this subject took place only a few days ago.
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. As the information asked for in the two earlier parts of the Question is published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, may I ask why this Question was admitted to the Order Paper?
    Mr. Lewis: If the hon. Member looks at the Question, he will see that it refers to "the latest convenient stated date." The latest convenient date for the Minister might have been yesterday or the day before, whereas the date given in the Ministry of Labour Gazette is a month ago.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that that is the answer to the hon. Member.

    Sanitary Ware Workers, Stoke-on-Trent
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour the total number of workers engaged in the manufacture of sanitary ware in Stoke-on-Trent; and how many of these are no longer fully employed.
    Sir W. Monckton: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available. The manufacture of sanitary ware is not separately distinguished in the statistics compiled in my Department.

    Merseyside
    Mr. Collickasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the number of unemployed workers on Merseyside is now over 30,000; and what exceptional measures he proposes to take to find employment for these workers.
    Sir W. Monckton: On 16th February, 1953, the total number unemployed on Merseyside was 27,735. As I informed the hon. Member on 4th and 18th December, 1952, we are doing all we can to get more employment in this Development Area.
    Mr. Collick: Is the Minister aware of the growing concern on Merseyside about this considerable increase in the volume of unemployment, and will he consider suggesting to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the setting up of a subcommittee of the Cabinet so that proper attention can be given to this matter, and some effort, at least, made to deal with the situation?
    Sir W. Monckton: As lately as yesterday, accompanied by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, I had the advantage of receiving deputations from hon. Members opposite, who are concerned in constituencies on Merseyside, and from some hon. Friends of mine on this side of the House. They put before me a number of suggestions. These will be considered and I shall reply to them.

    Pencoed Hostel
    Mr. Padleyasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the representations made to his Department by local authorities, workpeople and employers, he will reverse his decision to close the Pencoed Hostel on 22nd March.
    Sir W. Monckton: I have looked carefully into this case, but I am afraid I can hold out no expectation of the decision to close the hostel being reversed. I have, however, arranged with the Minister of Works to extend the date of closing for three months until 22nd June in order to give the remaining residents more time in which to seek alternative accommodation. My Department's local offices will give as much help as lies in their power to those who are in difficulty in this respect.
    Mr. Padley: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply and his interest in the matter, and recognising that he has been under strong pressure from the Ministry of Works, may I put two questions to him? First, whether in his capacity as the representative, or, at least, the custodian, of the interests of employers and workpeople in mid-Glamorgan, he will press his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to call off the present policy of vandalism which is implied in the destruction of the living accommodation in this excellent hostel so that it may be used for storage purposes? Second, in the event of that approach failing, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do everything possible to protect the interests of the severely disabled persons now resident in the Pencoed Hostel?
    Sir W. Monckton: I will, of course, do what I can to help the disabled persons and the others to find other accommodation, but the number of people resident in this hostel has dropped to about one-third of what it was; and I have to take into account the expenses of running these hostels, some of which are criticised for being too extravagant.

    Agriculture
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give figures to show the extent to which the average age of those employed in agriculture has risen since 1949; and whether he will give separate figures for Scotland.
    Sir W. Monckton: Some information about the age-distribution of employed persons was obtained in 1950, 1951 and 1952, but as it was based on small samples it is not sufficiently precise to enable the average age of persons employed in a particular industry to be computed. It shows, however, that there was
    1482
    little change in the age-distribution of employed persons in agriculture during that period. Separate figures are not available for Scotland.
    Mr. Peart: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Minister of Agriculture recently, in Newcastle, specified the particular age group which was leaving the land because of lack of amenities in the countryside? If that is so, where did the Minister get his information from?
    Sir W. Monckton: As I said, the information was obtained from a very small sample analysis of insurance cards over the three years. They do not enable me to say more than that there has not been much change in the distribution of age groups in agriculture.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the fact that the Minister has no figures for Scotland, will he conduct an inquiry into the position in Scotland, since all the responsible farmers' leaders in the West of Scotland are urging him to stop the call-up for agricultural workers to enable them to have a labour force with which they can carry out the plans which the Government have asked them undertake?
    Sir W. Monckton: That is a rather different matter. I have looked with such sympathy as I can at claims for deferment, and I think that all who are interested will realise that the farmers have not been badly treated.

    Light Vehicle and Motor Body Builders
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Labour how many vehicle and motor body builders are now unemployed; how many are engaged in employment which does not require their specialised skill; and what steps he is taking to ensure that these highly qualified men use their labour and skill to the best advantage.
    Sir W. Monckton: Analyses of the registers of unemployed persons by occupations are made quarterly, and on 8th December, 1952, there were 363 light vehicle and motor body builders registered as unemployed at the employment exchanges. The further information for which the hon. Member asks is not available, but employment exchanges, as part of their normal policy, endeavour to

    1483
    submit workers to employment where their skill and experience can be best used.
    Mr. Edelman: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the increased tendency of motor manufacturers to export vehicles completely knocked down and to assemble them abroad? Is he further aware that new methods of body construction are causing unemployment among vehicle builders on the structural side, and will he receive a deputation from the National Union of Vehicle Builders in order to examine this question further?
    Sir W. Monckton: If the union concerned wish to make representations to me, they will be carefully considered, as all trade union representations of any view are considered in my Ministry.

    Aircraft Programme
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Labour whether the expectation contained in the Economic Survey for 1952, that 50,000 additional workers would be wanted for the aircraft programme by March, has been fulfilled; and how far the demands of that programme for labour are being satisfied.
    Sir W. Monckton: The changes made in the defence programme have reduced to some extent the number of additional workers required for the aircraft industry by March, 1953. Between the end of 1951 and the end of January, 1953 (the date to which the latest employment statistics relate), employment in the manufacture and repair of aircraft increased by 32,000 and unfilled vacancies decreased from 8,500 to 5,300. More workers will be required for super-priority aircraft as production expands. Apart from certain types of skilled worker, the labour demands of the programme are being satisfied.
    Mr. Edelman: In view of the projected expansion of the aircraft programme, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult the unions concerned to see whether men who are made redundant to the motor industry might have their skill adapted to the requirements of the aircraft programme?
    Sir W. Monckton: If any skill is disclosed in the redundancies to which the
    1484
    hon. Member refers, I shall certainly take it into account and see what can be done to make use of it.

    Disabled Persons (Committee)
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Labour to make a statement on the terms of reference and membership of the proposed Committee on the Disabled.
    Sir W. Monckton: My right bon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland have, jointly with myself, decided to set up a Committee with the following terms of reference:
    "To review in all its aspects the existing provision for the rehabilitation, training and re-settlement of disabled persons, full regard being had to the need for the utmost economy in the Government's financial contribution, and to make recommendations."
    I am happy to say that Lord Piercy has accepted the Chairmanship. In addition I have appointed a representative of employers and a representative of workers after consultation with the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress. These will be Mr. G. R. K. Lee and Dame Florence Hancock, D.B.E. I hope to be able to announce the names of the remaining members of the Committee within a few days.
    Miss Ward: Whilst thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for the very sympathetic way in which he has met representations from all quarters of the House about the establishment of this Committee, would I be in order in assuming that all aspects of this very important matter are covered in the terms of reference, and that some medical representation other than the Government representation will be included on the Committee in the names subsequently to be published?
    Sir W. Monckton: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the words of the terms of reference include:
    "To review in all its aspects the existing provision …"
    and so forth. As to the second part of her question, I think it would be better, if I may suggest it, not to discuss the membership until hon. Members have the names before them.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will this Committee cover industrial subjects and military

    1485
    subjects, since under the new arrangement the pensioners are to be transferred for this purpose to the Health Service? Will it cover all aspects of the population, or be limited to certain people?
    Sir W. Monckton: It is not intended to limit it in any way except, as it says in the terms of reference, to disabled persons.
    Mr. Woodburn: Of all kinds? Sir W. Monckton: Of all kinds.
    Mr. Robens: Will this inquiry cover all those people whom the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act now covers?
    Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Yates: Does that answer mean that the vast body of disabled persons confined to their homes and unable to go out will be included?
    Sir W. Monckton: Certainly.
    Dr. Stross: Will the term "disabled" also include those congenitally disabled from birth injuries, such as spastics?
    Sir W. Monckton: Yes.
    Mr. Burden: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give consideration to using the services of the present pensioners' welfare service in order to visit those people who may be so disabled as not to be able to get about?
    Sir W. Monckton: The suggestion of my hon. Friend will be one which will have to be considered by the Committee. I would not wish to give them a directive.

    Agricultural Workers, Scotland
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Labour how many vacancies there are for agricultural workers in Scotland; and in which counties these vacancies occur.
    Sir W. Monckton: The number of vacancies for agricultural workers registered with employment exchanges in Scotland is 306. I will send my hon. and gallant Friend details of the counties in which these vacancies occur.

    Dockers
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Labour to state, for the latest convenient date, the number of dockers unemployed; and how many of these have claimed
    1486
    their release from the dock labour scheme.
    Sir W. Monckton: In the week ended 28th February, 1953, the average daily number of registered dock workers surplus to requirements was 12,371, or 16.4 per cent. of the totals on the register. Seven hundred and seventy-nine dock workers have been released under the release scheme.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the dockers would far rather be employed than be claiming release under this scheme? Can he say when the Government intend to grant to the dockers full employment such as they experienced continuously under the Labour Government?
    Sir W. Monckton: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, the scheme—which is not my scheme but the scheme of the National Dock Labour Board—is voluntary in character; and, as the hon. Member will have observed, 779 men have availed themselves of it. The others prefer to take the chances which come in what is necessarily a fluctuating employment.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say how many of those who are surplus to requirements are over the age of 65?
    Sir W. Monckton: I could not give that figure without notice, but I will certainly give it if I am asked for it.
    Mr. Robens: In view of the obviously disappointing failure of the voluntary retirement scheme, may I ask the Minister whether the National Dock Labour Board are reviewing the matter; and when we might expect the 22½ per cent. levy to be reduced?
    Sir W. Monckton: I know that the matter is under consideration by the National Dock Labour Board. More than that I could not say without notice.
    Sir R. Acland: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider employing some people specially to bring to the attention and notice of the dockers the knowledge that opportunities do arise of alternative employment for periods of three months, rather than leaving it to the individual to decide?
    Sir W. Monckton: I will certainly consider that.

    Hostels (Deficit)
    Mr. Dudley Williamsasked the Minister of Labour the loss or profit per resident per week for National Service hostels for the financial year 1951-52.
    Sir W. Monckton: In the financial year 1951-52 there was a deficit of 19s. 3d. per resident per week in industrial hostels run by the National Service Hostels Corporation for my Ministry.

    Austin Works Dispute
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the loss of production and economic dislocation as a result of the strike of vehicle builders at the Austin motor works; of the economic distress caused to workers not involved in the strike; and what action he intends to take in order to help effect a settlement in this trade dispute.
    Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir. There has been a partial stoppage of work at the Austin Motor Company, Longbridge, since 17th February as a result of the strike of about 2,300 vehicle builders. According to my latest information the number of other workers laid off at Austin's is slightly less than 6,000, which is some hundreds fewer than it was a week ago, as the company have been able to re-engage a number of workers who had previously been stood off. The partial stoppage has also led to some suspensions of labour and short-time working in some of the firms supplying components. My Department will continue to keep itself closely informed of the position.
    Mr. Chapman: Has it not been traditional for the Minister of Labour to offer his good offices when both sides need to be got together in order to find a solution to a strike? Is he aware that in this case it is rather urgent that he should do so because there are many thousands of families now affected by this strike, and yet the men laid off are not actually taking part in it? Why does he not offer his good offices to try to get the two sides round the table?
    Sir W. Monckton: I agree warmly that it is very desirable that a stoppage of this sort should cease because it brings hardship to a number of people. I would also point out that I have not had a request
    1488
    for assistance from either side in the stoppage; and, while the services of the conciliation officers of the Ministry are always available should the parties think they would be helpful, I must take care to avoid any step which might prolong difficulties rather than shorten them.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Does the Minister's reply mean that as soon as a request is received from either of the parties in this dispute, his conciliation machinery will be put into operation? Is he aware that a considerable proportion of the many thousands of workers normally employed at Austin's reside outside Birmingham throughout the Black Country and, consequently, the economic distress resulting will cover a very wide area of the Midlands?
    Sir W. Monckton: I hope I made it clear that I realise the economic distress that follows from this dispute, and that I am as anxious as anyone to see this stoppage cease. What I ventured to doubt was whether my intervention would necessarily shorten the period of the stoppage. I merely said to the House that it is known that I have conciliation officers, that I have not had a request from either side to use those conciliation officers, that as soon as I get that request I will consider it, but I cannot say in advance what I shall do.
    Mr. Edelman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that when a comparable stoppage took place in Coventry some years ago, his predecessor took the initiative in himself offering his services and of using his chief conciliation officer in order to bring together the two parties who then were in a state of deadlock; and in order to break through the paralysis that exists at present in the relationship of the two parties, will the Minister himself take the initiative and try to bring the parties together?
    Sir W. Monckton: I think it is very dangerous—and I believe that some right hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree with me—to draw a parallel between the circumstances of one stoppage and another. I would only say in regard to this one that if at any time I thought I could usefully intervene, I should not hesitate to do so. I do not think so at the moment.

    Merchant Seamen
    Mr. Porterasked the Minister of Labour how many merchant seamen are registered with his Department for seagoing employment; what steps he takes to overcome difficulties in recruitment; and, in this connection, what have been the results of the inquiries made into the case of Mr. J. Wesley, details of which have been sent to him.
    Sir W. Monckton: On 8th December, 1952, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 4,724 persons registered at Employment Exchanges for seagoing employment and I am not aware of any special recruiting difficulties. With regard to Mr. Wesley, I am informed that his application to enter one of the Shipping Federation's Training Schools for Firemen was rejected by the Federation because, owing to a long waiting list, recruitment of firemen in the Yorkshire Area had been temporarily suspended.
    Mr. Porter: In regard to the case of Mr. Wesley, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any comment to make in regard to the form which was sent to him turning down his application? Since the filling in of part of that form has now been found to be a forgery—from the point of view of the Shipping Federation and my constituent it must have occurred between their two geographical situations—will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make a statement accordingly, in order that the Press can give the same amount of publicity to his reply as they gave when this subject was first raised?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity of saying that I am quite satisfied, from the inquiries I have made, that this man was not rejected for the training school because of his colour, I know that various documents have been shown and doubted, but I am happy to say that, as Minister of Labour, I have not got to consider whether forgery has been committed.
    Mr. Porter: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman have a further conference with the Ministry of Transport in view of the developments which have taken place outside this Chamber, and does he not agree that people who commit dastardly actions of this kind.
    1490
    exploiting the colour bar and race hatred in this country for pseudo-political purposes, ought to be brought to justice?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am afraid that is not a matter for me.

  NATIONAL SERVICE CALL-UP (POSTPONEMENTS)
  Mr. A. Irvineasked the Minister of Labour in approximately what proportion of all applications to military service (hardship) committees for postponement of call-up, postponement was granted during 1952 or during the latest convenient period.
  Sir W. Monckton: During 1952, nearly 49 per cent. Including applications granted without reference to a hardship committee, the percentage is 66.
  Mr. Irvine: While these figures support the view that the committees by and large take a reasonable and fair view of the claims laid before them, does the Minister consider that the committees sufficiently recognise the difficulties that many men face in arranging for businesses to be carried on in their absence, and the difficulty often experienced of bringing forward evidence in that connection?
  Sir W. Monckton: I do recognise those difficulties, and I have had to see a great many of these cases myself. I am satisfied that the committees do sympathetically regard those problems, but they are dealing with postponement and not exemption; that is their trouble.
  Miss Ward: Can the Minister say, arising from those figures, how many one-man businesses in respect of which there is no possibility of finding someone to carry them on have been closed down?
  Sir W. Monckton: I should require notice of that question.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Influenza Vaccine Experiment
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Health if he can yet make a statement about the progress made in the experiment with an influenza vaccine.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. lain Macleod): The experiment is still in progress and results will not be known for two or three months.

    Coal-Gas Poisoning (Deaths)
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Minister of Health how many deaths have occurred during the past 12 months from coal-gas poisoning.
    Mr. lain Macleod: The latest available figures are for the 12 months ended 30th September, 1952, when there were 2,356 deaths registered.
    Mr. Roberts: Does not the Minister consider these figures rather alarming?
    Mr. Macleod: It is quite true that the trend in post-war years has been upwards; but an enormous proportion of the figures I have given, namely, 1,900, are suicide deaths.

    Fluorine Gas Inhalation
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Health what information he has of the ill-effect on health from the inhalation of fluorine gas as a by-product of industrial processes.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I have no evidence that such ill-effects are occurring.
    Dr. Stross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency, in the neighbourhood of at least two factories, the glass of the factories is etched and rendered opaque, as is also the glass of many of the houses round about, as a result of fluorides which come from the industrial processes? Would he consider going further into this matter and seeing that some research work is done so that we know what is happening to human beings as well as to cattle?
    Mr. Macleod: I am aware of the recent incident in which four or five cattle were poisoned in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman, but that seemed to me to confirm the investigation in 1949 by the Medical Research Council into an incident in Inverness, which showed that though there may be, and indeed is, danger to animals, there is no danger, so the M.R.C. advised the Minister then, to human life.
    Dr. Stross: But may I ask the Minister to go further into the matter because
    1492
    there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence, which we cannot term strictly scientific, that harm comes to human beings? The right hon. Gentleman has a council; will he ask them to look at it again?
    Mr. Macleod: As I have said, the M.R.C. have looked at it, but I will draw their attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    Dentists Bill
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Health when he proposes to reintroduce the Dentists Bill.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): As soon as Parliamentary time permits, but I am afraid that will certainly not be this Session.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the hon. Lady not agree that it is quite absurd to proceed with this Bill, and particularly with proposals to introduce dental nurses, so long as we are artificially restricting the work of fully-qualified dentists?

    Tuberculosis Advisory Committee
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health how long his Standing Tuberculosis Advisory Committee has been considering the problem of tuberculosis among persons taking up residence here from abroad; and what recommendations the Committee has made on the subject.
    Mr. lain Macleod: The actual reference to the Tuberculosis Advisory Committee was made in December. I understand that it is to be discussed in a few days.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are at least indications that we are importing tuberculosis into this country to a disturbing extent? Is he further aware that this problem is not confined to aliens, as was recently suggested by one of his hon. Friends, but extends also to British subjects from parts of the Commonwealth and from Ireland? Will he introduce some measure of urgency into this matter?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not quarrel with what the hon. Member has said. The

    1493
    wider questions he raised are under discussion also with the Ministry of Labour and the Aliens Department of the Home Office.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

    Tuberculosis Treatment, West Cumberland
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that there is adequate accommodation for the treatment of patients suffering from tuberculosis in the area of West Cumberland.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir. The Newcastle Regional Hospital Board is looking into proposals for increasing it.
    Mr. Peart: But is the Minister aware that all the local evidence is contrary to that view; and is he further aware that the recent decision to postpone the conversion of the sanatorium at Camerton Hospital has caused concern in West Cumberland as it would have provided a further 80 beds? If information is given to him, will the Minister look again at the matter and reconsider the case?
    Mr. Macleod: I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my answer. I said, "No, Sir." I was agreeing with the hon. Gentleman that the accommodation is not adequate. The Camerton situation to which he referred was an appalling muddle for which my Ministry, the regional board and, I think, the county council are partly responsible. It took place a year or two ago. We are looking as urgently as we can into the question of making good the deficiency it will cause.

    Aureomycin
    Dr. Jegerasked the Minister of Health how many applications by general practitioners for the use of aureomycin in specified cases have been refused since 1st October. 1952; and how many have been granted.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Eight hundred and ninety-six applications have been granted. It is estimated that about 5 per cent. are refused.
    Dr. Jegerasked the Minister of Health whether, now that aureomycin is manufactured in this country and the limitations on its efficacy are so well known among general practitioners, he will make it more freely available to
    1494
    doctors so that delay is avoided when its use is indicated.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The manufacture of aureomycin in this country still involves bulk importation of the crude drug at considerable dollar cost, and my right hon. Friend thinks that its issue ought still to be subject to the present safeguards.

    Dental Estimates Board
    Mr. E. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Health how many estimates per week are received on the average from dentists by the Dental Estimates Board; and what is the number of staff employed by the Board to deal with these estimates.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: On the average 160,000 new estimates are received each week together with 40,000 estimates submitted for a second time. The staff numbers 926, some of whom are employed part-time.
    Mr. E. Wakefield: Would my hon. Friend agree that these figures indicate an excessive degree of centralisation? Would she ask her right hon. Friend to apply his mind to what is in essence a problem in mathematics?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: There is a large sum of public money involved, and my right hon. Friend feels that the service is better centred under one organisation.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Hargreavesasked the Minister of Health why no ambulance or other care was provided for Mr. Maw on his discharge on 22nd September, 1952, from Lambeth Hospital to face a journey to Carlisle, though he was suffering from partial paralysis, incontinence and bedsores; and if he will call for a full inquiry, in view of the death of Mr. Maw one week later.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Full inquiries have already been made into this case. I am advised that there is no medical evidence to suggest that Mr. Maw's death was in any way connected with his journey from London to Carlisle, and it does not appear to me that a further inquiry would serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. Hargreaves: Is the Minister aware that after six months' correspondence I have failed to receive replies to the following questions? Can he say why the

    1495
    man was discharged; why no nursing care was available to him for a 300-mile journey; why no transport nor ambulance was made available for him to convey him from Lambeth Hospital to Euston and from Euston to Carlisle? Can the Minister answer those questions; and will he please indicate if he is making a further inquiry into this obviously distressing and unsatisfactory case?
    Mr. Macleod: I quite agree with the comments of the hon. Member. I think this a most distressing and unsatisfactory case. But I have taken medical evidence both from Lambeth and Carlisle, and I am advised this is the medical opinion—that the journey had nothing to do with Mr. Maw's death. I fully agree with the hon. Member that there were serious errors of judgment by the hospital, for example, in reserving only seats and not a whole compartment for the journey. I have made my views about this matter known to the hospital, and I think a formal inquiry, in addition to what I have already done, would serve no useful purpose.
    Mr. Hargreaves: In view of the nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter as early as possible on the Adjournment.

    Dental Charges
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Health if, after a full year's working of the dental charges scheme under the National Health Service, he will review, in consultation with the dental profession, the effect of the scheme on the inclination of the public to visit the dentist as often as they should.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The effects of the charges will be reviewed in due course and my right hon. Friend will welcome the views of the dental profession.
    Mr. Hurd: While welcoming that assurance, may I ask if we may take it that "due course" will not be too long a delay?

  DAY NURSERIES, KENT
  Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Health what decision has been reached in respect to the future of the five remaining day nurseries in Kent.
  Mr. Bottomleyasked the Minister of Health to make a statement about the future of the day nursery service in Kent.
  Sir R. Aclandasked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the health services in the County of Kent will be fully efficient if the impending decision to close all the day nurseries is carried out; and whether, in particular, he will consider using his powers to disallow the county's decision to close the day nursery in Gravesend.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend has provisionally decided, subject to comments by the various bodies who are notified of the council's intentions, to approve a proposal by the county council to replace their five remaining day nurseries by a county scheme of registered daily minders. The new arrangements should meet the needs of any mothers who cannot care for their children at home and cannot make suitable private arrangements.
  Mr. Dodds: How can the Parliamentary Secretary justify the closing of every day nursery in Kent and approve a means scheme in which the Kent County Council will pay ls. per day per child and 6d. for a Saturday morning? Is this not a complete change of policy on the part of the Government in regard to the National Health Service Act? Further, is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that if the Crayford day nursery is closed down, the mothers who put their children in there—separated, divorced, or deserted or those whose husbands are chronic sick—will have to give up their jobs and go on National Assistance? Surely this is a mean and despicable policy?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think that the House will agree that the best place for a child under school age is, if possible, at home with its mother.
  Mr. Manuel: How can the hon. Lady say that—[Interruption.]
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: If hon. Members will permit me to finish my reply—so far as concerns mothers who for social needs require means by which their children can be looked after, there is no reason why a properly registered minder scheme, similar to the scheme already satisfactorily in operation in the London County Council area, should not be equally satisfactory in Kent.
  Mr. Manuel: Rubbish.
  Sir R. Acland: Will the hon. Lady agree that this is a deterioration in the situation compared with what was originally intended? If we are unable to afford the service originally intended under the Act, can the Minister of Health consult the Minister of Food about why we can easily afford a lot of extra bacon for people who can pay for it?
  Mr. Burden: May I ask my hon. Friend how many children in Kent have been using these day nurseries in the past year; what is the cost per child to the ratepayers; and will the proposed scheme adequately take the place of this one and ease the situation for the mothers at less cost to the rates?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: The scheme of day nurseries covers only a limited area of North-West Kent and not the main part of the county. The cost per child per week in April, 1952, was £3 14s. In view of the fact that the council will register the minders, and will inspect and impose conditions, there is no reason why the scheme should not work satisfactorily.
  Mr. D. Brook: If the statement by the hon. Lady that the best place for a child under school age is at home, will she consult her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ascertain why he made provision for nursery schools under the 1944 Education Act.
  Mr. Speaker: Question No. 28.
  Mr. Dodds: On a point of order——
  Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member rising to a point of order?
  Mr. Dodds: I thought you were passing direct to another Question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature——
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Speaker: Question No. 28.

  BIRTH CERTIFICATES
  Mrs. Whiteasked the Minister of Health what form of certificate, in lieu of an ordinary birth certificate, is issued to a foundling, or other person, the date of whose birth cannot be precisely determined.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: None. The certificate must agree with the particulars registered and, if the birth was registered as having occurred on or about a certain date, that information appears in the certificate.
  Mrs. White: Would the Minister explain the position of a person, the date of whose birth cannot be precisely determined but who nevertheless has to produce evidence of age when, for example, claiming an old age pension, and who, if there is no certificate of any kind available, has to enter into a long and what could be a very embarrassing personal explanation?
  Mr. Macleod: I should be happy to look at any individual case, but as I understand it, the position since 1947 has been that an ordinary form of certificate is issued in these cases and the date of birth—shall we say 10th June—is preceded by the words, "on or about," which should satisfy all normal requirements.

  EDUCATION

    Training College Students
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Education whether she is aware of the antiquated restrictions imposed on students in teachers' training colleges; and whether she will set up a committee to advise her on possible reforms in the conduct of these colleges.
    The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): No, Sir, I am satisfied that in most colleges there are no unreasonable restrictions on students' freedom, and I see no need to set up a committee to advise me on this matter.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that if she is satisfied on this question she is about the only one in the country who is? Can she further explain why antiquated restrictions are so often maintained at teachers' training colleges but not at university colleges? If she is not aware of this, perhaps she would set up a committee to advise her.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that in my answer I used the phrase, "in most colleges." I did not say, "in all colleges." I am not satisfied that at all colleges the position is satisfactory, but I am satisfied that in

    1499
    most colleges there are no unreasonable restrictions. I have had discussions with those who are resident in these colleges, and I think that the statement that in most colleges affairs are satisfactory is correct.
    Mr. Wade: Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is most important that students should be encouraged to enter teachers' training colleges? Is she satisfied that she is fully informed as to the restrictions imposed at some of these training colleges?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think that I am fully informed. Most of the colleges are satisfactory. I would not say that all are satisfactory.
    Mr. Thomas: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Education whether she will review the system under which awards are made to training college students.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The system of grants to recognised training college students has been examined from to time, and I do not consider that a further review could usefully be undertaken at the present time.
    Mr. Willey: While appreciating that this is a difficult matter to dispose of by question and answer, will the right hon. Lady try to overcome her natural obstinacy and look at this matter with a fresh mind?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I have looked at it again during the last few months, and I think that, from the latest statements, the hon. Gentleman will find that we get good results from the system; at least, I hope so.

    Teachers
    Sir L. Ropnerasked the Minister of Education how many new teachers qualified during 1952; and by how many the number is still below requirements.
    Miss Horsbrugh: About 15,600, which was sufficient to increase the number of teachers in maintained primary and secondary schools by about 5,000. In spite of the very big increase in the number of children in the schools during the year, this produced a staffing standard somewhat better than in 1950.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Is it not lack of school buildings and not lack of teachers which is preventing us reducing the size of classes at the moment?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Both factors are involved. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be very glad that we have had this record increase this year of an extra 5,000 teachers.
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education the total expenditure on teachers' salaries in State schools in 1952; and how much of this was borne by the local authorities.
    Miss Horsbrugh: On the basis of the revised estimates of local education authorities for the financial year 1952–53 the total estimated cost of teachers' salaries in schools and other institutions maintained by those authorities is about £148 million, of which 40 per cent. falls as a net charge on the rates.

    Departmental Administrative Costs
    Mr. Rentonasked the Minister of Education what steps she has taken during 1952, and what steps she will be taking in 1953, in order to reduce substantially the administrative costs of her Department.
    Miss Horsbrugh: During 1952, the non-industrial staff of my Department was reduced by 125, or just over 4 per cent. I shall continue to keep a careful watch on the administrative costs of my Department.
    Mr. Paget: Does not the right hon. Lady consider that cheeseparing in education has gone just about far enough?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that we should watch how we spend our money and ensure that we get full value for it.
    Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware that if she continues to make administrative economies that will help her to continue to maintain the essential fabric of education?
    Mr. Peart: Is the right hon. Lady aware that already she has not maintained the full fabric of education, and that there is evidence to prove it?
    Miss Horsbrugh: All I can say is that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has his opinion and I have mine.
    Sir H. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the "cheeseparing" includes the extra £12 million provided for education in this year's Estimates?

    New School Building (Cost)
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education the total cost of new school building since the war to the latest convenient year; and how much of this is borne by local authorities.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The total value of new primary and secondary schools approved since the war up to the 31st December, 1952, is £167,700,000. Of this about £147,600,000 is financed by local education authorities, almost wholly from loan. The expenditure of authorities in meeting annual loan charges ranks for 60 per cent. grant from my Department.
    Dr. King: In view of the heavy burden of rate-borne expenditure which these two items of teachers' salaries and new school building impose on the local education authorities, and as that education expenditure must continue to increase if we are to provide the services required, does not the Minister think that it is about time we reviewed the whole incidence of State and local government expenditure?
    Miss Horsbrugh: The two important factors are the number of teachers required and the number of school places required at this period because of the increased number of children. Those constitute the two big expenses. The country must face the fact and realise that these children must have teachers and schools, and that this is an expanding expense.
    Mr. Remnant: Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of that total expenditure was on grammar schools?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Not without notice.

    Spastic Children, Cumberland
    Mr. Hargreavesasked the Minister of Education if she will state the number of known spastic children in Carlisle and in the county of Cumberland, respectively; and what provision is available for their education.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I do not collect separate figures for spastic, as distinct from other physically handicapped, children and I would advise the hon. Member to ask the authorities concerned for this information. Less severely physically handicapped children may be educated in ordinary schools or in day special schools catering mainly for delicate children, one of which is maintained by the local education authority for Carlisle. More severely handicapped children should attend boarding special schools.

  THREE-POWER TALKS
  Mr. Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the conciliatory nature of the first statement on foreign policy by the new Prime Minister of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, he will now take an early opportunity of initiating his declared policy of three-Power talks to discuss international problems, by making an approach to President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Malenkov for a joint meeting.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): If I am not able to give an answer to this Question today I hope that the House will not assume that these issues are not regarded as of the highest importance at the present time.
  Mr. Lewis: I am very much obliged to the Prime Minister for that reply, and I appreciate the reason for it. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the excellent article in today's "Daily Mirror"? If not, will he read it, especially with regard to point three and point four? Further, is he aware that most, if not all, people in this country believe that at some time the leaders of the States have got to get together and that it is better to do it before the start of a third world war rather than afterwards?
  The Prime Minister: I am quite willing to admit that the "Daily Mirror" seems to be coming along rather better from time to time. I do not think that this particular article, which I did notice, exactly lives up to that high standard of improvement.
  Mr. Gower: Will the Prime Minister, through the proper diplomatic channels, make it clear to the Soviet Government

  1503
  that the vast majority of people in this country wish them well and hope that they will sincerely take part in an advance towards world peace?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. I certainly should not feel it necessary to make any controversial rejoinder to that supplementary question.

  HUNGARY (MR. SANDERS)
  Dr. Kingasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the commutation of the death sentence on Lee Meng, he will now reconsider the question of exchanging this prisoner for Mr. Sanders.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) on 10th of March.
  Dr. King: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that whatever we may think of the Sanders trial, the two countries concerned with these two prisoners each regard their prisoner as an enemy of the State, arrested for committing hostile actions against the State, and that there can be no dishonour in a fair exchange of such prisoners, which would bring happiness to one British family?
  The Prime Minister: One of the features which should not be overlooked is that there are not two countries but three countries involved in this matter.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Does the Prime Minister appreciate the desirability of arriving at an early decision on this matter in view of the human factors involved? Can he indicate when he is likely to be able to make a statement as to the decision which has been taken? Can I ask him whether, if a Question is put down for, say, Tuesday of next week, he would be in a position to give an answer?
  The Prime Minister: I think that I very well might be. Of course, I can only speak for a decision taken by Her Majesty's Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 16TH MARCH—Supply [9th allotted Day].
It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Navy Estimates, 1953–54, and to consider Votes A, 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 15 and Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1952–53, in Committee.
TUESDAY, 17TH MARCH —Third Reading:
Iron and Steel Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 18TH MARCH—Supply [10th allotted Day].
Committee stage of Civil Supplementary Estimates, beginning with:

Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which the House will remember contains token provision in connection with Flood Emergency Services.

Ministry of Food.

Foreign Office.

Ministry of Defence.

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and Food Production Services.

Department of Agriculture for Scotland (Food Production Services).

Post Office.

Stationery and Printing.

At 9.30 p.m., the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Excess Votes required before the end of the financial year, in accordance with Standing Order No. 16.
THURSDAY, 19TH MARCH—Supply [11th allotted Day].
Report stage:
Army, Air and Navy Estimates, 1953–54, and of Civil Supplementary Estimates not dealt with on the previous day.

1505
At 9.30 p.m., the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Excess Votes required before the end of the financial year.
FRIDAY, 20TH MARCH—Private Members' Motions.
If I may carry matters one week ahead, it might be convenient if I were to inform the House that arrangements have been made through the usual channels for a debate to take place on Central African federation on Tuesday week.
Mr. Attlee: With regard to Wednesday's business, we had asked for the token provision for the Floods Emergency Services to be put down as the first of the Supplementary Estimates, because I think there is a general desire in the House for an early debate on the floods. If that were so, we would ask for time from the Government, because it is really a Government matter. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is to be a statement about the floods?
Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. It is the intention to make a statement on Wednesday on the compensation for flood damage, which is perhaps what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, and which was discussed the other day.
Mr. Attlee: If that statement were made on Wednesday perhaps it would be a little early to follow it with a discussion on that day. Would it therefore be possible to rearrange the subjects for Wednesday's discussion, and perhaps have another day for the discussion on the floods?
Mr. Crookshank: All that can be discussed through the usual channels. It is necessary, under the Standing Order, to get the Estimates through, on the days to which I referred, but the right hon. Gentleman will realise that they lead up to a Consolidated Fund Bill within the next few Parliamentary days. Perhaps it can be arranged in that way, or discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Attlee: I agree that we can discuss that point through the usual channels. Could the right hon. Gentleman say now whether the debate on Central African federation will be taken on a Government Motion?
Mr. Crookshank: I could not say at the moment. I thought it would be merely convenient that it should be known that there was going to be a debate, the form of which we can discuss later.
Sir H. Williams: Do I understand that, on the Supplementary Estimates, we are to have a full day's debate on one subject, and thus be deprived of our rights of going through these Estimates in detail? It used to be the only occasion in the whole year when the House of Commons had an opportunity of discussing questions of administration.
Mr. Crookshank: I recollect very well what used to be the practice, but all that was changed by a new Standing Order, in 1948. The Supplementary Estimates are now taken on Supply Days. That being so, it is the prerogative of the Opposition to select the order in which
the Supplementary Estimates may be put down. If it so happens that the order is settled and the first one occupies all the time, that is the result of the new arrangement, and has nothing to do with this Government.
Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Leader of the House say when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be introducing his Budget?
Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir; until my right hon. Friend returns from overseas I cannot make a statement.
Mr. H. Morrison: On the little party point which the Leader of the House tried to make, surely there is nothing in the Standing Order that requires the House to discuss a general subject all day, rather than examine the Estimates in detail. I quite agree that the Opposition have had the responsibility of saying what shall be selected, but the Standing Order surely does not require that matters of this kind should be discussed in detail.
Mr. Crookshank: Not only does it not require it, but I did not say so, either.
Mr. Pannell: Is the Leader of the House aware that the first Motion put down on the Order Paper in the last Session was one asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to name a day for the implementation of a Resolution, unanimously passed by the House, calls for

1507
equal pay in the public service? Will the Government indicate their policy, or is that a matter that will appear in the Chancellor's Budget?
Mr. Crookshank: It is certainly not a matter for me to make any pronouncement upon without notice on the business for next week.

PRIVATE BUSINESS (ORDER PAPER)
Sir H. Williams: May I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a matter which is not a point of order, but a point of practice? The present Order Paper gives no indication to hon. Members when public business is to be interrupted at 7 o'clock because the Chairman of Ways and Means has selected a particular day for the discussion of a Private Bill. I sought to raise the matter yesterday, but postponed it until today, so that you might have time to think it over.
Anyone looking at yesterday's Order Paper would have had no idea that, at 7 o'clock, we would discuss the British Transport Commission Bill, although I confess that hon. Members in general were aware of the fact. But hon. Members in general no longer receive automatically the Order Paper with regard to
1508
Private Business. They used to receive it before the war, but on grounds of paper economy, rather than financial economy, the practice was suspended during the war. I should like to know whether, in view of that, hon. Members might now automatically receive the Order Paper in respect of Private Business?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was good enough to give me notice yesterday that he was going to raise this matter. I have thought about it, and I think that the economy of paper effected by sending the Private Business Order Paper only to those hon. Members asking for it is so trivial that it is time that we should revert to the pre-war practice of sending the Private Business Order Paper with the usual papers which are circulated daily, and I will give instructions accordingly.
Sir H. Williams: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

PRIVATE BUSINESS (ORDER PAPER)

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [8TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order for Committee read.

  Air Estimates, 1953–54
  MR. GEORGE WARD'S STATEMENT
  3.40 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  The Air Estimates for 1953–54 are for a net total of £498 million. This is an increase of some £60 million over the net sum provided for in the current year's Estimates. Defence support aid by the United States, however, amounts to £50 million in 1953–54, compared with £30 million in 1952–53. Disregarding this defence support aid altogether, therefore, we expect to spend about £80 million more this year than last year.
  To speak of the expansion of the Air Force does not really indicate the size of the task. It is not merely an expansion of a stable force, but a rebuilding. To illustrate the extent of the run-down which took place after the war, let me remind the House that the Air Estimates for 1948–49 were only £173 million, as compared with the £498 million I am asking for today. But I should have had to ask for even more had we not considerably modified earlier plans on which this rebuilding was based. I am going to mention the principal changes which have resulted, but first let me try to put our plans against their proper background.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Boston in 1949:
  "For good or ill, air mastery is today the supreme expression of military power, and fleets and armies, however necessary, must accept a subordinate rank."
  It is indeed true that air power is today the supreme factor in military policy. It is equally true that under modern conditions the British people cannot have anything like an adequate Air Force except by the expenditure of a very great sum of money each year. But without air power, so much—perhaps all —other defence expenditure may be nugatory. What use is it to protect the
  1510
  extremities of the body if the heart is left unguarded? We cannot afford to lose sight of this terrible new factor in war and our plans for the R.A.F. must be geared to it.
  Broadly speaking, the R.A.F. has three main tasks: first, to provide, in conjunction with the Commonwealth and the N.A.T.O. countries, a powerful deterrent. The spearhead of this deterrent must be the bomber, although an adequate and modern air defence system will also make an enemy hesitate to launch an attack upon us.
  Secondly, if that deterrent should fail, we must provide for the defence of the United Kingdom and for an effective contribution to Commonwealth defence and to the joint defence of N.A.T.O. as a whole. For these tasks, too, we need a bomber force which can smash at the source of the enemy's power; a fighter force of exceptional quality, together with the immense and complex control and early warning system that goes with it; a maritime Air Force to help protect our sea communications and a Tactical Air Force in Europe. We must also provide an air-lift for all three Services. Thirdly, we have our cold war tasks. These extend from Europe to the Middle East and Far East.
  This, then, is the Air Force which we must provide. But our job is made increasingly difficult by the ever-rising cost of modern aircraft, their equipment and their airfields. We have, therefore, had to seek drastic economies in everything which does not directly contribute to our military power. For it is the front line in a high state of readiness which provides the deterrent and which will take the first shock of the enemy's onslaught if war should come.
  The changes we have made in our expansion plans are designed to produce an Air Force which, although different in size and composition from that previously planned, will, through the emphasis on quality and the introduction of the most advanced equipment, be more rather than less effective.
  Our main economies have been found by cancelling or curtailing continuation orders for current types of aircraft, or
  types which are only a little better than
  those we have now. The useful life of this equipment would, in any case, have been short because we would have had

  1511
  to replace it as soon as something more advanced became available in quantity. The emphasis of our programme is now shifting towards the new swept-wing fighters and the new class of bombers which are more effective and more economical for the tasks we have in mind.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: What is regarded as the normal life of a modern bomber? How long is it reckoned that it will go on for?
  Mr. Ward: Strategic thought is constantly changing, so one cannot lay down anything hard and fast on that.
  The effect of these cancellations, will, of course, be to slow down the rate of expansion as compared with previous plans, but it will still be greater in 1953 than it was in 1952.
  I will not pretend that these changes can be made without some difficulty, but my noble Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply have had to reconcile their very real responsibilities to the aircraft industry, on the one hand, and to the country as a whole on the other. In fact, the readjustment has been managed with less upset than might have been expected. The amount we shall have to pay the industry for work on those current types of aircraft which will not now be completed will be relatively small, and, as production of the latest types gets under way, any disturbance there may be should not last for long. Fortunately, too, the quality of British aircraft is so widely recognised overseas that demands for them are steadily rising.
  Secondly, we have made all possible economies in new works services, but I will, if I may, talk about these later in my speech.
  Training is the next field I should mention in which we have found room for important savings, first, in the training of Regular and National Service aircrew, and, secondly, in the training of the Volunteer Reserve.
  The re-shaping of the Air Force and the slowing down of our expansion plans mean that our intake of aircrew will be smaller from now on. National Service men are inevitably able to give us little productive service in a squadron before passing to the Reserve. We have, therefore, decided to accept far fewer National
  1512
  Service men for aircrew and to accept them only for pilot training. When it became clear that this comparatively small number could be absorbed into Flying Training Command we had no alternative, but to make arrangements for ending our contracts with the seven civil basic training schools and two grading schools for National Service aircrew.
  Improvements in the training of aircrew will soon be made possible by the new aircraft being delivered. Courses will be slightly lengthened, and a new training scheme, using the Provost at the basic stage and then the Vampire trainer, will be adopted, as the aircraft flow from the factories. This will give aircrew earlier and more thorough experience on jet aircraft during training, and is in step with the steadily increasing proportion of jet aircraft already in the front line.
  Mr. F. Beswick: Can the hon. Gentleman say anything about the way in which other employment has been found for pilots displaced from the flying schools that have been closed?
  Mr. Ward: I have not got on to the Volunteer Reserve question yet, but I am going to say something about it. I would ask hon. Gentlemen to realise that I am covering a very wide field in my speech. I do not want to spend a disproportionate length of time on one subject.
  We can also eliminate one stage in the process of flying training, because for jet pilots we shall be able to dispense with the advanced flying schools in Flying Training Command. This necessary reduction in the size of the flying training organisation has led us to seek the agreement of the Southern Rhodesian Government to the closing of the Rhodesian Air Training Group in March next year. Although this scheme has been of great value to the Service, we do not feel that in present circumstances the expense can be justified.
  Now for the Volunteer Reserve. In the ground branches, we have made economies by concentrating on annual continuous training at R.A.F. stations and cutting out spare-time evening training. This has enabled us to reduce the Ground Reserve centres from 22 to five. We have also made a thorough re-examination of our aircrew policy for the Volunteer Reserve. We have taken into account the

  1513
  fact that the age of these reservists is rising; that many of them have necessarily, been out of touch with Service flying for some years; and that any refresher training on modern operational aircraft must inevitably be given at Royal Air Force stations, as, indeed, happened when we called up pilots for three months refresher training on operational types in 1950. In consequence, we can only justify, in present circumstances, giving training on Chipmunks and Ansons to a much smaller proportion of the aircrew now on the Reserve.
  These considerations have led us to the inescapable conclusion that we can and must make a saving in the provision of reserve flying facilities. At an early stage in our review it became clear that, whatever the outcome, we could dispense with seven schools and, as the House knows, these will close down at the end of this month. I promised to announce today whether it would end there, or whether further schools would have to be closed, and I shall do my best to keep this promise. Unfortunately, there is still some uncertainty about our potential requirements; for example, whether we shall need to provide training for the European Defence Community; but it is now quite clear that the largest number of civil schools which we could possibly justify retaining is seven out of the remaining 14. Seven further schools are, therefore, being told that we must close them down during the next five months.
  We have, naturally, considered most carefully which seven schools should be retained, and for how long. The principles we have applied are geographical distribution, size of airfields, against the possibility of using a more advanced type than the Chipmunk; and the amount of living accommodation available, because we may want to use these schools later for continuous courses. Applying these principles, we have approved the following list of schools to be retained: Perth, Woodvale, Doncaster, Castle Bromwich, Exeter, Redhill and Cambridge.
  However, as I have said, we cannot yet be certain that the long-term commitment will justify even seven schools indefinitely; and, therefore, where the contract of any of these schools falls due for renewal during the coming financial year, we shall negotiate an extension only
  1514
  until 31st March, 1954. The scale of operation after that date will depend upon our forward planning which must, of course, take account of our financial prospects; but we shall let the schools know our intentions as early as we possibly can.
  The schools concerned and representative associations are being informed today of this decision. I need hardly say that it is a matter of great regret to my noble Friend that it may bear hardly on the firms concerned and their employees, many of whom have spent years as instructors or ground crew in these schools, and on those who developed, before the war, airfields to serve both civil aviation and the R.A.F.V.R. The fact remains that if we are to press forward with the expansion and re-equipment of the R.A.F. with modern aircraft and weapons, we must make economies in those things which are not absolutely essential.
  Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcock: Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have found it possible to make economies in any other direction but the Volunteer Reserve?
  Mr. Ward: I have already listed many economies to be made in aircrew, but they do not apply only to the Reserve. I have said that we have reduced Flying Training Command and even the Southern Rhodesian Air Training Group. It is not confined only to the Reserve.
  Mr. Beswick: The hon. Gentleman did say that he could give us an indication of what alternative employment had been found for the pilots. This is a national matter as much as an individual one.
  Mr. Ward: Yes, but no doubt many hon. Members will raise this matter in their speeches. I am quite prepared to deal with it at any stage during the debate as is convenient to the House, or I can take a careful note of everything that is said and deal with it when I wind up the debate. I have a long speech to make covering a wide field and 1 would ask hon. Members to let me continue with it.
  I am now going to say something about the new equipment with which we aim to build up an Air Force which will be preeminent in quality and effectiveness. Except for the Sabres which are now being delivered, the R.A.F. still has no swept-wing fighters in service. I explained

  1515
  the reasons for this last year. We intend to form our first squadrons of Swifts towards the end of the year and Hunter squadrons will follow. I will not promise precise dates now. The Swift and Hunter are of very advanced design and this involves the most exhaustive development trials which are by no means over. Both types were ordered
  by the late Government off the drawing
  board, rightly in the circumstances; but it is no good pretending that there are not disadvantages in so doing. We are convinced, however, that they are the finest day fighters in the world. Every preparation has been made to ensure that they will go straight into squadron service as they are delivered, and the pilots of Fighter Command are keenly looking forward to flying them. As the House knows, we have placed a large order for the delta-winged Gloster Javelin, which will be the all-weather fighter of the future.
  Two new prototype bombers of exceptionally advanced design have made their appearance—the Avro Vulcan and the Handley Page Victor. Both aircraft are still undergoing trials, but their performance is so outstanding and their importance to the Royal Air Force so great that orders have already been placed for both. With these large and complex aircraft the production cycle is necessarily very long. We have, therefore, taken a calculated risk in placing orders so quickly. The last Government followed the same course in ordering the Valiant. To test each prototype before deciding which bomber to order would have meant delays of up to two or three years. Already the time lag between ordering a new aircraft of this size and receiving the first ones into squadron service is quite long enough. Although there are risks, I believe there will be a net saving in time. The Valiant will, naturally, come first into service, we hope in 1954. It must be the foundation of our new long-range bomber force.
  It may be asked: why two further types? Both the Victor and the Vulcan have, in some respects, more advanced characteristics than the Valiant. Both, of bold, possibly unorthodox but certainly differing design, must be put to the test of squadron service. There is no certainty in this business. Of course, as we learn more about these aircraft we may have to decide whether, in the interests of efficiency no less than of economy, we ought
  1516
  to concentrate primarily on one or other of them.
  Even with the last generation of bombers, which were designed before the war it was only after a long period of practical experience of the Halifax, the Lancaster and the Stirling under service conditions that we were able to find out which type we liked best. Today, the responsibilities are perhaps even greater. The modern development of air power means that we depend on our bomber force, more than any other single military factor, for safeguarding peace and security. It is, indeed, the greatest deterrent to war that we have the power to wield.
  As regards cost, remember that the V-class bomber can carry many times the bomb load of the light Canberra, and can find its target far more accurately. The cost per ton of bombs dropped is greatly in favour of the big bomber. We have also decided to order a prototype of a transport version of the Valiant. This aircraft may well prove to be of revolutionary importance because of its outstanding performance and economics of operation.
  Finally, we have been considering whether to introduce a jet trainer at the basic stage so that pupils can carry out the whole of their training on jet aircraft. Such a major change cannot be decided on purely theoretical arguments, and so we propose to start by making thorough practical, though limited, trials within the training organisation. We are ordering for this purpose a small number of jet trainers adapted from the Provost, but it will be some time before they are available and it will be at least two years before they can be properly evaluated and a decision taken.
  Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Can my hon. Friend say what engine is envisaged for these jet trainers? Is it the French engine?
  Mr. Ward: I cannot say offhand. I may be able to give the answer later.
  Now that I have touched on some of the main changes which will affect the operational quality of the Air Force within the next year or so, let me say something about the longer-term problems of research and development. There can be no doubt that the fighter will remain an important element in our air

  1517
  defence system, and we must solve the operational problems of flight well beyond the speed of sound. At the same time, we must go on exploring the field of guided weapons.
  The greatest contribution that could be made to increasing the effectiveness of our fighter force would be to improve the killing power of its armaments. Here, air-to-air guided weapons offer the greatest possibility. In addition, we must develop surface-to-air guided weapons, to a stage where they can be usefully integrated into the air defence system. The guided bomb, with its promise of very great accuracy, will vastly increase the effectiveness of the bomber force. It is a strange thought that despite all the costly and ingenious devices which nowadays enable a bomber to arrive accurately over its target, the final delivery of the bomb itself has not changed in 35 years; it still falls free and uncontrolled through the air at the mercy of constantly shifting winds and currents.
  Work is also proceeding on new electronic equipment. Electronics help to increase accuracy, and accuracy alone can overcome the limitations in numerical strength imposed upon us. The complexity of this equipment has increased enormously as the performance of aircraft has gone up, and a particularly heavy load has been imposed on the electronic industry.
  Research in that vital element in air defence, the radar control and reporting system is going on, too. But the high speeds of modern aircraft have greatly increased the problems. The heights and speeds of new aircraft are also producing a host of new medical problems that can only be solved by intensive research. Many of these are being studied at the R.A.F. Institute of Aviation Medicine, by a highly skilled body of R.A.F. medical officers and civilian scientists, using their own aircraft and having the most up-to-date laboratories and equipment. Their task is to discover the limits of the human body and mind which cannot be exceeded without risking the safety and efficiency of our aircrew.
  But it is no good seeking perfection in weapons and equipment without skilled and highly trained officers and airmen to use them; and I now turn, for a moment, to the personnel side of the
  1518
  Royal Air Force. First, aircrew. The slowing down of our expansion rate means that although we shall still need large numbers of high quality aircrew, we can be even more selective than before. The more expensive and complex our aircraft become, the more important it is that only the very best type of young man should be trained to take them into the air. Once again, we have not filled all the cadetships for Cranwell. We are determined not to lower our standards of entry, and parents of boys accepted to the College can feel proud that their sons have achieved the high level of all-round quality which we demand. Cranwell offers the beginning of one of the finest careers that any boy could have.
  This year we shall have turned out some 2,900 fully-trained aircrew, nearly twice the number for the previous year. Under arrangements made with N.A.T.O. we are getting considerable help from Canada in the training of aircrew. Some 480 pilots and 600 navigators will have been trained there this year. We also made a beginning in May last, again under N.A.T.O. arrangements, with training for the Royal Air Force in the United States and about 100 pilots are now training there. We are most grateful to these countries for their help.
  Next year we shall again give up to 500 flying scholarships to members of the A.T.C. and the C.C.F. Naturally, we want as many of these boys as possible to take up Regular engagements in the R.A.F., but we must ensure that those who do are up to the standard needed to complete both the flying and the ground syllabus during their R.A.F. training. Already, it is clear that the wastage rate at the I.T.S. stage is too high among those entrants who hold flying scholarships, and the future of the scheme may well depend upon raising the standards of selection.
  Mr. Beswick: What was the total number turned out this year?
  Mr. Ward: Up to 500.
  In future, therefore, candidates for flying scholarships will be tested at the R.A.F. Aircrew Selection Centre, Horn-church, and chosen according to the results they obtain.
  Now for ground crews. We want to produce an efficient and balanced force

  1519
  containing the largest possible proportion of long-term Regular ground crews. But although the scheme for offering three-or four-year Regular engagements to National Service men was a great success and we are beginning to feel the extra productive service from these men, less than one-third of our Regular recruits joined for more than four years. Fewer than 5,000 Regulars, mostly apprentices and boy entrants, signed on for more than five years. The apparent reluctance of Regular recruits to take on long engagements is most disturbing and may seriously affect our future plans.
  During the year, slightly fewer women joined the W.R.A.F. than in 1951. This is also disappointing and we need many more women recruits, especially for trades such as radar operator and fighter plotter.
  We are, I fear, faced with serious difficulties in the advanced ground trades. The need for large numbers of highly skilled and experienced men on long engagements is as urgent today as the demand for high quality aircrew. Indeed, it will become more pressing as we are called upon to maintain and service the increasingly complex equipment now coming along. Publicity and inducements have not succeeded to anything like the extent we had hoped.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why not?
  Mr. Ward: Bounties for men re-enlisting, for men extending their service and for those re-engaging for pension are being continued during 1953. As an extra inducement to men to re-engage earlier instead of waiting until their current engagements end, we now make an advance of £75 out of the full £100 re-engagement bounty. This used to be paid only when the airman was beginning his 13th year of service.
  But the R.A.F. today suffers from grave deficiencies of advanced tradesmen in the aircraft, radio, armament and electrical and instrument engineering trade groups, and it is upon these trades that the servicing tasks essential for supporting the flying effort most directly depend. Manning levels in these vital trades average about 70 per cent. but there is considerable unbalance between trades and some
  1520
  are well below this average, particularly radio engineering.
  I think there are three main reasons for this very worrying state of affairs: no Regular recruiting during the war; an inadequate number of apprentices coming in since the war; and the reluctance of men now serving on short engagements to sign on for long service. To produce an advanced tradesman from an unskilled entrant is a slow and expensive process.
  On the other hand, the new trade structure which has now been working for
  two years is showing results. In the two years more than three times as many airmen and airwomen have re-engaged to the age of 55 than re-engaged for 22 or 24 years in 1949 and 1950. We have been able to keep these people in the service without blocking promotions which now flow reasonably in most ranks and trades.
  In the interests of economy, no less than to help us in overcoming our manpower difficulties, we have worked throughout the year to prune establishments and to make better use of manpower. My noble Friend well knows how important this is.
  Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: My hon. Friend has given very serious news to the House about manpower. Could he say what positive steps are to be taken to recruit men in order that the new aircraft coming along will be adequately manned?
  Mr. Ward: We are doing all we can. I will return to that point later in the debate.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we are spending an enormous sum of money on bombers, but we are not going to have the men to fly them?
  Mr. Ward: We are going to have the men to fly them; but we want very high quality men both to fly them and to service them, and the difficulty is to get men of the right quality.
  Mr. Edward Shackleton: The hon. Gentleman says that he will return to this subject later in the debate. He made the same remark about another matter. It would be much more helpful if he would tell us during his opening speech what are his views,

  1521
  otherwise we may make criticisms to which he may have perfectly good answers.
  Mr. Ward: I do not want to weary the House by making too long a speech. It is much better to wait until hon. Members have had a chance to make their points and then, when I have collected them all together, I can reply to them.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to say anything about National Service men?
  Mr. Ward: I have already spoken about National Service aircrew and National Service men who engage for three and four year Regular engagements.
  Mr. Shinwell: What about the men who do not re-engage? What about the men who serve two years? What value do we derive from those two years of service and what happens afterwards?
  Mr. Ward: We derive great value from them.
  Although the recasting of the Royal Air Force expansion programme has had its effect on our plans for providing airfields and technical accommodation, a heavy programme of works services is still needed. This programme throws a great burden on our works staff, who are doing a splendid job. We are trying to introduce every possible economy into our designs and to make the most of existing facilities. For example, by refitting hangars and huts built during the last war we are hoping to provide, without new building, almost all the extra storage space needed by Maintenance Command. While the works programme for the R.A.F. is being reduced, the work we undertake for the United States Air Force is increasing. However, quite apart from its strategic importance, it represents a valuable dollar export.
  Developing airfields for modern aircraft often means lengthening existing runways and this, in turn, means taking more land. We are, however, doing our best to keep demands for new land down to the lowest possible limit. We also have an obligation to see that the best possible agricultural use is made of the land we have to take. We have looked at each individual airfield during the past winter
  1522
  and some 38,000 acres in all have been made available without restriction to farmers, besides the 80,000 acres which we have let to farmers or handed over to county agricultural committees for some kind of agricultural use.
  The most practicable form of food production on airfields is grass drying. By the end
  of the 1952 season grass drying was being carried out under contract at 75 R.A.F. airfields, an area of 15,000 acres. Although there are some financial and geographical difficulties, we hope to let a further 2,000 acres next season and at least as much again by early next year. Grass drying should then be going on at about 100 airfields.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: What sort of proportion is that? Is it 100 out of 200, or out of 250?
  Mr. Ward: I do not think I ought to reveal the number of airfields that we have. It is a very large proportion.
  Besides the operational works programme, there is the programme for married quarters. Our aim is still to provide a married quarter for every entitled officer and airman who wants one, and in the past year we have completed 3,000 quarters at home and 500 overseas. We still have many more to build and we shall need some more loan money to do it. We have also carried out a thorough review of married quarters designs and standards and have made big savings. For example, we have considerably reduced the size of officers' married quarters and more of them are being built semi-detached. Airmen's quarters are smaller, too, and we have a new two-bedroom design. We have used some terrace building and some non-traditional construction.
  I now turn to the operational commands. Hornet, Vampire and Brigand squadrons of the Far East Air Force have flown continuously in Malaya, supported by Sunderlands, Valettas, Austers and helicopters. We are most grateful for the help given by a Lincoln squadron of the Royal Australian Air Force and the House will wish me, also, to express its thanks to the United States Government for agreeing to the use in Malaya of the S.55 helicopters originally provided for the Navy in the N.A.T.O. area.
  During August, my noble Friend made a tour of Middle East Air Force bases

  1523
  and gained a good deal of information. especially by seeing at first-hand conditions at the most difficult season of the year. We well know the trying conditions in which our airmen are working in the Canal Zone and we are doing as much as possible to help. The leave scheme now operating will provide some relief and will help to keep up morale. In addition, airmen in the Canal Zone and in other overseas commands will, of course, benefit from the increased rates of local overseas allowance payable to married men separated from their wives, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, announced in his speech during the debate on the Army Estimates.
  The strength of the R.A.F. in the 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force has increased by over one-third during the year and there will be further substantial increases next year. An effective night fighter force has been built up, entirely armed with Meteor N.F. 11s. Vampires are being replaced by Sabres for day interception and by Venoms for ground attack. Several joint exercises have been held with other N.A.T.O. air forces, using joint airfields, joint controllers and joint ground facilities.
  In Bomber Command the Canberra force is now taking shape. We have a number of bomber and target-marker squadrons and I hope that by this time next year we shall have three times as many. We shall also have a new mark of Canberra with improved range. Meanwhile, the first photographic reconnaissance Canberras are now coming into service.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: Does my hon. Friend anticipate that the photographic reconnaissance squadrons will be completely equipped with Canberras before the end of the year?
  Mr. Ward: I should not like to commit myself as far as that, but they are coming in as fast as we can get them from the factories.
  We are continually trying to improve blind-bombing techniques, made ever more necessary by the great heights at which a modern bomber can fly. The present C.-in-C. Bomber Command, can take much of the credit for the remarkable advances in bombing accuracy made recently. Meanwhile, a new bombing
  1524
  school has been set up to study further the many problems of accurate bombing.
  In Fighter Command two squadrons of Sabres will be formed in the coming year. These aircraft have done very well against the MIG. 15 in Korea and they will do much to improve our defensive strength until a large number of British swept-wing fighters appear. We are glad, too, to have with us American and Canadian Sabre squadrons. The Canadians are spending a year in the United Kingdom before moving on to the Continent and they have been fully integrated in Fighter Command's training.
  To practise mobility and to broaden their operational experience, many of the auxiliary squadrons attended summer camps overseas. We hope that in the coming year at least two-thirds of them will go to camps in Malta or Germany. We are still very short of ground crews in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and I would appeal to young men living near an auxiliary squadron to join it if they possibly can. The same applies to the F.C.U.s, and here there are opportunities for women, too.
  The refitting and modernisation of the control and reporting system is well on the way to completion and many of the stations are now fully operational. More will be coming into service during the summer. Equipment is being installed as fast as the manufacturers can produce it, though we are still short of some items.
  Coastal Command is now mainly equipped with Shackletons and Neptunes. The Neptunes carry several important new anti-submarine weapons. We shall develop their tactical use, but so far we have been mainly concerned with problems of spares and servicing. A new mark of Shackleton is now coming into service which carries a greater weight of the varied equipment needed in maritime aircraft. We also have a target-seeking torpedo and a new Sonobuoy.
  Naturally, we have worked closely with the Royal Navy and with the maritime forces of other N.A.T.O. countries. International co-operation in N.A.T.O. defence exercises has reached the point at which R.A.F. aircraft have successfully operated from bases in Norway, together with French squadrons working from Northern Ireland, Netherlands squadrons from Scotland and Americans from the Shetlands.

  1525
  The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) will be raising the subject of transport aircraft later in the debate; and the more important activities of Transport Command during the year are listed in the White Paper, but I should like to say a word about the part they played in the recent flood disaster. This gave the Command an emergency task of the highest importance.
  As the House will know, several million sandbags were generously offered by a number of European countries to meet our urgent need for the repair of sea defences. Between 13th and 17th February, working round the clock, aircraft of Transport Command, helped by Coastal Command, brought to this country nearly 3 million sandbags from Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Italy and Portugal. Nearly 220,000 miles were flown during the operation and 85 Hastings and 59 Valetta sorties were made. I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate the squadrons which took part in this fine effort.
  During the year we ordered 20 Blackburn freighters. These will be known as "Beverleys." They are tail-loading aircraft and the only British type which can drop the Army's heavy equipment.
  Mr. Beswick: Will the Under-Secretary of State make clear whether these are to be operated by Transport Command or other people?
  Mr. Ward: By Transport Command. Before I leave the operational Commands I must say something about accidents. It will be clear that the expansion of the R.A.F. has led to a great increase in the amount of flying. Indeed, the total flying effort in 1952 was three-quarters greater than in 1950. It is true that the total number of fatal accidents in 1952 was higher than for the previous years, but the increase was encouragingly less than the increases in the number of hours flown. But we are by no means content. By changes being made in the flying training organisation we hope to raise the standards of flying skill and safety. Better instruments will be fitted on the newer types of aircraft, and modifications to improve safety in existing types are being speeded up. Officers of the Royal Canadian Air Force, the United States Air Force and the Royal Air Force meet regularly to consider means of increasing the safety of service flying over the
  1526
  United Kingdom. This body, known as the Services Air Safety Committee, is doing very valuable work, and we shall go on doing all we can to reduce the number of accidents in all types of aircraft.
  Earlier in my speech I spoke of rebuilding the Air Force. The process is necessarily much slower than most people realise. They are eagerly waiting for the coping——
  Mr. Beswick: Because of the hon. Gentleman's speech last year.
  Mr. Ward: —and they are inclined to be impatient with the bricklaying. But the coping must be firmly supported on a well-built wall. This is the year when we are beginning to put the coping on to a part of the wall; but I must make it plain that the complete process will take some years. I thought I had made it plain enough last year when I said:
  "It is a hard fact that we have temporarily lost our lead, and we cannot regain it for some time to come."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 2113.]
  But already some people are asking why the advanced types of high performance bombers and fighters of which I have spoken today have not been produced in large numbers during the last 18 months, and are not already flying in our operational squadrons.
  The answer is simply this: that we cannot go into full-scale production with a piece of machinery as complicated as a modern aircraft, its engines and all its ancillary equipment, until we have put right the innumerable small defects from which any prototype is bound to suffer, but which have been greatly increased by entirely new designs and by modern speeds and heights.
  Before the war it was usual to allow about a year for the development flying of a new fighter by the manufacturer and as long again by the Ministry of Supply. Today, it is only by ordering more than one prototype and conducting the firm's trials concurrently with those of the Ministry of Supply that the period of development can be kept within reasonable bounds at all. As it is, three years' development flying for a bomber and two for a fighter represents the shortest time possible without running absurd risks. To reduce it further would mean imposing on squadron pilots the functions and dangers of test flying.

  1527
  It would also waste time and money, because to modify a finished aircraft is much more difficult and costly than merely altering a blue-print.
  The rebuilding of the Air Force must proceed in stages. So far, the emphasis has been mainly upon putting in the essential foundations: the airfields and the runways and the training organisation. Much of this has already been done—and well done. Now the main effort and the main expenditure shifts to the provision of new aircraft—the whole eason and justification for the huge sum of money already spent. Costly as these aircraft are, we must not now shrink from the expense of producing them, lest all the foundations we have so carefully laid be wasted and useless.
  Mr. Arthur Henderson: I am quite sure that the Under-Secretary of State did not mean to convey to the House and the country that the foundations of the Royal Air Force, to which he has referred, were laid only during the past 12 months.
  Mr. Ward: Certainly not. I beg the pardon of the House. I had no desire whatever to give that impression. Of course, it takes very much longer than 12 months to build an operational Air Force.
  Mr. Beswick: With regard to these facts about its taking time to provide new aircraft and undertake development flying, the hon. Gentleman is speaking as though this were something new this year. Can he say why he did not explain all This 12 months ago?
  Mr. Ward: It has all been explained over and over again.
  Mr. Beswick: Not 12 months ago.
  Mr. Ward: Let me repeat, quite frankly, that the new Air Force will take time and great expense to build; but when it is finished we shall have not only the finest aircraft in the world——
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: By then they will be obsolete.
  Mr. Ward: —but a Service which will give us new hope of security at home and exert a powerful influence on our international relations. Indeed, we shall have an Air Force of which our nation will be truly proud.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Henderson: I am quite sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will at least echo the hope expressed in the concluding of works of the Under-Secretary of State, that we shall in due course have as fine quality an Air Force as there is in any part of the world. I am sure that both sides of the House have listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. Indeed, I would venture to go further and suggest that with a good deal of what he has said there will be general agreement on both sides, especially with what he said about the concept of the Royal Air Force and of the part it has to play in the defence of our nation, and the emphasis that he sought to place upon quality rather than quantity.
  We were, however, not so happy about two of the items of information that were new. I think that the speech did not contain anything particularly new, but his report to the House of the decision of the Air Council and the Secretary of State to close 14 Reserve schools—a further seven, in addition to the possibility of the remaining seven being closed down in due course, as well as the fact that seven other training schools, as announced in December, have already been closed —will come as a shock to many people, and especially to the hundreds of flying instructors who have given their service in the last two or three years. It will bring gloom into their homes when they get this information. The other point, that of the shortage of technicians, I should like to refer to later.
  I listened very patiently and with great expectations in the hope that the Under-Secretary would give the House and the country some information about the number of squadrons and the number of front line planes we have in the Royal Air Force. I do not know whether he has refreshed his mind with the speech made in 1951 by the present Foreign Secretary, in which he said, as an admonition to myself, then the Secretary of State:
  "it would be wrong for any Minister to take shelter behind the veil of secrecy in order to avoid saying something on which criticism might be embarrassing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,6th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 266.]
  I have never argued that the claims of secrecy should be ignored, and I do not

  1529
  argue that today. The argument has been put forward during the past six years by leaders of the party opposite.
  I say quite frankly that, in spite of my intimate knowledge of the Royal Air Force and its affairs, acquired during the four years when I was Secretary of State, I have not the slightest idea of the present size, in the number of front line planes or squadrons, of the Royal Air Force, although I am well aware of the number of front line planes and squadrons which existed when I left the Air Ministry in November, 1951. I am also well aware of the number of planes and squadrons it was intended to have at the conclusion of the £4,700 million programme —let us call it the four-year programme —in 1955, which would be then the front line strength of the Royal Air Force. Apart from myself, Parliament itself does not know, and nor has the country any clear knowledge of, the strength and design of the Royal Air Force.
  I shall not follow the bad example of the party opposite and ask them to destroy the veil of secrecy. I am not criticising the present Government, because I well know that there are good security reasons against giving too much information. But their present attitude is very different from the one they adopted while they were in opposition. During the four years I was at the Air Ministry there was considerable pressure from the party opposite in both Houses of Parliament that more information should be given. In another place two noble Lords, both of whom have been Secretary of State for Air, Lord Swinton and Lord Templewood, constantly pressed the Government for more information. In this House the present Foreign Secretary, the present Minister of Housing and Local Government and, not least, the present Under-Secretary of State for Air, pressed the late Government constantly, urging them to do away with secrecy and hush-hush and to tell the country the shape and size of the Air Force the country was getting for its money.
  In 1951, during the last debate in which I sat on the Government Front Bench, the present Under-Secretary had quite a lot to say about the Memorandum that had been issued in connection with the Air Estimates for 1951–52. Perhaps I might be allowed to quote what he said on that occasion:
  "The right hon. and learned Gentleman"—
  1530
  that was referring to myself—
  "produced, to go with the Estimates, a Memorandum which is a mass of complacency, a mass of vague phrases which tell us nothing. References are made to 'increases,' and to 'more substantial increases' and in due 'course' and 'substantial increases.' They mean absolutely nothing. It leads one to think 'Everything is perfectly all right, there is really nothing to worry about. It is very silly to ask us to pay this money to strengthen our defences when we do not need it at all, because everything is quite all right.' That is very misleading indeed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 351.]
  It was the same last year. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) actually interrupted me when I was speaking and said surely I was referring to the Air Memorandum for 1951, whereas I was referring to the Air Memorandum for 1952. Then he chided me for referring to the Under-Secretary, because he said that the Under-Secretary had only been in the Air Ministry 10 days. I have had sufficient experience of the drafting of these Memoranda to know that they are produced long before 10 days prior to the Air Estimates debate, and the Under-Secretary knew perfectly well that I was not making any personal reflection upon his being the author of that Memorandum.
  Bust it is different this year. He has been at the Air Ministry at least a year, and I imagine that he will accept his share of the responsibility for the Memorandum on the Air Estimates. Do we find in it anything different from this complacency to which he referred as applying to the Memorandum of 1951? Let us look at it.
  Paragraph 6 says:
  "During 1952, additional operational aircraft were brought into service … The largest single expansion was in the 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force."
  Then we go over to page 4 and see:
  "Both day and night fighter forces in Fighter Command will continue to expand … In Bomber Command, more squadrons of Canberra jet bombers"
  have been formed. Then, in paragraph 9:
  "There has also been a substantial reinforcement of our Meteor night fighter force in Europe."
  The hon. Gentleman did not like the word "substantial" any more than the Foreign

  1531
  Secretary did when I used it. Towards the end of the same paragraph we read:
  "The first Sabre squadrons will shortly be forming in the 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force, where, by the end of the year, a substantial day fighter force will have been built up."
  Air Commodore Harvey: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that his Government sat on this side of the House for six years, and he knows perfectly well that one cannot design and build aircraft and bring them into service in a period of 18 months, which is what this Government have had. The fact is, it was the right hon. and learned Gentleman who hid behind security reasons for six years till he had nothing else to say.
  Mr. Henderson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well, from Parliamentary and other experience, that it was equally true in the days of the late Government that planes could not be produced in under a period of 18 months. He must know perfectly well the history of the Handley Page Victor, and that it took six years to produce that plane. If refinements had not been made by the Air Ministry six years ago, the three medium bombers upon which the country will have to rely would not be in existence at the present time.
  Air Commodore Harvey: How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect my hon. Friend to give these figures when we have been in power for only 18 months?
  Mr. Henderson: I am not asking him to give the figures. I am only say that when we were in power the party opposite were asking for figures, but when they get into power they find it more convenient to hide behind the veil of secrecy. Since the days of freedom in opposition it is quite clear that the present Ministers have apparently learned the responsibility of Government.
  I do say, however, that the Opposition did have a point on this question of information with which I should like to deal. The present Foreign Secretary, speaking in the debate in 1951, said:
  "I suggest to the Minister of Defence— and this is a serious point connected with the value of our discussions on defence Estimates —that it might be better to see whether further information can be made available not to individual Members of the House but to the
  1532
  House as a whole. It might be convenient to concentrate in any given year on certain important aspects of the problem we have to discuss. … I do not know what the remedy is, but Parliamentary systems are adaptable, and we ought to see before next year whether there is not a better way in which to handle the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 265.]
  I agree with the Foreign Secretary, so far as the Air Force is concerned. There is no concealment of the number of warships in the Royal Navy or of the number of divisions in the Army, but neither the House nor the nation have any idea of the number of squadrons or front line planes in the Royal Air Force, although the Estimates for the Royal Air Force last year and this year amount to nearly £1,000 million. [Interruption.] I am not dealing with the Russians. Apart from the Russians, Members of Parliament ought to have more knowledge than they have. Within reasonable limits of security, is there not some way whereby Parliament and the country can be given more information as to the size of the Royal Air Force than has been given today?
  Mr. Burden: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated that in his view this information should be made known to the nation and to Members of Parliament. May I draw attention to the number of right hon. and hon. Members on his side of the House who are not present today?
  Mr. Henderson: I think it is fair to say that hon. Members do not come into these air debates because the Under-Secretary, with all due respect to what he said—and I would say this about any other Under-Secretary or Secretary of State for Air, for that matter—told us nothing of interest. The only two new items which he told us about are ones which give concern to many hon. Members, namely, the treatment of the instructors on the closing of the flying schools, and the shortage of technicians, in view of the expansion that we are undertaking.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: Not many of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hon. Friends are here to listen to him.
  Mr. Henderson: I am not saying that they are. I have not the information; therefore, I cannot give it. If we could have a little more information, perhaps they would take some interest.

  1533
  I am not raising this matter in any spirit of carping criticism, but the position is as I have described it, and it will so continue, that neither Parliament nor the nation will have any real basis on which to formulate an appreciation of our strength in air defence unless a method can be devised to enable Parliament to have more information on this subject of vital national interest than is at present available to it.
  May I turn to paragraph 4 of the Memorandum on page 1? The last sentence states:
  "This decision naturally slows down the rate of expansion of the force, but the expansion will still be considerable."
  Does not the matter go a little further than that? Is it not only a question of slowing down but of reducing the projected size of the Royal Air Force? Is it not a little misleading to say that it is merely a question of slowing down the rate of expansion?
  There is curtailment of production, especially of Canberras—and I am not complaining about it, because I agree with the Under-Secretary that the important thing is quality rather than quantity without quality—but I should have thought that it was far better that the Government should be frank with the House and make it quite clear that this is not only a question of slowing down the rate of expansion but a question of eventually reducing the projected front line strength of the Royal Air Force.
  I should like to ask the Under-Secretary to which commands this applies. Surely the overall projected front line strength under the original £4,700 million programme will be considerably reduced and not merely slowed down. So I would ask on what commands is the impact of reduction to fall? For example, what is the position of the 2nd Tactical Air Force in view of the curtailment of Canberras announced by the Prime Minister? The Under-Secretary said last year
  "its planned expansion is greater than that of any other single command."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 2118.]
  Is that still the case? Does that mean that the 2nd Tactical Air Force front line strength will be considerably less than was intended in 1955, or is it to be the same or nearly the same?
  I, as Secretary of State for Air, announced in the 1951 Estimates debate
  1534
  that the Canberra squadrons would be allocated to the Supreme Commander in Europe, although operated by the Commander-in-Chief, Bomber Command on his behalf. In view of the reduction in Canberras, will our quota to N.A.T.O. through the 2nd Tactical Air Force be reduced? I hope it will be possible for the Under-Secretary not to hide behind the veil of security, but to follow the advice of the Foreign Secretary and answer the question, even though it may be somewhat embarrassing.
  I turn to the question of super-priority, to which the Under-Secretary made some reference. I notice in the Defence White Paper of March of last year that the labour force in the aircraft industry had been previously about 150,000. It was then 177,000 and it was stated that a further 50,000 would be required by March, 1953, making a total of 227,000. In this year's Defence White Paper, we are told that the numbers have grown to 206,000, which is 21,000 short of the number of technicians required. Can we be told what the effect of this labour shortage has been on the production programme?
  The Minister of Labour this afternoon replied to a Question on this point, and informed the House that the number of vacancies in the aircraft industry was only 4,000 or 5,000 as a result partly of the curtailment of the production programme. Is there any connection between the curtailment of the production programme and the fact that the labour force is insufficient to meet the requirements as regards aircraft, because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply surely will agree with me that when we talk about super-priority we must not only have the machine tools and not only have the raw materials—both of which, I believe, are in ample supply—but we must have ample supplies of labour, skilled and unskilled? It is under the third heading that we have fallen down, namely, the shortage of labour.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: At Question time today there was a Question on that point. It was said that the labour force had been increased by 32,000 over
  the last two years. That is a very formidable increase in view of the stretch-out of the aircraft programme.
  Mr. Henderson: It is not enough except by reason of the fact that the production programme has been curtailed. If it had not been curtailed, we should have been in very serious difficulties so far as super priority is concerned.
  I should like to emphasise—and surely the Under-Secretary will agree with this—that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what super priority involves. I should like to express my agreement with the Secretary of State for Air, who said the other day, in another place, that the time between order and delivery is not due to lack of manufacturing capacity, even with super-priority of machine tools, raw materials and labour. Using all the manufacturing techniques of a great industrial concern, the cycle of aircraft production is from 18 to 24 months, depending on the type of aircraft.
  I agree with the Under-Secretary that it is no use, any more than it was for hon. Members opposite a couple of years ago, to expect all the new types being developed and ordered from the drawing board to be flying with squadrons in a matter of a year or two. The Under-Secretary will agree that the cycle of production makes it impossible. Even assuming that we could iron out all the delays as a result of having an effective system of super-priority, we should still be left with the cycle of production of from 18 to 24 months or even longer in the case of a very complicated machine like one of these four-jet bombers.
  Therefore, while I agree with the decision to concentrate within limits on quality instead of quantity, I hope that we shall not make the mistake of going to the other extreme. Quality is the first essential, but, within limits of finance and the ability to service and fly these aircraft, the more planes we have the better. It is evident that what was called Plan H—there is now no security reason why I should not mention it because it is a thing of the past—on which the £4,700 million programme was based will not be fulfilled, and we shall have to be content with a lower ceiling.
  I am sure the House would like to be reassured by the Under-Secretary before the debate closes that he is satisfied that we shall have highly trained armourers, radar fitters, wireless fitters and electricians in sufficient num-
  1536
  bers to service the relatively smaller number of machines. It takes up to two years for a machine to come off the production line, and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman has a couple of years in hand in which to build up his force of skilled tradesmen.
  The late Government ordered the Canberra, the Hunter, the Swift and the Valiant off the drawing board. Speaking at Cambridge on 8th June, 1952, the present Secretary of State, referring to what had been done by the late Government, said:
  "Let us be quite clear that it is not a desirable thing to order complicated and expensive aircraft before they have even flown."
  That is all very well, but the present Government have done exactly the same thing by ordering the Victor and the Vulcan off the drawing board. On 17th February this year—it is true that he was speaking at a party meeting, where he probably had to let himself go a little—the Secretary of State went back on his words and said:
  "…the Government would have been wrong not to be bold enough in this matter to order from the drawing board the Victor and the Vulcan"
  Both machines are just as complicated as anything ordered off the drawing board by the late Government.
  Mr. Ward: Is it not true that, in the first instance, my noble Friend was talking about the Javelin and the DH. 110?
  Mr. Henderson: Not according to the report I had.
  Mr. Ward: It makes all the difference. We had a prototype of the DH. 110 and of the Javelin and there was a question of evaluating which was the better of the two. There was no question of ordering off the drawing board.
  Mr. Henderson: I have the quotation. It says:
  "It is just as well that orders off the drawing board were placed for certain types of aircraft."
  Then the Secretary of State stated that it was undesirable to do so, but he now agrees. On 5th March the Prime Minister put the matter with his usual clarity when he said:
  "With the growing rapidity of new inventions and in consequence of the increasing rapidity of obsolescence, the practice of going into production off the drawing board, which

  1537
  still remains a risk, is becoming almost a normal procedure."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 580.]
  Perhaps, on reflection, the Secretary of State would now agree that it should not be a point of criticism of the present or of the last Government that they ordered complicated machines off the drawing board.
  I now pass to Bomber Command. In paragraph 8 of the Memorandum we are told that Bomber Command is to have more squadrons of Canberras and that this expansion is to be accelerated during the coming year. I agree with the Under-Secretary that Bomber Command is the spearhead of this country's air defences, and I agree that we must have a balanced Royal Air Force. That was the policy of the previous Government and it is also the policy of the present Government.
  On the other hand, we must realise that these bombers cost £300,000 to £400,000 each, which is four or five times the cost of one Lancaster or Lincoln four-piston-engined bomber. I understood the Under-Secretary to say that the Government was concentrating on one of the three new types. I hope they will do so. I do not know whether it will be the Valiant, the Victor or the Vulcan, but the Government will involve the country in a great deal of expenditure if they start to order all three. I hope, as I understood the Under-Secretary to say, that the Government will for the time being concentrate upon the Valiant.
  Mr. Ward: What I said was that after we have tried them out in squadron service we might find it best to concentrate on one.
  Mr. Henderson: I assume that orders have been placed for the Vulcan in quantity, and for the Victor.
  Mr. Ward Mr. Ward indicated assent.
  Mr. Henderson: It is unreal to suppose that Bomber Command could ever hope again to fill the skies with 1,000 or 1,200 four-engined jet bombers costing £300,000 to £400,000 each. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence said the other night that we shall not have a very large strategic Air Force but that it will be a highly efficient one. I believe there will be general approval of the Government's decision to retain a balanced Air Force, including a number
  1538
  of the latest medium jet bombers, but I wonder what the Parliamentary Secretary meant when he said that we shall not have a very large strategic force. He did not give any specific number, for reasons which we all appreciate, and, therefore, we have no means of judging what number the Government have in mind.
  In my view, the size of our medium jet bomber strategic force will have to be governed by two factors. One is the nation's economic capacity, bearing in mind the fact that, whereas during the war we were dealing with 1,000 Lincolns, Lancasters and other four-pistoned engined aircraft costing £50,000, £60,000 or £70,000 each, we are now dealing with aircraft costing £300,000 to £400,000 each. The second factor is that we shall be associated with the United States Strategic Air Force in Europe.
  In view of these limitations, I should have thought the Government would have made it clear that our strategic bomber force, while highly efficient, must inevitably be small in numbers. Let us face the fact that it will be small in numbers, but, whatever may be the number decided upon, it is to be hoped that, in view of the large proportion of obsolescent medium bombers at present in Bomber Command—we have the Lincolns and also the B.29s which we received from the United States; they are not obsolete, but they are not modern types of bomber—all the orders required to re-equip the present medium piston engined bomber squadrons with medium jet bomber aircraft have been placed. I understand from the Under-Secretary that he has given me an assurance that orders have been placed sufficient to replace the Lincolns and B.29s in due course by an equal number of these four medium jet bombers.
  Mr. Ward: I never gave any such assurance. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot quote me on that.
  Mr. Henderson: I asked if the Vulcan and the Victor as well as the Valiant—I know about the Valiants because those orders were placed before I left the Air Ministry—had been ordered in sufficient quantity with the aircraft manufacturers and I understood the hon. Gentleman to say "Yes."
  Mr. Ward: It all depends on what is meant by "quantity."
  Mr. Beswick: The hon. Member said squadrons.
  Mr. Ward: Quantity could mean anything in figures from nought to 1,000.
  Mr. Henderson: Oh no; the Under-Secretary can have recourse to the files of the Air Ministry and can check up every speech I made as Air Minister. He will find that when I used the word "substantial" I did not mean two or three or some fantastically small figure like that.
  Mr. Ward: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows well that, in the first instance, an order is not placed for all the aeroplanes that are wanted. It goes on in stages. They have got to be paid for in stages, and we also know very well the importance of keeping production flowing in the factories.
  Mr. Henderson: I do not want to go into these highly controversial matters, but the Under-Secretary knows perfectly well that we ordered quite a considerable number of Valiants long before there was experience of them in the squadrons. Now I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he is going to wait until they have experience of the squadrons before the Victor and the Vulcan are ordered in numbers.
  Mr. Ward: We have given a production order, not just an order for prototypes. Is that what is worrying the right hon. and learned Gentleman?
  Mr. Henderson: When I say "production in quantity," I do not mean two or three machines. I mean the sort of number included in the order for the Valiants given during the time I was at the Air Ministry.
  Air Commodore Harvey: How many?
  Mr. Henderson: I cannot tell that, but I want the Under-Secretary's assurance that his orders are based on the same numbers. With that I will be satisfied. I do not know whether we are still at cross-purposes, but the Under-Secretary, I believe, talked about two or three for testing in the squadrons. Have they been ordered in quantity?
  Mr. Ward Mr. Ward indicated assent.
  Mr. Henderson: In considerable numbers?
  Mr. Ward: Yes.
  Mr. Henderson: I still hope the Government will be very careful before they decide to proceed along three parallel lines, because I believe they will get as good service and much cheaper if they order some particular machine.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am rather interested in what is regarded as a considerable number of bombers we are Supposed to be asking for. In the air programme described by my right hon. and learned Friend, it was stated that the Russians had 7,000 aircraft. Is my right hon. and learned Friend, or the Government, suggesting that we should have 1,000 of these jet bombers which will work out at roughly £400,000 each, a programme costing £400 million?
  Mr. Henderson: That is not for me to answer. All I said was that as far as I was concerned we had to take into account two factors, the economic position of the country and the fact that we will be closely associated with the United States Strategic Air Force if, unhappily, we ever get into another war.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the first factor to be taken into consideration is the effective deterring power of each individual bomber we are ordering, even before thinking of the economic conditions of the country?
  Mr. Henderson: I think we have got to take a broad picture. We must remember these two limiting factors, and perhaps there are other limiting factors which I have not mentioned. I would say that the bomber strength of the country must be related to the strength of the American Bomber Force with which it must maintain close contact.
  I want to say a word about a statement that appeared in "The Times" on Tuesday, 3rd March. This statement was issued by the Air Ministry, and contains these words:
  "The R.A.F. medium bomber squadrons are also part of our contribution to N.A.T.O. As they form an essential element in our national defences they remain under national control, but it has always been envisaged since the formation of N.A.T.O. that they would, on occasion and to the maximum extent possible, support the Supreme Commander's operations."
  The governing words there are "on occasion," and I should like to ask the

  1541
  Under-Secretary whether there is not a change of policy there. In 1951, when I was presenting the Air Estimates, I said:
  "Our Air Forces in Germany will be allocated to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. In addition, the light bomber squadrons of Bomber Command will be allocated to the Supreme Commander, and operated by the Commander in Chief Bomber Command on his behalf. The medium bomber squadron of Bomber Command will also be at the general disposal of the Supreme Commander, but in the latter case the British Chiefs of Staff will reserve the right to direct these elements of Bomber Command to other tasks as and when required for the defence of the United Kingdom."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 249–50.]
  I think there is a change of policy there, and it may be that the Government have good reasons for saying that the Supreme Commander in Europe is only going to have the use of Bomber Command on occasions. I should like to know from the Under-Secretary whether that is the case.
  While there is nothing in the N.A.T.O. Agreement which obligates this country to put Bomber Command under the Supreme Commander of the N.A.T.O. Forces, surely there must be the closest co-operation and co-ordination of action between Bomber Command and the United States Strategic Air Force. I hope, therefore, that another statement will be issued by the Air Ministry phrased in a more happy way and assuring, what was no doubt intended, that there will always be the closest degree of operational unity, and that we will not on occasions only allow the combined forces of N.A.T.O. to use our bomber force.
  May I turn to one other matter, and that is what I call the changing pattern of air warfare. I do not believe that conventional air forces will long suffice in the light of scientific developments. Quite recently the Minister of Supply told the House that work on guided rockets had been intensified. He described them as one of the instruments that would dominate the scene in the not-too-far distant future. He stated that these weapons would travel at several times the speed of sound; that is, up to 2,000 miles per hour, or more than 30 miles a minute. Whether the Minister of Supply was referring to guided rockets, such as the V.1 or V.2 types, or guided missiles which can be launched by one aeroplane against another, or a rocket to he fired
  1542
  from ground to air, he did not make clear. Nor do I know what the Minister means in terms of years when he talks about the not-too-distant future.
  It is to be hoped that he was including a rocket which can be used by our fighters against 500 m.p.h. jet bombers and jet fighters, flying at speeds approaching the supersonic, which will be the case if unhappily we have to face in war an attack on the security of these islands. Certainly that raises the question of the accuracy of fire power, which can only be solved by the guided rocket or missile.
  The Under-Secretary referred to the splendid work of the Institute for Aviation Medicine, and I entirely agree with the work which is being done. A report has been published of the views of Wing Commander J. S. Howitt, who is a very experienced R.A.F. medical officer and an expert on aviation medicine. The following, which I imagine is an official quotation, appeared in the "Manchester Guardian":
  "Wing Commander Howitt believes that the speed of aircraft is getting to the point where it outstrips human capacity for thought and action. When that stage is reached aerial warfare will have to be left to the machines."
  This is a very interesting indication of what the near future contains in view of this remarkable development of jet planes.
  Then there are the long-range rockets. In 1945 the Germans were using a rocket with a range of 200 miles. Today we are told that very soon, according to Mr. Findlater, the former American Secretary of Air, the United States will have guided missiles which can span the ocean—presumably both the Atlantic and the Pacific; that is, 3,000 to 4,000 miles—with accuracy. How far the Russians can equal this development, I do not know, but on the reasonable assumption that they are engaged in similar development, these missiles raise vital problems both for us and the Russians. It would be fatal to assume that the Russians are lagging behind in this sphere. The intense and frightening strides which are being made in this development almost stagger the imagination, both in the case of atomic warfare and guided missiles.
  Mr. Findlater, a great expert on air matters, recently stated that we are living in the fastest moving period in the history

  1543
  of man in the technique of warfare. It is almost certain that guided missiles and rockets will revolutionise warfare sooner rather than later, especially with the advent of the atomic age. That does not mean in my view that press-button warfare is just round the corner. Piloted planes flying at speeds limited by man's capacity to control them in war conditions may continue for years to come, though possibly within a few years in a secondary role. But while guided rockets may not be round the corner, they may well be close enough to justify a thorough review of the pattern of our air defences, even though that may involve the risk of using a great share of our available resources on guided weapons and less on conventional weapons.
  A few days ago the "Daily Telegraph" drew attention to the need for exploring the implications of modern weapons and emphasised the changing pattern of defence. The subject is complex and there is no clear, easy answer at this stage; but such a review is essential and should not be delayed. The nettle of the allocation of resources to the three fighting Services will have to be grasped by one Government or another, and it will have to be decided that within our economic and financial limits air defence must be given everything necessary to safeguard the security of our islands, the balance then being divided between the other two Services. There will be a tremendous struggle when that comes, but sooner or later the country and the Government of the day must face that position.
  I should like to associate my hon. and right hon. Friends with the tribute paid in the Memorandum and by the Under-Secretary to what was done by all Commands of the R.A.F., and especially Transport and Coastal Commands, to aid those who were victims of the recent floods in this country and the Netherlands. As the first duty of the R.A.F. is to play its part in deterring and resisting aggression and defending the security of these islands, it is inevitable that their operations for those vital purposes should be constantly in our minds. At the same time, we do not forget that they run peaceful services, as the Under-Secretary has enumerated, in many spheres, and we rightly have pride in all their activities.
  1544
  It has been estimated that by January, 1954, the world will be spending £40,000 million on armaments and that there will be nearly 19 million men under arms throughout the world. The peoples of the nations long for the day when the world can live, work and travel in secure conditions of peace, when the rule of law prevails and when, as Prime Minister Nehru has said, science can be diverted more to the arts of peace than to the other arts which might destroy science itself. That, of course, is the goal to which all our policies and defence preparations are directed; and our efforts to reach that goal in the unsettled conditions of the world today will, in my view, be strengthened by the existence and readiness of a strong and balanced Royal Air Force.
  5.26 p.m.
  Wing Commander Eric Bullus: In recent years those of us who have had complete faith in the Royal Air Force have been encouraged because we are gradually convincing others that the Royal Air Force must be given real priority in any successful scheme of defence for this country and for the free world. During the last three or four years, Estimates for the R.A.F. have taken an increasing share of the defence total and today they more closely approximate to the amounts set aside for the Army. The House will congratulate the Under-Secretary for any part he has had in this general education and will thank him for a very general review of the work of the R.A.F. But I think that all hon. Members will agree that there are many questions which remain to be answered.
  The conception of defence changes as our aircraft gain in speed and as our development of guided missiles progresses. Any future war which unhappily might
  come would come with a suddenness that calls for constant vigilance and sustained efficiency. In such a war, after the initial repulse of an attack, bombers could play as decisive a part as they did in the last war. I am anxious, therefore, to have the assurance of the Minister that he would vigorously resist any suggestion that we should not have our own bomber force and bases in this country under our own command. Perhaps the Under-Secretary would subscribe to the assurance given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence in

  1545
  the defence debate the other day that we would maintain our strategic bomber force under national control.
  I should like to ask the Under-Secretary
  one or two other pertinent questions on which, I hope, we may have reassuring answers. I am concerned at the shortage of skilled personnel in the repair and maintenance section of a number of squadrons in Fighter Command. There is a natural disquiet at this continued shortage. In general, the terms of the Memorandum admits, on page six, paragraph 20, that:
  "…there is still a serious deficiency of highly skilled men in some of the most important trade groups. Even if the recruits are forthcoming in sufficient numbers, lack of experience can only be made good by the passage of time,…."
  Again, this afternoon, the Under-Secretary has stressed the alarming nature of this problem. My information is that in a number of squadrons in Fighter Command, because of this serious shortage of skilled labour, pilots are only able to fly about a quarter of the number of hours that normally should be flown. The loss of flying time would not be so serious if those pilots were intended to continue to operate the earlier jet Meteors which they now fly. If a war came suddenly and the new jet Hunters and Swifts were sent to the squadrons, past lack of adequate training facilities could have serious repercussions. The violent change could be likened to a sudden switch from pony and trap to the streamlined modern motor car without any interval for practice.
  What steps is the Minister taking to remedy the deficiency and to ensure adequate skilled labour—and a reserve pool, if possible—for our fighter squadrons? More money may have to be offered. Industry has much more financial attraction than the Royal Air Force. Is the Minister prepared to consider additional payments or a differential scale? Perhaps he will inform the House, because I believe this is a serious problem. My information is that a substantial proportion of the Meteors, which we exported recently to a Latin country, might well have been absorbed by our own Fighter Command if adequate ground maintenance had been available at all our fighter squadrons.
  Aircraft design has improved enormously in recent years. It is pertinent
  1546
  to ask if our fighter aircraft armament has improved in any comparable way. After all, a fighter is really a gun platform in the air, and the armament should be worthy of the machine. I feel that there is room for improvement in fighter armament.
  I should like more information also about the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, and I am sure that this desire is shared by other hon. Members. Only two lines are devoted to it in the Memorandum accompanying the Estimates, and only brief reference has been made to
  it this afternoon by the Under-Secretary of State. What has the hon. Gentleman in mind for the R.A.A.F. in the unhappy event of war? What is its role to be? For the most part, members of the Auxiliary Air Force are week-end pilots who average only a limited number of hours flying at their week-ends and annual camps. In an emergency, a sudden transfer to the later jet Hunters and Swifts might have dire results. I want to ask the Under-Secretary if opportunity could be found for some of them to have training in our latest jets. I ask these questions, and I make these suggestions, because, in the event of a war, attack would have a grotesque suddenness. We should not have a breathing space of three months or so to tune up to high efficiency, but would have to be ready from the word "go"
  Finally, because I promised that my remarks would be brief, may I say a word about aeronautical training? In this country I believe we have established a lead in this field, and we want to keep it. At a time when attention is being focused upon the development of technological training, every encouragement should be given to our colleges and universities. We are pioneers in the field of advanced training in aeronautical engineering and research. America has nothing like our college at Cranfield, where the demand for output by the aircraft industry exceeds the numbers trained. There was on the Order Paper only this afternoon a rather adverse Question about that college, but the Under-Secretary himself stressed the necessity for the expenditure of money if we are to maintain our high place in the world of aviation. We must keep our lead in this vital field if we are to continue to lead the world in aviation.

  1547
  I am convinced that our aircraft industry, unmatched, unrivalled in the world, has responded to the needs of the times. Our duty is to see that we make maximum use of that genius which gives us such superior weapons that their offensive potentialities could be one of the greatest factors for peace.
  5.35 p.m.
  Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcock: I shall not follow the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus), because we all agree with his sentiments, and especially with his comments on the aircraft industry and the excellence it has achieved since, and even before, the war.
  To those of us concerned with the defence of the country—and in these days who is not?—the Air Estimates have a particular significance. This year there are hon. Members on this side of the House, and maybe even on the opposite side, who are perturbed and anxious. They are anxious because there is an indication of the sort of policy the Government adopted in the '30s, which nearly broke the spirit of the Royal Air Force; a policy of drastic cuts in Estimates and stagnation in the Government Departmental defence policy. I do not charge the Government with either of these things, but I say there is a feeling in the country and in the R.A.F. of uncertainty and confusion; uncertainty as to the future prospects of the officers and men, and confusion as to the policy that the Government have adopted, if they have adopted one, for the next few years. In the few minutes I propose to speak, I shall deal with but those two subjects.
  We have been told that the R.A.F. is an acknowledged first line of defence, and all who are interested in aviation, particularly in Service aviation, are glad to hear that. The R.A.F. will be our first line of defence in a war which would certainly be world-wide, as were the last two wars: and judging by the troubled areas in the world today, Korea, Malaya, the Middle East and Africa, that is the pattern any future war would follow, apart from the main conflict which would be in Europe. Therefore, it appears to me that of all the fighting Services the Air Force must be the most mobile. My contention is that it is
  1548
  neither mobile nor ready. To be mobile it must have secure bases from which to operate and a strong fleet of transport aircraft to supply it with personnel, arms, spares and stores, and squadrons must be accustomed to quick movement in change of location.
  I am sure my hon. Friends on this side of the House will be speaking of the need for transport aircraft, but it may be that they will speak from the point of view of lifting Army units. In the Air Force, however, transport also has a tremendously important role because, for an Air Force to be mobile, it needs a large, well equipped transport force of aircraft with which to support itself. We realised that towards the end of the last war more than anything else. Incidentally, it is the lesson which the United States Air Force has learned and well learned in that, whenever it operates its squadrons away from its bases, they are always supported by a large fleet of transport aircraft.
  To be ready squadrons must be up to strength in personnel, both air crew and ground crew, and the personnel must be accustomed to the aircraft. That is a point where we are falling down today, and the Under-Secretary of State himself mentioned the grave shortage of certain skilled technical personnel. In my view it is fatal to establish Air Force units abroad on a permanent basis. To staff expensive workshops and even to build married quarters, and to follow these out-of-date methods of trooping by sea, is, I think, the wrong outlook. It is anti-mobility.
  That leads me to the question of tours abroad. I am dealing with tours abroad for members of the Air Force—I will not offer any opinion about the Army; that is a separate study—but for the Air Force the tour should not be longer than 12 months. If that were so, we could cut out a lot of the nonsense of building married quarters abroad and transporting families abroad, the cost of education abroad for the children and so on. I wonder whether the cost of all those services has ever been assessed.
  I intended to put a series of Questions to the Minister, but it may be convenient if I put my questions on record so that his Department may provide me with the replies at their leisure. I should like to

  1549
  know the cost of the construction of married quarters outside the United Kingdom in the last eight years. May I also be told the cost of the passages of families and the number of people at the Air Ministry employed on arranging the passage of families overseas? May we be told the number and the cost of the educational staff employed abroad for the children of these families and the cost of the hospitalisation of these families?
  The Under-Secretary of State said that married quarters were to be provided for everybody who wanted them. Presumably he meant that they were to be provided at home and not abroad.
  Mr. Ward: Our aim is to build married quarters for everyone who wants them here. The number we build overseas must depend on the international situation.
  Group Captain Wilcock: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I thought he meant at home, and I agree that that is where we want them. I am sorry if I appear to be a little unsympathetic over the question of Service men's families. In fact, I am not. Only recently I saw my daughter-in-law off when she was going overseas to my son. But only a comparatively few families can go overseas, and I therefore regard it as a sounder policy to introduce a shorter tour for everyone, relieving them by air transport, and scrapping the expense of married facilities overseas. And it is good recruiting policy.
  In my opinion there is one factor over all others—even over pay and allowance—which keeps down recruiting figures, and that is the long separation of families. The average married man does not like it; but he does not object so very much to a short separation. On the other hand, two or three years abroad—two or three years' separation—is too much for most people to stomach in peace-time.
  In a highly technical service like the R.A.F. it is necessary—indeed, I believe imperative—that personnel should be brought into contact with the latest methods and the latest equipment. That can be done only in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the efficiency of the personnel deteriorates if they have to serve for a
  1550
  long time in the East, and we want the highest possible efficiency in this jet age, particularly from aircrew.
  Perhaps I may now turn to the prospects open to personnel in the R.A.F. Much has been done in the last few years, and certainly was done by Labour Governments, to improve the lot of officers and men in the R.A.F., but the prospects on leaving the R.A.F. still gives rise to great anxiety and is a brake on recruitment. Aviation is only at the beginning of its development and there should be unlimited possibilities in civil aviation, but there must be close liaison between the Air Ministry and the Departments of Civil Aviation. This is a very important matter to every officer and man who is not on a long-term engagement in the R.A.F.
  I had the honour to be Chairman of a Committee appointed to investigate the future of civil aviation. On my Committee I had most distinguished colleagues. Perhaps I shall not weary the House if I give their names: Air Commodore Helmore, the late Air Commodore Brackley, Sir Edward Crowe, the late Lord Dukeston, Leslie Gamage, Group Captain Hockey, Captain James, Dr. James—High Master of St. Paul's School—the Marquess of Londonderry, Lord Milverton, Sir Eustace Pulbrook, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. R. Robinson) and Sir Miles Thomas. We spent a lot of time studying this problem, and we produced a Report. Heaven knows what has happened to the Report, but nothing appears to have been done, and it is a matter of great regret to me that I and my colleagues should have wasted so much time to achieve so little.
  I am reminded of this situation by the fact that there is a fall in the strength of the R.A.F., according to the Estimates. I see that the Army has suffered, or is to suffer, a reduction of 1,000 men and the Navy a reduction of 2,000 men. The R.A.F. is to suffer a reduction of 13,000 men—13,000 from the service which is the front line of defence. This is a most serious trend, and I hope the Under-Secretary will comment upon it at some time during the debate. It may be that he will explain that the reduction is in Reserve air crew and is part and parcel of the closing down of these civil-operated flying schools

  1551
  The hon. Gentleman knows what I think personally on that decision to close the schools. It is right that I should declare to the House that I have a personal interest in this matter, for the company with which I am connected, and of which I am chairman, runs three of these schools. According to the Under-Secretary's speech today, we are to lose all the schools. In other words, these schools, two of which have served the R.A.F. for nearly 20 years, and have trained 20,000 pilots, are to be closed and British pilots are to go to the United States and Canada to be trained by civil schools over there. That is the picture today, and I hope the Under-Secretary realises it and that his Minister realises it too.
  The hon. Gentleman may be interested in a letter which I received, not from one of my own pilots but from the wife of a pilot in another school. It will give him an indication of what people feel. She says:
  "My husband is 43. He has flown 5,000 hours. He applied to the Air Ministry when it was decided to close the school and put out of work 300 pilots, but six weeks afterwards they told him that they could not do anything for him or take him back. It is not easy for a man of that age to find work."
  She says:
  "We had very great difficulty in finding accommodation when we came to this town"—
  and I will not mention the name of the town—
  "with our two children and we felt that we had some security of tenure under the Air Ministry contract."
  I should be very happy to pass that letter to the Under-Secretary after the debate. It gives an idea of what people feel. I hope the Under-Secretary will remember this and, before it is too late, try to take some action to prevent the closing of these schools, or to find some other work for them, or, if they are to be closed, to find some way of helping or compensating those who are losing their jobs.
  My interest, however, goes a little further than my present connection with these schools. I believe I was the first commandant of a Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve centre. That was in 1938 when they were established in a great panic after Munich. Like today, it was thought extravagant to have V.R. schools, but they probably proved the best investment the Royal Air Force ever
  1552
  made. This afternoon we heard from the Under-Secretary that another batch of these Volunteer Reserve schools is to be closed. My Volunteer Reserves were the first reserve in the last war and filled the gaps in the Battle of Britain squadrons. Many of them gave their lives—too many. They were from the very schools which this Government are now closing down. I cannot emphasise too much how strong I feel about this.
  Is it safe to argue that the next war will be a push button affair and then all will be over? If we go by what they are thinking in the United States of America, that is not so. They are thinking that there is still some value in the reciprocal type of aircraft. Indeed, I believe they are developing a smaller aircraft which can be used from a grass airfield, precisely the type of airfield which we are to close down. That is the development taking place in America; they consider it is not necessary to have every one of their aircraft of the expensive jet types which need long concrete runways.
  We all want to see a strong Navy and a strong Army, but we advocate priority to the Royal Air Force solely because we know that this country, geographically, is in great danger, probably greater danger than in the last war because of the further development of guided missiles. Neither the Army nor the Navy, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) said, can help to deter a war. The Air Force, solely, has that power of retaliation and can get at the enemy. That brings me to a point I made in the Estimates debate last year about an austerity bomber-cum-transport plane. I should like to give the Under-Secretary the specification.
  Such an aircraft should have a 2,000 miles range and be able to carry 50 men, or the equivalent in bombs or stores, have a moderate speed only, but a high ceiling and very little armament, as it would not fly by day, at least during a war. That same type of aircraft could be used in civil aviation as a freighter aircraft. There will be many—I can hear some of them now—who will say that such an aircraft has not this or that, or cannot do this, that or the other. But there is not a perfect general purpose aircraft, and there never has been. The nearest to that ideal was the Dakota. It is time that we developed such an aircraft as I suggest.

  1553
  I suggest that the error we are making is in trying to evolve too many specialised types of aircraft for the Air Force. That may be good business for the aircraft constructor, but it is very bad business for the Government and the country, and it will bankrupt us. Moreover, in time of war we would find our aircraft grounded because we would not have the skilled personnel to maintain the highly complex electrical and instrument systems. I was interested to hear the Under-Secretary mention this point, which was immediately taken up by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey).
  During the war I was for some time Deputy-Director of Manning at the Air Ministry under that brilliant administrator, Sir John Cordingley. One day Sir Arthur Harris, Commander-in-Chief Bomber Command rang me up to tell me that a squadron could not go into the air because it was deficient of a few instrument makers and electricians. They were sick or absent for some reason, and more than £1 million worth of aircraft could not go up, nor could 100 air crew move. Eight hundred men were doing nothing because three or four highly specialist men were absent—the only men who could check and pass out the intricate electrical circuits.
  As hon. and gallant Members on both sides of the House who have aviation experience know, every gadget which goes on an aircraft goes wrong some day or other, and when it goes wrong it stops the aircraft going into the air. There are hundreds, literally thousands of gadgets on Royal Air Force aircraft today. In the Air Force we must look more than anything else for mobility. It must be a mobile service par excellence and everything else must give way to that. It must be able to move to any part of the world at short notice and it must be on an active service basis. That is what I want to underline more than anything else today.
  5.57 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: I almost feel that I must apologise for daring to take part in an Air Force debate because I know nothing about the Air Force, except that it is necessary to our defence and is very expensive. Over recent years a new practice has grown up that in these Supply debates only those who have
  1554
  served in the particular Force which is being discussed take part. I think that is a bad practice for the reason that the original purpose of Supply debates was for hon. Members to act as guardians of the public purse and to insist that the money should be spent carefully, wisely and well. The general question that should be considered in a debate like this is the scrutiny of expenditure and not policy.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is my speech.
  Mr. Osborne: I want to know from the Under-Secretary whether he is satisfied that the taxpayer is getting full value for money. Is he satisfied that in this £500 million to £600 million we are spending on this very essential Service, there is no waste or extravagance? Is he satisfied that the essential defence Service that all of us agree we must have is being obtained at the lowest possible price?
  I looked up Erskine May, a book I do not often look at, and on page 704 I found that it says, with regard to Supply debates:
  "The traditional insistence of the Commons on considering grievances before granting supply…"
  had rather fallen into abeyance and the Committee had
  "ceased more and more to concern itself with its original function of scrutinising the details of expenditure."
  So far there has been no scrutiny of expenditure at all, but that is what we should be doing the whole time. I should like to see that original function brought back. It may be said to me by the Under-Secretary that the Select Committee on Estimates should be doing this work, but, looking at their recent Report, I find that it deals with policy and not with details of expenditure. I think that critical—even hostile—examination of the items ought to be taking place in these days.
  Speaking last week in the defence debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence said that Departmental committees were continuously examining expenditure. I do not think that they are the right people to do that, because they are too much involved in the Services. I should like to see, if I may use the term, a team of Gladstonian chartered accountants, keen on getting taxes reduced, let loose in the spending

  1555
  Departments to make sure that the taxpayers whom we represent are getting value for money.
  Next month we shall be considering the Budget. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be demanding either that taxes be reduced or social services increased. But there is no possibility of either of those things happening unless the money spent on the three Services is most carefully scrutinised. I do not agree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I do not wish to weaken our national defences——
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member is doing fine.
  Mr. Osborne: I have no sympathy with pacifists or the point of view of fellow travellers. I know that our only hope of peace lies in strength. But I do not want to give a blank cheque to the Service chiefs——
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, we are getting on all right.
  Mr. Osborne: —I just want to know whether men and money are being used as carefully as possible. Neither a general, nor an admiral, nor an air marshal tends to be cautious in his estimates. He will never get the sack for having too many men or too much material. He might if he were short, and, therefore, his very job and responsibilities tend to make him extravagant. It is our job to see that this extravagance is kept within bounds.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Will my hon. Friend explain why he is saying this, and from what experience?
  Mr. Osborne: I will quote a name which I think hon. Members on both sides of the House respect. My hon. and gallant Friend's interruption came at the right moment, because I was about to mention it. Sir Stafford Cripps in his Budget speech in April, 1949——
  Air Commodore Harvey: He was not an air marshal.
  Mr. Osborne: That is the whole point. We are here looking after the interests of the taxpayer. To do that we must see that the money and men are being wisely
  1556
  and properly used. Sir Stafford Cripps said:
  "Hon. Members will recall that their traditional role is to be the defenders of the taxpayer against the rapacity of the Executive…The roles of the private Member and the Executive in relation to expenditure have…tended to become reversed. But do not let us forget that the House of Commons' responsibility for finance still remains and cannot be abrogated."
  He finished by saying, and I commend this to my hon and gallant Friend:
  "…while Members may press for all round increases of expenditure, the time comes when they have the responsibility of finding that money and meeting their own demands."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2084.]
  Air Commodore Harvey: That is not what my hon. Friend said. He said that air marshals have extravagant ideas, and I want to know why.
  Mr. Osborne: Because of the very nature of their responsibility they are going to play safe, and have a few more rather than a few less. I would were I in their place, and so would every Departmental chief. But it is our duty, as back bench Members of this House, to protect the interests of our constituents, who have to find the money, and to see that there is no extravagance.
  Mr. Shackleton: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has still not answered the point. He made a serious criticism that air marshals or other officers of the Services have a vested interest in extravagance. He must either substantiate that or withdraw it.
  Mr. Osborne: My reason for saying it is, I think, sensible. Any chief of the Armed Forces will try to get all the men and materials he wants, with a bit extra. For so doing he will never get into trouble. If on the other hand he is short on an occasion, he is likely to be "bowler hatted." It is human not to want to be "bowler hatted," and I do not think that there is anything wrong in what I am saying.
  Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend has stated that air marshals would play safe in looking after the safety of their country. Is it not essential that they should play safe?
  Mr. Osborne: I agree that they should. We have to pay for our security. But when we have said all that, £600 million

  1557
  is a lot of money. Were it possible, I should like to see some of it spent in other ways. When we debate the Budget next month, hon. Members who are chivying me now will be chivying the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some of this money that today they are blaming me for looking after.
  In my constituency there are a number of aerodromes, and at my last constituency "surgery" one of my constituents told me that agriculture was losing a lot of men to the aerodromes. My constituent alleged that men were getting better pay, easier jobs and a softer time when working at the aerodromes than when working in the fields. I do not know whether that is true, but I pass it on because it has been said on many occasions. If it is not true it should be denied. If it is true then something should be done.
  I put these figures to the House. In 1949–50, agriculture lost 7,500 men. In the next year it lost 14,700 and last year 20,300. In three years agriculture has lost 42,500 men. Some of those men went to work at the aerodromes. I am not saying that what I have been told is true, but it is being repeated time after time in various parts of the country. It is said that civilians employed at aerodromes are not fully employed, and that there is a waste of man-power. I think it my duty as a back bench Member to bring this to the attention of my hon. Friend, and I ask him to look into the matter.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Tomney: Like the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), I am neither an ex-squadron leader, ex-air gunner, ex-group captain or ex-pilot, but also like him I am not precluded from joining in this debate. What I have to say relates to skilled labour, especially in regard to the electronics industry. The prerequisite to a modern armed force is a modern scientific and industrial force. In this country we are not providing that. In the last war we failed in that respect, and unless we are careful we shall fail again if there should be another war.
  So far neither the Labour Minister nor the Service Ministers are doing enough about it. What is being done is piecemeal. There is no co-ordinated plan between science and the armed Services.
  1558
  In the last war, at the time of the Battle of Britain, there were lorries waiting in the factory where I was employed to shift transmitter valves which were to be put into the planes as they came down out of the skies. The filaments of the valves broke when the aircraft landed, because substitute material was employed in place of the glass which used to come from Germany.
  Throughout the whole vital industry concerned with electronics—the nerve centre of equipment for the Fighting Forces—there was a lack of labour and of co-ordination. At one time battleships were waiting at Liverpool for radio transmitting valves which could not be provided in the early days of the war because there was no adequately trained labour force. Those ships could not go out to sea where they were urgently needed.
  During the depression years we started centres for the training of what were known as neon-glass tube blowers who were required in connection with the high vacuum technique which is so essential in electronics. These men had the beginnings of the high degree of skill required for scientific glass blowing which is an important feature in high vacuum electronics. Good use was made of these men who were directed to various electrical industries.
  But today there is not a training centre in England which is preparing men for this industry. In this occupation one may find only one recruit out of 100 who is able to do the job. It does not require a high degree of intelligence but technique and temperament are of great importance. The important question is, what we are going to do remedy this position? What is to be done about this industry? How are we to put it to work on behalf of the nation and the Fighting Forces?
  We had the good sense to vest the future of atomic development in the Ministry of Supply. I have been responsible for directing skilled glass blowers to the atomic energy establishments. I have vouched for men on security grounds and in respect of their skill. But can we any longer decide to leave this highly intricate specialised electronics industry in the hands of the private manufacturers? It should be borne in mind that there are only a few private manufacturers in

  1559
  England who are capable of doing the job and who are equipped with the necessary scientific resources and laboratories. They are well known: I will not mention them. But this gives them a vested interest in price and performance. It gives them, as private industrialists and investors, the right to fix their prices in relation to their profits. That should not be so at a time of national emergency.
  That is why I want to see as quickly as possible the development for the Fighting Forces and the aircraft industry of electronics equipment directly under the control of the Minister of Supply. It is his prerogative. This should not be left to outside industry. There should be a permanent practical and theoretical technical force always available. The international situation may not change materially for 20 or 25 years. We are in the position of always having to be ready. It is not too late to do something about it.
  It is no use depending on the United States in this respect. Electronics development in this country is in theory and practice far ahead of the United States. The United States has better production lines, and produces on a larger scale, but in actual technical performance and advanced theory it can show us nothing. When the American bomber force first came here in 1941, almost the whole of their radar equipment was ripped out of their planes and equipment of our manufacture was put in. The Americans admitted on first examination that our equipment was far superior.
  We have been developing our equipment for a longer time. It is better than anything the United States can provide. Therefore, on the issue of any future Lend-Lease or the supply of machine tools or anything else, let us not forget that we have a small but highly skilled specialised practical technical force of electronics experts. That force must be expanded quickly. The Government appear to be doing nothing about it.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I did not wish to interrupt, but the number of untruths coming from the hon. Member is really so alarming that it is necessary to interrupt. Could he say on what he founds his statement——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is expressing himself rather badly. He refers to untruths. I hope that he is not accusing the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney)
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I am sorry. I should have referred to mis-statements or inaccuracies. The hon. Gentleman said that there was no expansion going on in the electronics industry. Is he aware that the industry has £80 million of defence orders on its books and that these are a direct result of the activities of the Ministry of Supply and other Government Departments?
  Mr. Tomney: I did not say that expansion was not going on. Expansion is taking place in connection with aircraft.
  The hon. Member for Louth dealt with the question of costs and export markets. The Comet is worth in export value £20,000 per ton of material used as against about £464 per ton for a motor car. Therefore, it is obvious that there will be development. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) mentioned a figure of £80 million. How much of that is reflected in actual costs, actual profits and waste? I have been actively employed at bench level in this industry. I know what goes on in connection with the recruitment and establishment of technical staff. At the top level they are the best available and command good salaries, but throughout the whole range of the industry men have been recruited who have not been adequately employed. They have had time on their hands.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman talked about profits. Surely he would agree that on all defence orders there is a 6 per cent. profit, and there are cost investigators in every factory. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can quote examples if that rule has not been obeyed.
  Mr. Tomney: The hon. Gentleman ought to remember that in the early days of the last war most contractors worked on a cost-plus system until it was found too difficult to operate. We shall be confronted with that position again if we are not careful.
  We should not forget that, although De Havillands have developed the Comet, they do not mention that most of the

  1561
  research was done by the Ministry of Supply. They do not mention the provision made by the Derbyshire County Council in respect of technical assistance. I do not doubt that the supply of turners, millers and engineers will be equal to the demands of the aircraft industry in any emergency. We could transfer men either from motor cars or general engineering. But we cannot train electronic engineers or high vacuum and scientific glass blowers in ten minutes. It is time that the Under-Secretary of State for Air got together with the Minister of Supply and did something to ensure that this industry is placed on a permanent basis, with all it requires to meet the calls which might be made upon it in future.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. D. Perkins: This is the first time for many years that I have been completely satisfied with the Air Estimates, which show that we are rapidly overcoming the mistake that was made five years ago. As we have been told by the Under-Secretary, the period of gestation of an aircraft is a very long one—about twice as long as that of an elephant—that is, between four and five years. Consequently, I believe that the cut that was made five years ago has, during the past year, had its maximum effect on the squadrons. I believe that this is the main reason why today so many of our squadrons in the Royal Air Force are equipped with obsolescent machines.
  I should like to congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on the happy thought that he had been born in this tolerant century, and not 200 years ago. I have no doubt whatever that, if the reverse were the case, he would have been impeached and would today be walking round the Lobbies with his head under his arm.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to give a good reason why I should be impeached, because I do not know of any?
  Mr. Perkins: My reason is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he introduced the Estimates in 1948, reduced the amount from £212 million to £173 million, a cut of £39 million, which was the main reason for the fact that today we have not got modern machines in our squadrons.
  Mr. Henderson: In that case, the hon. Gentleman should say that all other Members of the Government would have to be impeached as well, because I was only carrying out their policy.
  Mr. Perkins: I quite agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and the more there are to be impeached, the better. However, I do not want to go into that, because I really want to raise quite a different question.
  Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: What about the whole Opposition? Did they propose that the amount of the reduction should be done away with? Did they want to spend more? They accepted it. We should all he walking with our heads under our arms.
  Mr. Perkins: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not accept it, because I was not in the House at the time.
  I want to raise the question of the effect of the closing of these 16 flying schools, to which we have to add another seven, and, perhaps before the end of the year, a further seven in addition. This decision will have three effects. First, in regard to the position of the aerodromes, most of those to be evacuated are near big towns. They are today, in a sense, affiliated to those towns, because some of them are owned by the municipalities concerned.
  The Air Ministry was responsible for the whole development of civil aviation up to 1945, and is entirely responsible for the existence of those aerodromes. The Ministry actively encouraged the building of the aerodromes, and, if my memory is correct, they sent out a circular in the early 30's urging local authorities to build municipal aerodromes. At the request of the Air Ministry, many of these local authorities spent large sums of the ratepayers' money on the building of these aerodromes, and now the Air Ministry say they are going to evacuate about 30 of them. As a result, the aerodromes will stagnate, there will be no income coming in, and, inevitably, they will be used in future for building. The ratepayers' money will be lost and those aerodromes will be lost to aviation for all time.
  This does not seem to me to make sense. Indeed, it seems to me to be a kind of "Mad Hatter" policy to close down a large number of aerodromes on

  1563
  a Monday, allow the land to be used for building, and, on Tuesday, go round the countryside grabbing good farm lands in order to build a further number of aerodromes. Every one of these aerodromes was used in the last war, and even that at Perdiswell, which, I think, belongs to the city of Worcester, and is the smallest, most dangerous and most unsuitable aerodrome I know, was used for flying instruction during the war.
  I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary if he has thought about this matter, and if he will say what is to happen to all these aerodromes in future. Has he any policy regarding them? Are they just going to rot and go to wrack and ruin, or are they to be kept in order?
  Lastly, what is to be the effect on the pilots? I believe that there will be a redundancy problem, as far as the association with which I am connected can discover, of about 200 flying instructors. About 50 per cent. of the existing instructors will be absorbed either by the Air Ministry, the R.A.F. or private employers, so that it is a redundancy problem of about 50 per cent. The oldest of these men is 53 years of age. A large number of them have over 20 years' experience as flying instructors.
  The association which represents them asked the Air Ministry about two months ago to agree to discussion of this matter. Unfortunately, the Air Ministry gave the impression, though I know it is a false one, that they were not particularly anxious at that time to discuss the matter. I think they must have thought that we must be a lot of Communists because we were affiliated to the T.U.C. I am speaking of the British Airline Pilots' Association. I cannot believe that the Air Ministry really thought that, because we had as our President the premier peer of Scotland, the Duke of Hamilton himself, and myself as Vice-President. I am happy to say that all this is now past history. Our relations with the Air Ministry are now extremely friendly, and the Ministry have taken a view different to that which they held about two months ago. One meeting has already taken place, and another is to take place next Wednesday, I shall myself be present, and, if it will help the hon.
  1564
  Gentleman, I will put on a red tie for the occasion. In spite of the fact that
  these negotiations are friendly. I do not see why I should not speak my mind. I believe that this whole business has been badly handled.
  On 19th December last, after the House had actually adjourned for a six weeks' Recess and when no debate was possible, this announcement was made in an answer to a written Parliamentary Question. Why was it made on 19th December? What is the explanation of that? Was it because the Air Ministry funked the debate? Is it because they wanted to get on with the job and get it all cut and dried before the House reassembled towards the end of January? Whatever the explanation might be, it had one result. It gave every flying instructor in this country a thoroughly miserable and unhappy Christmas.
  I agree that the Air Ministry has no legal or commercial obligation towards these pilots at all. There is a moral one, but no legal or commercial obligation. I think they are quite right in refusing to take back into the service those men who are medically unfit or those with skeletons in the cupboard, such as men with courts-martial records behind them. I think the Secretary of State is correct in that matter, but those people are few in number.
  A very large number of men could be
  absorbed by the Air Ministry, and a far bigger proportion could be taken back into the Service. I ask the Under-Secretary, what are the principles guiding the selection board? Are these men being turned down because they are too old, or because they have a high substantive rank and would therefore be expensive men to re-employ? I should like an answer to those questions when the Minister winds up tonight.
  Let me put three suggestions to the Minister—which I know he is going to turn down—as to how this problem could be solved. Some men have been taken on for ground duties. These old pilots have great experience and qualifications, and there is no doubt that a great many more of them could be taken on as air traffic controllers or fighter controllers in the Royal Air Force.
  The second suggestion concerns the university air squadrons. They are

  1565
  taught by Royal Air Force instructors. Why should not those instructors go back to their squadrons and their places be taken by these more experienced civilian instructors? There are 16 university squadrons, and if four instructors were to be posted to each of them it would mean that 64 of these unemployed instructors would be mopped up.
  "Oh," says the Under-Secretary, "we cannot do that because we must keep a Service atmosphere." What that means I do not know. It certainly does not appear to be a very successful policy today. Are these university squadrons full to the roof? Is there no more room in them? Are they not all willing to accept more tomorrow? I believe that if my hon. Friend would get away from that Service point of view, and would hand over the university air squadrons to the civil schools and let the civil instructors do the instructing, he would get those squadrons full to overflowing.
  Lastly, there is today a demand for airline pilots. During the last three months B.O.A.C. have taken on quite a few. But these men cannot qualify as airline pilots because they have not the necessary licences; they have not the commercial licence and an instrument rating. I am told that to get those qualifications would take four months, and that it would cost something like £300 in each case to convert these old flying instructors into airline pilots, for whom there is a great demand.
  What we want is some kind of vocational training school in order to resettle these men in another life. The Under-Secretary will say, "We have looked into this and have had contact with the Ministry of Labour, but there is no such scheme in existence." But is that any reason why we should not create a scheme for these men? I believe that if the Air Ministry would show a bit more push and initiative, and if they cared a bit more for these men, they would soon get a scheme operating.
  I do not want the Under-Secretary to think that I am criticising him personally. I am not. I know that he loves the air and lives for the air, that it is his hobby and that he is the friend of every airman. I wish that could be said of the Secretary of State for Air. I believe that if the Secretary of State for Air were as
  1566
  interested in the air as is his Under-Secretary, if he were keen on flying and if he had his heart in the job and were air-minded, all these unemployed pilots would not be lost to aviation in this country.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Wiley: Contrary to the convention of this House, I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Mr. Perkins). However, I intervene in this debate with some trepidation and at once declare my interest in the hope that it will save me from informed interruption. I was successful in the Ballot, though only to the extent of gaining second place in the Air Estimates. If my Amendment had been called I should have raised the question about which the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury has spoken so eloquently and with such justified feeling.
  I wished to raise that matter because it affects my constituency. One of the schools being closed is Usworth, which adjoins my constituency. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, we regard it as the Sunderland flying school. I am sorry that he has spoken before me because he is far better informed about this matter than I am. I have had to rely on information given to me by the organisations affected, but it is quite clear that all of them feel very keenly about this matter, and I believe that when representations are made unanimously by responsible organisations there is always something to be said for them.
  On the merits of the case for closing these flying schools, I should not like to express an opinion, save to say that I am quite willing to accept the hon. Gentleman's view that this is the action of a "Mad Hatter." There may be justification for the step that has been taken, though almost invariably when we get alarm and redundancy it is overdone, and sooner or later the machinery is put into reverse. This, of course, has happened on other occasions regarding air pilots.
  There has previously been redundancy here and there, but in the case of British European Airways for example, they soon found that no sooner had they declared a redundancy than they were tackling the problem of a shortage of pilots. But quite apart from the merits of

  1567
  the case, what upsets me is the fact that there seems to be no justification for the way in which the Air Ministry have acted in this case; no justification for doing this without consultation with these responsible representative bodies.
  I should have thought there could have been consultation, that there could have been more adequate and proper notice and that, as the hon. Gentleman so eloquently said, greater regard could have been had for the people to whom this country should attach great value. I know that if we were round the conference table a case could be argued from the point of view of the Air Ministry. I concede that at once.
  I was told quite frankly that in the past the question about these appointments being temporary has been argued from their point of view by at least some of the responsible associations. Of course no Ministry likes such men being attached to a service with the guarantee of permanency. Nevertheless, I think it unfair when, for administrative reasons, the appointments are technically temporary, that this fact is thrown up in the face of the men when an abrupt notice terminating their job is given.
  As one of the organisations said, this came as a "considerable shock" to the men affected. I hoped that today we should at any rate get some permanent—if I may use that word—view with regard to the schools which are to remain open. But we have not got that. They have been given only a temporary reprieve. What an unhappy position has been created, owing to this unsettlement, for those who remain. I had hoped, regarding the seven schools that remain, that the Under-Secretary could have said that in view of the discussions that he had had those men would be given permanencies, so that if for reasons of policy there should be any change those men would receive adequate compensation.
  That seems to me to be the crux of the problem at the moment. Following consultation and the benefit of the advice that the representative bodies have given, progress has now been made in affording some of these men an opportunity to enter the Royal Air Force. But that will only affect about 50 per cent. of the pilots. In the case of the flying school in which I am interested, Usworth, I am
  1568
  told that it will affect very few of the men there because not many of them will be able to take advantage of that offer.
  Therefore, I add my appeal to that of the hon. Member for Stroud and Thorn-bury, whom I have no reason to suspect of being a Communist. If from his side of the House he can say much more forthright things than I can at the moment, it is only because he is better informed than I am. He has also more reason to feel more deeply about it.
  I ask the Under-Secretary again to pay attention to this matter, to consider it very sympathetically once more and see whether he can either devise a scheme for compensation based upon that which would have obtained if these men had been in the Air Force, or, alternatively, deal with the question which the hon. Member put to him. Why not consider this as a problem of what we used to call rehabilitation? As I have said, I am not concerned here with criticising the change of policy. I am concerned with the incidence of that policy on the lives of people to whom we owe a great debt, enthusiastic men who have served their country—a change of policy, incidentally, which may affect their homes and cause them once again the expense of moving house.
  Admittedly they were perhaps attracted to this work by the higher salary, but I really think that they entered the work because they thought it was an opportunity to do a job which they wanted to do. Although it may have been expressly pointed out to them at the time that they were taking on a temporary job, they knew that there was a prospect of permanent employment, on which they quite legitimately relied, and they believed that they were entering a permanent job.
  Perhaps the Under-Secretary will look at this problem on the basis that these men should be compensated in the same way as they have been compensated in the Air Force, or, alternatively, on the basis of recognising that through a decision of the Government they are compelled to look for another job. With the good will of the organisations it should not be difficult to say, "We will tide them over in translating them to a new job. If it is a question of a civil licence, we will help them to obtain it, because we want civil pilots." These are matters

  1569
  for consideration. These men might also be helped if it is necessary for them to move their homes once again.
  On the question of the effect on civil aviation, I cannot speak with much experience although I did obtain some information from the Aerodrome Owners' Association. They are "gravely perturbed and they are a responsible body who confirm all that the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury said. My intervention in this debate was not intended to be on that point, however, but to say that even if we accept this as an act of policy we should safeguard the individuals affected by the incidence of that policy as much as we possibly can. I am sure that with the good will of both sides, and if the Under-Secretary will personally interest himself in the matter and show understanding of a very difficult human problem, much more might and ought to he done for these men.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. P. B. Lucas: In my view the most significant factor which arises from the statement of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air today is the decision to proceed with the build-up of a strategic bomber force. If I do not pursue the arguments which have been advanced by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), with a great deal of whose speech I agree, it is because I want to pass at once to this matter.
  Since 1950 there have been justifiable doubts in some minds—and certainly in mine—as to the determination of successive Government to establish such a force. I recall distinctly hearing the then Under-Secretary for Air, Mr. Aidan Crawley, say during a debate on equipment in the Royal Air Force that it was the intention of the late Administration to leave the strategic bombing to the Americans. These were his words:
  "The fact is that in one very large sphere—that of strategic bombing—we have planned that, for the present, the Americans should undertake almost the whole of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1951; Vol. 491, c. 1523.]
  That, to my mind, was the wrong policy. Even having regard to our limited resources and to the firmness of our alliance with the United States, I could not feel that in a state of cold war it was wise
  1570
  for us to concentrate upon the build-up of a short range, defensive and tactical Air Force to the detriment of a well-equipped, if small, strategic arm.
  In considering the policy involved in selecting aircraft under Vote 7 of these Estimates, it seems to me that there is one military factor which affects profoundly the whole balance of power in the world today. It is not, in my opinion, the possession by the Russians of 175 or 200 divisions on the Eurasian land mass, supported by an air force of perhaps 20,000 aircraft.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: How many?
  Mr. Lucas: I know that the hon. Member has said the number is 7,000. I hope that that is so, but I have seen a figure of 20,000 mentioned.
  It is not the maritime strength of the Americans, typified by their great carrier fleets. It is not primarily the vast industrial resources upon which America could draw in the event of another world conflict. It is, in my opinion, the existence in the hands of the United States of General Curtis Lemay's Strategic Air Command, which possesses the means, the range and the flexibility to launch a long-range, atomic attack against any potential enemy. The long-range, atomic bomber is now the dominant instrument in this state of cold war. It is the paramount deterrent to aggression; and in the unfortunate event of hot war developing it is the weapon upon which victory must basically be built.
  Looking back, I find no reason to vary the view which I expressed to the House last year, when I said on 18th March:
  "…nothing I can now foresee…alters my conviction that with modern atomic weapons, the establishment of a long-range strategic striking force will remain, perhaps for a decade, the prime deterrent to war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 2221.]
  To those who are suggesting that the strategic bomber is an expensive weapon which, in terms of a force, is outside our limited resources, I would say simply that these aircraft, typified by our V class bombers—the Valiant, the Vulcan and the Victor—are far more economical to operate than some people appreciate. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said, they are capable of carrying many times the load of the lighter bombers such

  1571
  as the Canberra. They can be manned by a crew less than twice the size; and they possess a speed and a manœuvreability which suggests a loss-rate no greater and even, perhaps, less than that to be expected with the lighter, tactical aircraft.
  I do not think that one would be far wide of the mark in suggesting that, in terms of cost per ton of bombs dropped, the ratio in favour of the strategic bomber is of the order of nearly two to one. I applaud the decision of Her Majesty's Government to establish this force, small though it must be—and I acknowledge the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson)—under our direct operational control. To leave such a role to the United States alone would be not only to reduce our international standing but to deprive the free world of the benefit of our exceptional experience.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton estimated the cost of the bomber at £400,000. The hon. Member has argued that the Russians have 20,000 aircraft. If we only build 1,000 bombers the cost would be £400 million. How many bombers does the hon. Member want?
  Mr. Lucas: The point which I was making was that these medium-heavy bombers, typified by the V class aircraft—the Valiant, the Vulcan and the Victor—are more economical to operate than I think the hon. Member perhaps appreciates. Although the initial outlay is considerable, a small number of these bombers can do the job that it would require a much larger force of lighter aircraft to accomplish.
  Mr. Hughes: What is a small force?
  Mr. Lucas: Security might be affected if I suggested what I thought a small force would be.
  Mr. Paget: May I put a point to the hon. Gentleman, whose opinion on these matters I value? While agreeing with him entirely that a strategic bomber force is a first essential, would he not agree with me that, looking at the Atlantic area as a whole, the base of the strategic force
  1572
  should be far back, and the base of the lighter and defensive forces should be forward? Whether we put our experience in America or not, surely America should be the base of the strategic force simply because of its geographical position?
  Mr. Lucas: I do not dissent from the hon. and learned Gentleman's assertion. I think it is necessary that the Americans should in a sense form the spearhead of the strategic force. The point that I am trying to make is that I feel it is essential for us to build our own strategic force, with all its flexibility, because I consider that this is the prime deterrent in a cold war. I do not want to be controversial in this matter, but I believe that we possess much greater knowledge of strategic bombing, and especially of night bombing, which is very important, than any other world Power, and I include the Americans.
  Certainly I take the view that our inventive genius has given us, in the case of these V class bombers, three aircraft types which in their class have no foreign equal. With the Americans' gift for technological development allied with the British genius for invention we form a partnership which, in the construction of strategic aircraft, is without parallel in the world today. Take away our contribution from this specialised field, and not only we but the Americans as well would be the losers in such a policy.
  Now I must pass to a less agreeable topic, namely the speed with which these and other aircraft can be and are to be supplied. I have in mind not only the bombers of which I have been speaking but also the fighters such as the Hunter and the Javelin. In spite of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary this afternoon, it seems to me that these aircraft are taking much too long to reach the production stage and find their way into the squadrons. We are told that this year we are to have a squadron or two of Supermarine Swifts operating with Fighter Command, but I do not see it suggested that we shall have even one squadron of Hunters equipped during 1953.
  The House will be aware that in 1947, only a year after laying the first plans on the drawing board, the Russians had flying a prototype of the MIG 15. In 1949, two years after the prototype had

  1573
  flown, this aircraft was in squadron production. Thus the MIG 15 went from the drawing board to squadron service in no more than three years. Even allowing for the advantage which was gained by the Russians from the sale of the Rolls-Royce Nene engines in 1947, I still consider this to be one of the remarkable achievements in post-war military aviation.
  Against this must be set the fact that three years and more ago we were first referring to the Hawker 1081, one of the forerunners of the Hunter. Yet I do not think there is any likelihood that we shall see a Hunter squadron in operation with Fighter Command this year. I do not blame the manufacturers for the delay. What concerns me is the number of modifications which they are being compelled to incorporate in their aircraft before these can be accepted for operational service. This is a matter of governing importance.
  Those of us who in the last war had anything to do with the testing of the latest types of Service aircraft were always confronted with one plea from the manufacturers—" Do not ask for modifications unless they are absolutely essential, because if you do it will only hold up production." I hope that my hon. Friend and his noble Friend the Secretary of State will consult the Minister of Supply in this matter and probe the whole question of modifications to military aircraft. Having satisfied ourselves that the necessary standards of safety are being met, let us not be so fussy. Let us aim first to get these aircraft into the squadrons and, once there, let the later modifications argue for themselves.
  The only other point I want to make concerns primarily Vote 9 of the Estimates. I see that we are being asked to approve this year a further increase of £4,000 for publicity expenses. I agree that out of £500 million or so this is a relatively small sum, but I should like to know why it is necessary to increase this figure at all. In any event, I question whether we are really getting value, as it is, for the substantial expenditure on Royal Air Force publicity.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Lucas: I am glad to carry the hon. Gentleman with me.
  1574
  I must confess that for some time since the war I have not thought a great deal of the way in which Air Force information and publicity has been conducted. I do not think that the Service has presented itself well and I do not think it is now making the most of the cards which it holds in its hands. As a junior reporter in Fleet Street before the war, I was brought up to believe that the things that people wanted to see written about themselves in the newspapers were advertisement and could quite easily be paid for, and that the things they did not want to see written about themselves were news. On that not unreasonable assumption, I do not think the national Press can be expected to print stories about the Service merely for the benefit of the Royal Air Force, but I think the Press can be solidly relied upon to give the Service a fair run, provided the proper information and material are forthcoming.
  I was disappointed that better use was not made of the recent good will mission to Latin-America under the able leadership of Air Marshal Sir Dermot Boyle. My information is that the four Canberras and their crews created in the countries which they visited a most remarkable impression. Yet the publicity which this mission received
  here was slight. Had this been a cruise by the British Fleet to South American waters, one may be pretty sure that the Admiralty would have made the most of the opportunity. In the presentation of its communiqués and news items the Admiralty seems to have a much better idea of doing things than has the Air Ministry. The Navy makes the most of itself, but I cannot say that of the Air Force.
  Mr. Hughes: What about the Army?
  Mr. Lucas: I am leaving the Army out of this.
  Those responsible will no doubt say that more inches of space have been claimed this year by the Air Force in the national Press than in any similar period since the war. But it is not the extent of the space which matters so much as its position and its content. I hope that my hon. Friend will give some thought to this important question of presentation, because the authority, the prestige and standing of the Royal Air Force are here involved.
  The Coronation will provide an exceptional opportunity. Let us be told who

  1575
  is to command and lead the fly-past over London on Coronation day. Let the nation know which commander is going to be responsible for Her Majesty's review at Odiham on 15th July. Tell us the numbers of the squadrons which will take part in these displays and let us know the names of their commanders. The Air Force today holds all the cards. Now it must learn to play them.

  TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House urges Her Majesty's Government to relate the provision of an adequate force of transport aircraft to the strategic and tactical needs of the fighting services in peace and war."
  One of the regrettable features of the controversy about the size of our defence bill during the past two years is that vital issues have been obscured. In the long run, it is obvious that the size of our defence bill must be related to our ability to pay, and if we spend more on defence than our economy will stand, the results will eventually be revealed in no uncertain fashion. On the other hand, if we are spending too much on the wrong things our mistake may not be discovered until it is too late, and we might then have to pay the price not only of defeat but of national annihilation.
  I regret the fact that during the last two or three years we have spent so little time in discussing whether defence expenditure has been correctly apportioned between land, sea and air forces, and the present time is a suitable one for taking stock, for this year marks a turning point. The new Government have been in office for 16 months and, according to the opening words of the White Paper, they
  "…have devoted much time to a searching review of defence policy and of the rearmament programme which they inherited from their predecessors."
  It goes on to say:
  "The review is now being carried further forward with the object of formulating our defence policy in the longer term."
  It is therefore particularly appropriate for the Government to re-examine our long-term defence needs and for the
  1576
  House to face the changed circumstances in which we find ourselves. We have not known invasion for almost a thousand years, and this blessing has meant that the needs of the Navy have rightly been given priority. The Navy has come to be regarded as holding a special place, and only the other evening, during the Army debate, there was a mention of the expenditure on the Navy which provoked an indignant retort. The Navy has provided a shield behind which in the past a small professional Army has mobilised and expanded, and without doubt that system up to a point has worked well.
  But, during the last 30 years, air power has revolutionised our position. Our thinking, however, has unfortunately not kept abreast of events. We still think of the air mainly as a threat to our insularity. We have failed to appreciate that we cannot maintain maximum expenditure and maximum efficiency in all the Services, and the impact of events has done little more than rather to cause us to resent the growth of air power. We have certainly not realised that although air power is a threat, it also provides us with an opportunity, but we have singularly failed to take advantage of it. What we must now do is to get our priorities straight. We have to decide which horse we are going to back. If we back all three—if we try to maintain an enormous Navy, a large Army and an up-to-date Air Force—we shall inevitably fail.
  I have little or no knowledge of the workings of the Royal Air Force. Nearly 20 years ago, for a brief period of two or three years, I was attached to the Royal Air Force, but since that time my experience has been that of a passenger, with one eye on the aircraft and the other on my kit. Therefore, I approach this problem primarily from the point of view of the Army, but it seems to be quite definite that in peace or in the cold war, our current military commitments, whether they be looked at from the point of view of the Navy, Army or Air Force, will be in increasing terms.
  I would ask the Government to undertake the exercise of studying the various crises that have cropped up in the years from 1920 to 1940 and to examine the amount of air transport that would have

  1577
  been necessary to undertake the movement of the actual bodies of troops that were moved on those occasions. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to go to his noble Friend—whose knowledge of air power, like mine, will be that of a passenger—and ask him to appoint competent people to undertake exercises on the scale of the Shanghai and the two Palestine ventures, when all the troops we had were moved with great speed from this country. He could then ascertain what aircraft would be required if those conditions were repeated and measure the answer against the resources which are available.
  I understand that the Government have already taken a decision to move 30,000 men by air to the Middle East. I am relying for my information upon a newspaper cutting. That number just about equals what we are told is in the pipeline at any one time. According to the information I have been able to gather, the cost of moving a man from this country to the Middle East is about £4 cheaper by air than by sea. That does not take into account the saving in pay and allowances arising from the cut-down in the length of time taken by the two operations. I am also told that if the movement takes place from this country to the Far East the cost by air is about equal to that by sea, if the cost of pay and allowances is taken into account. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether those figures are correct.
  There is no doubt that in the past the tactical use of our troops in peace-time has been wholly dictated by our ability to move considerable numbers of men from one place to another. During the last 30 years there have not been many occasions upon which it has been necessary to move comparatively large numbers rather quickly, but that movement, even before we were stretched as we are today, has had to be carried out.
  It is interesting to note that before the war the movement of troops took place in what was called the "trooping season," from September to April. I have never understood the reason, although I have heard it said many times that the reason is that it was considered unhealthy to move men from Great Britain to hot climates. I never quite understood the argument because, conversely, if one happened to have the misfortune to be moved from a comparatively hot station
  1578
  in India and landed in Great Britain in January, that would not seem to me a particularly healthy undertaking.
  The reason I make the point now is that one of the difficulties about the full use of air transport is that these machines are extremely costly and that what we want to do, therefore, is to spread the cost over the whole of the year. On the North Atlantic run the demand is seasonal. The passenger build-up is during the summer months. It seems to me, therefore, that we might go back to something like the trooping season in which, as far as possible, troops were moved from September to April. These same aircraft could be used on the North Atlantic run, which might lead to a spreading of the cost and to making the operation, which I am sure the Government regard as desirable, economically and financially possible.
  Will the Under-Secretary of State consider the possibilities of so arranging the trooping programme, certainly for the movement of units and also, as far as possible, for the movement of drafts, that it can be crowded into a period of time when aircraft are available which otherwise and at other time of the year are engaged on civilian operations?
  I recognise that there is a great difference today; we have the National Service men today, whereas before the war we had not. It was much easier to arrange a trooping programme in half the year. At present, the movement of the National Service men has to go on all the time. Even allowing for the fact that the movement of National Service men has to go on all the time, because of the expiration of their engagements, among other reasons, it nevertheless seems to me that we could investigate this aspect of the problem of trooping, and I hope the Under-Secretary will let us have his views on the subject.
  During the defence debate and certainly during the debate on the Army Estimates, we heard a great deal about the lack of a strategic Reserve and the need to build one up. I am at one with those who deplore the absence of an uncommitted strategic Reserve. One factor which surprises me a little, however, is the ease with which every speaker I have heard in the debate so far seems to assume that of necessity the strategic Reserve must be held in this country.

  1579
  I rely only upon information made available in the Press, in technical journals and from conversations with those who know about these things, but if one is to believe the experts, the outbreak of a third world war would lead to heavy bombing of these islands, whereby communications might be interrupted and our ports heavily damaged. It is generally accepted that we shall not have the interval in which to mobilise that we had in the last two wars, and it might well be that if we relied upon conventional methods of moving mobilised divisions we should meet great difficulties.
  It might even be that the outbreak of a third world war would mean that this country was under assault by airborne troops, and it might be necessary to have a strategic Reserve which could be brought to Great Britain. In my opinion, the Government would be extremely unwise necessarily to accept what seems to be the popular notion—that the strategic Reserve should be assembled in Great Britain. The Government should look for alternative training grounds and bases where considerable bodies of troops could serve in healthy conditions, where adequate training facilities exist, where the troops could undertake practical exercises and from where they could be flown to any part of the world where they were needed. I am not being dogmatic on the point, but I put it to the Minister as something which ought to be considered.
  Next, I should like to know from the Government why the Princess flying boats, which I am told are capable of carrying 100 passengers, are to be cocooned or put into Reserve. I understand that two other flying boats are to be put in plaster cocoons against the time when they may be used. It seems to me that if we are planning against the possibility of very heavy enemy air attack, the sensible procedure is to rely to some extent upon the use of flying boats, because in their case the difficulty of finding landing places does not arise.
  Having indicated the problem as I see it—the conveyance of troops, both as units and drafts, in peace and the conveyance of a strategic Reserve at the outbreak of war and during war, may I turn for a few minutes to look at how I think the problem might be solved? No one
  1580
  can deny that the services of the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth" for the conveyance of troops during the war was of enormous importance. It is equally true to say, I think, that those two vessels would never have been launched had there not been some element of Government support. I think Government support was available on first contract and I am told that some support was given on the second.
  If the principle is accepted of Government support being given to vessels of that kind, and if events have shown how valuable those vessels were, I think the Government should consider an extension of that formula. I am asking here for a partnership between the Government and the other interests concerned. Obviously the R.A.F. itself must supply an adequate force of transport aircraft, but it would be expensive folly to expect the R.A.F. to meet all transport needs. What is required is a nucleus of experience and a skeleton organisation, at a high state of efficiency, which can be speedily expanded to meet the needs of an emergency. I realise that this would cost a great deal of money, but in my judgment it is money which must be spent.
  The next partners are the B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. They have a very wide operational experience and they have available pilots and aircraft employed only seasonally. They should be brought into this partnership to engage not only in the movement of troops but also in building up the Reserve to meet a future emergency.
  The third element is, of course, the independent operators. I hold the view that these men or undertakings have a role to play, but what they cannot expect is to get public money without some measure of public supervision or public control. Obviously, they cannot expect to be provided with contracts or with machines, or whatever may be found necessary, and then be left to take the cream off the transport market.
  I am told that at the present time we have no freighters operating across the North Atlantic. That is a very chastening thought—that this field is being left to other countries to exploit. I am told one of the reasons for it is that the private operators have thought it better—more profitable—to go out to obtain trooping

  1581
  contracts. The result is that the freighter side of the service has been left. I think private operators must be given an opportunity to tender, and to have their share of the trooping contracts, but equally I think they should be expected to undertake some of the less lucrative jobs—the business of operating freight services.
  To sum up, what I put to the House is this, that the country's needs centre round the building of an adequate transport service to meet the needs of both peace and war: in peace, the need of ordinary commercial undertakings for conveying freight, conveying civilian passengers, and for conveying troops, that operation to be undertaken by a partnership of the Government, B.E.A., B.O.A.C., and the private undertakers under the direction of or in an organisation controlled by the Royal Air Force; and to meet the needs of war, a reserve of aircraft should be built up. The size of the reserve should be determined, I think, largely as the result of the study which I would ask the Government to undertake as to the number of aircraft that would be required for specific problems like the problems which have concerned us during the last 20 years.
  I think that a scheme of this kind operated in this way would have the support of the interests concerned. It would have the support of all sections of the House, and I hope very much that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, when he replies, will be able to tell us that the Government accept the point of view contained in the Amendment and are with vigour and enthusiasm going to tackle the problems involved.
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. F. Beswick: I beg to second the Amendment.
  It seems to me that a case for an adequate reserve of aircraft has already been made—at any rate on the basis of the information that is available to us. I should like to say again that this year the speech we have had from the Government on the Air Estimates really has reached an all-time low so far as solid and precise information is concerned. The Under-Secretary of State said that the aircraft were coming into the squadrons as fast as we could get them from the factories, and that the equipment was being installed as fast as the
  1582
  factories could deliver it. I really had not expected it would be installed more quickly than the factories could deliver it. The only bit of precise information we did get about the whole of the Air Force activity was the number of freighter aircraft ordered.
  I agree so much with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) said about the necessity for having some system by which we can discuss these Air Force matters and other technical matters rather more sensibly and intelligibly than we can in this Chamber, with only the limited information that can be given here. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) and I put forward some proposals on that matter that, personally, I thought were quite good, in the debate we had on Parliamentary procedure. My hon. Friend apparently also thought they were very good. My right hon. and learned Friend quoted words by the Foreign Secretary, who himself had said two years ago that it was about time this House evolved a system which provided us with the possibility of having full and frank debate consistent with national security. Parliament surely should be considering this question now in more detail.
  Having said that, I think I still can claim that this case for an adequate reserve of transport aircraft has been made out, and by that I mean a large fleet of air transport machines which will not only be essential in war-time but also useful in peace. The strength of this case lies not least in this latter fact—that the machines can play as large a part in peace as in war.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has moved an Amendment which he selected some weeks ago, but I think that his speech—and it is very significant—was really the culminating speech on a theme which has been running through the whole of the defence and Services debates which we have had so far this year. The persistent theme running through those debates has been the need for mobility. That is the demand—the mobility of troops. That seems to me the only possible solution to the apparently contradictory demands for bases abroad and operational forces at home.

  1583
  One of the most vivid points made in any of the defence or Services debates was that made by the Prime Minister, who said that we had no divisions here at home at all, and, facing you, Mr. Speaker, he said, "I have never felt so naked in all my life." I do think it a remarkable thing, a scarcely credible thing, that we are spending £1,600 million this year on defence and we have not a single division at home.
  The only possibility, it seems to me, of having defence Forces here at home, and a reserve capable of employment overseas, either on police duties or in emergency, is to provide an adequate reserve of air transport. Rapid mobility is the only answer to the conflicting demands to reduce the numbers and to reduce the costs and yet maintain at any one time the total effective Forces. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said that at any one time there were—I think he said—30,000 men in the pipeline. I think that is the figure which was previously given by the Prime Minister. Other hon. Members have suggested that it may be nearer 20,000. In any case, the fact is that if we can move those men more quickly and keep them effective for a larger part of the year, we should be able to make economies. I was told in answer to a Question that 100,000 men left the United Kingdom each year for bases overseas. Presumably, a similar number of men return to the United Kingdom. That is 200,000 individuals a year on the move, and that is in addition to the men who move from one overseas base to another.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley asked for some figures about the cost of transporting by air. The Secretary of State, in a statement, did say that the cost in general is about the same as that of transport by sea, but if one starts from that position, that the cost of transporting by air is roughly the same as that of transporting by sea, then obviously an overwhelming case for air trooping is made, for by air trooping we can get more intensive and economical use of manpower, as we can also by more sensible dispositions of our troops.
  I want to emphasise only two points in this argument. I do not think that anyone who heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee,
  1584
  West (Mr. Strachey) could have been unimpressed by his submission about the strain of our overseas commitments becoming intolerable. Financially and economically a given force costs much more if it is maintained overseas. Moreover, the incidental expenditure is not only higher but mostly in currencies we cannot afford.
  With this argument in mind, I think the House would do well to consider again the facts that have been given year after year by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock). We should consider against this whole background of the mobility and disposition of reserves by air transport the question that he has so ably raised about married quarters overseas. He has made his case that to have married quarters overseas is wasteful and inefficient. At one time it might have been essential, but today, with the possibility of air transport, it is no longer necessary.
  A shorter and more austere term overseas as a Service man instead of a longer term, partly as a service man and partly as a family man, seems to be the choice in many cases. I should have thought that we should choose the shorter and sharper term overseas. I really do not see why, as there is no disagreement in the House on these matters, we cannot get down to a closer consideration of this matter. I would say that my hon. and gallant Friend has probably as much experience of these matters as anyone in the House, and probably more than most people at present in the Departments who are now considering them.
  The second point I want to stress is the threat of atomic weapons to the communications of our island. It is nearly seven years since I said—and no authoritative person has contested the statement —that 40 atomic bombs suitably placed could end organised society in the United Kingdom. Among the suitable places would be our docks and harbours. I emphasised this fact again on the Air Estimates last year, and since then we have had the explosion at Monte Bello. I speak without any inside knowledge at all on these matters, but I would say that the lesson Monte Bello underlines is that the sea, which was once our friend, could choke the life out of our country in an

  1585
  atomic war. No doubt something could be done with Mulberry Harbours and other improvisations of that kind; but our main hope can only be the maximum use of the air.
  Some people, responsible as they are sincere, say that another war, and an atomic war, would be the end of our society anyway. I argue this particular case for air transport more confidently because I believe that modern and adequate fleets of transport aircraft can not only be our salvation in possible war but can strengthen us economically in time of peace. The question therefore is: What kind of transport machines shall we have, and by whom
  shall they be operated? How should this reserve be held?
  A good deal of very intensive and skilful propaganda has been put out lately on this question. Much of the propaganda has
  been put out by the Air League of the British Empire. I have here a document which they sent out, I suppose to most Members of the House of Commons. I have never seen a more blatant piece of special pleading for private interests under the guise of national need. The Air League is a powerful organisation. It has considerable funds at its disposal. It has done extremely good and useful work. Among other things, its monthly magazine is something to which I look forward as an authoritative, interesting and helpful work.
  The potential for good will that the Air League has, however, will be completely dissipated if it produces prejudiced documents of this character. This is a memorandum on air transport policy, yet it makes only an incidental and passing reference to B.O.A.C., and it does not even mention B.E.A. On the first page it hails the independent operators,
  "who represent the only reserve of air transport available in time of war."
  That is grossly, cruelly and simply untrue. The greatest and the most valuable reserve is held by the publicly-owned civil air Corporations, for which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, whom I am pleased to see in his place, now has considerable responsibility.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Surely in time of war the aircraft of the Corporations
  1586
  would be fully employed carrying vital personnel other than military personnel, and the reserve for military personnel is left in the independent operators.
  Mr. Beswick: These matters have been gone into with considerable care, and I do not believe that that would be the case.
  A certain amount of civil work would, we hope, be possible on this globe. I just do not know how embracing the war would be. But even if it is not a world-wide war I think there would be a sufficient proportion of the Corporation's airfleets available to the country in time of war. However, I am going on to argue that under the Corporations there should be greater fleets and more adequate reserves of air transport machines. That is the substance of my case.
  In addition to that untrue statement in the Air League memorandum, there is also an element of complete self-deception about the propaganda put out by the Air League and others on behalf of the independent operator. They say that the more Government business that is given to the independent air transport operators the greater will be our reserves of air transport machines. That is not true at all. The one result of such a policy would be that we should have more machines in the hands of private operators and fewer in the hands of the Corporations. The total would not be increased. Indeed, for reasons that I shall give later, I think that the total would probably be less.
  Both sides of the House want to achieve the same objective, and I should like to argue this matter out on this and other occasions as fully, frankly and fairly as possible, but I do hope that we shall try not to deceive ourselves about it. All this scheming to give public business such as air trooping to private operators is not a plan to increase air transport reserves. It is a device to assist private operators as against the publicly-owned Corporations. If I thought that these proposals of the Air League were in the best interests of the nation I should give them my whole-hearted and unqualified support, but I do not think that, and I will say why.
  During the time of the Labour Government there was a very close examination

  1587
  of the economic advantages of air trooping as against sea trooping. The balance came down, rather uncertainly at first, on the side of the air. Contracts were given, mostly to private companies because, and only because, their tenders were lowest. I think it can now be seen more clearly by some people that if one buys up old machines at low prices it is easier to put in lower tenders. However, that was as far as it went at that time. I will add only this. It did seem to me that some of the officers concerned in the Service Departments did not try very hard to hide their political tendencies in favour of the private operator. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, I say what I feel, and I do not think I am being unfair about it.
  The private operator is saying, to a very large extent through the Air League, that he must have more financial assistance. I understand the idea to be that the Government should buy the machines of the private operator, arrange yearly terms either for purchase or for rent, and then guarantee him work for 10 years at a price which would, of course, handsomely cover the rent or purchase arrangement—and very big figures are involved. There may well be arguments for that sort of arrangement.
  There may be an argument for providing these modern merchant adventurers with guaranteed capital and guaranteed business, but let us not call it private enterprise. To call it private enterprise is to abuse the English language. And do not let us pretend that it is increasing the supply of air transport machines in time of emergency. It is not increasing the total supply at all. I think that there are three arguments against these proposals.
  Firstly, I believe that, properly arranged, the national Corporations could do better what is required. B.E.A., for example, already have bases, experience and technical resources at such places as Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus and North Africa. If we exploited these resources more fully, we could economise on national manpower and equipment to the benefit of everyone.
  Secondly, I understand that the Air Ministry are contemplating hiring out to private companies a number of jet transport. I believe that this would not only be wasteful but potentially dangerous as
  1588
  well. We have already seen that margins of safety have been eaten into by the use of old machines. I think that we should be incurring a similar risk if we left the operation of ultra-modern jets to inexperienced private companies.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I think that the hon. Member is referring to the York. As an official inquiry is pending at the moment, and as the matter is sub judice, would it not be wise to withdraw that remark about safety?
  Mr. Beswick: I repeat the words which I have said, and which I have very carefully considered. I have said that the margins of safety have been eaten into.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: By whom?
  Mr. Beswick: By these firms who use old aircraft. I can give the hon. Gentleman a particular example, if he wishes it. I have no desire to do so in this House. But that is my belief, and it is a belief voiced by others than myself.
  I will not say that they are unsafe—I obviously would not say that. I am not saying that they are being recklessly operated. I am saying that the big margins of safety, which the public air Corporations apply on top of, in addition to, the minimum standards that are required by law, are being eaten into by many of the private operators who use old machines. I have, therefore, stated— and this is my argument—that it is my belief that if we entrusted—and these are the words which I want the hon. Gentleman to understand—the operation of ultra-modern jets to inexperienced operators, we should again allow the safety margins to be eaten into.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): I think that when the hon. Member makes these accusations he ought to be a little more specific. Against whom is he making the accusation, and what is his evidence?
  Mr. Beswick: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to make particular allegations, I have in mind the operation of York aircraft I am not referring to a particular accident, the cause of which we do not know. But I am saying that the operation of that aircraft over a particular part of the world is eating into the margins of safety which would otherwise be maintained by, say, the national air Corporations.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Surely the hon. Member would agree that irrespective of whether aircraft are operated by the Corporations or by private companies, they have to maintain the same standards of safety as are laid down by the Air Registration Board, and have a certificate of airworthiness, which is the same for both.
  Mr. Beswick: No. There is great interest in these matters, and I am prepared to go into them in some detail. It is true that operators must have a certificate of airworthiness for their particular machine, but that certificate of airworthiness is not for a particular route.
  In the case of this particular York operation—not the one accident, because, as I say, it may have been caused by anything, and I would not prejudice the inquiry—as a matter of fact, if the hon. Gentleman wants to know, the company did take the trouble to write to the British Overseas Airways Corporation and ask for their advice about this particular operation. They received back a letter in which it was stated—and I think that I can quote almost the exact words— "We would not operate this machine at this weight factor; in fact we would not operate it at all over the Atlantic because of its unsuitability in winter weather."
  Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone) rose——
  Mr. Speaker: I think, with every desire to allow the debate to go wide, that the hon. Member is getting away from the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. I do not see how this incident of the York aircraft, or the suitability of any particular type of aircraft, really comes in issue on the hon. Member's Amendment. I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we concentrated on what was actually put before it.
  Sir W. Wakefield: On a point of order. A very serious statement has been made by the hon. Member. I happen to be a director of the company which has been operating these aircraft, and I say that what he has said is untrue. The company concerned has never received such a letter as he has alleged. There may have been private correspondence of which the
  company were completely unaware when it operated these York air-
  1590
  craft. The statement he has made is quite untrue.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate, but a point of debate on a subject which I think is remote from the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dudley.
  Mr. Beswick: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I think that it will be seen on reading HANSARD that I was diverted along these particular lines by questions from hon. Members opposite.
  With regard to the charge that I have made an untrue statement, I could give the hon. Member the date of the letter, and it was addressed to General Critchley, who is a director of the company concerned. If that letter was received in a private capacity, I accept the words of the hon. Gentleman, but I must say that it is a strange way of doing business.
  Sir W. Wakefield: No letter was written from the company to the Corporation requesting such a letter, so that again is another untrue statement.
  Mr. Beswick: We will leave it at that.
  In my judgment, the hiring of ultramodern jet machines to private operators who have not had great experience of jet operation would be eating into the necessary safety margins. The two air Corporations have accumulated a great store of knowledge in the operation of jets, and I am only saying that we should be very silly to ignore their experience.
  The third point that I want to make supports the other two, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence will try to follow it, because it is put very sincerely, and it is this. I want to see private companies doing business, and growing business, but I think that it should be business which is appropriate to the true nature of private enterprise. I believe that air freight, especially the non-scheduled freighting, the air tramping, is their legitimate business.
  The more the world's air freight business that Britain's companies get, the bigger will be our total reserve of air fleets. There are some very able, energetic and likeable people among the independent operators, and I believe that they can get a good share of the world's business that is going. I would give them

  1591
  encouragement, and, if necessary, more solid assistance. But I warn the Parliamentary Secretary that the more the Government give way to pressure and the more they provide this guaranteed air trooping business, the less will be the incentive to the independant operators to go out and get the other business.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the shipping companies, who for decades have done the trooping, have always had 10-year contracts?
  Mr. Beswick: Yes, but the situation is somewhat different as between air and sea in so far as we were not sufficiently well advised as to develop nationally-owned shipping companies.
  It would be wrong to make a speech about air transports without mentioning flying boats. I was very pleased that my hon. Friend raised this matter again. Opinion in the House, no matter how it may be divided on other subjects, is overwhelmingly in favour of the use of flying boats. We have some grand machines in the Isle of Wight. Will the Parliamentary Secretary please tell us something definite about the plans for using the Princesses?
  How is the development progressing with the first machine? We really ought to know that. A lot of public money is in it. When are the engines expected for the second and third machines? When we are talking of moving large numbers of men about the globe, it is wrong to put flying boats out of consideration. These machines are already partly built, and I believe we ought to have them in operation. I would leave for the future the question of who should operate them. At the moment my greatest desire is to have them flying, and flying on air trooping.
  Then there are helicopters. Here again we seem to be up against the inertia of prejudice. On occasions there have been criticisms of lack of enterprise on the part of the publicly-owned services, but had it not been for the enterprise of B.E.A., and, at times, the Post Office, we should not even be in sight of a helicopter design, let alone a machine.
  There are now, I understand, five designs for a big helicopter to B.E.A.
  1592
  specifications. Are the War Office and the Air Ministry coming in on this matter or not? Could we have a straight answer to that question? Surely a big machine capable of carrying 30, 40 or more troops and putting them all down accurately together is infinitely better than peppering parachutists about the countryside. Training for the troops is shorter and, therefore, less expensive. The only commands the troops need to know are two, "Get in" and "Get out." No other training is involved.
  In both the civil and the Service fields we ought to develop a prototype machine of about that size. Thanks to the medical people, we are now using some small helicopters, but all the military mind appears to be thinking about is some large helicopter capable of picking up a tank and putting it over a river, or something of that sort. That is not good enough.
  I should have liked to have gone into the question of reserves of pilots, but that ought properly to be raised in the wider debate. It is nevertheless important to the question of air transport reserves to stress that many of the men who have been acting as instructors would be admirable material for air transport pilots. If there is a possibility of transferring them and giving them the necessary training to become civil transport pilots, the Government ought to give whatever help is required. For the moment, I say again that an adequate reserve of transport aircraft could be our salvation in war and a source of strength in peace.
  I hope that, in meeting this case, the Government will not yield to propaganda which promotes short-term private interests against long-term national needs, and I hope that in the development of this reserve we shall use to the full the experience and operation possibilities of the two publicly-owned air Corporations.
  7.55 p.m.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone): The House must congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) on his luck in the Ballot and his wisdom in raising a matter of such great importance in the field of strategic defence.
  As the House will realise from what happened a few minutes ago, I am connected with an independent operator who

  1593
  has been doing a substantial amount of air trooping in recent months, and, naturally, because of that I have made a very special study of the importance to the well-being of the country—the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) would probably suggest that the object was the well-being of the independent operators—of the extension of air trooping in future.
  The thoughtful and constructive speech of the hon. Member for Dudley covered most of the main points about the advantages of air trooping compared with sea trooping. The actual cost at present is about the same in each case, but as more modern aircraft come along the cost of air trooping will substantially decrease. The facts are contrary to what was stated by the hon. Member for Uxbridge. He said it was easier to submit lower tenders in the case of old machines bought at low prices. On the contrary, the more modern aircraft
  which will soon be available will enable lower tenders to be made. I believe that in the next three, four or five years it will be found that the cost of air trooping will become very much cheaper than that of sea trooping.
  Other matters have to be considered in relation to war conditions. With the possibility of attack by submarines and aircraft, it will be even more dangerous to move troops in a future war than it was during the last war. If there were large numbers of troops in a ship which was unfortunately sunk, the loss might be very great, but if we were moving troops rapidly in, perhaps, larger aircraft than are now available and one was lost, there would not occur such a disaster to our war effort as if a great ship were lost.
  As we found to our cost during the last war, the transportation of troops by sea is subject to great delays owing to the vessels having to travel in convoy and perhaps to take difficult routes in order to avoid submarine and air attack; and when the troops arrive at their destination they are frequently extremely unfit. Troops can be flown to almost any part of the world within 24 or 48 hours, and they land fit and ready for immediate operations. That is of great importance.
  I agree that the Princess flying boats should be brought into operation as soon as possible. I can think of nothing more advantageous from the point of view of
  1594
  flexibility and mobility than those flying boats. They may be put down on water anywhere, and we have not to build great runways for them. The three flying boats should be brought into operation— it is immaterial who operates them as long as they are brought into operation—while there still exist flying boat pilots and crews whose knowledge and skill has not disappeared. We could have no finer or cheaper service than these flying boats would afford.
  I suggest, too, that by using aircraft for air trooping—this is where I differ from the hon. Member for Uxbridge— our peace-time activities in the air can be strengthened. We ought to try to build up a mercantile marine of the air. The Corporations are protected by the increasing volume of traffic on their scheduled services and by subsidy from the taxpayers. They are enabled to have —and rightly so—large trained organisations built to operate efficiently. What we want to see in this country, in addition to those important national Corporations, is the independent operators building up highly trained, successful organisations which are able to carry out air trooping contracts and to do the freighting and other work which is available throughout the world.
  One of the best ways of seeing that happen is for the independent operators to have some steady basis of operation. Air trooping contracts just do that. The Corporations have a steady basis in their scheduled services, and the independent operators could have a good basis with air trooping contracts; then they would be able to develop in competition with the air fleets of the world.
  It is regrettable that the hon. Member for Uxbridge indulged in a kind of—I cannot describe it as anything less than this—smear campaign about the reliability and effectiveness of the independent operators. Suggestions such as he made about the margins of safety being eaten into can only cause unjustified disquiet and uneasiness about British aviation generally. Anybody who wants to see British aviation built up should not make statements like that, because they are not helpful to the industry as a whole. It is deeply regretted that such an attack, wholly unjustified, was made by an hon. Member in this House.

  1595
  If this mercantile marine of the air is to be built up—and I think it is desirable that it should be built up in addition to the Corporation fleets—there ought to be some kind of assistance given in the purchasing of new aircraft. I am not suggesting for one moment that there should be any subsidy or that any part of the cost should fall on the taxpayer. It would, however, be a great help to the manufacturers if orders were placed with them now for new and up-to-date aircraft suitable for transportation, for passenger carrying and for charter work like trooping carrying, and then hire-purchased by the independent operators from the State on ordinary commercial terms. It would help export orders for British manufacturers, and at the same time assist in the building up of this great mercantile marine in the air, which, in turn, is also strengthening our strategic air reserves. There can be no question but that that would be an advantage.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge said that placing air trooping business with independent operators would not increase our reserves. He is not correct in that for the reason that, by giving trooping contracts to independent operators, they are being helped to retain the crews and cover their overheads. That, in turn, means that they are going to be able to expand their peace-time commercial activities, and that is going to be of great assistance to the economy of the country. It is, in fact, killing two birds with one stone. We are saving money for the taxpayer, and we are building up an entrepôt trade which must help the economic position of the country.
  It is in the general interests of the nation that, in addition to the support which has been given by the taxpayers to the national Corporations, there should also be given, not financial support but encouragement and help to the independent operators to build up their organisations and their fleets, so that wherever British aircraft are seen we can be thoroughly proud of the work and activities of our aircraft, be they private enterprise or of the Corporation.
  Mr. Beswick: Would the hon. Member be more precise and tell us how he thinks this encouragement and help should be given?
  Sir W. Wakefield: Encouragement could easily be given if the Government made available on hire-purchase terms to independent operators up-to-date, modern aircraft which in two or three years' time will be available from the manufacturers, plus reasonable long-term contracts so that they can guarantee security of employment for their employees as well as the ability to plan ahead. Hon. Members opposite are always talking about longterm planning. There cannot be any of that if one is working on a hand-to-mouth basis. Encouragement given in the way I have suggested would bring its own reward.
  I hope that, in the training of pilots and aircrews for the flying of these very expensive aircraft, increasing attention will be given to the great advantages which can be obtained, apart altogether from the saving of money to the taxpayer and the saving of life, by the use of flight simulators. This is particularly important in view of the shortage of good quality maintenance men in the Royal Air Force. The difficulties referred to previously about the training of men may be largely overcome if the aircrews coming on are trained in the flight simulators so that they get as much ground flying practice as possible. They can then go into the air and have operational and flying training without having to learn the flight drill.
  I should like to conclude by wishing my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air all success in the extremely important tasks which lie ahead, and particularly in his main task of getting the right kind of quality, whether in the air or on the ground, during the next year or two, because I believe the success of the Royal Air Force, and, therefore, to a great extent the safety of our country, depends in the future as in the past upon the quality of the men who are in the Service.
  8.9 p.m.
  Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), I approach this subject as a soldier, although as one who has had only about one-third of my hon. Friend's service and approximately one-half of rank. Like him, I flew about a good deal during the war but, unlike him, I did not keep one eye on the aircraft and one on my kit. Mostly I was

  1597
  flying in Austers just above tree-top level, and I kept both eyes on the pilot and both hands engaged in seeing that my parachute straps were all right, although a parachute would not have been any use to me anyway. This, of course, was on the rare occasions when the pilot did not thrust a map into my hand and ask me to find out where on earth we were.
  We have not stressed nearly enough in this debate the new strategical concept in the movement of forces which must flow
  from the Monte Bello experience and the experience of the atomic bombs exploded at Bikini and elsewhere. The first thing which happens when an atom bomb is dropped in or over water is the creation of an enormous radioactive waterspout which, when it falls, produces a radio-active area all round. Any ship in that area becomes radioactive, not temporarily but for some considerable time. Until it has been cleared, the whole area becomes radioactive, as Bikini and Monte Bello are today. It would appear that any idea of moving large forces of troops in the normal way by ship during a war started by the dropping of atomic bombs—a possibility which we must envisage—is completely out.
  If we had to move troops, it would be necessary to do so by air. Unless we can move them by air we may not be able to move them at all. I feel that we must therefore try to create a strategic reserve of aircraft on different lines from those so far suggested. The argument as to whether B.O.A.C. or independent airline aircraft should be used is irrelevant to the strategic movement of troops and stores and equipment which is the sort of thing we must envisage.
  Unless, when we move troops from one place to another, we can provide them with stores and weapons and ammunition from bases already established at their point of arrival, these stores must be conveyed with them. We can imagine many situations where this must happen. If we were fighting on the mainland of Europe and the Channel ports had been contaminated by the dropping of atomic bombs, the only way we could reinforce our troops on that Continental bridgehead would be by flying in men, stores and equipment.
  1598
  It is here that the analogy between a merchant marine of the air and a merchant marine of the sea is totally false. The merchant marine of the sea consists of fairly big ships in which lots of men can be carried. They have capacious holds and derricks on their decks, and large chunks of equipment can be put into them. The difference in design between one ship and another is not very important. They are unloaded at the ports and off they go.
  One of the last jobs I did before leaving the Army was to help to produce a series of loading tables for different types of aircraft based on trials and experiments at Netheravon. One learnt straight away that a different air loading table is needed for every piece of equipment and every type of aircraft. It is not just a question of stuffing an anti-tank gun or a body of troops into an aircraft. Details of the breakdown of pieces of mechanism have to be prepared and provision made inside the aircraft for ring bolts, and stancheons to secure them. This must be done not only for each different aircraft, but for every piece of equipment to be conveyed by air, and it is an enormously complicated performance.
  It is not a question of something which can be done overnight, or by suddenly bringing into use a mercantile marine of the air which has been operating on civilian jobs, and saying, "Let us put some troops and guns into these aircraft and send them away." That is why I think that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member opposite were wrong when they envisaged the use of civilian aircraft for moving troops.
  Mr. Beswick: Would my hon. Friend suggest that ships, having been loaded at Southampton, could steam into Central Europe and discharge their loads?
  Mr. Fienburgh: My hon. Friend's interjection must have been amusing because some hon. Members opposite laughed. I may be slow but I did not get the substance of the point put by my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will explain it further.
  Mr. Beswick: My hon. Friend appears to be arguing that there is difficulty in getting great loads into aircraft and that they cannot be used for getting troops and equipment quickly into a European

  1599
  theatre. That is what I understood him to say. I am now asking him what is his alternative. He said that ships were useful to transport men and equipment, but how are we to get ships into the centre of Europe?
  Mr. Fienburgh: I have not the faintest desire to put ships into the centre of Europe. I was saying that we must have a type of aircraft in sufficient numbers for which we have prepared loading tables and about which we know the details of loading; and that if we try to bring into operation various different types of aircraft used for civilian operations we should find that at the crucial time we could not use them. But if we built up a strategic reserve of aircraft designed for the movement of troops and equipment, and which could be used during peace-time for trooping, they would be available at once, whereas B.O.A.C. or independent airline aircraft would not be usable for a considerable time. Therefore, although the intervention from my hon. Friend may have been diverting, I cannot feel that it added greatly to the point I was making.
  Group Captain Wilcock: I hope my hon. Friend has not forgotten that exactly what he is saying could not be done was done in the Berlin airlift, when all types of equipment were moved successfully and without any difficulty.
  Mr. Fienburgh: Certain stores were moved and certain bodies of people. But anti-tank guns, bren gun carriers and lorries were not moved. However, these items were moved during strategic airlifts during the war and we must be prepared to move them again. Again I say that details for the break-down of equipment must be prepared.
  Mr. Wigg: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? [HON. MEMBERS: "A party piece."] So far this has proceeded on non-party lines. Surely my hon. Friend will realise that it is because I appreciate the point he is making that I asked the Under-Secretary to undertake a study of the major operations which took place in the period between the two wars? I mentioned Chanak, because we were not operating from fully equipped ports to fully equipped ports. There were no fully equipped ports in the Dardanelles,
  1600
  although men and stores left this country in the normal way.
  Mr. Fienburgh: I agree. I was going on to say that the part of his speech where my hon. Friend suggested investigation along those lines, and further suggested the creation of a strategic reserve, was the main substance of his speech, and the part which I should like to see carried into operation.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I do not want to enter into the combined attack upon the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh). He has received a left hook and a right hook, and I do not want to give him a punch from this side. I think civil transport aircraft could be used for carrying troops armed with light automatic weapons, although I fully understood his point that for heavy equipment, anti-aircraft guns and perhaps heavy anti-tank weapons, special facilities are needed in the transporting aircraft. I think it was last year that I made a speech on the point that we ought to stockpile now double doors and winches, and arrange in these civilian designs for the possibility of adding tiedown points to overcome the difficulty to which the hon. Member referred.
  This has been a most useful debate, started by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) —and I have had to say this once before —rather bedevilled the occasion by trying to bring in politics and trying to play off one side of the aviation industry and the operators against the other. But I think that we should bury the hatchet and agree that we do not desire to abuse the Corporations or the private enterprise people. We want to see both flourish.
  Mr. Beswick: In agreeing to bury the hatchet, shall we also agree that what the hon. Member calls "politics" is usually something about which he does not agree?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is not altogether fair in that sense. No one on this side of the House has ever started a smear campaign against the Corporations. We all have the very highest regard for them.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: What about the Coal Board?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am talking about civil aviation. Most of us travel by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and we always praise their success.
  As I am going to detain the House only five minutes, I do not want to repeat the many valid points made. I want to raise one or two new ones. Transport Command must remain the nucleus of the air transport aspect. Secondly, we have the Corporations, which may perform some useful functions with their reserve of aircraft. But I do not think that anyone would consider it efficient to tie down large numbers of reserve aircraft in the Corporations against the possibility of their being required for military transport operations. I should have thought that that would be much better undertaken by the more flexible and much smaller charter firms who operate a few aircraft, and who can undertake this work, as has been so well described by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield).
  The fact which emerges, as has been mentioned again and again, is that there are 30,000 people in the pipeline. In our defence debate it was said that we must have a strategic reserve, but many hon. Members asked where we were to get the men from? Could we not pull some of them away from the 30,000 who are in the pipeline? If we could speed up the transport of our troops to the various theatres where they are employed we could perhaps cut that 30,000 to 5,000. That would be a saving of 25,000 towards the strategic reserve.
  I want to discuss the question of helicopters. I believe most sincerely that the helicopter is almost the ideal cold war aircraft. In a cold war or in a perimeter war we have to get in and out of the most awkward places. The helicopter is almost ideally suited for that purpose. It is suggested that helicopters are very expensive. All aircraft are expensive, but we could get 20 helicopters for £1 million. I believe that that £1 million would be well spent. As an example, the S.55 carries 12 armed men. In our Colonial Territories there may be many occasions in the next few years when the timely arrival of 12 armed men with automatic weapons could quell trouble which might spread far more quickly if the men were not there.
  1602
  Not only can helicopters carry 12 armed men, but there are other designs coming along. The hon. Member for Uxbridge mentioned the B.E.A. designs. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence will say something about them. Can not he consider developing them for military use? Then there is the successor to the S.55, the S.56, which carries 30 armed men at a speed of 150 miles an hour.
  It is strange to look back and to realise how our thought has changed on this question of load and speed. The D.C.3 took 30 armed men and travelled at approximately 150 miles an hour. We found that they were most useful; there are hundreds, and perhaps thousands, still in use in various parts of the world. If we could get a helicopter of that sort of size, whether it be to the B.E.A. specification or of Anglo-U.S. design, we should have a transport aircraft which would stand us in very good stead and give exactly the mobility which everyone desires to see given to our Forces if we are to carry out our Imperial commitments.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) stressed an important point when he referred to the need for reducing the number of Service men who are at a given moment in the pipeline. He quoted the figure of 30,000 which the Secretary of State for War mentioned recently. That is one of the reasons we should ask the Government to consider the speeches made from all parts of the House, and especially those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick).
  I hope to speak again later, so I do not propose to take much time now. However, I should like to know what the Government intend to do about the flying boats.
  They are a most important asset if
  Properly used. Also, I should like to quote a figure which I read somewhere recently. It was said that three large modern troop-carrying aircraft with 100 seats cost a total of about £600,000, and they could carry in one year as many men as two troopships, which cost a total of £9 million. Of course, the depreciation is different; but even allowing for that there is not only a

  1603
  financial saving but a real saving in productive manpower. Would not this reduce the 30,000 men in the pipeline in peace-time? And in war-time would it not go some way towards meeting the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) about the effect of an atomic explosion in a harbour.
  I welcome the decision of the Government to place an order for 20 Blackburn freighters. I gather that their name is to be Beverley, no doubt to encourage support from the Beaverbrook Press in general and the "Evening Standard" in particular. The decision is welcome on that account, but it is doubly welcome when we are told that the aircraft are to be operated by the Royal Air Force Transport Command.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge quoted from the Air League memorandum. I thought that the paragraph which says
  that encouragement should be given to the independent operators who represent the only reserve of air transport available in time of war was misleading. I hope that the Air League will cast aside any bias that they may have against State enterprise. On the face of it it looks as if this document has such a bias. After all, the Air League has in the past served aviation very well indeed. I hope it will continue to do so, and that it will do so impartially. I ask the Government to consider carefully the suggestions that have been made by my hon. Friends, and particularly those of the hon. Members for Dudley and Uxbridge.
  8.30 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for raising this matter. He is extraordinarily lucky in the draw, and he seems to get something right every time, and he is also able to speak with Air Force experience. I am glad to hear that he kept his kit, and I hope he can say the same for the Air Force which he served.
  The case which he put was very well presented, and he brought out all the main points, but he is really preaching to the converted. If we look at what has been happening in trooping, in 1950–51, there were 400,000 passenger
  1604
  miles flown, and in 1952–53, four million, which shows an increase of 10 times over those years. In 1951–52, 22½ per cent. of our trooping was carried out by air, and, in 1952–53, exclusive of North-West Europe, 50 per cent. of all trooping was carried out by air.
  We can say that there has been a very considerable advance, and not only that, but the air trooping record of safety has been a very good one. Since air trooping contracts were first let three years ago, 6,600,000 passenger miles have been flown, and there has been only one fatal accident, and that was the very regrettable accident to a York aircraft in the Atlantic, about which certain exchanges took place a few moments ago. I do not think I will comment on what the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) said. I would only advise him to read the report, and meditate upon what he said.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has asked me to make an announcement about this matter, which I will read to the House.
  "My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, who has been consulted, has fully considered the airworthiness and operational characteristics of the York against its background of some 10 years of successful operations, during which many thousands of hours have been flown, including 147,000 revenue hours by B.O.A.C. alone between 1947 and 1952. He has also had the advice of the Air Registration Board and the Air Safety Board on the use of this type of aircraft across the North Atlantic. From this experience and advice, he has concluded that there is no reason why these aircraft should not be operated on this route under the flight planning conditions to which the trooping operations are subject. He has, however, decided that a public inquiry should be made into this accident. In view of this decision, the Government have decided to suspend North Atlantic trooping operations with this type of aircraft in the meantime. Other arrangements will be made for the movement of troops and their families for the time being."
  It certainly is to our strategic interest to stimulate as much as we can civil air transport of all kinds, including commercial air transport, and, as well, to build up Transport Command as far as

  1605
  we are able. It is to our strategic advantage to use air trooping wherever we can and whenever it is reasonably economic, and it is so because by these methods we shall increase our mobility of strategic deployment, we shall increase our flexibility for rapid movement in the cold war and our reserves for movement in the case of a possible hot war.
  As an illustration of the flexibility which this method can confer, hon. Members will remember that, in October and November, 1951, 6,000 men were flown out from this country to the Middle East, and 10,000 men were moved within the Middle East theatre in a short space of time, and, only the other day, we had the very quick move of a battalion to Kenya. In these circumstances, there is a role for Transport Command, for the Corporations and for the civil operators, and they all have their part to play.
  I want to say a word or two about Transport Command, and I am sorry the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock) is not in his place, because I want to comment on what he said. The role of Transport Command is the rapid deployment of troops in an emergency; that is the first thing. The second is movement of ground crews and equipment for an emergency deployment. The third one is the movement of urgent spares, and the last, and a very important one, is the tactical role of the dropping of troops and equipment and the training of the Parachute Brigade for the Territorial Airborne Division.
  Hon. Members will notice that all these are operational or emergency roles, and though a certain amount of air trooping is done by Transport Command, the operational role must come first, and they must be trained to carry it out. At present, Transport Command is equipped with Hastings and Valettas which are designed to carry out all the roles about which I have been speaking.
  As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, although he did not expand the point, there is a certain amount of new thought going forward. Instead of having one type, we are contemplating having two different types of aircraft in Transport Command. My hon. Friend mentioned the ordering of the prototype of the Vickers 1000 which is a fast long-range jet transport based on the Valiant
  1606
  bomber, which will be capable of carrying 120 men and their equipment. When we get it, that aircraft will revolutionise air transport in the Services, but it is entirely unsuitable for the tactical role. We cannot drop men or equipment from a fast jet aircraft, and that is the reason why we have given the order for the Beverley.
  The Beverley is capable of carrying 20 tons over 1,100 nautical miles, and, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) pointed out, in addition to carrying troops, it can also carry heavy equipment, that is to say, one could get a charabanc inside it, though not a tank. However, the equipment which it is capable of carrying would be sufficient for many types of operation.
  The second type of aircraft will be mainly for the operational role and is not designed for the steady run of air trooping all the time. Neither, of course, is Transport Command as large as we should like it to be. Nor is Fighter Command, Bomber Command or Coastal Command, and nor are many of the other things we should like to have. But we have got to put first things first and try to get things in their proper proportion. We think that the present size of Transport Command is the right size in relation to the size of the other Commands. That is all I want to say about Transport Command.
  I now turn to the task of civil aviation in this matter. Civil aviation will carry out the main task in trooping, and will include both the Corporation and the charter companies, and will, incidentally, have a role to play in the hot war should it come. It will be a valuable reserve for us, and plans have already been worked out in detail for the employment of all civil aircraft should war come. That, of course, was done a long time ago, and arrangements have been made so that the personnel and the aircraft can be militarised if and when necessary.
  From a defence point of view, the
  larger our civil aviation industry the better. I think we can all agree on that for the reasons I have already given. The question has been raised from both sides of the House about what help we can give in expanding our civil aircraft industry, particularly from the point of view of the charter companies. We are, of course, using them very much more than we were,

  1607
  and everyone knows that. We use air trooping wherever it is economic.
  Conditions which vary very markedly
  in different theatres determine whether air trooping is economic or not. It is not economic for Germany, Austria and Trieste. It is not economic for Germany owing to the short sea crossing. One saves practically no time, and the cost of flying is about 80 per cent. more than sea and land transport. It is not economic for Trieste and Austria because there are no suitable airfields there sufficiently near to where our troops are garrisoned. It is not at the present time suitable for the Far East simply because we have not available for that work the most modern types of aircraft.
  We hope that it will be possible, but at the moment, owing to the type of aircraft available and because of the staging difficulties, it is not economic to use air transport for the Far East. We are very conscious indeed of the manpower locked up in the ships, but it simply is not "on" at the moment, though we hope that it will be. But air trooping is in general use elsewhere. It is used as to 80 per cent, in trooping to the Middle East. It is not usual to disclose the actual prices of contracts but the order of figures given by the hon. Member for Dudley was on the whole right.
  Mr. Beswick: Are not those figures based on the actual cost of transporting a person from A to B without taking into account incidental economies and wider advantages?
  Mr. Birch: I think those points are taken into account.
  We were asked whether one could have longer contracts. I think that longer contracts are desirable, but when one starts talking about 10 years one gets into certain difficulties. I do not know whether any hon. Member would like to predict how our Forces will be deployed 10 years hence. I certainly should not like to do it. The hon. Member for Dudley asked whether a trooping season could be established, but I think that he answered his own question. When we have men coming into and going out of the Forces every fortnight, we must have trooping all the year round. It would be very nice if we could have a trooping
  1608
  season. When men entered the Forces for five or seven years that was easy enough, but one cannot have that in present circumstances.
  Mr. Wigg: I quite agree that with the movement of National Service men one must have trooping all the year round, but as air trooping develops and one has the movement of whole units, that could be dealt with in a trooping season.
  Mr. Birch: Unit trooping is not normally done by air. [An HON. MEMBER: "It will be."] I should like to say a few words on the size of the military task. It is possible to exaggerate the number of aircraft that will be required. I am advised, for example, that it is estimated that a dozen Britannias, plus operating reserves, could cover all the personnel movement to the Canal Zone and Far East on the present scale. That number of aircraft with their speed and performance would be sufficient to do all the trooping that is at present going on between the Far East and the Middle East.
  The subject of troopships naturally comes up in this context. It has been said that over the years it is probable that our troopship fleet will decline, but it is at present in full use and it is certainly suitable for certain tasks in the cold war. If one has no troopships, what happens when one wants to land somewhere where there are no suitable airfields? If there were a hot war there would also be the gap to be bridged before one had the merchant shipping requisitioned, and in bridging that gap a troopship fleet would be valuable indeed.
  On the question of unit moves, which are only about 7 per cent. of the total moves, these are most suitably carried out in troop ships, because it is not much good if the troops arrive at their destination miles ahead of their equipment, which has got to go by sea. Therefore, on the whole it is more convenient to move units by sea. No time would be saved if units were moved by air.
  I do not want to insist on the strategic argument, but let us suppose we did away with all troop ships and carried out all trooping, including unit moves, by air. This matter has been gone into rather carefully and it has been calculated that the saving in manpower in all three Services would amount to only 6,600 men. Out of a total of over 850,000 in

  1609
  the Forces, that is not a very large number. I am told that those are the correct figures.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Obviously we do not want to go into the mathematics at the moment, but would my hon. Friend place in the Library details of how that figure is arrived at? It seems rather surprising.
  Mr. Birch: I cannot promise to do so, because I am not sure whether security considerations are involved. If security considerations are not involved—I expect they are—I will see what I can do.
  On the question of a strategic reserve, we here all know that we have not got such a reserve. We want one, and most people would like it to be based in this country. The trouble is to find the men for that reserve. They are deployed all over the world and the question is how to get them back again. The hon. Member for Islington, North mentioned one of the difficulties involved in moving people from place to place by air at a moment's notice. The difficulty is to move the heavy equipment. Unless we have duplicate dumps of stores and heavy equipment all over the world, which would be expensive, it is impossible to achieve complete mobility merely by flying men about without their equipment. I think the hon. Member made a perfectly good point.
  Many hon. Members have raised the question of the Princess flying boat. This subject was very fully debated in the House on 29th October, 1952, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply answered the questions which were then raised. I really have no fresh news to give the House on the subject.
  Mr. Beswick: Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that the specific questions I asked in that debate were answered?
  Mr. Birch: I am suggesting that all the information that the hon. Gentleman is likely to get was furnished then. As I have said, the Government are very anxious that the civil aircraft industry in this country should expand, and they will certainly do what they can to help. There are two examinations going on in the Service at the present time—short-term and long-term. The short-term examination is to ascertain whether we could
  1610
  extend air trooping to the Far East by the use of aircraft such as Stratocruisers and Constellations which have not so far been used upon that route. The long-term inquiry covers questions such as the length of contracts and so on.
  I should like to make this important point. If we are going to have a great merchant navy of the air it must be based upon commercial operations. Help is needed from the defence point of view, but our help is not likely to be much more than marginal; we cannot supply a sufficient volume of traffic to build up a great merchant navy of the air. It is important, however, that planning for the development of the civil aircraft industry and defence planning should march hand in hand. We are doing our best to see that that happens, and we shall continue to do so.
  We are all very grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley for raising this subject. I have done my best to answer the questions that have been raised, and I hope that he will be good enough now to withdraw his Amendment so that the debate can go on.
  Mr. Beswick: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the question of the War Office and the Air Ministry assisting with the prototype of the helicopter.
  Mr. Birch: Research and development are continuing. It is important to keep the civil and military development marching in step, but from the military point of view the helicopter is very expensive and it is a very vulnerable machine except when one has complete air superiority. A certain balance is required when we are talking about that machine.
  Mr. Wigg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: The Service Estimates debates this year are necessarily rather depressing because they are the formal obsequies of the defence programme, but of all three Estimates these Air Estimates are the most depressing. In the Army Estimates, which we were considering the other day, the cut in the defence programme was really a

  1611
  cut in equipment for the reserve divisions. National Service was originated in order to provide us with a reserve Army. Today, in considerable measure, it is to be a reserve Army of men without equipment.
  But when we come to these Air Estimates the cut is not merely upon the Reserve—indeed, from what the Under-Secretary tells us the prospect of a Reserve seems to have almost disappeared —but also on the operational squadrons. Let us analyse what that means. Paragraph 4 of the Memorandum says:
  "The increase in expenditure on aircraft would have been greater if the Government had not decided, as part of its review of the £4,700 million programme announced by the previous Government two years ago, to concentrate on the production of the most advanced types of aircraft and equipment for the Royal Air Force and to reduce purchases of the less advanced. This decision naturally slows down the rate of expansion of the force, but the expansion will still be considerable."
  Can we be given any indication of how much this cut amounts to? It is a very difficult figure to work out, but is it, in round figures, in the neighbourhood of £300 million? If so, it is a very formidable decrease on the force planned by the late Government, by which we hoped to contribute to our own defence and that of Europe. Having had to accept something very much smaller than we had hoped for the question is what we can do without, or, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, what are the first things that should be put first. With regard to our operational aircraft the Under-Secretary said that we had been cutting orders for current types.
  Every aircraft is, in a measure, an obsolescent aircraft from the day it reaches the squadron. That is the nature of the procedure. By the time it reaches the squadron it is already out of date compared with the aircraft which is still on the drawing board. A system of cutting down
  on current types is a system of jam yesterday and jam tomorrow but never jam today, because the current type is jam today. This might be a reasonable policy if we were in a position to say, as we were at periods between the wars, "No major war for 10 years"; or even if we were in a position to say, "No major war for five years." Clearly, we are not in that happy position and,
  1612
  therefore, a cut in current types is serious.
  Remember that this is not simply a postponement of a programme. This is a cut in the total programme, and if a cut in current types is necessary today, it will be necessary next year and the year after. If the total is still to be kept down, it will always be a question of our not getting the current types. They are worked out on the drawing board, and then, when they become current, that is when we cease to have them. That is what is happening now. Can the Under-Secretary tell us when it will cease to happen?
  Mr. Ward: May I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of the tremendous difference between a straight-wing fighter and a swept-wing fighter? That has made all the difference.
  Mr. Paget: But there will be these tremendous differences continuously. That has been the history of aircraft since the Gloster Gladiator. Each new type has been tremendously different and each new type, by the time it is current, is obsolescent, relative to the drawing board. I do not think there is any very sound reason for imagining that we have reached finality in aircraft design—indeed the contrary is more likely, and the advance aircraft design is likely to be faster than that which we have experienced. The difference in the cost of the alterations which have occurred from one type to another has been an accelerated process — most alarmingly accelerated.
  I feel that we ought not to adopt as our policy that of cutting down on current types. It seems to me that it would be far better to take the flow of production available for some modern types and do without others. This is where I differ from the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas), to whose speeches on this subject I always listen with immense interest. I differ, certainly not because I challenge his faith in the importance of a strategic bomber force as a deterrent.
  I could not agree with him more on that. Indeed, I remember having considerable differences with the present Secretary of State for War about a pamphlet which
  he wrote in which he said that the atomic bomb was no use in the cold

  1613
  war. I remember writing an answer saying that in fact it was the only weapon that had been of any use in the cold war: it was why it was still cold. I still think that is so. What the bomber has really become today is the instrument that delivers the atomic bomb, which is the vital deterrent.
  The argument is not whether there should be a strategic bombing force, but where it should be and who should produce it. It seems to me that if we are to survive we have to regard the Atlantic area as a defensive unit. The position of our strategic bomber force is at the rear, and in that Atlantic strategic area the rear is America; whereas the position for our lighter bombers and fighters is at the front, and that is Britain. I should have thought that, as this Government are not prepared to perform the defence programme they undertook—I deplore it, but none the less we have got to accept it—we have to choose what we shall do without; and what we have to do without is a heavy bomber force.
  As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick— again, I entirely agree with him—we have a "know-how" in this variety of air war which leads the world, but I do not see why that "know-how" should not be made available to our allies. I believe that there should be far greater co-operation between the American and the British Air Forces; that it should be co-operation between a forward force and a rearward force; that it should be the basis of that co-operation that we should attach Royal Air Force officers to their bomber squadrons, and that they should attach American flying officers to all our fighter and lighter bomber squadrons. In that way we should have a direct and constant interchange of personnel, which, I think, is the only way in which we shall achieve a real understanding of each other's methods.
  In particular, with regard to manufacture there should be a complete exchange of "know-how." I know that this suggestion will be extremely repulsive to the aircraft manufacturers—and not for reasons which I would say were disreputable at all. It would be much resented by an aircraft industry which has achieved a lead in design, and which has done very good service to this country. None the
  1614
  less, I believe that the defensive requirements of the Atlantic area are such that that reluctance should be overcome, and that complete exchange should take place. That, I believe, would be a far better economy; a safer economy, using a comparative, because if we are cutting our programme, as we are, we are certainly in no position to make ourselves safe. Having to accept limitations somewhere, I would much rather accept a limitation in something which is immediately available across the Atlantic than in current types which are not available anywhere at present; for we are desperately short of serviceable planes.
  So much, then, for the reductions
  in the immediate fighting Forces. But now we come to the question of reserves, and it is on the question of reserves that I have many questions to address to the Under-Secretary of State. He has told us that the intake of aircrew is to be less. That means, I suppose, that the passing of aircrew into the Reserve also becomes less. He tells us that of the National Service men only a few will be taken for pilot training and none for other aircrew duties.
  Basic training is going. The Rhodesian Air School is going. Refresher training is going. Where are the air-minded training personnel which we had hoped to create, and which would be the foundation of an Air Force which would develop? They seem to be disappearing. I do not know the cost of producing a pilot. Is it much less than £20,000? Surely it is frightfully wasteful, as a pilot is passed out—at 20 or 22 years of age in the case of National Service men—to deny him the refresher training which would keep the £20,000 investment in that man in being. Is not that a very false economy?
  Mr. Ward: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood me. I did not say that we were going to deny that man refresher training. I said, if I can remember the words, that it was inevitable that refresher training on operational jet aircraft must take place on Royal Air Force aerodromes, because of the runways, and so on.
  Mr. Paget: I am most grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said, but may we have an assurance that pilots.

  1615
  whether they are National Service or short-engagement pilots, will have sufficient flying to keep their hand in on the sort of aircraft they will be wanted for in war?
  Mr. Ward: We are hoping that most of the National Service pilots coming out at the end of the two years' statutory time time will go to the Auxiliary Air Force. Others and those coming out of short Regular—four and eight-year—engagements will have their training kept refreshed so long as they are within the age limits under R.A.F. arrangements.
  Mr. Paget: I am most grateful for that explanation, because I think the Under-Secretary will agree that his original words were ambiguous. I am very glad to have had the opportunity of clearing that point up, because I feel that it is vitally important that there should be some pool of people capable of flying fighting planes standing in reserve behind the Air Force if a war is to come. I regret very much that economies should have weighed so heavily on that reserve of flying men of all sorts.
  The other question to which I feel we need a better answer was the question put by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Defence, namely, what value do we get from the two years' National Service? The only answer was "Great value." Well, that is qualitative but not descriptive, and I should like to have a little more explanation about what that means. The original purpose of National Service was to create a reserve. It was not designed to man-up our standing Army or our Regular Air Force; it was designed to produce a reserve. Gradually, as commitments turned out to be much larger than we had expected, it became necessary in order to maintain the Forces.
  Now with the cut of equipment, even in the Army, the sole purpose of National Service has become, in a good many instances, to man-up the standing Army, because there is no equipment for the reserves which are being produced. So far as the Air Force is concerned, there is really no pretence that the National Service man becomes a reservist at all. What do the men in the various trades do when their two years are up? Where does the electrician go for his drills? How does the fortnight's camp, or 15 days'
  1616
  training, work out? Is there really any practical use as reserves of the men after they come out of National Service?
  If one recognises that, while a certain facade of keeping them in the Reserve is there, they are not really being used as a reserve at all, surely one must then recognise that if their purpose has become, as it has become, exclusively to man-up the standing Air Force, it is a fantastically extravagant way in which to do it. To take men whom we are only going to have for two years and put them into trades in which they are spending half their time in training, and then let them pass out of the sphere where it will be of no further use to them is really quite a ludicrous method of maintaining a standing Force.
  Mr. Shackleton: My hon. and learned Friend must know that there is a large number of trades not open to airmen in the Air Force and that for the most part these men go into trades in which there is not a long period of training. They can be suitably employed, because I have seen them suitably employed, while they are in the Reserve.
  Mr. Paget: There may be instances of that sort, but this is becoming a smaller force from the operational point of view. These men are now being excluded from aircrew, and I do not know—perhaps we shall hear in the reply—what they do in the way of training when they come out of the Air Force. What arrangements exist, for instance, for the training of the various members of the Royal Air Force who are demobilised to Northampton, for instance?
  We have really to think again about this problem to find whether there is not some other method. For instance, is it still inadvisable to have for the Royal Air Force a ballot of those who express a preference to serve for three years instead of two. Certainly a lesser number for a longer period would be far more valuable to the Air Force and far more economical from the point of view of the country.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that method was very surreptitiously tried until recently. When men went for their medical and said that they wanted to go into the R.A.F. they were told that they

  1617
  could only get in to certain trades provided that they signed on for three years, and many men believed that if they signed on for three years they would be taught a trade, but when they got there, they found that they could only do the lower menial tasks.
  Mr. Ward: I cannot allow that to go unchallenged. There are no false pretences such as the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) suggests, and no pressure whatever is put on anybody to take a three- or four-year engagement. It is simply that more people want to join the Royal Air Force than we can accept on a two-year engagement, and it is obvious that we must point out to them that we cannot accept them unless they join for a longer period. It is an advantage to them to join the Royal Air Force for a longer time, for they will then have a wider choice of trades; it is impossible to train men for some trades in two years. Another advantage for men who join for a longer period is that they get the pay, leave and other advantages which Regulars get. A longer period of service has many attractions for a man.
  Mr. Paget: I agree with everything that the Under-Secretary has said, but the blue uniform, the reputation of the Royal Air Force and its glamour provide considerable attractions; and if we extended the period of National Service in the Royal Air Force to three years—in other words, a man who wished to do his National Service in the Royal Air Force would do an extra year's service—would there not be a substantial chance that the Royal Air Force would still get as many men as it needed? It must be remembered that the Royal Air Force could do with far fewer men proportionately if it could have them for three years than it needs if the period is only two years. Is that worth considering?
  Last year I raised the subject of the Jamaicans, who did very good service during the war. There is heavy unemployment in Jamaica, and a great many Jamaicans are most anxious to join the R.A.F. Has recruitment for the R.A.F. been made available to Jamaicans and other West Indian populations where insufficient employment exists? Might not there be in such places a source of men to undertake long-term engagements?
  1618
  Have Italians been considered? They have proved themselves to be extraordinarily good mechanics. The Italian Government are complaining of the limitations upon emigration and the obtaining of work abroad. I should have thought that many Italians could have been obtained for long-term engagements if that were recognised. I should also have thought that a great many Italians would have been far more effective under British command, where their knowledge and mechanical skill and ability would be given scope, than in units in their own country.
  Are there not means whereby we could get away from the frightfully uneconomic period of two years' National Service in the Royal Air Force and put it on a longer-term basis, which is so much more appropriate for its purpose, with the idea of reserves, except very nominally, being ignored? Is not that the way to do it? After all, we now have only about three-quarters of the financial cloth which we anticipated last year, and we must devise a new cut for our coat if we are to make the best use of the reduced amount available for defence. Surely these new ideas must be explored. We must try to find an economic way of obtaining the best defence which is available, realising that it is a great deal less than we hoped for a year ago.
  9.20 p.m.
  Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: We have listened with great interest to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). His speech has covered a very wide field. He suggested, I imagine after much thought, that the Royal Air Force might accept Italians. The miners in the coal industry in this country would not have them, and I can see many other reasons why they would not be acceptable to the Royal Air Force. With great respect to them, they were not too good in the last war, and if we are going to recruit men into the Royal Air Force we want men who can do the job properly.
  Mr. Paget Mr. Paget rose——
  Air Commodore Harvey: May I finish my sentence? I imagine that we must only have British subjects serving in any British Force.
  Mr. Paget: In point of fact, the last point is not so. We have now provided

  1619
  for foreigners to serve in our Forces. Secondly, I do not think that the competition which the miners fear would apply in National Service, and, lastly, I was not suggesting that the Italians should serve as aircrew.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Earlier in his speech the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that we should do away with our heavy bomber force. I imagine he was referring to medium bombers. They are "heavies," but they are referred to by
  the Government as medium. That would be a very wrong policy. It might as well have been argued 40 years ago that Britain could do without her Grand Fleet. If Britain is to play her part in any future war, which we pray will not happen, we have got to have our own bomber Forces so that we can have a say in the policy and direction of the war and in the terms of peace. I am quite sure that if we followed out the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion we would soon be not only a second-rate but a third-rate Power.
  There is now complete interchange of information with the United States. The Canberra bomber is being made in that country, but if we are going to have an interchange of information let it be a two-way traffic. In my experience in the last twelve years it has been mainly a one-way traffic—to the United States. No one likes the Americans as individuals more than I do. Unlike some hon. Members in this House, I have a great admiration for them, but they must change their mind and be a little more consistent in their policy. They must see the British point of view even to the extent of the acceptance of our certificates of air worthiness.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State delivered his speech with his customary efficiency, but I was disappointed with the meat in his speech. I have no doubt he had every intention of telling the House what he thought they should know, but I can imagine the Air Council and his advisers saying to him, "You cannot say that for security reasons," and they won the day, as has always happened in this House in the last eight years. I think it is a great pity, because it is well known exactly what the British Forces consist of. Any one driving round our airfields
  1620
  in a car can see radar at work and note the aircraft on the ground. I have no doubt Soviet Russia knows pretty well what we have got and the types of aircraft we are using.
  If my hon. Friend wants to carry the House of Commons and the British people with him in obtaining £500 million or £600 million for the Royal Air Force, then he will have to tell them more than he has told us today. After all, the people are paying for it and they are concerned about the defence of this small Island with its 50 million people. We have not been told anything very reassuring about our Forces. I am not blaming my hon. Friend for that, because he inherited this legacy from the party opposite.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: And we inherited it from before that.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Aeroplanes are not built over night, as everyone knows. The time between appearing on the drawing board and going into use is from five and six years. An air force has to be planned to reach its peak at a certain date, and that date must be accepted.
  I am concerned about production. Mention was made of Sabres coming into the Royal Air Force. I remember two years ago last December when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) was in the Ministry, it was stated that Sir John Slessor was going to America to negotiate for Sabres for the British Air Force. We still have not got them. If we are to have inter-changes between this country and America, let it be on those sort of decisions. After all, we in Britain are in the front line——
  Mr. A. Henderson: I think this is a matter on which the Under-Secretary of State should correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I understood him to say this afternoon that some Sabre squadrons have already been formed. They are part of the several hundreds of Sabres under discussion in 1949 and 1950. They have already arrived.
  Mr. Ward: What I said was that we are forming two squadrons of Sabres in Fighter Command this year; these and the Sabres going to the Second Allied Tactical Air Force we have from America and Canada.
  Air Commodore Harvey: It would seem that we have not any squadrons ready. By the time they are operationally ready and firing their guns it will be towards the end of the year, which is even more alarming.
  We look to the Royal Air Force now as our front line defence. Today we read in the evening papers of a British aircraft shot down in the vicinity of Berlin. Two days ago an American aircraft was shot down by
  a Russian aircraft. I should have thought that these benches would have been packed tonight with hon. Members concerned about the defence of Britain, because there is no other way of defending Britain except by the Royal Air Force.
  Not enough has been said today about how we are to defend this Island. We have heard a certain amount about Fighter Command but not nearly enough. I agree that the bomber is a deterrent, but if a potential enemy declared war on Britain and the Western Allies we should not be told through diplomatic channels. We should not receive a little note that they proposed to bomb London. The first thing that would happen would be enemy jet bombers, four-engine bombers, not coming direct across Denmark but round the north of Norway and down through Scotland bombing the cities of Britain, and in six hours Britain could be flattened. Let us make no mistake about that.
  Is sufficient money being spent? Have we the latest fighters? Could we have manned the fighters sent to Brazil and those going to Egypt? Have we the men to man the aircraft when they come along? Frankly I say we have not. This Government have to face up to that problem and tackle it without a moment's delay. The people of Britain have a right to know exactly how they stand. Air Marshal Sir Basil Embery has done a tremendous job in Fighter Command in building up morale. No one could have done a better job, but he must be given the equipment and the men.
  During the last war we shot down only 6 per cent. or 10 per cent. of the enemy bombers which reached Britain. There will be no warning next time. The number of bombers which must be destroyed will have to be 80 or 90 per cent. and that must be done before they reach the shores of Britain.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about the rockets?
  Air Commodore Harvey: I will come to them in a moment. The trouble in Fighter Command is that they have not the technicians or the air radar operators. My hon. Friend referred to it this afternoon and was candid with the House. But no indication was given about how we should get these men. I am deputy-chairman of a firm which makes the Victor bomber, and I know the difficulty of getting men in the aircraft industry. A senior aircraftman in the Royal Air Force is paid £3 17s. a week. A corporal technician, who is a senior man, receives £5 8s. 6d. He gets another £2 marriage allowance, but if he is a married man he has the inconvenience of moving home and the education of his children disrupted.
  Under present conditions, my hon. Friend will never get these technicians. The sooner that is realised by him and his noble Friend the better. They must raise the pay of these men and give them conditions of service somewhere between those offered by the Services now and those in industry. I do not suggest that they should pay what industry pays. If a man joins one of the Services he joins because he likes the life and all that goes with it. This matter ought to be inquired into by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, or a Royal Commission should be set up to get out an early report on how to get men into the Service. Otherwise, we shall be throwing £500 million down the drain. It will be a waste of money unless we do the job properly.
  We must have 100 per cent. interception and destruction of guided missiles. The job cannot be done by fighters. I am sorry that there has been a cut this year in development and research. Money spent on development and research is money well invested from every point of view. The Russians took all the key men from Peenemunde in 1945. There were at least 1,000. They had weapons which then
  could come over and land in London 200 miles distant. What have they got today? What have we got today? What have the Americans got? But we note that research and development is being cut.
  This is not good enough. We can have all the plans we like for a Welfare State

  1623
  and talk about all the things that people want, but unless this Island can be defended properly nothing else really matters. People who decry the spending of money on armaments are wrong, provided that the money is well spent. We do not intend to attack anybody or create war. We want arms as a deterrent and as a defence. The only real defence against air attack is the bomber. We must work with the Americans—and we expect them to work with us—while retaining a large measure of control over our strategic bomber force.
  We should bear in mind that the Russians have had a four-engined jet bomber flying since 1948, nearly 5 years ago. We know that they have a high performance twin-jet bomber. They have a fighter, the Lavochkin, which has almost the same configuration as the MIG 15. It has a speed of 630 to 650 miles an hour with a 30 degree sweptback wing. Do not let us under-rate the design or the quality of Russian aircraft. We read the other day the report about the MIG 15 which landed in Denmark. We were told in the Press report that the aircraft was of high quality and finish. We know from reports from Korea and elsewhere that it has certainly got a good performance, and probably it is not their latest aircraft.
  Conditions have changed vastly since the last war. Many of the staffs and senior officers plan on the basis of what happened in the last war. Far more imagination must be shown in the approach to these matters by the staffs and the staff colleges. Far more brains must be employed. In the last war the Royal Air Force played for time to allow the Army to be built up and the great attack to be made. It will not happen again.
  If we take a 20-mile circle round London and a 20-mile circle round Manchester, we find that there are more people living in the Manchester area than around London. These two areas, coupled with six seaports if attacked by atom bombs, would be in chaos, and Britain would virtually be finished. Are the Government satisfied that, with the bomber force we have, we can find the Russian targets? Do we know where they are? [Interruption.] I suppose the hon. Gentleman who speaks on these
  1624
  subjects would know; he probably does, but I do not know. If he does know, let him be patriotic and tell the Government.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: It is true that I have been in Soviet Russia recently, but I do not know where their bases are. I can corroborate my hon. Friend's statement. I have seen jet bombers and fighters, and the prospect thoroughly appals me, and I quite agree with the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Air Commodore Harvey: British seaports, apart from being bombed, could be mined, and supplies of food and raw materials would be cut off from Britain. There is no need for Russia to have 300 submarines to go out into the Atlantic to sink shipping, because the ships would not get to the ports.
  In the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force very little realism is being shown, and the attitude is much the same as it was 25 years ago. The ships will not be attacked because they cannot get into the picture. Why are we then spending £380 million or thereabuts on the Royal Navy? We are all proud of the British Navy and its traditions. We are proud of the Army, which is an excellent weapon in a cold war, but what is it really going to do in the next war?
  I suggest that many of the tasks of the British Army today could be carried
  out by police. For heaven's sake, let us build up the Royal Air Force and make it efficient. I do not accept the argument that things cannot be done for the Royal Air Force, either for Bomber Command or Fighter Command, because of the shortage of money. If we drive down to Portsmouth and Gosport, we see the ships cocooned there. The Vanguard is now off to Lisbon, Madeira, to show the flag, give cocktail parties. What good is it doing? We have land-based aircraft to do some of these jobs, and I hope this matter will be ventilated next week.
  We want much more thinking by the Minister of Defence on integrating these services and spending the money where it is most required. A war can only be won by
  a balanced air arm, and we must substitute new methods for the old. It has been said that the bomber force has to be a much smaller force than we thought of before in terms of the 1,000

  1625
  bomber raids. We could not afford that now, and we would not have the weapons with which to carry it out.
  I believe that the bombers now being built in this country are far better than the American bombers, and I should like to see the Americans come over here and say "Cannot we get together on this and build these machines, perhaps partially here and the remainder in America, and by that means see that the best weapons are available?" Whether those machines are British or American does not matter. We cannot afford to be proud when we hear of things such as we read of in the newspapers today concerning a British aircraft being shot down.
  When it comes to the question of the cost of aircraft, the cost is decreased if we are able to give an order for a reasonable number, because they come out very much cheaper than a mere handful. If only a few are being built, there is no incentive to tool up and make the jigs, but the Government have shown courage in this matter by following up what the Americans are doing by placing larger orders to get the production lines going. Then, after 12 or 18 months, if either the international situation or the policy is changed, there can be a cut and production turned on to something of later design.
  That is the answer to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, who said that we are always progressing. It is not necessary to go through the whole programme, because a cut can be made in the middle in order to go on with the latest developments. We should not leave it to scientists and technicians to go on improving; they will go on doing it for 10 years, if we let them, producing improvements all the time, but we will never get the aircraft into the air.
  Another factor which would help to
  speed up production would be, instead of building two prototypes, to build no less than six. That would enable them to go to the squadrons and to get through all their Service flying very much quicker than waiting for aircraft to come off the production line.
  I view with great concern the technical branch of the Royal Air Force. I know that steps are being taken to improve this branch, but unless the key men are available the whole system will break
  1626
  down. I am told that at the moment a small number of R.A.F. officers are being trained as engineering officers, and that the amount of money being spent at the station where they are being trained is less than what is being spent at the Civil Aeronautical College.
  I hope my hon. Friend will press the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Air to train not 30 or 40 men as engineering officers, but hundreds, because unless the R.A.F. has trained technicians, officers and men, in four or five years' time, the Royal Air Force will never fly.
  Britain has some of the best prototypes in the world, but we are slow in getting them into production. I believe that we must put on two or three shifts now in order to get our fighters and bombers produced, and that we must pay special attention to training technicians. If it is not possible to get technicians trained in the R.A.F., then we may have seriously to consider using civil firms of aircraft manufacturers to maintain the aircraft for the R.A.F. After all, the Air Force today is becoming more static. Owing to the range and endurance of aircraft becoming greater, more aircraft will remain in this country, and we could quite well use civilians. I have no doubt at all concerning their loyalty.
  I suggest that the medical standards set for technicians should be lowered. They are far too high. After all, even a man with one leg can be a good technician and a man with brains. We must have new thoughts about this matter. There is no time to waste and we cannot afford to wait year after year for the Air Estimates in order to see this plan formulated. Something must be done and done quickly.
  Colonel Ralph Clarke: My hon. and gallant Friend has enunciated the doctrine that in modern war the Army is really outdated and outmoded. If that is the case, how is it that in Korea, where the United Nations have overwhelming air superiority, they are yet unable to achieve a decision?
  Air Commodore Harvey: The reason is that the bomber force of the Allies is not allowed to bomb the bases of the enemy; they are restricted in their operations. If we got into a total war atomic bombs would undoubtedly be used, but they have not been used in Korea.
  9.44 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Shackleton: I find myself in substantial agreement with much of what the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has said, and I want at once to take up one very important point which is of great concern to this House, and indeed to the whole country. It is the dreadful incident that took place today, when one of our aircraft was apparently shot down in flames somewhere in Germany.
  The Press of the world and this country are waiting for some official statement to be made about the incident, and I am wondering whether there is any prospect of a Government statement being made about it in this House before the end of this debate. We are given to understand that the aircraft fell actually within the Soviet zone. If that is so, it is a matter of great importance for it may be that we were technically to blame. But let us have a statement on the matter before feelings get too exacerbated, for it is a matter which, coming so soon after the incident of the American plane, gives very great cause for alarm.
  Among the other points which emerged in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield is the difficulty which we have in these debates of discussing matters about which there is a general security ban. Indeed, I was rather shocked by the light and jolly way in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, when asked a question earlier in the debate, replied that he might put the details in the Library but that they were almost certainly covered by security and he thought it might not be possible to do so.
  This is the difficulty to which the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) referred. Incidentally, we welcomed his civilian intervention in this debate. I see that the Army, in the person of the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) has disappeared again. The hon. Member for Louth proceeded to say with great fury and energy that it was the duty of the House to examine these Estimates in detail. For ten minutes he said that it was the duty of the House to do so, but he did not do so himself, beyond a rather wild and general attack on waste of money by air marshals.
  1628
  I would assure him—and I have had some recent experience in the Air Force —that the financial tightness is much greater than it ever was during the war, for instance, with regard to the use of transport. When we hear this talk about combing the tail, with which I am in general sympathy, one should remember that today in many cases there is on the staff one man doing a job which in wartime called for 20 or 30 people to do it. The hon. Member for Louth ought to withdraw his unkind reference to this much maligned race of air marshals.
  Mr. Osborne: I did not attack air marshals, generals, or admirals. I said that it was quite natural that with their responsibilities they should over-estimate their need and that it was the duty of this House to check those needs from a financial point of view.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Osborne: If I am challenged on that, I do not withdraw it at all. If the hon. Member cares to look at the Prime Minister's latest volume of war memoirs, "Closing the Ring," page 365, he will see there a telegram from the Prime Minister to Admiral Mountbatten, in which the Prime Minister said quite clearly to the Admiral how astonished he was that overwhelming forces were required and that far more were needed than he thought necessary. If the hon. Member will not take it from me, perhaps he will take it from the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Shackleton: I am sure that the hon. Member is very grateful to me for providing him with the opportunity of making a second speech, and he must be gratified by the cheers of the ranks of Tuscany in the shape of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). We take the hon. Member's point that there is general need for economy, but I do not think that it should go out of this House that there is a continued urge to spend, and indeed some success on the part of people in the Royal Air Force and the Armed Forces in spending a great deal of money.
  Mr. Burden: I was very interested in the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). The telegram to which he referred in fact was addressed to Admiral Mountbatten when he was in a command of which I

  1629
  was a member. At that time the Admiral was really beginning to appreciate the forces ranged against us, and due to his appreciation and the weapons which were sent out, the Japanese were defeated in that area.
  Mr. Shackleton: I am very grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, and I will proceed with my speech. I should like to develop some of the points which I had intended to make before I was stimulated by hon. Members opposite. I believe that there is very strong Treasury and financial control in the Armed Forces against extravagance. That does not mean that there may not be a great deal of wasted effort and bad organisation, but I am reasonably certain that there is no extravagance.
  I turn now to the position of the Services in connection with careers and similar matters. There is no doubt that both officers and airmen are finding a great deal of stringency in their lives owing to the enormous rise in prices in recent years since they received their last general pay increase.
  I should like to turn to a matter which I know will appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire because it concerns the lot of the National Service man. I hope the Under-Secretary will comment on this point when he replies. I am one of those who are in favour of National Service, but I recently had reported to me an incident to which I have given a good deal of thought; indeed, I wondered whether it would be in the best interests of the Air Force and the public generally to mention it in the House, but it is so serious that I feel obliged to do so.
  I understand that on a certain date at West Kirby, the new intake of National Service men in two huts in one flight in a certain squadron, details of which I am prepared to give privately to the Under-Secretary, were kept standing at attention immediately after they had arrived and had gone to their billets, from 5 o'clock until 10 o'clock in the evening.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Scandalous; shameful!
  Mr. Shackleton: I was told this by a certain person who is strongly in favour of National Service and who indeed has
  1630
  signed on as a Regular. Whether this
  be true or not I do not know, but I am satisfied that there is a prima facie case for investigation. I feel, however, that if it be true it shows the most scandalous lack of discipline——
  Mr. Dudley Williams: I cannot believe it for a moment. I think it is only fair to the Service and to the officers concerned that the hon. Member should give the name of the station so that the matter can be investigated.
  Mr. Shackleton: I have already given the name of the station and I am prepared to give details of the squadron and of the flight, but I do not believe it would be fair to do so publicly. If this incident is true it is very serious, and I believe that it is on all fours with certain other incidents which have been reported from time to time.
  I do not believe that any responsible officer could possibly have tolerated such a thing, and if it be true—I have chosen my words very carefully and moderately —I feel that it must be a case of an n.c.o. who grossly exceeded his powers because I have heard that it happened in the case of two huts only. Indeed, the n.c.o. may not have been under proper control, and this may have been an isolated incident. I am told that four of the men actually fainted. In the rest of the camp the men were properly allowed to remain seated on their beds while various inquiries were made and duties were explained.
  Mr. Ward: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me notice that he would raise this matter. Of course, if he really feels that there is a prima facie case I shall be glad to have a thorough investigation made, but I have been able to make some preliminary inquiries— naturally not very thorough—and these inquiries show, so far as I can tell, that there is no foundation whatever for the allegation.
  Mr. Shackleton: Naturally I shall be delighted if there is no foundation for it, but I heard of this incident in circumstantial form, and I would go so far as to say that I believe that there is rather unnecessarily strict discipline and pushing around of these new National Service intakes.

  1631
  We in Parliament have taken a very serious responsibility in calling up these young men against their will and putting them into the Forces. I happen to believe that it is necessary. I believe that it can be and, indeed, is conducted with humanity, but I understand there is a great deal of homesickness when the men first arrive. Many of them have never been away from home in their lives, and when they are off parade every effort should be made to bring some human friendship into their lives. They should not be chased around and given only 10 minutes in which to eat their breakfast and so on, reports of which practices have been reasonably substantiated.
  I welcome the Under-Secretary's denial that this sort of thing could not happen. I should like his words to go out from this House so that it can be very clearly understood that if this has happened in the Air Force in the past it should not happen again.
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman says that these men were kept standing to attention for several hours. Were they on parade? To keep them on parade is one thing, but to keep them standing to attention for several hours is quite bestial, and it requires careful examination.
  Mr. Shackleton: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was here when I first raised this matter. I said they were standing at attention by their beds in their billets, whereas in the other billets they were allowed to sit down. This is probably an isolated incident, but I am told that four men fainted. I am very jealous of the good name of the Air Force and I should not have brought this matter forward—indeed I consulted one or two people to see whether it was right to do so—if I did not think it was important that the Under-Secretary should make a strong statement condemning such a thing.
  Now I want to turn to certain other aspects of life in the Air Force. There is a particular problem concerning what is known as the career course for officers. After four or five years, when a man has become specialised in a particular subject, such as intelligence, in the interests of his career in the Air Force, he is liable to be switched to adjutant or other duties. I would ask the Under-Secretary to look at this question very closely, because I
  1632
  can tell him from personal knowledge that it affects the efficiency of the discharge of certain duties which call for a degree of specialisation that cannot be obtained by switching persons from one job to another every few years.
  I wish the Under-Secretary would do something to simplify officers' uniforms. I am told that nowadays they have a choice of five different uniforms and that there are no fewer than four different types of tropical kit. This imposes expense both on the country and the people concerned, and some attention should be given to this matter with a view to simplification.
  In the strategic and military field, the Under-Secretary referred to the fact that he is hoping very soon to introduce the Provost and Vampire training schemes so that he will be able to dispense with advanced flying training schools. Can he give us any indication when this project is coming into force? I know it may be a difficult matter but I do not think that any question of security can stand in the way of information being given. It is a matter of real importance and it is the sort of information that he can very properly give to the House. He also referred to the very interesting possibility of the introduction of some form of almost elementary jet trainer. We should like to know a little more about that.
  On the question of helicopters, it really is too bad that the Air Force should have to borrow them from the Navy. The Air Staff should look into this matter again. The Air Force should have their own helicopters and should build up on them.
  I turn now to my annual subject of Coastal Command. I will leave the subject of P.R.U. because I see that the P.R.U. lobby is well represented here tonight. From personal observation I would say that the system of command under N.A.T.O. is working reasonably well and that the system of communications which has been built up is quite encouraging. There is one difficulty involved in these gigantic international operations. It is extremely difficult to man the necessary control rooms and to find the staffs for the period of the operation except by calling back people from civilian life—and not even from the ordinary Reserve.

  1633
  It has always been said that the Z men and G men are wasting assets. I suggest that in this field we should build up some equivalent to the fighter control units. This is a matter which calls for high priority. I suggest that in Coastal Command there should be control units as part of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, or some such organisation, which could be trained and kept available for an emergency.
  We had the usual gesture from the Under-Secretary of State—a reference to Coastal Command—and we had the usual reference to Sonobuoys and homing weapons. We are getting a little tired of hearing this trotted out every year. We have been hearing about Sonobuoys and homing weapons in the Air Force ever since 1943, and we should like to know how they are progressing, and whether they are reaching a stage of operational effectiveness.
  No reference has been made to the possibility of using guided air missiles in this field, and we must not forget that the Germans used them with great effectiveness in maritime operations. There was a famous occasion when an Italian battleship which was coming over to the allied side was sunk; and we lost —I believe it was H.M.S. Stork—in the Bay of Biscay through a guided missile of that kind.
  I should like to make some comments on the anti-shipping aspect, and I do so in full realisation of what the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) said about fighting the next war in terms of the last war. Unfortunately, this is in terms of a very early part of the last war. A role for which Coastal Command is particularly well fitted but for which it is not equipped, is the strike role. It is ludicrous for aircraft carriers—as happened in the recent operation "Mainbrace"— to be stooging around in the North Sea, which is within easy range of land-based aircraft, for anti-shipping operations, if they are likely to occur at all in a future war.
  This work is more easily covered by land-based aircraft of the type of the strike wings which we had in the last war—aircraft which can easily he switched to another role entirely, should the general situation require it. They
  1634
  could be switched to a land tactical role, for instance, I suggest that here is an appalling waste which raises once again the whole question of Air-Navy and of inter-Service co-operation. Last year, it will be recalled, there was a suggestion for an inquiry into the position of Coastal Command. That Amendment was withdrawn. I suggest that there should be an inquiry into inter-Service relationship and into the question of how far the Navy should continue the wide range of activities in which they are engaging now and into whether greater economies can be obtained by the use of aircraft.
  In conclusion, one of the depressing things about these debates on the Estimates is that hon. Members are inclined to talk almost in terms of
  "when the war comes" and "if we do not gain victory." If there is one thing which these Estimates debates teach us it is the supreme necessity of preserving peace. I believe that an adequate Air Force and, in particular, an adequate Bomber Command is a real contribution towards maintaining that peace, and I hope that in these discussions—and the House has succeeded in this today—we shall not move into the more excited atmosphere which exists in certain countries, including some of our allies, and that we shall always continue these discussions convinced that by building a stronger Air Force we are building a stronger peace.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: I was very interested and somewhat alarmed when my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) intervened in the manner in which he did in this debate. When he was asked to supply facts regarding his allegations that there was almost always over-emphasis on the amount of equipment and the numbers of weapons and men needed by each Service, he returned to this Chamber with a copy of a signal that was sent by the Prime Minister in the last war to Admiral Mountbatten in 1943. I think that in fact he did not prove his point, but only made it appear how ridiculous it is for people other than commanders in the field to assess their requirements for certain engagements and actions. For it so happens that at that time I was on the staff of Admiral Mountbatten in South-East Asia and I know we were about to move over to the offensive.

  1635
  In my view, it is always far better if, when assessing the requirements for carrying out an attack on the enemy and moving over to the offensive, commanders rather err on the generous side. It is infinitely better that they should do that, and that one should be able to bring overwhelming fire power against the enemy, and so minimise one's own losses, and very rapidly force him on to the retreat, than to underestimate requirements so that what should be an offensive against the enemy turns into a defeat of one's own forces. I say that because it is essential, in my view, that the views of the commander in the field, based on intelligence and information which is available to him, should take precedence over others.
  Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend says I was foolish to make the statement I did. However, the statement I made has been totally exaggerated. I looked up what the Prime Minister himself said. He was also Minister of Defence. But he was not on the spot. He was doing exactly what my hon. Friend says is so foolish to be done. He is accusing, not me now, but the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Burden: I was very pleased that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) brought into this debate a sense of urgency. Those of us who have heard about the disaster—and I believe that it is a disaster—that has occurred today really felt that it was about time that a sense of urgency was brought into this debate. The Under-Secretary of State in his opening speech referred to the fact that air power is the supreme factor in our defence. I think that that will not be disagreed with by any Member in this Chamber now, but I do believe that this debate makes it clear that the forces which we have must be used efficiently and economically.
  Two years ago I raised in this House the problem of photographic reconnaissance, and I have persistently pressed the claims of that small but elite force within the Air Force ever since that date. When I came into the House I was joined by two Members who had flown in sorties over Germany and
  who were experienced in that matter. I found that at the last Election those who were making pleas for photographic reconnaissance were reinforced by the addition of my hon.
  1636
  Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Barber), who flew in a Spitfire in 1942 to Berlin, without armaments, and took photographs that were badly needed, and was subsequently shot down. He was taken prisoner, and kept in a prison camp till the end of the war. Why I point that out is to emphasise how necessary P.R.U. were in the last war, and how necessary I believe is modern equipment for that force today.
  I do not intend to go at any great length into the points I made two years ago, but I should like to quote one paragraph which I believe sums up the need for this Force:
  "In no small measure, intelligence for the higher direction of the war and the practical deployment, not only of our sailors, soldiers and airmen, but, also, our Civil Defence workers, was made possible by photographic intelligence. It gives the greatest advantage with the greatest economy of life and material. It did so in the last war, and I feel sure that in the next war it may well be even more important."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 317.]
  I believe that that is the case today. To bring the photographic reconnaissance squadrons in this country to the greatest state of efficiency means equiping them constantly with the fastest and most modern aircraft.
  These aircraft should be chosen rather from the drawing board than after they have been in squadron use. They must be aircraft that can reach out far over enemy territories; indeed, they must be able to fly as far over enemy territory as any of our bombers may be asked to go. They must also have the most modern camera equipment so that they can bring back the information we require. The men flying these aircraft must fly aircraft that are unarmed and must rely purely and simply on the height at which they fly, their speed, and their manoeuvrability to get back after ranging out and taking the photographs of which so much of our intelligence must depend. They must therefore be aircraft which must always have the edge of any enemy aircraft they are likely to meet.
  Can my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, just as the speed of aircraft has increased, so there has been an improvement in the cameras now available to the photographic reconnaissance squadron? Has there been any great technical advance in night photography? I should also like to be assured

  1637
  that radar photography is being investigated, and to know how far we have advanced in that important sphere. I have pressed constantly for these squadrons to be re-equipped, and it is gratifying to observe from the Secretary of State's Memorandum that he hopes the squadrons will be re-equipped with Canberras this year. But I ask that we have a definite promise that they will be re-equipped this year, for I believe it is a matter of the highest possible priority that they should have the capacity to reach out, as they must reach out, if they are asked to operate.
  We have been told that we shall have a smallish highly efficient bomber force. If that is true it makes even more clearly the point I am trying to make. It is absolutely necessary that no expenditure of effort shall be avoided if our bomber squadrons are to be small and yet highly efficient. Therefore, if there is an outbreak of hostilities it is essential that, with highly-trained forces and so few aircraft, they shall be sent only against those targets that can pay the biggest dividends with the smallest possible chance of loss.
  In my view, failure to penetrate and photograph enemy territory will mean much higher losses and very much wasted effort if we are called upon to defend our shores. It will give the enemy the advantage of surprise. Photographic reconnaissance in the last war often denied to the enemy that advantage. It disclosed in fact what was going on; where sites for rockets were being built on the Continent; it told the story of Peenemunde, it made the Admiralty aware of the movement of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and enabled our bombers to go out and stop them before they could do harm to our forces.
  Submarine bases, warship movements and many of the factories whose presence at the moment is unknown to us can be discovered only by photographic reconnaissance. The door of Russia is closed to many of the ordinary means of intelligence, and I believe, therefore, that PRU must be made one of, if not the most, efficient forces we have today.
  I was given a great opportunity of drawing the attention of hon. Members to the great work which this force can
  1638
  do after operation "Floodlight" had taken place. As hon. Members will know, a very interesting, instructive and useful exhibition of photographs was placed in the Library. Now an exhibition of photographs taken by photographic reconnaissance, with the interpretations, lessons and intelligence which it gives us, is in Regent Street. But those photographs were taken under peacetime conditions. They were
  taken by aircraft not likely to be harrassed and shot down by the enemy. We have been told that 82 Squadron has returned from Kenya after carrying out an aerial survey lasting five years of African territories which had been largely unmapped before. That is a wonderful performance. But not one of those aircraft would get back if we were at war and it was necessary to send it out to take photographs over enemy territory.
  We have to recognise that the aircraft
  which these men are flying today are, from an operational point of view, obsolete. The pilots are men of high skill, courage and character, and if they are to be of any use to us—and surely that is their ultimate purpose—they must be able to carry out and extend their range over enemy territory and bring back, in spite of any opposition that may be launched against them, the information which we may require.
  When they bring back the photographs it is also essential that there should be an establishment at which the interpretation and the intelligence that can be gathered from these photographs shall be gathered quickly and dispersed to those forces which can best use them. Any improvement in equipment that can be found in order to extend the efficiency of this most vital arm of our defence should, I believe, be incorporated into the equipment in use, without regard to cost.
  I pressed the Secretary of State in the last Government, and I have pressed the present Secretary of State, to give his constant attention to this unit, and I shall continue to press the Government until I am completely satisfied that we have in the modern photographic reconnaissance unit one which can successfully play the part that it alone can play if we are again engaged in war.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: Like several other hon. Members opposite, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) has put forward arguments which, if accepted, would mean a considerable increase above the Royal Air Force expenditure which we are now discussing. While it may be possible for him and many of his hon. Friends, and also many of my hon. Friends, to view with equanimity the £500 million that we are voting, I am not quite so happy about it.
  Their attitude is that defence, whether it concerns the Royal Navy, the Army or the Royal Air Force Estimates, should always be discussed in isolation from other important matters about which our people are equally concerned. I cannot agree that Estimates of this kind and magnitude should go through without any criticism at a time when we are increasing school children's meal charges and reducing expenditure on other valuable activities.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Which Vote is the hon. Gentleman discussing?
  Mr. Fernyhough: I am discussing the readiness of the House to vote £500 million for the Royal Air Force while it is unwilling to provide money for equally desirable and essential activities. I know that hon. Members are anxious to go home, but the more interruptions I have the longer they will remain here.
  I am perturbed that, at a time when national production is declining, this Estimate has risen by £60 million compared with last year. This is bound to reflect itself in the standard of living of our people and to make life more intolerable for the vast majority of them. It may be said that we must vote this money because every other nation is doing the same sort of thing. I agree that a world arms race is taking place, but, no matter who began it, I am very anxious to know where it will end.
  We are told that we are seeking peace through strength and that we need this great striking power and great destructive power because it ensures peace; in other words, we are seeking to obtain peace through fear. I do not believe that we can establish a decent and perpetual peace through fear, because it means that we seek to dominate rather than to negotiate.
  Mr. Osborne: Does the hon. Member think that we can obtain a just and secure peace through weakness?
  Mr. Fernyhough: It all depends. I hope to deal with that interjection later.
  Some method must be found of calling a halt not only to our vast military expenditure but also to the vast military expenditure taking place throughout the world. We know ourselves how near to economic collapse the big arms burden has brought our country. We know how the programme initiated two years ago has had to be substantially reduced, not because we have got the guns, tanks and aeroplanes that the majority in this House thought we ought to have, but because it was realised that if we were to get the tanks, the aeroplanes and the other arms to meet what was thought were the desired numbers, it would have meant economic bankruptcy and collapse.
  I want to put a point of view tonight which may not be shared by many in this House, but in which I very sincerely believe. I believe that we in this country, the Americans and all the Western Powers have over-estimated the military strength of Communism but have under-estimated the cause of Communism. No matter how big our arms may become, how powerful our Navy, how destructive our Air Force, or if we have the finest, strongest and biggest military machine in the world—none of this is going to give this generation or the next generation the peace we all want so long as three out of every five babies born in the world tonight are born into poverty, will live in poverty and will die in poverty. The poverty in the world today, particularly amongst the backward peoples and the coloured peoples of Africa and Asia, is much more likely to break the peace than the military strength of Russia.
  I remember very well during the 1926 miners' strike the great miners' leader, Arthur Cook, said, "You cannot grow the flower of peace in the garden of poverty." International peace will not grow in a world of poverty. Cook said, "It is no good appealing for industrial peace at a time when one million miners and their wives and families are starving." Equally, it is no good for any of us in the world today appealing for peace as long as there is great poverty throughout two-thirds of the world which cannot be dealt with because we richer nations

  1641
  are unable to give economic help to these backward parts while so much of our resources go into re-armament.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) faced up much more realistically than other hon. Members from the Government side of the House which have spoken to what was going to happen in the event of war coming. In fact, some of the speeches made tended to indicate that the next war is about to start. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield said that during the last war 90 per cent. of the bombers got through and that in the event of a third world war it would be necessary to have a fighter force which would reverse that and prevent 90 per cent. of the bombers from getting through. Even if only 10 per cent. got through, what would that mean to this country? Let us consider what Senator Duff said in Philadelphia on 30th January:
  "The explosion of a single test-tube wiped out a little island in the Pacific, last November 1st. This new explosive was a thousand times stronger than the atom bombs which destroyed two Japanese cities. … If this explosive were put into an cobalt shell and exploded it would kill every living thing within thousands of miles."
  If only one bomber gets through armed with one of those bombs it will be the last of this Island.
  Let us see what was said by the American corresponding to the Secretary of State for Air. On 16th January this year, according to the "Manchester Guardian." Mr. Thomas Finletter, the outgoing Air Force Secretary, said:
  "The human race will blow itself off the globe unless some international system is devised to control modern weapons. Unless such a system is devised, and whether we win or not, civilisation cannot survive. No one could spend nearly three years dealing with methods of trying to destroy men as he had done without having a deep concern to see that the dreadful things we have helped to achieve are never used."
  It is time this country, and America and Russia and all the other countries realised that modern warfare is becoming hellish and utterly destructive, and we must seek some other method of settling international differences. It might have been right and proper in centuries gone by for men to try to settle their differences with bows and arrows or rifles by going to war. But modern scientific achievements are such that men who can contemplate
  1642
  what might happen in a third world war without fear and trembling are men devoid of imagination. It is not wrong that someone should mention these things and try to retain a little sanity in the world.
  Mr. Osborne: Will the hon. Member answer my question now?
  Mr. Fernyhough: I have answered the hon. Member's question. The hon. Member thinks he can kill Communism by bombs. I say that Communism can be killed only by removing the causes of it.
  Mr. Osborne: I asked the hon. Member a simple question, whether he thought we could have a lasting peace by having weak armed forces?
  Mr. Fernyhough: I do not think we could possibly denude this country's defences while other people are armed. On the other hand, if it is a question of defence, why are we not building atom bomb-proof shelters?
  Why are not we making sure that if war comes there will be some protection for the people from the bombers which get through? As a matter of fact, we are spending no money in that way. We are taking it for granted that there will be heavy casualties and terrific destruction. I believe that that is so. I believe that militarily we shall be written off within a mater of a week. I believe that the power of the atomic bomb is such that it will need only one or two to paralyse the entire community.
  I come to the question of manpower. The Minister was a bit sore tonight when I suggested to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that pressure had been brought to bear in the past on National Service men to engage for a longer term of service, and that some of the pressure had been unfair. Last year, I think that I proved to the House more or less conclusively that that had been happening.
  I wish to ask the Under-Secretary to tell us what are the activities of M.I.5 in connection with National Service men. I have a friend who, having won his way through to the university and having obtained an M.A. degree, was called to the Forces. He joined the R.A.F. He went before a selection board where potential young officers are chosen. He

  1643
  passed in every respect and was told that he would hear further within two or three weeks.
  About three months went by. He did not hear anything, and then, as a result of my approach to the Under-Secretary, I was told that the boy had been turned down. The Under-Secretary was satisfied with the decision because, he said, he had seen the papers. He said that everything was right and proper and that there had been no political discrimination. The boy went to Hednesford. Again he was chosen to go before a selection board. The members of the board were amazed to learn that he had been before. When the papers were sent for they were amazed to find that he had not been accepted.
  Again he was sent for a medical examination and again he was passed A.1. I could quote what the adjutant was supposed to have said about him, but I will not delay the House. In every respect this youth should have made one of the admirable, keen, intelligent young men that the Under-Secretary said he wanted to see in the Air Force this afternoon. But he has committed a crime. As a student, during his first three months at university, he was associated with the Communist Party. That was at least some four or five years ago. He has also done what many other young students in this country have done. He has been to Eastern Europe. He has his own views of what he saw there. He has a right to have them.
  Although that young man has every one of the qualifications mentioned this afternoon, because he had a short honeymoon with the Communist Party and visited Eastern Europe with others and reported objectively on what he saw—condemning that which is evil and praising that which is good, and not condemning everything wholesale—he has been debarred from appointment. He has been debarred not because he has not the qualifications, but because in my opinion M.I.5 are interfering and suggesting that he might be very dangerous. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear." I would say then they must believe in political discrimination.
  Mr. Burden: I did not want to intervene but, before the hon. Member makes these allegations, surely he should remember that the security of our Forces
  1644
  is most important and that even if one person who might have reformed is kept out, surely that is better than that the lives of men be lost because someone might betray or commit sabotage?
  Mr. Fernyhough: It is a most shocking thing to pretend that an intelligent boy, who won his way through to the grammar school, and ultimately wins State scholarships, has not the education to permit him having sufficient "savvy" to change his mind and to know what is good and what is evil and to act decently. What is the use pretending that we want to weaken and to destroy the Communist Party when those who turn against it because they cannot accept its philosophy or methods are condemned for so doing?
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Would the hon. Member have former members of the Fascist Party in the Forces?
  Mr. Fernyhough: Who was it that flirted with Mosley and Franco more than some hon. Members of the party opposite? I say that we have no more right to hold this against this young man than any other youthful indiscretion. His mother and father and his family are decent, working-class people, and if it is to be a question of every little incident in the past of any person in this country being brought up and held against that person, then it is a sorry day for many hon. Members on that side of this House— those who sided with Mosley and Franco, and so on.
  I beg the Under-Secretary to look into this case; I beg him to believe me when I say that I think a great injustice is being done to this boy. I stake my life on his honesty and integrity. His upbringing has been such that to betray anybody would be something he could not undertake. I just cannot accept the idea that, because for a few brief months as a young student he thought the practice of Communism was a good thing, he should be condemned for ever. I am very glad that he has turned away from it, but perhaps hon. Members opposite would have preferred him to have continued his association. If not, then they have no right to pass this judgment on him. Therefore, I hope that the Under-Secretary will look into his case; he has had it in the office for several weeks and I think that it is time that this boy knew where he stands.

  1645
  I should like to conclude by saying that I believe that peace will depend much more upon our solving this problem of world poverty than on having great engines of war. Millions of people look to President Truman's Point Four Plan and the Colombo Plan, and millions are going to be disappointed because these two aspirations cannot be carried out simultaneously with world re-armament. I believe that we should have President Truman's fourth point and be prepared to give priority to the Colombo Plan; and I cannot be quite so happy in passing these Estimates for a sum of £500 or £600 million as the majority of hon. Members in this House appear to be in wanting to speed them on their way. I think that we are paying too high a price, and that unless there is a scaling down of military expenditure, not only in this country but in every country, it will mean not only poverty but, ultimately, revolution from almost one end of the world to the other.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: I was very glad that towards the end of his speech the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) referred to the amount of money involved in these Estimates. I must say that I am surprised to see only about five back benchers opposite when we are discussing a matter of such importance.
  Mr. Fernyhough: There have not been even five on the benches opposite tonight.
  Mr. Williams: There are two points in the hon. Member's speech to which I wish to refer. I was interested to hear him say that in his opinion we were at one period pretty near to financial collapse owing to the rearmament programme. I presume he was referring to the period towards the end of 1951. I am sure that my hon. Friends on this side of the House are very grateful to him for this admission, for it is the first time that any hon. Member of the party opposite has ever admitted that there was any financial crisis at all when the present Government came into office.
  The second point was the hon. Member's statement that he thought we in this
  country were over-estimating the power of the Russian military strength. I think that is a most dangerous thing to say, because I do not think we can
  1646
  over-estimate the dangers that exist in that powerful military weapon. The Minister responsible for the aircraft industry of the U.S.S.R. has openly boasted that last year they made 22,000 aircraft, half of which were military planes, and something like 63,000 aero-engines. It would be quite wrong if we in this House allowed it to be thought that in our view the strength of the Russian Air Force was being over-estimated. It is a most powerful weapon and a most dangerous threat to peace.
  The part of the Estimates to which I particularly wish to address my remarks is Vote 7, which refers to aircraft and stores. The figure involved is something like £266 million and represents the equipment for the Royal Air Force, including, of course, the important item of £140 million for aircraft. I am particularly concerned to see that this money is well spent. I am also concerned about the research being carried out in this country into aircraft and aero engines. I am far from happy about the future.
  I believe that at the present moment we are to a great extent living on our fat, and that we should pay particular attention to the necessity for new developments in regard to aircraft and aeroengines, particularly now that we know Russia has jet aeroplanes. The lead we had at the end of the war has been dissipated, and a very great effort indeed will be needed by the Service, the research departments of the Government and by the industry itself if we are to recapture that lead which we so needlessly threw away shortly after the war.
  The most important expenditure to be considered in regard to aircraft is expenditure on research. If any reduction is to be made of the money that can be spent on aircraft and aero-engines, I hope that there will be no reduction whatever on research. Although the international situation may ease—and I hope that it will—that easing may well be temporary. We must not say then for a moment, "Let us start cutting our costs and reducing expenditure on research." That is the moment to press on with research and, if necessary, cut down production orders.
  But I am not satisfied that the money spent on research in this country is being properly spent. It is quite right that the most basic research should be done in

  1647
  establishments run by the State, but when research is carried out there is always the danger that it may be done in watertight departments. I say this with great caution because I have great respect for the scientific world, but there are a tremendous number of scientists who, when charged with carrying out research into a certain matter, are inclined to look upon it as only an interesting experiment and not a means to an end in the form of a completed aircraft or some other production.
  There is great danger if research is kept in water-tight departments. This tendency to keep it within those departments is increased when the research is done in Government research centres. I believe that the United States handle this problem far better than we do. The Americans are inclined to bring in production firms at a much earlier stage than we are inclined to do so that their production lines can be arranged. I believe that the production position in this country is made considerably worse than it need be because so much of the research into aircraft is done by a department divorced from the Ministry.
  I suggest to the Under-Secretary that he might consider whether it is desirable that some of these research departments should be brought back from the control of the Ministry of Supply to the control of the Air Ministry, under whose control they were before the war. I have no doubt that it was necessary for the production and research departments of the Air Ministry to be removed from the Air Ministry and placed under the control of the Ministry of Aircraft Production during the war.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the attack which the hon. Member is making on British scientists—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO"]— does he not agree that the performance of British scientists during the war was very much at variance with his argument?
  Mr. Williams: I have the greatest respect for scientists, and during the war I was in charge of a team of them. I was saying that at the moment there was a tendency among many scientists to keep developments in water-tight departments. But I have nothing but respect for scientists. The whole future of this
  1648
  country depends upon the basic work which they do. I believe that while it was necesary under the stress of war to transfer research departments——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am very reluctant to stop the hon. Member, but surely that comes under the Ministry of Supply Estimates, Class VI, Vote 10, page 131, and is not in order on this Vote.
  Mr. Williams: I am referring to the aeroplanes produced for the Air Ministry under Vote 7, and I was concerned to see that we have the right aeroplanes and the right engines. Surely I am in order to draw attention to some of the dangers that may exist?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It was the particular point on page 121 of Vote 7 of the Estimates, which says,
  "Expenditure in connection with research and development is borne by the Vote for the Ministry of Supply (Civil Estimates, Class VI, Vote 10),"
  which made me come to this conclusion.
  Mr. Williams: Surely, in Vote 7 I can refer to questions of research, because that affects the finished article which comes to the Service?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am rather doubtful. The finished product comes after the research is over.
  Mr. Williams: Part of these aeroplanes are used for research for the Ministry of Supply and also for the R.A.F. Surely I can refer to questions of research?
  Whilst, therefore, I am in favour
  of research being pressed on. I do consider that if these research establishments could be brought back to the Air Ministry and be subjected to Air Ministry control we could get a more adequate control of them and greater economy. While we can save money where this is concerned, we should spend more money on the development of new classes of engines in the firms in the aircraft industry.
  At present, there are four main engine firms catering for the R.A.F. I would advocate a spreading of research orders in the industry generally over a greater number of firms. It is extremely difficult for four aircraft firms to handle all the research. If we spread aero-engine contracts over a greater number of firms, we would proceed more rapidly. I believe also we should increase the diversity of our research in this way.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I agree with the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) that nobody should attempt to under-estimate the Russian Air Force. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) gave a very realistic picture of the dangers we may have to face if our Air Force has to go into action against the air force of the Soviet Union. I do not believe he underestimated this danger. I believe that the realistic picture he presented should be very carefully noted, because I think it is essentially true.
  I remember on one occasion when we had one of our interchanges across the Floor of the House and I interrupted him, the hon. Gentleman said, "The Voice of Moscow." I wish I were, because there would be a different line of policy and this debate would be unnecessary. Last year, I had the opportunity of travelling twice across the Soviet Union by air.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman say why they gave him permission to go there when the Russian Embassy told me that there was not sufficient housing accommodation for me to go?
  Mr. Hughes: After so many years of difficulty in trying to get there, I could not possibly attempt to solve the hon. and gallant Gentleman's problems. I finally succeeded in getting into Soviet Russia. I travelled by air and I kept my eyes open at the various aerodromes —Minsk, Moscow, and then across to Siberia into China. I had an opportunity of seeing a good many aerodromes, and I saw a large number of aircraft on them. As I landed in Moscow, I saw some of these infernally speedy jet bombers. I did not like the look of them at all.
  Later, when I was in China, I saw the jet fighters sweep across the sky. I am not an authority on aircraft or on matters affecting military aviation, but I appreciate what I saw in the airports at Minsk, Kursk, Novgorod and Omsk and a few other places where we were detained by weather conditions. I had the utmost respect for what I saw, and if that is typical of the capacity of the Russians for organising aircraft production, their air force is indeed a menace
  1650
  which we must take seriously if ever we go to war.
  At the various airports I had an opportunity of talking with Russian airmen and of discussing, as far as I could, the various problems of war and peace, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield that they had precisely the same opinion—that their air force was not for aggression at all but purely for defence.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman raised a question which we have discussed in these debates before—that of guided missiles. I remember that the question was raised in these debates two years ago. The hon. Member who was to wind up for the Conservative Party on that occasion was the present Under-Secretary of State. He had waited for a long time in order to speak, and he followed me in the debate. On that occasion he said I had been correct in drawing attention to the danger of guided missiles and rockets. We are in exactly the same position today. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield did not suggest that the fighters could stop the rockets. All he could say was that we must have more research and that we must speed up our production of aircraft. But the Russians can also do that.
  Air Commodore Harvey: They are doing it.
  Mr. Hughes: And let us remember that it presents a problem of organisation and finance to this country.
  Air Commodore Harvey: They are shooting down British aircraft.
  Mr. Hughes: They may be shooting down British aircraft. I am not arguing that. What I am arguing is that there have been lamentable attempts in the House to explain how we could possibly catch up with the Russian aircraft industry in view of the fact that in some curious way, as has been said, under Communism, which we are told is so inefficient, they have been able since the war to build up a remarkably well-organised technical aircraft industry which the hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to fear.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Only four years ago Sir Stafford Cripps handed over 56 Rolls Royce Nene engines on a plate to the Russians to build up their jet air force.
  Mr. Hughes: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that is a contribution towards how we are to face this problem now he is welcome to it, but he is evading the question. He has posed the question very dramatically and honestly, and now he is trying to run away from it.
  The problem is how we can keep pace with the enormous productivity of the Russians with our present lack of technicians and finance. If this problem is tackled along conventional lines, what hope is there of speeding up our aircraft industry? The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested having three shifts. How far will that help us? The Russians can have three shifts too, and with many more men. If we speed up our aircraft production we shall have to face the fact that the Russians can do it too, with a very large population and an increasing number of technical experts.
  What contribution has come from either side this evening? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) pointed out that one of the new bombers costs £400,000. This is the first debate in which any figure has been given for the cost of a bomber. When my right hon. and learned Friend was in office he was very shy and very coy about it, but now we know that if we are to have a large number of these new bombers, 1,000 of them will cost us £400 million. But then we heard that the Russians produced 1,000 aicraft of a certain kind last year. I suggest that means that we want at least another 1,000. I do not suppose the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield will object to that. But if we need another 1,000 aircraft, that is £400 million more on the Budget of this country. How is it going to be done?
  Air Commodore Harvey: Take it off the Army.
  Mr. Hughes:: I quite agree there, but when we come to the Army Estimates they will say, "Take it off the Air Force," and when we come to the Navy they will say. "Don't take it off the Navy."
  Air Commodore Harvey: Make up your mind.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is the most realistic speaker
  1652
  in these debates, and he has come to the conclusion, which I believe is quite right, that we must face the whole concept of defence afresh. Armies, navies and air forces have to be looked at again in the light of modern developments in the evolution of war, and here we come to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), who brought to the debate a fresh mind and some old suggestions that I made about three years ago. I know that I have cast a lot of pearls about in the early hours of the morning during defence debates, but I never expected that they would be picked up by the hon. Member for Louth.
  Today the hon. Member comes along with what I believe is the perfectly reasonable suggestion—greeted with a great deal of animosity on his side—that we should have an independent inquiry, and that we should approach this from the point of view of the civilian who, after all, has to pay these enormous bills. I think he is quite right. The hon. Member and I have a sort of united front; he is a kind of fellow traveller with me. We are asking that this whole business of the enormous expenditure on defence, and especially on the Air Force, should be considered in the light of the very interesting and valuable contributions made by hon. and gallant Gentlemen in this debate.
  I have listened for the last five years very patiently, and I have become tough. I always have to wait until the end of the debates, but in doing so I have picked up an enormous lot of material. I know now the arguments and the patter, but I am afraid that I learned nothing from the Under-Secretary of State for Air who opened the debate. Once they get into office, they no longer discuss the Estimates; they develop a philosophical and a theosophical patter of their own, in which they reveal as little as possible. The Under-Secretary was most elusive. None of the new fighters, if they ever come to fight, will need to be as elusive of the Under-Secretary in this debate.
  I am afraid the Under-Secretary is not going to satisfy Lord Beaverbrook and the "Daily Express." I travelled down by air on Monday, and I read the leading article in the "Daily Express." The first article that I read was headed, "R.A.F. must be saved." Saved from

  1653
  whom? Not from me, but saved from the Under-Secretary for Air. This article
  said:
  "Mr. George Ward, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Air Ministry, must live in dread of next Thursday, for on that day he will present the Air Estimates in the Commons, and it can be certain there will be no repetition of the cheers which greeted him last year."
  That is right. There have not been any cheers, but there have been something very like stabs in the back. The article goes on:
  "He admitted then the R.A.F. had fallen on hard times, but he was cheered for the fighting quality of his speech. He gave promise of better things to come."
  There was no fighting quality in his speech today and no cheers.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: And no better things to come.
  Mr. Hughes: The article goes on to say, discussing the Air Estimates:
  "Does no one care? Can it be there is no realisation of the vital rôle which air power is to play in the destiny of Britain? Certainly Earl Alexander has shown no crusader's zeal for the cause of air power since he went into the Ministry of Defence."
  I thought the arrival of Earl Alexander on the scene at the Ministry of Defence was to start a new page in the life of that rather disreputable organisation.
  The article goes on:
  "Look next to the Air Marshals. Is there amongst them a man of the Trenchard's calibre. Is there one full-blooded mutinous character who will bang the table under any Minister's nose if he sees that the Service is not getting what it needs."
  I would bang on the Despatch Box under the Minister's nose if I were allowed anywhere near it. Here we have a Conservative paper, a paper that goes into four million homes. Surely if we can take it as a spiritual guide at election times, there will be found people who will take it for spiritual guidance on the Air Estimates. And according to this paper the Under-Secretary of State has been a complete flop.
  The paper says the position is terrifying. Indeed it is.
  "Look first at Fighter Command, the Nation's shield. The Meteors which
  Britain's fighter pilots must fly are old and slow, totally inferior to the planes which the Russians and Americans have had for years, and where are the long awaited wonder planes which are coming to replace them, the Hunter, Swift, and Javelin? The best that can be promised
  1654
  is two Squadrons of Swifts this year—just 36 planes."
  Chicken feed compared with the 22,000 planes which apparently the Soviet Union produced last year. The article goes on to make similar criticisms of the transport arm, and of all the other departments of the R.A.F., and ends up:
  "That is the pathetic story which Mr. George Ward must present.
  And they have been right. Not one of these destructive criticisms has been answered. If we are thinking in terms of going to war with the Soviet Union in these conditions, all I can conclude, to echo the words of the hon and gallant Member for Macclesfield, is "God help us."
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take too seriously the personal attacks launched on the Front Bench, because the "Daily Express" attacks a different person every week. It may be the Deputy-Prime Minister one day, and the next day the Under-Secretary of State. It may even be the hon. Gentleman one day.
  Mr. Hughes: I will bear it with my customary fortitude. I am used to it. I never expect anything else. Blessed are those who expect nothing, for they will not be disappointed. This is not a personal attack on the hon. Gentleman. It is a full-blooded attack on his Ministry, and I came to the House to see whether there was anything to be said for him. I have come to the conclusion that he is guilty and must be condemned on every charge brought against him by the "Daily Express." I am sorry for him.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield occasionally writes letters on R.A.F. matters to "The Times," and I read them. I hope he reads the letters I write to "The Times" on other subjects. In "The Times" of 5th January, he wrote:
  "The best method of defending Britain is to strike at the heart of the enemy.
  Strike at the heart of the enemy with the planes we have not got.
  "Furthermore, the latest four-jet bomber to fly, that is, the Handley Page Victor, has great possibilities as a fast commercial airliner. It seems that we may get the best of both worlds in that we shall be strong in attack, and at the same time produce aircraft which will sell for export."
  I can understand that we should get the best of both worlds because the hon.

  1655
  and gallant Gentleman is a director of Handley Page, and I can understand him recommending his own wares to the House of Commons. I can also understand when he recommends his own wares——
  Air Commodore Harvey: I think the hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark because, in the eight years I have been in the House of Commons, I have never failed to declare my interest. I wrote a letter to a London newspaper, but it is a different matter from making a speech in the House of Commons about one's own wares.
  Mr. Hughes: The last thing I want to do is to insult the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He wrote a letter to "The Times" recommending the British public to accept the theory that the best aircraft we could use was the aircraft produced by the Handley Page Company.
  Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. He is quoting out of context. I was replying to a letter from the Navy League complaining about the development of three different bombers. I was not recommending one of them, but referring to the last one to fly—I think on Christmas Eve.
  Mr. Hughes: It is true. I followed the Navy League controversy in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman intervened. But it is a fact that he said the Handley Page Victor had great possibilities commercially.
  Air Commodore Harvey: That has been successfully proved.
  Mr. Hughes: If the hon. and gallant Member can recommend them, I am entitled to examine the claims of these companies.
  In the past few years there has developed in British political life a tendency for certain big commercial interests to recommend their aircraft, and this is a danger that we can face only by nationalising the aircraft industry.
  Air Commodore Harvey: If that happens in the next Labour Government, the hon. Gentleman can count me out.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now saying that we can count him out. He will be a deserter. I should have thought that he would have placed his technical skill at the disposal of a
  1656
  nationalised industry just as he did during the war years. I cannot see how people who served in the Royal Air Force with distinction during the war can object to a nationalised industry. Surely the Royal Air Force is a nationalised industry, and there is every reason why they should be prepared——
  Wing Commander Bullus: On a point of order. May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is in order?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That had occurred to me. I do not know what these Estimates have to do with nationalised industries.
  Mr. Hughes: I am not discussing the nationalised industries in the abstract. I am discussing a nationalised aircraft industry in so far as it will contribute to the efficiency of the Royal Air Force.
  In "The Times" at the beginning of the year there was reported an interesting speech delivered by Mr. Sopwith of the Hawker Siddeley Group. He gave a full panoramic display of aircraft production and also stated the difficulties of these aircraft companies. From the financial point of view, there can be no doubt that this super-priority of certain types of aircraft has been a very good thing for the companies. If I were a director of any of these companies I might object to nationalisation too. But, as a watch-dog of the public interests, I am anxious to keep the Air Estimates as low as possible.
  There was one interesting paragraph in the report which I think the House should know about. It dealt with the production of aircraft in Canada. Mr. Sopwith said:
  "Our estimate of the taxation based on the year's profit is £3,768,000. You will notice that despite the increase in profits, it has been necessary to provide only £25,000 for Excess Profits Levy."
  Only £25,000 of the very substantial profits made out of super-priorities. By some strange coincidence, the company which transfers its aircraft production to
  Canada does not pay Excess Profits Levy. This is a peculiar state of affairs. By transferring the production of aircraft to Canada a company can make more profit than it can make by manufacturing in this country. Therefore, I say that this method of taxation ought to be tightened up so that we get from the aircraft industry the maximum taxation on profits made out of the

  1657
  super-priorities occasioned by the national emergency.
  Sir William Darling: The hon. Gentleman talks about the profits. Would he like to give the figure of Income Tax paid?
  Mr. Hughes: There is no mystery. I have got the whole thing here. The article was published in full in "The Times." The profit was 12 per cent. There is a very large reserve. I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite have to come to me for their financial information. These details can be found in the Library. The facts are not open to serious challenge.
  We need something like the impartial examination of the whole ramifications of aircraft production advocated by the hon. Member for Louth. I am in favour of an investigation by a body of independent business men. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) and the hon. Member for Louth could serve on the inquiry. which could be presided over by Mr. Hardie, who is no longer with the Iron and Steel Corporation. All I ask is that there should be an independent business-like examination of the whole business of aircraft production so that we can expel every suspicion that vested interests are making profit out of British re-armament.
  At the end of the day, if everything said—not by me but by the experts in the party opposite—is true, then the sooner that independent examination is held the better. I do not see that after these three years of re-armament we have any greater security. All that has happened is that we have become a bigger target for the enemy. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield has said that there is a grave danger and that as a result of all our re-armament by two Governments the British people are now less secure than they were before rearmament started.
  I am glad to find this note of realism creeping into these debates. People are now saying what I said three or four years ago. I do not grudge them the opportunity of going back to my old speeches for a little inspiration. They are welcome to all of them. If they do that, and we get a breath of realism such as we have had today, then back benchers will force the Government to
  1658
  follow a more realistic re-armament policy which will lead ultimately to a revision of the whole system.
  11.29 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: An interesting development in this debate has been the realisation that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) is inspired in these matters by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I have often wondered the source of inspiration of the hon. Member for Louth. Now it has been declared here on the Floor of the House. I shall watch my political neighbour with great interest lest his views change somewhat drastically as the years roll on.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire has the advantage over us. He has been to Minsk, Kursk, Novgorod and Omsk, whereas we have been denied the opportunity. I well remember a Russian play, in which the refrain kept coming through, "We shall never get to Omsk." That is it; we shall never get to see these things.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: There was an invitation sent out to hon. Members to attend the Moscow Economic Conference and one hon. Member on that side accepted, and one refused; so it cannot be said that there was not the opportunity.
  Mr. de Freitas: Well, anyway, none of us has got as far as our friend Mr. Zilliacus who, in one year was rejected by the Soviet Union, the United States and the Labour Party.
  Earlier this week we discussed the Army Estimates; early next week we shall discuss the Royal Navy, and it seems in accordance with tradition that the R.A.F. should come in between the two. For that was the original conception of the Royal Air Force. It was to be a new Service—neither an army nor a navy. The compromise has continued throughout the life of the R.A.F. It is expressed even in dress. Army officers wear soft collars; Navy officers wear stiff collars, and those of the R.A.F., in between, wear semi-stiff. The R.A.F. wears Army style uniforms with Navy markings of rank.
  This new Service was superimposed on the existing pattern of two old Services. We should not forget that. My right hon. and learned Friend reminded us that it was superimposed on the existing pattern

  1659
  of defence. It has grown. So today we find that we must question this imposition of a third arm on the traditional arms of sea and land, and we must, in the next few years, think out the whole structure of our defence forces.
  There are three facts to be borne in mind. First, in the cold war we must have ground forces to fight and maintain our stations in the Far East and Middle East; secondly, modern equipment is so complicated and expensive—and in that connection we have the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence that the electronics equipment alone in a modern fighter costs more than did a complete Spitfire. Thirdly we have to remember that we are entering a period when on both sides of the Iron Curtain there will be hundreds of atomic weapons and when our ability to deliver atomic weapons or to defend ourselves against them will be more important than having a stock of these weapons. In the last 7½ years it has been the stock of atom bombs in the West which has protected us.
  In the West, we simply cannot afford to take full advantage of our technical and industrial superiority unless we can economise on our traditional weapons used in traditional organisations. That brings me to the question of research. Has there, for example, been anything done in the development of a light aircraft. I refer to something between 2,000 and 3,000 lb. which could be produced quickly in quantity and can be flown by pilots with short training, and which could be used from the grass airstrips to which the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock) has referred. The Americans have such an aircraft in the Defender, which carries rockets and two fire bombs. Have we overlooked the development of such an aircraft simply because it does not fit into our traditional pattern of bomber, fighter, artillery or infantry, as the case may be? Such an aircraft might well result in an efficient provision of firepower and a real economy in traditional weapons.
  I wonder if the Under-Secretary of State will say anything about what we have learned from the Americans in Korea concerning the very expensive use of jet aircraft in tactical air support. These aircraft require large airfields and special maintenance and fuel. Have we
  1660
  not learned that the old veteran piston engine fighters, like the Mustangs and Corsairs, are more practicable logistically? Can he assure us that here and elsewhere the R.A.F. are on the look out for ways of doing certain jobs in a simpler and cheaper way?
  Perhaps I may illustrate what I mean by referring to a competition in the "New Statesman" during the war for the most fantastic application of modern industrial developments of science. The winning device was one for taking stones out of horses' hooves by radar. In every section of industry and trade and in the Services we must prevent ourselves becoming bogged down financially with the most expensive machine.
  I should like to be assured that the Air Ministry is on the alert to see that we use our really expensive weapons only for those jobs which cannot be done by a cheaper method. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) said that above all we should maintain our research. I agree. I was interested in what the Under-Secretary of State said about the importance he attached to the development of the navigational devices and bomb sights. The need for accuracy in bombing was a subject to which I referred last year. I trust that emphasis on this will be maintained, because there could be nothing more futile than having all these expensively developed bombs and then failing to deliver them accurately.
  I referred earlier to the axis between South Ayrshire and Louth, but, of course, it was not limited to those areas. Many other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) and the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), put forward the suggestion that we should consider changing our Parliamentary procedure so as to conform more with modern needs in the Service debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) said that it should be possible for Service details to be given in Committee upstairs and, if necessary, that there should be some form of secret session in Committee upstairs because only in that way could we perform our duties as Members of this House and see that the country got value for money. I agree.

  1661
  I welcome the increase that has been made in the strength of the North Atlantic Treaty forces, and especially the work that has been done in building up the 2nd T.A.F. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us more about exercise "Mainbrace." My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South referred to that exercise, and I should like to know whether it is a fact that the exercise showed clearly the impossibility of relying on carrier based aircraft because of the uncertainty of the weather. I should like to know also what lessons we have learned from it about the size and shape of our forces and what developments have taken place in the integration of the staffs in N.A.T.O.?
  Since the war we have had experience in the Far East of the Commonwealth integrated Command in Japan. I know that this is more a political than a purely Service matter, but I should like the Government to consider consulting with the Dominions on the setting up of another British Commonwealth Air Command in South-East Asia. The advantages of such a Command are very great, not only in the sharing of a common task by the Forces of the Commonwealth but in the experience of working together, which we have in N.A.T.O. and of which we should have more with the other Commonwealth countries.
  As to our dealings generally with foreign air forces, I was distressed to hear a few days ago from a leading figure in a small country which produces no aircraft of its own that our charges for training young air force cadets was so heavy that his Government had reversed their policy of sending them to this country and were sending them elsewhere. I need hardly stress that in every way—in civil and military aviation—we want to encourage the sending of young cadets to do their training here.
  I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield is in the House, because I want to say something about production, and I know of his great experience in that field. I was for a long time frightened of the prospect that with the Tory Party in power and under pressure from their friends in big business we might run the risk of seeing the Ministry of Supply weakened and falling too much under the influence of big
  1662
  business. That, however, does not appear
  to be happening. Anyone who has read Professor Postan's book, "British War Production," must pray that the Prime Minister will continue this system of supply, although he must be under pressure to change it.
  We are going into the production of three bombers—the Valiant, the Victor and the Vulcan. I want an assurance from the Air Ministry that they and the Ministry of Supply will keep an eye on production. When we last went in for the production of three bombers—the Lancaster, the Halifax and the Stirling— it was intended to concentrate upon the production of the bomber which proved best in operations. Yet long after everyone had agreed that the Lancaster was the best of the three we were still producing the other two. The reason for the delay was that a change-over would result in too great a gap in production because of the need for re-tooling. But not everyone is convinced—and I certainly am not convinced—that that delay was inevitable. I ask the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Supply to keep a better look-out this time so that, as soon as it is decided which is the best of the three aircraft, production will be switched and all the firms concerned will concentrate on the best aircraft.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will also bear in mind the contribution to this debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) and the points which he made about electronics. It is an important technical matter, and there was a great deal of substance in what my hon. Friend said.
  The hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Mr. Perkins) wanted to impeach everyone in the House except himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, he was pretty fierce at most of us. But he presented with clarity and force the case on behalf of the instructors in the flying training schools which are being closed down.
  Like many hon. Members connected with flying or flying clubs, I have had the most heart-rending letters from instructors. I know the Under-Secretary personally feels this very much. He is a former instructor himself. But that is not good enough. I believe the Air Ministry is under a moral obligation to do everything possible for these men. The Gov-

  1663
  ernment certainly have struck a heavy blow at those who seek to make the country as great in the air as she is on the seas. I believe that this action, referred to by so many hon. Gentlemen, and especially by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock), may well do great harm in discouraging men from making the air their profession.
  I will not repeat the arguments, but I want to try to pick something good out of the wreckage. The closing of the reserve schools must throw up surplus Tiger Moths. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation here, and I should like him to consider this. These aircraft would be fit to put into service without an expensive certificate of airworthiness inspection. Could not the Air Ministry sell these machines really cheaply to the flying clubs, for something like £50, which is about proportionately equivalent to the £10,000 taken for the Yorks which were handed over to civil operators? This would help the flying clubs enormously.
  What is going to happen to the young men, who at great expense, after their two years' service in the R.A.F., have been trained to be pilots? If their reserve school closes, what are they to do? Take a reservist who has just come out of the R.A.F., who learned to fly at great expense and who lives in Hertford? Parshanger is closed. The nearest school open is Cambridge. Would it not be better than nothing for him to go to Broxbourne to the Herts and Essex Aero Club, and keep his hand in with a Tiger Moth or Auster at the small cost of about £4 a year? It has not the advantage of Service surroundings, which is so highly regarded, but is not it better than nothing? If we do nothing, then the whole of the man's training will have been completely useless and wasted.
  It strikes me we are in grave danger here of a false economy resulting in waste. I believe the clubs could be used, if not for ab initio training, then for refresher training. Will the Under-Secretary not consider what is being done abroad? The hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North, pointed out that ab initio flying training was done in Canada in civil flying schools and that men going overseas were trained in these civil flying schools. He told me he had actually had Canadian
  1664
  civil flying schools writing to him for information.
  I ask the Under-Secretary to give us a little more encouragement about the number of A.T.C. scholarships. It is true they are up this year, but I detected, in his words, one or two lines which might have been written by the Treasury or by his officials who never look friendly on this scheme. I shall be delighted if I get an assurance that there will not be a cut in this.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield and other hon. Members referred to the importance of the technical officer. I know we have this new technical cadet scheme whereby we hope to get men with certain educational qualifications going to universities for a three years' honours course, later getting commissions. What are the educational qualifications, and are the universities going to keep places for them? What universities will give this course? How many technical branch officers shall we get from the scheme?
  Other hon. Members, and the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, in particular, have referred to the serious shortage of skilled men in some of the most important trades. I agree with him that the Under-Secretary should tell us how the Air Council are planning to try to solve this problem. One does not have to believe everything one reads in alarmist newspapers to be worried about the result of this serious shortage of skilled men. The Under-Secretary did not say enough about manning. In looking at the Estimates I was surprised by three points of detail which I will put to him, because they seem contrary to the trend which I should have expected. There are to be more air officers and senior officers at the Air Ministry than there were last year. There are to be fewer junior officers. There are to be more warrant officers and N.C.Os. at the Air Ministry, but fewer airmen. In view of the comments of the Conservative Party when they were in opposition, I am surprised to see that there will be fewer locally enlisted men in Malta, Iraq and Malaya. Why is that? How can that be explained? The figures are not large but the trend is there.
  What thought are the Air Council giving to manning the Auxiliary Air Force? We know that at present, with Vampires, the Auxiliaries can manage with a camp and a few hours' training

  1665
  each week. What will happen when the swept-back wing aircraft are introduced? Will the Auxiliaries be removed from the front line, where they are now, and become reservists? If so, will not they have to spend several months before they are operationally ready for front-line squadrons? I should like to be assured that thought is being given to this complicated manning problem.
  I have attended eight Air Estimates debates and taken part in most of them —generaly at the sleepy end of the evening. This is one of the most constructive debates I have heard. The Under-Secretary did a good job last year in answering our criticisms. I will not go as far as Lord Beaverbrook about what will happen tonight, but it has been different today. The Under-Secretary has had to face a very barrage of criticism and it is his duty to answer the points which have been put forward, or as many as he can in half-an-hour or so. These points have not been made to score party advantage. This is a serious matter. They were designed to assist in making this very great service, the Royal Air Force, an even greater service and a greater protector of peace.
  11.54 p.m.
  Mr. George Ward: The House will wish me to start by making the statement which has been requested by several hon. Members about the tragic loss of the Lincoln today. If I may, I will repeat the announcement which was made by the B.B.C. at nine o'clock and which includes all the information which
  is at present available. A Royal Air Force
  Lincoln of Flying Training
  Command on a routine exercise was shot
  down by MIG fighters today in the Hamburg-Berlin air corridor near the zonal frontier. Six of the crew were killed and one wounded. Earlier today another Royal Air Force Lincoln of Flying Training Command on a similar routine exercise had been the object of a threatening mock attack by two Soviet MIG fighters well within the British Zone near Kassel.
  Her Majesty's Government take a grave view of this serious event within the Hamburg-Berlin air corridor. The United Kingdom High Commissioner in Germany has been instructed to protest to the Soviet High Commissioner in Germany in the strongest terms against this deliberate attack upon a British air-
  1666
  craft, involving the death of British airmen. He is to request that an investigation be undertaken immediately by the Soviet authorities, that those responsible for this outrage should be punished, and that due reparation be made for damage to persons and property. I feel that the House will wish me to express our deep sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives in this tragic happening.
  Mr. A. Henderson: May I, on behalf of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, associate ourselves with the expression of regret which the Under-Secretary has just expressed to those relatives who have suffered loss in this tragic incident. It is evident that we shall have to await further details as to what transpired in both incidents to which he has referred, and if on, say, Monday, subject to Mr. Speaker's consent, I put a Private Notice Question asking whether he has any further information to give the House, perhaps he would be prepared to answer further.
  Mr. Ward: Yes, by all means.
  May I say now how glad we are to see the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) returned to us in apparently such robust health, and, if I may say so, in such fine rhetorical fettle. He showed by his speech, and particularly by the closing passages, that during his time in opposition he has lost none of his interest in the Royal Air Force.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked to what extent our new plans for the bomber forces affected the support we should be able to give to General Ridg-way. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence explained during the defence debate that we have decided to build up our light bomber force to a lower peak than we had originally intended, but it must not be concluded from this that we are in any way weakening in our resolve to provide an effective bomber contribution to N.A.T.O. as a whole, and for S.A.C.E.U.R. in particular.
  As I explained in my opening speech, the medium bomber can carry many times the bomb load of the Canberra and can find its target much more accurately, and therefore it will be a much more flexible instrument and able to bring to

  1667
  bear a greater fire power on a wider range of targets. This is the background, with the related factors of efficiency and economy, against which we have based our plans, and against which we have reduced the size of the light bomber force.
  We are, of course, in close touch with our friends in N.A.T.O on all these problems of bomber support. It has been said that we could not have as large Armed Forces as we had in the last war, and I quite agree that we could not possibly afford it. But the accuracy of the hitting power of our new types of bomber makes it unnecessary to have as big a force.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about skilled labour in the aircraft industry and super priority for them. There will always be shortages of labour in an expanding industry, but the special arrangements made by the Government have already met with a good deal of success. My noble Friend stated in another place a few days ago that nearly every firm in the industry has increased its labour force during the past year. The total number has been raised by 17 per cent., and in 1952 the total number employed in the aircraft industry rose by 30,000. The greatest difficulty was housing for the workers, and the local authorities have been most helpful. With their co-operation some 4,000 houses have been provided for aircraft workers, most of whom are employed in firms engaged in super-priority work.
  With regard to advanced tradesmen in the Air Force, I am afraid there is no simple or straightforward solution to the problem of persuading a skilled man to extend his service or re-engage. The introduction of the new trade structure has undoubtedly resulted in some improvement and so has the increase in the number of married quarters. We hope that the new rate of local overseas allowance for men who cannot be accompanied by their families will help, and, as I have already said, we have arranged for part of the re-engagement bounty to be paid when a man re-engages, but, as I recognised in my opening speech, the problem of keeping in Service men with the experience and the requisite skill we want is a serious one. We do not claim that we have yet found an answer. In the meantime we are giving advanced
  1668
  training to a number of men on short engagements.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked whether there had been any change in essence of our policy for the medium bombers in Bomber Command in their relationship with the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. He asked for an assurance that our plans are being developed in close co-operation with the Supreme Allied Commander. That assurance I can most certainly give him. Indeed, it has been in the course of that co-operation, and in discussions with the
  N.A.T.O. countries generally that arrangements have been made for our medium bombers to be made available to the maximum extent possible to support the Supreme Commander's operations.
  Mr. A. Henderson: It was the words "on occasion" that I was worried about.
  Mr. Ward: Yes, and I should like to emphasise again that all Bomber Command is part of our contribution to the defences of N.A.T.O. as a whole.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) asked for an assurance that we would keep control of Bomber Command. I am pleased to endorse what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence said in the defence debate recently. He also mentioned the subject of the exports of aircraft to Brazil, and suggested that a shortage of technicians might have something to do with it. I can assure him that the shortage of technicians has nothing whatever to do with the export of aircraft to that country. On the contrary, as I mentioned in my opening speech, there has been an increasing number of inquiries for the export of British aircraft.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Capt. Wilcock) was, of course, mainly interested in the closing of the schools. He made several points, the first one of which was repeated by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), that pilots are being trained in Canada and America in similar schools. That is perfectly true, but they are being trained at no cost to us. He also said that reserve pilots had taken their places in the Battle of Britain. That is true, too, but they took their

  1669
  places on piston-engined aircraft, aircraft which flew very much more slowly than the modern aircraft do.
  On the general question of the closing down of the schools, there are, of course, two quite separate aspects—the basic schools and the Reserve flying schools. I think the reason for closing the basic schools is fairly well understood. There does not seem to be very much dissension on that, because it was due entirely to our contraction of aircrew training, and if there are no pilots to feed into the schools you cannot keep them going. The Reserve flying schools, I agree, are more difficult, but here there are two main considerations. One is financial and the other practical. We have to consider very carefully how we can make economies in places which have the least effect on the effectiveness of our front line.
  These training schools are costing about £2,500,000 a year, and for that money we can buy a lot of front line aircraft and train a lot of front line pilots. As the Member for Lincoln was good enough to remind the House, although no one feels it more keenly than I do, it was quite unrealistic to keep these schools going in a jet age at a time when there must be a limit to the amount of money to be spent on defence, and when the most important thing today is to have a strong and effective front line in a high state of readiness.
  Group Captain Wilcock: The hon. Gentleman says that there were no pupils for the basic schools, yet he realises and says that we are sending pupils to America and Canada, and excused this on the grounds that it was at no cost to us. Even so, it is a bad thing to close our own units and send our men abroad.
  Mr. Ward: There are other considerations beside the cost. For example, the Canadian training is "all through" from the basic to the advanced stage. As I told the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), it is just as well from a strategic point of view to have as many men training on the other side of the Atlantic as we can.
  It is really unrealistic in a jet age to go on training on light aircraft on small grass airfields people who have been out of touch with operational flying for many years. What has been happening since
  1670
  the war? Many men came out of the Air Force after the war fully trained with recent operational experience. They went into the Volunteer Reserve. More have been coming out ever since at the end of their engagement and the Reserve has been swelling and swelling, but very few have been coming out at the other end. The object of a reserve, if you are to make use of it, is to have it continually flowing so that you have always people not too far from recent operational experience, and not above the age limit for war-time air fighting. So it really was a gross extravagance to keep people flying Chipmunks at this very high cost, who were never going to be the slightest use to the R.A.F. in time of war.
  Mr. Beswick: Is not the Under-Secretary being a little unfair? He appears to be suggesting that these people are, in time of war, to be expected to fly Hunters and Swifts. There is a lot of flying to be done apart from fast fighters. There is transport and communication work. Where will the hon. Gentleman obtain the pilots for that kind of duty?
  Mr. Ward: I was trying to explain that the object is to keep a flow so that at any time there are people who are below the operational age limits and beyond them people who are a little over the age. Beyond them again there must be a lot of pilots we cannot use and who we cannot afford to go on training. In any case, it is unrealistic to do so, because we want to keep the men in the reserve in training on jet aircraft.
  The hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Mr. Perkins) asked about the re-entry of flying school instructors in the Royal Air Force. That is a point which has been worrying most hon. Members. He asked why we accepted only about half the applicants for commissions. Anxious, as we are, to provide employment, we are even more anxious to maintain a high officer standard in the peace-time Air Force. Subject to that I can assure the House that every reasonable latitude has been given.
  The hon. Member also suggested some could be employed on air traffic and fighter control duties. These are branches for which the older and more experienced pilots are particularly suitable, and we have granted a large number of short

  1671
  service commissions to these men. About one-third of the selected candidates have been appointed to these two branches.
  It was also suggested that many of these people could be usefully employed in university air squadrons. I cannot agree that civilian instructors would be any more successful in attracting recruits than the Regular officers at present employed. If they are suitable for those duties they are suitable for short-service commissions in the Royal Air Force. I do not wish to appear hard-hearted. I would make it clear that my noble Friend and I appreciate the problems facing these men, but I have tried to explain how it is. I hope hon. Members will see our point of view, and will not think this decision has been taken without consideration of the implications.
  Group Captain Wilcock: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the personnel we are discussing are ex-Royal Air Force personnel.
  Mr. Ward: I know, but I do not see how that affects the issue.
  Group Captain Wilcock: They are not having much done for them.
  Mr. Ward: We are doing all we can.
  Air Commodore Harvey: My hon. Friend said, in regard to the seven schools remaining in operation, that contracts will be renewed only for another year. Does he expect that the instructors in those schools will work for another year knowing that there is a prospect of losing their job?
  Mr. Ward: The short answer is that if these people are finding it difficult to get other jobs they will remain.
  Air Commodore Harvey: They will try to get other jobs, too.
  Mr. de Freitas: There is one point I should like the hon. Gentleman to deal with. I am not referring to old reservists who left the Air Force some time ago, but to the man who has just left, having had a very expensive flying training. Now he will have no Reserve school to which to go. He is a young man who has just been trained. Is not it better to spend £4 5s. an hour for his 40 hours at a civil flying club to let him keep his hand in on Tiger Moths or Austers?
  Mr. Ward: I said earlier that to keep these people who have just left the Air Force with recent operational experience refreshed it would be necessary to do it on R.A.F. airfields with runways and on jet aircraft. We are living in a jet age. It would not keep them refreshed to let them fly around in Chipmunks from grass airfields. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we ought to subsidise the flying clubs——
  Mr. de Freitas: I am saying that these men will now get nothing at all. They will not get jets. We have spent thousands of pounds on teaching them to fly. They have just left the Air Force. Are we to waste that money? Is it not better for them to keep their hands in on Austers, or is it the official view that they should not keep their hands in? If so, let us be told.
  Mr. Ward: The official view is that they should——
  Mr. Beswick: Are they going to do it? The hon. Gentleman has not explained.
  Mr. Ward: I said it in my opening speech.
  Mr. Beswick: No.
  Mr. Ward: I certainly did. The hon. Member will see it in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow.
  Mr. Beswick: For two weeks a year, or what?
  Mr. Ward: I ask the hon. Member not to waste time, but to read my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow. He will find that I have said all this before.
  Mr. Beswick Mr. Beswick rose——
  Mr. Ward: I said all this in my opening——
  Mr. Beswick: The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Willams) is always telling other people to be quiet——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate is becoming a little disorderly. We are having a series of dialogues rather than a consecutive speech.
  Mr. Ward: The hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North spoke about the length of overseas tours. He said that it might be better if they were shortened. I agree that at first sight that is an attractive proposition. It would mean large savings in married quarters, education, family passages and so on.

  1673
  The difficulty is that the advantages are quite illusory. An airmail would still spend the same proportion of his service overseas. Instead of having fewer longer tours he would have more shorter ones. In addition, he would have to face an appreciable part of his service without ever being joined by his family. We could not send out his family unless the airman was overseas for a certain length of time.
  For these and other reasons, including the increasing cost of movements to and from overseas, and the greater turbulence of postings in home commands, the suggestion is impracticable. Civilians do certain specialised jobs overseas. For example, telegraph line installers are Post Office employees. The suggestion is impracticable.
  The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) suggested that the Air Ministry was attracting agricultural labourers away from the land. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member is not here."] In that case, I will not deal with that point.
  I was more than astonished by the unjust and wholly unwarranted attack on my noble Friend made by the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury. I only hope that the hon. Member has the courage to repeat his accusations to my noble Friend, so that he will have the chance of answering back himself. Meantime. I assure the hon. Member that everything he said has no foundation whatever in fact.
  The hon. Member spoke about airfields being built in 1930, and said that was one of the reasons why we should keep them on. But, in the 'thirties we were not flying Hunters, Meteors, and Vampires; we were using biplanes, and there is quite a different problem today. The hon. Member also spoke of the closing of an airfield in my constituency, at Perdiswell. The truth is that the Worcester City Council has taken a very realistic view and ruled that it was much too small for modern aircraft; the field has been turned into a football field and for that purpose it is quite properly being used.
  The hon. Member asked why it was necessary that an announcement should be made on 19th December. Of course, as one would expect from him, he insinuated that there was a sinister motive, and that we were afraid to debate the
  1674
  matters in the House. All I would say is that that is quite unworthy of consideration. The facts are that it was essential to give notice to these schools by 1st January so that the notices would be effective before the end of the financial year; and it was out of courtesy to the House that I thought I should tell hon. Members before I told the schools themselves.
  The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) spoke about the speed of production, and I must take him up on one point. He said that we should let modifications argue for themselves in the squadrons. I must say that I heartily disagree with him. The R.A.F. squadron pilot should not be expected to be a test pilot; he cannot be expected to take risks of that sort. The hon. Member referred to Russian pilots and the M.I.Gs. and it may be that the Russians do these things differently; but we will not subject our squadron pilots to these risks. He also spoke about publicity, and the presentation of it, and I will certainly look into that question, and also the question of the fly-past and review leaders. I would remind him that R.A.F. officers do not like it to be thought that they are "shooting a line."
  The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised the question of the value of National Service. I should like to make it clear, as I tried to do in the middle of my speech to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. E. Shinwell), that the National Service man is of real value, both during his statutory service, and when on the Reserve. We employ National Service men in a wide variety of administrative, as well as technical, posts, and the average training period is six months. So, we get an average of 18 months' productive service from them.
  We also make arrangements to take advantage of the large number of deferred apprentices who come in, and from them we get advanced tradesmen and a number of junior technical officers as well. A man is liable to immediate recall in the event of emergency, but he is also called up from time to time for refresher training, and we shall be dependant on our National Service reservists for bringing the control and reporting system into operation and up to full establishment in time of war.

  1675
  The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) wondered—and told the House that he had taken the advice of some friends about it—whether to raise the personal matter of West Kirby. I hope he will forgive me if I say that I think he was badly advised. Some mud of this kind always sticks, and I think it would have been better had he written to me and asked for full details before he raised the matter in the House. It is bad luck on people when these things are raised in the House and when, in fact, there is no foundation for them. Even though they are cleared in a private letter from the Air Ministry, there is bound to be some mud sticking to them at the end of it.
  Mr. Shackleton: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that I raised this matter in a most moderate way, and to suggest that a matter of public interest should not be so raised on the ground that some mud might stick to somebody seems to me a most remarkable proposition. Even now I am asking that the matter should be investigated—the hon. Gentleman has given no undertaking to do that—so that, if necessary, there may be a proper clearance of these charges. It is a very serious matter.
  Mr. Ward: I have assured the hon. Member that inquiries have proved that there is nothing in it. I will investigate the matter, and I hope the hon. Member will settle it by asking me a Question in the House so that the answer may be given publicly.
  Mr. Shackleton: Certainly.
  Mr. Ward: The hon. Member also asked when the Provost-Vampire sequence would be produced. The answer is, of course, as soon as the aircraft come off the production lines.
  Both the hon. Member for Preston, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North asked what engines we were planning to use for the new basic jet trainer which I told the House we had ordered in small numbers for evaluation trials. The engine will be the Armstrong-Siddeley Viper engine, and we have every reason to believe that it will be a very useful aeroplane for the purpose for which we ordered it, namely, evaluation. I know there are several schools of thought on this matter. Many believe that it is wrong to start pupils off on jets.
  1676
  Others believe it the right thing to do, and the only way to settle the argument is to try it out in the training organisation with a few aircraft.
  I share the anxiety of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) about the air defences of the country. I think he will remember my speech last year in which I said so in fairly plain terms. I am sorry if he thought my speech today was a reticent confession. It was certainly not intended to be; it was intended to be a sober progress report of what we have been able to do in the last 12 months. I thought the House would appreciate a rather factual statement, which was what I sought to give.
  My hon. and gallant Friend then went on to talk about the new types of Russian bombers and described their formidable qualities and performance. He said that we would need to intercept and shoot down 80 to 90 per cent. of them. If that is his view—and I would not dissent from it—it is not really very realistic to say that we could do that with anything but the latest fighter. Therefore, it is really better not to go on spending money on straight wing types, but to clear the decks and try to get the swept-wing types into production and off the line as quickly as possible.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the view expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey)? I never had the information that the Russians had any four-jet bombers in service with their squadrons.
  Air Commodore Harvey: What I said was that they had their four-engined jet bomber flying in 1948.
  Mr. Ward: I took it that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield was "in the know."
  My hon. and gallant Friend also asked about cadetships for the technical branch. The hon. Member for Lincoln touched upon the same point. It is very important. Last year we introduced a new scheme for cadetships for training permanent technical officers. It is open to boys between 17 and 19½ years of age who are educationally qualified to enter a university. There is one year's officer training and professional instruction at the R.A.F. Technical College at Henlow,

  1677
  followed by a three years' honours degree course at a university and six months' applied training at the Technical College.
  We have arranged places at universities for nearly all of the first batch of 20 of the technical cadets who entered Henlow last September. The standard required is the General Certificate of Education (Advanced Level) in scientific subjects. The support of the scheme has been most encouraging. Over one hundred applications have been received and we were able to select the full quota of 20 suitably qualified candidates. We have also begun training the first class of technical cadets on a three years' course, part of which will be specially directed towards electronics and which will be carried out entirely at the R.A.F. Technical College, Henlow.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) asked about photographic reconnaissance. Our aim is to keep the Photographic Reconnaissance Force roughly in step with the main operational forces it is designed to support. There is a short-range P.R. force with the 2nd Tactical Air Force in Europe; a medium-range force in the United Kingdom, under the operational control of Bomber Command, and in Commands overseas. Later there will be a long-range P.R. force to match the new V Class squadrons of bombers. At present, the short-range P.R. force is equipped with Meteors. We plan to replace this with a version of the Swift.
  My hon. Friend also asked whether the medium-range P.R. force would be completely equipped with Canberra P.R.3 aircraft before the end of this year. I have now checked the matter and I am glad to be able to give him this assurance. There has been some delay in bringing the aircraft into service; some modifications had to be made. Today, as a result of development trials, the difficulties have been overcome and the Canberra should prove a very good aircraft indeed for photographic reconnaissance work. There will also be a later version of the Canberra 3 with an even better performance. The long-range P.R. force will be equipped with Valiant aircraft in phase with the expansion of the jet medium-bomber force.
  My hon. Friend asked whether we were satisfied with progress in aerial reconnaissance and whether we had satisfactory
  1678
  aircraft and equipment. The essence of aerial photography is to be able to out-fly the enemy. That means flying faster and higher than was done in the last war and twice as far. That in turn means new cameras with twice the focal length and able to take twice as many pictures in the same time.
  All that has presented very difficult problems, but they are being tackled and gradually overcome. There is also the weather problem, which is being met by the development of radar equipment. Finally, the hon. Member for Lincoln asked whether we had overlooked the development of the light interceptor aircraft. We have not. The air staff has been interested for sometime in its development. The project was for a light aircraft in which the armament and equipment would be much simplified. Unfortunately, there is only a certain amount of money and resources available for research and development. This particular project is not sufficiently promising at present to justify its inclusion in the current programme for research and development by the Ministry of Supply. The project is still being pursued as a private venture and we shall watch development of it with the greatest interest.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about Commonwealth co-operation, which is important. I will give some examples of that co-operation. The R.A.F. is working with Australian squadrons in Malta, with New Zealand squadrons in Cyprus, and with Australians in Malaya. United Kingdom officers, in considerable numbers, are in the Indian and Pakistan Air Forces and the United Kingdom provides the Chief of the Air Staff of the Royal Australian Force.
  I hope I did not give the impression that we are in any way less keen on flying scholarships than the hon. Member for Lincoln himself was. I know it was one of his pets when he was in office. I am sure he will agree it is no use giving a flying scholarship to a boy who cannot get any further when he comes into the R.A.F. and who gets ploughed in his ground subjects. We are trying to ensure that a boy has sufficient intelligence to cope with the rest of his R.A.F. training before we spend more money on him and give him a flying scholarship.

  1679
  I am well aware there are many points I have had to leave unanswered, but I have been speaking long enough. I end by giving my usual assurance on this occasion that I will carefully read HANSARD and answer other points by correspondence.
  12.39 a.m.
  Mr. Wigg: I had intended to put a few questions on Vote A, but there are one or two other points which have arisen. On the question referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), I find it difficult to believe men could be ordered to stand to attention for several hours on end. What probably happened was that they were kept on parade for several hours on end. It seems the Under-Secretary has completely failed to appreciate the seriousness of the charge. It is a most disgraceful charge and I should have thought he would have been so concerned with the honour of the R.A.F. that he would not have attacked my hon. Friend, but have thanked him and have said there would be an immediate inquiry into this allegation.
  It seems the hon. Gentleman needs to learn a little from the experience of the Secretary of State for War in regard to the way he treats this House. His comments to the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Mr. Perkins) are a matter between him and the hon. Member who sits on his side of the House; but his attitude to a Member of the House of Commons is a matter for the House. I should have thought that the Under-Secretary came very near to involving himself in a breach of Privilege. He threatened his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and Thombury not with anything he might say but with what his noble Friend might say.
  Mr. Ward: Was the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in the House?
  Mr. Wigg: I heard the speech and I am not making any comment on the merits.
  I was saying that any hon. Member, whether on this side of the House or on the opposite side has a perfect right to say what he chooses. If his remarks are out of order, that is a matter for Mr. Speaker. If the Minister thinks it outrageous and says so, I do not complain,
  1680
  but there is a complaint when he threatens his hon. Friend with what the noble Lord is going to do and——
  Mr. Ward: No.
  Mr. Wigg: HANSARD will bear me out. If I am wrong I will willingly withdraw. It is within my recollection and I think it is within the recollection——
  Mr. Ward: I said nothing of the sort.
  Mr. Wigg: Let me finish my sentence. It is within the recollection of hon. Members in all parts of the House that he said he invited his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and Thornbury to repeat to the Minister what he had had to say here.
  Mr. Ward: That is exactly what I said. What is threatening about that?
  Mr. Wigg: The Under-Secretary has been a Member of the House since 1945 and I should have thought he must know that what is said in the House is privileged and what is said outside is not privileged.
  Mr. Ward: Exactly.
  Mr. Wigg: What is to happen to the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury if he says what he said here to the noble Lord the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Ward: All I was suggesting was that my hon. Friend should repeat to my noble Friend the remark that he made to me. There is no threat there.
  Mr. Beswick: With what object?
  Mr. Ward: Because I thought it unfair that such an attack should have been made on my noble Friend when he was not in a position to answer for himself.
  Mr. Wigg: The question of unfairness has nothing to do with it. An hon. Member on any side of the House is privileged inside the House. What happens outside is not privileged. What the Under-Secretary is doing, therefore, is threatening one of his hon. Friends. Why does he invite his hon. Friend to say outside to the noble Lord what he has said here? What is the noble Lord going to do? Punch him on the nose?
  What is to happen to the hon. Member? What is in the Under-Secretary's mind? I should have thought that if the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury said something particularly outrageous to the Under-Secretary, the latter

  1681
  could do what he liked about it here; that is a matter between hon. Members opposite and the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury. But what the Under-Secretary must not do is to come here and threaten any hon. Members with what is to happen to them outside the House for what they do inside. That, in my submission, is grossly improper and I hope very much indeed that the Under-Secretary will learn better and not do such a thing again.
  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1953–54.

    VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 302,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954.
    12.44 a.m.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the Under-Secretary give some details of what I consider to be rather a large sum which is being allocated by the R.A.F. to the Coronation? I put a Question to him last week and he said that £150,000 was to be spent by the R.A.F. on Coronation day. I should like to ask him to look into the matter a little more closely.
    I do not think he is justified in using these men to this extent in what is to be a fly-past on Coronation day, because if these aircraft are jet bombers and jet fighters they will fly past so quickly that nobody will ever know anything about it. It is rather a waste of public money to have aircraft dashing through the sky in this way; nobody will get any credit for it and nobody will really see them. If it bad been a comparatively small amount nobody would have grudged it. But here is £150,000 of public money——
    The Chairman: The only thing we are discussing at the moment is that the 302,000 all ranks be maintained. We are not discussing the pay.
    Mr. Hughes: It is a question of the use of the services of these men. These men are to be employed on this particular day
    1682
    in a way which I believe involves a waste of manpower, and I want the Under-Secretary to look at the matter again. Coronation day should be a day of jubilation and gaiety, yet the public are to be reminded of bombing in its worst form, and it will cast a shadow over the whole scene. I suggest that people will not really see these aircraft, that this is a very large and disproportionate sum to be spent on that occasion, and that in these circumstances the Under-Secretary should look at the matter again to see whether something less expensive could be arranged.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I want briefly to ask the Under-Secretary whether he cannot do something for National Service men which is already possible for Regulars in the R.A.F. I refer to the transfer of men doing identical jobs. If this were permissible for National Service men it would mean they could serve much nearer their homes. I have in mind two men, one stationed at West Kirby and the other at Lincoln. The man stationed at Lincoln comes from Chester and the man stationed at West Kirby comes from Lincoln.
    They are doing identical jobs, but because they are National Service men they are not allowed to transfer. That would be permitted if they were Regulars, and I think that is something that might be considered. If there were held out to National Service men the inducement that if they could make the necessary arrangements they could transfer to near their homes the men would be much more likely to consider Regular service. If a man has no chance of getting near home he is very aggrieved.
    The second matter was referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton). I hope that the Under-Secretary will not too readily believe that criticism is always unfounded, malicious, unjustifiable, and that it cannot be substantiated. As has been revealed at Question time, there are from time to time officers who exceed their powers and duties. There ought to be no resentment if Members of this Committee decide to voice a grievance of their constituents. It is only by having an investigation that the truth or otherwise can be revealed, and I think we have a right to have an investigation into the West Kirby affair.

    1683
    During last year's debate on the Air Estimates, the Under-Secretary of State, presumably because he had talked to the commanding officer, in his final summing up said that mine was a most disgraceful speech and that there was no foundation in fact in it. Subsequently at Question time in the House he had to give the information
    which revealed that the statements I had made were completely true. Therefore, I hope that he will not feel that when we raise matters of this kind, whether in the case of the men from West Kirby, or in the case of a lad whom we might feel might genuinely be given a transfer without any serious repercussions arising——
    Mr. Robert Crouch: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Sir Charles, to the fact that the front Opposition bench has been unoccupied for the last quarter of an hour?
    The Chairman: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I hope that the Under-Secretary will not feel that it is personal animosity or anything of that kind which has caused me to mention this matter again in this Committee, but from a desire to see that the men who are in the Services get the best possible treatment to which they are entitled, providing, of course, that the regulations are being observed. That is the whole reason for raising this matter, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept this assurance in the spirit in which it is intended, and in the belief that we are only doing our best for those men who are in the Service.
    Mr. Shackleton: It is the fault of the Under-Secretary that this debate is continuing, because he treated his hon. Friend and the Committee in a rather cavalier fashion. I must develop the point about the West Kirby incident. The hon. Gentleman said that I was badly advised in bringing the matter up, and, further, that I was slinging mud. I take full responsibility for bringing the matter up. I have indicated that I consulted friends to show that I did not like to do so, but I believe that I was doing my duty in so doing, because I am satisfied that there are unfortunate incidents from time to time.
    1684
    I was hoping that some publicity and a forthright condemnation by the Under-Secretary would make it clear that this sort of thing is not to be tolerated. Instead of that the Under-Secretary has merely implied that he has investigated the matter as far as he could. Is there anything more ludicrous than the idea that he could investigate the whole thing in the course of three or four hours? The people concerned have long since passed out of West Kirby.
    I would ask the hon. Gentleman to carry out a proper investigation. No one would be better pleased than I if it should be proved that there is no foundation for the charge that I have made, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman also to make clear that this sort of thing or anything like petty bullying or excessive use of authority unnecessarily will be frowned upon. I think that the Under-Secretary ought to have taken the matter a little more seriously, because he knows that I do not raise this sort of matter except in the best interests of the Air Force.
    Mr. Ward: I am very willing indeed to admit—and I do not hesitate to say it —that if I treated the House or this Committee with discourtesy I would be the first to apologise, and to withdraw the remarks. I certainly did not mean to be, and I had no intention of being discourteous to anyone, and certainly not to the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton). My point, of course, is that I am very much concerned for the good name of the R.A.F. and the recruiting for it. If people read in some sections of the Press that questions have been asked in the House of Commons about men made to stand up at attention for five hours at a time it does not do the R.A.F. any good.
    I did feel, perhaps wrongly, that had I been in the position of the hon. Gentleman when we were in opposition, I should have telephoned or perhaps stopped the Under-Secretary of State for Air and asked him to look into the case carefully, because if it was true it obviously would be a disgraceful thing. Had it been true I would have raised the matter because it should be stopped, but I should not have done so in that way. But I am concerned very largely with the good name of the R.A.F. If I have given the hon. Gentleman any impression that I was resentful of criticism, or was being discourteous, I apologise. The same applies

    1685
    to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). I did not think I had been peremptory with him.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I would only like the hon. Gentleman to read his reply in the corresponding debate last year, when he was rather caustic. Subsequently, he must acknowledge that my remarks were quite justified.
    Mr. Ward: Perhaps neither of us was entirely right. With these remarks I hope I have made my position clear.
    Mr. Wigg: I think the hon. Gentleman is learning fast. With the experience of one or two Army debates he will become quite good. [Interruption.] Does the Leader of the House wish to say something? We can rule out the possibility that this incident took place in an aggravated form, but in view of the carefulness of my hon. Friend's investigations it is likely something did happen. If there was an incident where
    an n.c.o. abused his authority by making the men in two huts stand by their beds for a long period it would be widely known the next morning. Everyone at West Kirby would know about it, and recruits coming in for several weeks would hear about it. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to rise and speak, I should like to seek your protection Sir Charles.
    The Chairman: I should be very glad to protect the hon. Gentleman if that is necessary, but I do not know what has happened.
    Mr. Shackleton: Will you please instruct the Leader of the House to leave the Chamber because he is behaving with grave discourtesy. He is uttering meaningless explanations. It is really extremely discourteous when we are instructing the Under - Secretary in Parliamentary manners.
    The Chairman: When I see anyone behaving in a manner which would justify me ordering him to leave the Chamber I shall do so.
    Mr. Wigg: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was asleep or not, but as his remarks were audible it is obvious that he was not.
    If I may now return to the hon. Gentleman, I should have thought that it was in his interests and that of the
    1686
    Royal Air Force to have a prompt investigation into this incident. Experience in Service affairs has revealed to me that publicity attaches to unfortunate incidents of this kind. Tales go round, and the only way to deal with them is to bring them out into the light of day. I hope that between now and the time my hon. Friend puts down a Question the hon. Gentleman will do his best to clear up the matter. I hope also that if he finds a subordinate has exceeded his duty he will not only bring the individual to task, but also deal with those responsible for the supervision, who must have been neglecting their duty to allow such a thing to occur.
    I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would make some reference to local personnel abroad. The total is now 5,750. How are these men disposed of? Do they serve in a subordinate capacity in Regular Royal Air Force squadrons. Are they recruited locally into the Royal Air Force squadrons in British Colonies overseas? The number has increased by 650. Is it the policy of the Government to recruit people where possible into the R.A.F. in British Colonies and Protectorates? If not, would he say whether it is desirable to step up this figure?
    Mr. Ward: I would refer the hon. Member to page 17 of the Estimates, which gives reasonably full information about local personnel abroad. If he wishes any further information I will try to get it for him and write to him.
    We do recruit Dominion and Colonial people, but that is a slightly complicated matter. We have not recruiting officers in all the Colonies; that would be uneconomical and the people have to come here in order to be recruited. But apart from that restriction, and provided that they are suitable in other ways, we accept them.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 302,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954.
    To report Resolution, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
    Report to be received this day.
    Committee to sit again this day.

  STRAY DOGS (ACCIDENTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir H. Butcher.]
  1.4 a.m.
  Mr. Robert Crouch: I wish to approach this question of the unaccompanied dog from a different point of view from that which it is usually presented to the House. I should make it clear that I have always been a dog lover and have always felt that the dog is man's best friend. The dog is more understanding and faithful than any other animal. I have had dogs which would do anything I asked them except speak. I remember an old Labrador I had which would eat fruit from the garden or imported fruit. I took a great deal of trouble in training that dog.
  I always feel that the time spent in training is well worth while. If dogs are properly trained they are the most pleasing company that one can have. Sporting dogs are always well trained. If only some town dwellers would think of the way in which our sporting dogs behave in keeping at heel in trying circumstances, we might not face the problem of the increasing number of road accidents caused by dogs.
  The problem of unaccompanied dogs gets more serious each year. About 70,000 dog licences have been issued during each of several years past. Far too many people keep dogs without being dog lovers. The R.S.P.C.A. had no fewer than 288 cases last year in which convictions were secured for cruelty to dogs. Some people acquire puppies and then neglect them so that they die of starvation or suffer from disease, solely because their owners are anxious only to be able to tell their neighbours that they possess a dog and are not at all interested in the care and maintenance of the animal.
  Some dog owners allow their dogs to stray in the streets at will. As a result about 400 to 500 road accidents are caused each week. In my own county no fewer than 218 road accidents were caused in the year 1951–52 as a result of unaccompanied dogs. Unfortunately, two of these proved fatal, and in 34 other incidents serious injuries were caused. Last week I saw a picture in a local newspaper, the "Wimbourne and District
  1688
  News" of a car which had somersaulted when the driver tried to avoid a dog. Fortunately, the car landed on its wheels and I am happy to say that the two occupants were not seriously injured. That is not always the case.
  As a dog lover, I do not know what is the right thing to do—whether to drive straight on and let the dog be killed or try to avoid the animal and perhaps bring suffering and injury to human beings. In this great City of London no fewer than 14,057 live dogs were admitted last year to the Battersea Dogs Home after they had been found roaming the streets. That figure does not include dogs which were run over and injured when they strayed into the streets.
  When it became known that I intended to raise this matter in the House I had a good deal of correspondence. I had one letter which said:
  "Unfortunately, thousands of people believe that the dog is sacred, and that sheep and human beings are just there for the dog's amusement."
  There is some truth in that statement. In addition to being the cause of many accidents, dogs wandering at will cause the streets to be badly fouled. In some places it is most unpleasant to walk in the mornings until the road sweepers have cleared the roads and pavements. These same dogs, living on the outskirts of towns, and which cause road accidents, may have been going to, or returning from, sheep or poultry hunting expeditions.
  We are seeing continual reports in the Press of large-scale sheep killings all over the country. Emphasis has been laid on the loss of meat and the financial loss to the farmer. There is another point, and that is the cruelty to the sheep. One cannot estimate the pain and suffering caused by the savaging of dogs upon the exhausted mother sheep. Only last week I saw a case of savaging in Sussex, on a farm where more than £1,000 had been lost, and, as a result, that farmer is not keeping any more sheep.
  Something like £75,000 to £100,000 is the estimated loss of sheep each year which is caused by dogs running loose round the countryside. Under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, all dogs have to be provided with, and wear, a collar with the name and address of the owner on it and, under that Act, the

  1689
  police can seize any dog found straying; and, after seven days' notice, it can be destroyed. Under the same Act, the police can seize any dog at large one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to see whether he can do more to call the attention of local authorities to the powers which they have under this Act of the last century.
  Among correspondence which I have
  received on this subject is some from the Canine Defence League and that organisation states that no dog owner wilfully lets his dog do damage. I do not believe a word of it. There are far too many dog owners who are unconcerned with what their dogs may do, and I should like the R.S.P.C.A. to look into this question of sheep worrying in order to bring some of these people before the courts, not only because of the damage done, but because of the cruelty involved.
  In the United States they deal with this problem because they are concerned about it, and it may interest the House to know that in no fewer than 28 States the licence fee for a bitch is double that of a dog. They feel that by so doing they are keeping down the number of mongrel dogs bred; little puppies get about causing a great deal of damage. In Michigan, they are so concerned about this that if a dog is found wandering at large on the highway, and a citizen informs a policeman, it can be shot without incurring legal liability. Exactly the same applies in the case of a dog which is seen at large in a field in which there are sheep and other livestock. The police have the same power as with the dog wandering in the street.
  I have already mentioned that I have received a great number of letters in connection with this debate, including quite a number from the North of England. The majority of the writers say that strong action should be taken to deal with this very important matter. I have found that the motorists are unanimous in suggesting that something should be done to deal with these dogs. One lady who has written to me says that it is the motorist's fault that the dogs are killed on the road and that a motorist should have sufficient control over his vehicle to be able to stop when a dog crosses the road. She suggests that un-
  1690
  less he is able to do that he is not a fit and proper person to have a driving licence. That lady can have no experience of what happens when a dog suddenly darts off the pavement in front of a car.
  But it is not only the motorist that the dog runs into. I met somebody last week whose relative was walking along the pavement when suddenly a dog rushed in front of her causing her to fall over and break a leg. Many dog owners let their dogs loose and are not in the least concerned what harm they may cause to pedestrians or motorists. They are only concerned with having a nice little dog.
  The dog licence was introduced in 1878 and its price is 7s. 6d. That amount must have made an impact on the pocket in those days, but today it is only the price of two packets of cigarettes. Quite recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) also initiated an Adjournment debate on dogs. He and I have discussed the matter together and he has very kindly given me the correspondence he received on the subject. It is very remarkable that only about 25 per cent. of the people who have written to us think that 7s. 6d. is a fair charge.
  I feel that more attention should be given to the training of dogs, not only in the interest of dog owners generally, but for the blind, for cripples and for old age pensioners living alone. I know that to such people a dog is a great comfort and a great help in case anyone should attempt to molest them. Consideration should be given to this matter and also to the question of giving such people complete exemption from having to buy a dog licence.
  Today, well over 3 million dog licences are issued in this country every year, and our population of dogs is going up at the rate of something like 75,000 dogs a year. That is rather an alarming figure. Before I conclude I should like to give two further quotations from my correspondence. One writer says:
  "You will probably let yourself in for a lot of abuse from those self-styled dog lovers. Many of them leave their pets to feed from the dustbins. I do not know how they can justify their title."
  It would be much kinder to the dogs if they were not owned by people who let them loose on the highways; indeed,

  1691
  it would be a greater kindness in many cases if they were not born at all. Another writer says:
  "I am convinced that half the owners of dogs are not dog lovers at all. The roads in this little seaside town are a disgrace and road accidents happen every day as a result of stray dogs."
  That confirms my argument.
  I should like my hon. Friend to look very carefully into this most serious problem of dealing with unaccompanied dogs. I wonder what his road safety committees are doing about it. Have they run a campaign drawing the attention of dog lovers to the injury and loss of life that is caused week by week through their neglect? If not, I feel that it is high time it was done. Insufficient publicity has been given to this very important matter. My hon. Friend must set about tackling the problem. The real way of dealing with it is to raise the dog licence to two guineas a year.
  1.21 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) asked me to be here this morning to reply to certain matters affecting the Ministry of Transport. He has roamed over four Departments other than mine—the Ministry of Agriculture, the Home Office, the Treasury and the Ministry of Health, for which, of course, I am not competent to reply. I will confine myself to that aspect of his remarks which dealt with road safety.
  One in 70 of personal injury accidents are attributable to dogs straying in the highway. In 1951, out of 178,417 accidents, 2,648 could be traced to this cause. In 1952, out of 171,757 accidents, the number was 2,596, a welcome reduction. In his study of this question my hon. Friend has doubtless read the report of the committee on the law of civil liability for damage done by animals which appeared in January of this year as a Command Paper. It would be interesting to know whether he agrees with the recommendation of this important committee over which the Lord Chief Justice presided, and particularly with their recommendation on third-party insurance.
  Mr. Crouch: Yes, I do, but I feel that it is not insurance that will stop these
  1692
  accidents. That merely provides compensation. I believe that in many counties all accidents involving dogs are not reported, but only those where human beings are injured.
  Mr. Braithwaite: I wanted to know how my hon. Friend regarded this important report, because it is useful evidence for us. As we see it, the solution to this problem lies in education and propaganda. There has been no relaxation on our part in that respect. I am sure that my hon. Friend has read the book published by the Ministry of Transport which deals with road accidents in 1951 and which contains a number of valuable illustrations, including one dealing with accidents involving dogs. The book has been circulated very largely throughout the country.
  It is not possible for me to discuss possible legislation to increase the cost of licences or to deal with anything else. Even if it were possible on an Adjournment debate I should be infringing the rule of anticipation in that on the Order Paper for today there is a Bill to deal with attacks by dogs on farm animals. My hon. Friend's remarks on animal worrying would have been more appropriate to the Second Reading of that Bill, because I have no responsibility at all for dealing with that problem.
  During the last two years, we have put on the back of a dog licence some most valuable suggestions and, indeed, exhortations on this topic. It would be helpful, and I throw this out as a suggestion to the public, if my remarks receive any publicity, if people, particularly tradespeople, would be careful about closing gates when visiting houses so that not only dogs, but children who are among the victims of road accident, could not stray into the highways.
  My hon. Friend made a remark on the subject of the blind man's dog, with which I have considerable sympathy. He will appreciate that the argument in favour of that, strong as it is, runs counter to a great deal of what he said. In this case, it is the dog who leads his blind master along the road and not the master who leads the dog. Many dogs have a better road sense than many humans. To see them taking the blind across the zebra crossings is an encouraging spectacle to those of us interested in this matter.
  Mr. Crouch: The dogs are trained.
  Mr. Braithwaite: Dogs can also be trained to lead themselves. The answer is that all dogs should be trained, and many are.
  The solution lies, as I have said earlier, in constant and untiring publicity. I am going to take this opportunity to enlist the good services of my hon. Friend in this matter. Since he gave notice of this Adjournment debate, I have been making some inquiries and I find that both Blandford and the Dorset County Council have set up road safety committees. I am, however, grieved to learn that both these bodies have been less active than many of their contemporaries and somewhat lacking in enthusiasm in this particular, important matter.
  I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friend will expend some of his zeal for road safety in his own constituency. May I say to him, in all good temper, that
  1694
  energy, like charity, begins at home. This debate is taking place at an hour when human vitality is notoriously at its lowest. None the less, the Ministry of Transport will not weary of well doing, and I commend our example to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Crouch: May I point out that Dorchester is not in my constituency, but in the constituency of my hon. Frend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Digby).
  Mr. Braithwaite: I did not mention Dorchester. I said that Blandford and the Dorset County Council both have road safety committees and that we should like to see greater activity by them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past One o'Clock a.m.

EMPLOYMENT
  Lichfield
  Lichfield
  Tamworth and Fazely
  Tamworth and Fazely
  Newport
  Newport
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Hospital, Newport (Stoking Apparatus)
  Hospital, Newport (Stoking Apparatus)
  Cost (Publicity)
  Cost (Publicity)
  Hospitals (Voluntary Workers)
  Hospitals (Voluntary Workers)
EDUCATION
  Independent Schools
  Independent Schools
  Cranfield College of Aeronautics
  Cranfield College of Aeronautics
  Spastic Children
  Spastic Children
  Grammar School, Sittingbourne
  Grammar School, Sittingbourne
  International Study Conference, Oxford
  International Study Conference, Oxford
  Technical Education, North Wales
  Technical Education, North Wales
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  Teachers' Pensions
  Teachers' Pensions
  Local Authority Rates (Increases)
  Local Authority Rates (Increases)
  Building Completions (Value)
  Building Completions (Value)
  Fire Drills
  Fire Drills
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Anglo-Argentina Trade Protocol
  Anglo-Argentina Trade Protocol
  Raw Cotton Commission
  Raw Cotton Commission
  Australian Tariffs
  Australian Tariffs
  Import Duties
  Import Duties
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Auckland Bridge Project (Refused Loan Issue)
  Auckland Bridge Project (Refused Loan Issue)
  Cartridges (Tax)
  Cartridges (Tax)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES)
AGRICULTURE
  Administrative Costs
  Administrative Costs
  Fowl Pest
  Fowl Pest
  Calf Subsidy Scheme (Certifying Officers)
  Calf Subsidy Scheme (Certifying Officers)
  Bulls and Boars (Licences)
  Bulls and Boars (Licences)
  Tomato and Cucumber Board
  Tomato and Cucumber Board
  Apiaries (Foul Brood Disease)
  Apiaries (Foul Brood Disease)
  Estate Management Directions (Fines)
  Estate Management Directions (Fines)
  Apples and Pears (Marketing Scheme)
  Apples and Pears (Marketing Scheme)
  Hostels (Losses)
  Hostels (Losses)
  Flooded Land (Rehabilitation)
  Flooded Land (Rehabilitation)
  Bone Meal Imports
  Bone Meal Imports
RIVERS
  Banks (Maintenance and Repairs)
  Banks (Maintenance and Repairs)
  Nor Pits Breach
  Nor Pits Breach
  SEA DEFENCE WORKS
  SEA DEFENCE WORKS
  AFFORESTATION, LLEYN PENINSULA
  AFFORESTATION, LLEYN PENINSULA
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Juvenile Crime
  Juvenile Crime
  Police (Pay and Conditions)
  Police (Pay and Conditions)
  Experiments on Animals
  Experiments on Animals
  Children Act (Amendment)
  Children Act (Amendment)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CIRCULAR 5/53)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CIRCULAR 5/53)
  COAL (PIT-HEAD PRICE INCREASE)
  COAL (PIT-HEAD PRICE INCREASE)
  FLOOD RELIEF FUND (SCOTTISH CLAIMS)
  FLOOD RELIEF FUND (SCOTTISH CLAIMS)
  WAR PENSIONER, SCOTLAND
  WAR PENSIONER, SCOTLAND

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

TRANSPORT BILL
2.36 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 23:
Amendments as to general duty and constitution of Commission, etc.
23.—(1) For subsections (1) to (3) of section three of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to the general duty of the Commission), there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(1) It shall be the general duty of the Commission, in the exercise of their powers under this Act—

(a) to provide railway services for Great Britain;

(c) to provide, in such places and to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient, other transport services and facilities for traffic on inland waterways; and

(2) The following provisions shall have effect as respects the membership of the Commission—

(a) the maximum number of members of the Commission other than the chairman shall, instead of being eight, be ten;

(b)so much of subsection (2) of section one of the Transport Act, 1947, as requires not less than four members other than the chairman to render whole-time service to the Commission is hereby repealed and accordingly only the chairman and such other members, if any, as the Minister thinks fit shall be required to render whole-time service to the Commission;

(c) in exercising the powers exercisable by him under or by virtue of the said section one, the Minister shall have regard to the desirability of securing that the members of the Commission include—

(i) persons who between them have had experience in the management of railways
1464
and road transport and in the organisation of workers; and

(ii) persons who, otherwise than by virtue of such experience as aforesaid, may between them be expected to be conversant with the requirements, as respects transport, of agriculture, commerce and industry.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, in paragraph (c) of the proposed new subsection (1) to leave out all words after "expedient" and to insert:
"services on inland waterways and facilities for traffic thereon; and"
The noble Marquess said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. This is one of the Amendments which could be included under the general heading of "Buses for busmen," a phrase which has been used before. I do not want to go into the general background or the principles behind the Amendment, because they have already been discussed, but perhaps I may be allowed to repeat and emphasise one general principle. It is that it has alwaysbeen my opinion, and the opinion of my noble friends who support this Amendment, and others, that the Transport Commission should not be in the position of owning and controlling passenger road transport. My noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House knows our feelings on this subject, and I will not labour them any more. I believe that it is a mistake for the road transport industries—be they concerned with road haulage or passenger transport—to be the play of political Parties, and one hopes that out of this Bill and the Amendments there will come some form of organisation to which both sides can agree. For that reason, we have always emphasised the possibility of partnership between the Transport Commission and the bus companies.
One is a little anxious about the particular clause in the Bill to which this Amendment applies, because it covers the general duty and constitution of the Commission. In subsection (1) (c) there is undoubtedly the statement that it is the duty of the Commission to provide, among other things, "other transport services." Now what I and the noble Lords who support me ask, is this. Here I am in agreement with noble Lords opposite that if we want competition, let

1465
us have it. One does not want a private monopoly. We on this side of the House do not want a public monopoly. But we feel that here is a clause which enables any buses or any road transport passenger services run by the Commission—who, under another clause, now have to apply to the licensing authorities for a road licence—to be used to influence the licensing authority in the granting of licences.
It is quite a simple proposition. One of the companies in which the majority of shares are held by the Transport Commission—and there is no compulsion yet under the Bill to compel them to divest themselves of majority holdings in road transport services—might apply for a licence. That licence, quite properly, in the normal course of events, might be opposed by a company running a vehicle service in the area which is not within the railway-bus combine. If I were the licensing authority, I should probably feel biased towards a request for a licence where the operator seeking the licence said, "I refer you to an Act and to a Statute." There is no doubt, as he might say, that this particular clause makes it the duty of the Commission
"to provide, in such places and to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient, other transport services…."
We feel strongly that in the future that clause might be prayed in aid for some form of alteration by a bus company owned by the Commission in an effort to influence the decision of the licensing authority. One is not pleading for privilege for private companies, as opposed to the Commission companies. What one is pleading for is that when they go to the licensing authority they should both start with equal advantages. It is in the light of that argument that I commend this Amendment to your Lordships and may I say that I am hoping for beginner's luck? In that spirit, I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert ("services on inland waterways and facilities for traffic thereon; and").—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
2.41 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): The noble Marquess has asked for two things. He will not expect to get everything, but I
1466
think as regards the second request I can give him what he calls "beginner's luck." What he is really asking—what, indeed, I suppose is the whole intention of the Amendment—is to make quite sure that the Bill as drafted says what it means. But the effect of the Amendment, if the House took it as it stands, would be to remove from the list of general duties of the Commission any reference to "other transport services," which, in this context, means road passenger and road goods services. I think the noble Marquess will see that that would be altogether too limiting an Amendment. The Transport Commission is a statutory corporation, and therefore it can do only such things as are expressly authorised by its Statute. The Commission must have power to run these other transport services. Let me give an example which will no doubt be accepted in every quarter of the House. There are small branch railways which are very uneconomic and which probably ought to have been shut down before now. But they cannot be shut down without an alternative service being offered. The obvious alternative is a bus service. That form of replacement is economic and in the public interest. Therefore, clearly, the Transport Commission must by Statute have power to run a service such as that. In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Marquess will not press for words which would, in fact, prevent that.
With regard to the noble Marquess's other point, whilst I will not say there is more substance in it—because I am sure the intention, and I would say the language, of the Bill probably prevents any question of what he calls undue privilege or undue preference—I gather that he is anxious lest the words which the Bill uses should be construed as putting the Commission in a privileged position, compared with other applicants, if they apply to the licensing authority for a licence. Quite clearly that is not the intention. Except in London—where the London Transport Executive has virtually a monopoly—the intention and probably, almost certainly, the wording of the Bill places all operators, the Commission and everybody else, in the same position before the licensing authorities; and it is the duty of the licensing authorities to administer the 1930 Act in accordance with the intentions of Parliament.

1467
The Minister has informed me that he will certainly bring this discussion to the notice of the licensing authorities. It could conceivably be argued—though I think it would not succeed—that some special position is created for the Transport Commission. That is certainly not intended, and no one—least of all the licensing authorities—should be left in any doubt about the position in law. However, as there might be a doubt here, I have taken the best legal advice I can, and I am advised that on the whole it would be a good thing to put in a small Amendment making it clear that licensing authorities are to have no regard to the terms of this subsection when they are considering applications made to them. I have fortified myself with that legal advice as to what is the common intention, and I am prepared on Report stage to put down an Amendment to cover the point. I hope that that will satisfy my noble "beginner."
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: In view of what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has told me—for which I thank him very much—I would much prefer not to press this Amendment. Having hoped to catch a 30-pounder and landed a 15-pounder, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in the proposed new subsection (1), after paragraph (c) to insert:
"(d) to provide, in such places and to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient."
The noble Lord said: This is something more than the drafting Amendment, which it appears to be. We wish to ensure that facilities for traffic on inland waterways may be given by the Transport Commission and I suggest that this Amendment makes the matter more clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 38, leave out ("and") and insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD HAWKE: It is clearly the duty of the Commission to provide facilities for traffic on inland waterways and for that reason we should like to keep it in a separate paragraph. As regards the rest of the subsection, which was dealt with by Lord Linlithgow's Amendment, we
1468
shall want to look at the words which are offered by the Government on Report stage, in order to see not only that they provide guidance to the licensing authority in giving licences but that it is not stressed that it is the duty of the Commission to provide facilities for passenger transport if other facilities already exist in the area.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not going back on the last Amendment. I hope that, when the noble Lord sees it, he will not look a gift horse in the mouth. The Amendment I am going to put down will do exactly what I said—namely, to make it plain that all operators are equal before the law and that nobody has a preference over another. I accept this Amendment because I think it is really pure drafting, in the sense that it makes plainer what is the intention. There might be some doubt in the Bill, as it stands, as to the meaning of "other transport services" in line 38. Our contention (I think no one in the House will differ on this) is that these words ought to cover all transport services, including road haulage and road passenger services, as well as inland waterways services other than those referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b). To make this quite clear, I think it would improve the Bill to accept this Amendment. The result will be to split paragraph (c) in the Bill, as it stands, into two paragraphs. Under the new paragraph (c) the Commission will have a duty:
"to provide, in such places and to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient, other transport services."
Then comes the new paragraph (d) under which the Commission will have
"to provide, in such places and to such extent as may appear to the Commission to be expedient, facilities for traffic on inland waterways."
The clause will then go on as it appears in the Bill. I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.52 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "ten" and insert "fourteen." The noble Lord said: We now come to the first of the important Amendments that we shall deal with this afternoon. This seeks to increase the size of the Commission from ten to fourteen members. If the Lord Chairman will allow me, I should like to deal here with Amendments Nos. 95

1469
and 96, as they both hang together. I seek to reinstate in this Bill the provisions of Section 1 (2) of the Transport Act of 1947, which provide that there shall be four full-time members. That is the gist of this Amendment. I move it because those of your Lordships who have followed the discussion upon this Committee stage—and I think it is a great compliment to transport that so many noble Lords have withstood the rigours of three strenuous days; in fact, there were some noble Lords who at twenty minutes past twelve last night were as fresh as they were in the first five minutes of the debate on Monday—must have been impressed with the very difficult task that confronts the British Transport Commission in future. The Government have decided that transport is once again to be free. We are going to have that glorious open competition, beloved so much by noble Lords opposite. The Government are to launch on to this sea of trouble a public corporation with an invested capital of £1,180 million, guaranteed in principal and interest by the taxpayers of this country. That is no light responsibility for a body of men. I feel certain that, on whichever side of the House any noble Lord sits, he is sufficiently sensible of his public duty and public responsibility to consider that those assets should be under the guidance not only of qualified men but of a sufficient number of them.
Consider what they have to do. First of all, they have to organise their undertakings so that about £100 million worth, or thereabouts, of their assets is hived off and sold to the public. They have to do that "as quickly as is reasonally practicable"; they have to do it in such a manner as to secure the best price, and they have to so do it that the country's transport system suffers no disturbance. First of all, we on this side of the House say that a chairman and eight part-time individuals are not enough. Secondly, we say that we desire to see, not the majority but four, exclusive of the chairman, full-time members. I think your Lordships will all agree that in running huge concern like this, with the responsibilities that are thrust upon them and with the harsh taskmasters they will have in future—that is, the noble Lords opposite—what is needed is not men who are looking for a part-time job to occupy their declining years instead of sitting in their
1470
club but men who will give their full time. If I may say so with great respect, you will never get comparatively young men—I will not mention any age, but you will not get men within the fifties or something like that—
LORD HAWKE: Can the noble Lord tell us whether there is any connection between the proposed addition of four to the membership of the Commission and the fact that the Amendment is backed by four names, because we can then judge the ages?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not know whether the noble Lord is suggesting that noble Lords whose names are linked with mine on this Amendment are applicants for the job. Is that the insinuation?
LORD HAWKE: I am asking.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps the noble Lord will address that question to himself and not to me. Perhaps the will find an answer which will amuse him; it certainly does not amuse me. There is not enough money to tempt me. With the noble Lords opposite as my masters, I should live with them for about a split second.
May I now address myself seriously to the task I have set myself in trying to tell your Lordships why this Amendment is on the Order Paper, as I expect other noble Lords will be interested in it? The reason is that we think that you will not attract the young and virile men by offering them a part-time occupation. As I say, you will get gentlemen past their prime—doubtless still very good, and in their ageing years, not too bad; but this is not a job for men who have already spent the best years of their lives. This is a job for men who, in the main, will devote their whole thought and mind to it, and who can look upon this job as a career for the future, not as one where they can bask in the setting sun of their commercial life. It is always a difficult task—I expect other noble Lords have had this experience—but the best blend is of part-time and full-time members. In an organisation like this, I think some part-time members are needed, someone to bring in. perhaps, the refreshing breeze of outside experience but the real hard job, the hard core, of the day-to-day administration and thinking out of the policies of this Transport Commission

1471
has to be vested in some full-time members whose only preoccupation it is and who do not have other partial affections outside. That is the reason why we have put down this Amendment. I know that much depends upon making a wise choice of the people concerned. I believe that as the job has got to be organised it needs men of imagination, who are willing wholeheartedly to go into this task. I want the Committee to believe me when I say that this is not just an attempt to revert to the status quo. The Amendment is not put down with that intention; it is put down because we sincerely believe that this is the best thing to do. I hope the Committee will agree with it. I hope my arguments will impress the Government, and that they may be tempted to accept this Amendment, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 11, leave out ("ten") and insert ("fourteen").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord was fresh at half past twelve this morning. I myself was not entirely overcome—I managed to put in a couple of hours work after I got home. I have also taken note of his observations on what is the ideal age. I notice that, quite irrespective of Party, in most men's minds the prime of life tends slightly to vary as their age advances. The noble Lord has proposed this Amendment. Everybody is in for a bit of luck to-day because I am going some way to meet him—though he is not a beginner! The Commission started off in 1947 with eight members, plus the chairman—nine in all. As at present drawn, this Bill provides for ten, plus the Chairman. But I think there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment that has been put forward. The character of the Commission's undertaking is considerably altered by the Bill, but certainly it will still have to manage or supervise diverse interests, and the principle of decentralisation brings with it the need for more part-time members. Do not let us cast aspersions on part-timers. The Commission may want whole-timers, but part-timers are extremely valuable, particularly if they are the right sort of people. All in all, I think there is a case for having a larger Commission than that which is proposed in the Bill—namely, eleven.
1472
Another reason is, that we do not know how the regional reorganisation will develop. But if we make the Commission rather larger it makes easier the link between the regional boards—if the scheme should take the form (as I imagine it probably would) of having regional boards—and the Commission itself. It was suggested to me that the half-way or three-quarter-way house of fourteen, inclusive of the chairman, was as big as was really necessary. But there is not much between that and fifteen, including the chairman. This is a maximum. There is no sort of guarantee that we are going to put fifteen on at the start, bin it is not a bad thing to have something in reserve. I may add that fifteen is not a bad figure for a team. There are precedents in other fields for that. I hope two-thirds of this team will not always be in the scrum. Therefore, we had better not boggle about one or two here or there, and on behalf of the Government, I am prepared to accept the Amendment. Perhaps we could have this Amendment put to the Committee and then I will go on to Amendment No. 96, with which the noble Lord also dealt.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I beg formally to move the next Amendment in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 12, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Bill, as it stands, has no statutory requirement for any member of the Commission, other than the chairman, to be whole-time. Of course, that does not mean that no other member can be whole-time. The noble Lord's Amendment seeks to say that you ought to have four members other than the chairman, as whole-time members of the Commission. As I said on the last Amendment, we do not know what will be the final composition of the Commission until we know the shape of things to come by way of reorganisation. But we have been considering this matter, and we think that it is unlikely, whatever form the reorganisation may take, and giving full scope to the part-time members, that one would be able to get on with less than four full-time members. Therefore, I shall be glad to accept this Amendment also.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I just say that when I was a small child my great hobby was reading Bible stories, my favourite one being that concerning the walls of Jericho, around which the Biblical folk walked once every day for seven days? On the seventh day they marched round seven times and, with a mighty trump, the walls of Jericho fell. I felt certain that if I kept on long enough I could induce the walls of the Government, like the walls of Jericho, to fall. It must be the influence of the close companionship between the noble Viscount and myself, hour after hour, to six o'clock on one night, ten o'clock on another and half past twelve last night, which has melted his stony heart, so that at last I have had an Amendment accepted. With great appreciation I accept his offer.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I think his allusion is a happy one, because he is singularly adept at blowing his own trumpet.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I do not wish to interfere with the trumpet blowing and other musical effects, but before the Amendment is carried I should like to be clear as to the effect of its acceptance. I take it that we shall revert to the position under the 1947 Act, whereby it was thought desirable to have four whole-time members. Whilst I should not object to the power that the Minister would have under the Bill as originally drawn to appoint up to four if he thought it desirable, I have some doubts whether it is necessary to have four. I think that the reason for providing in the 1947 Act for four whole-time members was in order to have three or four people specially responsible for the specific activities of the Commission. That is a system which I doubt would always require to be perpetuated in the Transport Commission. I can see the force of making the chairman a whole-time member, but I wonder what the other three would be required to do. It might, possibly, be quite all right to make the vice-chairman a whole-time member, but I think the remaining two would be in a rather difficult position. I suggest that it would be better to have the chairman and vice-chairman whole-time members, leaving the rest as part-time members, unless, of course, it should appear to the
1474
Minister to be necessary to have an additional whole-time member. Beyond that it would, I think, be better to leave the Bill as it is.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: May I add a few words to what the noble Viscount has just said? Unfortunately little can now be done because the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has accepted this Amendment. The Commission is supposed to be—as I believe it is and as I think it ought to be—a policy-making body, and I cannot see why you want a large number of whole-time members. My own experience with railway companies and other forms of business is that a whole-time member who has no particular job to do is an infernal nuisance, because he runs round interfering not in policy matters but in purely administrative matters. I therefore regret very much indeed that the Amendment should have been accepted by the noble Viscount, because it seems to me that it is running away from the idea that the Commission should be a policy-making body. I know that noble Lords on the opposite side of the Chamber have an exaggerated idea of the administrative ability of experts in this or that particular branch. My experience in the past of the railway companies—and I have been a vice-chairman of a company—was with boards larger than fourteen, and if I had had the opportunity I would have supported the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in regard to the numbers which he suggested. Boards such as I have in mind might have consisted of eighteen or twenty members, of whom only one, generally the chairman, was whole-time, and the deputy-chairman gave a good deal of time as well. The other members provided that knowledge of the world outside transport which was necessary in any policy-making work which concerned an industry such as the transport industry, which affects every individual and every business in this country. Therefore, I very much regret that there should be more than one, or possibly two, whole-time members of the Commission.
LORD WOLVERTON: I also should like to say a few words on this. I think it is right to increase the numbers of the Commission, as we all hope the work of the Commission will be the decentralisation of the railways. The railway regions, we hope, will be given more autonomy.

1475
But we should not, I think, need to have so many members full-time. I quite agree to the number being increased, but I hope that the number of full-time members will not be much increased, because it means that they then have to fish around for work and are apt to interfere too much with regional organisation.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not see any reason why they should interfere with regional organisation at all. This is a matter of opinion. I have sat on a railway board and on a good many other boards as well, and I found that it was a good thing to have a certain number of whole-time members and a larger number of part-time members. I did not agree to accept this Amendment in order to give "a little bit of sugar to the bird," so to speak, but because it was the considered opinion of the Minister that this would be a wise thing to do. It does not follow that because you are a whole-time member you are going to do someone else's job. After all, this is going to be a very large business which we are going to decentralise. It is a pretty vast undertaking. The Commission is not like the board of a single railway company. A single railway company might certainly do with one "whole-timer" on the board with another, possibly the deputy-chairman—like the noble Earl—filling the rôle of a sort of cross-breed. He would be practically a "whole-timer" when he was wanted to be. Perhaps he might be correctly described as a "three-quarter timer." But here there is a need to treble or quadruple that provision. This is an immense transport business. And remember, the Commission have both road and passenger interests to consider, and it is necessary to have contact with the regions. The very fact that there is to be decentralisation without functional control from the centre over the regions seems to me to be all the more reason for having close contact with the regions.
I think this is true of business administration as it is certainly true of Government administration, if you have a far-flung decentralised Department. Certainly, all the years when I have been a Minister of the Government I have always refused to promote anyone inside my Department who would not decentralise and make the fellow lower down take responsibility. That did not mean
1476
that I did not want myself and my top men to get around and have contact. My job in West Africa in the war consisted entirely of getting around. I did it with a very small staff and I did not do other people's jobs. In a case like this you want personal contact, and I do not believe that you get it by having a "part-timer," whom you would have to get hold of every time you needed him for some particular piece of work. One can imagine saying to such a "part-timer": "Can you get down there to see this fellow—the regional authorities want to see you." And bear in mind that a great deal is accomplished by talking to a director rather than simply talking to someone who is sent clown as his representative. You can imagine this "part-timer" whom you have asked to go down to the region saying, "I do not think I can do that now. I have a meeting of the board of the I.C.I. on Monday, something else on Tuesday, and a sitting of a Royal Commission on Wednesday. But I think that perhaps I could do it on Tuesday of next week." That sort of thing is not going to provide the quick personal and intimate contact which we want. I would guess that the Ministry are quite right in what they have advised me to do.
LORD WINSTER: I hope that the noble Viscount will allow me to congratulate him on the resilience which enabled him to do two hours' work last night after your Lordships' House had adjourned. I only want to suggest to him a rather melancholy thought, and that is that as old age increases upon us we need less and less sleep. It is unfortunate but true. On the two questions which have come before us on these Amendments, I would say this. While it might appear that fourteen is rather a large number (perhaps the noble Viscount would agree with me that a committee of one is the best committee you can possibly have) I think you will need a large number of members upon this committee, because a wise committee do not attempt to handle everything themselves but delegate certain specific questions to sub-committees with instructions to report their findings to the committee as a whole. Therefore, I think that the number of fourteen is, in this case, not too large, because it permits the delegation of a certain amount of work to subcommittees. That delegation would be

1477
impossible if the committee consisted of too small a number.
On the question of part-time or full-time members, I would only say that I think a committee will never really enjoy the full respect or full confidence of the public unless it consists of a reasonable number of full-time members. Otherwise the public are bound to say: "This is only a manufactured job. There cannot be a real job in this, for, look, it is handled by a number of people with whom it is only a part-time occupation." Therefore in the case of a Commission charged with such great responsibilities as this is, as shown by the words at the top of page 33, I feel sure it is wise to ensure that that Commission consists of a reasonable number of full-time members who are regarded by the public as giving the whole of their time to the extremely important duties confided to them.
LORD HAWKE: As I have spoken strongly against functionalism in the past, I should like to say that the declaration by my noble friend in front of me has considerably relieved my mind. It looks to me as if on this Board it is going to be possible to have whole-time members who do not perpetuate what we think is the bad system whereby, for instance, the engineer in charge of an engineering department at the centre can give orders to engineers in the regions behind the backs of the regional managers. That satisfies me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.22 p.m.
LORD BILSLAND LORD BILSLAND moved, to add to subsection (2) (a):
"(iii) Two persons elected in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland being persons who may be expected to be conversant with Scottish Transport requirements and who shall not render whole time service to the Commission or any body corporate directly or indirectly controlled by the Commission.
The noble Lord said: I hope that the run of luck which other noble Lords have had will also apply in my case. I rise to make a plea for Scotland in the larger number of members of the British Transport Commission agreed to by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. In the Second Reading debate, and during Committee stage, many noble Lords have referred to
1478
the pressing transport problems in Scotland to-day. Last night the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said he was staggered by the transport problems of Scotland. I shall not detain your Lordships by re-stating in detail the case Which I endeavoured to make on Second Reading for special consideration being given to these problems. They derive from the greater distance of Scottish manufacturers from the large centres of population; from the physical difficulties of communication; from our sparser population, which is reflected by the fact that though we have 18 per cent. of railway mileage we have only 10 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom; the urgent problems of the Highlands and so forth. An efficient transport service is of major importance everywhere; to Scotland it is vital.
Since the British Transport Commission were set up under the Act of 1947, they have had one part-time member, Sir Ian Bolton, representing Scottish interests. I pay tribute to the outstanding service he has performed and to the very able manner in which he has so closely applied his wide knowledge of transport in general and of Scottish transport problems in particular. My colleagues and I on the Scottish Council feel that circumstances warrant a plea for a larger representation of Scottish interests on the Commission. Therefore, I have put down this Amendment to extend the provisions of Clause 23 to embrace an explicit requirement that the members of the Commission should include two, to be appointed in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, to represent the transport interests of the community in Scotland. The British Transport Commission, which I presume will be reconstituted as soon as the Bill becomes law, will be charged with the function of preparing a scheme of railway reorganisation. That scheme will be of fundamental importance to Scotland. It is necessary, therefore, that the Scottish point of view should be brought fully to bear at this stage. For that reason, as well as for the vital importance of transport in the Scottish economy in general and in the long-term problems with which we are faced, I submit this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 30, at end insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Lord Bilsland.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask the noble Lord a point of elucidation? Does he mean by the words
"persons who may be expected to be conversant with Scottish Transport requirements"
that they must be Scottish by birth or Scottish by attachment? Or may they be even mere Englishmen?
LORD BILSLAND: What we have in mind are people entirely conversant with Scottish conditions and problems.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord does not debar those who are not Scottish?
LORD BILSLAND: We should prefer Scotsmen, as they are more likely to have that knowledge.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Did the noble Lord say that Scotland had 10 per cent. of our population and 18 per cent. of railway mileage?
LORD BILSLAND: Yes.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he has in mind two Scottish members in addition to the fourteen; or out of that number.
LORD BILSLAND: Out of that number.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My noble friend Lord Bilsland has covered the arguments in favour of this Amendment very thoroughly and there is not much more to add. There is the obvious argument that Scotland's population and industries are scattered and are such a long way from London and the South that a specialised knowledge is necessary in drawing up and supervising railway schemes for Scotland. That argument is widely known and, I think, fairly irresistible, but I should like to add that it is important that people in Scotland should be made to feel they are not being left out of affairs which concern them, as a Scottish area railway scheme would do. I believe that by the appointment of two Scottish members we shall create a feeling of confidence in Scotland which will be very valuable. I beg to support the Amendment.
LORD GREENHILL: Having heard a noble Lord who is associated with no Party and a noble Lord who presumably is a member of the Party opposite supporting this Amendment, I think it would
1480
be a good thing that a member of the Opposition should speak in favour of this Amendment. As one who for a time was a Deputy Traffic Commissioner, I have vivid recollections of the anxiety with which people in the north-west of Scotland asked us to do all we could to help them in their transport problems, and of the scepticism with which they accepted our assurances that we would press their representations in the appropriate quarters. If the Commission had two members who were acquainted with these difficult and peculiar problems affecting Scotland, and particularly the north of Scotland, I feel that not only would it give a feeling of reassurance to the people in the north of Scotland but that even the Minister would feel he had someone on whom he could rely for the opinions and facts necessary to keep him right when it came to dealing with special problems. For that reason, I have pleasure in associating myself with the mover of this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Viscount replies, if the Government are going to consider this matter on a national basis, on behalf of my noble friends Lord Ogmore and Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I must enter a caveat for Wales.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I should like to make a comment on behalf of other parts of England. No doubt Scotland merits all this consideration, and it cannot be said that we did not devote an adequate amount of time yesterday and the day before to the discussion of the difficult problems in that unfortunate country. But I come from an equally important part of the country, which happens to be a neighbour of Scotland, and I have strong feelings as to which of the two should be given more attention. I should not object to an Amendment which provided that all parts of the country should have their problems considered by people with knowledge, but I feel that too much attention should not be given to Scotland.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Obviously, there is only one way of satisfyng the Committee, and that is to lay down that all members of the Board should be drawn from the Scilly Isles—that would conform to complete impartiality. Really, this outburst of nationalism is ill-timed in these days of United Nations.

1481
Scotland, after all, not merely by virtue of the Scottish conquest of England, has always been entitled to a rather special position. I take it that my noble friend Lord Bilsland, when he says in his Amendment "elected," means "selected."
LORD BILSLAND: Yes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Government on various occasions have indicated that they wish to give special consideration to Scotland—my noble friend Lord Home made a full speech about that on the Second Reading. In addition to the transport users consultative committee for Scotland, it is proposed to set up a Scottish Transport Council, with representatives of railways, airways, road passenger transport and Messrs. MacBrayne, who figured so complimentarily in our debates last night. It has always been the intention of the Government that Scotland should be adequately represented. It has had one member on the Commission, to whom a very proper tribute has been paid. On the enlarged Commission—and I have now accepted the enlargement—I suppose Scotland has a reasonable claim to apply the Goschen formula and get its eleven-eightieths. The Minister would be quite willing to give such an assurance. From time to time, in the days when the late Government were in office, I pressed, on important matters, that an assurance might be embodied in the Bill. I seldom succeeded in convincing them. However, I think we might put something about this in the present Bill.
Scotland really does occupy a different position. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has vicariously represented Wales. I remember that the late Sir Alfred Mond constituted himself one of the great protagonists of Welsh patriotism. Now the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has come here—in person, I am glad to say—to speak for Wales. But Scotland is rather different. It is a self-contained region, whereas Wales is not. I am not forecasting what would be the regions on which decentralisation might come, but certainly with most of the things with which one has ever had to deal in Wales, the position has not been like that in
1482
Scotland. Vitally important as Wales is, for practical administrative purposes it does rather split itself into two parts. We have South and North Wales. I imagine that if we had a region which covered North Wales, that would more naturally go in with Lancashire and Cheshire; whereas South Wales would go in with the western region. That would probably be a reasonable arrangement for practical administrative purposes. There is a Welsh consultative committee, which is now going to have direct access to the Minister. It will be able to send its minutes and recommendations direct to the Minister, as well as to the Central Transport Consultative Committee. Therefore, we have made great improvements on Lord Lucas's own Act. The Minister, of course, can give directions to the Commission arising out of recommendations. There are to be consultative committees dealing with the road passenger services.
I feel that Scotland ought to have this consideration, but I hope that this will not start a sort of "free for all." See how it runs. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, gets up and says something about Wales; and then, quite rightly, my noble friend Lord Ridley gets up and says that if Wales is to be included, then Northumberland should be. We shall end up by going the whole way through all the counties. I will not ask the Committee to take a decision at this moment, but I should be prepared to put down on Report an Amendment in these terms:
"of whom at least two shall be persons appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland as being persons likely to be conversant with the circumstances and special requirements of Scotland."
If the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, will agree to withdraw his Amendment now, I will put down that Amendment on the Report stage. I hope it will be accepted if I do put it down, and that I shall not have as many Amendments as there are counties.
LORD BILSLAND: I thank the noble Viscount, and in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Miscellaneous amendments as to Commission]:
3.39 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) Where one of the activities mentioned in subsection (3) of section two of the Transport Act, 1947 (which relates to the carrying on by the Commission of the activities of undertakings acquired by them)was the provision of a garage for the passengers of the undertaking and for other persons making use of the services of the undertaking, the Commission shall have power notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or in the Transport Act, 1947, for the purpose of any garage so provided to maintain and repair and to purchase and supply spare parts accessories, petrol and oil for the vehicles of their passengers and of such other persons."
The noble Lord said: This is not a major point, but I feel there is a small matter here which is not right in the Bill at the moment and should be put right. It concerns Commission-owned garages. I may say at the outset that almost all these garages in the country are attached to the railway hotels. Before the 1947 Act these garages were able to give a perfectly normal garage service to customers, in the way not only of garaging cars but also of selling oil, petrol and spares, and carrying out repairs and so on. Under the 1947 Act it was decided that, after a period of three years from the passing of that Act, this service to the public should cease, and that the only service these garages would be able to give would be that of garaging cars. The purpose of this Amendment is to restore the situation affecting these garages to what it was before the 1947 Act, so that they will be able to give a full service to the public. It seems reasonable that if one stays in a railway hotel which has a garage attached, puts one's car in the garage and in the morning asks for petrol and oil and, may be, a new lamp bulb, one should be able to get them. If one cannot get them it is a great and an unnecessary irritation.
It may be asked why, if the service from these garages was removed under the 1947 Act, it should be restored now. There is not a great deal of difference, but from our point of view on this side of the House, under the 1947 Act the Commission had considerable power. It owned the railways and it owned a large part of the road services of the country. It was undesirable that State trading on
1484
the part of the Commission should be spread more than was necessary for the main purposes of the Act. Now, on the contrary, the Commission is being divested of a large part of its road services, and a state of competition is being introduced between the various transport branches in the country. That competition is being encouraged by the Government. Therefore it seems unreasonable to me that the garages which are owned by the Commission should not be put into a position where they can really compete with private garages. I also feel that it would be an advantage from the point of view of putting other garages on their mettle. I hope the Government may accept this Amendment. It is only a small point, but I do think there is a case here for something to be put right under this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 43, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
LORD WOLVERTON: Some of us think that this matter is already covered under the 1947 Act. Section 2 (1) (f) says that the Commission shall have power
"to provide in Great Britain such other amenities and facilities for passengers and other persons making use of the services provided by them as it may appear to them requisite or expedient to provide."
We think those words could cover petrol pumps and so on.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, said that this is a little point. One day I will tell him a story about something that started life as being very small. I will not do it now. This is the funniest and weirdest Amendment I have ever seen put down to a Bill from the Government side of your Lordships' House. This is the first essay of the Conservative Party into nationalisation. What they now seek to do is to start nationalising the retail motor trade. I think it is too well known for me to have to declare an interest in this trade, but I will do so for the sake of the record.
The history of this matter is most remarkable. When the 1947 Act was going through your Lordships' House, the Government of the day were attacked, and attacked vigorously, by the present Deputy Leader of the House upon their infamy in including in the Bill

1485
powers for the British Transport Commission to engage in the manufacture of chassis and bodies, and to go into the retail motor trade. Noble Lords will recall that when the British Transport Commission acquired all the undertakings under the powers conferred by the 1947 Act, they acquired many strange things. They acquired greengrocery businesses, manufacturing businesses, chassis and body-building businesses and garages. I have here the words of the noble Viscount. Before he left the Chamber told him I was going to quote him and, with the good humour which he displays, he said, "Yes, all right; go on. I know." This is what the noble Viscount said when he was apposing on the Committee stage of the Transport Bill in 1947 (OFFICIAL REPORT, VOL 148, col. 363):
"If, to all that, they are to add the manufacture of this or that, or the retailing of this or that, they will never get on with the job of transport. I, in my own business experience, have had perhaps my greatest success in disintegrating businesses"—
how true!—
"rather then in integrating them."
The noble Viscount went on to say:
"This was partly the result of megalomania and partly due to the mistaken idea that if you engaged in one form of enterprise you ought to engage in every form of ancillary enterprise that served it."
The noble Viscount was reinforced by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and my noble friend who was then the Leader of your Lordships' House, the late Lord Addison, said that upon the Report stage he would do something about this—and we did. My noble friend Lord Addison said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 150, col. 270):
"For example, you might take over a concern which had a repair shop or some petrol pumps, or which dealt in second-hand cars, or carried on other activities of that kind. Now those activities are not necessarily proper to the business of the Transport Commission, and there is no desire that they should continue to pursue them."
We therefore framed Amendments and took them out of the Bill and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, later said (col. 272):
"My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Leader of the House on an admirable chain of Amendments, and to thank him sincerely for the great trouble he has himself taken over this matter."
Then, on the Third Reading, the noble Viscount said this—and here I again
1486
thank the noble Viscount for the compliment he paid me just now, because, after all, praise from such an accomplished practitioner of trumpet-blowing as the noble Viscount is praise indeed. This is what he said then (col. 642):
"Another wise Amendment, introduced I think by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas"—
that was when the noble Viscount used to blow my trumpet for me; alas! those days are long ago—
"made it clear that the Commission would not deal"—
this is the Amendment—
"in a lot of things which they ought not to be meddling with, such as garages, dealing in cars and secondhand vehicles, retailing petrol and so on."
So it was at the instigation of the noble Viscount that there was withdrawn from the 1947 Act all these things which the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, now wants to bring into this Bill.
I think the noble Lord did his best with the Amendment he moved, but he was not quite correct. These hotel garages have been run very successfully by private enterprise. They are all let to private enterprise. In those days we took the view that that is the way it should be done. It is useless to say that the public are suffering; they are not. The hotels provide the premises and sub-let them. That is what I should have thought noble Lords on the other side of the House wanted. Do you want to start nationalising an industry by a side-wind like this? I cannot understand the noble Lords opposite. Surely it is against their creed. Why should a garage that happens to be site-owned by a railway hotel, or a British Transport Commission hotel, be publicly owned? Why should it be necessary for them to run a garage? Most of these hotels have shops. Gleneagles is an example. Is the noble Lord going to say that the British Transport Commission must now enter the soft goods trade? What is the noble Lord's Party Chairman, as a former head of Lewis's, going to say?
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: Does the noble Lord want me to answer that question now?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should prefer him to answer at the end of my speech. Does the noble Lord wish to nationalise the bookstalls on station platforms? Why not nationalise the

1487
book-selling business? Is it because W. H. Smith and Son happen to be keen supporters of the Conservative Party? This is a vital point. The noble Marquess Lord Linlithgow, and others, said that it was really the job of the British Transport Commission to run transport and not to fiddle about with running buses, and running traffic on waterways, or anything else of the kind. Surely it is not their job to run garages. I quite agree with the noble Lord that every respectable hotel should be able to supply these services. They can, and they are doing it by letting the garages out to public enterprise. I suggest that it is the acme of perfection from the Conservative Party' point of view that a state-owned hotel should allow these services to be run by private enterprise. I suggest that the noble Lord should withdraw this Amendment.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I must reply to the extraordinary statements that have been emanating from the noble Lord. He has been suggesting that I am advocating nationalisation.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: You are.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: These railway-owned garages were nationalised by the Party of the noble Lord opposite.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They were not. We took them out of the Bill. I have just been telling the noble Lord that.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: Surely they are still owned by the Commission?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They are not.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: It is the nationalised body which gets the income from the letting. Surely they are the beneficiaries and the garages are in effect nationalised. That seems to me a perfectly straightforward way to put it, which I think anyone should be able to understand, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to grasp it. It was the noble Lord's Party who nationalised these things, yet the noble Lord is trying to make out that I am advocating for the
1488
first time that they should be nationalised. He seems to me to be very inconsistent. Here he is accusing me of advocating that these garages should be kept under State enterprise and yet he does not raise one word of protest against a similar situation with regard to the hotels. The hotels certainly give an ancillary service to the railway; it might be said that they are in a way some form of State trading. But the noble Lord has never demanded that we should take them out of the Bill and put them completely under private enterprise. I do not see how he can pick on a small point such as this and say that I am suggesting something which I certainly have not suggested while at the same time completely miss the larger thing— the hotels.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord, first of all, does not quite know what is in his own Amendment. He says that these garages, the premises of which are owned by the ground landlord—that is to say, the hotel—and which are being let to private enterprise, must:
"…maintain and repair and…purchase and supply spare parts, accessories, petrol and oil for the vehicles of their passengers and of such other persons…."
They are going into the trade. But the hotels at present are not. The railways may own the land upon which cinemas are built; they may be the ground landlords; but that does not put them into the cinema category. When the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, advocated that hotels should go back to the railways, what did the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, say? He said that the future of the hotel industry vis-àvis British transport remains undecided at the present time. I quite agree but the time will come when it will be right to sell and hive off the hotels from the railways—and I shall support it. But that is another point. I believe that the day has gone when hotels were an adjunct to the provision of transport. I am saying these things only so that the noble Lord shall know my views on this matter of hotels. In 1947 we realised the force of the then Opposition's arguments and we removed all motor vehicle manufacture, chassis and body manufacture, and anything to do with the motor trade, out of the purview of that Act. Now, the noble Lord is saying that while the hotels own the property they

1489
must run the business. That is a dangerous thing because it means that you are bringing a section of the retail motor trade under a nationalised industry.
LORD GIFFORD: I do not often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but I do not think that the facilities which my noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron is seeking to give can be attained in the way he suggests. I myself have theatre interests in the form of agencies in hotels owned by the Commission. The Commission do not sell theatre tickets; we take space in the hotels to render that service to the public. I feel that what the noble Lord desires can be done by private enterprise.
LORD WINSTER: I could not possibly support this Amendment, although I am a country dweller who is convinced of the desirability of a garage at the local railway station. The matter is being discussed to-day in terms of large hotels in big towns, but it has a wider application applying to the countryside. The Amendment is rather innocuously worded. It says:
"…to maintain and repair and to purchase and supply spare parts, accessories, petrol and oil for the vehicles of their passengers and of such other persons…"
Any garage which is entitled to do that will certainly be in competition with private garages; and it will be only a question of time before they are dabbling in the second-hand trade—that is certain. I think the provision of garages at railway stations is peculiarly a matter for private enterprise. In a case in the village with which I am very well acquainted there are within a space of fifty yards two garages on the one side of the street and a third on the other side, which greatly impedes and causes immense annoyance to traffic in that village. Yet at the railway station, although land is available, no garage exists. This provision of garages at railway stations—I am dealing with that case in particular—is peculiarly an affair for private enterprise. I believe that private enterprise is missing great opportunities in many cases through not providing those facilities. I cannot agree that power should be given to the Commission to run garages which will inevitably in a short time be in acute competition with the local garages maintained by private enterprise.
LORD HAWKE: This is a very apt illustration of the way in which the atmosphere of this House turns strong, Labour supporters into Conservative minds, because I see that in another place this very Amendment, or something remarkably like it, was moved, and the Labour Party to a man, or nearly to a man, went into the Lobby and voted for it. So that there must be some difference of opinion in the Labour Party on this particular Amendment, though I personally do not think it is a very important one.
LORD WINSTER: May I point out to the noble Lord that on this side of the House any question of Party feeling or Party prejudice has been most specifically excluded, and that it has been said from the first that, in company with noble Lords opposite, the only concern of this side of the House is to turn what fundamentally we think is not a very good Bill into the best and most practical measure that can be devised.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord is certainly speaking for himself.
LORD WINSTER: On the contrary, I do not speak for myself. Those words were uttered by my leaders in this House on Second Reading and at the beginning of the Committee stage of this Bill.
LORD BURDEN: I should not have intervened but for the quite unprovoked attack on the Labour Party by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I intervene only to ask him to remember that pregnant saying of Emerson that
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We have had a very interesting debate on what is undoubtedly not a major point. If I may take the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, this point is covered, in fact, by Clause 2 (3) of the Transport Act of 1947. It is not under subsection (1) (f), as the noble Lord mentioned in the first place. My noble friend Lord Fairfax is quite right in saying that these powers are not granted to the nationalised British Transport Commission. I am delighted to find that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is entirely consistent in his point of view. He did not quote his own speeches in 1947, but he

1491
has been perfectly consistent and has shown himself a true Socialist and at the same time a very firm friend of the motor trade. I would agree with him entirely about taking that attitude. It is a healthy and sound trade to be a friend of.
The difficulty about the case which the noble Lord has advanced is this. He has put it rather innocuously, as if it was just a matter of supplying the amenities in a hotel to the guests using the hotel. In the simplest language, the answer is that you could not possibly confine it simply to people who are using the British Transport services or British Transport hotels. You would be throwing it completely open to the public by this Amendment. That is inevitable; you cannot avoid it. The answer is quite simple. This point is, I believe, raised almost entirely in respect of one hotel which is situated north of the Humber—I go no further than that. I believe there are other petrol pumps available in given circumstances. But the matter can best be solved simply by a concession of some character being granted.
There is this difficulty: that the amenities of the hotel may be quite considerable, whereas the cash return from the garage or from the accessories may well be very small, or relatively small, compared with the degree of amenity which may be desirable for the hotel. Bluntly, the answer is that if the hotel thinks it is an important amenity to have a garage, then they can grant a concession at a cheap rate. If they think it is worth having a shop, a theatre ticket office or a garage, then they can presumably give a concession on suitably easy terms. I agree we should be quite wrong, even in this narrow sphere, to go into the motor trade in a nationalised industry. Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation. I feel that these garages, or this particular garage, as the case may be, can serve a useful service to the public. Either they can be sold or they can be let out, and they can have as wide a field as possible. At any rate, I hope they will be able to give a good service, the best possible service. I hope that
1492
Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to see that that will be the case. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to the clause:
"(4) The Commission may, within six months from the passing of this Act or such longer period as the Minister may allow, cause to be incorporated under the Companies Act, 1948, one or more companies under their direct or indirect control, the powers of which include power to carry on business as carriers of goods by road in Great Britain."
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Leathers, I beg to move this Amendment, which is really a drafting Amendment. This subsection has been taken out of Clause 4 and is now reinserted, in precisely the same terms, in Clause 24. The object of the Amendment is to enable the British Transport Commission to form companies, either companies which they retain themselves and control for running road haulage, or, alternatively, companies which are to be sold off under the disposal scheme. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 48, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
4.8 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, as an Amendment to the proposed new subsection (4), to leave out "within six months from the passing of this Act or such longer period as the Minister may allow." The noble Lord said: In thinking over the Amendment just moved by the noble Lord, I have been unable to see, no doubt through my own fault, why the Commission should be limited to six months within which to form the companies. May I suggest to the noble Earl that the matter is now even more important, as the company procedure is to be used for the purposes of disposal? It may well be that the Disposal Board will agree to certain sales being effected by means of the company procedure after the period of six months has expired. It is therefore somewhat difficult to see why this time limit should be placed in the way of the proper use of the new provisions now to be embodied in Clause 4.
The Government have emphasised from time to time that they do not want any undue delay in getting the new set-

1493
up in order, but I am sure that they would desire that some elbow-room be given to the Commission. Doubtless it has not escaped the attention of the noble Earl that the use of the company procedure is dependent upon the consent of the Disposal Board, and until the views of the Disposal Board, either generally or in particular cases, are known, it is quite impossible to foresee how many companies will be required and what their capital structure and so on will have to be.
I need not remind the Committee that, whether we like it or not, time passes rapidly in these matters. I suggest to the noble Earl that it would be quite impracticable to form all the companies within six months—I emphasise the word "form," for it is the essence of the case I venture to submit to the Committee. It may be that Her Majesty's Government do not see their way to accept the form of words that I have submitted, but I hope they will not oppose the Amendment to the Amendment simply because it happens to be associated with myself. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Line 1 of the proposed new subsection (4), leave out ("within six months from the passing of this Act, or such period as the Minister may allow.")—(Lord Burden.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has raised a very interesting point. I should make it clear that the clause as drafted is directed to two purposes only: the formation of companies controlled by the Commission and the selling companies. By omitting the words concerned the noble Lord takes away that direction altogether. The noble Lord's other point was that there was not much time allowed. That is true. But as he himself said, all we are really concerned with is registration, and of course we have the power of ministerial extension. However, having looked at it, we think there is no objection to the point made by the noble Lord and we are quite prepared to accept his Amendment as it stands.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Claus 25
Provisions as to pension rights
25.—(1) The Minister shall make regulations for providing or securing the provision of pensions to or in respect of persons who, having been in the employment of the Commission and, in connection wish that employment, having had pension rights under pension schemes (hereafter in this section referred to as "existing pension schemes"), lose that employment in consequence of the duties imposed on the Commission by this Act as to the disposal of the property held by them for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking, of the powers and duties conferred on the Commission and the Minister by this Act in connection with the re-organisation of that part of the Commission's undertaking which consists in the operation of the railways, or of the modifications of the functions of the Commission effected by this Act; and any such regulations may for the purposes aforesaid, amend any existing pension scheme and any statutory provision relating thereto or any trust deed, rules or other instrument made for the purposes thereof.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move this Amendment, which deals with the question of pensions. Owing to the new clause on companies to which we have already agreed, it has been thought desirable to make a small change in the Amendment which now stands in my noble friend's name, in regard to persons who change their employment from the Commission to one of the companies eventually to be sold. Though probably adequate, the words "lose that employment" are more appropriately expressed by the words which we propose to substitute—namely, "cease to be in the employment of the Commission." That makes it abundantly clear that the effect of the regulations will come into force from the time when those employed in the company actually transfer from the Commission to the company. I think this is a desirable Amendment and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 7, leave out ("lose that employment") and insert ("cease to be in the employment of the Commission").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are getting on well: we have taken three wickets this afternoon. I am sorry that we have got to end our speedy progress so soon. Had we been able to keep on in this way we might have made this a respectable-looking Bill. I am not going

1495
to ask the noble Earl for any real concession. I want his help on this matter. I want him to explain something to me. Perhaps he may then see his way clear to ask his advisers to have another look at this Amendment. I am in this difficulty. This clause deals with pension rights. There are those in pensionable employment who are fully covered even if they lose their jobs by leaving the service of the Commission. As a result of the reorganisation brought about by this Bill, employees may be transferred from a pensionable job to a non-pensionable job inside the service of the Commission—in other words, from the Commission to one of the companies wholly owned by the Commission. Even if they lose their employment in those companies and go right out of the employment of the Commission, if their job is pensionable they will be covered. If, within the Commission, a man is moved from a pensionable job to a non-pensionable job, as the Bill stands he is covered, because although he does not cease to be in the employ of the Commission, he loses that particular job. But the effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl is that if the man loses a pensionable job by transferring to a non-pensionable job, though retaining his employment in the Commission, he will lose his pension. If the wording, in the original Bill is retained he is covered. The noble Earl may think I am wrong, but I feel there is some doubt about this. I should prefer the wording in the Bill, because the man is covered even if he loses his pensionable job, whether he takes on a non-pensionable job within the Commission or goes right out of the Commission. If he retains employment in the Commission but loses his pensionable job for a non-pensionable job, by the noble Earl's proposed Amendment he is not covered. I have done my best to make the position clear. Will the noble Earl try to help me?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord opposite has a point here, even though I am rather doubtful whether in practice it would ever really happen that a man in a pensionable job would go to a non-pensionable job. All the same, I feel that perhaps it would be right to ask
1496
my noble friend to look at the point again before the Bill leaves this House. There is another point, though it is not one which we can deal with in the Bill. A great many of the people we are talking about, who are the subject of this clause, will in fact have been transferred from private enterprise companies when the transport undertakings were nationalised. They may or may not have been working with the advantage of a pension scheme, but it is quite likely that a large number of them were. Presumably, those people who had the advantage of pension schemes in the days of the private enterprise undertakings will have been taken into a pension scheme by the Transport Commission. Again, if they leave the service of the Commission, either for a company formed and controlled by the Commission or for a company which passes out of the control of the Commission, some arrangements ought to be made whereby the pension rights of those employees are continued—as I suspect they have been continued all the time. That is not a point with which we can deal in this Bill, and I mention it only because I think it is a matter which will have to exercise the mind of the Commission in their task of seeing as we intend to see by this clause, that the individual rights of people employed under the Commission who are now transferred to private enterprise are not lost in the process.
LORD REA: May I ask the noble Earl whether he will at the same time look into another point of a similar nature? I am given to understand that there is a certain category, particularly of people of professional classes, who were induced or chose to join this service with a promise of some pension scheme which for some reason—a perfectly genuine one, I am certain—has not actually come into force. It looks as if those people might fall between two stools. Perhaps the noble Earl will be good enough to look into that matter. I do not press him to give me an answer to-day.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I hesitate to express any opinion on a pensions matter unless I am fully instructed. I will certainly see that the question which Lord Rea has raised is gone into. I certainly should not like to attempt to give him an answer now. With regard to what Lord Lucas has said, I am inclined to

1497
the view that the point which he has raised is covered. I think he takes the words "loss of employment" as meaning the same as change of job. I do not think they have that meaning. I should have thought that the point which he has in mind is either covered by the Amendment which I shall shortly move or, alternatively, by Clause 26 where there is reference to:
"officers or servants of the Commission who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, or whose position is worsened in consequence…"
and so forth. I thought the point was covered there. Or, finally—and this is Lord Bridgeman's point—if it were a matter of pension rights, strictly it would be in Clause 25 (2). I should not like to carry this matter further at the moment. I think it is one which requires careful examination. I suggest, however, that any one or other of the points which the noble Lord has raised has been or will be covered—or, at least, that there are powers here to make regulations which will cover those points.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl, but he will appreciate that if he is wrong and I am right this cart mean a great deal. The Bill says "loss of employment." It depends on the interpretation placed on that phrase—losing the physical employment or losing a man's whole job within the Commission. But we will not argue the question any more now. If the noble Earl does not mind taking this back and looking at it again, perhaps we could put down something at the Report stage. We could do that when he has consulted his advisers, satisfied himself and has attempted to satisfy us.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like the Amendment agreed to now.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps I may say this. I hope to put down an Amendment on the Report stage in order to get the matter raised, unless the noble Earl is able to come and say that he is satisfied, and to satisfy us. If I am not satisfied, the Amendment will have to be debated and divided upon. I would suggest that it would be better if the noble Earl withdrew his Amendment now, for I would prefer what is in the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think that this is the right Amendment. We are at the moment only drawing up a broad outline under which the scheme will be made. This has been discussed between people who are really more qualified than either the noble Lord or I to deal with it. It is under discussion even now. I do not think this is a matter about which the noble Lord need worry. He has postulated the question of the position of someone who remains in the Commission's employment after this reorganisation but who moves from pensionable employment to non-pensionable employment. If I understand the noble Lord, he is trying to provide for that circumstance. I think he will agree that it would be an exceptional case. I am not saying that it will not occur, but it would be very unlikely, and it would be an exceptional case. In any event, however, I think it is covered by these broad regulations, and we think that the words in the Bill are more suited to the present structure.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Perhaps I may say a word about procedure—I say nothing about the merits of this matter. Clearly the right thing, and the convenient thing as a matter of procedure, is this. The Government consider that this clause ought to be amended in a particular way, and they have carried the Committee with them. In that case the Committee should insert the Amendment which the Government propose. Your Lordships will then, on Report stage, see the Bill in the form which the Government, with the assent of the Committee, think right. That having been seen, an Amendment can be put down to the Bill, either by the Opposition or by the Government.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful for that explanation. I am certainly not going to spoil the harmony of the proceedings by getting contentious. But I am not speaking for myself; I am speaking at the request of the Trades Union Congress.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Even so, it is the proper procedure.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am going to agree to the procedure. What I am going to suggest is this. As the best legal advice is available to the T.U.C. it might save a great deal of time

1499
and trouble if, between now and the Report stage of this Bill, the advisers of the noble Earl were to get in touch with the advisers of the T.U.C. Perhaps after consultation both sides would be satisfied, and in that case I am sure that I should be.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am happy to give an undertaking that I will do my best to carry out the noble Lord's suggestion.
LORD BURDEN: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that undertaking, and I hope he will not regard me as pressing too strongly on this point, in view of what he has indicated to my noble friend. We have all been interested in the procedure which is to be adopted in regard to the draft regulations as outlined to us by the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader, but I am sure he will agree that, with the best will in the world, it is difficult to get regulations altered, even those in draft form. The simple point I wish to put to the Minister is this—I am sure the answer will be in the affirmative: before draft regulations assume that form will there be consultation with those people particularly interested, with the appropriate organisations, in order that there shall be the largest measure of agreement in regard to the regulations when they are submitted?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am glad to give that assurance—in fact I can do more. I can tell the noble Lord that thirteen trade unions concerned are already considering the draft regulations at the present time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (1), after "Act" (where that word last occurs), to insert:
"and for enabling persons in the employment of the Commission who, being participants in a pension scheme, suffer any diminution of their emoluments in consequence of the said duties, powers and duties or modifications to avoid, on such terms, as may be provided for by the regulations, any corresponding diminution in any pension to or for which they may become entitled or eligible."
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of by noble friend Lord Leathers. Its purpose is to protect the pension rights of those who remain with the Commission. The Amendment
1500
envisages the kind of case that might arise if a man remaining with the Commission were moved to less well-paid employment. In such cases, it is possible, by the regulations, to provide that he should continue at the same rates of pension contribution, payable both by the employee and by the employer, so that, although he may suffer some loss in regard to his rate of remuneration, he will still eventually be entitled to the same pension rights. I think the Amendment is one which will meet with the general agreement of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 15, after ("Act") insert ("and for enabling persons in the employment of the Commission who, being participants in a pension scheme, suffer any diminution of their emoluments in consequence of the said duties, powers and duties or modifications to avoid, on such terms, as may be provided for by the regulations, any corresponding diminution in any pension to or for which they may become entitled or eligible").—(The Earl of Selkirk..)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Compensation to officers and servants]:
4.30 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations." The noble Lord said: I suppose I ought to know the answer to this, but I do not, and I put this Amendment down to get the noble Earl's help. If he will read the first three lines of Clause 26, he will see they run:
"The Minister shall by regulations provide for the payment by the Commission, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, of compensation to officers or servants.…"
Why could that not read plainly:
"The Minister shall by regulations provide for the payment by the Commission of compensation to officers or servants…."?
The noble Earl might say to me that all they have done is lift the words out of the 1947 Act. Admirer of the 1947 Act though I am, in parts, I have never considered it to be sacrosant, and if the clause can be bettered by leaving out what is unnecessary, I suggest the noble Lord should do it. There is nothing material in the point, but I should like the noble Earl's guidance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 21, leave out ("in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting his Amendment in the form of a question, because I cannot view it with any sympathy. The position would be substantially that anyone who could prove a loss would have a statutory right to claim compensation to any amount, even if he had been in the employment of the Commission for only one day.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Even if it is not in the regulations?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: As it stands here, the regulations would have to provide for that. I hesitate to give an opinion in the House on this difficult subject, but I am advised that it would be to any amount, if the loss could be proved. We cannot allow that. These are the words used not only in the 1947 Act, but in the Electricity, Gas, National Insurance and Local Government Acts. They are the normal words used. I very much hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Certainly. I am grateful to the noble Earl and apologise for troubling him. The 1947 Act is even better than I thought it was. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:
Directions by Minister to be laid before Parliament
".The Minister shall as soon as may be after the end of each year after 1953 lay before Parliament a statement of all directions issued by him to the Commission and the Board and of any action taken by him under this Act during that year together with a statement of the reasons for such directions and actions:"
The noble Lord said: This is a new clause to which we attach considerable importance. Anyone who has react this Bill, even cursorily, must be impressed by the large number of occasions on which the Minister is empowered or required to give directions, make decisions and do a variety of things in connection
1502
with carrying out the Bill. I have calculated that the Minister has nearly seventy separate functions. In a limited number of cases, I agree, the Bill provides for an Affirmative Resolution by Parliament, and these have been added to as a result of at least one Amendment being accepted. In these cases the House has full opportunity of knowing what is in the mind of the Minister, but in many other cases, to which we have drawn the attention of the Committee as we have gone along, the Minister is empowered quite arbitrarily to make a decision or give a direction and there is no opportunity for the House to ascertain why he has given that direction or made that decision.
Let me give one particular case of many. In connection with ascertaining the loss incurred by the Commission there is a complicated formula about which it is admitted there could be considerable difference of opinion. The clause says that the Minister is required to state what is the loss, but he is not required to say how he has arrived at it and what interpretation he has put oil the different components that go to make up the loss. He merely fixes the amount. That may be convenient and I am not now challenging the convenience of it nor am I going back to that provision, which we discussed at some length; but it leaves the country in complete darkness as to the methods by which the Minister has arrived at his decision. I could go through the seventy-odd instances and in many of them point out that the Minister is empowered to make this decision or give that direction, or settle disputes between the Commission and the Disposal Board, without giving any reason whatever for arriving at such a decision and often without informing the public or the House that any such decision has been made.
I think it is due to Parliament that it should know what action the Minister has taken under this Bill when it becomes an Act, and I suggest, in the best words open to me—I do not claim they are perfect—that the Minister should as soon as possible after the end of every year say what decisions and actions he has taken and the reasons for them. I put this forward in the interests of Parliament and of the community as a whole. I think these words are right, but I do

1503
not necessarily stand by them. I hope it will be possible for the Government to accept the principle of the Amendment and provide that in some way from time to time the public is informed about the exercise of the far-reaching powers that are conferred upon the Minister by this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26 insert the following new clause—
Directions by Minister to be laid before Parliament
".The Minister shall as soon as may be after the end of each year after 1953 lay before Parliament a statement of all directions issued by him to the Commission and the Board and of any action taken by him under this Act during that year together with a statement of the reasons for such directions and actions."—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MONKSWELL: I should like to support this Amendment as strongly as I can. It seems to me it would throw a great deal of light on the position of the railways and would enable them to be criticised. That has been almost impossible in the past. For this reason I regretted that the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, withdrew his Amendment yesterday, because it seems to me of great importance that everything about the railways should be published and subject to criticism.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am afraid this Amendment would not throw any light on the position of the railways. What is being asked for here is not an account of what the railways are doing, but an account of what the Minister is doing. I am afraid this is not the appropriate Amendment.
This Amendment really divides itself in two parts, in my view. Directions are quite clearly understood and defined things. The Minister can give directions to the Commission, and he can give directions to the Disposal Board. Under the 1947 Act—and the obligation under the 1947 Act is continued in this Bill—if the Minister gives directions to the Commission, then those directions have to be published in the Commission's Report which is laid before Parliament. There is a similar provision, up to a point, with regard to a Report being made by the Disposal Board—I think it is half-yearly in the case of the Disposal Board
1504
and yearly in the case of the Commission. I have no doubt that that Report would contain any directions which the Minister gave. On the other hand, I believe I have said once or twice in the past, when I have suggested that something should appear in a Report and was told that it certainly would, that it would be just as well to put the requirement in the Bill. I must occasionally practise what I preach, even if I failed to convince noble Lords opposite at that time that my preaching was good practice. Therefore I should be quite ready to put down an Amendment on Report to provide that directions which the Minister gives to the Disposal Board should be published by the Disposal Board in their Report, which, as I say, I think is to be made half-yearly.
The noble Lord went on to say that the Minister should also report in some way to Parliament any action taken by him under this Act during the preceding year. Clearly that is a quite impossible proposition. As the noble Lord has said, there are certain statutory duties laid upon the Minister and certain statutory powers given to him under the 1947 Act and under this Bill, in regard to which particular importance has been attached to information being given to Parliament. In the appropriate clause some provision has been made to that effect. Provision has been made in a number of cases, I think, in this Bill that the matter has in one form or another to be reported. But let us see what "any action the Minister takes" means. He is taking action every day. He talks to the chairman of the Commission and to the chairman of the Disposal Board, and he rings them up on the telephone. As a result of one of those conversations something may well happen; an agreement is come to, or a particular line is to be followed. That is the whole object of the day-to-day contact which a Minister has.
I have never been responsible for a nationalised industry, but the Minister's day-to-day contact with the chairman of a nationalised board is very like one's relationship with one's own officials in one's Department. How could I carry on with my business if I had to make a report to Parliament of every discussion I had with my officials which sooner or later resulted in action? The whole thing

1505
is quite impossible. We should end up with a report to Parliament which read like a solicitor's bill of costs: "To ringing you up on the telephone, when I told you I thought you were being rather dilatory about this matter; and as a result of that telephone conversation less dilatoriness was exercised, and somebody did something." The Minister has taken action, and the result of that is that somebody else has taken action. We really cannot have all that reported to Parliament. As I say, directions are one thing, but this loose language about reporting every action, I am sure the noble Lord will agree, on consideration, is quite impossible.
Do not forget that the Minister is in quite a different position from that of the nationalised boards. The difficulty which Parliament has encountered in both Houses is to get information about the nationalised boards. I think we have encountered it a little less here, because we are bound by fewer rules of order; there is no Mr. Speaker to call us to order and say we cannot discuss the subject. The result is that we have had rather more fruitful discussions on the nationalised industries than have been possible in another place. I am not going to argue the point politically, but I feel that the decision taken by the late Government that the Minister was never to give any information about a nationalised industry was rather unfortunate. What has been our difficulty has not been lack of opportunity to question the Minister—you can get information from the Minister about his activities—but the lack of opportunity to get information about nationalised boards and their activities. That is where the absence of information has been difficult. I believe there is a Committee of some sort sitting to-day which is having great difficulty in finding a solution to the problem of how Parliament is to get some information about the nationalised boards.
But we never have any difficulty about the Minister. Anybody can put down a Question to the Minister any day; it can be done on the Minister's Vote; there can be a debate in either House. The Minister can be asked what he has done about this, that, and the other, and what his policy is on this or that. That is the way in which Parliament keeps Ministers up to the mark, and the recognised and
1506
proper way is to do it on a Minister's Vote, by Question and Answer, or by debate on a Motion. Therefore, I feel that I shall be meeting all that is reasonable, and indeed be acting entirely inconformity with the 1947 Act itself, if I carry out my undertaking to put in a similar provision in regard to directions given to the Disposal Board as that which applies to the Commission.
LORD SILKIN: I am sure the noble Viscount has applied his mind to this question and endeavoured to go as far as he can. However, I do not regard what he has suggested as entirely satisfactory. I think it is of advantage that the Commission should state terms what directions they have received; that they should be required to do so, and that the same should apply to the Disposal Board. In this particular case it is the Minister's actions that Parliament is entitled to check up. Unless we know what action the Minister has taken, it makes it difficult for us to have any discussion or even to ask questions. The noble Viscount has made play, as he is entitled to, with the language of the Amendment, which admittedly could be strained so as to make it appear that it applies to the kind of case he has put before us. Of course, nobody suggests that the Minister should report in a statement to Parliament the telephone conversations he has with the Commission. If these words can be deemed to have that interpretation, then, of course, they are unsuitable. We are not asking for that. It is the action which the Minister is empowered to take under particular clauses and paragraphs of this Bill with which we are concerned. For instance:
"The Minister may give directions to the Commission as respects any property held by them requiring them to dispose of that property."
The Minister ought to be open to challenge on that, not on a report of the Commission, but on his own report.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have taken the noble Lord's own Act. He put into the Act of 1947 that the way in which this should be reported was in the Report of the Commission.
LORD SILKIN: That may be, but the noble Viscount has himself pointed out in his speech some of the difficulties that have arisen. One is the difficulty of calling the Commission to account. That

1507
is obviously not satisfactory. In this very important period, when the assets of the Commission are being disposed of, it is necessary that the Minister should be held to account by Parliament, so that we may know what action he has taken. We may have to define the term "action" more closely than we have done. But what we are asking for is a report by the Minister, and not a report by the Commission or the Disposal Board. That would be going some small distance in that direction. I hope that when the noble Viscount is giving this consideration between now and the Report stage, he will see whether he can meet us to the extent of requiring the Minister himself to give information.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I must be perfectly fair and frank with the House, as I always am. With the Minister, I have given this matter very close consideration, and I have said how far I am prepared to go. What I have agreed to would be completely analogous with what was done in the earlier Act. I am prepared to do that; but I am quite definitely not prepared to go further than that on the line which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has asked, and I should be misleading the House if I said that I would take this away and consider it again. If the noble Lord feels strongly on this we had better take a decision upon it in the Lobbies.
LORD WINSTER: I agree with the noble Viscount that it is unreasonable to expect a Minister to give an account of any action taken by him under the Act which he is administering. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has specifically said that he does not attach first importance to the exact wording of that portion of his Amendment. But, as I say, I would agree with the noble Viscount. An action taken by the Minister might be the entertaining at luncheon of two or three delegates from another country who have come to meet him about a certain policy—and very effective action may be taken in that way. But it would be quite absurd to expect the Minister to report to Parliament every time he entertained anybody to luncheon. I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had in mind that the Minister should report any action of substance, and that seems to be reasonable.
1508
When we come to the question of directions, there I am bound to say that I support the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. This seems to me to be a very extraordinary Bill indeed, in that I think on some sixty or seventy occasions it describes the directions which the Minister shall issue for the purpose of giving effect to the Bill. That seems to me to be completely wrong. Surely, what the Government should do is to bring forward a Bill giving precision to the matters which the Bill is intended to carry out, and then appoint a Minister to be in charge of the Bill; and it should be left to him to decide how he carries out the objects of the Bill. I see that the noble and gallant Earl the Minister of Defence is here. I am sure that he would agree with me that the way to deal with a Commander-in-Chief is to detail to him an objective which you would expect him to carry out. But you do not tell the Commander-in-Chief how he is to do it. The means by which he carries out that objective should surely be left to the Commander-in-Chief to decide. In the case of the Navy—I do not presume to speak about the Army—I have seen disastrous results occur through attempts by the Admiralty to describe in too precise detail how the Commander-in-Chief should carry out the instructions and objectives which have been committed to him.
Here in this Bill the Government are doing the complete opposite by proposing a Bill with certain objectives, and on no fewer than sixty or seventy occasions they are laying down the directions which the Minister shall issue in order to achieve those objectives. If the discretion of the Minister is fettered to the extent that he is told on so many occasions how he is to carry out the purpose of the Bill, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to require that the Minister shall from time to time give information to Parliament as to the directions which he has issued in fulfilment of the duties laid upon him by the Bill. To that extent I would certainly support the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I hope the Government will not go any further than they have already gone. We are going to step down a very strange path if every Minister has to give an account every year for the actions he takes under any particular Statute, and to give his reasons

1509
for it. Many of us in the last Parliament would have liked to hear exactly how the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was getting on with the Central Land Board, what action he had taken, and what were his reasons for that action.
LORD SILKIN: I should have been delighted to tell the House.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I would have taken quite a large bet (if that is the appropriate word to use in this connection) that if we had tried to put down an Amendment to the Town and Country Planning Bill to say that all actions taken by the Minister under the Town and Country Planning Act during the year had to be accounted for, and that there should be presented a statement of his reasons, it would not have been accepted by the Government of the day. Nor is that the way in which we carry on our Parliamentary life. Anybody in the other House, for three-quarters of an hour everyday, and here to the limited extent of six Questions a week, may ask the Minister or the Government what they are doing. We may raise the subject and ask what the attitude of the Government or the Minister is. That is the Parliamentary practice which has ben observed in this country for many years. When it comes to specific directions, there have been cases where the body to which they have been given has been asked to report on the directions given to it. As I understand it, that was the position under the Transport Act, 1947.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: And is continued.
LORD LLEWELLIN: And I gather that now, under the Amendment set down by the noble Viscount, it will continue in this regard on exactly the same lines as in the 1947 Act. What would be the result if, in every Statute we passed, we gave directions to a Minister that any action he took under it would have to be reported annually together with his reasons for it? We should get such massive reports that the day -to-day running of the business of a Minister and his Department would be overwhelmed.
It is not just what the Minister himself says that has to be reported but the actions of all the people in the Department who are acting in the Minister's
1510
name. The whole discussion between the Minister and any kind of body that is set up working under the ægis of the Ministry would be completely stultified, because even a civil servant in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, before he rang up my noble friend Lord Douglas, would have to think: "I cannot do this. I have to put this on the record, and it must be reported that I rang him up and asked him how his part of civil aviation was going on." The whole business of give-and-take between Departments and the bodies working under them would go by the board if we did this kind of thing in Acts of Parliament. If the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has moved this Amendment, will think again, he will come to the conclusion, I am sure, that no Government—not, at any rate, one of which he was a member—would have accepted it. Nor, I hope, will the present Government.
LORD WINSTER: So far as what I have said is concerned, I think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will agree that he is knocking at an open door. I have said specifically that I think it would be quite impossible to expect any Minister to report on every action that he has taken. My remarks were directed solely to dealing with what I consider to be an abnormal situation, for here is a Bill which has sixty or seventy clauses giving power to a Minister to issue directions. That is surely abnormal; and, that being so, I think it is right to ask the Minister to render an account of the directions which he has so issued. But I am not pressing that he should give a report of every action which he has taken.
LORD LLEWELLYN: I was not dealing particularly with the remarks of the noble Lord. I know that if I had been dealing with him he would not have pressed this point. I was dealing with the use of the word "any"—that is to say, in the expression "any action."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sorry that Lord Llewellin has raised all these red herrings. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made it perfectly clear that he had put this Amendment down to raise an issue of principle. He was not interested in any telephone conversations. My noble friend Lend Winster said the same thing, and I think the noble Viscount was seized of the point when Lord

1511
Silkin was speaking of the necessity of doing something. I wish only to ask the noble Viscount whether he will take into consideration the one or two specific things I am going to mention—which are remote from telephone calls or anything of that kind.
If the noble Lord will look at subsection (8) of Clause 3, he will see these words:
"If any difference arise between the Commission and the Board as to the lines on which the Commission are to act in performing their duties under this section or as to what properties should be included in, or what should be the conditions attached to the purchase of, any transport unit, or as to whether any tender for a transport unit should, or should not be accepted, either the Commission or the Board may refer the matter to the Minster and the Minister shall give such directions therein as he thinks fit, and any directions so given by him shall be binding on the Commission and the Board."
That provision is repeated in the new clause moved in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, concerning the sale of shares in companies. It means that the Minister may be the arbiter in matters in which there are millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money in dispute. The Commission and the Board may disagree. The Commission may want one price and the Board may say "You must accept a lower price." In such a case they will go to the Minister and he will give a decision, which either the Commission or the Board must honour. It may involve, I repeat, a sum running into millions of pounds.
It is true that the Board, as laid down in subsection (9) of Clause 2 must issue a report. The subsection says:
"The Board shall from time to time, and at least once in every six months, make to the Minister a report in writing as to the progress made in the disposal of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking and the Minister shall lay a copy of such report before each House of Parliament."
So far, so good. The same obligation is binding on the Commission. But the Commission have a statutory duty to produce a Report to Parliament once every twelve months.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That is under the 1947 Act.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Certainly. The Report has to be made once every twelve months. The Accounts
1512
were brought out a little earlier than the Report last year as a separate publication, because of the length of the Report. The Report for 1951 came out in August, 1952. If directions had been given to the Commission in January, 1951, the information would not have been available to Parliament until the Report came out some nineteen months later—towards the latter end of 1952.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord is complaining now of the provisions of the 1947 Act which was introduced by the Government of which he was a member. He is quite justified in doing so, but that is the fact.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is a totally irrelevant interjection. I will explain why. There was nothing in the 1947 Act which empowered the Minister to arbitrate between the Disposal Board and the Commission as to the sale of millions of pounds worth of taxpayers' assets. That is the difference. Perhaps that fact was not appreciated by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord says that the matter can be dealt with by a Question in this House. What would this House think if, day after day, week after week, I were to put down a Question on the Order Paper in the hope of ascertaining whether the Minister had given a direction? The noble Lord is, I am sure, seized of these points. We do not want any trivialities. But in two or three instances the Minister will be able to act as arbiter between the Commission and the Disposal Board on the question of the price at which the taxpayers' assets shall be sold. We do not say we want any statutory instrument made so that we can pray against it. But we should like to know what the Minister is doing and the method by which he is going to decide between these two bodies. I do not think that that is too much to ask. I think that if the noble Viscount will say that in these matters of policy the Minister shall present a report to Parliament as and when he makes these orders—he will not, of course, have to make them every day of the week—we shall be satisfied. Unless the noble Viscount is prepared to meet us on this, I am going to suggest to my noble friend Lord Silkin that he had better test the opinion of your Lordships' House.
5.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I most sincerely hope we shall do so, because a more irresponsible, unconstitutional and—if I may say so with great respect—impracticable and, I would almost say, futile Amendment, I have never heard. It is uttterly without precedent that Ministers in their day-to-day actions, many of which are of great importance, should be called upon to make a report to Parliament. It was never done under the 1947 Act. The Minister was never called upon under the Socialist Act of 1947 to make such a report; and if ever there was a Government which gave to Ministers wide and far-reaching powers, it was that Socialist Government. It was their boast, in their seven years of office, that they gave to Ministers colossal powers in town planning and heaven knows what else! Was there ever a single Act which they passed which compelled a Minister to make a report to Parliament? The proper place for a
Clause 27 [Amendments as to Consultative Committees for Scotland and Wales]:
5.19 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, to add to subsection (3):
Minister to be challenged is in Parliament.
If I were foolish enough to put any such Amendment upon the Statute Book, I should be ensuring that no Minister did his job. To start with, he would spend all his time writing reports. Think of the effect upon his officials. Though I have found civil servants, properly directed and stimulated, admirable executants, others have sometimes said that inactivity is one of their more masterly qualities. With that I would not agree. But certainly if anything like this is put on the Statute Book, it will give the highest incentive to inactivity. It is wholly without precedent and utterly unconstitutional. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will divide the House.
LORD SILKIN: We will grant the noble Viscount his wish.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 18; Not-Contents. 51.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Greenhill, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Haden- Guest, L. [Teller]

Rea, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Stansgate, V.

Kenswood, L

Silkin, L.

Lucas of chilworth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan)

Mathers, L.

Winster, L.

Burden, L. [Teller]

Monkswell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor).

Allenby, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home)

Bridgeman, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Bristol, M.

Devonport, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow)

Willingdon, M.

Falmouth, V.

Gifford, L.

Furness, V.

Hampton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V.

Hawke, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Ridley, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Swinton, V.

Llewellin, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller]

Trenchard, V.

Lloyd, L.

Grey, E.

Mancroft, L.

Howe, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Remnant, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blackford, L.

Rockley, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller]

Brand, L.

Saltoun, L

Radnor, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Savile, L.

Rothes, E.

Carrington, L.

Teynham, L.

Selborne, E.

Cherwell, L.

Thurlow, L.

Selkirk, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Waleran, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Dormer, L.

Wolverton, L

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

"Subsection (9) of section six of the Transport Act, 1947 (which requires the Central Transport Consultative Committee to make an annual report to the Minister) shall be amended by inserting after 'Committee' 'and all Transport Users Consultative Committees'; by leaving out 'an annual report' and inserting 'annual reports'; by leaving out 'a copy of that report' and inserting 'copies of the reports'."
The noble Lord said: I can very quickly deal with this Amendment. We think, and we believe we are voicing the opinion held in quite a number of directions, that it would be of service if all the consultative committees, as well as the Central Transport Consultative Committee were required to make annual reports to the Minister, and that such annual reports should be laid. That is really the sum and substance of this mass of printing. I hope the noble Earl will agree that all these other consultative committees, such as the area committees, have to make a report to the Central Consultative Committee. We think they should make it to the Minister and that it should be passed on to the Central Consultative Committee, so that those reports may be available and we can know what is happening. That should apply to all the consultative committees coming within the ambit of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 5, after ("Parliament") insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the brevity with which he has moved this Amendment. By this Bill we are increasing the number of reports of consultative committees to be laid before Parliament from one to three. The noble Lord wants to increase that number from three to twelve. I think that is an unnecessary proliferation of annual reports of consultative committees. To do that would be to make them far too commonplace and ordinary. If we accepted the Amendment, automatically the status of the Central Consultative Committee would be lowered, because each one of these committees all over the country would have direct access to the Commission and the Minister, and would be able to lay their annual report before Parliament. We have pinpointed Scotland and Wales as far as we can, and we are putting the rest of the country in the Central Consultative Committee's Report. There is really no useful purpose in going beyond that. I do not think any greater information would be gained. In many respects Parliament has quite enough paper to deal with at present.
LORD SILKIN: There is a good deal in what the noble Earl has said, but the real point of this Amendment is that the public should know what these consultative committees are doing. After all, they are giving a service to the community, and we want to ensure that, somehow or other, their views see the light of day—I do not mind whether it is in twelve reports or in one report. Probably the noble Earl is quite right in saying that twelve separate reports might be too many. I do not ask the noble Earl to give a decision now, but is there not some way by which we may be informed of the views of these committees? There are twelve such committees. Suppose they all attach importance to one particular thing which seems to be going wrong in every area: would it not be a good thing for us to know that? Possibly we should know better if the points were summarised in one document rather than for there to be twelve separate reports. But I do attach importance to the public knowing what these various consultative committees are saying, and what they have discovered as a result of their task.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is the disadvantage one finds when one tries to be brief. From what I had heard from the noble Earl and other members of the Government. I thought the Amendment would be willingly accepted; that is why I did not elaborate it. We have heard all the way through this Committee stage of the great desire of the Government for devolution. We have heard that the whole railway system is to be broken up into areas, and the time of devolution is now fast upon the Government. These area consultative committees deal with local matters. Let us say that I am an ordinary citizen, living in a remote area of England, and that some time ago I saw a notice in the Press to the effect that a consultative committee had been set up for my area. From that day onwards I have heard nothing of what they have done. Is that right? If the reports of those consultative committees could be made available as a supplement or annex to the annual Report of the Central Consultative Committee, I should not in the least mind. Perhaps they could be summarised. We have covered Scotland and Wales; why cannot we do the same for Cornwall, the North-East Coast or the

1517
North-West Coast? The people living there have an interest in local transport problems; they have a consultative committee, but they never know what is happening. Is that right? Surely it is not too much to ask that they should be allowed the same facilities as Scotland and Wales. Would it not help the noble Earl in regard to his policy of devolution? I should have thought it would. Why are the Government so stubborn about this? I should have thought it would be of the greatest advantage by way of propaganda value. Will the Government reconsider this matter?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Several points have been raised which are interesting, in the sense that a certain knowledge of local problems is desirable, but I have some doubt whether this is the clause upon which to discuss that matter. I would re-emphasise that if you make masses of reports you greatly lower the prestige of the Central Consultative Committee's Report. If you have great masses of reports coming out nobody could be expected to read them all. I am afraid I have not the most recent Report of the Central Consultative Committee which is already laid before Parliament, and I am not sure whether they deal with that point; but I think that if the Report which is made is inadequate, the making of more reports would probably be even more inadequate. I will look at the matter. I think the noble Lord is making the point that the people in the locality should know what their committee is doing. I think that is the duty of the chairman, who from time to time can hold conferences or make speeches. There are hundreds of ways of doing it without imposing on this wretched man a statutory duty to produce an annual report. That is really an added duty on the consultative structure which is too heavy for that structure to bear.
LORD SILKIN: We were getting along quite nicely in our discussion and the noble Earl has made an impression on us by what he has said. We have departed from the original idea of having twelve separate reports. The subsequent discussion has proceeded on that footing, and we no longer press for that. We are now, so to speak, trying to ensure that the "guts" of what these various committees are thinking should be put in a document, attached, if you like, to the
1518
Report of the Central Consultative Committee. If these things can be done administratively and the noble Earl will give an assurance that it will be done, I am quite satisfied. I do not mind in what form it is done, nor, I think, does my noble friend Lord Lucas. We are quite prepared to leave the noble Earl with that thought, and perhaps we shall hear more about it on the next stage.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I ought to know this but I must admit that I do not. The Report of the Central Transport Consultative Committee has to be laid before Parliament. I do not think that at present it is published as a White Paper, but I think it should be so published, so that it is available for purchase by anybody. Then, if all these other reports are summarised in that way and the whole is published as a White Paper and offered for sale by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, it will be of great interest to local chambers of commerce and other similar bodies who wish to see what their area consultative committees are doing. Will the noble Earl consider this matter and see if something can be done? If he will do that, I will withdraw the Amendment with pleasure.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: One interesting fact emerges from the noble Lord's last observations, and that is that the noble Lord does not know whether the Report is published. If it is laid before Parliament it is published. So that we start off with the noble Lord moving his Amendment without even bothering to ascertain what is the position with regard to one single Report yet he wishes to increase the number of Reports to twelve. I say that to put that into the Statute is to go too far. What I will willingly do is to see whether there is any way by which these local committees can have their work better known. I think it is only fair and proper that they should. But that is primarily the task of the chairman. An energetic and capable chairman can, and should, see that the work of his energetic and competent committee is known.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Who pays for it?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is paid for by the Commission.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Amendments as to Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Leathers, I beg to move this Amendment, which is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 28, after ("the") insert ("said").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move the next Amendment, which is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 30, after the first ("the") insert ("said").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to subsection (3):
"Before appointing a day under this subsection the Minister shall consult the said Committee"
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment. Your Lordships will recall that it is proposed to add to the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee a certain number of representatives of road haulier organisations. It is not considered desirable that the appointment should necessarily be made forthwith. One of the reasons is that we wish to wait until there is the sort of effective authoritative body which, in fact, could be said to represent these organisations. The Minister will wait until after he has consulted with the existing Coastal Shipping Committee, both the shipping side and the Commission, before making the appointments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 31, at end insert the said words.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Amendments as to Transport Tribunal]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) The Tenth Schedule to the Transport Act, 1947 (which contains miscellaneous provisions as to the Transport Tribunal), shall have effect as if—

(a) the reference in paragraph 5 thereof to the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by that Act; and

(b)the reference in paragraph 6 thereof to the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal
1520
by that Act other than jurisdiction which, but for the provisions of that Act would have been jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission or of the High Court or the Court of Session,

included references to any jurisdiction conferred on the Transport Tribunal by or by virtue of this Act."
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this Amendment, which is really of a formal nature. The Tenth Schedule to the Transport Act, 1947, applied to that Act certain provisions relating to what is now the Transport Tribunal from the Railways Act, 1921. This, in turn, will apply the provisions to the 1953 Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): I shall occupy your Lordships' time for only a very few minutes because I do not propose to move the next Amendment, No. 110 on the Marshalled List, but it is only fair and courteous that I should explain why I do not propose to move it. It was apprehended that the result of passing an Act known as the Railway and Canal Commission (Abolition) Act, 1949, had been to abrogate the right of appeal from the Transport Tribunal to the High Court. That was thought to be the case. In the interval between the time when this Amendment was put down and to-day that very matter has come for decision before the Court of Appeal. I think, if I may say so with great respect, that the Court felt very great difficulty in the matter, which was one of considerable complexity. But they were able to decide that the right of appeal was not abrogated. Accordingly, it would not be respectful, perhaps, to put down this Amendment in a form which suggests that the right of appeal had been abrogated. At the same time, these are Acts which apply not only to this country but to Scotland, and the matter may come before the Court of Session, and then from the Court of Session to this House. It is a matter of extreme complexity and doubt. Therefore, while not moving the Amendment, I propose to move at a later stage another and somewhat similar Amendment in a declaratory form. It will have the same result but perhaps in terms will be

1521
slightly more respectful to the Court of Appeal.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are exceedingly grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for paying the Committee the courtesy and compliment of giving us that explanation.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment concerns quite a small point. Under the 1947 Act, the definition of "property" excludes contractual rights. Now we are in the course of transferring property particularly to companies we wish the definition of "property" to be rather wider. In particular, we wish it to include debts. That is, of course, especially for formulating claims on the Transport Fund. It is not a large matter, but it is necessary for the new structure which the Bill has taken since it has reached this Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 42, at end insert—
"Provided that, in this Act, 'property' includes claims for debts and other monetary claims."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are glad that the noble Earl has moved this Amendment. At least it makes some of these expressions intelligible.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule:
Rights of obtaining licences for five years for goods vehicles free of charge.
PART I.
Vehicles comprised in Transport Units.
4. Notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Schedule, where the permanent base or centre specified in an application for a special A licence as that from which it is intended that the authorised vehicles will normally be used for the purpose of carrying goods for hire or reward is not the permanent base or centre from which the vehicles in question, or, as the case may be, the vehicles corresponding thereto, were last used by the Commission before the publication of the public notice inviting tenders for the purchase of the transport unit, the licensing authority may refuse the application if it appears to him that the vehicles used from the first-mentioned base
1522
or centre could not conveniently serve substantially the same areas as those which might conveniently be served by vehicles used from the second-mentioned base or centre.
In relation to such a transfer as is provided for by section four of this Act, the reference in this paragraph to the publication of the public notice inviting tenders shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of the transfer.
5.39 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved to add to paragraph 4:
"Notwithstanding anything in this part of this schedule the licensing authority may also refuse the application unless he is satisfied that the vehicles to which the application relates will be operated by persons competent to carry goods for hire or reward."
The noble Lord said: One of the main objects of this Bill is to hand the road haulage of this country, or a large part of it, back to private enterprise. It is a course which we fully support, and we support it in the belief that the transport user will get better service as a result of this change. The object of my Amendment is to make sure that this comes to pass, because unless purchasers of these transport units are competent people, then the service will break down, and the trader will not get the service which he has the right to expect.
I am a little worried because when the 1947 Act came into effect a great many of the old hands—whom one might describe as competent people in road haulage—migrated overseas. I know of two quite large operators who have gone to Rhodesia. Others decided that they did not wish to return into the field of road haulage. The Bill, through the Disposal Board, makes provision for the price to be paid, but I cannot find anywhere in the Bill any direction either to the licensing authority or to the Disposal Board to ensure that the purchasers are men who are competent to run road transport. It is essential, as I see it, either that the purchaser should be a competent operator or that he should employ managers or senior staff experienced in road haulage. We do not want in this industry the type of man who is just out to make quick money and who has not at heart the interests of his customers. I realise that what I am proposing may present some difficulty administratively. I realise, also, that this may not be the right place in the Bill at which to propose it, but I was advised

1523
that this would be the best way of accomplishing what I desire. I repeat that the object of the Amendment is quite simple. It is to try to insure that the purchasers of transport units are competent people who are likely to give traders an efficient service. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 29, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Gifford.)
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My noble friend Lord Gifford has covered this Amendment very well. The Opposition have levelled a good deal of criticism at Her Majesty's Government about the dangers that may arise when these undertakings are sold. There is always the possibility that speculators and "spivs" may come along to pick up a unit and re-sell it for a profit. This Amendment will meet that kind of case. I realise that administratively it may be difficult to put this Amendment into effect, because it may mean that every applicant for a transport unit will have to be "vetted" to see that he has the necessary experience or proposes to employ officials with the necessary experience. That would be a long job, which would delay disposal. None the less, I feel that for the safeguarding of the public it is important that something on these lines should be, incorporated. If it is impossible to put something in the Bill, perhaps the Government will be able to give an assurance that either the Disposal Board or the licensing authority will be able to keep an eye on this aspect of the question.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said last night, not too late for it to be a sincere compliment, that he was at last beginning to agree with something I said. I would return the compliment. I am delighted with this Amendment. I think it is a sincere and honest attempt to prevent these vehicles from getting into a really bad black market. The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, said it might be difficult to administer this provision. In my opinion it will be no more difficult to administer than the majority of clauses already in this Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, wishes to press this Amendment, the noble Lords who support me
1524
on this side of the House will show their appreciation of his effort to try to put something constructive into this Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was interested to hear the last overture. It reminded me of the Prime Minister's words during the war on finding Allies where one could. But my noble friends will be careful of Greek gifts. I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. As the noble Lord has just said, it would not be easy to administer.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I did not say anything of the sort. If the noble Viscount is really interested in what I said, I said that it might be difficult; but it will be no more difficult than the majority of clauses already in this Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There will be no difficulty in administering the majority of clauses in this Bill, but this provision would be extremely difficult to administer. Nobody has ever before tried to administer such a clause. I think that a fair test to apply is what has happened up to now in the case of the licensing authorities. The licensing authorities have existed since 1933. Parliament was very careful in laying down the conditions which the licensing authorities should impose. These conditions are found in Section 6 of the 1933 Act, which provides that a man may have his licence taken away if he fails to comply with the regulations about the safety of vehicles, the hours his people keep and so on. But never under the Act of 1933, which was a Conservative measure, or under the Act of 1947, which was a Socialist measure, was any such provision as this contemplated. I really do not know how the licensing authorities would judge of what is laid down here. They certainly would have to define competence, and define it in a way which would allow them to administer it.
In a sense my noble friends said that while they wanted to keep the bad people out, they were anxious to give the people who had been in road transport before a special chance. That is an arguable proposition. It is one that I do not think I ought to accept. And if that is the proposal, I would much rather have an Amendment which said frankly there should be a sort of first preference given to people who had been in this business before. I think that would be wrong. We want to get the best price we can for

1525
these transport units, and if we are going to restrict the sale in any way by giving a sort of first preference, or first refusal, to a particular class, that will curtail the market; we shall be restricting to that extent the sales, and to that extent we shall depreciate prices. We want as much competition as we can get in tendering for these vehicles. If we adopt my noble friend's suggestion, we might increase the loss and increase the burden of the levy. One of the essential things that makes a unit a saleable proposition, and a saleable proposition at a good price, is the automatic right which the purchaser receives for a period of time to get a special "A" licence. Indeed, that is the sort of element of goodwill that is being sold, which is an integral part of the unit, and the absence of which—if it is a sort of even money bet whether the purchaser is going to get it—would have a most depressing effect on the sales.
I know that noble Lords on this side are anxious that these vehicles should be disposed of. I know that noble Lords opposite—it may be one reason why the noble Lord would be prepared to support this Amendment—have the desire (a perfectly honest desire, if they want this thing to fail) that as few as possible of these units and vehicles should be sold. If I accept this Amendment, I am sure it would materially affect not only the price we should get for these units but the number of vehicles sold. This Amendment, which noble Lords have put forward with great sincerity and in an attractive way, might in the end defeat the object they have in supporting this Bill. Therefore, I am sorry, but, with the best will in the world, and having given careful consideration to the matter, I am told by the Ministry that they could not possibly accept the Amendment. They cannot accept it on merit.
I do not say that it would be impossible to administer—nothing is impossible to administer—but it would be impossible to administer it evenly, because by asking the licensing authority to define "competence" you put a most invidious task on them. On what basis are they to decide? Is it that the man must have been in the business before? Suppose a man says: "I have not invested in this before, but I am going to employ very competent people." You do not want to
1526
confine this transport business, road haulage or passenger, merely to people who have been in it before. Very wisely, you want capital to come in and the business to develop. How do businesses develop? They do not develop simply by the old people who have been in them for three generations going on, but by a combination of new money, new men, new ideas and technical competence. A man may say: "I am offering a very good price for this business. The Transport Commission and the Disposal Board have said that they think this is a thoroughly good price. I have satisfied them that I have the money for this undertaking. I should not be putting up this large sum of money if I were not going to run the business competently." Do you say to the licensing authority that they must decide whether that man is competent? I believe it would put an impossible task upon them. It cannot be said that he will drive his vehicles dangerously, that he will work his people overlong hours, or that the management will not be competent. What have they to do? Have they to say: "You are putting in this manager. What is his past history?" You cannot give the licensing authority that task to carry out. Therefore, with the best will in the world, I cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD GIFFORD: I have been very impressed with what the noble Viscount has said, but I should like to say this. First of all, I did not mean that the buyer should be competent, as long as he could satisfy the authority that he had a competent manager. It seems to me that we are still looking at it from the point of view of price alone. If you are asking for tenders for a particular transport job, you do not necessarily accept the lowest tender; you consider the general background of the applicants. It seems to me in this case that we are going to accept the highest tender, irrespective of the background of the different applicants. I fully realise that this Amendment may be quite impracticable as worded. But could there not be some means whereby the prospective purchasers of these units could be told to submit, with their application, some statement of their plans and background, so that the Disposal Board would at least know whom they were dealing with, and would have some idea of whether the man was likely to

1527
make a success of it? I do not know just how this will work out. Maybe the noble Viscount is quite right in saying that this would be an impossible task for the licensing authority. But I do not see why, when submitting tenders to purchase units, the applicants should not have the duty of submitting a short statement as to how they propose to operate if their tender is accepted. That will ensure that it will not be a case of price and nothing else. Perhaps the noble Viscount will look into that to see if it is administratively practical, and see whether anything can be done between now and the Report stage.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: What does the noble Lord mean by that? I do not think the Commission or the Disposal Board can have the duty put upon them of saying whether a management is going to be competent. I do not see how they can judge it. They can ask an applicant whether his finance is adequate. But if a man has made a good tender, he has adequate finance. What the Commission have to be satisfied about is that, in all the circumstances, it is a reasonable and fair price. If you once introduce an element other than whether it is a good or fair price at which you are selling, if you import some wholly different consideration, I believe you will be giving an impossible task to the Disposal Board and the Commission, as you would be, and as the noble Lord admits you would be, also to the licensing authority. Perhaps the noble Lord will have another shot at this himself. I honestly do not see my way through it at all, and I am advised so strongly by the Ministry that they could not sustain it that I cannot offer to put something down on Report.
If the noble Lord likes to have another shot at producing an Amendment on Report, I will gladly consider it. If he will let me have any new proposition he has
and not put it down at the last minute. I promise to have a look at it. I cannot offer more than that. I never like taking things back and saying, "I will have a look at this and try and produce something," when all the advice given is that we cannot produce anything to that effect.
LORD GIFFORD: I thank the noble Viscount for his courteous reply. If my noble friend Lord Fairfax and I can get together to see whether we can find some practical proposition to put forward, we will do so.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I feel very satisfied with what the noble Viscount has said. The difficulties seem to be very great, and in any case it would greatly hold up the sale of these units. Therefore, I accept what the noble Viscount has said, and if my noble friend withdraws the Amendment, I will not do anything more about it.
LORD GIFFORD: I am a little more optimistic than my noble friend. I will try to have a shot at it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I am not aware of any precedent which I can follow. If leave is not given to withdraw, I suppose that I must put the Amendment: I believe that is the right course to adopt. The consent must be unanimous and, therefore, I think I must put the Question, that the Amendment be agreed to.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Haden-Guest, L.[Teller.]

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Stansgate, V.

Kenswood, L.

Silkin, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan) [Teller.]

Mathers, L.

Winster, L.

Burden, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Shaftesbury, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Linlithgow, M.

Allenby, V.

Hampton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Hawke, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Furness, V.

Killearn, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Goschen, V

Llewellin, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hailsham, V.

Lloyd, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Ridley, V.

Mancroft, L.

Grey, E.

Swinton, V.

Rea, L.

Howe, E.

Rockley, L.

Lindsay, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Savile, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Brand, L.

Teynham, L.

Radnor, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Thurlow, L.

Rothes, E.

Carrington, L.

Waleran, L.

Selborne, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Webb-Johnson, L.

Selkirk, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Wolverton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a drafting Amendment, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 40. leave out("or") and insert ("of a").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Rates of Transport Levy]:
6.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in Part I, in the column headed "Description of vehicle" to leave out "one ton" and to insert "one and a half tons." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment to extend the vehicles to be exempted from the levy. Under the Bill, vehicles having an unladen weight of more than 1 ton would pay. By this Amendment the limit is increased to 1½ tons. The intention, as stated in the White Paper, was that the levy should not apply to small local delivery vans operating under "C" licences, and that was agreed to be reasonable. The only question was where to draw the line. Originally we thought that 1 ton was reasonable, but there are no accurate statistics on which to work and it was thought that probably the 1 ton unladen weight would cover most delivery vans. There are, however, a certain number of delivery vans over that weight and therefore, on the whole, in order to give the benefit of the doubt, we thought it fair to raise the limit to 1½ tons unladen weight. Therefore this Amendment and Amendment No. 117 are really complementary. Raising the limit to 1½tons will exempt about another 90,000 vehicles; that is to say, about 470,000
1530
vehicles will be left out and about 495,000 or nearly half a million will be included. The financial result of that is not considerable, and it will not be necessary, if we make the increase to only 1½ tons, to vary the financial amount of the levy per hundredweight which is proposed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 45, leave out ("one ton") and insert ("one and a half tons").—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like to ask the noble Viscount a question. He has just said that this proposal will release approximately another 90,000 vehicles from the levy. It is not proposed that the per capita rate should be increased. That will mean that the total contribution to the levy will be so much less per annum. The estimated figure on the original working was £4 million. This will therefore bring in somewhat less than the original figure. Am I right in saying that that will mean that the levy will have to go on longer, if the same amount of money is to be garnered?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is a perfectly accurate mathematical proposition. The choice lies between possibly carrying the levy on for a little longer—no one can say how long, but I think not for very long—in order to get a good sale, or by altering the amount. Quite obviously everybody has got used to the 13s. 6d.—or soon will be used to it—and it would be a pity to increase it; but if we raised the limit to two tons I think we should have to increase the levy.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in Part I to leave out "one ton" and insert "two tons." The noble Lord said: The noble

1531
Viscount has endeavoured in hardly more than a phrase to dispose of the point raised by this Amendment. I would, however, ask that he will not close his mind to the possibility of increasing the limit from 1½ tons to 2 tons. I think we are all in agreement that the people who will be affected are the "C" licence holders. I believe that in an earlier speech the noble Viscount himself rather suggested that the most doubtful point about the levy was its application to the "C" licence holders. I do not think he said it was not right that the levy should be imposed, but that if there was any doubt it was in respect of the "C" licence holders. They are, in the main, people who use their vehicles for carrying their own goods for the purposes of their own business. It is arbitrary whether you say that the unladen weight of 1½tons or up to 2 tons should be exempt. But it seemed to us that up to 2 tons unladen weight would have the effect of relieving the small man. Even the concession which has been given by this last Amendment would not entirely exempt the small man. Two tons is not a great deal for a small man to use for the purposes of his own business. I do not know that I can say any more in favour of 2 tons than the noble Viscount has said in favour of the 1½ tons, but I imagine that it will not make much difference, in the main, to the calculation, and the further increase would relieve a considerable number of "C" licence holders of the obligation to pay this levy. I therefore ask the noble Viscount whether he will reconsider the question as to drawing the line at 2 tons weight, rather than at 1½ tons. Two tons is a good round figure, whereas in 1½ tons a fraction is involved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 45, leave out ("one ton") and insert ("two tons").—(Lord Silkin.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The last argument was certainly entertaining. Perhaps I ought to point out to the noble Lord that, although the impression seems to be that the object which we had in mind was to relieve the small man, that is not really true. The object we have in mind in fixing the unladen weight at 1 ton or 1½ tons is not so much to relieve the small man as to relieve the small van.
1532
What we want to do is to relieve the small delivery van. I had some hesitation whether we ought to go above 1 ton since it covers most of them. I may be criticised for going up to the 1½ tons, but on the whole I think it is justified. There is no doubt, however, that if we go above that weight and get into the 2-ton range we are getting out of the range of the delivery van and into the range of the haulage van.
LORD SILKIN: What about the coal man?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is a different thing from the grocer who sends round the grocery. In the case of the coal man his haulage is really part of the business. I will give the House another reason why. Above the 30 cwt. rating the unladen weight of the vehicle gives a much greater carrying capacity, laden. I will illustrate it in this way. Take a 30 cwt. Van; the load that that will carry is about 30 cwt.; but, if you take the 2-ton van which the noble Lord wants to include, that has a carrying capacity of 3 tons; so it is really progressive. Therefore—certainly if we are to accept this—it is a defensible principle that we are exempting the small van, and we get into a sphere where no principle at all applies. Of course, the amount would be considerable. We should bring the levy down by about £2700,000. If we did that, I really think we should have to reconsider the unit of charge, which is 13s. 6d.
LORD SILKIN: Would the noble Viscount say that the difference in receipts between the 1½ton and the 2-ton vans is £700,000?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No. What we should lose by putting up the limit from 1 ton to 2 tons is £700,000. We should then get on to a scale where I am afraid we should have to advise the House to increase the charge from something like 13s. 6d. to 16s. 6d. I had a little difficulty in defending to myself the 30 cwt. figure. I think we can swallow that gnat but we cannot swallow this camel.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I wish to support my noble friend. When the noble Viscount starts going into the question of the carrying capacity of vehicles in relation to their unladen

1533
weight, that is a field where I should like to engage him for a long time. What the noble Viscount has said has been prompted, I expect, by the Ministry of Transport. It exposes completely the idiotic fallacy of taxing goods-carrying vehicles by an unladen weight formula. But the noble Viscount has to work under instructions. He is not quite accurate when he says that a 30-cwt. unladen weight vehicle will carry only 30 cwt. but that a 2-ton unladen weight vehicle will carry 3 tons. That is not true. It is true in the second case, but not in the first case. Some of the 30-cwt. unladen weight vehicles will carry loads up to as much as 5 tons. There is nothing in the law of this country to provide against it That is a completely fallacious argument, and that is why we should be far more sensible, at some time when sense dawns upon those who have the drafting of the vehicle taxation in this country, to tax vehicles on the weight they can carry—that is, the laden weight—and not on the unladen weight.
I would appeal to the noble Viscount on this matter. There are 900,000 goods-carrying vehicles. Excluding the 1-ton vehicles—there are 340,000—thatleaves 560,000 vehicles which now come into this category. Of those 560,000 vehicles, 450,000 are "C" licensed. Seventy-seven per cent. of this levy is to be paid by the "C" licence holders. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, in their latest memorandum, now that they have realised that, after all, they have to toe the line to politics, have said: "Whatever you do, we will throw in our hand in our opposition to this Bill. But please, oh! please, do do something to help the 'C' licence holder. He should not have to pay this levy." They are on perfectly sound ground, because the "C" licence holder, by and large, will get no benefit whatever; it is the "A" and "B" licence holders who are going to buy the vehicles. The "C" licence holders—inother words, as I said rather late the other night, the man who carries goods only for himself; the trader, the merchant—are paying 77 per cent. of this levy, while the "A" and "B" licence holders combined are paying a trivial 23 per cent. If that is justice and equity, then I do not understand it.
If the limit could go up to 2 tons, it would, as the noble
1534
Viscount has said, approximately correctly, raise the charge a little more; but what would it relieve? It would not perhaps relieve industry; but it would relieve the trader, it would relieve the development that has been growing up so much since the war, the development of the travelling shop, the trader who goes out to the outlying districts. Usually, he has a 2-ton unladen weight vehicle. I know that perhaps it is difficult to ask the noble Viscount to reconsider this matter on the spot, but I ask him whether he will be kind enough to look into it. Will he look first of all at the point about 77 per cent, of this levy being borne by the "C" licence holders; for, if that is not seeking out one section of one industry, the goods carrying industry, to bear a penal tax like this, I do not know what is.
Will the noble Viscount accept the suggestion of my noble friend and look at it? If he will consult with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce—and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will confirm or contradict this—I think, if it comes to a pinch, he will find it will be more equitable to increase by a few shillings the unit of 13s. 6d. and release more vehicles of the large tonnage categories completely from the levy. I do not know, but I think on balance it would be better for industry. Every argument that the noble Viscount has used for raising the limit to 30 cwt. could be used with just as good effect for putting it up to 2 tons. Of course, I speak with a disgust of the entire principle of levy. I think it is an iniquitous thing. But we have fought that battle. The problem now is to get it applied as evenly and with as little hardship as possible.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD TERRINGTON): I think I ought to point: out to your Lordships that this Amendment is really out of Order. Under Standing Order No. XLVI amendments to a question proposed during the course of the Committee stage, or any other stage, must not be inconsistent with the decision already taken at that stage. A decision has already been taken on the preceding Amendment to leave out the words "one ton" and to insert the words "one and a half tons." So the Amendment is out of Order.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If it would save us any embarrassment, may I say that when we put the Amendment down on the Order Paper, it was not queried by the Table. We worked in all good faith. I am not blaming the Table. I think my noble friend is willing to withdraw his Amendment if the noble Viscount will undertake to consider the points we have raised. That would save us all much embarrassment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord must not start casting reflections upon the Table. It is perfectly in order to put down any number of Amendments—for instance, for two, three, four or five tons. The point is this: that, when the House has passed an Amendment to say that the figure shall be one ton, all other Amendments immediately following that Amendment go. The noble Lord would be contravening the rule and would be out of order. If he had wished the House to consider this Amendment, he should have asked leave to move the Amendment as an Amendment to my Amendment; then the Lord Chairman could have preserved the position and the noble Lord would have been in order.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It might have been better if, in moving his Amendment, the noble Viscount had pointed out that, if his Amendment was carried, further Amendments would be ruled out.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It might have been better if I had done that from the Chair. I apologise to the Committee for not having done so.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It is more usual to warn people that their Amendment is not safe. I am not complaining, but is this a matter for the Committee to decide or, inasmuch as it is in Standing Orders, is it binding upon us?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Standing Orders are binding upon us. Certainly, it is not the business of the Government to safeguard the Amendments of the Opposition. I had no reason to suppose that we should not take the decision on my Amendment. The noble Lord opposite has been a Parliamentarian a long time. It is for the Opposition to look after their own Amendments, and to safeguard them if they wish to do so.
LORD SILKIN: That is quite all right. But the Amendment was called, it has been discussed, and has almost been decided upon. It seems to me, with great respect, that it is a little late in the day to say that it is out of order. However, I am prepared to have my Amendment defeated in this way rather than in another. I am quite prepared to accept the ruling of the Chair, as, of course, I must. I must confess I did not notice that the first Amendment had actually been carried. If I think more of it, I will put this Amendment down again on Report. Then I shall see that I am not ruled out of order.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I apologise to the Committee if I have wasted their time.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 115, which the Committee have already passed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 8, leave out ("1 ton") and insert ("1½ tons").—(Viscount Swinton.)
EARL HOWE: There is one consideration which ought not to be lost sight of in this question of unladen weight, reference to which has been made from the other side of the House. The 1½ton vehicle is a light motor car chassis; the heavier vehicle is more or less a light commercial chassis. I would ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill to remember the question of road safety if any Amendments are moved to increase the exemption from 1½ to 2 tons. There is no doubt that if the unladen weight exemption is increased it will put a premium on the overloading of vehicles, which is already very serious. Most vehicles have brakes which are designed in relation to the performance of the vehicle. I hope that the noble Viscount will remember that if he puts a premium on the further overloading of goods vehicles of any description it is likely to be a bad thing from the point of view of road safety. I hope the noble Viscount will resist any further exemptions which may be suggested.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are not proposing to make any further exemptions, and of course I cannot undertake to enter into a discussion on road safety

1537
and the loading of vehicles on a consequential Amendment which applies to a trader.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Modifications and extensions of section thirty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and section thirty-nine of the Railways Act,1921]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 48, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(4)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Provisions of the Transport Act, 1947, repealed]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this formal Amendment, which is consequential of the Amendment to Clause 19 (1) (a).
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 29, at end insert—
("in subsection (1) of section seventy-four, the words 'the Commission or,' in both places where they occur.").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD TEYNHAM: This is a consequential Amendment to the 1947 Act, as a result of an Amendment made in Clause 4 of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 33, leave out ("abnormal indivisible load").—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I intervene, for a moment, not merely on a consequential Amendment, but because I think the Committee would like to know how far I have been able to fulfil the undertaking I gave with regard to getting into the hands of noble Lords opposite as soon as possible any Amendments which the Government may put down on Report? We have been working on them
1538
all the time the Bill has been going through the Committee stage; that has been a little addition to our labours. Of course, we shall have to get the new Amendments into final form and we shall have to wait until the Bill, as we pass it to-night, is printed. But I have every reason to hope that, in the course of to-morrow, we may be able to table a number of Amendments for Report stage. The authorities of the House have been good enough to make arrangements that those shall go to print as soon as they are received, so that they can be issued from the Printed Paper Office by post on Saturday morning. In that way, noble Lords who have notified the Printed Paper Office that they wish to receive all papers in connection with this Bill, and also any other noble Lords interested who say in advance that they wish to, will have as many of the Government Amendments (I hope it will be most of the Amendments) as we have ready tomorrow. They will go out by post on Saturday morning, so that, if the Post Office works according to schedule, at the latest noble Lords will receive them by first post on Monday. Better still, I am told that any Amendments that are handed in to-morrow will be circulated to-morrow night. That is amazingly quick printing. If that is so, the latest time at which they will be received will be on Saturday night. That, I think, is fairly quick work, and will make everybody happy.
LORD LUCAS CHILWORTH: May I say how grateful I am to the noble Viscount for expediting this matter? As soon after the Opposition have had an opportunity to study the Government Amendments on Report as is possible, which I understand will be on Saturday, we shall arrange and put down our Amendments. I hope, therefore, that they will be in the hands of noble Lords by Monday or, at the latest, perhaps, Tuesday morning.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL [H.L.]
6.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, after the Homeric struggles of the last four days I had hoped that I should be able to ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Third Reading without the infliction of a speech from me. But there were two or three major points raised at the Committee stage to which I undertook to give further consideration, and I feel that I should be lacking in courtesy to the House and to noble Lords who raised those points if I did not, as briefly as I possibly could, return to these matters, which are fundamental to the principle of the Bill.
The first matter was this vexed question of the word "quality." Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, drafted an Amendment to try to meet certain difficulties which he and his noble friends found inherent in the use in the Bill of the word "quality." The arguments in favour of this particular term are, I admit, stronger in theory than in practice since few trade descriptions are likely to emerge which relate specifically to "quality" whilst excluding the other terms of the clause—namely, "fitness for purpose, strength, accuracy, performance or behaviour." One important weakness of the existing law is that it does not deal with mis-description of quality at all. The Bill ought, therefore, to include a term which quite clearly mirrors the intention to check this particular malpractice in future.
The other words in the clause to which the noble Lord took exception—"fitness for purpose, strength, accuracy, performance or behaviour" are, broadly speaking, aspects of quality. "Quality" itself is the sum of them. That is why we regret that we are unable to accede to the noble Lord's request to remove those words, and that is why we think that, taken by and large, "quality" is the word best suited to the end which we are seeking to attain. It is part of the purpose of the Bill to strengthen the legal position of standards laid down by the British Standards Institution to replace the degree of protection of quality inherent in the utility scheme. Another point raised was that "quality" would be difficult to de-
1540
fine. I would remind your Lordships that the use of the word "quality" in a Bill of this kind is not new. The word "quality," for instance, appears in the Trade Marks Act, 1938. It also appears in the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking)Act, 1928, and in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and it has not, so far as I know, given rise to any particular difficulties.
I should like to add this about the word "quality." It appears to me to be a good "sweeping-up" word. It is more limited in its meaning—as it should be in an Act involving criminal penalties—than some phrases such as "other like characteristics" or the phrase which Lord Lucas and his advisers thought out, "other physically ascertainable and definable characteristics," but it does cover some mis-descripitions capable of deceiving the purchasing public. The word "quality" has been criticised—the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, criticised it—on the grounds that it is too vague and difficult to define, and that courts will be unable to deal with it. But false description of the word "quality" is a matter for judgment in the light of the evidence and of the arguments. The evidence must be there before the case can be proved. There is no reason to suppose that magistrates will be any less capable of assessing this evidence and deciding the case than they are of deciding the provisions of the existing Statute. So, I regret, I must inform Lord Lucas, in his absence, that we are still unable to accept his Amendment, though we are grateful to him for the care with which he went into the matter and for the ingenuity with which he sought to produce a better result.
May I now turn briefly to the question of the trade "puff" and advertising boost which also worried the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin?—what we might term the "Beer is best" type of trade "puff." I think some anxiety was felt lest some such slogans as—"Beer is best," "Guinness is good for you," "Rolls-Royce, the best car in the world," and other similar expressions, might come within the ambit of this Bill. It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make it a criminal offence to assert that "Beer is best." I should like to make it clear at once that it is not the intention of the Bill to interfere with legitimate trade "puff"; and, generally speaking,

1541
it will not do so, because such matter, even if false, will not be caught by the Bill, and it would be very difficult to get a prosecution going at all. In a prosecution for false trade description, three things must be proved. First, the description must be trade description within the definition; that is to say, it must relate to quality, fitness for purpose and so on. Secondly, the trade description must be applied to the goods. Thirdly, the trade description must be false in a material respect as regards the goods to which it is applied. A trade "puff" such as "Beer is best" will fail on one or more of these counts. The slogan, "Beer is best" actually fails on all three.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Succeeds on all three.
LORD MANCROFT: From the noble Lord's point of view it succeeds. It is scarcely a description at all. Moreover, in the first place, it is impossible to prove that it relates to the quality of beer or to any of the other characteristics within the statutory definition. Generally, so far as I know, it appears in poster form, and I think it would be very difficult to show that it had been applied to a particular bottle or a particular glass of beer. It is not, therefore, "false in a material respect" as regards the beer to which it is applied, because it is immaterial to the purchaser of beer whether beer in general is best or whether or not the particular bottle on which he has his eye is the best.
Then take the slogan: "There is no substitute for wool," which was referred to by several noble Lords. This is slightly more definite than "Beer is best," but it is not really a description of wool or of anything else. It would be virtually impossible to Show that it was a trade description applied to a particular garment. Similarly, when goods claim to be of "best quality"—an expression familiar, particularly, in suburban shops—if the implication were that a particular line of goods had been selected as being of best quality, that description would be caught by the Bill—and properly so, since it implies a definite claim going to quality. But a mere placard in a shop-window to the effect that the goods in the shop were of best quality would probably not be caught, for the reasons which I have stated. In short, a genuine trade "puff" is seldom a description, still more
1542
rarely a trade description, applied to goods within the meaning of the Bill.
Assume a case in which a form of words is applied, to the effect that goods are of the finest possible quality—for example, the finest in the world. There still remains the question whether the court would say that the words were not a description, but mere "puff," commendation or exaggerated praise, which, by analogy with the law of false pretences and fraud, should not be treated as an offence. A Statute must always be interpreted in accordance with existing Common Law principles—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, would be the first to agree—and by analogy with them, unless it very clearly provides otherwise. I apologise for having gone into this matter in some detail, but it has caused some little doubt in trade circles: and in the advertising world, doubts raised by Lord Llewellin have found some echo. I hope that I have said enough to put my noble friend's doubts at rest.
I would next, with the permission of your Lordships, like to speak of the application of the Bill to the Dominions and to the Colonies. This matter was raised by Lord Balfour of Inchrye and Lord Hawke. The Bill applies, of course, only to the United Kingdom, but merchandise marks legislation in the Colonies is based on, and is to a large extent a verbatim reproduction of, our Act of 1887. I give an undertaking that this latest amendment of our Act will be brought to the attention of the Colonial Governments. They are Governments, however, which are largely autonomous in such matters, and the decision whether or not they adopt a similar amendment rests with them. Similarly, the suggestion that this legislation might be of interest to the independent Commonwealth countries will be transmitted to the appropriate quarters.
The question of Japan was raised by many noble Lords. The Bill does not and cannot prevent the copying of United Kingdom designs abroad, a matter which is altogether outside its scope, but the Board of Trade are aware of this practice and take what steps are open to them to combat it. I can assure the House that the matter will be brought to the attention of the Japanese authorities, who, I am glad to say, have shown a very marked improvement in their readiness

1543
to take up any cases of malpractice referred to them—malpractice that used to be so prevalent before the war and on which there was such marked room for improvement. In that respect the minds of noble Lords may be set at rest.
The last point raised concerned consolidation. Several noble Lords asked whether it was possible to consolidate this Bill and the two Acts which it seeks to amend and the other Acts which touch on this subject. Before giving any undertaking on that, there are two things we shall have to do. The first is to see how the 1926 Act works in a post-war world, and whether that Act requires any amendment; and, secondly, to get some experience of how this Bill will work when it becomes an Act. We do not want to consolidate before it is clear that no further amendments are required. I have never pretended that this Bill is foolproof. I can console your Lordships by saying that consolidation is not so necessary as it would appear at first sight. There are six Acts, admittedly, but two, the Acts of 1891 and 1894, are purely procedural, dealing with small matters of procedure not of general interest to traders. The Act of 1926 stands alone. The Act of1938 amends the principal Act in one minor particular. Only the present Bill, therefore, substantially amends the principal Act of 1887. But we are keeping a careful watch upon this and in due course we may be able to reconsider the matter again. I apologise for having been so long on this matter but, as I say, I felt that I should be lacking in courtesy, as some doubt was expressed on all sides on these matters, if I had not attempted to clear them up. With these words, I hope that have persuaded your Lordships to send the Bill on its way to another place rejoicing. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for giving such a clear account of the various matters into which he has looked, and for the way in which he has tried to meet us. Though he did not completely satisfy us about what was asked for from this side, obviously in the opinion of the noble Lord it was the best that could be done at the present time. I was particularly interested in the question of consolidation and how it would work. The noble Lord has set out a vade mecum of how the Act is going to work. Noble Lords on this side support the Motion.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, may I add that we are all grateful to my noble friend for the trouble he has taken in answering the questions raised on Committee stage? As we had no Amendments on Committee stage, we had no Report stage, and this is the only occasion on which the noble Lord could deal with them. I am much obliged to him, and to the Government, for the trouble they have taken in going into the points raised and giving us such a full explanation to-day. I have not the slightest doubt that the courts will be able to construe this matter and will do it with a considerable amount of common sense. I am not completely convinced that the word "quality" ought to go in, because it is a very wide word, but I have no doubt that in all cases of this sort that come before the courts, they will give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt to-day and hope that the kind of events I visualise will not take place.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS BILL [H.L.]
6.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I will not detain the House for more than a moment. I should like to express my gratitude to your Lordships for recognising that in this Bill the Government have made a sincere effort to re-establish this old University of St. Andrews on a sound foundation, from which it can contribute to learning, undistracted by dissension. I think we may claim that your Lordships have improved the Bill, notably in Clause 5, which establishes the formal relationship between the University Court and the University College Councils, and in Clause 6, where the foundation in Common Law of the Colleges has been retained. In a sentence, these two Amendments brought the Bill closer in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. There is no intention, I repeat, that the Government shall seek in any way to establish control over the affairs of the University. The lives of the Commissioners and the Assessors will come to an end in due course, when the process of reorganisation is finished; and when that happens, the only Crown appointment will be that of the Principal of the University. There has been a division of opinion in the House on whether the Principal or the Rector should occupy the chair of the University Court. On every side the arguments have been laid out, and I think that will be of use in another place when they come to consider that part of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Home, on his Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill. I am pleased to have had an opportunity of participating in what I believe will be a great
1546
improvement in the work of the University of St. Andrews in the future. I know something about the University—not directly, because I was never there, but from friends who were—and I know what a great tradition it has. I believe the University has a greater life before it than it has had in the past. I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion.
On Question, Bill read 3a; Amendments (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS SCOTLAND BILL [H.L.]
6.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move that tins Bill be now read a third time. I think there is nothing to add to what my noble friend Lord Selkirk said on an earlier stage of the Bill, when he gave a very good account of it, and I hope that my Motion will meet with the approval of your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I agree that there is nothing to add, and I hope the Bill will pass at once.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

GREAT OUSE RIVER BOARD (REVIVAL OF POWERS, &c.), BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
RHOANGLO GROUP BILL

  UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at seven o'clock.