Sitting of 19 March 1953

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

  MILFORD DOCKS BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  ILFORD CORPORATION BILL (by Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at Seven o'clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Day Nurseries
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Health the estimated average amount of expenditure in the running of a day nursery accounted for by overhead charges, staff wages and food, respectively.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): For an average-sized nursery of 48 places the provisionally estimated amounts in 1951–52 were £1,908, £3,421 and £781.
    Mr. Hale: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that these figures are really quite excessive in a country in which family allowances are at the rate of 5s. a week, and in which women at home have to bring up large families on figures infinitely smaller than those given?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member will be aware that family allowances are no concern of my Department. It is true that in day nurseries, with so many children drawn from different homes, and with the variations in age, the charges are necessarily high.
    Mr. Burden: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Gillingham day nursery before May last year the staff consisted of 14 people to look after 26 children, and does
    184
    not this bear out the fact that there is certainly some case for reviewing the whole situation?
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Health the regulations and rulings of his Department with regard to the number of personnel required in a local government-administered day nursery.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The decision is left to the local health authorities, who have been advised that, excluding domestic staff, a ratio of one staff to five children is generally considered desirable.
    Mr. Hale: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that this number is often greatly exceeded? In some of the day nurseries in Kent the charge for maintaining these children is 35s. a week and in others is about £4 a week. Will she look into this very useful service, which ought not to be curtailed, to see if these nurseries can be maintained on a basis of the more economical use of public funds?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I will bear in mind the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I would, however, point out that every effort has been made in Kent during the past two years to run these nurseries as economically as possible, but they are a service in which staffing charges are high.
    Mr. Horobin: Will the hon. Lady bear in mind that these lush and extravagant establishments are producing a situation in which either the very people for the benefit of whom the nurseries are intended cannot afford to use them, owing to the heavy charges, or the nurseries are becoming an intolerable burden on the rates, and will she look further into this one to five ratio and see if it cannot be amended?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: That is a matter for the local health authorities. I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion that the people who really need these nurseries are being denied them because of the charges, my reason for saying that being that the local health authorities relate their charges to means.
    Mr. Dodds: How can the Parliamentary Secretary say that, when she knows that in a few weeks' time there will not be one single day nursery left in Kent,

    185
    and that mothers themselves complain about the top-heavy administration in which economies could be made?
    Mr. Hale: Does the hon. Lady not realise that half these institutions are being closed down? The women in Lancashire who were appealed to a couple of years ago to go into industry are now being forced out of industry by the policy of closing the day nurseries, and what is the hon. Lady going to do about it?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The matter is wholly one for the local authority. On the basis of investigations which have been made, representations have been made to my right hon. Friend, and where closure has been advocated, some alternative provision is being suggested.
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Health whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the cost of administering and maintaining day nurseries, with a view to such economies being made as will make it possible to continue this service at prices which will enable parents to continue using it.
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Minister of Health if he will inquire as to the effect of the closing of day nurseries on the employment of women and on the care of young children.
    Mr. George Craddockasked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to enable greater use to be made of day nurseries; and if he will undertake a review to enable prices to be fixed within the range of those in the lower income groups.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that local health authorities are failing in their statutory responsibilities for the care of young children or in general to run day nurseries as economically as practicable. Charges for using the nurseries are based on ability to pay. No useful purpose would, therefore, be served by an inquiry on these points, but any question as to the availabilty of women for employment would be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. Hale: But surely the hon. Lady is aware, and if she is aware will she please admit it, that the variation in the cost of day nurseries is as much as 100 per cent. between one institution and
    186
    another; that perfectly good day nurseries are being maintained at much lower costs than those now charged by some corporations; that women are being placed in real difficulty; that employment is being affected and that people in many parts of the country are most indignant about this?
    Mr. D. Brook: Will the hon. Lady ensure that in reviewing the staffing of day nurseries she maintains a decent standard, so that the children will be well looked after?
    Mr. Legh: Will my hon. Friend consider whether it might not be advisable for these day nurseries to be run and paid for by district and borough councils and not by county councils as they are now?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: That is another question.
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: Will the hon. Lady look into the matter again? Is she aware that in Slough one day nursery has been completely closed and at the other the charge has been increased to £2 3s. a week? Does she know that I have had a wad of letters from mothers complaining either that they cannot afford the increase, or that they can no longer go on working, or, if they do, they must look after the children under impossible conditions?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is not wholly fair to say that the charge at Slough has been increased. Almost all the mothers using the day nurseries there come under the scheme of reduced rates because of need. They do not pay the full rate. Usually where the full rate is paid both parents are in employment. On the question of the use of the Slough nursery, I understand that even the remaining day nursery is not fully occupied.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Health what action was taken to reduce the cost of running the five remaining day nurseries in Kent before the decision was taken to close them.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Reductions in staff and in the hours during which the nurseries were open, the replacement of deputy matrons by staff nurses, and general economy in management.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Lady aware that I wrote to the Minister several months ago showing that it was so difficult to get children into the day nurseries, that most of them were only about half full and, therefore, the cost was greater? Is not this a deliberate policy to close them? The hon. Lady said last week that baby minders were successful in the L.C.C. area. That area also has day nurseries. Can she explain why Kent cannot have the same facilities?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I cannot accept the suggestion that to put more children in the nurseries would lessen the cost.
    Mr. Dodds: Of course it would.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The cost per child for children attending the existing nurseries is £3 1s. 3d. and the total cost is £23,000. If the present nurseries were fully occupied, the cost would be £33,000.
    Mr. Dodds: With the same administration.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: On the contrary. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that if the numbers were greater there would be more staff and more food needed.
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the hardship which is caused by the closing of all the day nurseries in Kent; and if he will reconsider his decision.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, Sir. The county council's proposals to introduce a scheme of daily minders should, in my right hon. Friend's view, obviate any material degree of hardship.
    Mr. Bottomley: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that there are some cases of great hardship, such as those of widowed mothers who have to look after their children and must necessarily go out to work? Will she not reconsider her decision? It is wrong to say that this is not a matter for the Government. The last Government decided the question and gave some guidance to local authorities.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I do not deny that there are cases where it is necessary for the children to be looked after. It was for that very purpose that my right hon. Friend insisted that there should be an alternative scheme which would make the necessary provision.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that this question of day nurseries seems to have many of the characteristics of a national muddle, and that by the most uneconomical way in which they are being run they look like committing suicide?
    Mr. Marquand: Will the hon. Lady take note of the evident anxiety on both sides of the House about this matter? Will she remind her right hon. Friend that when he asked, in the last piece of legislation he introduced, for powers to make higher charges for these nurseries, they were given without any difficulty, to help him to keep the nurseries going? Will she ask him to reconsider the whole matter?
    Sir R. Glyn: Has the hon. Lady's attention been drawn to a recent Report of the Select Committee on Estimates which dealt fully with this matter and made certain recommendations?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) I would say that it was because my right hon. Friend wished to be satisfied that alternative provision would be made for those who really needed the services of the day nurseries that last year he refused to allow Kent to close all 10.
    Mr. Dodds: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Lady's answers, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Handicapped Persons (Welfare)
    Mr. Carrasked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have now submitted schemes for promoting the welfare of physically handicapped persons; and how many of these schemes include provisions for handicraft training.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Sixty-five local authorities in England and Wales have submitted schemes for promoting the welfare of physically handicapped persons. All these schemes include provision enabling the authorities to train handicapped persons in handicrafts.
    Mr. Carr: Can my hon. Friend say whether Surrey County Council is one of the authorities which has submitted a scheme? On a more general point, is

    189
    there any indication whether the remaining authorities are preparing schemes? If not, can my hon. Friend do anything to encourage them?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: We have not yet had a scheme submitted by the Surrey County Council. Although my right hon. Friend has power to issue directions, he does not feel that it is opportune to do so when other schemes are still coming in.
    Mr. E. Evans: Can the hon. Lady say whether her right hon. Friend feels satisfied that the response is generally satisfactory, and also whether his mind is moving a little towards making Circular 33 of 1951 mandatory?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The response has been reasonably good, and other schemes are still coming in. My right hon. Friend does not feel that it is opportune to issue any directions now.

    Fog Deaths, London (Investigation)
    Lieut-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Health whether he will make a further statement about his Department's investigation into the number of deaths in Greater London attributable to the fog last December.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): A detailed study of the evidence obtainable from hospitals, vital statistics and other sources is now in progress, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the Minister realise that the matter is one of considerable urgency, and that since I raised it in the House two months ago I have received notable reinforcement from the London County Council, which is also pressing the Minister to institute a full-scale inquiry into what is a serious menace in London?
    Mr. Macleod: I quite agree that it is a most important matter, but it is precisely for that reason that, in my view, this sort of scientific investigation— because that is what it is—ought not to be hurried.
    Mrs. Braddock: Could the Minister tell us whether there are included in this investigation special investigations about the very large number of people suffering
    190
    from tuberculosis who died during the period of this fog?
    Mr. Macleod: All matters that can reasonably be attributed to the effect of the severe fog will come within the purview of this committee.

    Suicides (Young Persons)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Health whether he will appoint a committee of medical and other experts to investigate the high number of suicides in recent years among schoolboys and undergraduates.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The figures for suicides among boys between 10 and 14 are too small to be statistically significant. Separate figures for older students are not available. I am, however, aware of the concern about this problem, and while I do not think it would be appropriate for me to set up a special committee, I am sure that the problem will be carefully watched by all concerned.
    Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Is not that a somewhat vague and evasive reply? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the considerable concern and disquiet felt by parents and teachers, and will he not, in association, perhaps, with the Minister of Education, see to what extent the strain of examinations is responsible for this deplorable series of suicides?
    Mr. Macleod: As far as trends are concerned, the general suicide rate for boys and men between 15 and 24 years of age is lower than the general rate and has been falling in recent years. The fullest facilities are available to universities for dealing with the general problem and I think it is a matter which is best left to them. If they ask for my help in any way, I shall be delighted to assist, but I believe that they have the fullest facilities available already.

    Tuberculosis Advisory Committee
    Sir A. Hudsonasked the Minister of Health when the Standing Advisory Committee on Tuberculosis met last; how often it has met in the last 12 months; when it is intended that it shall meet again; if he will ensure that in future regular meetings of the committee shall be held; and if he will strengthen its membership by the appointment of a tuberculosis physician in clinical practice.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The committee has met once during the last 12 months— on 5th May, 1952—and its next meeting is on 1st April. The frequency of meetings is a matter for the committee itself. Its membership already includes three tuberculosis physicians with clinical charge of beds, and I do not consider it necessary to add to that number.
    Sir A. Hudson: Can my right hon. Friend tell us how far he is guided by this important body when it does meet and makes recommendations?
    Mr. Macleod: It meets when there is sufficient business to discuss. One of the important matters that it is to consider is the question raised in the House of Commons about tuberculosis brought in by emigrants to this country. I have the fullest confidence in this body and pay particular attention to its conclusions.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

    Surgeries and Waiting Rooms
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health what action he is taking to secure an improvement in the condition and equipment of general practitioners' surgeries.
    Dr. Jegerasked the Minister of Health what Regulations he has made on the standard of surgery and waiting room accommodation in doctors' premises under the National Health Service; how many have been inspected by executive councils; and how many have been declared unsuitable.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The relevant Regulation is paragraph 7 (4) and (5) of Part I of the First Schedule to Statutory Instruments, 1948, No. 506. My right hon. Friend has no details of inspections by executive councils. He is, however, hoping shortly to discuss the best way of securing an improvement, where necessary, in the condition and equipment of general practitioners' surgeries and waiting rooms with representatives of the medical profession.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the Minister agree that the attention of the executive councils might well be drawn to this matter, especially in view of the considerable sums of back pay recently awarded to the medical profession, and that this
    192
    may be one of the most desirable ways of utilising at least some of that money?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think that we should await the outcome of the discussions which are pending.

    Medical Auxiliaries (Qualifications)
    Mr. Turner-Samuelsasked the Minister of Health to make a statement at an early date on the implementation or otherwise of the Cope Report.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. As the result of discussions with the professional bodies of medical auxiliaries, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are satisfied that there is insufficient agreement on fundamental matters to proceed with statutory registration on the lines proposed by the Cope Committees. We intend, therefore, as soon as possible to make regulations, using the power of Section 66 of the National Health Service Act, 1946. and Section 65 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, to prescribe qualifications for medical auxiliaries for the purpose of employment in the National Health Service. We shall shortly give the professional and other bodies concerned an opportunity to comment on an outline of the regulations proposed.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I want to thank the Minister for his statement and ask him whether, now that this Report is not to be implemented, he will consider the question of physiotherapists and other medical auxiliary service practitioners who have been previously affected as a result of the Report? For instance, a number of experienced physiotherapists have been unjustly refused employment under the National Health Service administration in hospitals because they were not members of a particular organisation. Will the Minister consider that matter, and have it examined and corrected?
    Mr. Macleod: I am aware of the difficulties of medical auxiliaries and particularly of the physiotherapists to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman refers. I intend, when making the regulations, to withdraw the temporary instructions given in August, 1951, and I will do everything I can to see that the regulations which I propose are fair to all the associations concerned.

    Prescriptions
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Health whether he will allow private patients to obtain drugs prescribed by their doctor on a parity with people in the State scheme.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: This is not possible under the provisions of the National Health Service Act, 1946.
    Mr. Jeger: Does the hon. Lady not recognise the wording of the Question, which was taken directly from one of the pledges made by the Conservative Party in the days of their more carefree irresponsibility, and will she take note of how glad we are to add this to the long list of broken pledges?
    Sir Edward Keeling: Can my hon. Friend state what the net cost of this would be after allowing for the shilling prescription charge? Has she worked it out?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: My hon. Friend will not expect me to answer that question without notice.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health the estimated average number of prescriptions on each form and the average cost of each prescription at the latest available date; and how these figures compare with those before the introduction of the prescription charge.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: In England and Wales the estimated average number per form was 1.71 in February, 1953, 1.57 in May, 1952, and 1.59 in February, 1952. The estimated average cost was about 4s. 2½d. in December, 1952, compared with an average cost of 4s. 1¼d. in May, 1952, and 3s. 10½d. in December, 1951.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Lady agree that this figure suggests that the prescription charge has added to the cost per prescription in many cases, and has encouraged doctors, for understandable reasons, to add to the amount of drugs prescribed, and thereby increased considerably the amount of wastage?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend cannot accept that as the sole explanation. The main cause is increasing prescribing of expensive new drugs.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Lady not aware that more items are being put on
    194
    the prescriptions and that the quantities are also increasing? Is she aware that this is a matter of some concern if we are concerned at all about the question of wastage? Large bottles of medicine and large tins of pills are apt to go down the drain even faster.

    Group Practice
    Mr. Marquandasked the Minister of Health whether he has now drawn the attention of executive councils and their medical committees to the fact that both he and the General Medical Services Committee have accepted the encouragement of group practice as a desirable objective.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I have now received advice from the Central Health Services Council on the definition of group practice, and I propose shortly to discuss with representatives of the medical profession how best to implement the recommendation on group practice of the working party on the Distribution of Remuneration of General Practitioners.
    Mr. Marquand: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind the desirability of finding, at the proper time, some way of allowing this information to get down into the regions and the localities? Very often these things are talked of centrally and are not really known about locally.
    Mr. Macleod: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. As a matter of fact, I only received this report last night. I will consider it, and also whether it will be possible to place the report in the Library of the House and make it available to Members; and what publicity should be given to the conclusions which Sir Henry Cohen's Committee have reached.

    Dental and Ophthalmic Charges
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Health whether he has received and considered the resolution passed by the Blackburn Executive Council, expressing concern at the reduction in demand for dental and ophthalmic treatment and calling for this treatment to be made free of charge again; and what action he proposes to take.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is collecting full information on the demand, so that the effect of the charges can be properly assessed.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Lady not aware that the executive council in Blackburn have expressed the view that the great reduction in demand is due to the part-payment charges, while the need is as great as ever, and that there cannot be an effective Health Service so long as this part-payment remains in operation? Could the hon. Lady's answer mean that her right hon. Friend now realises the profound mistake made by the Government in instituting these charges, and that he intends to remove them?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I cannot accept the hon. Lady's supplementary question on two points. The first is that the charges for spectacles and dentures were introduced by her right hon. Friend and not by us. Second, the demand for spectacles slightly increased in 1952. In the demand for normal conservative treatment, excluding dentures, there has been very little change.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Lady aware that the first part of her answer was not borne out by the facts, and that the Blackburn Executive Council's resolution was in reference to treatment and not to dentures at all? It is the preventive side of the service that should be improved.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: In regard to ophthalmic treatment, about which the hon. Lady complained, the charges did indeed come under the previous Government's policies.
    Mr. Gower: In view of the demand for dental treatment, will the Minister keep this matter carefully under review?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The figures for last year in the possession of my right hon. Friend do not bear out the contention made. The demand has not substantially fallen from the figures and estimates previously available.

    Mass Radiography Units, West Riding
    Mr. George Craddockasked the Minister of Health how many mass radiography units are in use in the West Riding of Yorkshire, with particular reference to Bradford and district.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Four, one of which is based on Bradford.
    Mr. Craddock: May I ask the Minister if he considers that the equipment he has mentioned is adequate for the needs of the locality?
    Mr. Macleod: I have no reason to suppose that it is inadequate in any way. If the hon. Member believes it is, perhaps he will put a case to me, and I shall be glad to look into it.

    District Nurses, Birmingham
    Mr. Yatesasked the Minister of Health how many visits were made by district nurses in Birmingham to the homes of patients during December, January and February last.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Forty-two thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, 46,319 and 43,828 respectively.
    Mr. Yates: Does the Minister realise that even before the figures were as high as that, some of the district nurses were having to make 16 visits in the morning alone, whereas the ideal is 12 a day? Does she not think that most unsatisfactory?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: To a great extent the increase in the number of visits is due to district nurses giving far more penicillin and streptomycin injections at patients' homes, which has enabled us to free hospital beds, and that process is wholly desirable.
    Mr. Yatesasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the hardship and inconvenience caused to district nurses in Birmingham, especially during the winter months, many of whom have to travel by bicycle; and if he will make more satisfactory arrangements to enable such nurses to obtain priority in purchasing small motor-cars by easier hire purchase facilities.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: No complaints on this score have been brought to my right hon. Friend's notice; arrangements to enable district nurses to purchase motor-cars are a matter for the local health authority.
    Mr. Yates: Does the Minister not realise that deputations have waited upon the local authority from doctors and also from the trades council, and in view of

    197
    the fact that these nurses are being overworked in such terrible weather, cannot something be done to assist them to obtain cars, as the midwives are able to obtain them, so that the position can be relieved to some extent?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that of 148 nurses 50 own cars. But it must be for the local authorities, with full knowledge of their areas, and the duties which have to be covered by their district nurses, to make decisions in this matter.

  HOSPITALS

    Smoke Emission, Carlisle
    Mr. Hargreavesasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the danger and nuisance to residents through the emission of dense clouds of smoke from the chimney of the City General Hospital, Carlisle; and if he will expedite the installation of new boiler plant to abate the nuisance and reduce the cause for complaint.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The regional hospital board regard this as an urgent matter, and are doing everything possible to expedite the provision of new plant. Meanwhile, the hospital is taking such steps as it can to reduce the trouble.
    Mr. Hargreaves: May I thank the Minister for his helpful reply, and ask him if he is aware that I have a petition from 600 local residents in the vicinity of the hospital protesting against the pollution of the atmosphere? Would he, as Minister, set an example to commercial undertakings in the area in the matter of pollution?
    Mr. Macleod: I am doing what I can, but the difficulty here is that new boilers are required, and until they are installed the position will not be entirely satisfactory. They are on order and I hope we can get their delivery hurried up.

    Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield (Grants)
    Mr. P. Robertsasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the teaching hospitals in London receive revenue grants per bed at a rate approximately 40 per cent. greater than the similar grants for the Sheffield teaching hospitals, he will re-allocate the
    198
    money available in order that the Sheffield teaching hospitals shall receive a more equitable proportion of the money available for teaching hospitals.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I do not accept the assumption underlying this Question. The grants made to teaching hospitals must have regard to the current cost of maintaining beds, which is substantially higher in London than in Sheffield.
    Mr. Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a national service, and that although Sheffield has done extremely well, it is disproportionately handicapped by lack of funds? Will he be prepared to receive a deputation in order to consider the question of allocations for these teaching hospitals?
    Mr. Macleod: The real reason for the disparity is that traditionally the London teaching hospitals have many specialised departments and have special staff ratios. I have not the slightest intention of interfering with that position. I shall be very glad to consider the question of receiving a deputation, and perhaps my hon. Friend will speak to me about it.

    Camerton Hospital
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Health if he will hold a special inquiry as to the future of Camerton Hospital, West Cumberland.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir.
    Mr. Peart: Will the Minister reconsider the position, in view of the fact that another £10,000 has already been spent in the reconversion of this hospital into a sanatorium? Although there has been an argument about defence, this hospital would make a very suitable place for urgently needed accommodation for patients suffering from tuberculosis. Would the Minister reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not think that an inquiry would help, because all the facts are known. This is a disused smallpox hospital. Authority was given in the time of the last Government to inaugurate a scheme for a sanatorium there. It was subsequently discovered, a long time afterwards, that there was an enormous ammunition dump within a few yards. As soon as I heard that, I stopped the scheme the same day. An inquiry could not

    199
    reveal new facts because they are fully known. I am aware of the position in that region and in the Newcastle region.
    Mr. Peart: Would it not be possible to get rid of the ammunition, in view of the fact that there is also a village near it? Will not the Minister reconsider the whole local position.
    Mr. Macleod: Of course, I am glad to look at anything which the hon. Member or anyone else likes to bring to my notice. I have a memorandum from the hospital management committee on this matter which I am carefully studying. The Question I was asked was about an inquiry, and I am satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by one.
    Mr. Popplewell: Could not the right hon. Gentleman make contact with his colleagues with a view to removing this ammunition dump and allowing this hospital to be used as a sanatorium? The North-East is one of the worst parts of the country for tuberculosis treatment, and sanatorium accommodation is urgently required. Will not the Minister again look at the matter, and see whether any use can be made of the hospital for that purpose?
    Mr. Macleod: I am prepared to look at the local case which has been put to me, but I do not want to hold out any hope, because my present view is that no useful purpose would be served by an inquiry.

    Endowments Fund Investments
    Mr. J. Patonasked the Minister of Health if, in view of the curtailment and postponement of the capital expenditure programmes of the national hospital service, owing to the need for national economy, he will sanction the realisation of certain of the investments of the Hospital Endowments Fund and allow the proceeds to be used for capital projects of an urgent nature.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I regret that the hon. Member's interesting suggestion is not practicable at present.
    Mr. Paton: Is the Minister aware of the very widespread feeling of frustration among members of these committees, and the deep anxiety about the inevitable stoppage of hospital development? Cannot he offer them something?
    Mr. Macleod: It is quite untrue that there is a stoppage in hospital development. The money allocated for capital resources is more or less the same. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Certainly. The difficulty of the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that the fact that new money is put in does not increase the resources available for capital investment.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Would my right hon. Friend look into the question of free money and say whether this anomaly cannot be removed so that these moneys can be used for items of more general expenditure?
    Mr. Macleod: I am not anxious to get into a position in which free moneys are used for purposes for which the Exchequer should be primarily responsible, but I appreciate the force of my hon. Friend's point that there is considerable difficulty—the Select Committee on Estimates drew attention to this—in the use and the spending of free moneys. I am constantly studying whether better guidance can be given.

    Plastic Surgery Centre, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in establishing a plastic unit in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in view of the need for treatment of burns and other industrial accidents in the district.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The plastic surgeons in Newcastle have the use of a considerable number of beds in three hospitals in the city, and pending the provision of a regional plastic surgery centre there, the department of 36 beds has been maintained at Shotley Bridge.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is probably the only region in the country where there is not a properly-equipped unit? Although there are beds available they are scattered all over the place and are highly inefficient to run. This is about the only really heavy industrial area that has no properly equipped unit. Will the right hon. Gentleman give priority to the consideration of this new project?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not think it is for me to give that sort of priority. It is a matter fundamentally for the board.

    201
    There have been considerable improvements in recent years in plastic surgery, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, and in the number of surgeons provided in the Newcastle area. I am sure that the board will note what the hon. Gentleman says.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that within their very small capital allocation it is quite impossible for the board to tackle this problem? I am asking whether the right hon. Gentleman will take this matter up with the Chancellor to ensure that some capital is available to do this most vital economic job?
    Mr. Macleod: I cannot promise an additional capital allocation for any particular job.

    Mental Hospitals
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health what special capital allocation he is making for the coming financial year to meet the needs of the mental hospitals.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: It is for regional hospital boards to decide what particular projects shall be included in their capital programmes, but I have again asked them to devote at least 20 per cent. of their allocations to mental health projects. In addition, two major mental health schemes are being financed from a special central reserve.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the mental hospitals of this country are grossly overcrowded, that most of the buildings are hopelessly out of date and unsuitable, that these conditions are placing an intolerable strain upon the staffs and are hindering recruiting, and that 20 per cent. of the present very small capital allocation is quite insufficient? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?
    Mr. Macleod: Of course, this is probably the most serious problem facing the National Health Service, and it is precisely for that reason that I insisted upon the minimum figure that I have given. The position would have been a great deal easier if, in the first year or two of the Health Service, a larger proportion of resources had been devoted to the mental field.
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Health to give particulars of the provision he is making for capital expenditure on mental hospital development to relieve the badly overcrowded conditions in the Newcastle region.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The regional hospital board propose to spend in the next financial year about £200,000, almost half of their total net allocation, on developments at mental and mental deficiency hospitals. Of this sum, over half will be to provide new accommodation for patients.
    Mr. Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this expenditure will go some way towards meeting the pressing needs of this area?
    Mr. Macleod: This area has very grievous problems in this field, of which I saw something a week or two ago, but within the limits of the amount I can give them they are making a generous allocation to the mental hospitals, and rather more than £100,000 is being given to new accommodation in this field.
    Mr. Marquand: When considering the problem of the division of capital allocation between mental and other kinds of hospital accommodation, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that during the first years of the Health Service there was the enormous task of rebuilding the bomb-damaged hospitals, so that the comparison he made earlier is scarcely a fair one?
    Mr. Macleod: On the contrary, it is entirely fair. We cannot discuss this matter by Question and answer, but if we come to debate these matters, it will be interesting to see the different percentage allocated to the mental field in 1948–49 and this year.

    New Towns
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health if he will make special capital allocations for the provision of hospitals in new towns to those regional boards which include one or more new towns within their area.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: My Department's total capital allocation for the current year is too small to permit of this, but I have these special needs in mind for action when circumstances permit.
    Mr. Robinson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite impossible for regional boards to make provision from scratch for these large new communities out of their normal capital allocation? Is he further aware that the North-West Metropolitan Regional Board has five new towns in its area and cannot begin to tackle this problem unless it is dealt with specially by the Ministry?
    Mr. Macleod: Certainly I am aware that that board, of which the hon. Member is a member, has five new towns in its area, and I agree that this is a problem which can only be financed from central funds. The building of a hospital is too big an undertaking for a regional board. However, as it becomes possible to build new hospitals, I have to balance the needs of new towns with many other crowded areas. It is fair to remind the hon. Member that not a single new general hospital has been built in England and Wales since before the war.
    Mr. Braine: Would my right hon. Friend particularly bear in mind the position of the county of Essex where we have not only two new towns but various L.C.C. estates, with a consequent great influx of population?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, and as far as possible I try to bear the needs of all areas in mind.

    Birmingham
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Health the capital allocation to the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board for 1953–54; and how this compares with that for the current year.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The allocation for 1953–54 is £572,000, compared with £512,000 originally allocated and £575,000 finally authorised for the current year.
    Mr. Snow: Would the right hon. Gentleman bring to the attention of this regional board the fact that, owing to the industrial development on the outskirts of the regional board catchment area, patients needing specialist treatment and consultant service have to travel vast distances, and that the present structure of the availability of such services is out of tune with the demands made by the population?
    Mr. Macleod: I have no doubt the regional board will note the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

    West Cornwall
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Health the allocation of capital expenditure for the West Cornwall Hospital Management Committee for 1953-54; and how it compares with the allocation for 1952–53.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Capital expenditure is a matter for the regional boards, and no specific allocation is made to management committees. I am, however, informed that in 1953–54 the regional board propose to spend £6,400 on capital works at hospitals in this group; in 1952–53 they spent about £28,000.
    Mr. Hayman: Might I ask the Minister whether he will ask the regional board to consider favourably any application it may receive from the West Cornwall Hospital Management Committee for the improvement of the sanitation facilities in the men's ward at Redruth.
    Mr. Macleod: That is a detailed matter of which I have no knowledge. Of course the regional board will consider—I do not promise favourably—any representation made from the sources mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the answers to these Questions show that unless some increase is made in the capital allocation we shall be allowing our hospital projects to deteriorate seriously, and that we are being penny wise and pound foolish in this matter? Will he not press much more vigorously for an increased capital allocation from his right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not agree at all. I think it is a remarkable thing, of which this Government can be proud, that in this present year we are giving more to the National Health Service Estimates than in any previous year.

    Ambulance Service
    Mr. G. Longdenasked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that the rapidly increasing cost of the county ambulance brigade and the hospital car service is solely due to their meeting the essential needs of patients; and what action he is taking.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any general misuse of the ambulance service but I

    205
    think there may well be room for more economies. My Department has issued rules for the proper use of the service and instituted an annual costing return, A pilot fact-finding inquiry is also about to be undertaken in two areas.
    Mr. Longden: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the county of Hertford alone the calls on the ambulance brigade last year were four times greater than they were in 1948-49, and that is excluding the hospital car service?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: One of the Teasons the inquiry is being made is so that we can be sure that the methods and figures tally in the returns of the various areas. If I might give my hon. Friend an example, in some areas where an ambulance takes a patient to hospital and another one brings him back, it counts as two patients carried; whereas if the same ambulance waits and brings him back, it counts as one patient.

    Tuberculosis, Birmingham
    Mr. Yatesasked the Minister of Health how many patients suffering from tuberculosis in Birmingham are awaiting admission to sanatoria; how many chronic cases are occupying treatment beds; and if he will take steps to facilitate the provision of hostels to relieve the congestion, and meet the needs of those requiring urgent attention.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: On 31st December, 1952, the latest date for which I have information, there were 365 names on the waiting list: approximately 126 chronic cases are occupying treatment beds. The capital expenditure available for developments must depend on the urgency of other needs, but the regional hospital board concerned are spending £45,000 this year on improving facilities in their region for the treatment of tuberculosis, and propose to spend a further £47,000 in the coming year.
    Mr. Yates: While appreciating that information, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the Medical Officer of Health for the City of Birmingham stated in his report that 117 beds were blocked while urgent cases were needing treatment; and that according to the figures the situation today is much worse? Should not some representations be made or some assistance given to enable hostels
    206
    to be used in order to relieve the congestion?
    Mr. Macleod: Perhaps the hon. Member will draw my attention to that report of the Medical Officer, and I will look at it personally.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that many of the waiting cases are living in the central areas under very bad conditions and are in contact with large families? Surely something ought to be done to get these people away from their homes to have treatment instead of leaving them in the back streets, in contact with other people?
    Mr. Macleod: That is a very different question and one partly for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

  EDUCATION

    Village Institute, Stoeksfield-on-Tyne
    Mr. Speirasked the Minister of Education whether she realises that the village institute at Stocksfield-on-Tyne has been under Government requisition for the past 14 years; and when she plans to arrange for its occupation by the Northumberland local education authority to cease and for its derequisition and restoration to its rightful use.
    The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): This village institute has been under requisition since 1941. I am afraid that I can give no indication of when it will be possible to release it.
    Mr. Speir: While not blaming my right hon. Friend for the decisions of her predecessor, may I ask whether she is fully aware of the acute irritation which is being caused to local inhabitants by the prolonged occupation of this institute by one Government Department after another? Furthermore, does my right hon. Friend realise that the Northumberland education authority have pursued a very irrational policy in that they spent £1,000 in providing a kitchen in a nearby school but have now closed down the school? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, discuss this matter further with the local education authority and try to persuade them to adopt a more rational policy?
    Miss Horsbrugh: The institute to which my hon. Friend refers is, I know, being used as a central kitchen. The authority's building plans for releasing the institute were stopped by economies imposed by the Government in the autumn of 1949.

    School Building Programme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education how many primary and secondary schools are now under construction, compared with the numbers a year ago.
    Miss Horsbrugh: On 31st January last, 665 new primary schools and 321 new secondary schools were under construction in England and Wales. The figures for the same date in 1952 are 868 and 279, respectively.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that it is very disturbing indeed to see that the number of primary schools under construction has dropped, and that there has been a cut? At a time when classes in primary schools are becoming more and more crowded, what action is the Minister taking to reverse this trend?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am glad to assure the hon. Member that he need not be disturbed. The main reason for the drop in the number of primary schools under construction is the increase in the rate of completion. The number of primary schools completed in the year ended 31st January, 1953, was 457, compared with 296 during the corresponding period in 1951–52.
    Mr. Swingler: I am very glad to hear of the increased completions, but what is to happen to the children in 1954 and 1955 unless more schools are started now?
    Miss Horsbrugh: They are going into better schools, built more quickly and more cheaply than ever before.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education her latest estimate of the numbers of primary and secondary schools on which building work will start in 1953, compared with the numbers in 1951 and 1952.
    Miss Horsbrugh: As the basis of the educational building programme is the financial year, I cannot give an estimate for the calendar year 1953. The programme of work to be started in 1953–54
    208
    now includes 423 new primary and secondary schools. During the calendar year 1952, work was started on 346 new primary and secondary schools. The comparable figure for 1951 is 523.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that we are pleased she has repented of what she did last year and now proposes to increase the number of schools which she will start this year, but that the number of places at which she is aiming is at least 110,000 short of requirements? Will the right hon. Lady, therefore, reconsider this whole problem and start more schools for the benefit of the children next year and the year after?
    Miss Horsbrugh: As the hon. Member knows, the target laid down by my predecessor was 1,150,000 places by a certain date. I still agree that that is the target which we should reach and, I think, can reach. As for the fact that the hon. Member thinks I have changed my policy and now repent, I only say that we are going on from strength to strength and building more all the time.

    New School Places
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education the latest estimate of the number of new school places created since 1945.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The total number of new primary and secondary school places brought into use by new building between 1st April, 1945, and 1st February, 1953, was 898,380.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that the figures she has just given show that we are seriously lagging behind the necessary provision for school places for children? Will the right hon. Lady do something now to restore the policy that was carried out by the last Government?
    Miss Horsbrugh: No. My reason for not restoring that policy is that the number of new places brought into use increased from about 160,000 in 1951 to nearly 220,000 in 1952.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Prime Minister to which Minister ex-Service men's organisations should make representations concerning the proposed elimination of the Ministry of Pensions.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): It would be convenient if these representations were made in the first instance to my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, who will as necessary consult the other Ministers concerned.
    Mr. Simmons: Does this mean that the Prime Minister has not yet appointed a Minister for the co-ordination of disintegration? As the right hon. Gentleman should know, to old soldiers like us it is more important to have integration than disintegration.
    The Prime Minister: I think the meaning was quite apparent from my answer.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a pensioner I am much more interested in the service I receive than the name of the Ministry providing it?

    CENTRAL AFRICAN COMMITTEE (DELEGATION)
    Mr. George Craddockasked the Prime Minister his reasons for refusing to meet a delegation from the Central African Committee; and if he is aware that his refusal has caused dismay amongst all sections of the community.
    The Prime Minister: I see no reason for any dismay in any quarter that the delegation should be received by the two principal Secretaries of State who are most closely and earnestly considering the problem of Central African Federation.
    Mr. Craddock: Does not the Prime Minister think that in view of the proposed Central African Federation, it would have been a gesture on his part and would have helped to cement the ties between the people of Central Africa and this country if he had met the delegation?
    The Prime Minister: I think I must in reason follow the principle of devolution in some of these very serious and complicated questions.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is not in keeping with his usual courtesy to refuse to receive a deputation presenting a memorial signed by Members of both Houses of Parliament, together with leading members of
    210
    the Churches, including the President of the Methodist Conference and leading members of the Church of Scotland and of the Church of England, including the Bishops of Bristol and Worcester and the Dean of St. Pauls?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot think that these dignitaries have in any way been treated with lack of consideration and respect by the fact that they were referred to the two principal Secretaries of State who are masters of the whole of this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not masters."]—masters of all the details of this intricate problem.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, KENYA (MEMBER'S ARREST)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
101. Mr. FENNER BROCKWAY: TO ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will make a statement regarding the arrest and detention of Mr. Fanuel Odede, African Member of the Legislative Council of Kenya.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should now like to give the reply to Question No. 101.
As the House is aware, Mr. Odede, an African Representative Member of the Kenya Legislative Council, was arrested on the 9th March and placed in detention. This was done with my approval. There had been reports for some time that Mr. Odede had attempted to create unrest in the Nyanza Province. More recently information was received from most reliable sources that he had been in touch with the Mau Mau movement, and had threatened a number of loyal Africans with the fate suffered by some law-abiding Kikuyu. This threat to use violence made it necessary for the Governor of Kenya to detain him.
Mr. Odede was not arrested for his political views or on account of any of his activities as a Member of the Legislative Council but because of his adyocacy of violence. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the identity of the people who have supplied information against Mr. Odede. Both the Governor

211
and I are satisfied that the evidence against Mr. Odede comes from most reliable persons and that his detention in the present situation in Kenya is essential to the security of the Colony.
Those who have come forward must also be protected as far as lies in our power. Mr. Odede has been informed that he has a right to submit his objections to the Advisory Committee which has been set up under Emergency Regulation 2, sub-regulation (3), made on 24th February, 1953. This Committee will follow a similar procedure to that used under Regulation 18B in this country. A distinguished former Chief Justice has been invited to be its chairman, and his reply is awaited. If he accepts, the Advisory Committee will begin work before the end of next week, and in any case before the end of the month.
The Governor has made an extensive tour of Central and South Nyanza and reports that there is wide support amongst Africans for the action taken against Mr. Odede. He proposed to appoint a temporary Member in Mr. Odede's place so that the people of his constituency shall not be left unrepresented, and will consult me later about making a definite appointment to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Brockway: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the very serious implications of the statement which he has made? Would he not agree that four months ago this kind of charge against Mr. Odede would have been quite incredible? Does not this imply that even moderate African opinion, if these charges are true, is now being led to more extreme courses? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman at least see that Mr. Odede has a public trial where he can publicly answer the charges which are now being made against him?
Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member's supplementary question shows a complete lack of knowledge of what the situation in Kenya is at the moment. What our opinions might have been of Mr. Odede four or five months ago is quite beside the point. The point is that now we have definite information that he is trying to stir up trouble in Nyanza. Of course the use of 18B procedure is serious, as it was in this country in time of acute emergency. It will not be possible to bring Mr. Odede to public trial at this
212
moment because witnesses are in fear of their lives and cannot be persuaded to come forward.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will my right hon. Friend agree, in view of the state of public security and in view of the terrible atrocities being committed by Africans against Africans, that such preventive detention is not only inevitable but is in the best interests of all races in Kenya?
Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Odede offered to broadcast an appeal for non-violence as far back as last October, has constantly asked Her Majesty's Government for leave to address public meetings to appeal for nonviolence and non-association with Mau Mau, and that he has constantly tried to help in this matter but has been denied the right to speak to his people? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the recent statement that African opinion in Nyanza is against Mr. Odede is in entire conflict with the subsequent sentence that witnesses are going in fear of their lives? If opinion is in favour of a trial, let him have a chance of being tried fairly. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this arrest without trial of a public representative is almost unprecedented?
Mr. Lyttelton: Let me begin by correcting the hon. Member on a matter of fact. It has been made known to all the African Members of the Legislative Council that any application by them to address public meetings would be sympathetically received and no application of any kind has been received—that goes for Mr. Odede as well. I have nothing to add to what I have previously said.
Mr. Alport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that resolute action taken by the Government in Kenya will prevent the extension of murder and terrorism outside its present confines and will be supported not only by the people of this country but by law-abiding people of all races in East Africa as well?
Mrs. White: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether it is open to Mr. Odede to apply for writ of habeas corpus, as was possible under 18B?
Mr. Lyttelton: He can, of course, apply but whether it would be granted or not is a matter for the Kenya Supreme Court.
Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his attempted parallel with procedure under 18B breaks down completely in that in this country no attempt at arbitrary arrest by the Executive has ever been made except in time of war? Will he bear in mind, further, that it is impossible for Parliamentary institutions to grow up if individual members of the Assembly are subject to arbitrary arrest by the Executive, and that he will gain nothing by attempting to create a police State in a British Colony?
Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member's supplementary question merely shows how certain hon. Members below the Gangway are completely out of touch with the situation in Kenya, which is analogous to a state of war or acute emergency. It is for this reason that the putting into force of such a Regulation becomes necessary.
Mr. Brockway: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

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, 23RD MARCH — Second Reading:
Consolidated Fund Bill.
Debate on Opposition Motion relating to Flood and Tempest Damage.
TUESDAY, 24TH MARCH—Committee and remaining stages:
Consolidated Fund Bill.
Debate on Central African federation, which will arise on a Government Motion.
WEDNESDAY, 25TH MARCH—Motions to refer the University of St. Andrew's Bill [Lords] and the Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Bill [Lords] to the Scottish Standing Committee for Second Reading.
214
Second Reading:
Leasehold Property Act and Long Leases (Scotland) Act Extension Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY, 26TH MARCH — Second Reading:
Judges' Remuneration Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Report and Third Reading:
Prevention of Crime Bill.
FRIDAY, 27TH MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
It may be convenient for me to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget on Tuesday, 14th April, and that it is proposed to adjourn for the Easter Recess on Thursday, 2nd April— on which day the House will meet at 11 o'clock in the morning—until Tuesday, 14th April.
Mr. Attlee: May we take it that on Monday and Tuesday the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill will be taken formally in order to follow a full debate on those two subjects?
Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir, that is as the Opposition wishes.
Mr. Attlee: I understand that the Leasehold Property Act and Long Leases (Scotland) Act Extension Bill [Lords], although it sounds as if it were only a Scottish Measure is, in fact, a United Kingdom Measure?
Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. It is a United Kingdom Measure. The title is unduly long in order to cover that.
Mr. S. N. Evans: As Central African federation is the most important matter to come before the House for many a long day, may we have an extra hour of debate so that the differing points of view may be expressed?
Mr. Crookshank: Perhaps that matter could be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Rankin: May I suggest that the debate might run until 11 o'clock and that, as there is not a great deal of business of substance on Wednesday we might have the concluding speeches then, so that the Colonial Secretary would have time to study the good advice he will

215
receive from hon. Members on this side of the House.
Mr. Alport: Will my right hon. Friend note that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) will be strongly supported by many hon. Members on this side of the House?
Mr. Mitchison: Is it proposed to move a Money Resolution in respect of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and if so, can time be found for it next week in order not to delay the progress of the Bill?
Mr. Crookshank: I had noted that the Bill received a Second Reading the other day. I am not prepared to say whether there will be a Money Resolution next week, but we will consider it.
Mr. Braine: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has had any request from the party opposite for a debate on the closing down of the Queensland Food Corporation, and whether time might be found for the discussion of this latest failure of State enterprise?
Mr. Crookshank: I cannot say that I have had such a request, yet.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Leader of the House consider allowing two days for discussing the Judges' Remuneration Bill, because a number of hon. Members have views on the subject?
Mr. Crookshank: I dare say that a lot of hon. Members may have views on the subject, but I should have thought that they could be expressed, and the debate concluded, on Thursday.
Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine)? After all, the House has among its Members the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and the hon. Member for
216
Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), two of the greatest experts on the loss of public money.
Mr. Crookshank: That may well be the case, but the question was whether I had received representations on the subject, to which I had to reply, "No."
Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to consider an important Motion on freedom of association which he will find on the Order Paper in my name and the names of about 70 other hon. Members, representing all parties in the House? Will he say whether he is in a position to give time for a debate on this matter next week? It arises out of the refusal of a visa to an hon. Member of this House and is, therefore, a matter of some concern.
Mr. Crookshank: I did notice this Motion on the Order Paper. It is, of course, one of no fewer than 76 Motions which appear on the Order Paper and I cannot promise time for all of them, or possibly even any of them.
Mr. Snow: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into consideration the Motion on the Order Paper on the subject of the use of the Order Paper for criticising works of art? Will he bear in mind the rather curious association of the Conservative Party and the French Communist Party in demanding social realism?
Mr. Crookshank: I do not know how much the realism is photographic according to Picasso.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [11TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1953–54
  REPORT [9th March]
  VOTE A.—NUMBER OF LAND FORCES
  Resolution reported,
  "That the number of Land Forces, not exceeding 554,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954."
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: After a good many hours of discussion we are now reaching the final stages of our annual debate on the Army Estimates. I would say how sorry we are that the Secretary of State for War became a casualty so early. We hope he will soon be much better.
  His absence has meant we have heard a great deal more than perhaps we otherwise would from the Under-Secretary of State for War who, everyone will agree, discharged his extra duties with great ability. We are obliged to him, for the answers he gave in this House, and also for the letters he has been good enough to write to some of us since the debate. He not only dealt with our points in the House, but attempted to deal with them outside as well. But this does not mean that we are satisfied with all the answers or that we have nothing to raise this afternoon. There are some matters which are more than purely formal with which we wish to deal which will be amplified by my hon. Friends.
  I wish to start with a small point about which we did not hear anything during the previous debates. What is to happen to the Army side of pensions now dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions when the merger takes place between the Ministry of National Insurance and the Ministry of Pensions? Since this reorganisation is planned, perhaps the time has come to consider whether the balance of work still done by the Royal
  218
  Hospital at Chelsea should be moved into the sphere of the new Ministry.
  I do not know whether that would be practicable, but as the years have passed more and more work has drifted away from the Royal Hospital to the Ministry of Pensions; and perhaps this might be a suitable time to consider whether work done in relation to the payment of pensions to ex-soldiers and officers and their dependants should be incorporated under one body. That might prove an administrative improvement and save a good deal of time.
  My next point occurred to me during the winding-up speech of the Undersecretary in the last debate on the Army Estimates. He expressed disappointment about the results so far achieved in getting recruits for the new school at Welbeck Abbey, in the sense that an insufficient number of applicants had come from Scotland or from the North. I made inquiries about where this new officers' school had been advertised, and I understand that it has been mainly advertised in very respectable Conservative newspapers, either national or local. We cannot expect to cover a particularly wide field if we advertise only in the most obscure and reactionary papers in the country. We have advanced somewhat from the day when a potential officer read only "The Times" or the "Morning Post" or local Conservative newspapers.
  If the Minister really wants to widen the field of selection he should widen the scope of his advertising. Perhaps he might care to advertise in the "Daily Herald." I do not wish to appear to be promoting the interests of a particular Labour paper, so may I add that perhaps he might even consider advertising in the "Tribune" and then he might obtain a wider selection of officers for that school. It is a serious matter that a school of this kind should be getting its potential recruits only from traditional sources.
  This brings me again to the rather thorny question of the widening of the selection of officers for the Brigade of Guards. I want to deal with this matter, because the Under-Secretary of State did not answer any of the points raised the other night. He did not deal with the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) who made a most interesting and detailed speech on the subject.

  219
  We never get any answer on this subject, because the Government side of the House always prefer to ride it off as purely a matter of class prejudice which they can safely ignore and fail to answer.
  But on this side of the House there is no class prejudice involved in this question. This is a much more serious matter than the Government appear to realise. We are not against the Brigade of Guards as such. We are not in any way suggesting that they are not an efficient fighting force or that they have in any way failed to do their duty by the country. What we are trying to say—and we do not seem to be able to penetrate the intelligence of hon. Members opposite— is that it is wrong that at this stage in our history there should be a corps d' élite where it is impossible for anybody to get in as an officer unless he has the right background in wealth or birth.
  This is a day when opportunity to rise to the highest part of any profession should not be withheld from anybody with the requisite ability, but the opportunity is being withheld in the Brigade of Guards.
  Mr. Frederick Gough: How can we have a corps d' élite if it is not élite? I do not refer to the class side. The hon. Gentleman said that we could have a corps d' élite and that anybody should be able to get into it. I should like him to elaborate that.
  Mr. Wyatt: I thought that what was meant by corps d' élite was a corps which claims to be the most efficient of its kind in the particular arm of the Service concerned.
  If that is the claim of the Brigade of Guards, they are restricting potential entry into the officer ranks to a narrow group in the community. Somebody who perhaps might be an outstanding junior officer has no more chance of getting a commission in the Guards if he has not got the right background in wealth and family connection than his grandfather had 80 years ago. No change has been made. The hon. Member shakes his head, but I said in the debate the other night, and it cannot be denied, that since the war no one has received a commission in the Guards who was not either at a public school or educated privately at the expense of his parents.
  220
  There is no case of an officer in the Guards who served on a Regular engagement other than a quartermaster. This does not apply to the general run of regiments. It means that whereas the Secretary of State is professing to widen the selection of officers over a very large field indeed for all other regiments, this is not happening in the Brigade of Guards. There might be people quite capable of holding commissions in the Guards who do not have the requisite background in wealth or family connections. They are deprived of the opportunity because of the system of selection.
  The position is much more serious than hon. Members opposite seem to think. What they are doing is saying to young men who might consider the Army as a career that however well they do. and however bright they may be, there will be one branch of the Army which will be for ever barred to them if they wish to go into it. It might well be that many potential young officers might wish to be in such a group where there is a great deal of connection with the Throne and a reputation and tradition of first-class soldiering. They may feel that here is something which is put aside rather like a highly expensive club somewhere in St. James's and they cannot enter it unless they can be put up for membership by having a few friends or relations in it and being able to afford the entrance fee and the annual subscription. It is not right that in the days when we are trying to extend the amount of democracy in the Army this situation should still exist.
  I say seriously that if hon. Members opposite wish the Brigade of Guards to continue in anything like its present form they should use their best influence with the Brigade of Guards to see that they reform their constitution, over which they have so much internal authority, before it is too late and before it is reformed for them from outside, as indeed, if some modification is not made, it will be one day in a way which they will not like at all. Unless they open their officer ranks more widely, they will not be able to get away with this year after year.
  I also want to deal with the question of the equipment for our reserve divisions. We felt that we did not get a satisfactory answer from the Under-Secretary of State as to the amount of new equipment and weapons which were to be available for

  221
  our reserves when the rearmament programme was completed. Paragraph 77 of the Memorandum on the Army Estimates says:
  "The reduction in our planned defence expenditure has had to be effected without any reduction in commitments, and hence the size of the Army has had to be maintained. It follows that the rate at which new equipment can be provided and reserves built up has had to be slowed down."
  It would appear from this that, although it has had to be slowed down, the amount of new equipment and weapons coming along would in the end be the same as that originally planned for the 12 reserve divisions which are in process of creation. But when one reads paragraph 5 of the Statement on Defence a rather different picture begins to emerge. There, having referred to the difficulties met in continuing the rearmament programme as originally planned and dealing with the slowdown, it says:
  "There was also good reason to doubt whether, even after the plan had been completed, the cost of maintaining the forces which would have by then been built up and of keeping them equipped with the most up to date material would have been within the country's resources."
  There was doubt then as to whether it would be possible in any case. There is already the indication in this sentence that in fact the original amounts of arms and equipment planned are never going to be supplied to these divisions. Confirmation of that is in the next paragraph, which says:
  "For these reasons the Government concluded that rearmament would have to be spread over a longer period and held to a lower peak."
  Those are the vital words—"held to a lower peak." That means that it is not merely a question of slowing down the rearmament programme and completing it in a rather longer time than originally planned, but of not completing the original rearmament programme at all.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): Perhaps it would be convenient if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to throw some light on the words:
  "…held to a lower peak."
  They mean held to a lower peak in any one year, so that the total rise in expenditure in one year is not as acute as it would have been because it is done over a longer period.
  Mr. Wyatt: If the Under-Secretary says that that is what it means, why does not it say so? If we take the sentences in context we are bound to assume that the interpretation I have given is the only possible one. Otherwise, there was no need to say that there was reason to doubt whether the cost of maintaining the forces which would by then have been built up and keeping them equipped with the most up-to-date material would have been within the country's resources. What does this sentence mean if the hon. Gentleman is correct? It must only mean that as well as there being a slowing down in the speed of the rearmament programme, in fact the programme will not be completed in the same way as originally planned.
  It must only mean that; otherwise, the whole thing becomes altogether meaningless, and does not make any sense at all. From the context and from the references we have had from the Prime Minister and other speakers from the Government side, it has become very clear through these debates that that is what is intended —not only is there to be a slowing down, but that the total rearmament programme itself will not be completed on the original plan.
  One of the things which the Government have said is that the reason for that is that more attention is being paid to new types of weapons, futuristic weapons and all that kind of thing. That may be true, and I am not saying that a higher proportion of the expenditure should not go on new types of experimental weapons, but I do say that it is totally wrong to build up a force of 12 reserve divisions which are not to be equipped in the way in which it was originally intended they should be equipped, and if those 12 reserve divisions are not to have the most up-to-date weapons.
  I want to explain why it matters so much that these reserve divisions should have the up-to-date weapons which they were originally intended to have. It matters because the plan was that, by 1954 or so, these divisions would be in such a state of readiness that, if war broke out in Europe, they could be very quickly despatched to the Continent and could take their part in any actions which would be taking place on the ground. May be it is possible to accept

  223
  a delay of a year or even longer before we reach the state in which these divisions will be sufficiently equipped with the modern and up-to-date weapons which they ought to have, but it is not possible to accept a situation in which they will never be ready to do this or will never be fully equipped with up-to-date weapons.
  It is the general concept that the use of these divisions or most of them would be to engage in fighting within about two months of the start of any war, but we cannot possibly equip 12 reserve divisions, or even a substantial number of them, within two months of the start of a war unless we have already got the modern and up-to-date equipment and weapons ready for them before that war has begun.
  What I feel very strongly about is that we are building up a large reserve Army which appears to become weaker with the additional troops we add to it, instead of being fully armed and equipped in the way in which it ought to be. It is not the slightest use having 12 reserve divisions if four or five of them are not able to take their places in the line in modern warfare immediately war breaks out, because then they cease to be reserve divisions and are only potential reserve divisions.
  It would certainly be monstrous for a situation to arise in which we would be sending these young men out to fight in a war in which they would not have the very best chance which they would have had if they had been equipped with all the modern and up-to-date weapons and equipment originally intended for them when the rearmament programme began. It would be wicked, the state of modern warfare being what it is, to send inadequately armed and equipped divisions into battle.
  What we should like to know is what is the true position to be about equipment and weapons for these reserve divisions. We feel that, to put it mildly, the Government have been evasive about this matter ever since they first began to talk about slowing down the rearmament programme. We have never had a clear answer to our questions, and the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, first, that they are slowing
  224
  down the rearmament programme, secondly, that they are holding it at a lower peak, thirdly, that they are using much more of the amount being spent on production for experimental weapons and weapons designed to deal with a more futuristic type of warfare, and, fourthly, still maintain, despite the three factors I have already enumerated, that we are still to have the weapons and equipment originally planned and required for these 12 divisions by 1954 or the beginning of 1955. These factors are mutually conflicting, and we are entitled to hear much more from the Government on this point.
  That is all I wish to say, but I have no doubt that a number of other points will be raised by my hon. Friends, although I think that, on the whole, the Under-Secretary will not find it too difficult to get through the afternoon.
  4.5 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Remnant: I am rather astonished that the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) should take quite the line he has done over the Brigade of Guards, and I am still more astonished that he should have done so after his opening statement that he regarded the Brigade as a first-class, efficient fighting unit. If the hon. Gentleman regards the Guards' Brigade like that, and, of course, I accept his statement that he does, then, in my submission, his attack on the Brigade of Guards can only be due to one of three reasons, and only the hon. Gentleman himself can give an answer as to which is the correct one.
  These reasons are either jealousy, in that he himself was refused admission into the Brigade of Guards; or, secondly, jealousy as to their efficiency, which, apparently, he did not suggest was possessed by his own regiment; or, thirdly, pique or a similar reason, or a lack of pride is his own regiment. It may seem strange to some of my hon. Friends and to others of my friends outside the House that I am defending the Brigade of Guards, but the fact is that I was a member of one regiment during the last war and of another one in the First World War, neither of which I would for a moment exchange for the Brigade of Guards.
  Despite the fact that my right hon. Friend is endeavouring to whittle away

  225
  some of their age-long privileges at the Coronation, I should like to say that I was a member of the Honourable Artillery Company, which I regard as a first-class regiment, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me.
  Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth): So was I.
  Mr. Remnant: However, the point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary is the very considerable handicap to recruiting for Regular engagement by the limitation on the pensions increase warrants. There is a limitation on the granting of these increases on two scores—on the limitation of the man's income, and, secondly, on the inclusion of the wife's income in excess of £2 per week. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary will say that these pensions increase warrants are designed to deal with cases of hardship, and, if that be accepted, I would equally accept that the maximum of £550 is a reasonable figure to fix, but I do not accept that these increases should be limited to the avoidance of hardship, and I say that for this reason.
  Service pensions are a part of the attractions of the Service, and they should be the result of the service given by the soldier and his success in it, judged by the rank he attains. I think the time has gone past when we should tell the man who, in civilian life, is able to be successful and by his own ability command a wage or salary higher than others, that, because he has been successful in private life, he will, therefore, not get the increase in pension as justified by the pensions increase warrants.
  I believe that a good employer in civilian life with a group pensions scheme grants a pension according to the services which the man has given and according to the salary which he earned in the last few years of his service, and I therefore see no reason why the Services should not treat the pensioner in the same way.
  Equally, as far as the wife is concerned, if it is a question of avoiding hardship, I would not argue that £2 per week is not justified from that angle, but there are plenty of analogies today for excluding it. There are many who agree—even the Treasury—that the wife's earned income should be separated to at least some degree from that of the husband's.
  226
  I have one particular case in mind, particulars of which I will give briefly because I think it is a very telling example. It is the case of a man who spent 24 years in the Sappers, finishing up as a C.Q.M.S., and who has a wife and four children. The children are quite young, the eldest being 11 years of age. The wife is a fully qualified nurse who, because of the shortage of skilled nurses and in spite of her family duties, is doing three night shifts a week at Broadmoor. But because of the money she earns by coming to the help of Broadmoor with her skill and energy, she is, in fact, depriving her husband of the increase he would otherwise have received under the pensions increase warrant.
  Does my hon. Friend really suggest that in the national interest it would be better if that woman stayed at home and looked after her children instead of helping the State in this way? I suggest that my hon. Friend should look at this particular point from three angles. First, can he do away with the limitation of income? In an answer to a Question about six weeks ago he told me that as far as the Army is concerned this would cost £150,000. From that we can to some extent judge the total cost for the three Services.
  If my hon. Friend does not feel inclined to do that, will he consider excluding the wife's income, which must cost considerably less, and, if not—and I feel he is bound to accept this—will he exclude the wife's earned income?
  4.13 p.m.
  Mr. James Simmons: I do not intend to indulge in the quarrel between the Brigade of Guards and the other arms of the Service except to say that, in my opinion, some of the old county regiments took some beating in the First World War. The discussion of these Estimates on the Committee stage was cut short at the rather early hour of 4.30 a.m. when most of us on this side were as fresh as daisies and quite prepared, being quite mentally alert, to go on a good deal longer in order to deal with the problems invoved.
  We feel that more time ought to be provided for the discussion of the Army Estimates because they concern the welfare of 554,000 men. That is 100,000 more than the other two Services put together which is itself a justification for

  227
  the time we take in discussing these Estimates. Once they are passed and go out of our control we are debarred for a further 12 months from raising problems affecting 554,000 of our fellow citizens in such a detailed and intimate manner as we can on the Estimates.
  It is fortunate, however, that on Report we have Vote A, which gives us our last opportunity, for another 12 months, of considering the adequacy of the numbers, the disposal of the men, the use of their time and their general welfare, which is what some of us want to do this afternoon.
  One might be charged with stretching the imagination if one referred to British soldiers as "marauding bands," but as a matter of fact Army and military dance bands have been invading the territory of civilian musicians, and I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will deal with these marauding bands in more detail than I can during the course of this debate. If we allow these Army and military dance bands to usurp the functions of civilian musicians, where will it stop? Why not, for instance, use the doctors and the nurses of the R.A.M.C. to man our civilian hospitals? This is a very interesting field of discussion, but I will leave the details to be dealt with by some of my hon. Friends.
  The number of 554,000 under Vote A includes National Service men. We hope that many of these National Service men will consider Regular engagements during or at the conclusion of their National Service because, as we on this side have said on many occasions, the more we can build up our voluntary recruitment the nearer will be the day when we can do away with compulsory military service, which none of us on this side and many hon. Members opposite do not like.
  I think it is germane to inquire whether the National Service grants given to the families of National Service men are sufficiently adequate to keep those families happy and contented, because if there are grouses from the home front concerning the economic position while a man is doing his Service he is less likely to be a contented National Service man and a possible recruit for Regular service.
  The Ministry of Pensions are responsible for the administration of these
  228
  National Service grants, and when I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions I often felt that the grants were inadequate. There is an overriding limit of £3 a week. That limit, I take it, is of comparatively long standing. I wonder whether, when the Under-Secretary of State for War replies, he can tell us whether there has been any increase in the overriding limit to cover the increased costs which the National Service man's family has to meet.
  As Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions I often felt that this was a very harsh limit and that in administering it one could not fully carry out the traditions of humanity and kindness which that Ministry has built up over the years. After nearly 18 months of Tory Government the conditions of the National Service man are much worse than they were, and, therefore, there is a very strong case for revising this overriding limit.
  I realise, of course, that it is not intended to be a subsistence allowance, but is intended to meet hardship. But hardship increases with the increased cost of the commodities which are necessary to many of these Service families. Quite a number of National Service men are young men who have just married and who are then called up for Service. It is up to us to see that the homes which they set up are preserved for them when they return to civil life.
  The main subject with which I want to deal this afternoon is the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, a matter on which I went on the rampage during the last debate on the Army Estimates. This is a matter which has been giving considerable concern to those who want to see the administration of pensions integrated in the best possible manner in the interest of war and military pensioners of all kinds. I took the opportunity of raising this matter 12 months ago. Nell Gwynn, with her bewitching ways, charmed the merry monarch so much that he did something for the old soldier. Though Nell sold oranges, the answer I got was a lemon.
  Chelsea Hospital overlaps the Ministry of Pensions, as one can see from the notes in the Estimates. For instance, we are told that the Ministry of Pensions are responsible for death or disability pensions due to service since 3rd September,

  229
  1939. Pensions before 1939 are apparently administered by Chelsea Hospital, who are responsible for awarding all pensions payable to soldiers under Army Regulations. The explanatory notes also show that, in some instances, the awards administered by the Ministry of Pensions include an element in respect of length of service. So we have a muddle here. We get a disability pension plus a Service pension, some pensions being administered by Chelsea and some by the Ministry of Pensions. We ought to look into the matter and consider whether integration could be achieved.
  The authorities at Chelsea are concerned with soldiers in receipt of Ministry of Pensions awards who can be admitted as in-patients to the hospital. The activities mainly controlled by Chelsea are covered in the Army Estimates by a Vote of £18 million. These activities have nothing to do with defence or preparedness. This sum of £18 million, which is ostensibly for defence purposes, is, in fact, for the purpose of social services and it ought to be dealt with by a Ministry which has been designated to deal with social services.
  I suggest, therefore, that instead of disintegrating the most humane and successful Ministry in the Government—the Ministry of Pensions—an attempt should be made to integrate the work done by the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, with the work done by the Ministry of Pensions, and the Minister of Pensions allowed to go on with his job. The Minister should discuss this matter through the usual channels to see what can be done to coordinate and integrate the treatment of the ex-Service and Service pensioners. There is very little gap between them. Neither still wears a uniform and both have been in the Service, so surely one Ministry should be able to deal with the problems of both.
  I am sure that it will be found that the services covered by this £18 million ought to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Pensions, who have more of the sweetness of disposition that fits them to carry on the tradition of "Sweet Nell" than the most amiable "brass hat" ever to wear red tabs. From the points of view of humanity, good administration and getting the Service man and the ex-Service man dealt with in the most effective manner, the Minister might consider
  230
  handing over these social services which come under the Army Votes to the Ministry that is best suited and equipped to deal with them.
  I regret that time does not permit our dealing with many of the points that we would like to raise. There is, for instance, the question of family allowances with which some of us are very dissatisfied. There are also the family pensions for the Forces. A White Paper was published on this subject, and if ever there was a class document surely that was it. A field marshal receives an increase of £200 a year, a general an increase of £200, a colonel an increase from £100 to £220, which is over 100 per cent.
  When we come down to the ordinary men, the chaps who do the donkey work, the privates and sergeants, we find that when they have served 37 years they may, if they are lucky, get 12s. 6d. a week in the case of a private and 15s. in the case of a sergeant, compared with the field marshal's £500, the general's £425 and the brigadier's £250 a year. The Government should look again at these proposals for Forces' family pensions and consider whether they can build a few Bailey bridges across the gap between the top "brass" and the lads who do the work.
  During the Committee stage I raised a case to which the Minister was not able to reply. It concerned the situation at Bordon Camp, Hampshire, where a "blimp" of a colonel started the idea that senior N.C.O.s should lay out their kit. Apparently some of the senior N.C.O.s who live in married quarters had to carry their kit over a mile and lay it out. A newspaper article on the subject quoted a senior warrant officer as saying that the word of a senior N.C.O. should be taken that he has all his kit. He is reported as saying:
  "It seems as though we are not trusted."
  The newspaper correspondent asked whether officers would be required also to have their kits checked. Hon. Members are familiar with the procedure— knives, forks and spoons, socks and all the rest of it, laid out for inspection.
  Mr. William Keenan: Who by?
  Mr. Simmons: It was suggested that the officers should be asked to arrange a kit inspection of their own kit. I do not know whether or not the privates

  231
  would inspect the officers' kits. The answer to the question about an officers' inspection given by the adjutant, who is, I suppose, a man who knows his p's and q's was:
  "They could be ordered one, but, of course, it is not done."
  It is the "done thing" for the privates to have a kit check. I have been through a good many in my time. One stands there for perhaps a couple of hours until all the "paraphernalia" come round. They cast their eyes on the kit display and pass by, and one has had all that work for nothing. They do not find any deficiency.
  Lieut-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Did they find any deficiency in my hon. Friend's kit?
  Mr. Simmons: I was sufficiently astute to camouflage my kit so as to make it appear to have no deficiencies.
  Why should it be only the ordinary common or garden private who should be subject to a kit inspection? Why should he be less trusted than an N.C.O. or an officer? The newspaper report also said:
  "Corporals and below … grinned gleefully through their barrack room windows as the inspection party moved towards the sergeants' quarters."
  I hope that some attention will be paid to this report in the Press of what happened at this camp. The senior N.C.O.s, who were mostly men in married quarters, had to carry their kit more than a mile to camp. This is an indication of some of the archaic things which still go on in the Army. I hope that the Under-Secretary will have some inquiries made as to what was behind the mind of this colonel when he ordered this particular sergeants' kit inspection. I do not know whether he has a mind to have anything behind, but there we are.
  These are one or two of the points which we wanted to raise while these Estimates are still under discussion. I conclude with the plea that next year we should have more time to discuss the Army Estimates. I do not think that 4.30 a.m. is the time to do it. At that time, during the Committee stage, we were lively enough to raise a number of questions on these Estimates, which had an enormous amount of meat in them.
  An Hon. Member: We did not stop it.
  Mr. George Wigg: The Motion to Report progress was moved from the Government benches.
  Mr. Simmons: Someone, during that debate, suggested that the Patronage Secretary was going to move the Closure and the Patronage Secretary nearly burst a blood vessel, and said "That is not done on the Army Estimates; we never move the Closure on the Army Estimates." Yet, as soon as Vote A had been disposed of, he moved to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, knowing full well that there was no opportunity to sit again. It was a back-door method of doing something which he did not want to do by the front door.
  These Estimates are very important. They concern the well-being of 554,000 men—100,000 more than the other two Services put together. They are the one opportunity we have of going into details on the treatment of these men, both during their service in the Army and after they have finished their service.
  I hope that on the next occasion we may have the opportunity of a two or three days' debate on the Army Estimates, so that these very meaty Estimates, giving us so much information and leaving so much to be desired, can be fully discussed by both sides of the House.
  4.35 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Gough: I hope that the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely in what he has been saying. What I have to say in the next three or four minutes deals with the question of morale. I rather imagine that he was dealing not only with the morale of pensioners and those who have indulged in kit inspections, but also with the morale of the back bench Members who were hoping to take part in the debate shortly before dawn. However, he brought in a fairly smart barrage some time before the late hour to which he was referring.
  I should like to speak on a very narrow point—and that is the question of morale in the Territorial Army. My right hon. Friend, when he was speaking in the debate on the Estimates, did touch on this point. He said that it was a very

  233
  serious trouble and worry that these public-spirited people who came back to the Territorial Army when it was re-formed after the end of the war, and who came back both in the ranks as senior N.C.Os. and also as officers were now beginning to leave, and their place had not yet been taken by the National Service intake.
  There is not enough experience in the National Service intake. Many of the National Service men—I believe I am right in saying approximately 27 per cent. of them—have volunteered to go into the Territorials but, nevertheless, most of them are too young, in the case of officers, for the senior officer side and, in the case of the ranks, for the noncommissioned side to become warrant officers or non-commissioned officers. Therefore, it seems to me all the more important that everything should be done to maintain the morale of the Territorials. From that point of view, I wish to bring to the notice of the House what I think is an example of crass stupidity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) referred to his membership of a very well-known regiment of the British Army—the Honourable Artillery Company. I suppose that, because of his accustomed modesty, he did not pursue this matter much further. He said that he had belonged to two regiments, one in the First World War and another in the Second World War. I can beat that. I belonged to two Services, one in the First World War and one in the second. In the second, I belonged to a regiment in the Brigade of Guards, the Rifle Brigade, the Reconnaissance Corps and the Parachute Regiment. [An HON. MEMBER: "All at the same time?"] No, one after another. One has to be sacked from one before one can join another.
  I do not want to be too light-hearted about this, but the Honourable Artillery Company is, I believe, the oldest regiment in the British Army. There was some talk of the Coldstream Guards being older, but I gather that they were disbanded and re-formed after the Honourable Artillery Company. At least, the Honourable Artillery Company is a very old regiment with great and fine traditions. One of these traditions is its ancient privilege of mustering in full
  234
  strength at the Coronation. That was amplified and confirmed by King Edward VII just before his Coronation. I cannot remember his exact words, but he definitely referred to their ancient privilege. That privilege was denied them, unfortunately, I think, by Lord Kitchener at the time of the Coronation of King George V.
  At the time of the Coronation of King George VI, for certain reasons which I will not amplify but which I think all hon. Members of the House will realise, they did not seek to claim that privilege. For this Coronation they left things in the hands of my right hon. Friend and of the War Office. The War Office, in my humble submission, have completely let them down. They are now allowed to have certain representation, but they are not allowed to parade in their full strength. Their full strength, I should like to add, is 300 volunteers—300 ordinary people who have joined the Territorial Army and joined the Honourable Artillery Company. They most certainly will not be able to parade at that strength.
  I understand that two reasons have been put forward. One is that it would upset the Royal Navy, who would be next to the Brigade of Guards. The Honourable Artillery Company was formed before the Royal Navy was heard of. I joined the Royal Navy after that. The second point is that it would be expensive to fit them out in their uniforms, but I am informed that the question of the cost of the uniform could and would be taken care of by many old soldiers of that regiment if they were allowed to do so.
  I would ask my hon. Friend to look into this matter again, even at this late hour, to see whether he can reverse the decision made by the War Office. There is no better way of bringing new recruits into the Territorial Army than looking after the morale of the units, particularly the oldest units, not only of the Territorial Army but the British Army itself.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: To remove any discontent on the back benches I assure the House that I intend to intervene only very briefly. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) that a great

  235
  many matters are embodied in the Estimates, and that much more time is required to deal with them effectively. However, it is not my intention to cover the very wide ground that appears to be open in this debate.
  As I said yesterday, when we were discussing the Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Defence, in these debates we discuss many matters which are relevant to the Estimates but spend very little time on the subject of defence itself. I was much interested in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) about the effect of the run-down of armaments expenditure this year, next year and probably in succeeding years, and particularly its effect on the equipment that will be available for the reserve divisions. But that is not a matter into which I can go at this time.
  We were told recently by the Prime Minister—and his statement was subsequently confirmed by the Secretary of State for War—that seven mobile battalions have been created. I am very glad to hear that that is so, but perhaps the Under-Secretary will be good enough to tell us the composition of these battalions. Are they made up of Regulars, with a number of National Service men—
  Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: I want to answer the right question. I am not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a mobile column such as that at Mons Barracks or the seven straightforward battalions which were formed last year. They are quite different.
  Mr. Shinwell: I am very glad the hon. Gentleman has intervened, because there appears to be some confusion about this matter. At any rate, I am somewhat confused. When the Prime Minister made his original statement I was not quite clear whether we were considering the seven mobile battalions or those that were being made up in the various depots or barracks. What have the War Office in mind? Are they building up a reserve force capable of dealing with an attack from the air? If so, what is the nature of that force and how is it made up? We ought to have a little more information about it.
  My second point concerns the antiaircraft position. We heard very little
  236
  about it in the defence debate or during the Committee stage of the Army Estimates. The hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong in thinking that one of the reasons very little is being said about the state of our anti-aircraft defences is that there is an assumption— hardly a conviction—that anti-aircraft defences on the present model will not be required but will be replaced by guided missiles.
  That strikes me as much too optimistic. I do not believe that guided missiles in an effective quantity will be available for a long time to come. We have heard of the progress made in the United States and something of the progress in the United Kingdom, but while I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to furnish any specific information on these matters, because there is an element of security involved, I should like to be assured that there is some other reason for not furnishing us with more information about the state of these defences.
  I know that considerable progress has been made with the new anti-aircraft weapons, but we should be assured that in this vital field of home defence our anti-aircraft defences will be accurate. We know what happened in 1939. There was then a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and it was a long time before sufficient guns were made available. We should be assured that if an emergency arose there would, at any rate, be some measure of protection from the air.
  I want to mention two other small matters, although they are important from the point of view of the people who are primarily concerned. The first is in connection with National Service men who, having completed their two years' service, are called up very soon afterwards to undertake their Territorial liabilty. A man released in February or March may be called up at the end of April or the beginning of May for his 15 days' training.
  Mr. Hutchison Mr. Hutchison indicated dissent.
  Mr. Shinwell: I have had communications about this. I am surprised to see the hon. Gentleman shake his head. There must be some cases—this may not be the general situation—where men are called up rather too soon. There should be a reasonable time between the men being released from active service as

  237
  National Service men and their call-up for annual training.
  The other point has a bearing on what the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) said about the Territorial Army. I was surprised to learn from the Memorandum to the Army Estimates that very little progress has been made in the buildup of the volunteer forces for the Territorial Army. When I was Secretary of State for War some years ago the War Office were very much concerned about this situation and began a campaign, which was more or less successful, whereby many devices were employed to build up the volunteer Territorial force.
  In view of the reduction in the figures, I have come to the conclusion that the present bounty is most satisfactory. I know that money does not always count in these matters and that there is also the question of service. Many of these men render service in a voluntary capacity, for which we must pay them tribute, and now that we ask men to undertake 30 or more drills a year with an occasional weekend campaign, and 14 or 15 days' annual training with all the inconvenience that is entailed, the bounty should be increased. These men have to sacrifice something of their home life and sometimes have to abandon opportunities for working overtime, which means a loss of remuneration. The present bounty is £9 a year made up to £12 on the understanding that men complete the whole of their drills in their annual training.
  I would go so far as to suggest that the bounty ought to be increased to at least £30 a year—at the very least. I do not think that that is excessive, nor do I think it would be over generous on the part of the War Office to pay £30 a year. Moreover, I believe that we should succeed in enlisting a far larger number of men than are now available to the Territorial Army—and do not let us forget that most of the men are ex-Service men, who are experienced, who have had training in active warfare, and who include a large number of n.c.o.s capable of training other men.
  I believe that, as a result of an increase in the bounty, we should succeed in building up the volunteer section of the Territorial Army to a much greater extent than at the present time, and I would beg the hon. Gentleman to give the
  238
  matter consideration. I do not expect that he will be in a position now to give me a firm answer on this matter, on which the Treasury would have to be consulted, but I am satisfied that unless something of this sort is done it will be impossible to hold the men in the Territorial Army. The War Office must not rely unduly on the number of men who are being transferred from National Service to the Territorial Army, service in which, of course, is an undertaking with which they have to comply as a result of the National Service Act.
  Those are the matters upon which I should like information. There is a great deal more that could be said, but I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak, and I shall content myself with the time I have had.
  4.52 p.m.
  Major H. Legge-Bourke: I should like to say how much I agree with the general purport of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has said, although I think I part company with him when he suggests that extra money would be a sufficient inducement to service in the Territorial Army, although, of course, all of us realise that those who are offering their services to the Territorial Army are facing considerable financial problems; at any rate, many of them are. However, I have a feeling that what is more likely than the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to answer the problem is to equip the Territorial Army better than it is today, not only with weapons, which are obviously of vital importance, but also with amenities for the units.
  Many of the county regiments in the Territorial Army are today extremely hampered by lack of amenities. This particularly affects "Ack-Ack," which is, of course, considerably restricted in the type of weapons with which it is training. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to tell us a little bit more about Anti-Aircraft Command than he has. Of course, one of the most difficult things for an army or any part of an army is to give the impression of being really up to date during a process of transition, and that is really the position in Anti-Aircraft Command at the moment, which is moving out of the old searchlight and gunfire method of action

  239
  into a new phase, the nature of which we do not yet really know.
  It seems to me that it would be a tragedy if, because we cannot provide all the up-to-date equipment, we were to lose men who would otherwise be ready to serve, and I would certainly agree that there should be more money devoted to the better equipment of the Territorial Army, and its provision with the latest types of equipment, although we know that the range of that equipment is not yet complete. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say something about that.
  I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington that in these debates on the Service Estimates we have not spent a great deal of time on discussing the general problem of defence, and I should like for a few minutes to touch on one aspect of that—one which, I think, is of vital importance since the decisions made upon it will affect the general rearmament programme very considerably. One of the things I was trained to do as a soldier —and I suppose that everybody else who was in the Army was trained to do this, too—was to reflect, first of all, when considering what one ought to do oneself, what the enemy might do. I have sometimes wondered whether we have really done that in this general matter of defence, in the light of the Prime Minister's remarks earlier about the need for home defence both by the Home Guard and by Civil Defence.
  I have often felt that we may have reached the stage in military history at which the next enemy we in this country have to stand up against—the next European enemy, that is—will break all the precedents and begin the war by attacking these islands rather than the Forces we have on the Continent. I certainly think that if that were to happen, considering the position we are in, the position would be an extremely disturbing one. Those who have disagreed with the setting up of the Home Guard at the present time, and with the preparation of Civil Defence, have not really faced up to that issue—that there is always the possibility that an aggressor determined to seize Europe will attack these islands first.
  If that were to happen there would be few more important organisations in this
  240
  country than our defence organisations, and notably the Home Guard. Presumably, the way such an enemy would come to this country would be by air. Whether he would come by gliders or by parachutes is another matter; but he would come by air. Probably there would be small parties of the enemy—doubtless, a good many of them—arriving all at once. The man who will be of the utmost value in that case is the man who is armed with a personal offensive weapon of some sort. I believe that since the war we have placed far too much reliance upon those far more expensive weapons which are designed for major, set piece battles, and not enough on the personal weapons, offensive and defensive.
  I suppose that the best news given to us in our debates on the Army Estimates has been the news that personal anti-tank weapons have been issued to the infantrymen. I only pray that they have been issued in adequate quantities and quickly enough. Here at home we want something rather different from that. We want something which will be a first-class personal weapon, so that our men here can attack the enemy when they arrive, and as soon as they arrive, before they have time to organise and are ready to start attacks themselves.
  I hope, therefore, that attention is being given to that, and that we are not assuming that the old rifles will be enough—or that most dangerous weapon, the old Sten gun. I do not think those weapons are likely to be adequate, because I do not think that they are violent enough.
  I certainly hope we can have some good news soon about recruiting for the Home Guard, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite will, perhaps, feel inclined to support it with more strength than they have—which is about the most generous description I can give of their attitude towards it so far.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) raised a matter which, I know, is very dear to his heart—pensions—and particularly the Royal Hospital pensions. He made some play with the suggestion that those pensions ought to be regarded as social services rather than matters for the War Office. I would say that it would be a sorry day if the day came when we were

  241
  told that the War Office had ceased to take any interest in those who had served the Army well in the past. I hope the War Office will continue to take trouble about those who have served the Army and the country well.
  One of the things which has disturbed and appalled me—and here I touch on one of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), namely, advertising—has been the poster, which has appeared in many newspapers and on many hoardings, saying "You're somebody now in the Army," with in the background two old Chelsea Pensioners sitting on a bench. I have often wondered whether the Chelsea Pensioners as a body were ever consulted before that poster was published, because I should hate to tell a Chelsea Pensioner that he was nobody when he was in the Army. I am inclined to think that he was "quite a chap."
  Those who have served in the Army, in whatever rank, would be the last ever to admit that they were nobodies when they were in the Army. I hope that that poster, which I consider to be extremely offensive, has been withdrawn. Otherwise, the Army publicity under the heading "Soldiers of the Queen" has been very considerably improved over the last year or so, and I hope that improvement will continue.
  The idea of men joining the Army or any other of the Services simply to get something out of it for themselves instead of being prepared to do something for their country and for keeping the peace of the world seems to me deplorable. I should have thought the Army was in a position to make an appeal to men of all ages other than that they will be trained as civilian tradesmen by the Army. We must, of course, always consider the personal aspect, but I believe that in these days there is a higher purpose in joining the Army, and in the past some of the Army publicity has been a little shy of drawing attention to it.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Aston is not in his place, because when he was speaking this afternoon—and it is not the first time he has spoken in this vein, as we all know—I was reminded of something which appeared in a book which is in the Library, and which I went out to fetch while the hon. Gentleman was speaking. I hope he did not
  242
  think I went out because I could not stand what he was saying any more.
  This book was published during the war, and I dare say the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) has read it. It was called, "Armies and the Art of Revolution," by K. C. Chorley, the K standing for Katherine—a good lady who had a foreword written for her book by no less an authority than—and I am sorry the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is not here, because I know that he regards this man with the greatest reverence—Captain Liddell Hart.
  This book has in it some rather interesting views under the heading of "The Political Character of Armed Forces." When I hear the hon. Member for Aston and others trying to run down the Brigade of Guards I always suspect that they have another purpose in saying what they do than merely trying to defame the reputation of those regiments. The hon. Member for Aston made it clear today that he admits they are an efficient fighting force, so I suspect there is some other reason in what they say, and I am wondering whether this quotation from this book has got anything to do with it:
  "It is essential that a citizen army, true to its name, should reflect the political will of the nation at large. Thanks, then, to its political liveliness, it will be the finest instrument of power that any government based on popular support can hope to control, and the surest guarantee against aggression on the part of any party bent on the destruction of liberty."
  I sometimes wonder whether the remarks of the hon. Member for Aston are made because he believes that the Brigade of Guards is a political menace to the type of progressiveness he thinks he himself represents. If he does think that —and I rather suspect that at times he may—I only ask him to bear in mind that, if he has read this book and bases his remarks on it, the premises upon which some of the statements in the book are made certainly do not obtain in fact.
  From my experience in the Army I have found that the surest way to make oneself unpopular in any officers' mess is to start talking politics. At least it used to be, and I sincerely hope it still is. There is always a risk when people with political minds are brought in and a careful check is not kept on them, of getting the barrack room lawyer holding forth, and trouble then starts. I am sure

  243
  that trouble will start far more often if there are in the Army those who feel that their first duty as an officer is to promote the political regime which happens to be in power in the country at any one time.
  One of the best things about the old regime in the Army—I cannot speak about the new one because I have not been in it since the new one took over —was, I should have thought, that politics were ruled out, both in the barrack room and in the officers' mess. I sincerely hope that that will long continue to be so, because the surest way of undermining the discipline of any army is to encourage the officers to be of one political thought or another in the course of their duties. What they do when they vote at General Elections is a matter for them.
  There is one other quotation I should like to give from this book because it seems to sum up what appears to be in the mind of the hon. Member for Aston when he makes these remarks. Referring to the long-service Regular army and not the citizen army, it says:
  "The officers are never apart from politics in any genuine sense, and the rank and file can be so conditioned that they will only be roused from their apathy in rare circumstances. From the standpoint of progressives, the danger of this long-service professional system is therefore as a double-edged blade. On the one hand, it means that a progressive Government in office can never rely for certain upon its own armed forces to defend its policy, nor can a progressive party intent on winning power expect support from the army, either moral or physical, unless the corps of officers is to some extent disillusioned and disaffected with the old régime†. On the other hand, it implies that a reactionary Right party, making a drive for power, would probably be able to command the assistance of the army, even against the expressed will of the people."
  I do not know whether those are some of the fears in the mind of the hon. Member for Aston, but some of the things he sometimes says about the Brigade of Guards make me feel that that is how he regards the Brigade of Guards. I only say what I said to him in print on another occasion, that no matter how rude he is to the Brigade of Guards, no one outside the Brigade of Guards—or in the Household Brigade, as far as that goes, although I can speak only as a past member of the latter—can ever be as rude to one as one's own adjutant during
  244
  the course of one's service. On me, therefore, his remarks do not make much indentation.
  I should like to make one aspect of this matter clear. I tried to do so during the course of the earlier debate on these Estimates, but the hon. Gentleman would not allow me to get beyond my third sentence. I should like to say a few words on the subject of the selection of officers as I have seen them selected during the course of my time as an instructor at Sandhurst in the past. I cannot accept for one instant that officers who are selected for the Brigade of Guards have not been judged on their merits when compared with other candidates for other regiments at Sandhurst at the same time.
  I know for a fact that considerable respect was paid to all the colonels of the regiments concerned—and it is very laudable that that should be so—on the part of all the cadets at Sandhurst. I will not accept for one moment that when those colonels came down to interview candidates for their regiments they were not meticulous to see that the candidates they selected were making the grade in the general run of candidates at Sandhurst.
  I know that the hon. Member for Aston takes the view that they all turn out to be public schoolboys, or boys who have had money spent on them privately for their education.
  Mr. Keenan: Is that not true?
  Major Legge-Bourke: I have not got the figures, but even supposing it were true—
  Mr. Keenan: Is it not true? That is the point.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Even supposing it were true, what is the standard at which State education has been aiming the whole time? Has not the object been to give to everybody the excellent education which is available to those whose parents pay for it? Is not the whole idea to try to get our State education up to a high standard? What is the point of getting it to a high standard if, because of a political policy, we prevent some people getting a reward which they have earned? That is the object of hon. Members opposite who decry the fact

  245
  that the majority of officers in the Brigade of Guards happen to have had a private education of some sort.
  What they seem to overlook is that if we want to encourage people to take an interest in education, we should not at the same time as a matter of political policy and political prejudice deliberately deprive those people who have had the advantage of the best type of education of the things which they would otherwise on their own ability be able to achieve. That seems to me to be the only answer I can offer to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Keenan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has completely missed the point. Nobody has suggested that the Guards are not as efficient as he says they are. The point is that nobody who is not qualified by either public or private education of a certain class has ever been selected for the Guards. Why not abolish the Guards, change the name and make it a more democratic regiment?
  Major Legge-Bourke: I have not got the figures, but I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has. The argument of the hon. Member for Aston has been changing. Originally, he argued that the officers in the Brigade of Guards were all Harrovians or Etonians. When that suggestion was successfully challenged, the argument was that nobody who had not been to a public school could become an officer in the Brigade of Guards.
  Mr. Wyatt: I have never in my life said that all officers in the Guards came either from Eton or Harrow.
  Major Legge-Bourke: No, but the hon. Member implied it in an article which he wrote not long ago. That suggestion has been fully answered, and I am not surprised that he does not want to refer to it again.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), even supposing it were true that every officer who has ever served in the Brigade of Guards had a public school education—I am sure it is not true, judging from my war experience—I still do not see how hon. Members opposite can ally these two points. If they say that the education of the country should be of the highest possible standard, how can they, at the same time, deprive those who have had that educa-
  246
  tion and have made the grade in that education, of the things which they would otherwise on their ability achieve?
  Mr. Keenan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has missed the point completely.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I heard the hon. Gentleman's suggestion the first time. Hon. Members opposite say that there is no class prejudice behind this question. The hon. Member for Aston said so today. But we all know that there is. Whether or not it is in their minds, this campaign which they have been running for so many years is similar to the campaign which the "New Statesman and Nation" has run year in and year out since it has had the present editor, and its purpose is to undermine everything that is stable and lasting in this country.
  That is how I interpret their action. It is merely another nail in the coffin of anything that is stable. They do not like the corps d'élite. They do not like the idea of the Prætorian Guard. In the 1945–50 Parliament an hon. Member opposite—I do not think he is now a Member of the House—made a long speech about the dangers of having a Praetorian Guard.
  I do not believe that it is possible to alter the construction of the Brigade of Guards without at the same time losing two things for which this country will always be grateful to the Guards. One is an absolutely unchallenged and unparalleled battle record, and the second is the provision of State ceremonial which is unsurpassed in the world. If we start playing about with the Brigade of Guards and with those troops who have so often set the tone for others to follow, the country will lose something which can never be replaced once it is lost, and the country will curse those who have been responsible for its loss.
  No doubt some hon. Members are sincere in their belief that there is a horrible type of privilege in operation here. I know they think that, and, of course, one cannot but respect their feelings, although one pities them for not understanding the matter more thoroughly. But if anybody joins any of the regiments in the Household Brigade imagining that he can be cock-a-hoop for the rest of his life he gets the

  247
  biggest jolt that he could possibly wish for soon after he joins. Certainly, it is a much heavier jolt than he probably expects.
  By the time he finishes as a second lieutenant, fully trained, I am prepared to say that there is no young officer who has been better trained or has been through the mill more severely than that officer. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite, who profess such an interest in the well-being of the Army, ought to be proud of that fact. As for the hon. Member for Aston, if he really feels as strongly as he pretends he does, why did he not do something about it when he was at the War Office?
  Mr. Wyatt: I was at the War Office for only a very short time. I did begin to make some inquiries about this matter, and I found that there was great resistance from those concerned.
  5.18 p.m
  Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I do not intend to talk on such high levels as that of the Guards. I must confess that I do not understand the very fine differences of opinion which seem to exist. I want to speak on the Class A Vote relating to the welfare of the Services, the disposal of the Services and things which concern the men in the Services.
  If incentives have to be provided to persuade men to join the Armed Forces as Regulars, we want to be sure that when men do join the Forces their wives and relatives may be certain that they get proper justice, and that if they receive punishments those punishments shall be proper according to Army Council Regulations. I do not generally intervene in debates of this sort, because I believe that those connected with the work of the various branches of the Services know far more than I do about the subject.
  But there are times when the men in the Forces reach the limit of what they can stand; when they have no one of their superior officers to whom they can turn with any idea of receiving the sort of justice to which they feel they are entitled. Sometimes in desperation they take the initiative and write to their Member of Parliament.
  248
  Because this has happened to me within the last week, I wish to say something about the situation. I am referring to the Lancashire Fusiliers. Everyone seems to have a favourite regiment. If they have been in a regiment, that is the best. If they have not, they think that some regiment is not as good as another, or is better. I have not been in any regiment, but a number of my constituents are in the Armed Forces.
  I receive very few complaints, at any rate desperate complaints, about the treatment meted out to men in the Armed Forces generally, but now and again one hears of something which rather takes one's breath away. I wish to place on record, by reading the whole of it, a letter I received from the 1st Battalion, The Lancashire Fusiliers. If the sort of thing referred to in the letter is actually going on a full and detailed inquiry should be made, or else it will have a serious effect upon recruiting for the Regular Forces.
  Following the receipt of this communication, I also received a number of letters from mothers of the boys concerned, who are themselves concerned about the grumbles coming from this battalion. I am not taking the Under-Secretary by surprise because, so serious did I consider this communication to be that I had it duplicated—I hold the original— and sent to the War Office for detailed investigation.
  I would say also that I took off the 12 names which appeared on the letter, because I am one who does not trust some of the officers in some of the Departments not to take certain action against people who make statements the authorities do not wish to be made public. My reason for raising the matter now is that one of the signatories to the letter is a constituent of mine. I have checked his name and address and know it to be correct. In view of the fact that the communication I have received is perfectly genuine, I think it ought to appear in HANSARD for future record.
  It is dated 8th March, 1953, and it came by registered air mail. It is headed:
  "1st Battalion, the Lancashire Fusiliers, British Forces Post Office 10, Kenya, East Africa."
  Everyone knows what is happening in Kenya. Everyone knows that a high

  249
  standard of conduct and treatment of the British Forces there is of the utmost importance from the point of view of the morale both of the men in the forces and of the people of Kenya. The letter states:
  "DEAR MADAM,
  As serving soldiers of Her Majesty's Army and believing ourselves to be human beings we would like to bring to your notice the injustice and humiliation that is meted out to personnel in this Battalion which in no way compares with the Regulations as laid down by the Army Council.
  Before starting to disclose the true facts of the Battalion, we would like to point out that we have in some small way infringed Army law and have been duly tried and punished for our offences. But in this Battalion our punishment does not cease on release from the unit guardroom, all personnel being set free from detention have to complete three months intensive training which is supposed to reform us. but after the undermentioned training agenda, as re-published below for your perusal, we are sure that you will agree with us that it is three months' penal servitude, not training.
  Up to date of this letter being compiled, four men released from the guardroom have been sentenced to this special platoon, total service between these four men is 32 years, two of them having served during the war. The following daily agenda is re-published below and is repeated the same, day after day for three months.
  06.30 hours, reveille; 07.00 hours, breakfast; 07.30 hours, parade with starched KD"—
  The House will excuse me reading as it appears in the letter, as I do not understand the meaning of these technical terms—
  'and full marching order for inspection by the R.S.M. This is followed by ½ hour's drill in full marching order under the R.S.M.
  08.30 hours, parade in same dress as 07.30 parade for inspection by the Adjutant. Dress to be immaculate even after having just done half-an-hour's drill in a temperature of an average of 98 degrees.
  08.45 to 10.00 hours, drill under the R.S.M. Dress, Angola shirts, denim slacks, full marching order, rifle, bayonet, etc.; 10.00 to 10.15 hours, weapon cleaning and returning arms to stores; 10.15 to 10.45 hours, break (kit to be cleaned during this period); 10.45 to 12.00 hours, specialist weapon training; 12.00 to 13.00 hours, break for dinner.
  13.00 to 15.00 hours, route march at 140 paces to the minute. Dress, full marching order. At the end of the march a slit trench has to be dug by every individual and then filled in again.
  15.00 to 16.30 hours, advanced P.T. in full marching order; 16.30 to 17.00 hours, clean arms and return to stores; 17.00 to 17.45 hours, tea break.
  17.45 to 19.30 hours, cleaning kit, and Regimental history; 19.30 to 21.30 hours N.A.A.F.I. break; 21.30 hours, roll call, every man stood by his bed; 22.00 hours, bed and lights out.
  To make things rather more awkward every other night this special platoon is to be sent out on raids and patrols in the Kenya jungle, and still to appear on parade the following morning, in a smart and soldierly-like appearance.
  The following amenities are granted us, I, all men sentenced to the platoon are to sleep in small tents which hold a party of six, up to date 18 men have been sentenced to join this platoon, only one tent has been erected, and to top it we are at present having the African long rain period; 2, there are no beds, bedding is just laid on the ground; 3. no lights are available; 4, no man is allowed to leave camp any time during the three months' training period, this alone is a punishment on its own.
  Do you not consider that after doing a maximum period of 28 days' detention (the average period per person), and losing the 28 days' pay for this period, to be sentenced to this three months of hell under maniacs who are undermining British prestige and appearance by making us appear in front of Colonials in a manner worse than any slave period known.
  This idiotic and fantastic notion was started without warning and came after the great disappointment of the battalion Python being extended until August, that being the C.O.'s fault entirely this being admitted by the C.I.G.S. on his recent visit to Kenya. If this platoon is allowed to continue it will antagonise men to do things wrong and will only lead to drastic finale.
  The Battalion is well below fighting strength and yet the men who are at present undergoing detention and nominees for the special platoons are experienced men who were flown from M.E.L.F. to combat Mau Mau, not to start primary training all over again.
  No man living can do this three months of bestial training and remain a sane man, we even doubt if the instructors can do it, in fact on the route march the instructor follows in a jeep.
  Therefore, as human beings and furthermore true British citizens who have been brought up to fight for the rights of man and upholders of the truth, we appeal to you to state our case for fair play and justice. We thank you for your kind attention in perusing this letter and hope that it meets with your kindest consideration and attention.
  We remain, injusticed by others who fail to treat us as humans but unbiased against those who are willing to fight for us and of whom little or no notice is taken."
  When a Member of Parliament receives from a constituent, with his signature and the signatures of other men in a regiment, a letter of that sort, he or she might be excused at not at first understanding the significance of it. Those who know

  251
  something about Army training and Army service will understand a little more than I do what it means. Nevertheless, I believe that it is in the interests of the men that the punishment that is being meted out to them and the other matters mentioned in the letter should be taken notice of, and that some investigation should take place as to what has happened.
  Although I have sent a copy of this to the War Office, I purposely have raised it here and hope, for two reasons, that a full inquiry will be instituted. First of all, if it is true, then somebody who is in authority needs reprimanding; and, secondly, if it is not correct, then some action must be taken to prevent wrong statements being sent out.
  I believe these statements are correct, knowing the type of person from whom they come, but at the same time, if men are asked to go into the Forces, then they and their relatives expect that they will receive the same British justice as we insist upon having at home. In other words, if they do wrong under the regulations they should be punished, and usually they take that punishment without any grumble. But when things are added to that punishment which appear to be irregular and which make the soldiers small in the eyes of the people of the country in which they are and to whom they are supposed to be rendering assistance, then I say it is time that an investigation was made.
  That is the main reason I raise this matter. I felt very upset when I received that letter, and I feel it ought to be dealt with. I have taken the opportunity of these Army Estimates to read the letter. If what is in that letter is true, then whoever is responsible, whether a guard, an officer, a colonel or somebody of the highest rank, should have his rank taken from him as a punishment for injustices that were inflicted on the men who have joined to serve their Queen and country, and who are giving of their best wherever they happen to be.
  5.34 p.m.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: I am sure the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) would not expect me to follow her in what she has said and, as the matter is under investiga-
  252
  tion by the proper authority, it is better that it should be left there. I wish to deal only with three matters, and although I am raising them on the Army Estimates the subjects apply to the other Services as well.
  In the first place, the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) raised the question of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea, and I think that that is a matter which for many years has required consideration. I am quite sure that he would not like it to go out from this House that he has in any way criticised the manner in which the Royal Hospital affairs are conducted. I know he will admit that the Governor, Deputy-Governor and those who assist them carry out their duties, which are very difficult, with satisfaction to everyone. The Royal Hospital is a very old foundation, and I hope that any changes which may be made will not in any way alter the possibility of old soldiers finding a place to rest at the end of their days in reasonable conditions.
  Mr. Wyatt: I was only referring to the administration of pensions in connection with the Royal Hospital and was not concerned with the use of the place.
  Sir R. Glyn: I entirely agree, and I think the hon. Gentleman made that clear. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), who has had experience of the Ministry of Pensions, know that since the formation of the Ministry the old regulations about the Royal Hospital require to be investigated to fit into the general scheme. I trust that when that is done it will be done in a comprehensive manner without interfering in any way with the traditions of the place.
  I want to deal with two other matters, both of which are of great importance. One concerns the position of the Territorials. I served for many years on a County Territorial Association, and I feel it is a pity that there is not somebody on the Army Council to speak for the Territorial Army. The Under-Secretary of State has long service in the Territorials, and, therefore, in a way he is able to represent them at the Army Council and to see that the Territorial position is fully understood.
  I found that one's experience of the Regular Army, in which I served, was totally useless in assessing the needs of

  253
  the Territorial Army. It is something altogether different. That is something which the War Office should always remember in dealing with the Territorials. They should never treat them as if they were the Regular Army, because they are totally different. They have rendered wonderful service. Immediately after the war the response that was made by officers to rejoin the Territorials was extremely good, but unfortunately it became very largely an establishment of officers with very few men and not very many non-commissioned officers. Therefore, everything ought to be done to recruit to the Territorials the right type of individual, because they are responsible for accepting the National Service men for continued training on termination of their service.
  When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who was so long at the Ministry of Defence and at the War Office, suggested a bounty of £30, I thought that in these days of stringency it was very difficult to agree with such a large jump. However, I feel that something will have to be done to reward the men who give up so much in the National Service. They deserve a little more consideration.
  On the subject of the camps, it is difficult to fit in the training at the right time to suit everyone. There is one aspect of the matter to which I should like to draw attention, and that is that some of the very best men in the Territorials are very often skilled engineers serving in industry. Very often they give up the whole or a large part of their statutory fortnight's holiday, and I have always thought that that is something which also ought to be remembered.
  Further, I think another appeal might be made to the employers in order that the men who are in the Territorials shall not suffer too much because they have joined up, and that they shall be given other leave. Many of them are married men and their wives naturally object when they are not taken away in the summer by their husbands, who, when they go to camp, cannot take their wives with them.
  Mr. Shinwell: This is all very interesting, and when I was at the War Office I was particularly interested in this subject. I have always felt that the Territorial Army was treated, so to speak, as an
  254
  amateur force, which is quite wrong in my judgment. Nor do I accept the view that it would be a mistake, even from the standpoint of economy, to increase the bounty to, say, £30 a year. I think it would pay dividends in the long run.
  Sir R. Glyn: That is a matter which I hope will be considered by the War Office, but it is very difficult to raise the money so as not to add to the burdens on the Treasury at the present time.
  The next point concerns the 12 reserve divisions, and proper equipment. This is a matter of tremendous importance. It is not often understood that we stand today in a very peculiar position as regards arms and equipment. Two Reports of the Estimates Committee have pointed out that it was necessary to retain a lot of arms and equipment after the last war, pending the time when research and development enabled other weapons to be ready for use. There is always the question of how long we are to hold things in mobilisation stores for issue, with the certainty of issuing something which is up to date and will be the answer to what the troops would have to meet if unfortunately they had to play their part in battle.
  I want to emphasise once more that the time has come for a general review of the size and shape of formations. As fire power increases, so is it absolutely essential that the manpower in the different formations should be adjusted to the new capacity of modern weapons. The larger our field formations—divisions, brigades, etc.—so inevitably larger become the difficulties of the tail in relation to supply. The more automatic our weapons and the higher the rate of fire, the greater is the problem of supply. I cannot believe, after the experience of the last war in the re-equipment of the Services with new weapons, that the time has not come for very serious consideration of the build-up of formations, the size of units, whether or not that rather clumsy unit the brigade group is something permanent, and whether that is to be its permanent title.
  One of the most interesting papers I have read was a report by General Lattre de Tassigny on the re-organisation of the French Army. He made it clear that it was ludicrous to go on increasing the size of battalions and regiments in the French

  255
  Army, in view of the power of modern weapons and training, and he said that they had very largely modified their formations. The United States Army is incredibly difficult to handle from the point of view of size because there are so many extra services, like laundries, that go about with the formations and add to the difficulties. Great economy would result if a review were made now of the size of formations.
  My last point is one which has been emphasised in Reports of the Estimates Committee over the last six years in regard to standardisation. I happen to know that the right hon. Member for Easington did all that he could to hasten standardisation when he was Minister of Defence. It is of the utmost importance, because economies would run into millions of money if the initiative could be taken, and some force used perhaps, to enable the Services to adopt a degree of standardisation.
  I remember when the Expenditure Committee had a deputation during the last war from the Sheffield cutlery trade, who asked whether there was any reason why the cutlery for the Army, Navy and Air Force should not be the same. We found that the cutlers were having to alter their dies and change everything all the time, simply because one Service wanted to have its own cutlery. I cannot conceive that it is impossible to have a common standard in a thing like that, as well as in furniture, and, a much bigger question, in mechanical transport.
  It is difficult for any one Service to take the initiative in this matter, which is one for the Ministry of Defence. I see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence on the Front Bench. His Department might well take the initiative to see how much money might be saved. Suggestions have been made about having a central purchasing plan. Great economies could be made if a lot of requirements common to the three Services were obtained through a purchasing agency. It would save a great deal of manpower and would be of great assistance to those now charged with purchasing such things as textiles for uniforms, food, and personal equipment.
  Two years ago the Estimates Committee published the findings of the Standardisation Committee, and the document is
  256
  worth looking at. It was published in the Report, but it deals only with a very small number of things. The Committee has been sitting continuously, as far as I know, for four years, and it has only brought out this rattier small number of items. I am certain that more money could be saved by tackling this matter than in almost any other way.
  There is this question of weapons, and common user of weapons. The Minister of Supply has a colossal task, especially at this time when research and development are far ahead of production. We should always remind ourselves that it takes a tremendously long time between the stating of requirements by the Service concerned and, after the prototype, actual production and issue to the troops. Developments that are taking place are about 15 years ahead of production. That is the real problem. Where are we to draw the line? How can we be sure that what we are ordering is the most up to date. It is a problem of much complexity that the House ought to congratulate the Chiefs of Staff Committee and the Defence Committee upon the extraordinary way in which they have been able to determine when to say to the development people: "Stop there for the moment. Let us get on with it." Otherwise those people tend to say: "Don't take that. In a year or two we shall have something much better."
  What matters is what we are to hand out to the men in the Services, and when to do it. I am satisfied that the reserve divisions will be adequately armed. It is much more difficult to know whether the period of training which we are able to give under National Service will enable us to train men to handle these arms efficiently.
  For the taxpayer, the cost of armaments now is absolutely prodigious. I do not know whether the House appreciates it, but taking into account the barrage defence of London as it was at the end of the last war, it would cost over £3½ million each time if there was a barrage in London today. How can any country afford anything of that kind unless it can develop an alternative to the old form of barrage which is proving so hopelessly expensive?
  The only hope, therefore, lies in the development of something so much better, possibly a guided missile, that we

  257
  can get a better result with less expenditure. However, until we get through this difficult period when we are still living on the stores of the last war, which are quite efficient if kept in good order, and arrive at the new developments which are on the way, it is difficult to say exactly what is the most up-to-date equipment we could issue.
  All we can do in this House is not to cavil at those people who are charged with this immense responsibility, remembering that there is a limit to what this country can afford. It is not only the cost of the new weapons, but also the cost of the training to handle them and the supply afterwards. The time must come when there should be a complete review of the system of supply as we know it now through the Ministry of Supply. The Ministry of Defence ought to take a far more prominent place and do more effective work, although I know they do what they can. At the present time allocation as between one Service and another, and the enormous problems of the war potential, are handled by the Ministry of Supply. In addition there are the Service Estimates, which we are considering today, as well as the enormous development that is going on all the time and is consuming a large amount of manpower in producing the weapons that the Services must have.
  I am certain that we shall not get the economy or efficiency we must have until the character of the Ministry of Defence and the organisation of the Ministry of Supply are considered with a view to trying to effect quicker working and quicker decisions, which would be to the benefit of all the Services.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). I say that because he speaks with the utmost sincerity and with great knowledge of the Forces. I thought he put his finger on the spot when he raised the question of training men to handle the new equipment. In my judgment, one of the major points which has come out of the defence debates this year is this question of the training of reserves, and next year and the year after it will be an issue of paramount importance, not only in respect of the length but also in regard to the quality of training. I join
  258
  with the hon. Baronet in his plea that the Government should face up to this question of reservist training.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) mentioned the question of young men who finished their Army Service and, after a few days back in civil life, receive a notice calling them up for training. There is another side to the picture. In the Air Force thousands finish their two years' training and are never called up again. This is a waste of the capital enshrined in the cost of their original training.
  I listened with great disquiet to the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) who revealed to the House a state of affairs in the Lancashire Fusiliers which is most disturbing. I think she did the right thing in coming to the House and reading the document in addition to sending it to the War Office. The hon. Lady asked for advice. If she would accept mine, I would tell her that if there is any question of these 12 men being proceeded against by the Army authorities for disclosing to her what amounts to a major breach of Army Regulations, she should forthwith raise the matter as a question of Privilege. Once that matter has been raised in this House, it is part of the proceedings of Parliament and there are well-established precedents for such happenings being given protection.
  I hope that the Minister will tell the House this evening that he will undertake an early and stringent inquiry into what amounts to the setting up of a penal platoon of the 1st Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers. As he is well aware, it is a direct contravention of Queen's Regulations. Paragraph 589 says that an officer will not introduce or adopt any system of punishment that is in any respect at variance with the Regulations.
  I should have thought that the House would not only want an assurance that there is the fullest inquiry into what has happened in the 1st Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers but would also want a categorical assurance that if an officer, however senior his rank, has authorised the setting up of this punishment platoon, and thereby himself became involved in a breach of the Regulations, that officer will be proceeded against under the provisions of the Army Act. Furthermore,

  259
  I hope the hon. Gentleman will ascertain that what has happened in the Lancashire Fusiliers is not happening in any other unit of the Army. One is always disquieted about these things. I do not believe it has happened on a wide scale, but certainly the document cited by the hon. Lady demands immediate inquiry.
  I have given the hon. Gentleman notice of two or three points that I want to raise. The first was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), namely, the administration of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. The facts are that the law, immersed deep in tradition, lays it down that an Army pensioner is technically either an in-patient or an out-patient of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. This affects other ranks below the rank of warrant officer. I do not think that a Regular soldier with 22 years' service has any legal right to pension. He gets it by grace and favour. This goes back to the good Nell Gwyn, who not only dispensed oranges but devoted some of her time in charming the King into establishing an institution to look after old soldiers. In those days there were no pensions, and so it was a question of grace and favour that those wounded in the wars should be looked after.
  I am not now commenting on the administration of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, itself, but on the administration of pensions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington instituted a major reform. After inquiry, he authorised the handing over of the payment of disability pensions from the Army Votes by the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, to the Ministry of Pensions. That was an enormous step forward, but I would have gone much further. I would have handed over the payment of all pensions from the Services to the Ministry of Pensions. They have the machinery, they have the experience and they also have a humane philosophy, which is not unimportant in dealing with these matters.
  Now we find the Government going back in their tracks, proposing to abolish the Ministry of Pensions and to merge it with the Ministry of National Insurance. What is to happen to the disability pensions of the post-war soldiers? Are they to be handed back once again to the tender mercies of the War Office? I hope
  260
  that the Government have done some thinking on this point and have faced up to the difficulty.
  I should have liked to see a contrary policy, with the Ministry of Pensions dealing with all Service pensions, whether due to length of service, disability, or a combination of the two. The House may not be aware that there are two or three ways of receiving pension. If one happens to be in receipt of a disability pension, it comes from the Ministry of Pensions. If one happens to hold a rank below that of warrant officer, class I, and it is a Service pension, one gets it from the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. If, on the other hand, one is a warrant officer, class I, or an officer, it comes from the Accountant-General. All this needs to be tidied up and brought under one roof, and I hope that that one roof will be the Ministry of Pensions. Will the Under-Secretary tell us who is to administer these pensions in future?
  I turn now to another matter, of which I have given the hon. Gentleman notice. That is, the question of Army bands. In days gone by, Army bands played a considerable part in recruiting. The more recent Army Council Instruction 221 of 1949 lays it down that
  "The purpose of band engagements is to bring the Army to the favourable notice of the public, whether at home or abroad, to afford the conductor and bandsmen an opportunity to perform before discriminating audiences, thereby raising their standard of performance and broadening their experience…."
  An Army band plays an important part in maintaining the morale of the unit and also in bringing the Army to the good attention of the public, and thereby gaining recruits.
  It is my suggestion that during the passage of time, regardless of what is written in these A.C.I.s or War Office letters, the Army bands have been a means of providing band-masters with a rate of income far in excess of that of the commanding officers of the units concerned. As I understand it, the conductor of the band gets an original "rake off "of some 20 per cent. before anybody touches a penny. This unquestionably has an adverse effect upon the payments received by civilian bands. We have the spectacle of the soldier during the daytime or, perhaps, in the evening being engaged in a military band and the fee coming back and being divided out

  261
  amongst the band, with the bandmaster taking his share.
  There is also the other problem of the individual bandsman going out and undertaking a private engagement, which he does on the same basis as a civilian musician, and there is no objection to that. The Musicians' Union, who look after the interests of civilian musicians, are also looking after the interests of the bandsman, because some day that man has to return to civilian life.
  The crux of the matter is contained in a War Office letter of 6th April, 1949, reference 103/Gen/8184, which says that:
  "Paid orchestral and dance band engagements will, if carried out on any large extent, interfere with the efficiency of the band and deprive the regiment of important welfare amenities. Commanding Officers and Officers administering bands will, therefore, keep this type of engagement to a minimum. They will take care to avoid displacing a civilian combination that has a long standing record of previous employment for the particular occasion."
  The policy is quite clear. The purpose of the bands and orchestras is, as the letter says, to provide important welfare amenities for the particular regiment. When one finds that the bands are going out and competing with civilian bands, organising their own dances, in order to rake in money from which individual officers get a "cut," a most disquieting state of affairs is disclosed.
  This problem has been with the Army for a very long time. There were occasions before the First World War when, on the day that the Army Estimates were debated, the Musicians' Union hired barges, moored them on the Thames and serenaded the House as a form of protest. There were occasions, too, when they marched alongside and countermarched against military bands in the street. Those days have gone. We move into less picturesque times, and the musicians are using this House as a legitimate means of registering their protest.
  I hope very much that the Undersecretary, who has been given adequate notice by myself and my hon. Friends, will assure the House that the principles laid down in the Army Council Instruction and in the War Office letter which I have quoted are to be strictly adhered to, and that we shall not get Army bands
  262
  being used merely as a means of private money raising, which has the regrettable feature of putting large amounts of money into the pockets of a few bandmasters.
  The Royal Artillery Band, which I admit is a special band, had 188 engagements from June, 1951, to August, 1952. This represents a considerable sum of money, and it is inconceivable that those 188 engagements undertaken by the Royal Artillery Band are in any sense in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Army Council Instruction and the War Office letter which I have read. I have also another example of the use—
  Mr. Ian Harvey: Is the hon. Member referring to the string band or the other band?
  Mr. Wigg: I am referring to the whole of the Royal Artillery Band. At one stage we started off with military bands, but from that beginning have come string bands, dance orchestras and all sorts of musical undertakings by which engagements are undertaken in competition with private enterprise. That ought to shock hon. Members opposite and is a form of private enterprise which seems to benefit a remarkably few people.
  I have with me a poster advertising the engagement of a band of a very famous regiment. I cannot think that the Under-Secretary could imagine that this announcement is in keeping with the dignity either of the Army or of the regiment in question. It certainly has nothing to do with the amenities of the regiment, and certainly has nothing whatever to do with recruiting or giving the Army a very high standing in the public eye.
  I want to refer to one other matter. When the Secretary of State was introducing his Army Estimates, he made an announcement about the formation of new colonial battalions. I am not a respecter of the Secretary of State's statistics, and whenever he gives figures I always do my own simple additions and check them. I asked the right hon. Gentleman in what Colonies the new battalions had been formed. He said:
  "I told the House last year that in conjunction with the Colonial Office we had plans "—
  that was in the future—
  " to form five new battalions…."

  263
  Later that evening, the Under-Secretary said:
  "The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) asked about the recruiting in the five colonial battalions. The answer to that is one infantry battalion of the Malay Regiment, one battalion of the Malayan Federation Forces, two battalions of the Malay Regiment volunteer forces, and the equivalent of a battalion from units raised in Singapore, West Africa and elsewhere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1953; Vol. 512. c. 862–1035.]
  I then checked what the right hon. Gentleman said a year ago, and what I found was this. He first apologised to the House and to the country for the change in policy between what the Conservative Party when in Opposition had said they would do, and what they were saying now that the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman had plenty of reason to apologise. He said:
  "I would first say that two battalions are now being raised in the West Indies for service throughout the Caribbean. In Malaya, where the Malay Regiment recently raised a fifth battalion, they are now in the process of raising a sixth. In East Africa they are in process of raising two battalions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1034.]
  In other words, what the Under-Secretary said in answer to my question during the Estimates debate this year had no relation whatever, except in one minor respect, to what the Secretary of State said a year ago.
  I at once communicated with the right hon. Gentleman, and I have had a letter from the Under-Secretary of State which seems to make the position much worse. He now reveals that the two battalions that the Secretary of State talked about in 1952 are now in process of being raised with the fifth and sixth battalions of the King's African Rifles, which, the hon. Gentleman now admits, were formed in the 1951–52 financial year. That is to say, the Secretary of State for War had the impertinence to come to the House to swallow all that he said when he was in the Opposition benches, and then to boast as part of his programme for 1952–53 two battalions which we had raised in 1951–52. It now transpires that the two battalions which he said in 1952 were being raised in the West Indies for service in the Carribean have not been raised and there is no immediate intention of raising them.
  264
  The right hon. Gentleman has not deceived me; I know him far too well. Anything he says needs to be checked. When he says he has formed seven new battalions I want to know the strength. When he says he has formed 502 mobile columns, I want to know how they are formed, and when he says five colonial battalions, I want to check what he says— [An HON. MEMBER: "Wonderful!"] There is nothing wonderful about it, but long experience of listening to what the Conservative Party say shows the need for checking what they do. I hope that the country will realise that what I am saying is true and that they will be as "wonderful" in checking. The Secretary of State for War has been bowled out once again, and I regret it. He is not here to explain the shortcomings; that unfortunate task rests on the Undersecretary of State, and I hope that he will do something to explain the position.
  6.11 p.m.
  Brigadier Christopher Peto: Following on what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said, I personally am on the side of the bands and bandmasters. I take a different view from him. My view is that a band is entitled to take engagements provided it does not undercut the rate payable to civilian bands. I am of the opinion that a band of a regiment cannot be kept going efficiently unless it is enabled to earn a little more than by its normal engagements. It has to buy its own music and scores—which are expensive —and to keep up its instruments. The amount allowed out of ordinary Army funds for instruments is quite inadequate.
  I want to raise a different point on the question of value for money. The question is what, if any, liability to service there is on an officer when he gets a Regular commission. So far as I know, entry into Sandhurst is from two categories, the R candidates, who are going to Regular commissions from school, and the E candidates, who are going from the ranks and are already serving on an engagement, either Regular or non-Regular. In both cases the boy or man has to go for a period of preliminary service.
  In the case of the R cadet the boy enlists for his period of service during the preliminary service prior to going to the R.M.A. at Sandhurst. Directly the R

  265
  cadet leaves Sandhurst that term of enlistment ends, as it is automatically cancelled. The E cadet goes before a War Office selection board and to a school of cadet training. Then, during the time he is at a cadet school, he goes before a commissions board. In due course he also arrives at Sandhurst and will get a commission.
  From the moment the boy is commissioned, he is, so far as I know, under no liability to continue in the Army should he not wish to do so. I may be quite wrong, but I know that I shall get the correct answer. All I can find about this question is a pamphlet issued recently by the War Office. The reference is 100-CANDS/9016/AG 1 (Officers) C and there is no date, except 1952. That pamphlet says:
  "d.
  On appointment to a permanent commission in the Regular Army, cadets will automatically be discharged from the engagement they entered into as other ranks."
  Under paragraph e, it states:
  "Candidates will be required to serve as an officer for at least five years."—
  not very good English!
  What does that in fact entail? Does it entail any liability to serve when the wording is, "will be required," or can the officer leave at a minute's notice to suit himself should he be offered a better job in civilian life? If that is the case, I hold that the Regulation should be altered, so that an officer, on getting a commission, should give value for money. It is not cheap to train him at Sandhurst, nor to send him on a course in the Army, nor to equip him, nor give him his training and make him efficient. I hold that the minimum period of training for a Regular officer should be five years. Under five years he is still a liability.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Strachey.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be so kind as to indicate whether or not other hon. Members will be allowed to take part in the debate on the Estimates after my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) has spoken?
  Mr. Speaker: That does not lie in my hands. Of course if hon. Members rise they will be called.
  6.17 p.m.
  Mr. John Strachey: We have had an interesting discussion on this stage of the Estimates. First, I naturally wish to associate myself with my hon. Friends in deploring the absence, through illness, of the Secretary of State for War. It is extraordinarily bad luck that he is still laid up at this season of the year. I also associate myself with the tribute which has been paid to the efficiency with which the right hon. Gentleman's deputy has carried on.
  There has been a great deal of interest in these Army debates. That is a sign of the times, a natural sign, and a good thing, because it is a very large Army in which a large proportion of our fellow citizens serve, and it is right that this House should take a great interest in it. I will not detain the House for long and will only add a word or two to the numerous points which have been raised from this side of the House.
  The question of Army pensions was raised, and I have nothing more to say on that except to underline the pertinent questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). It seemed to me that his case may be summed up by saying that we want to know what the new system will be like. Clearly the payment of Army pensions will be effected by the reorganisation of the whole national pensions scheme which the Government are undertaking, and we should very much like to know how Service pensions are to be fitted into the new scheme.
  There was also the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) on the subject of T.A. call-up for part-time service. I also have had letters on this subject. Some of the men, when they come out from full-time service, feel that they are snatched back almost immediately into a camp or some rather onerous form of part-time service, and that seems bad psychologically, to put it no higher. We should like to know what the rule is and whether some consideration can be given to this matter.
  The vexed question of the Guards has been raised again this afternoon. I really would ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to believe that when we raise this issue—my hon. Friend the

  267
  Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) raised it today—we do not do so out of class prejudice. The issue was put rather neatly by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) who interjected in my hon. Friend's speech that we seemed to want a corps d'élite which was open to all, and he said that he felt that that was a contradiction in some ways. But that is exactly what we do want.
  We see the point of a corps d'élite, and we think that the Guards are a corps d'élite, and a very fine one indeed, but we think that the selection of their officers should be on the widest possible basis and on merit alone. In other words, we are opposing not a corps d'élite but a hereditary corps d'élite. That seems to us to be a conception which would have been old-fashioned in Napoleon's day.
  Brigadier Peto: It existed in Wellington's day.
  Mr. Strachey: I dare say that it still existed in Wellington's day in this country, but it cannot really logically be defended, and hon. Members opposite who have begun to try to defend it have enmeshed themselves in extraordinary inconsistencies of logic.
  My hon. Friend adduced that, as a matter of fact and experience, no such thing as a Guards officer who has not been to a public school or had an equivalent type of education has ever existed. That is a very remarkable fact. Surely it cannot be right, because it shows that a corps d'élite of this kind is a most archaic institution, and we do not think that it is the right corps d'élite for the British Army. After all, it is not so much a corps as a club, and that seems to us to be out of keeping with the whole of the rest of the Service.
  The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) is not in his place, but, in the hope that he will see my remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT subsequently, I should like to ask him if he really believes what he suggests is in our mind. It really is not the far-reaching and sinister political purpose which he attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Aston. After all, the Commissar for Aston is not a very likely figure to appear in the House.
  268
  The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely and other hon. and right hon. Members opposite will recognise that in every other sphere of the national life, in business, the professions, the Church, politics, the rest of the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Navy, men who have not been to public schools can reach the top; it is only in the sphere of the recognised corps d'élite of the Army, the Officer Corps of the Guards, that they do not. We think there is something wrong in that.
  I do not think it is something which could probably be altered by Act of Parliament—I am not suggesting that—but I echo the plea made by my hon. Friend that it is surely something which could be altered by the voluntary action of the Brigade of Guards itself. Really, it is a change of attitude of mind rather than anything else which is required here. I do not know whether it is a complete and satisfactory answer or whether it would satisfy my hon. Friend if we were asked, "Why did you not change the system while you were at the War Office?"
  I am not sure that it is something which the War Office, or the political heads of departments, or, indeed, the centre at all, can change, but I believe it is something about which we can appeal for self-reform, and I should have thought that my hon. Friend was justified in making that appeal. That is all that we are saying about the Guards, and I think it is worth saying. I do not think it is a world-shaking point, but it seems to me that it is something which might really be looked into.
  I also wish to say a few words on the broad issue, which was also referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston, of defence and the anxiety which we feel, and which we voiced in the main debate, about the shape of rearmament especially as it affects the Army, which the Defence White Paper, the Defence Estimates and the Army Estimates all show. The Government are rightly giving a lead to the country in revising and reducing the rearmament programme. The Secretary of State clearly says, in paragraph 77 of his Memorandum, that it is being done without any reduction in numbers and entirely by means of a reduction in equipment.
  As he frankly says in that paragraph, this must mean that more and more of

  269
  any given total is spent on mere maintenance and less and less remains available for rearmament in the narrow sense of that term. I was not convinced by the intervention of the Under-Secretary on this point. He says that all we are doing is postponing matters and that sooner or later rearmament will catch up and there will be new arms and equipment for all our new divisions. It may be so, but it does not follow logically.
  Whatever it says in the Defence White Paper, and whatever is meant by "holding the rearmament to a lower peak"—we will not quibble about what the words mean—the arithmetic of it surely is that if any limited and given total that we spend or intend to spend over, say, the next five years is stretched out to cover, say, eight years, a lower proportion must be devoted to new arms and equipment and a higher proportion to maintenance. It is obvious that the maintenance charge rises with any extension of time, and if we re-arm more slowly we shall have less out of any given total for new arms and equipment and more must go to the mere maintenance of our existing Forces.
  I speak subject to correction, but, as I see it, for this purpose there is really no difference between a postponement in time and a reduction of the total, for they have the same effect. I feel real anxiety here. I do not say it has got to the point, but it could get to the point where we should get a larger and larger but weaker and weaker Army by attempting —this is the root of the whole thing—to meet impossible commitments. Thus, we could have large bodies of under-armed and under-equipped men, or, if it did not get to that length and all our Regular standing formations were adequately equipped, we might not get round to the equipment of what the House will agree are all-important, the reserve divisions of the Territorial Army and the Reserve Army.
  I do not know whether the Undersecretary can answer these questions tonight, but we are bound to press them. Can the hon. Gentleman first tell us whether all the divisions planned will ultimately be equipped, and will he also tell us the target date when they should be equipped. We are bound to feel anxiety about that. This is not only a question of the actual importance for
  270
  national security of these reserve divisions being adequately equipped. There is the question of the reaction on their morale. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely on that point. I am sure that Territorial recruiting and the whole state of the Territorial Army depend to an important extent on the progress made in the re-equipment of the reserve divisions.
  I understand how the Government have got into this position of a higher and higher proportion of the total being spent on maintenance and a lower and lower proportion on new equipment. These reserve divisions will be equipped more and more slowly, and we shall get less and less effect. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely that the defence of these islands is probably the highest defence priority of all today.
  I would not join him in saying that I thought that the Home Guard was the essential element in that defence. Of course, a Home Guard properly raised, and raised at the proper time, can no doubt play its part. But I should have thought that, first, the establishment at long last of some fighting Regular formations of the active Army stationed at home—a Commonwealth strategic reserve —and, second, the earliest possible equipment of our reserve divisions, were the two cardinal points in establishing the security of the home base.
  I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member said about the need for personal weapons. I should have thought that for all these Forces, Regular, irregular and Reserve, the provision to each man of the very best personal weapons was of the greatest importance. This brings me back to my old complaint about the scrapping, or the long postponement, of the.280 rifle which is in my view an incomparable personal weapon for all these purposes. I can only once more record my deep disappointment that the Government have put off the production of that rifle.
  Major Legge-Bourke: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Home Guard. Would not he agree that one of the great advantages of the Home Guard as distinct from the reserve divisions is that they would be there ready for the defence of various localities if an attack materialises, as I tried to visualise? The Home Guard

  271
  will have an immense advantage over organised called-up troops.
  Mr. Strachey: I appreciate that.
  The Government of which I had the honour to be a Member showed themselves far from indifferent to the question of the Home Guard. We took all the steps preparatory to its organisation. We stated our view and took the necessary steps. Of course, in the event of war a Home Guard would be a national necessity. But rightly or wrongly—and I think that it has been proved rightly—we took the view that it was premature to launch a scheme for recruiting a Home Guard. We did not think that public psychology and the actual needs of security at present made this the right time to launch an appeal to fill out the cadre, but we did establish the cadre. I agree that in the event of war a Home Guard would be of great importance. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us something about the major issues of defence, because we have some anxiety about them.
  6.35 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): Before I do my best to answer the enormous variety of questions, I should like to correct something which might have left the impression of a misstatement by myself in connection with the earlier debate on the Estimates. When an hon. Member opposite interjected that they had had much more to say, I said that we had not in fact stopped or sought to curtail the previous debate. I was then asked if I would withdraw that remark, but I cannot withdraw it because in fact it is true.
  My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary stated quite categorically that he had no intention of closing the debate. Hon. Members were left to go on for as long as they wanted without any attempt by myself or by him to try to close the debate. It was only when we came to the end of Vote A that Progress was reported. Therefore, I do not feel under any obligation to withdraw what I said then.
  Having said that as a sort of hors d'œuvre, I will try to deal with some of the questions. Many of the points discussed were common to a number of speeches by hon. Members on both sides.
  272
  First there was the question of the Army pensioners and the future rôle of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. There is to be no change for the Army pensioners. The position was correctly stated by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). There are categories of pensioners handled by Chelsea and categories handled by the Ministry of Pensions. Those which were handled up till now by the Ministry of Pensions will be handled by the Ministry of National Insurance.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already given an assurance that the interests of the Service pensioners will have special attention. The problem has been thought about quite often. We do not want to dissociate the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, from the responsibility of looking after its own. In any commercial concern where there are pensions schemes, it is normal for the concern responsible for the employment of the people to be responsible for the administration of the pensions scheme. I cannot see that there is any advantage in the changes which I think hon. Gentlemen were not really advocating but wanting to have discussed.
  I am not aware of complaints that the Chelsea Hospital has mishandled or not handled with consideration, within the limits of the regulations which are laid down by a much higher authority, the men under their care. My answer is that we do not propose to make any change in the present arrangements. Until we see some evidence that a change will do good, I suggest that we are right to leave the matter as it is.
  The next point with which I should like to deal is concerned with what I can only describe as this Guards phobia. The thing is becoming almost pathological. Hon. Members opposite try to find a reason for interfering with something which is going perfectly well. If I could see that the composition of the Guards Battalions was causing any real trouble anywhere I could understand why all this happens. In fact, we have had it generally admitted that the Brigade of Guards are absolutely first-class fighting material. I have had nobody come to me and say "I would like to get into the Brigade of Guards, but I cannot, because it is a closed shop," but, even if that were true, there are endless absolutely first-class regiments into which they can go.

  273
  Another thing which might help to prove that this is a rather synthetic anxiety is the fact that there is a constant flow of recruits and demands for admission into the Brigade of Guards by the rank and file. If that is so, what was the difficulty? If there was such a closed shop, would we expect to find a waiting list of men wanting to get into the rank and file of the Guards Regiments?
  Mr. Frederick Peart: Would the hon. Gentleman answer this question? He has mentioned the flow of recruits into the ranks of the Guards. How many commissions are given in the Guards to recruits who go into the ranks?
  Mr. Hutchison: I do not know, but—
  Mr. Wigg: None.
  Mr. Hutchison: I would be prepared to dispute the interjection of the hon. Member for Dudley straight away.
  Mr. Peart: Would the Minister answer a Question on this subject if I put one down?
  Mr. Hutchison: Certainly, yes, I cannot see what this is all about. If there was something that was doing harm to anybody—
  Mr. Wigg: Privilege.
  Mr. Hutchison: What privilege? Do they get any more money?
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that every officer of the Brigade of Guards, other than quartermasters, comes from a privileged section of society. There is not one single officer who is an ex-ranker—not one.
  Mr. Hutchison: What I cannot understand is that the hon. Gentleman claims that they have privileges in the Brigade of Guards. What is the privilege? Is it an easier time? Nobody pretends that. Is it more money? No. Probably, men have a harder and stiffer time when first they go into the Brigade of Guards than those who go into other regiments. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite, so far as any remedial action is required in this matter— and for my part I fail to see it— is on the right lines. It is a question of self-purification, or some such phrase, but there is certainly no action that we
  274
  are prepared to take at the War Office at this stage.
  Mr. Wigg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is right that only Guards can command Guards? That is the privilege.
  Mr. Hutchison: I stand firm on what I have said, until I am shown that there is need to interfere with something which everybody admits is going perfectly well, and on which at present I see no reason for interfering.
  Mr. Wigg: Scandalous.
  Mr. Hutchison: There is another matter on which I shall be accused of being evasive, and that is the question of the equipment of the reserve divisions of the Army. If I am evasive, and I will try not to be, it is not that I want to hide anything from hon. Members opposite, but that one has to be extremely careful on the security side of questions of this kind. To begin with, it is a subject that strays beyond the confines of my responsibilities, but I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) in thinking that, automatically, because we hold our expenditure to a lower peak—that is to say, instead of going to a high peak at one time, we level it out over a longer period—it must be assumed that some of the programme will never be completed. I think that is a quite wrong conception.
  According to the present plan, that programme will be completed. Of course, it may change according to alterations in weapons or according to changes in formations, but the general principle is that it should be completed. We are in a period of re-armament and re-equipment at the present time, and, that being so, it is obvious that such new weapons as come out of production must be issued in some order of priority, and the order of priority in which they are issued is one which I think would be regarded as perfectly normal—the Regular Army first, then the more important contingents of the Territorial Army and lastly the remainder.
  We have made much progress in this direction already, and my right hon. Friend, in his speech, instanced a family of anti-tank weapons, and certain vehicles and tanks on which progress is being made. We intend to see that those formations which will have to take the first shock in any war, including the Terri-

  275
  torial Army formations, are armed with up-to-date weapons and will have enough ammunition to enable them to take the strain.
  That must not be allowed to leave the impression in the minds of hon. Members that formations which do not receive weapons in these early priorities are to be left with obsolete weapons so that they are incapable of fighting in modern warfare. That, in fact, is far from true. But the present policy could not be otherwise, unless we assume that weapons are never going to change, because it must automatically follow that new weapons will get into the hands of some individuals or units earlier than others.
  There, I am afraid, I must leave it. But I will answer another question which the right hon. Gentleman asked me at the finish of his speech. Of course, we appreciate the importance of home defence, and I can say quite categorically that the divisions planned will, sooner or later, be equipped with new weapons as they flow through, and that there will be no question of "cardboard" divisions or small divisions improperly armed.
  Mr. Wyatt: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has cleared up the matter even now. If he is right, what does this sentence in paragraph 5 of the White Paper on Defence really mean?
  "There was also good reason to doubt whether, even after the plan had been completed, the cost of maintaining the forces which would have by then been built up and of keeping them equipped with the most up to date material would have been within the country's resources."
  That means, and it can only mean, that the total amount that was to be spent has been lowered because it would not have been possible to have gone on maintaining them at the high level originally intended.
  Mr. Hutchison: I think the hon. Gentleman must allow me to leave the matter where I have left it. Without comparing this with all the other statements made, which would be difficult and perhaps misleading to the House, I cannot say more, but I can tell him that that is the plan, whatever impression this might have given. These weapons will flow through in that order of priority, and, ultimately, all the formations will get them.
  276
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant), who also joined in the issue of the Guards Brigade, asked me whether the pensions increase warrants should be limited by any hardship test. I say straight away that there is a great deal more that we should like to be able to do, but these increases have always been regarded, not as by themselves a means of livelihood, but as giving assistance in a situation of difficulty. Although I will undertake to have a word with my right hon. Friend about it, I do not think there is any likelihood at the present, in the financial position of the country, of these tests of some kind being removed entirely.
  Now we come to the question of dance bands, which I think was answered quite satisfactorily by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devon, North (Brigadier Peto), who said that one could not run an efficient band merely on Army engagements. The hon. Member for Dudley mentioned a figure—which I have not got—of 180 odd engagements by the Royal Artillery band. My figures show something very much less. If we were to try to compartmentalise the activities of the bands of members of the musicians union and those of the Army bands so that each as it were, played only in their own area, the civilian bands would suffer much more than the Army bands. In other words, private bands invade much more frequently what might be called Army territory than Army bands invade their territory in regard to outside engagements.
  The regulations which the hon. Member mentioned are, broadly speaking, those which we maintain, and if he will give me some concrete examples in which the present regulations are not being adhered to, we will look into them. We neither intend to undercut nor indeed do undercut private or civilian bands. Generally speaking, our charges are higher.
  Mr. Wigg: I am not suggesting that there is any financial undercutting, but at the same time I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurances. I take it that the existing regulations, which, of course, include the War Office letter which I quoted, are the basis of War

  277
  Office policy, and that if anything not provided for in the regulations is happening the hon. Gentleman will look into it
  Mr. Hutchison: I will undertake to look into it, although I am not sure whether the letter is part of the regulations or not. Having said that, I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow us to blow our own trumpet. It is an attitude which I am sure he will understand and with which he will have some sympathy.
  The next point, raised by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), was, in fact, the one I have already dealt with, whether to his satisfaction or not I do not know. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the Chelsea Hospital some time ago, and he received an answer from my right hon. Friend which he described as a lemon. We will change the diet tonight, and perhaps he will regard my answer as a raspberry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) said that he was anxious about the Territorial Army volunteers and told us that 27 per cent. of the National Service men were volunteering. That is true.
  Regarding the H.A.C., I defer to nobody in my admiration for that great regiment, the oldest, as I understand, in Britain with the most tremendous traditions. This question of their representation at the Coronation has already been represented in the highest quarters by Field-Marshal Lord Alanbrooke. It does not rest with me to alter the decision given, because there is a Coronation Committee dealing with these multifarious problems. The matter is again being looked into at the present time. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is studying it at the moment. The question has already been most ably ventilated by a number of hon. Members and by Lord Alanbrooke.
  The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who was good enough to tell me that he would be unable to be present when I replied, was in some difficulty about the question of the seven battalions recently raised and the mobile columns. He got badly muddled about them. There is, in fact, no connection between them. The seven battalions are new battalions, some of which are already playing their part overseas and others are
  278
  still at home. They are part of the general fighting units available for carrying out our responsibilities.
  The mobile units are very different things. They were formed last year at the instance of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and are made up of a variety of components such as the officer cadets at Mons and Eaton Hall Officer Cadet Schools and men from depots and headquarter staffs, and so on. Some of them did, in fact, move as mobile columns over quite a considerable distance last year when carrying out training.
  The conception is that they are to be available as immediate striking forces to counter any parachute landing which might take place. They have not, of course, got all the striking power of an ordinary formation, but some of them at any rate move with their own artillery. The idea is that they should move from their own headquarters in a limited radius and be able to deal with attacks of that kind.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman and one of my hon. Friends were a little unfair about what they called the lack of information about the Anti-Aircraft Command. Indeed, in the debate on 9th March I said quite a lot about this. The field of anti-aircraft defence is one in which considerable research is going on, but weapons are still being issued to the Anti-Aircraft Command. As I said, until radar equipment is more effective than it is now, searchlights are necessary in order to pick up low-flying aircraft, for without them the short-range guns would not be able to tackle them.
  If the right hon. Member for Easington will look at the report of the debate on 9th March, he will see that I said quite a lot about the question of antiaircraft defence. I do not want it to go out from here that the Anti-Aircraft Command is a Cinderella or is in any way being neglected.
  Mr. Ian Harvey: My hon. Friend is referring to his reply to my interjection in the last debate and, as the right hon. Member for Easington is not present, perhaps I may put the point which we are trying to make. The policy of the Government, as clearly stated, is that we must avoid committing ourselves too fully to equipment which may soon be out of date. Very many of us feel

  279
  that this equipment is out of date. We realise the problem, but we want an assurance from the Government that they know this and will investigate the matter to see that too much money is not being spent. I do not want to bait my hon. Friend, but what he has said about searchlights and about light anti-aircraft guns will not convince those who know something about the matter. Therefore, I ask him to look at this question most carefully once again.
  Mr. Hutchison: As I said a moment or two ago, this is an area in which intense research is taking place. Unless one has a very stupid planning organisation, one does not issue to any unit a whole lot of equipment which may be replaced in the near future.
  The next point raised was the question of the call-up for annual camp of a Ntional Service man as soon as he has finished his two years' service. There is a minimum period after his whole-time service during which he cannot be so called up, and this is three months. As a rule, it is longer than three months, but it depends on when the training period of the unit to which a man is posted takes place.
  It was said that we should greatly increase the bounty for the camp period of the Territorial Army. We will think about that, but I am not sure that to double a bounty is really the whole answer. I would like to think that other factors which are not exclusively financial are taken into consideration before a man comes to a decision of this kind.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) mentioned the importance of the Home Guard, with which we entirely agree. He spoke about the Sten gun, and I quite agree with him. He will no doubt already know that we are in process of producing something better than the Sten gun, a weapon known as the Patchett gun, which will find its way in due course to the Home Guard.
  Then my hon. and gallant Friend was glad, and I think that he was quite right to be glad, to learn that the Chelsea Hospital was in fact looking after its own. He told me a story about a poster which I will not answer now. I will see whether there is anything particularly repugnant in that poster. I do not think that there
  280
  was anything particularly repugnant in the poster which the hon. Member for Dudley displayed, and in order that hon. Members may judge for themselves, perhaps he will place one in the Library.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) made a forceful intervention; what she said was serious and, if accepted in that form, disquieting. I received her letter only on 13th March, and all I have been able to do has been to signal to Kenya to find out what was the position. I was asked that if an officer had broken any regulation appropriate steps would be taken. There are, of course, appropriate steps laid down, and those will be followed. For the moment, I am content to say that this battalion has always had a fine reputation. Let us leave it like that and wait and see what information I receive.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) raised a number of extremely important questions. I am not sure that I agree with him on the first of his questions about having on the Army Council a member to speak specially for the Territorial Army. But, although the Territorial Army is most important if that line is followed, logically there might soon develop a demand that there should be a special member representing National Service men, the Army Emergency Reserve and the Home Guard, and one would begin to have an Army Council split up into functional appointments rather than one able to take a broad view of all problems.
  Sir R. Glyn: It was a custom. It would be only going back to what the arrangement used to be.
  Mr. Hutchison: I do not know that that custom ever went as deeply as I fear would be the case if my hon. Friend's suggestion were followed now. On another question which my hon. Friend asked I think he was lucky and I was happy that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence was here at the time. It was really a problem for my hon. Friend and the Minister of Defence rather than for us at the War Office.
  A great deal of standardisation is going on, but as I said in a previous debate, it takes more than one to standardise and unless other parties to a possible agreement are prepared to come in with one,

  281
  not very much progress is made. But we are trying to standardise a great variety of things, among them several which my hon. Friend mentioned and we are making progress.
  I want to join issue with the hon. Member for Dudley on another point. To begin with, I think that he was throwing a quite unjustified accusation at my right hon. Friend in connection with what my right hon. Friend said about colonial units. The hon. Member must really get his addition right and should take notice of what my right hon. Friend really said. It was:
  "I told the House last year that in conjunction with the Colonial Office we had plans to form five new battalions and those have been formed by the Colonial Governments. In addition, they have formed a labour force of 7,000 men. The plans for 1953–55 are to form eight equivalent regular Colonial battalions and six volunteer battalions—that is 14— making a total in the three-year cycle of 19 new Colonial battalions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 862.]
  Up to that point the addition is right.
  Mr. Wigg: It is wrong, because in his letter of 17th March the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the 5th and 6th King's African Rifles had been formed in a previous year, so the first thing to do is to deduct two from 19, leaving 17.
  Mr. Hutchison: We are in different years, but in any case, whether they were there then or not, the total of these five plus 14 makes 19. Nineteen in three years is not bad progress so the hon. Gentleman's case is really a case of its being advisable for people living in glass houses not to throw stones about too wildly. What is the exact position? The hon. Member cannot claim all the credit for the year 1951–52—
  Mr. Wigg: I am not claiming credit. I merely want the facts.
  Mr. Hutchison: The hon. Member did, in effect, claim some credit. In the year 1951–52 two battalions of the King's African Rifles were formed. I should like to say here how well they are doing in Kenya. They are sometimes less in the limelight because of the other units out there, but they are doing a very good job. Then the battalion of the Malay Regiment was raised. There are also the two West Indies battalions which we had the intention of raising but on which we have run into discussion on financial problems.
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman must admit that his right hon. Friend claimed that the two West Indies battalions were in process of being formed and they have not been formed.
  Mr. Hutchison: They were in process of being formed I suppose that as soon as one says, "I will form a battalion" and then one goes on to discuss who is going to pay for it, the process has started of forming the battalion. When my right hon. Friend was speaking he was taking a proper and correct line.
  Mr. Wigg: It was a line all right.
  Mr. Hutchison: One must have a little flexibility in these things. But I must not either mix my metaphors as badly as I am being led to do, or let it go out that the intention to raise these two West Indies battalions has been dropped. It is all a question of having the financial situation cleared up.
  I have noted the points which have been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devon, North. I am glad to say that he was on my side on the question of bands. He asked whether we were getting value for money out of the Regular officer. I should like to check up on the five years' minimum period of service to which reference has been made, but my hon. and gallant Friend knows that no Regular officer can resign his commission except with Her Majesty's consent. If we thought that we were not getting value for money we would not allow an officer to throw up his commission at an early date, except in special circumstances. But I will look into the question of the actual minimum and let my hon. and gallant Friend know the result of my investigation.
  I believe that I have dealt with all the points which were raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West although perhaps not with actual reference to his name—because they were all raised earlier. I hope that he will not find that I have missed a number of them. We have had a long debate which we on this side of the House had no intention of curtailing. The questions asked have been of an unprecedented variety. I am sure that the Secretary of State for War will have regretted missing this debate. I have certainly regretted that he was not here, and I know that he will appreciate the kind remarks made about him and the references to his illness.
  7.9 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I will not detain the House very long, but there is one point to which I must refer. It is a matter which I could not have raised on the Estimates before today because the information concerning it was made public only last night. It relates to a rather sudden and unexpected windfall that has fallen into the lap of the War Office. It relates to the 300 men or thereabouts who applied for their pardon under the amnesty but who have been declared as not coming within the prescribed dates and who find themselves either under close arrest in various military depots up and down the country or at least liable now to court-martial proceedings.
  I know that the Under-Secretary of State cannot make an official statement on the subject here and now, because according to reports the fate of these men who have applied for a pardon under the mistaken impression that they are eligible for the Coronation amnesty is a matter that is so complex and difficult that it has gone before the Cabinet.
  What I should like the Under-Secretary to do is to act as a messenger and convey my remarks to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. Then perhaps the Secretary of State may convey the message to the Ministry of Defence; the Minister of Defence may then have a word with the Prime Minister, and eventually some decision may be taken upon this rather difficult problem.
  It strikes me as very odd that as a result of an amnesty, about one out of every four of the deserters who have applied for a pardon under the amnesty will find themselves either in close arrest or subject to court-martial proceedings. Some 300 men in this category have so far made application to the respective Service Departments and, on the law of averages, the bulk of them are almost certainly Army men. It strikes me that the application of this amnesty is in such a mess that some official, authoritative and concise statement should be made in the near future to clarify the position.
  What has a deserter to do if he wants to acquaint himself with the exact terms and conditions? First of all, he has to examine a statement which was made by the Prime Minister on 23rd February.
  284
  Then there was a supplementary statement made by the Attorney-General on 2nd March. There was a further statement made on 17th March by the Home Secretary who always seems to be brought in when the situation becomes sticky. At no point in the course of the complications that have arisen as a result of the so-called amnesty has there been provided for the general public a separate leaflet or pamphlet setting out exactly what the whole thing is about. As a result of the statements, supplementary statements and further elaborations of the position, the situation has obviously become so confused that 300 men find themselves, as a result of the Government's statement, in far worse trouble than they were before.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will convey to his right hon. Friend the suggestion that this amnesty, which has got into a very messy state, should be tidied up. Otherwise we shall never get rid of this problem of the men who deserted from the Forces during the war. We ought to finish with it once for all. Yesterday I appealed to the Prime Minister to wipe the slate clean, to which he made no reply. That would be the simplest way out of the whole situation. Why should it be necessary to have all this elaborate documentation and adjudication of individual cases in which all the three Service Departments have got to indulge before the certificate of pardon is granted and things get back to normal?
  One curious feature of the Prime Minister's statement was that men who apply for the pardon will then be transferred to the appropriate Reserve to which they would have been transferred if they had been demobilised in the ordinary way. Among those who have applied for a pardon are a number of people resident in the Irish Republic. What is the good of posting to the Reserve men who are known to be in the Irish Free State when we have not got the slightest power to do anything about it if we want to call out that Reserve? That is one of the minor points arising from the slipshod way in which this amnesty has been arranged and announced.
  I hope that the public may have some assurance on what is going to happen to these 300 unfortunate men who, as a

  285
  result of the very garbled way in which the amnesty has been announced, in dribs and drabs, are in a worse position than they were before. I hope the Undersecretary will convey what I have said to his right hon. Friend in the hope that the Prime Minister, or whoever is in charge of the situation, will eventually make a clear statement.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  AIR ESTIMATES, 1953–54
  REPORT [12th March]
  VOTE A.—NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE
  Resolution reported,
  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.
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  7.16 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Henderson: In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not propose to take up much time, but I should like to raise several matters which were not fully covered during the main debate last week. The Under-Secretary, in his speech on that occasion, referred to the refitting and modernising of our control and reporting system which, as the House knows, was given high priority by the last Government in the £4,700 million programme, and he reported to the House that the work was well on the way to completion.
  Important as the deterrent powers of a modern strategic bomber force may be, it must be combined with an effective air defence system and should not be in place of it. Any effective air defence, in turn, depends upon an efficient radar screen, which is sometimes called the eyes of an air force. It is satisfactory to know from the Under-Secretary that such good progress is being made with the strengthening and extension of the radar screen round our own coasts.
  An effective radar screen in Western Europe facing the Iron Curtain is, in my
  286
  view, just as essential to our national security, even more perhaps, as it will extend the warning period possibly to more than one hour as against the warning of five minutes or so which we shall get if we have to rely solely upon the radar screen round our coast in the event of a sudden onslaught by jet aircraft. A radar screen facing the Iron Curtain would enable us to organise our air defences in depth, the value of which to our national security cannot be over-estimated.
  The recent incidents affecting two Lincoln bombers—one with such tragic results—raises the question whether our radar screen in Europe is adequate and effective. I would ask the Under-Secretary whether he is satisfied that it is, because it is important to us and vital to those countries in Western Europe who are associated with us in N.A.T.O.
  What is the position with regard to aircraft radar? During the week-end the Commander-in-Chief, Bomber Command, as reported in the "Manchester Guardian," said:
  "The development of jet aircraft, air frames and engines has run clear away from the development inside the aircraft."
  He is also reported as saying that Britain was lagging behind in radar development. Is that so? Surely there is no evidence that in research and development we are lagging behind even the United States of America or Russia? Both those countries may have caught up with us, but during the last war we were ahead of the whole world. I should like a reassurance on that point.
  Now I pass to quite a different aspect. The hon. Member for Stroud and Thorn-bury (Mr. Perkins), speaking in the debate on the Air Estimates on 12th March, said:
  "… 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."
  That is not in accordance with the facts, and for the purposes of the record I should like to state categorically that the size of the Estimates in March, 1948, did not delay by one day the arrival of modern machines in Royal Air Force squadrons.

  287
  That fact can be checked by the Undersecretary, although I doubt whether he will disagree with what I am saying. No production order, even off the drawing board—and all the modern machines such as the Hunter, the Swift, the Canberra and the V-class four-engine bombers have been ordered off the drawing board— could have been placed in 1948 for the very good reason that not one of the aircraft had reached the state of development which would have made it possible to place a production order.
  Now I come to the question of married quarters. When he spoke in the debate on the Air Estimates, the Under-Secretary made what I thought was a very satisfactory reference to the question. He said:
  "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."
  I think the Under-Secretary would agree that the record of the Air Ministry since the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, 1950, was passed—and even before that —has been excellent. It is the best of the three Service Departments.
  I hope that his reference to the need for more loan money to proceed with the projected programme does not indicate that the Air Ministry is having difficulties, because the Second Report of the Committee of Public Accounts suggests, in paragraph 12, that some difficulty has arisen between the Air Ministry and the Committee. I hope these difficulties are going to be smoothed out because during the years when I was Secretary of State for Air I came to the conclusion that one of the vital factors in building up and maintaining morale and a spirit of contentment —and, therefore, one of the best recruiting factors—was the assurance to the wife of a potential recruit that she would not be separated from her husband. I hope the Treasury will not be difficult about this matter, and that sufficient money will be provided to enable this programme to proceed.
  Speaking in the same debate the Undersecretary said:
  "During the year, slightly fewer women joined the W.R.A.F. than in 1951."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12tb March. 1953; Vol. 512, c. 1519–1561.1
  288
  I agree that that is very disappointing. My experience justifies me in saying that women are specially qualified and extremely expert—they seem to have not quite so heavy a touch as the other sex —in such trades as radar operators and fighter plotters. I was extremely disappointed to know that in the last six months of 1952, the War Office had, for the first time, more women recruits than had the Air Ministry. I do not know what is the explanation, or what greater attractions have been offered to the women to make them go into the Army rather than into the W.R.A.F., but I hope that the Secretary of State and the Undersecretary will see to it that the Air Force are not going to be outbid by their opposite numbers.
  Perhaps the explanation is to be found in paragraph 26 of the Memorandum to the Air Estimates, which says:
  "The rate of recruiting for the Women's Royal Air Force has shown a slight decrease on the previous year. This is partly attributable to the disappointingly smaller number of new applicants to reach the required standards."
  I hope that the Air Ministry are not putting the standards too high. I quite appreciate that for certain trades the qualifications must naturally be higher than for others, but what are the standards which so many potential recruits are apparently not able to reach? Are they physical standards? In view of the importance of having a large number of women in the Air Force—especially in the control and reporting system—I hope we shall have an assurance that this matter will be looked into.
  In discussing the financial provisions that have to be made for the Royal Air Force, we are all conscious of the daily hazards which face our airmen, and of their devotion to duty, which merits not only our admiration but our unceasing interest in their welfare.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Gough: I was extremely interested in the general remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) because his speech confirms me in a view that I have taken, that there has been running through all these debates on the Estimates of all three Services the general theme that during the past year we have made very satisfactory progress in strengthening our

  289
  defences, with new technical devices and new weapons coming forward, but that we have, in consequence of that, a very serious manpower problem. This is a two-way manpower problem, and in a solution of it I think that the Air Ministry can help not only itself but the other Services.
  First there is the problem of quality, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was referring. I agree with him that we should do everything we can to make this Service attractive to women, for there are many useful jobs that women could do in the technical services and so release men for other employment. The second is the problem of quantity, and that was exemplified by the Secretary of State for War when he referred to the "pipeline." That is to say, in the cold war we have commitments stretching from Korea at one end of the world to Germany at the other, and we have far too many men in far too many ships on the ocean wave, so that, as a result, we have far too few people at the important points. How can we help to minimise that pipeline?
  It is due very largely to the pipeline that we find ourselves with no strategic reserve in this country, and with no real striking force. I quite understand why, and I quite agree that, the Air Ministry cannot at the moment build up a transport command and at the same time build up fighter squadrons and bomber squadrons, which obviously must have a very much greater priority. But because we have no transport aircraft we have to send all those troops, and not only soldiers but Air Force reserves and replacements, etc., by sea, and we have to leave our two striking forces, the only two we have—the Parachute Brigade in this country, and the admirable Royal Marine Commando—on the deck, so to speak; we have to leave them either on the ground, or, if they have to go anywhere, aboard ship.
  I want to make a practical proposition. I realise that transport command may be a dream of the future, but one thing, I believe, can be done; that is, to use the three Princess flying-boats. One of those boats, I understand, is now undergoing flying trials, but with the wrong sort of engines. The other two are completed, or have nearly been completed, but have no engines at all. Bearing in mind the
  290
  enormous fortune that has been spent on the building of those machines, surely it would be right, as a first priority, to fit them with the right type of engines and then hand them over to the Secretary of State for Air so that the Royal Air Force can employ them?
  There are administrative reasons and tactical reasons for doing so. I understand, though I may be wrong, that those three flying-boats could take a Commando brigade or a brigade of parachutists at half the speed of sound to anywhere in the world.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Not in one lift.
  Mr. Gougfa: No, but I understand they can take something up to 200 troops per flying-boat. There are three flying-boats, so between them they could carry 600 troops. That would be a little more than a battalion.
  Mr. Henderson: Two hundred per flying-boat?
  Mr. Gough: Yes, so I understand; 600 in three lifts. From the tactical point of view those flying-boats would be useful. If we could take a striking force at that rate at very short notice and put it in a place where aggression might be threatened, that might well nip aggression in the bud.
  Moreover, those flying-boats can earn their day-to-day keep. They could and should be used to cut the pipeline time down from weeks to days. I stand to be corrected, but I have been informed by those who, I believe, know their subject that every year those three flying-boats could achieve in the transportation of personnel as much as is achieved by six or seven troopships. If they can do that they will justify the cost of keeping them. Moreover, they do not require expensive runways. There is a strategic advantage in that, for if there were to be a war the enemy could bomb every runway in the country and those flying-boats could still fulfil their task.
  It seems to me that our main problem is that of manpower. We are very short of manpower. The problem has two sides, the quality side and the quantity side. The quantity side is aggravated by the fact that our Forces are spread out in slow-moving sea transports all over the world. I believe that my proposition of using the Princess flying boats would

  291
  help to mitigate the quantity problem, and I believe that we ought to take advantage of those flying boats.
  7.36 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Shackleton: I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) said about the flying boats, and, indeed, about transport command generally. I would remind him that an hon. Friend of mine had a Motion down about that subject.
  I wish first of all, without, I assure the Under-Secretary of State, making heavy weather of it, to refer to the tragic incident that took place at the air display yesterday. There is a little bit of a feeling—I do not know whether it is justified—that some of these aerobatics have been conducted in unsuitable weather at times. I do not know whether that is so, but there is a certain amount of public alarm on the matter. I think it should be understood, however, that these displays are part and parcel of the general work of the Royal Air Force, and that they should not be regarded, as I think they may be by some people, as a waste and quite unnecessary.
  I would take up a point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham, who spoke of the need for improved recruiting. I am sorry to see that although, compared with the previous year, there is no overall cut in the moneys paid to the Central Office of Information for recruiting publicity, there is none the less no increase, and although there is a small increase on another Vote it is not enough to match the increase in costs.
  I feel that it is an extraordinary thing, at a time when we are increasing our rearmament and spending more money on defence, that the Government should continue to cut down on one of the most important sides of the work they are trying to do in fighting the cold war. I believe that it is necessary to increase the money for recruiting if we are to get the increased numbers we want, particularly of men suitable for the skilled trades and the Regulars. There has been a cut in the information services for recruiting to all three Services, and I think it is a very false economy.
  292
  I should now like to turn to certain matters that came up in the debate the other night. I hope that the Undersecretary of State will not think I am being patronising when I say that were it not for the fact that on other occasions he had not behaved offensively to the House, he would have got away with very few of the number of most objectionable things that he said during the debate to which I have referred.
  He said something to his hon. Friend the Member for Strond and Thornbury (Mr. Perkins) which was really quite ludicrous. He will remember what it was. I was not in the House before 1945, when the hon. Member temporarily departed from this House, but in the years before the war I understand it was an annual event for the hon. Member to go for the Secretary of State for Air. I think that there are times when the hon. Gentleman says things in a rather outrageous way, and I have objected most strongly to some of the things he has said, but I thought that the reply he received from the Undersecretary was in every way un-parliamentary.
  Although the Under-Secretary was good enough to apologise to me for certain remarks which he made, I think he ought to make amends to his hon. Friend, who was discharging his constitutional right to make an attack on the Secretary of State. This is the only place where he can properly raise such a matter, and if the Secretary of State is not in this House, it is not the hon. Gentleman's fault; it is the fault of the Prime Minister and the Government.
  The Under-Secretary also replied to a question which I put, but which I should like to ask him once more. I asked when the Provost-Vampire sequence would be introduced, and when it would be possible to dispense with the advanced flying training school. The answer I got was:
  "The answer is, of course, as soon as the aircraft come off the production lines."
  I do not know whether that was meant as a smart answer. I certainly took it as such. But it is surely an answer which would be obvious before it was given. What I was asking for was some specific information, and if the Under-Secretary had not got it he could have said so. I do not think that was a proper answer.

  293
  and I again ask him whether he can give me some information.
  Finally, I should like to turn to the incident when he took me very severely to task for raising in the House the subject of National Service men at West Kirby. In saying that this was the sort of matter which should not be raised, he did make one categorical statement, namely:
  "I have assured the hon. Member that inquiries have proved that there is nothing in it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 1676.]
  I do not think the Under-Secretary will stick to that view now. We shall wait to see what the investigation produces, but that was a categorical statement which should only have been made on exact knowledge.
  Since I was accused of bringing that matter up improperly, I should like to draw the Under-Secretary's attention to a letter I have received. I may say that one of the reasons I raised the matter was that I was reasonably convinced that some incident of this nature had taken place. I presented it to the House in that way, and I have now had some confirmation from outside.
  I have had a letter from an address in Lancashire which says:
  "Please excuse me if I am wrong in writing to you, but I feel that I must because I am worried and because of it it is making me feel very ill.
  I read in the 'Daily Mail,' Friday, 13th March, your statement of the incident which occurred at West Kirby R.A.F. Station where a flight was kept standing to attention for a very long period when its new intake of National Service men arrived and that at least four men fainted. Dear Sir, it is true and correct, your statement, because my son is one who fainted, believe me please. I am telling you the truth and hope that you will understand.
  Perhaps my writing to you, sir, will, I hope, help others from having to endure such severeness at the start of their National Service. I realise there has to be discipline, but surely they have no need to be cruel and treat them as if they are not human. This kind of treatment only makes them more frightened, breaks their spirit, sir, and I am sure that is not fair play."
  The letter goes on in those terms. It is signed—I have the names; in fact, I have communicated the contents of this letter to the Ministry—
  "Just one of many mothers who love their children with all their hearts and soul."
  294
  I do not want to make too heavy weather of it, but I thought that a rather moving letter. There is no doubt that some such incident took place. I am reasonably certain of that, despite the positive statement made by the Under secretary:
  "I have assured the hon. Gentleman that inquiries have proved that there is nothing in it."
  I am hoping that the publicity which has been given to this incident will put a stop to some of these incidents, and may perhaps lead to a general overhaul of the treatment of these National Service men.
  I do not wish to pursue the Undersecretary further on it. He was good enough later in the debate to apologise. None the less, I do feel that that positive statement made by him on quite obviously insufficient information should be withdrawn. Had that happened in a more contentious field of politics I imagine very serious Parliamentary repercussions would have followed for the Minister concerned. I am quite sure that, now that these facts are available, he will pursue his inquiries with great vigour. I hope that the facts will prove not to be as bad as I have reported, but I am certain there is a need for the Under-Secretary, and for this House, to take very seriously the general feeling that is getting around, that on certain occasions there has been unnecessary bullying of National Service men.
  That is all I have to say, except that I should like to remind the House, and especially the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), that I still believe to this day, and shall continue to believe, that a strong Air Force with a strong bomber force is one of the best defences of peace.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. F. Beswick: The Under-Secretary got a bit of a pasting in the debate last week, and I have no doubt he is quite pleased with the much less crowded benches on this occasion and the quieter atmosphere which prevails. Most of us were rather sorry that he got into that trouble, because personally we have much regard for him.
  I would say that a good deal of the trouble into which he ran arose out of the speech he made a year ago, because the story he told then, in firm and confident tones, was that his party had found

  295
  the defences of the Royal Air Force woefully inadequate, but he said that things were now going to be all right: recruiting was improving, new machines were coming along, and the output of pilots would be more than double. The suggestion behind that speech, and certainly on the front pages of the newspapers the following day, was that everything would be all right in the Service simply because there was a new political party in power.
  I was reminded of an occasion in my constituency two or three years ago when, at a recruiting meeting, I was introduced as the Member of Parliament, without any tag to it, to a visiting commanding officer, who said to me in confidential tones, "You know. I don't think recruiting will ever improve until the present lot are out of power and we get a new Government with Members with more interest in the Service." When I told him that I was one of the "present lot" and that I held a junior post in the Ministry, he was a little bit embarrassed. The point I wish to make is that I think that is bad talk; indeed, it is dangerous talk, and for either side to try to relate national capacity for service to any one political party is to do a disservice to all concerned.
  If the Under-Secretary is tempted again to be too certain of what his Government are going to do, I hope he will reflect on the words he used about the training of pilots in the Air Estimates debate on 18th March of last year, when he said:
  "the training expansion is now well under way, and during the coming year we shall be turning out about 3,000 fully trained aircrew, which is nearly twice as many as in 1951. During 1953. as a result of the opening of still more schools, we shall go very much higher. This I regard as solid progress."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 2111.]
  It might have been solid, but it was not progress. The 3,000 target for last year was not reached. They were not far off it, but it was not reached. This year there will be no increase. Instead of going higher, the numbers trained will plunge much lower. The additional schools which he was saying only a year ago had been opened have, in fact, been opened and closed.
  I tried to find out what was happening to these experienced instructors displaced from those schools. I am sorry for these
  296
  men, as we all are, but from the Government and national points of view there is a loss if they leave flying, and we should make a greater effort than has yet been made to keep these men in service somewhere as pilots. I asked the Under-Secretary of State a Question on 21st January on this subject, and he replied:
  "There is a very large variety of engagement open to them if they are suitable—four, five, six, seven or even eight years of Regular service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1941.]
  I was very doubtful whether they were being offered up to eight years' Regular service as pilots, and I could not get the information at the time. I asked about it in last week's debate and the Undersecretary kept saying "Later, later." I got up once or twice to interrupt, and he told us that he would have the information at the end of the day. By the end of the debate all we knew was that about one-half of the displaced men had applied for entry into the Royal Air Force and had been granted commissions; and that one-third of that half were employed on air traffic and fighter control duties. Does that mean that the other two-thirds are employed on flying duties? Are two-thirds of the number who have been granted commissions being accepted for flying duties, and if so, what sort of engagement have they been given?
  I ask the Under-Secretary again about the other half who have not applied for entry into the Royal Air Force. Are we making any effort to keep them in flying practice, or is any inquiry being made about the possibility of training them as civil pilots? I think the Air Ministry have an interest in this matter, because we all want to see a reserve of experienced flying people in the country.
  There is another body of men on whom the country has spent much money and training, and whose services and skill are now, it seems, to be allowed to go to waste. I refer to the National Service men, and especially to the National Service men who were trained as pilots. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) last week tried to get an answer to this question, and eventually he walked out of the House in some disgust. Later on in the evening the Under-Secretary got very cross with me when I tried to get the same information. He did eventually tell me not to waste time, and that if I read the

  297
  OFFICIAL REPORT I would find the information which I sought. I am bound to tell him it is a waste of time to read that speech in order to get this information. All we were told was that the country was getting good value from the National Service men.
  I admit that in an interjection during the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) the Under-Secretary did say that it was hoped—nothing more than that—that these National Service men, having served their term, would join the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. That is not good enough, and I ask the hon. Gentleman, are all these National Service men who were trained as aircrew going to be kept in flying training after their two years is over? That is a straightforward question, and I should like him to answer it. If they are going to be kept in training, how and where are they going to do the training?
  There is another factor which emerges from this debate and from Questions which I have put down in the last few days to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. In consequence of the Air Ministry decision to reduce the number of flying schools, it is pretty certain that some civil airports will have to close. They just cannot keep going to cater for club and private flying. If a number of these airports close, quite clearly a number of private flyers will have to give in. They cannot afford to keep their aircraft and do their flying, from an airport miles away. This thing is going to become quite a vicious circle; again, it means that the general reserve of flying experience and interest in this country is going to be thrown away.
  The Air Ministry in previous years have said that they cannot be unconcerned about the reduction in private flying. Under the previous Government especially there was an acknowledgment of the importance to the nation of having this reserve of flying experience and some concessions were made. It would be worth the while of the Under-Secretary to look at this matter again, even at this late hour. Did the Air Ministry take into account when they decided to close these schools and to have the training overseas that there might be this shrinking effect on private flying in this country?
  298
  Did they put this and other factors in the balance against the attraction of free flying in Canada?
  There is another extraordinary and disquieting thing, that whilst we seem to be profligate and wasting skilled and experienced men who could be at our disposal, we are at the same time very seriously short of men in other branches of the Service. We were given the disquieting information about the lack of skilled men in the ground trades. We know that we have an average manning strength of 70 per cent., but that is an average and some trades are obviously below 70 per cent. They may be as low as 50 per cent. I should not be surprised if in one case it is probably not less than 50 per cent.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said, there is no point in having these big machines coming along if we have not the men to service them. There is no point in having all the tradesmen but one to service them, because if one inspection is not carried out the machine does not get off the ground. It seems to me we have got to look at this problem again, and we have got to get some new ideas about recruiting. Some of the tricks which we have used over the last two or three years were probably a bit too smart. A Service man faced with the possibility of two years' National Service or, on the other hand, three years' voluntary service at a higher rate of pay would probably choose the latter, but that is not going to solve the problem of the Regular skilled men.
  We are told today by the Under-Secretary that only one-third of the Regular recruits join for more than four years. The Royal Air Force on that basis is not going to be good enough. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) put his finger on one point when he said that he, as a member of a big aircraft manufacturing firm, paid so much more for the skilled men that the Air Force wanted. The extraordinary and, in some respects, absurd thing is that the money which the hon. and gallant Gentleman so generously gives to the engineers in his employ is State money just as much as the money which is paid out by the officer on a pay parade.

  299
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) is doubting that, but he is looking very doubtful about it. I hope he sees the point. The contract price and orders given to the aircraft manufacturing firms come from the Government, and this money which the Air Ministry pays for these machines in the last analysis fixes the rate of pay which goes to the engineers. I am saying it is rather absurd for the Air Ministry in a sense to compete for engineers to this extent, and as a result find themselves short of the same type of men for their own Service.
  It seems to me that now or later on we are going to be faced with a need for a thorough investigation and inquiry into recruiting. The inquiry which we ought to have ought to go into the whole defence question, including the allocation of resources as between one Service and another, the allocation of resources as between the conventional weapons about which we know and the unconventional weapons like guided missiles and long-range rockets about which we know very little at all in this House.
  Until we get all that information, debates in this Chamber will not be as useful and as fruitful as they ought to be and we shall not be able, as democratic representatives, to play our part in looking after the taxpayers' money that we ought to play. I hope that we shall try to evolve something within the Parliamentary system, such as a Military Affairs Committee, or something of that kind which can have access to all the facts upon which to base a proper judgment.
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) that the whole House should be devoted on these occasions to protecting the interests of the taxpayers and looking after their money. I have never made any claim to be a specialist in the Service debates, but I have always felt it my duty to approach them from the point of view of the ordinary citizen. I very much regret that so few Members attend to listen to Service debates and give us the benefit of their experience. Although I have intervened in the three debates— and I make no apology—I am very grateful for the tolerance which the House accords me on these occasions.
  300
  I have listened very carefully to every Service debate of every kind since 1945, and I have learned a lot. I cannot agree with the conclusion reached by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that the best way to secure peace is to have a stronger bomber force. That is a fundamental delusion. I believe that the only way to get peace is through negotiation, through understanding, through trying to understand what the supposed enemy nations are trying to get at and by realising that the big burden of armaments that we are piling up is the enemy. It is a burden on the whole of the Western and Eastern parts of world civilisation.
  We have to find a way out, otherwise the burden of armaments will destroy us economically. If it comes to world war three, a very large part of the world will be destroyed in the way that old civilisations, Babylon and others, were destroyed in the past. When my hon. Friend turns to me and says: "The more bombers we get the nearer we are to peace," what does that mean to the world? I live in this great city. We all know that in a few days' time we are to have a bombing exercise in London in which the assumption will be that there are about 17,500 casualties and thousands of buildings destroyed. In Glasgow recently there was an exercise in which it was argued that one atom bomb dropped in the city would mean 7,000 casualties and the destruction of all buildings within a radius of one mile of the centre.
  Today we have probably the strongest force of bombers that we have had since the war, but I do not believe that anybody would say, looking round this country, that we have a greater sense of security.
  Mr. Shackleton: Would my hon. Friend have a greater sense of security if we had no bomber force?
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, I think I would. That is precisely the point I want to make.
  Southern Ireland feels far more secure about human life than we do in this country. I believe that the danger to this country is because we have so many bombers. The Prime Minister has recently told us, and has repeated it, that the result of bringing this huge concentration of American potential atom bombers to this country is that the

  301
  bomber base attracts other bombers. believe that if this country had no bombers it would not attract the bombers of the other nations.
  The argument used in support of more bombers is the argument used by the people in the other countries. I was in China recently, and I stood on the stand during their 3rd October celebration. I saw their jet bombers and fighters go past, and I said to a friend standing near me: "That is not a good advertisement for the peace conference that is beginning tomorrow." The reply was: "These bombers are not for oppression; they are for defence." That was the argument of the Chinese—" The more bombers we can have the less possibility there is of our country being destroyed." I look upon the city of Pekin as an old centre of Eastern civilisation. It would be a calamity and a crime to destroy Pekin.
  The same applies to Moscow. I stood on the Lenin Hills in Moscow and saw the new city arising. I have seen their new university, one of the best in the world. I have seen the tremendous rebirth of that great city. It is as much a crime to think about the bombing of Moscow and Pekin as it is to think of the bombing of Glasgow and London. The very idea of dropping an atom bomb upon these congested cities, with their men, women, children and institutions of great social importance, such as hospitals and schools, is fundamentally wrong, and what is fundamentally wrong cannot be militarily right.
  Mr. Shackleton: Does not my hon. Friend realise that the idea of dropping bombs is fundamentally wrong to all Members of the House of Commons?
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, and if anything is fundamentally wrong then it cannot be militarily right. If we argue on the assumption that we have to get more bombers in order to get peace, we shall be up against an insoluble economic problem. In the debate on the Air Estimates we were told that we needed so many bombers and that the cost of one big bomber was £400,000. I estimated, and this has not been challenged, that 1,000 of the bombers would cost £400 million, which is financially and economically impossible.
  302
  What is to happen if we cannot get international agreement? Next year we shall get a demand for still more expensive bombers and a still greater number. The cost of a bomber is going up astronomically. Air Chief Marshal Sir Philip Joubert said, in a letter to "The Times" recently, that we had not a really good night fighter to keep out the bombers. If all nations act on the idea "The more bombers the more likely we are to get peace," when are they going to stop? Is there any possibility that in two or three years' time we shall be in a position to say to the Russians: "Unless you disband your bombing fleet we shall bomb your cities and bomb you to blazes"? We have an insoluble problem if we look upon it in that way. The whole future of humanity depends upon its renunciation of the idea that armed force can necessarily save the nations of the world.
  That is the theme I have tried to argue throughout these debates. I do not believe that it has been answered properly, and I believe that we shall have to retrace our steps. War has now become so terrible, so unimaginable, that it is in the interests of the civilised and uncivilised nations of the world that this mad armaments race, expressed in terms of more bombers and bigger fleets and bigger armies, should be seen to be a fundamental delusion. Until we get rid of that delusion, we shall go steadily forward either to bankruptcy or to disaster.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: This is the second time within a week that it has been my task to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). It is, of course, not a question of "follow-my-leader" because, although I value his friendship and I hope I have it still—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes Mr. Emrys Hughes indicated assent.
  Mr. de Freitas: —and I respect him. he does not stand in any way as a leader of this side of the House in his attitude towards defence. It is clear that he does not reflect the views of the great party to which we both belong.
  There is one important point he made which I should like to bring to the attention of the Under-Secretary and the House. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that he was not a specialist in

  303
  matters concerned with defence but was speaking as an ordinary hon. Member making criticisms. That, of course, is the purpose of these debates and it is right that they should not be mere technical discussions. On the point of criticism, I would draw the attention of the Undersecretary to the end of my speech the other night. I pointed out that our criticisms were not made to score party advantage but were designed to assist in making this great Service, the Royal Air Force, a better Service and an even better protector of peace.
  I thought the Under-Secretary did less than justice to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), who raised the question of events at West Kirby. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was justified in writing it off, as he gave the House the impression that he was doing, and regarding it as mere mud-slinging. It was a valid criticism made by an hon. Member of this House who is a loyal Reservist of the Royal Air Force and who has a high regard for the Royal Air Force and its name. I would also like the Under-Secretary to reflect on the criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), who referred to the Undersecretary having had to eat so many of his words in the speech he made last year, especially on the matter of flying schools.
  As the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) drew our attention to the matter of manpower, I want to repeat a small criticism of last week, with which the Under-Secretary had not time to deal. These Estimates show an increase of air officers and senior officers in the Air Ministry and a decrease of junior officers for next year, an increase of warrant officers and N.C.O.s and a decrease of airmen. What is the reason?
  I should also like to deal with another detail in the Air Estimates. I came into the Chamber during the previous debate on the Army but I could not follow the discussions going on about Colonial Forces between my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the Undersecretary of State for War. The trend in the Air Estimates this year—a small trend—is that there are to be less locally recruited Maltese in the Royal Air Force, less locally recruited men in Iraq, less
  304
  locally recruited men in Malaya. Many hon. Members will have seen at one time or another, as I have, all these local forces. They are impressive. Do not these local troops allow a saving in money and also in United Kingdom manpower? If the trend this year is away from their employment, what is the reason?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge mentioned a matter which both he and I and other hon. Members raised last Thursday. If the State has invested thousands of pounds in a young National Service pilot, what is the Air Ministry going to do to see that this money is not wasted? I believe it costs more to train a young man to fly than it does to train him for one of the learned professions, for instance the Bar. That is a great investment by the State and none of my hon. Friends were satisfied by the explanation given by the Under-Secretary.
  We cannot expect that these young pilots can have jet experience in a civil flying school, but is it really the fact that there is no value in any other form of flying training to keep their hands in— perhaps on an Auster or a Tiger Moth? We are told that the Government are moved by motives of economy. I hope they have not overlooked the fact that there is really economy in using civil flying schools.
  We all know that if a civil contractor has a fitter he does not have to worry about his flat feet or the state of his morals. But such things have to be looked after, and a highly elaborate and expensive organisation set up, in the case of a Service man. We should like to know why so much emphasis has been placed on removing this work from the field of civil contractors. What about the ground tradesmen on whom hundreds of pounds have been spent? Surely that money which has been invested will not be wasted? What are the plans for Reserve training? We are entitled to be told.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge referred again to the former instructors at the schools which have been closed down. All of us who have been connected in any way with flying have had sad letters about these instructors who have spent most of their lives in this profession and now find themselves out of work. Often they are getting on in years, in the late 40's, and it is difficult

  305
  for them to find another job. I know from correspondence that the Undersecretary has been trying to find jobs for them. I hope he has good news for them tonight, and that will mean good news for us, because all of us in this House are most concerned about them.
  Now may I sum up on a more general point? I say "sum up" because our hon. Friends interested in the Army Estimates spoke at length and I see that the "Silent Service" is here and obviously does not wish to remain silent; it is entitled to some time. We have a fair point to make on the general record of the Government on aviation. Nearly every chamber of commerce lunch ends with a reference to the fact that once we ruled the sea and it is now our destiny to rule the air. We have a wonderful opportunity to do so but the Government are throwing it away.
  Last year the Government deprived our civil aviation of a Minister to fight for it. This year, not content with having no Minister, there is to be no Ministry exclusively concerned with civil aviation. It becomes a part-time job for someone who is otherwise engaged in discussing zebra crossings in the Ministry of Transport. All that means that it is 10 times as important as it was before for the Air Ministry to be concerned with what is left of our civil flying schools, yet the Government have shown that they are determined to strike even harder at those schools.
  I submit that the Government are showing little interest, concern or comprehension of the importance of air-mindedness. I do not blame the Undersecretary—he knows that. I ask him to pass on our criticisms to his earthbound colleagues and to remind them what century we live in, to remind them that it may be true that Marlborough is doing well in his campaigns on the Continent, and to tell them that there may be some truth in the rumour which has come from the south coast that Bleriot has just flown the Channel.
  8.20 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) started his speech by referring to the control and reporting system in Western Europe and
  306
  emphasising the importance of organising our air defences in depth. He asked whether our radar screen was adequate and effective.
  I agree most heartily about the importance of having our air defences in depth and of having efficient and effective radar defences. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, of course, that the radar defences in Europe are under the control of S.A.C.E.U.R. He also knows that I cannot go into any very great detail without prejudicing operational security, but I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman—it was this assurance for which he asked—that we have the closest operation with S.A.C.E.U.R. and that the radar chain facing the Iron Curtain is being pressed forward with as much urgency as our own in the United Kingdom.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned some remarks by the Commander-in-Chief of Bomber Command. I armed myself with "The Times" and confirmed what he said. I must make it plain, of course, that the Commander-in-Chief was expressing a personal view. Nevertheless, the House will remember that in my opening speech last week, when talking about the research and development programme as a whole, I said:
  "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."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 1517.]
  I think that that is true.
  As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know it is continually a race between the new developments in aircraft and their performances, and trying to keep up with the electronics. For that reason the electronics industry has had a heavy load imposed upon it. There may be some slight production difficulties, as are present in most industries under a heavy programme of rearmament.
  Mr. A. Henderson: And in other countries?
  Mr. Ward: Yes; but I think it is quite safe to say that, as far as technical knowhow is concerned, we are still second to none.

  307
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for the dates of production orders of the new types of aircraft, and perhaps for the record he would like me to quote them: the Canberra, March, 1949; the Hunter, October, 1950; the Swift, November, 1950, and the Valiant, February, 1951.
  Next, the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the married quarters position and asked me to give a few more details. We have completed some 3,500 married quarters this year, which, although not reaching the 4,000 reached in one year under his administration, nevertheless is not too bad. It is unlikely that we shall ever again reach that high figure of 4,000, however hard we try, because there are certain limiting factors.
  For instance, we must avoid as far as possible taking good agricultural land. Until recently we had a lot of our own land on which to build. Finding suittable land delays us and makes site planning more difficult. Then, as the national housing programme develops, we shall be forced, in order to qualify for the terms of the housing loan, to site our quarters where the local planning authority thinks best. In many cases the sites that they select are some distance from the parent airfield, and this, too, causes delays. Finally, instead of building large blocks of houses at individual stations, we now need comparatively small pockets of married quarters at a fairly large number of stations, and this also makes for much slower progress.
  Mr. A. Henderson: May the House take it that the hon. Gentleman's Department expect no difficulty in relation to obtaining the requisite authority to raise money under the 1950 Act as it may be amended?
  Mr. Ward: I was just coming to that. As regards the housing loan, the Government will in due course ask Parliament to vote a further sum under the Act, because the amount of money which they have at the moment runs out in 1953–54.
  On the question of the W.R.A.F., the right hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly asked me to amplify what I said last week about recruiting. Some 3,350 women joined the W.R.A.F. in 1952. This was not quite so good as 1951, but
  308
  the falling off in 1952 was proportionately less than for men. I was asked about standards. Of course, we could recruit more women if we were prepared to accept a lower standard, but we do not want to do that because, in particular, those members of the W.R.A.F. who are to be employed in the control and reporting system must be of a type on whom we can rely completely as regards intelligence and integrity.
  For these reasons we have not accepted more than one-third of the 10,000 women who have applied to join during each of the past three years. I think that once it becomes generally known that the W.R.A.F. are interested only in women of the highest quality we shall attract far more of the right type. I think there are already indications that interest in the W.R.A.F. is increasing. As regards the other point made about the Army, we shall do our best not to be outdone by their recruiting. I do not know whether this has something to do with the nice green uniforms they wear, but at the moment they are getting more recruits than we are.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) asked about the Princess flying boats. He will realise that this is a very complex subject. I will try to answer briefly, although I am afraid I cannot do justice to the subject in such a short time. The Minister of Supply, on 17th March, 1952, made a statement on the Princess flying boat. The main points to remember are that there is a limited amount of money available for spending on all forms of defence and to use the Princess in a transport role would need very expensive provision in the way of staging posts, terminal buildings, marine craft and so on. The provision of all these things is likely to make the Princess uneconomical for this purpose in peace.
  Another point to remember is that, as I announced last week, we have ordered a prototype of the transport version of the Valiant which we believe will have a tremendous performance and will be far more efficient and economical to operate in a transport role than the Princess flying boat is likely to be.
  Mr. Beswick: Does that mean that the whole conception of using the Princess flying boat when the engines are available has now been given up?
  Mr. Ward: No. Indeed, the Minister of Supply said:
  "In the meantime, the first Princess flying boat, which is now nearing completion, will be fitted with Proteus II engines, so that experimental test flights can proceed."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 177.]
  Mr. Beswick: I know what the Minister of Supply said, but the hon. Gentleman is advancing arguments against its use at any time.
  Mr. Ward: No, I am saying that in present conditions of economic stringency I cannot raise the hopes of the House that there will be a requirement in the transport field. The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) asked about recruiting publicity. I can assure him that we are giving that matter very serious thought. We are examining as closely as possible every means we can think of for attracting more recruits of the right type, including the method of publicity.
  He asked if I could be more explicit about the date of the introduction of the Provost Vampire training sequence. I am very sorry if I gave the impression of being smart or giving a sharp answer last week. It was just an answer which came to me because it was so obvious. In brief, the first course of Provosts ought to start in the autumn and the training on the Vampire will start early in 1954, as soon as the first Provost-trained pupils come along. As I explained, without at all meaning to be smart, the limiting factor is the production of Provosts.
  I confess that I am not altogether surprised that the hon. Member for Preston, South spoke about the incident he raised last week which, he claimed, took place at West Kirby. I feel on reflection that my denial of the incident in my winding up speech was much too categorical, based as it was on telephone inquiries to the unit during the evening. I was of course influenced by the somewhat unlikely terms of the incident which the hon. Member described on that day and by my natural reluctance to believe that such an incident was even possible in the Royal Air Force.
  Nevertheless, as I told the House at the end of that debate, I have no wish whatever to be discourteous to the hon. Member. I again apologise for having given
  310
  the impression that I resented his criticism or in any way questioned his undoubted right to raise this matter if he so wished. I know what a friend of the Royal Air Force the hon. Member is. If any further proof were needed it has been amply provided year after year —as the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) pointed out—by the hon. Member for Preston, South returning to Coastal Command voluntarily to carry out his training. I cannot say any more about this now because I know the hon. Member would agree we should not prejudge the result of the very thorough inquiry into all the circumstances which I have now put into hand.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) spoke of the Reserve school position and particularly about redundant instructors, and asked some questions about them. The first question was how many have been accepted as pilots and for how long? He asked how many were accepted for secretarial and flying control branches. The answer is about half of those who applied have been, accepted either as pilots or for ground branches including the secretarial and flying control branches. I am sorry I cannot give the exact figures, which I could have given had I had notice of the question. Some have been accepted for the longest short-service period, which is eight years. In addition, we have circularised the firms concerned drawing attention to the Branch at the Air Ministry responsible for resettlement advice and assistance. I am glad to say that although not many have taken advantage of these facilities some have been steered into civilian employment.
  On the general question of the reserve which was referred to also by the hon. Member for Lincoln, I will again try to make myself clear. I am afraid I have failed so far. The House will recognise that I am in some difficulty, because I cannot obviously give specific numbers. Nor can I give the strategic assumptions on which our considerations have been based. If the House will accept those limitations I will do my best to explain the matter as fully as possible.
  When looking at this problem as a whole it must not be forgotten that within the Regular Air Force there are a number of young G.D. pilots fully trained who in the normal course happen to be

  311
  doing non-operational duties. They could be replaced quickly by officers from the administrative and special duties branches, and could go into the front line at once.
  Behind them are a number of Reservists not long out of the Service, and not far removed from recent operational flying. They too must be given refresher flying on jets under Service arrangements to meet immediate requirements on mobilisation. The number of Reservists to be kept in training and the type of training given must be related to our wartime requirements. We are at present giving training at Service stations to some 250 pilots, and 300 other aircrew each year who, at their own request, return to their own stations for their continuous training.
  There is no question of the value of this training. We are doing all we can to extend these arrangements. For the rest we shall during the next 12 months at any rate go on training on Chipmunks and Ansons at the Reserve flying schools we are keeping on, and some 3,000 aircrew will be called up for training at these schools. Priority will be given to people who have recently left the Service—this meets the specific question asked by the hon. Member for Uxbridge—and to National Service aircrew who join the R.A.F.V.R. instead of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. The remaining vacancies will be filled by aircrew selected by Home Command, taking into account such factors as age, flying experience in the appropriate operational rôle and the time which has elapsed since the pilot last flew in that rôle. I do not think I can make the position clearer than that, nor do I think we can afford to do more than that in terms either of money available or of carefully worked out war-time requirements.
  I wish to correct an impression which I inadvertently gave last week when I said that training in Canada was carried out at civil schools. I have checked that, and I find I am wrong: it is carried out at Service schools.
  The hon. Member for Lincoln raised the question of the recruitment of local forces. He will appreciate that the numbers of local forces given on page 16 of the Estimates represent not actual strengths but the estimated effective
  312
  strengths in the coming year. The figures for 1953–54 are a little lower than those for 1952–53 because we have taken a slightly more realistic view of the number of recruits who are likely to be obtained. If the actual strengths of the units on 1st February this year are compared with those on 1st February last year it will be found that, although one unit alone, the R.A.F. Regiment (Malaya), has fallen a little in numbers, R.A.F. Malaya and R.A.F. Levies (Iraq) have increased slightly while R.A.F. Malta remain the same. I am glad to assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no general downward trend in the recruiting of these levies.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why the numbers of senior officers in the Air Ministry are up and the numbers of junior officers are down, and also why the numbers of warrant officers are up and the numbers of airmen are down. In the short time I have had to look at this—
  Mr. de Freitas: I mentioned the matter last week.
  Mr. Ward: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was afraid I had missed it in going through his speech. I wonder if he is looking at the wrong page. On page 12 he will find that the number of air officers increased by 10, but that is for the Royal Air Force as a whole and not merely at the Air Ministry. In the case of warrant officers and noncommissioned officers, page 14 shows that the numbers have gone up, but that is also for the Royal Air Force as a whole. On the other hand, in the case of the Air Ministry, the hon. Gentleman will find that the numbers of air marshals, air vice-marshals, air commodores and group captains have remained exactly the same. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will check this again.
  Mr. de Freitas: Lest the admirals become annoyed with us—the Navy Estimate follows—I will not carry this further. My point was that the number of senior officers has increased but the number of junior officers has not.
  Mr. Ward: I am afraid that I must finish now. I appreciate the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Lincoln and other hon. Members about keeping people air-minded. No one is keener on that than I am. It is true to

  313
  say, however, that that is not quite so important as it was in my day. When I started flying I was considered a raving lunatic by all my family and by most of my friends. Today that is not so, for people take to the air much more easily and naturally. I am sure my son does not regard it as any more dangerous to go into the air than it is to go to sea. We must bear in mind that the importance of air-mindedness is not quite so urgent as it was in earlier days.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1953–54
  REPORT [16th March]
  VOTE A.—NUMBERS
  Resolution reported,
  That 151,000 Officers, Seamen and Boys and Royal Marines, who are borne on the Books of Her Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and the Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1954.
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: We now come to the end of the Defence Estimates. These have indeed been depressing days for those who care for the safety of this country. During these days, we have learned what is the effect of the cuts in defence expenditure upon our Armed Forces and the removal from them of some £600 million worth of equipment. We have heard from the Army that the effect has been that the reserve divisions are non-existent and without equipment. We have heard from the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force of squadrons with obsolete aircraft and of modern models being cancelled, as well as the prospect of modern equipment within the ceiling being indefinitely postponed. From the First Lord of the Admiralty we have heard—if we are to believe it—that our Navy has sunk behind that of the Russians.
  I would ask the House to consider what sort of danger this country is in. Former
  314
  conquerors of Europe have left Britain to the end, and by that time Britain has again been strong. Is there any reason, or indeed any likelihood, that the present possible conquerors may leave Britain to the end? Is it not reasonably certain that they will start with us, and that they can put down air divisions here, while, as we have learned from the debate on the Air Estimates, our Air Force cannot stop them? We have learned from the Army that they have nothing with which to oppose them except what I would describe as flying columns from the cookery school.
  What of the Navy? Is it not a fact that we shall start the next war, if the Russians choose the day, under total blockade? Their submarine forces and their minelaying forces will be in position at the start, and I think it is reasonable to anticipate that the mines will be of a new design which will require a certain time to combat. Is it not as certain as anything can be that, at the beginning of a war, we shall be in a condition of total blockade, and that we do not know whether it will be a matter of weeks or of months—or perhaps never—when we shall break out of that blockade and be in a position to bring reinforcements into this country?
  That is the situation which faces us as a result of these Estimates. That is the result of the £600 million cut which we have experienced in our Armed Forces. Why has that cut been made? We have had no explanation throughout these debates on the Estimates. Let us remember that the £4,700 million programme was adopted by the Labour Party and was accepted at the General Election, and the Conservative Party were returned pledged to carry it out. Apparently, they have preferred pledges to transport operators—pledges bought and paid for —because the pledge to defend their own country has been abandoned.
  Is it because the world is safer? These pledges were made a year ago and were affirmed to our Allies at Lisbon. What has happened since Lisbon to make the world safer? Has the Russian intervention at U.N.O. to prevent any chance of truce in Korea made the world safer? If not, what has made it safer, other than the fact that war has not actually broken out? Is it the conduct of the Opposition? Not even that shabby excuse of the

  315
  Chamberlain Government is available to this Government because, as recently as last September, the Labour Party at Morecambe pledged themselves to support the £4,700 million programme. Then suddenly, without explanation either to us or to our Allies the Prime Minister last September abandoned that programme, with the terrifying results which we have been seeing in the course of these debates on the Estimates.
  What is the reason? We are now told that it is an economic reason. But those who have read the "Economist" have seen an effective answer to that. This programme, to which the Government were pledged and which they have abandoned, was only one-quarter of what we achieved in 1944. It is not a question of it being beyond our economic ability. It is simply a question of business as usual being preferred. In the 1914–18 war and in the last war it became clear that we could not produce armaments on the scale required for our safety without control.
  The cold war can no more be carried on by a free economy than can the hot war. But the Conservative Government had their pledges to the transport operators and to people of that sort, and so defence was abandoned. Of course we could have carried out the programme, as was pointed out by the "Economist." It is true that we should have had to do without some things, such as, perhaps, petrol, and meat from the Argentine. This is where the present Government have proved themselves true followers and successors of the Baldwin Government. They, like the Baldwin Government, knew of no better method of losing an election than to defend their country.
  The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Commander Allan Noble): On a point of order. I am wondering, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in view of the very short time at our disposal, whether the speech of the hon. and learned Member is in order. With all respect, it seems to me to be a speech better suited to the defence debate, or, perhaps, to the debate on the Queen's Speech.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I thought that the hon. and learned Member was leading up to an
  316
  argument on the Navy Estimates. I hope he will come to it shortly.
  Mr. Paget: This is the point where we come to the end of the Estimates. We have learned from the First Lord that our Navy has fallen behind that of the Russians. Is not the defencelessness of this country and the reason for it a matter for discussion at this time when we come to the end of this sorry story? A party which has preferred ease and party advantage to the defence of the country has abandoned every one of its defence pledges.
  That is the easy choice and the easy road which this Government have taken. Maybe they will get away with it; I do not know. We all profoundly hope that they will, but the trouble is that once a nation takes an easy road, the tendency is always to go on that way and to hope that trouble will never happen. There are few instances in history where a duty recognised and refused by a nation has not ultimately led to doom.
  In this last of the Service Estimates debates we are dealing with the oldest and most senior of our Services. We have the same sorry story to tell—utter weakness, enlarged manpower and insufficient equipment, all resulting from a failure to perform the defence duty which the Government undertook to perform.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. John Baldock: Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I feel a considerable degree of anxiety about the present strength and condition of the Navy. It is not many years since it was the largest in the world. It is not many years since we had a great preponderance of the world's merchant shipping. I believe that the British people still hold the Royal Navy in great esteem and have much faith in it, but it seems that with its decline in size and the decline in the size of its Vote in comparison with those of the Army and the Air Force, there has been a decline in the importance attached to it and to maritime affairs by this House and by successive Administrations.
  Perhaps that statement is rather summed up by the state of affairs today, when in 5½ hours' debate only three-quarters of an hour remain for the Navy, of which some minutes have been taken up by the hon. and learned Member for

  317
  Northampton (Mr. Paget), whose remarks would, I should have thought, have proved most interesting to his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). It is possible to read whole pages of defence debates in HANSARD without finding any reference whatever to the Royal Navy. Perhaps it is that atomic weapons and jet-propelled aircraft have somewhat dazzled our vision.
  But surely it is as clear as ever that this country cannot possibly be second only to the United States as the greatest arsenal of the whole free world without a considerable importation of food and raw materials, amounting to about 50 million tons a year. And it is really not possible seriously to consider at this stage in history a time when industry could operate without these very bulky imports of materials, or when those imports could come in by any other means than in the holds of ships.
  It is not even possible for this country to remain as an unsinkable carrier off the coast of Europe, let alone to be an arsenal, without considerable importations of oil and food. I believe, and I think that many hon. Members feel the same, that in these circumstances there is real cause for anxiety not only as to whether the Royal Navy has a sufficient share in the Defence Estimates, but whether our Merchant Service, which is dwindling so lamentably, especially in tramp tonnage, which has decreased by one-third since 1939, will be sufficient to contend with the duties which we should have to perform if there were another outbreak of hostilities. The Government could do much to encourage tramp building in competition with other nations, who give favourable terms for the construction of that type of shipping.
  It has now become almost trite to say that in both world wars we have come nearer to defeat by blockade from enemy submarines than from any other cause. Our Prime Minister supports that view. It is quite untrue to say that at the present time that danger is by any means diminished. According to the First Lord of the Admiralty, we are faced at the moment with flotillas of submarines six times greater than those with which we had to contend at the beginning of the last war.
  Even if we take the most sanguine view of these matters and consider that
  318
  the seamanship and morale of the crews of these submarines are doubtful, that our anti-submarine vessels at sea and in reserve are more numerous, and that antisubmarine weapons and methods of detection are better than they were in the last war, nevertheless, given the advantage of surprise which any aggressive Power could always have at the outbreak of war, these submarines would be capable of inflicting very serious damage in the early stages of hostilities.
  Perhaps we are inaccurate in thinking that another war—if there were to be one —would begin with a holocaust of atomic bombs. Atomic bombs may never be used. Gas was never used in the last war. But long before hostilities commenced a potential enemy could certainly lay mines on a very considerable scale—as was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton—by means of submarines and trawlers round these coasts, and those mines could be fitted with clocks and mechanisms to delay them.
  On the outbreak of hostilities the first thing that would happen would be that our ships would be sunk in the entrances to the main ports, and harbours would become unworkable. The result would be disastrous, not only from the point of view of the ingress of raw materials and food but also because most of our South Coast power stations which feed industry are dependent on seaborne coal. All the power stations in the South of England might be brought to a standstill.
  Under those circumstances, although we are building a large number of minesweepers—which is very heartening news —I wonder whether we are not being a little too orthodox in our approach to the mine peril which, I am convinced, is our most serious peril so far as blockade is concerned. The Russians have always been interested in mines and the variety of mines, and even in 1945 their mechanism was so considerable that sweeping had become very difficult.
  We should be thinking of all kinds of other less orthodox means of counteracting the effects of these mines. It might be possible to use helicopters or certain harbour equipment. There are many things which might be operated without having to be on the surface of the water. These mines, especially if they could be projected into the water at a later stage

  319
  of a war, could be by far the most serious aspect of any blockade.
  In this connection there has been no reference to the building of landing craft. I wonder whether we have a sufficient quantity of landing craft remaining from the last war, and whether they are in good condition, or whether we ought to be building more, not only from the point of view of a possible assault on a coast but because they would be an excellent means for unloading merchant ships if our main ports became closed. They could serve a dual purpose. A merchant ship could unload by means of its derricks; the landing craft could take the cargo ashore on any beach to which a lorry could come, and unloading could take place without the necessity of harbour installations, given reasonably enclosed waters and reasonably good weather. I wonder whether sufficient importance has been attached to the building of these landing craft.
  Considerable disappointment has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House on the subject of Naval Aviation. I was very pleased to hear the First Lord say that we are to have the use of some American carrier-borne aircraft. This is a matter where we could with great advantage adopt the standardisation which is part of the policy of the N.A.T.O. Powers. The overheads represented by a first-class designing team to produce the plans, work out the prototypes and bring the aircraft to a condition where they are efficient and able to be flown, seem to be immense for the comparatively few aircraft we should ever require while the number of our carriers is as few as it is at present.
  I wonder whether that would not be a very good sphere in which to operate a certain degree of standardisation. I wonder whether, without any loss of prestige, because there is much that we can teach the Americans in anti-submarine warfare and in other ways, we should not fly American aircraft from carriers. Probably we should be operating with them frequently in one task force, and it would be a great advantage if we could have the same type of aircraft throughout the whole of a task force.
  It would mean that the navy with the largest requirement of carrier-borne aircraft would produce them in reasonably
  320
  large numbers. Perhaps on our side we might concentrate on the production of a really fine helicopter for use in naval warfare. I think the possibilities in that direction are so tremendous that they would repay all the research we could possibly do into them. Perhaps we could establish ourselves in a pre-eminent position by having a maritime type of helicopter, and I think that that would be a very fair exchange for the production of carrier-borne aircraft.
  Even if we had helicopters we might not have a sufficiently balanced force of flying machines in the Navy to provide a really good career for naval airmen. As in anti-submarine operations co-ordination between ships and aircraft becomes ever closer, is it not evident that the aircrew who fly these aircraft should be given a naval training, and that Coastal Command aircraft should have in them men who are equally at home in a ship at sea or in an aircraft over the sea? That would provide a really comprehensive career. It would overcome to a great extent the difficulties of promotion and of providing opportunities for continued flying for naval air crews.
  9.7 p.m.
  Mr. John Dugdale: There is not much time left, and I have a number of questions to ask. I shall, therefore, be as brief as I can and shall limit the points which I want to make to a very few. I shall not therefore go over the ground that has been covered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who has covered a wide area affecting the whole of the Navy—indeed, of the Armed Forces.
  My first questions are about married quarters. I was not at all clear at the end of the speech of the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary what the decision was with regard to married quarters. So far as I understand it, a very small sum is to be spent on new married quarters this next year. There will be some £22,000 for new married quarters at home and £93,000 for new married quarters abroad. That compares with £445,000 which is being spent on—what? On the continuation of programmes initiated by the last Government. I think it is very important that that should be understood, because the Government claim that they are engaged in a large programme of building

  321
  married quarters. They are indeed continuing some of our programme, but they do not appear to be initiating new schemes themselves. I should like the Civil Lord to say something about that.
  I should like also to ask him what exactly is meant by the statement that there may be future legislation with regard to the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act. When may we expect this legislation, and if it is not to be soon what is to be done in the meantime? I want to put those questions to the Civil Lord, because I understand he wishes to reply to those particular questions. Then, by leave of the House, I shall speak again to raise some other questions that I wish to ask the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary.
  9.10 p.m.
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): I am glad of the chance to clear up these points. The first thing to remember is that under Vote 10 we are only providing married quarters for certain places at home where there is difficulty in building sufficiently near existing towns to come under Vote 15. In practice that means Northern Ireland, and our programme for Northern Ireland is getting very near completion. That is why the sum of £22,000 appears. Abroad, £93,000 will be spent, plus £445,000 for continuation services.
  Mr. Walter Edwards: Might I correct the Civil Lord? The Admiralty are not going to spend £93,000. That is the total estimate of what the Admiralty will spend abroad from now onwards. They are spending £445,000 this year as a result of schemes prepared by the Labour Government. Out of the £93,000 which they will spend in future, £56,000 is to be spent this year. The £93,000 is a total estimate. What are they going to do? Are they finishing altogether providing married quarters in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malta and Gibraltar? Ninety-three thousand pounds will certainly not get them very far.
  Mr. Digby: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there is a very long time-lag between the time these married quarters are planned and the time when the work is carried out. For instance, there is one very big item which he will remember, of a block of 50 married quarters for officers in Hong Kong. When
  322
  I was there in September last they were only just beginning the work on the site. It does not mean that we are discontinuing providing these married quarters abroad. As he rightly says, the amount is £445,000 over the whole year. There are various other projects coming along, but there is a limit to the amount of money which we can spend in any one year. We are keeping up with the work, and he will find that our figures are comparable with what was done by the last Government.
  At home the amount we shall build will be very considerable. Here again there is a time-lag. It is true that the progress on married quarters during the last year was a little disappointing, but I should explain to the House that that was due primarily to an over-estimate of the work that we hoped to start as long ago as the winter of 1951–52. There were also certain other factors which were not so important, such as the amount of re-designing necessary and hold-ups on such matters as sites, but the main factor was due to events in 1951–52.
  For the coming year we have a very good programme, as large a programme as we expect to be able to fulfil. During the last year we have been very much more successful in carrying out our works' programme than for many years past, and we have overspent on our works' services instead of underspending.
  Mr. Edwards: As a result of previous planning.
  Mr. Digby: No. I think as a result of the measures which we have been able to take to improve the total of completions.
  There is one other point on the new housing loan. As I have said, we have been building our married quarters in this country under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act—in other words, under Vote 15—and are continuing to do so. We have still quite a large unexpended sum. The question of the new Bill was referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. It was also referred to in the Defence White Paper. I cannot say when the new Bill will be introduced, but, as we learned from the White Paper, it will be introduced in due course, and we shall hope to have the support of the House in bringing it for-

  323
  ward, because we believe it to be of great importance to the married quarters programme.
  Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman says there is a large unexpended surplus under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act. As I read the Estimates, that will be exhausted this year, as the Parliamentary Secretary agreed on Tuesday morning. Where is the large unexpended surplus, and what is it?
  Mr. Digby: There is a certain amount allocated to each of the Services, and the Admiralty portion of the amount allocated under the old Housing Loan leaves us sufficient for future spending up to the time of expiration.
  Mr. Edwards: How much?
  Mr. Digby: I could not give a figure offhand.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Dugdale: If I may, by leave of the House, I should like to speak again, because I have to make two little speeches to get two separate answers. I may say I am not by any means satisfied with the Civil Lord's reply. I am still firmly convinced, as I was before, and I think the general public will be convinced that the greater amount of expenditure at present is on works started and planned by the old Government, and there is very little provision for new works started by this Government. I am afraid that what the Civil Lord has said will not convince me otherwise. It may be that the OFFICIAL REPORT, when read, will convince others: it does not convince me.
  Mr. Digby: I must explain again that there is a time-lag between the time when there is planning and when the work begins. Since my attention has again been drawn to it, I must say that the amount to be spent on works' service by this Government in the coming year is £3 million more than ever spent before in peace-time.
  Mr. Dugdale: On married quarters entirely?
  Mr. Digby: On works' services.
  Mr. Dugdale: Works' service is a big thing, and it was married quarters I was concerned with. I do not think that £3 million is to be spent on married quarters.
  324
  I wanted to ask something about the small sum that is being devoted to educational and vocational training. The sum is small, and it shows a 10 per cent. drop. I hope that this does not mean that the present Government do not attach sufficient importance to this very important item. When we were in power we started a system of lectures and courses on current affairs, which were given to ratings in a large number of units. It is true there were courses before, but we made them compulsory in a number of cases, and there was a great increase in them.
  I hope the Government are not going to dispense with these courses, because we thought it of importance that the rating should have an opportunity of getting some information not only on technical subjects connected with naval affairs, but on general subjects so that he may be better instructed as a citizen, and be, therefore, to that extent a better sailor.
  The second question I want to ask concerns the provision of officers. I referred to that in my speech during previous proceedings, and I should like to ask two specific questions now. The first is, will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us the number of boys from public schools and from secondary schools who are going to Dartmouth today? We should like to know how those figures compare with the numbers from both kinds of school three years ago or at any convenient period before the change of Government. We can then get some idea whether there has been a change in trend or not.
  The next question is whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give us figures showing the number of upper yard men who have been promoted during this Government's period of office, again comparing it with figures prior to this Government coming into power. If he gives us this information it will reassure us, I hope, that there has been no change in policy, and that this Government are as determined as the previous Government that our recruits should be drawn from every possible quarter, and that there is no attempt to limit the choice of officers to one particular class or group of people. We attach the greatest possible importance to the

  325
  scheme of entry to Dartmouth at 16 so that we may be quite certain we have the very best officers, drawn from every walk of life. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to these three questions and that his answers will be satisfactory.
  9.20 p.m.
  The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Commander Allan Noble): I think it will be convenient if I first reply to the three questions which have been put to me by the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale). The first was on further education and vocational training. I am glad to be able to tell him that the cut which he sees in the Estimates need cause him no alarm. It is a cut of about £6,100 out of about £60,000, and it relates to three items. The first is civilian lecturers, in respect of which there is a slight reduction of about £1,300. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, this item has been going down steadily since 1948, when Vote A was very much higher. Last year there were 32 civilian lecturers and this year there will be 29. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate also that with the ending of retentions and recalls Vote A will go down considerably.
  Another reduction under this subhead is on stores and equipment—mainly in respect of £3,000 on films which have been transferred to Vote 8 stores. The right hon. Gentleman need have no alarm over that. He will find that it leaves very little which can be spread over the subhead. We attach the greatest importance to further education in all its various fields—lectures, visits, private studies—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and they are still going on in the same form. I think the House would agree that one must have a sense of proportion in a time of financial difficulty, when the first priority is to make the men into efficient sailors, although we fully appreciate that a lively mind and a wide knowledge and outlook may be of the greatest benefit.
  The next point is in regard to Dartmouth. Perhaps it would be convenient if I gave the acceptance figures for the May, 1950 entry. From the independent schools 71 per cent. were accepted, from direct-grant schools 36 per cent., and
  326
  from grammar schools 33 per cent. These are percentages of those who passed the written examination. The hon. Member is no doubt interested in the figure of 33 per cent. for the grammar schools. There was rather a bad period in about September, 1950, when that figure went down to 18 per cent., but he will be glad to hear that the figure went up considerably in the entry which will join in May, 1953, when 71 per cent. were accepted from the independent schools, 42 per cent. from the direct-grant and 35 per cent. from the grammar schools. It worked out as the highest figure there has been for four years. I will give the right hon. Member those figures in writing because they are rather complicated. Except for the rather bad period they have remained very much the same.
  With regard to the upper yardmen, the figures are rather complicated. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are two boards. They have to pass the Fleet selection board and the Admiralty interview board. I can give him the figures for 1949. It is of interest to give the number of failures, because it meets the point that the right hon. Member made that perhaps more people had failed than during the period of his own Government. In 1949 the failure rate was 36.3 per cent. In 1950 it was 40.6 per cent. Again it seems to have been a rather bad period in both this and the Dartmouth entry, but I am glad to say that in 1951 the percentage was 34 per cent. and last year 31.7 per cent.
  Mr. Dugdale: If 31.7 per cent. failed, does it mean that 70 per cent. got in last year?
  Commander Noble: Yes, of those who went to the final board. However, perhaps we could discuss this matter together because these figures are not easy to deal with by question and answer.
  I think that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) will find an adequate answer to his speech by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman would expect me to answer it in full on the Report stage of the Navy Estimates.
  I was interested in the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock), some of which I

  327
  answered in the main Navy Estimates debate. For instance, I answered fairly fully then the question on our Merchant Navy, which does not really come within the scope of the Navy Estimates debate. As I said then, the Admiralty are fully aware of the position and take a great interest in this matter within the entire defence field. Primarily it is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and, as I said then, he has this matter much in mind.
  As my hon. Friend said, it is quite true that there is now a swing towards tanker tonnages, and what one might call the dry cargo ships have decreased in numbers, but that may only be a momentary swing of the pendulum. He raised an interesting point with regard to aircraft and suggested that we might buy all our aircraft from America. I am not sure that would be possible or practicable. There are several difficulties, for instance the dollar difficulty, which is always with us. Also there might be difficulties over the types of aircraft which each country required for their own navy.
  However, I am certain that the question of types of aircraft is the kind of problem being discussed by the committee set up recently by the Chiefs of Staff, which is studying all maritime air matters. It is too early to say what conclusions or recommendations that committee will produce, but it was not set up because either Service was actively considering a revision of the present agreement. As my hon. Friend knows, there is an agreement between the Services on Coastal Command, and the integration of the two Services and the aircraft problem are the kind of things that the committee will be considering.
  Mr. W. Edwards: The hon. and gallant Gentleman stated in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) that because of the non-retention of serving men, and the fact that we are not calling up Reservists, there is not the necessity to spend so much money on education services. I asked a question in the main debate on the Navy Estimates in regard to the mean figure under Vote A for this year—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Order, order.
  It being Half-past Nine o'Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply) to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  Bill to provide, during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and Air Force; ordered to be brought in by Mr. Antony Head, Mr. J. P. L. Thomas, Mr. George Ward and Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL
  "to provide, during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each Resolution come to by the Committee of Supply and not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution."

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1952–53
    CLASS IX
      VOTE 7. MINISTRY OF FOOD
      That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,899,350. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies; a grant in aid; and sundry other services, including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.
    CLASS II

      VOTE 2. FOREIGN OFFICE GRANTS AND SERVICES
      That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,715,510, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for sundry expenses connected with Her Majesty's Foreign Service; special grants, including grants in aid; and various other services.
      Resolutions agreed to.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1952–53
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations including contributions and a contribution towards certain expenses incurred in the United Kingdom by the Government of the United States of America.
  Resolution agreed to.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1952–53
    CLASS VI
      VOTE 8. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES
      That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,975,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants, grants in aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research; services in connection with live stock; land settlement; land drainage; purchase, adaptation, development and management of land; agricultural credits and marketing; the guarantee of a minimum price for home-produced wool; the prevention of food infestation; agricultural training and settlement schemes; fishery organisation, research and development; and sundry other services.
    VOTE 9. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (FOOD PRODUCTION SERVICES)
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,632,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for certain food production services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

    VOTE 21. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND (FOOD PRODUCTION SERVICES)
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £795,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for certain food production services of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.
    Resolutions agreed to.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS
    VOTE 3. POST OFFICE
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5.869,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office, including telegraphs and telephones, and certain grants in aid.
  CLASS VII

    VOTE 9. STATIONERY AND PRINTING
    That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £825,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for stationery, printing, paper, binding and printed books for the public service; for the salaries and expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry miscellaneous services, including reports of parliamentary debates.
    Resolutions agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1953–54
That a sum, not exceeding £146,290,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.:
[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 18 th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 153.]
Resolution agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1953–54
That a sum, not exceeding £229,960,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz.:
[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 18 th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 153.]
Resolution agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1953–54
That a sum, not exceeding £359,320,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1954, for expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:
[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 18 th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 154.]
Resolution agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1952–53.
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £46,333,165, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1953, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz:
[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 18 th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 154–55.]
Resolution agreed to.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1952–53
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1953, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the Grants for Navy Services for the year.
[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 18 th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 156.]
Resolution agreed to.

CIVIL (EXCESSES), 1951–52
That a sum, not exceeding £22,435 10s. 2d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1952.
[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 18 th March, 1953; Vol. 513; c. 157–58.]
Resolution agreed to.

NAVY (EXCESS), 1951–52
That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to make good an excess on the grants for Navy Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1952.
[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 18 th March, 1953; Vol. 513. c. 159–60.]
Resolution agreed to.

ARMY (EXCESS), 1951–52
That a sum, not exceeding £2,731,080 7s. 8d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good an excess on the grants for Army Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March. 1952.
[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 18 th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 161–62.]
Resolution agreed to.

AIR (EXCESS), 1951–52
That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to make good an excess on the grants for Air Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1952.
[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 18 th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 163–64.]
Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

  REPORT [18th March]
  Resolutions reported,
  That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1952, the sum of £2,753,535 17s. 10d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, the sum of £87,044,535 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, the sum of £1,634,246,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-three and one thousand nine hundred and fifty-four"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

LUNG CANCER (SMOKING)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Sir H. Butcher.]
9.37 p.m.
Mr. H. Hynd: My purpose in raising this subject tonight is to call attention to a matter which is causing grave concern to many of our constituents and to try to get some authoritative ruling from the Ministry of Health as to the alleged connection between smoking and cancer.
As a layman, I naturally approach this subject with every reserve, but we are faced with the fact, as stated in a recent television broadcast, that the total amount of tobacco smoked in this country is working out in terms of cigarettes to about 2,000 cigarettes for every person in the country every year. We are also faced with the recent statement by medical men that deaths known to be caused by cancer of the lung are 15 times more frequent now than they were 15 years ago. Making full allowance for improved methods of diagnosis, I suggest that this is a matter serious enough to warrant very grave public concern.
No hon. Member of this House will be so naive as to jump to the conclusion that because two things happen at the same time they are necessarily related, but I am afraid it goes much beyond that. More than six years ago the Medical Research Council called a conference to consider whether, on the facts as they had been revealed then by the Registrar-General's statistics, they were justified in having an inquiry. That was in 1947, and two doctors, Dr. Richard Doll and Professor A. Bradford Hill, started an important medical inquiry.
These doctors selected some 1,500 patients suffering from cancer of the lung and another 1,500 patients suffering from other diseases, and they made comparisons along lines into which I need not go in detail. It was on a scientific basis, as anyone can see who reads their reports. The first and preliminary report, published in 1950, was based on observations taken mainly in London and the surrounding counties.
Their broad conclusion was that smoking was a factor in the production
334
of carcinoma of the lung. That was their interim conclusion. Since then the position has been getting steadily worse. In 1921 there were only 550 deaths from cancer of the lung, but in 1951, for the first time in our history, the deaths from cancer of the lung in England and Wales exceeded deaths from respiratory T.B. In 1947, the number of deaths from respiratory T.B. was 19,753. That dropped steadily until it reached 12,036 in 1951. In 1947 the figure for deaths from cancer of the lung was 9,535, and that has risen steadily until in 1951 it was 13,233.
It is interesting to note that of those 13,000 there were roughly 11,000 men, of whom only 56 were non-smokers, and 2,000 women. Immediately we are faced with the question, do more men die from this cause because men generally smoke more than women? There has, in fact, been an annual increase of roughly 1,000 in the number of deaths from this cause. Dr. Horace Joules, the medical director of the Central Middlesex Hospital, writing in the "British Medical Journal," has stated that by 1965, if this rate of increase goes on and unless something is done, the number of deaths per annum will reach 25,000. We cannot ignore figures of that kind.
The two doctors I mentioned issued their second report in December, 1952. It was published in the "British Medical Journal" for 13th December and was based on more extensive investigations in London and many other parts of the country. They said that among 1,357 men with cancer of the lung only seven, that is, about half of 1 per cent., were non-smokers as compared with 61, or 4.5 per cent., among other people with whom they were being compared, who suffered from other diseases.
At the other end of the scale 25 per cent. of men suffering from cancer of the lung smoked 25 or more cigarettes a day, or the equivalent in pipe tobacco, as compared with 13.4 per cent. of the controlled cases. Of the women with cancer of the lung, 37 per cent. were non-smokers, compared with 54.6 per cent. of the women with other diseases, and 11.1 per cent. of the cancer sufferers among women smoked 25 or more cigarettes a day, compared with 0.9 per cent. of the heavy smokers suffering from other diseases.

335
The doctors say:
"These results are essentially the same as those recorded in the 1950 Report. They support our conclusion that there is an association between smoking and cancer of the lung."
They quote from the 1950 report, and go on:
"We therefore conclude that smoking is a factor and an important factor in the production of cancer of the lung."
They add this:
"The present analysis of nearly 1,500 cases, or more than double the number dealt with in our preliminary report, supports the conclusion then reached, 'The association between smoking and carcinoma of the lung is real'."
They tell us that smoking a pipe, although also related to cancer of the lung, appears to carry a smaller risk than smoking cigarettes, if that is any comfort to hon. Members.
Commenting on this important report, the "British Medical Journal" said in a leading article:
"Tobacco has been incriminated as the vehicle conveying an agent responsible for a large proportion of the cases. Out of any random sample of 400 men now aged about 55, at least 10 must be expected to die of cancer of the lung within the next 20 years. Intensive research on the chemical constituents of tobacco and tobacco smoke is now needed."
That is bad enough, but I gather that similar investigations in Germany and in the United States of America have led to similar conclusions. One doctor in Chicago, for example, has been able to prove by experiment that he can induce cancer of the lung in mice by subjecting them to cigarette smoke. We are also told that in Iceland, where there has been an exceptionally low rate of deaths from cancer of the lung, the amount of tobacco smoked is also exceptionally low, amounting to not more than one quarter of what we smoke in this country.
Medicine is not one of the exact sciences—it has to proceed largely by trial and error—but I suggest that we have reached a stage, having regard to important reports of that kind, when the medical profession must make up their minds about the cause of this dread disease and whether it is really related to smoking. I also suggest that it is part of the responsibility of the Ministry of Health to guide us in these matters. Something ought to be done about it.
Following the report that I have quoted, there was a television programme called
336
"Matters of Medicine" on 12th January this year in which a Dr. Walker, a pharmacologist from Oxford, gave an analysis of cigarette smoke. He told us that it contained pyridine, ammonia, acridine— which was tried out as a gas in the First World War—nicotine and carbon monoxide. He told us that in one cigar there is an amount of nicotine which would be lethal if it were all absorbed, but fortunately much of it escapes into the atmosphere or is retained in the butt of the cigar, or else we should probably not have our present Prime Minister.
In the same programme, Dr. Scadding produced charts showing how the average amount of tobacco smoked per person since the beginning of the century has increased and how cancer of the lung has increased during the same period. He made the same point that I made a moment ago, that there is no proof that the two things are necessarily related, just because they happened over the same period. He agreed with the conclusion of Dr. Hill and Dr. Doll, and gave it as his opinion that, although smoking cannot be called the cause of lung cancer since non-smokers also get the disease, the increase in tobacco consumption, especially of cigarettes, may explain part at any rate of the increase in the death rate from cancer of the lung and may also explain the fact that the death rate from cancer of the lung is lower in women than in men since women smoke less than men.
He also said that heavy smoking predisposes to lung cancer. His conclusion was that many people who smoke remain quite well, but the risk to health and even to life is nevertheless very real and quite definite and that we must each decide for ourselves whether the pleasure that we get from smoking is worth the risk that we take.
In that connection, amongst the letters which I have received since this subject was announced was one which came this morning, and which read as follows:
"I do not think that smoking or anything in the tobacco way has anything to do with the cause of cancer, as my father, grandfather and uncles have been smokers and chewers all their lives. My father dropped dead at the age of 81, and his brother lived to be 101, but my wife's father and mother died in their 40's and all their families were non-smokers. I myself have been a smoker nearly all my life and I am 76, and my brother is 82 and still likes his pipe."

337
I give that for what it is worth. There have been other efforts to put the other side of the case, and I think I ought to refer to them, because I hold no brief for either side, but am merely asking for information.
The "Evening Standard" of 6th February criticised the television programme to which I have referred, and thought that it was unnecessarily scaring the public. In its leading article, it denied that cigarette smoking had been proved to be a potent cause of cancer of the lung, and it pointed out that the consumption of tobacco in the United States of America was twice as heavy as in this country, while cancer of the lung was only half as prevalent as here.
Professor Massey, of Leeds University, taking part in the correspondence in the medical Press, told us that, in the early part of the present century, it was taught in the students' textbooks that breast cancer might be related to the bone and metal supports in corsets in Edwardian days, but in the intervening 45 years the incidence of this kind of cancer has not fallen, and he suggested that that assumption had proved to be a false one. He also told us that, in the early 30's in the present century, it was the fashion to ascribe cancer of the lung to the tarring of the roads and the exhaust fumes from motor vehicles, and that that hypothesis has also been abandoned. We have had further statements from the chairmen of the two largest tobacco companies, but I do not think we need spend too much time quoting them, because they might not be regarded as entirely independent witnesses.
All I am saying is that these facts of which we have been made aware are disturbing, and there ought to be some guidance offered to us who are laymen in this matter and do not possess the medical knowledge with which to assess these things as we ought to be able to do. The Minister of Health ought to be able to put his experts on the job in order to tell us how much value should be placed on these reports, and, if they do feel that some action is necessary, it is then up to the Ministry to take it.
One of my hon. Friends asked a Question on 28th January, when the Minister replied that the whole question was before the Standing Advisory Committee on Cancer and Radiotherapy, which was to
338
meet on 5th February, and that he was waiting for their observations. If that was so, I am hopeful that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us further news tonight, and I hope that the news that she will give us will be such as will reassure the public on this particular question.
9.54 p.m.
Mr. Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) initiated this debate in order to obtain some guidance from the Minister of Health on this important problem, and from that point of view he has used this Adjournment debate to very good purpose. I should like to suggest to the House, however, that we should not panic on this matter.
I think it is vital that we should recognise that the fear of cancer is perhaps more dangerous in some homes than cancer itself. We all have experience of friends or constituents who have gone through fears and torment because they felt that they had contracted this horrible disease, and if it is the case that, by raising matters here or on television programmes or anywhere else, we are adding to this fear and bringing into the homes of the people this dread, which may be ill-founded, we shall not be doing the people of this country a very good service.
I agree, however, with the hon. Gentleman that the medical profession must make up their minds. I have no doubt that the Ministry, recognising the importance of the fear of this dread disease, will try to help in giving the guidance which the hon. Gentleman wants, but I must say that the report to which he referred is more a report of statisticians than a medical report, and that the figures he quoted from a good source show one thing only. They show that there is a relationship between cigarette smoking and cancer, but they certainly do not show that smoking causes cancer or necessarily plays any big part in aggravating it. It may well be that it is not the tobacco which aggravates it, but the paper round the tobacco. We do not know.
I agree that the sooner we know the answer to some of these questions the better, but I think that while we, as laymen, must take a proper interest in this subject, we must not be parties to encouraging panic. We have been told that in addition to the statisticians' report,

339
about which we have heard tonight, there are other committees inquiring into the subject. I, like the hon. Member for Accrington, sincerely hope that we shall have the reports of these committees quickly, and that their members will be able to come to conclusions that will be helpful and will put people's minds at rest.
But until we get those reports, and until we get the result of medical research into the subject, I feel that in our capacity as Members of Parliament we must try to restrain this panic, which if overemphasised will grow, concerning the relationship between cigarette smoking and this dread disease.
Mr. H. Hynd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I am trying to panic anybody. I tried to put the matter very moderately. I think it is our duty to get the facts.
Mr. Nicholls: As I said in my opening words, I think that the hon. Gentleman has done a great service in bringing this matter forward, and indeed in the words he used.
I feel we can rest assured that if the message to be deduced from the figures quoted was as clear as that which some deduced from the television programme, the medical profession would have given us clear guidance before now. If there was a clear relationship between cancer and cigarette smoking, then it would have been the duty of the medical profession to have given such guidance.
We must not panic, and I know that the hon. Member for Accrington neither intended to give that impression nor, in fact, did give that impression. We must make it clear that as yet there is no actual evidence which proves that people who smoke are necessarily encouraging cancer. We must also make it plain to the Parliamentary Secretary that it is the wish of hon. Members on both sides of the House that if her Department has any power at all to speed up the decisions of the committees studying the matter it should do so. In the meantime, however, we should impress upon people that there is no need to worry themselves to death and that they are not bound to get this dread disease just because they smoke.
9.59 p.m.
Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Chiefly because of the comments made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) I think it necessary to let the public know that every possible method of investigation into the matter is taking place. There is no doubt that cancer of the lung is increasing in this country. There must be a reason for it; indeed, there may be two or three reasons for it. There are branches of voluntary organisations and research organisations who are making all sorts of inquiries and investigations to find out whether it is possible to reach one or even more than one conclusion—
It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Redmayne.]
Mrs. Braddock: In Liverpool it is thought that smoke may have something to do with it, because the increase in cancer is not evenly distributed all over the country. The rate of increase is much larger, for instance, on urban Merseyside than in rural North Wales. It is almost certain that people smoke just as much in North Wales as on Merseyside, so there must be some factor or factors in addition to tobacco smoking which may be concerned in this increase.
It is clear from the statistics that there are about 2,000 cases a year that can definitely not be attributed to tobacco smoke. The fullest possible information should be given and the fullest investigation should be made. It would appear that the smokiness of the atmosphere or some other related factors are involved in the causation of lung cancer, since it has been shown that the incidence of cancer is greater on Merseyside and in Manchester than it is in towns where the atmospheric pollution is less. If I remember the figure rightly, the percentage of tar in smoke, particularly household smoke, is about 27, and some irritant may be responsible for lung cancer.
The British Empire Cancer Campaign are making detailed investigations on Merseyside into atmospheric pollution and its possible relationship to lung cancer, but it is not sufficient for an

341
organisation of that kind to undertake an investigation without some serious and detailed help from the Ministry of Health, who are the responsible authority.
The Ministry of Health should accept the responsibility and take some definite steps towards making further inquiries into this subject, and particularly into the relationship between atmospheric conditions and the incidence of lung cancer. In areas where there is a large housing estate and coal fires are chiefly used for heating and cooking, the tar content in the atmosphere is very much greater than it is in areas where there are factories which have to treat smoke before it is allowed to be emitted into the atmosphere.
I believe that the Ministry of Health have been rather backward in instigating and taking responsibility for investigations of this kind. I believe that generally speaking there is at the backs of the minds of the medical profession, and particularly pf medical officers of health in areas where there is very heavy smoke pollution, a belief that that factor may have some responsibility for the greater incidence of lung cancer in industrial areas than in rural areas where there is plenty of space and smoke is not concentrated to the same extent.
There are two sides to the question of panic. If people do not know anything about it or feel that no one is investigating it at all, the effect upon them is much worse psychologically than if they know that by every possible means the Ministry of Health and those responsible in the local areas are doing something to try to discover the cause or causes of the increase in lung cancer.
The fact that it is being diagnosed more quickly and correctly may have something to do with the increase. We have to discover what are the irritants which cause the onset of lung cancer. The Report of the General Register Office on the Regional and Local Differences in Cancer Death Rates was published in 1947. Anybody who is particularly interested in the statistics will find that the death rate and the incidence rate of lung cancer differ very greatly in different parts of the country.
In view of the fact that cigarette and pipe smoking goes on all over the coun-
342
try, it is folly to say that it is the main cause of lung cancer. There must be a cause; there may be one or two; but the Ministry should be very insistent and should take a much more detailed interest in the investigations which are now going on in Liverpool and Manchester on the question of smoke pollution and the degree of irritant in the smoke over big housing estates and areas where nothing is done to treat the smoke before it is emitted from chimneys.
Every possible avenue should be explored because there is no doubt—as the hon. Member for Peterborough said—that this subject scares people, and some of them are worried to death about it. The only way to ease that worry is to let them know that every possible avenue concerning the initial cause of lung cancer is being investigated, and that those organisations that are doing something about it are having the active and fullest support of the Ministry of Health in their endeavours to solve this very difficult problem.
10.7 p.m.
Mr. Richard Fort: I want to follow up the plea of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who has drawn on her very extensive knowledge of the hospital services in Liverpool and other parts of England, and who has such a clear mastery of the facts which have been published on this vexed subject. It is clear that we have a duty to put before the Ministry and also the medical profession—and in particular the research organisations—the very widespread anxiety about the increase of lung cancer. I think that this anxiety has been stirred up by sensational newspaper articles, which have reported in a popular form what have been rather technical statistical analyses.
The Ministry of Health have a duty here. Of course they do not carry out research themselves but they have unique facilities for making known the results of the investigations as they go on. As the hon. Lady said, it is not only that people want to know generally that work is going on, but that they require an authorised statement from those who can collect the available information and make, as it were, progress reports.

343
Members of this House and the newspapers have a common duty in not raising false hopes. The investigation of these matters is very complicated. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange and the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) said, there are many factors which may influence the increased incidence of lung cancer, and in any scientific investigation it is always very difficult to disentangle the effect of one factor from that of another. If that is true—and it is true in all scientific investigations—it is particularly true in the field of cancer research.
Despite all the millions of pounds which have been spent in this and other countries on cancer research, one of the reasons we are still only feeling our way so much is that what those who are researching into this field are investigating is the living cell. They are trying to answer the question why a certain cell in our body suddenly begins to behave like an anarchist—which is a term we can use on either side of the House; why, instead of behaving as it normally does, in a healthy way, it suddenly begins, regardless of the other cells surrounding it, to increase its activity. Its behaviour, whether in normal or abnormal conditions, is very complicated indeed. Therefore, it is inevitable that research will be slow.
So I think that while we have the job here of reminding those who are concerned with the matter about public anxiety, and reminding the Minister of Health that it is his duty to give a progress report whenever definite information is available, we have also the duty of not raising false hopes by suggesting that if research were concentrated on this particular form of cancer, or the sums of money being spent on cancer research were doubled, we should in a short time get a much more complete answer to the problem than we have now. It is inevitably a slow line of investigation.
However, with those provisos let us from time to time ask—and press, indeed, if need be—the Minister of Health to let us know how the work is going on, and whether anything new has been discovered which will, in the first place, relieve those who may be suffering, or assist in the diagnosis of the disease; and, in the
344
second place, show that we are making progress in this difficult, complicated medical field.
10.12 p.m.
Mr. C. R. Hobson: I shall detain the House for only a few moments to make two points. I think that the Minister will agree, as certainly the bulk of medical opinion agrees, that one of the causes of cancer is an irritant. It does so happen that in the manufacture of tobacco, and particularly of cigarette tobacco, a considerable amount of saltpetre is used, and saltpetre is known to be an irritant. I should like to know whether the Minister is examining that aspect of this problem.
I come to the second point, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) and commented upon by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), and that is the question of the incidence of atmospheric pollution. A tremendous number of new power stations have been built in this country—38 since the war. They burn a tremendous amount of coal. Between five and eight tons of coal are burned in each boiler per hour, and there is a tremendous amount of smoke coming through the vents.
There is public objection to the black smoke, and black smoke has to be treated. There are two ways of treating it. One can get beautiful white smoke by simply adding water. That often happens. I speak from many years' experience in this connection. One can put a floodlight on the chimneys of a power station, and people will say, "Look, the smoke washing plant is working to perfection," whereas in fact the case is that from the combustion there is saltpetre, and water is added, and we have the simple chemical formula H2SO4, which is sulphuric acid.
The residents of Chelsea and Battersea very often complain about the black smoke from Battersea Power Station. It has the effect of rotting their curtains. Indeed, we can find examples in the Committee Rooms of this House. It is also what has taken place in the Borough of Willesden. I know that power station engineers say, "We can neutralise that with ammonia." That is perfectly true, but these plants are very complicated and frightfully expensive, and care has to be

345
taken to avoid breakdowns. I feel that the increased amount of atmospheric pollution that is taking place as a result of this great fuel consumption by the power stations which are being built may have some relation to the increase in cancer, particularly cancer of the lung.
That is true not only of Great Britain but also of the United States of America, particularly in the industrial areas on the eastern seaboard and in Pennsylvania. It is interesting to note from the American statistics that it is in these large industrial agglomerations, where there are vast power stations with their tremendous kilowatt capacity, that there is a high incidence of cancer. I am not saying that there is any relationship between those two facts. I do not know. I am not an expert. What I do know is that in the opinion of the medical profession an irritant is a cause of cancer, and it would be just as well if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some information with regard to the pollution of the atmosphere through sulphur, and on the minor point I raised at the commencement of my remarks about saltpetre, a known irritant, being used in tobacco blending.
10.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) for the moderation with which he raised this very important subject which, as many hon. Members have already said, is of the gravest possible public concern because of the rise in the number of cases of cancer of the lung. This is recognised by the Ministry as an important cause of death which demands attention in its own right. In his 1950 Report the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry said:
"Cancer, and especially cancer of the lung, remains the greatest problem of medicine."
I think that the figures given by the hon. Member for Accrington of the rise in the number of cases of cancer of the lung, from 2,281 in 1931 to 13,247 in 1951, must be qualified. It is only fair to qualify them, rather than that people should accept them in all their horror. It must be appreciated that much of this rise is accounted for by vastly improved diagnosis, by the universal use of X-rays
346
in diagnosis which 20 years ago were very much less than they are today, and by the increased education of practitioners on cancer work so that they are now better able to diagnose cancer than they were hitherto.
Many of the deaths in 1931 diagnosed as due to bronchitis might today be diagnosed as deaths from cancer. So, while I do not for a moment suggest that there has not been a grave rise in the number of deaths from cancer of the lung, it is not fair to suggest that they are as horrific as the statistics of 20 years ago and now would lead one to believe.
In view of the gravity of the statistical evidence the Ministry and the Medical Research Council are not only examinng very carefully what lines of research into the problems of incidence and possible causative factors are most promising and should be encouraged, but they have also taken the initiative in stimulating new lines of research into this disease.
To deal with the report which was the basis of the hon. Member's speech tonight —the very important and valuable report by Dr. Doll and Professor Bradford Hill, in which investigation they considered the connection between smoking and cancer—I must emphasise to the House that this report must not be considered in isolation from all the other statistical and experimental work which is taking place at the present time.
Dr. Doll and Professor Hill undertook an examination, by statistical methods, of possible causative factors in lung cancer. As a result of their inquiries into the smoking habits of a number of patients, some of whom had and some of whom had not contracted the disease, they came to the conclusion that the association between tobacco smoking and lung cancer was a real one, the effect varying with the amount smoked. In the language of the statisticians, they endeavoured to show that the results were more than could be accounted by pure chance. That, I believe, is accepted by everybody.
A similar kind of investigation has been carried out in America with the same conclusion, and I would emphasise that the information we have so far received from the Medical Research Council shows that they do not regard this Report as wholly conclusive, and whilst they accept that re-

347
search has shown a statistical relationship between tobacco smoking and lung cancer, they do not necessarily accept that that statistical relationship means a causal relationship.
Even if causal relationship could be shown clearly, tobacco smoking cannot be the only cause, because, as we know, there are many thousands of people who die from cancer who have never smoked in their lives. It is important that this point should be emphasised, as the hon. Lady said. To say that A is associated with B does not mean that A causes B.
It would be helpful if I gave the House a brief outline of the very widespread research into the various aspects of this disease which is being conducted at the present time, because I do not think that it is generally realised the extent of research which is being conducted, directly and indirectly, in medical, surgical and scientific studies throughout the country. New lines of research are being followed and perhaps I will take as an example the new experiments in nuclear physics. Only a few days ago my right hon. Friend was present when the new Cobalt 60 beam unit, a great gift from Canada, was accepted by the British Empire Cancer Council. My right hon. Friend said that we are harnessing atomic energy towards peace instead of towards war. That is merely one aspect of the battle which is going on at the present time to find a cure for this disease.
At the same time the Medical Research Council are promoting and co-ordinating the research of all the voluntary bodies mentioned by the hon. Lady. I want to emphasise again, as I did on a previous occasion in an Adjournment debate, that the total sum spent by the Medical Research Council is only a fraction of the sums which are being spent on cancer research throughout the country, because every patient in every one of the hospital units and specialised cancer units are part and parcel of the research and investigation which is being done to try to find a cure for this disease.
In the National Health Service hospitals there is most intensive research. It is going on in the Royal Cancer Hospital and Chester Beattie Institute, the Christie Hospital and Holt Radium Institute and the Hammersmith Hospital. Every patient is diagnosed and treated as part
348
of this battle for a cure. In Hammersmith we have some of the latest and most modern equipment being used to find a new means by which we can diagnose and cure this disease. There are four linear accelerators for treatment and research in England and Wales already ordered and the rays from these very powerful instruments will be able to reach deep-seated tumours.
So far as research into cancer of the lung is concerned, at St. Bartholomew's Sir Ernest Kennaway is examining the ingredients of tobacco smoke for cancer-producing substances. That covers the point raised by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) who asked about saltpetre. That is being used as one of the subjects of the research. This research is carried out under the sponsorship of the Medical Research Council, and an expert has been seconded to the Medical Research Council to aid Sir Ernest in this work.
Another field of research is the Pneumoconiosis Research Institute in Cardiff where the Medical Research Council are again carrying out experiments by a very ingenious device to see the effect on mice of living for long periods in a heavy atmosphere of tobacco smoke. The cancer research unit at the Royal Beatson Memorial Hospital, in Glasgow is carrying out further extensive research in cancer-producing agents, again related to cigarette smoke. Attention is being devoted to the possible carcinogeneity of alkaloids present in tobacco or in tobacco smoke. Research is going on in these units to establish conclusions and to find cures.
Similar research is being conducted in the United States of America. There is fortunately no iron curtain in research on this subject and the very best brains throughout the world are co-ordinating their researches in the matter. In regard to atmospheric pollution and its relation to mortality from cancer of the lung, a point in which the hon. Lady was particularly interested, study is being undertaken, again by the Medical Research Council and research is being conducted by Dr. Percy Stocks. He is devoting his time to this aspect of air pollution by sulphur fumes and the incidence of smokiness in the atmosphere and whether they contribute to producing cancer of the lung;

349
and whether, alternatively, sunshine is a contributory factor in preventing it.
It is true to say that the difference between the incidence of cancer of the lung in rural areas and in densely populated industrial areas is very dramatic, and that is another wide field of research. A special study of the death rate of London where the density of population is great and the incidence of cancer is very high shows again evidence of greater incidence where the density of population is high and the atmospheric pollution fairly great.
So far as the arsenic content of certain tobaccos is concerned as a causation of lung cancer, all the evidence we have so far had shows that there is no support for this claim and that the amount is too small to be effective in carcinoma, I beg the House to remember that we cannot race research. All those concerned with this matter at the present time are doing their utmost to find a solution but we must see that nothing is done to panic the population while assuring them that everything is being done to find a cure for this disease One other matter mentioned and dismissed by the hon. Member who initiated the debate was research into exhaust gases of petrol and diesel engines. This has not been abandoned as a possible source contributing to cancer of the lung.
The Ministry's attitude is that we can only act on the best medical advice that we can get. The hon. Gentleman said he was a layman; we, too, are laymen
350
in this matter. As to the Advisory Committee on cancer and radiotherapy they have not yet come to any conclusion or given us any advice going beyond the statement which I have made on the correlation between tobacco smoke and cancer of the lung. Therefore the Department can only be non-committal for the time being in this matter.
We have men of high standing on the Medical Research Council and the Standing Advisory Committee who are devoted to the cause of solving this problem as soon as they can. The House will realise that research is proceeding all the time. It is a long-term matter requiring careful sifting of results and highly complicated experimental work over a long period and the collection of vital statistical data.
The report we have had is important. It is one specific item of research which cannot be picked out in isolation or termed conclusive. Everyone in the health service shares our concern and I can assure hon. Members that the Medical Research Council will have no hesitation in carrying on further research into any particular line which shows promise and will do everything in their power to find a solution and a cure of this dread disease.
The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Childbirth Analgesia
  Childbirth Analgesia
  Hearing Aid (Personal Case)
  Hearing Aid (Personal Case)
  Gynaecologist, Oldham
  Gynaecologist, Oldham
HOSPITALS
  Joint-Consultative Committees
  Joint-Consultative Committees
  Tuberculosis Treatment
  Tuberculosis Treatment
  Regional Boards (Capital Allocations)
  Regional Boards (Capital Allocations)
  Thoracic Surgery, Newcastle
  Thoracic Surgery, Newcastle
  Tuberculosis Treatment
  Tuberculosis Treatment
  BLIND PERSONS (ACCOMMODATION)
  BLIND PERSONS (ACCOMMODATION)
  MINISTRY OF MATERIALS
  MINISTRY OF MATERIALS
EDUCATION
  School Meals
  School Meals
  New Schools
  New Schools
  School Population
  School Population
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  Technical Colleges (Degrees)
  Technical Colleges (Degrees)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  University Awards (Tuition Fees)
  University Awards (Tuition Fees)
  French Lessons
  French Lessons
  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS DEPARTMENT (ECONOMIES)
  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS DEPARTMENT (ECONOMIES)
  CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION
  CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION
  BECHUANALAND (CORONATION REPRESENTATIVES)
  BECHUANALAND (CORONATION REPRESENTATIVES)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Anglo-Brazilian Trade
  Anglo-Brazilian Trade
  Machinery Imports (Committee)
  Machinery Imports (Committee)
  Factory Building, Scotland
  Factory Building, Scotland
  INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS CONFERENCE
  INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS CONFERENCE
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Cinema Admissions (Tax)
  Cinema Admissions (Tax)
  Car Allowances
  Car Allowances
  Overseas Forces (Gift Parcels)
  Overseas Forces (Gift Parcels)
  IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE
  IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE
AGRICULTURE
  East Coast Floods (Land Rehabilitation)
  East Coast Floods (Land Rehabilitation)
  Sheep Worrying
  Sheep Worrying
  Allotments (Rents)
  Allotments (Rents)
  Farm Institute Students (Call-up)
  Farm Institute Students (Call-up)
  Apiaries (Foul Brood Disease)
  Apiaries (Foul Brood Disease)
  Executive Committees (Land)
  Executive Committees (Land)
  Apples and Pears (Marketing Scheme)
  Apples and Pears (Marketing Scheme)
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  SEA DEFENCE WORKS
  SEA DEFENCE WORKS
HOME DEPARTMENT
  East Coast Flood Losses (Compensation)
  East Coast Flood Losses (Compensation)
  Policewomen
  Policewomen
  Coronation
  Coronation
  N.E. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SCHEMES)
  N.E. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SCHEMES)
EMPLOYMENT
  Factories (Protective Masks)
  Factories (Protective Masks)
  Steel Works, Redcar (Dispute)
  Steel Works, Redcar (Dispute)
  Barnsley and Hayes
  Barnsley and Hayes
  HOUSING ESTATES (COMMUNITY CENTRES)
  HOUSING ESTATES (COMMUNITY CENTRES)
  TANGANYIKA (COFFEE CURING COMPANY)
  TANGANYIKA (COFFEE CURING COMPANY)
  GOLD COAST AND NIGERIA (FLOUR IMPORTS)
  GOLD COAST AND NIGERIA (FLOUR IMPORTS)
  NIGERIA (WAR DISABILITY PENSIONS)
  NIGERIA (WAR DISABILITY PENSIONS)
  NYASALAND (ADVISORY LABOUR BOARDS)
  NYASALAND (ADVISORY LABOUR BOARDS)
SCOTLAND
  Building Costs Committee
  Building Costs Committee
  S.-E. Hospital Board (Capital Allocation)
  S.-E. Hospital Board (Capital Allocation)
  YUGOSLAVIA (U.K. AID)
  YUGOSLAVIA (U.K. AID)
  TELEPHONE KIOSKS, DERBY
  TELEPHONE KIOSKS, DERBY
  TELEVISION (ANGLO-FRENCH PROGRAMMES)
  TELEVISION (ANGLO-FRENCH PROGRAMMES)
  WEST AFRICAN FORCES (COMMISSIONS)
  WEST AFRICAN FORCES (COMMISSIONS)
  VICTORIA TOWER (SCAFFOLDING)
  VICTORIA TOWER (SCAFFOLDING)
  FOODSTUFFS (DOLLAR EXPENDITURE)
  FOODSTUFFS (DOLLAR EXPENDITURE)
  CONSOLIDATED REFINERIES, HAIFA
  CONSOLIDATED REFINERIES, HAIFA
  INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS (PRICES)
  INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS (PRICES)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
2.36 p.m.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON BILL
Read 2a.

RHOANGLO GROUP BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, in case any of your Lordships may wonder what Rhoanglo means, perhaps I should explain that this is a Bill to provide for the transfer to Northern Rhodesia of certain, companies. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

GREAT OUSE RIVER BOARD (REVIVAL OF POWERS, & C.) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.38 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALIS BURY): My Lords, before we proceed to further consideration of this Bill, there is a brief statement which I have to make to the House. The Clerk of Parliaments has informed me that he very much regrets to report that there was an unfortunate omission of the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, from the second Division List last night. By some unfortunate accident, the noble Lord was neither counted by the Tellers nor recorded by the clerks in the Division Lobby. My noble friend, Lord Mancroft, who was a Teller
194
for the Not-Contents, has confirmed the noble Lord's claim to have passed through the Lobby. Sir Robert proposes, therefore, to correct the record of the Division by adding Lord Mathers' name to the Contents list, the figures for which, accordingly, will be 23, instead of 22, as at present recorded. An amended Division List will appear with the Minuses of Proceedings for to-day and will also be recorded in Hansard.*
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Marquess for the statement he has made, and for the comforting assurance that I was not entirely over looked? The accident may have been due to some extent to the fact that my name is not pronounced "Matthers"—that is, with a short "a"—but "Maythers"—with the "a" long. I certainly passed through the Lobby as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, well remembers, and I certainly pronounced my name quite distinctly when I approached the Tellers.
Clause 17:
Repeals and amendments relating to the Commission's functions with respect to road passenger transport
(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, it shall not be lawful for the Commission to run any public service vehicle as a contract carriage:
Provided that this subsection shall riot apply so as to pi event the use of any public service vehicle as a contract carriage to carry a pleasure party consisting of persons employed by the Commission, with or without their families or friends, or to carry any party on any journey which begins or ends within the city of Sheffield the counts borough of Halifax, the county borough of Huddersfield, or the borough of Todmorden.
(4) The following provisions (being an adaptation of provisions contained in section fifteen of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, which, until the coming into force of the Trans port Act, 1947, applied to the London Passenger Transport Board) shall apply to the Commission—
(c) the licensing authority for public service vehicles, in considering whether they will grant or back a road service licence to the Commission in respect of any route or part of a route which is outside the London special area, shall, in addition to the matters to which they are required to have regard by virtue of section seventy-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, have regard to the duty of the Commission to provide or secure the provision of an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport for the London Passenger Transport Area,
* See Cols. 135-6 and 237-8

195
and for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that subsection (2) of section twenty-six of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933 (which relates to charges and fares), has effect in the case of a public service vehicle operating wholly or in part outside the London special area, subject, as respects any part of the service outside that area, to the provisions of section seventy-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 8, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): Amendment No. 2—Lord Gifford.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved, in the proviso to subsection (3), after "employed" to insert "within the London Passenger Transport area." The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I say, first, that my name is pronounced "Jifford"! This small Amendment refers to a proviso in Clause 17 of the Bill which allows the Commission to run contract carriages: that is, to provide hire buses outside the London Passenger Transport area for the purposes of employees of the Commission and their friends. A somewhat similar Amendment was put down on the Committee stage, and it was stated on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that it was felt that this concession was clearly one that a good employer would make. I had the honour to point out that this clause as it is worded goes far beyond the employees who actually work in the vehicles, and I suggested then that it should be confined to employees of the London Transport Executive.
The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, pointed out that they might want to extend it to the office staffs and so forth in the London area—an argument in which I saw some force. I also pointed out that if this concession were allowed to all employees of the Commission it would mean its extension to employees of Commission-owned hotels in Scotland, bargemen from canals, and literally hundreds of thousands of men and women throughout the United Kingdom. This, I think, really goes far beyond what is intended. I may say that these seaside parties are catered for mainly by small
196
coach proprietors who are forbidden to operate in the London Passenger Transport area. They feel that their livelihood is being threatened by allowing this vast number of Commission employees to organise parties, probably at cheap rates with which they cannot possibly compete.
This new Amendment which I put forward (and from what the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said, I feel that he is sympathetic) really confines the clause to employees of the Commission within the London Passenger Transport area—that is, any employees of the Commission in that area, and their families and friends—but it keeps outside the concession, say, a party of railwaymen from Crewe and so forth who have really nothing what ever to do with London Transport and are not in the true sense of the word employees in those vehicles for which the concession is made. I feel that this restriction is not at all onerous and it is quite within the intention and spirit of what Her Majesty's Government are trying to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 29, after ("employed") insert ("within the London Passenger Transport area").—(Lord Gifford.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I first point out to the noble Lord that my noble friend's name, though spelt "De La Warr" is pronounced "Delaware." The noble Lord has raised the question of the position of contract carriages under the Commission. As the Bill is drafted at present, the Commission will be able to carry out contract carriage work, except for their employees and families, only in the London area and in certain other parts of the country, notably Sheffield, Huddersfield, Halifax and Todmorden. The Amendment says that those employees who are to be carried by contract carriage shall be confined to those employed within the London Passenger Transport area. The first point I must make now is that that is an arbitrary and an uncertain distinction. I have only to take as an example the staff of a train—and we must remember that the whole of our railway system comes under this contract carriage arrangement—where the guard may be based on Birmingham and goes daily to London. In that case it would be very hard to say whether or not, in point of fact, he was employed in London.

197
The second point is that although to a very large extent this is a matter concerning the London Transport Executive, there are buses in other parts of the country—notably places like Sheffield and those to which I have referred; there are not many, but there are some. Moreover, the Commission can at any time employ or let on contract carriage any of the buses which belong to the companies which they entirely control. So it really is not a major point in that sense. I suggest that the Amendment is rather arbitrary. After all, there is to be free competition. Anyone else can compete; he is quite free to do so. The only occasion on which it might be said that others would not be competing would be on what might be described as a staff outing, when the driver likes to give his services at perhaps no cost. With great respect, I say that in those cases it is perfectly proper. There are obviously proper cases of staff outings and I do not think the drivers would give their services unless it was an outing of their friends and comrades. That is the only case in which it could be said that perfectly free competition does not exist.
It would be unfair to the Commission to take away this obvious and clear-cut duty on a good employer to allow, for instance, the staff of the Gleneagles Hotel or the bargemen of the Crinan Canal Co. to be catered for. I feel that the Commission should be able to do this within reason. I ask the noble Lord to with draw the Amendment because I do not think it is, in effect, going to amount to very much. I do not really think it should be, I was going to say, "pushed" beyond the point which appears in the Bill. I suggest that we should be imposing a restriction which would be unreasonable.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I say that the noble Earl speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government has stated the views of the Opposition precisely?
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, cannot accept this Amendment because I felt that it was a reasonable compromise which would not, as I said before, in fringe the spirit of what was intended.
198
In the circumstances, I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment, but I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he could give me an undertaking that this provision will be used only for genuine staff parties. There is great uneasiness among the private contract coach operators that, for instance, a driver and a conductor of a bus might meet a number of friends in a pub, and the party might consist of just those two men from the London Transport Executive and thirty friend from the local darts club. Obviously, that would be an unfair situation. If the noble Earl can give me an undertaking that this will be confined to genuine staff parties—that is to say, the members of the staff and their families and friends, I should be happy to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not give any such assurance. This is a matter which falls within the competence of the Commission. They are given certain duties to perform. We have no reason to prejudge them or to think that they will neglect those duties. The matter of watching a duty like this is one which may safely be left wish the Commission, and I hope no such assurance will be given.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may with the permission of the House, say that I really do not think contract parties arise from parties of friends in a public house? I think the noble Lord knows quite well that if this was going, to be misused it world be necessary to use a travel agency of some character—that is to say, to advertise that something, of the sort was to happen. If that is the case, the passengers will clearly not be friends. The word "friends" is perfectly clear and definite, and would not apply if this were operated through an agency or by means of an advertisement. I think that the Bill as drafted is fairly watertight, and that it would be thoroughly disreputable for the Commission to make any other use of the term which is included here.
LORD GIFFORD: I still think that this might be done other than through a travel agency. However, I beg leave to with draw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.52 p.m.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR)THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR) moved to add to the proviso to subsection (3):
"or so as to prevent, up till the end of September, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, the use of any public service vehicle as a contract carriage for the purpose of performing any contract entered into by the Commission before the passing of this Act."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is a further slight relaxation of the general ban that is imposed on the running of contract vehicles by the Commission. It is put down in order to meet a useful point that was raised on Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We are indebted to him for raising the point by which, quite simply, he reminded us that the Commission may well have made—indeed, almost certainly have made—certain arrangements and contracts for this summer. This Amendment meets that point, and accordingly I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 33, at end insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I express my appreciation at the action of the noble Lord? As I said when I raised this point, it will mean that the London Transport Executive and their passengers will now benefit to the extent of a few thousand pounds. I am sure, that in these hard times in London, with the anxiety which London fares are causing, the travelling public will be very grateful to the noble Earl, as indeed I am.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (4) (c) after "area" to insert:
"but within the London Passenger Transport Area."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. This point was raised by my noble friends, Lord Teynham and, I think, Lord Rothes, in regard to the effect of the Statute. The anxiety aroused in regard to paragraph (c) was that the Commission would acquire preferential treatment when appearing before the licensing authority of an unlimited area surrounding London, and that preferential treatment would arise on the ground that the Commission have a monopoly in the special area where they do not require a licence and that they have a duty to provide transport.
200
This Amendment is intended to confine the consideration which the licensing authority will give to the duty imposed on the Commission within the area laid down in the Act of 1933—that is, the London Passenger Transport Area. It is in this area that consideration will be given by the licensing authority. Out side that area, private companies and the Commission will apply on an equal footing for permission to operate, with no statutory advantage either on one side or on the other. I suggest that this is a fair Amendment, and I hope that I have satisfied my noble friends. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 9, after ("area") insert ("but within the London Passenger Transport Area").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to Her Majesty's Government for setting down this Amendment, which certainly goes a long way towards meeting the point which I raised on the Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, after sub section (5) to insert:
"(6) (i) For the avoidance of doubt and without prejudice to any other power them enabling it is hereby declared that the Commission shall have power from time to time to sell or otherwise dispose of all or any securities which they may hold in any body corporate mentioned in sub-sub-paragraph (ii) (a) hereof on such terms as the Commission may think fit."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has already appeared as part of an Amendment and was debated during the Committee stage when, with all due respect to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, no reply was in fact given on this point. I have set the Amendment down again in order to clarify the powers of the Commission—as to whether they have, in fact, the power from time to time to sell all or any securities which they may own in those companies. There appears to be some doubt as to the interpretation of Section 2 (7) of the Transport Act, 1947, but at least it seems clear that the Commission could voluntarily sell shares owned by them in a passenger road transport undertaking, since even under the present Bill (Clause 24 (1)) the Commission have a duty in so far as it is considered expedient, to provide passenger road services.
Another reason why this new subsection is advocated is to make quite clear what might reasonably be the attitude of mind of the Transport Commission in the future. Subsection (6) contemplates that the Minister might give directions as to the disposal of securities and it would not, I think, be unnatural if, in view of this, the Commission felt it desirable to await any such instructions—indeed, they might consider it wrong for them to anticipate a view which might be formed by the Minister. I would point out that even if the Commission already have powers of sale, this point would of course still remain. I think it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that, in relation to passenger road transport, the Commission should be in a somewhat similar position to that of the railways in 1947, when, of course, they could either run bus services themselves or take a financial stake in operating companies in partnership with others. I suggest that it is desirable to remove all doubt as to the ability of the Commission to take either action. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, the only reason I did not give a complete answer last time was that, not being a first-class lawyer, I did not wish to give a final legal opinion without taking the highest legal opinion open to me. I have now done so, and I am assured that this Amendment is quite unnecessary, because, by virtue of Section 2 (7) of the Transport Act, 1947, the Commission may dispose of any part of their under taking or any property which in their opinion is not required for the discharge of their duty. Where there is, in fact, no doubt at all as to the legal interpretation of a Statute, it is a bad plan to introduce unnecessary sections either to remove doubt or for the avoidance of doubt. The only result of doing that is that you are apt to cast doubt elsewhere where no doubt exists. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: May I ask one further question, to get this absolutely clear? I suppose it is within the power of the Commission to
202
consider it their duty to run less road passenger transport than, say, they are running at the moment or immediately after the Bill is passed. I realise that the services are to a certain extent fixed by what the licensing authority consider should be run in the way of passenger transport in the various areas. Presumably it is within the power of the Commission to consider that it is their duty, in certain circumstances, to operate a smaller amount of road passenger transport than is operated at the moment.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I should like to say just a few words with regard to Section 2 (7) of the Transport Act of 1947 which has given me cause for worry. It states in that subsection that:
"The Commission may dispose, whether absolutely or for a term of years, of any part of their undertaking or any property which in their opinion is not required by them for the discharge of their duties under this Act…"
If the Commission had a certain road passenger transport undertaking which was very profitable, and supposing they should say that in their opinion it was a transport undertaking
"required by them for the discharge of their duties under this Act,"
then they would not, I assume, be free to dispose of it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: They must be the judges of what is required for the purpose of the Act. Certain duties are imposed upon them by the Act of 1947 and will be by this Bill when it becomes an Act. Those duties are statutory duties which they have to discharge. They will be smaller in future than they have been, but such duties as are imposed upon them the Commission must discharge; they world be guilty of a breach of an Act of Parliament if they did riot do so. But they must be the judges, subject to the broad direction of the Minister, of what their duties are and how they ought to cart' them out. They certainly would not be entitled to dispose of vehicles which are necessary to them for the discharge of those duties. But they are absolutely free, under the Act of 1947—which is not affected here—to dispose of any vehicles or any property which in their opinion is not required for the discharge of those statutory duties. I cannot make the matter any plainer. I know that Acts of Parliament are often difficult to understand—I myself have often found difficulty in understanding

203
them—but these passages in the Act and in the present Bill are passages which I find very easy to understand.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving this explanation. I think it is now quite clear that the Commission have that power which I merely wished to make certain was already there. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.4 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (6), after "then," to insert:
"the Minister shall keep under continuous review the position of each of such first-mentioned bodies corporate."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage I set down an Amendment which provided that the Minister should from time to time review the position as to the directions that he might give the Commission to dispose of securities in a passenger vehicle undertaking. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, indicated that the Minister would not wish to review the position at any one time, but would want to keep the whole matter under continuous review. This Amendment has been set down to meet this point. I feel that if this Amendment is incorporated in the Bill it will ensure that the position will not be forgotten, and that it will be looked at from time to time in the normal course of Ministerial administration.
During the Committee stage debate, speaking on a somewhat similar Amendment, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, appeared to be saying, in effect, that "You must look at each company on its merits in order to see whether it is behaving as a bus company with the nor mal objectives which a bus company ought to have at heart or whether it is hag-ridden by undue railway influence." It would seem from the noble Viscount's statement that in order to allow the Minister to form a fair appreciation of the behaviour of each company, a long time might elapse—possibly two or three years. I am sure that it cannot be the intention of the Government that apparent "bus-mindedness" should be the only criterion, and I feel that it is always difficult in
204
these cases to prove a negative. It is not what these companies do or will do, so much as what they do not do or will not do. I feel that the remarks of the noble Viscount might leave the impression that only one set of circumstances could result in a directive being given by the Minister.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 6, after ("then") insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, if every word I spoke in the course of a nine-days debate were to be enshrined in an Act of Parliament, the Statute Book would become very large, but I do not know that great advantage would accrue to the national interest. But I really think that the powers in the Bill in this respect do not require elaboration any more than they require any curtailment. I think I did say something on the lines mentioned by the noble Lord, but I did so rather to make a contrast with an Amendment he had before which looked as if there was to be a review that would be made once and for all—or at long intervals. What I intended to say was that the Minister ought to be able to look at any company at any time when the company wanted looking at—it might be of his own motion, or it might be because of some complaint that a locality was not getting adequate service. The Minister ought to be able to look at that and look at a particular company in particular circumstances. But it is not necessary to insert any words to achieve that. That was why I did not like the words which meant that the Minister had to make a comprehensive review from time to time. That is not the way the scheme works. He would be working continuously with the Commission: that is the way these things must work, if they are to work properly.
Supposing you put in that the Minister has to keep the matter under continuous review? You are putting upon him a statutory duty, not just the ordinary duty that all Ministers have of doing the job entrusted to them, but some special and rather exceptional function, quite apart from his general duty. And he has got to do something about it. He has got to set up machinery of continuous review. That means that somehow he has to be in continuous review relationship with every company in which the Transport

205
Commission are interested. Really this is overloading the Bill, if I may respect fully say so, with detailed instruction, and it will not help either the day-to-day activities or the general spirit in which business is run. I am sure that all that is necessary in the interests of the public is there in the general duty and power of the Minister, and I hope that we shall not try to particularise it. This sort of Amendment raises the same objection as I have to inserting a particular element of instruction where that is unnecessary. We not only might overload the whole Bill but might get things out of their proper perspective and proportion.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this Amendment, as I spoke to the one which was moved on the Committee stage. I appreciate what the noble Viscount has just said, but I think the actual words in this Amendment happen to be the words of wisdom that fell from his lips in the Committee stage. I was slightly comforted by something which he said yesterday. His words were to the effect that if "may" appeared in the Bill he would not have it there unless it was the intention that something should be done about it. "May" does appear in the Bill, and if the noble Viscount can give us some assurance that the matter will not be forgotten, but will be considered with an open mind, then, speaking for myself, I shall be perfectly content.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I speak again just to say that of course I give that assurance? Here is a duty on the Minister which he has to exercise in any circumstances, if in any circumstances, and not in one particular set of circumstances, he thinks it desirable in the public interests so to do. Of course, whenever the occasion arises for him to consider a matter like this, it is the duty of the Minister to take whatever action he thinks right and proper.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the assurances he has given on this point. I do not wish to pursue the matter any further, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Exclusion of certain enactments]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this Amendment, which is purely procedural. In repealing Sections 37 and 38 of the 1933 Act it was overlooked that certain provisions of subsection (13) in fact applied to the procedure of the Transport Tribunal. This is necessary and accordingly we retain it by this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 39, leave out ("sections thirty-seven and") and insert ("section thirty-seven (except subsection (13) thereof) and section").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 22:
Special procedure for temporary authorisation of increased charges
22.—(1) If it appears to the Commission that the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say—

(a) that there has been or will be an increase in their costs which will, unless met quickly by an increase in their charges, seriously affect their financial position; and

(b) that the necessary increase of their revenue cannot reasonably be obtained without making charges greater than those authorised by the charges schemes for the time being in force.

they may take either or both of the following courses, that is to say—

(i) they may apply to the Transport Tribunal under this subsection for temporary amendments of all or any of the schemes (being schemes devoted exclusively or principally to determining the charges to be made for the carriage of passengers) so as to increase all or any of the charges authorised by the schemes;

(ii) they may, by notice published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes and in such other manner as may appear to them best adapted for informing persons affected, declare that all or any of the maximum charges fixed by any of the charges schemes (not being such changes schemes as afore said) are to be treated, as from a date specified in the notice, as increased by such percentage as may be so specified, not being more than ten per cent.;

and where such a notice is published, the schemes shall until such date as may be fixed under subsection (6) of this section be deemed to be amended accordingly.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsecticn (1) (ii), to leave out "percentage as may be so specified, not being more than ten per cent." and to insert:
"percentages as may be so specified in relation to those maximum charges respectively."

207
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. If I may, I will take in also Amendment No. 55 and the un-numbered Amendment after it. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in the course of Committee stage. The noble Lord pointed out that here we are dealing with what is known as the "headroom"clause— that is, the clause which enables the Commission to raise their charges fairly quickly. The noble Lord pointed out that it would be possible at successive moments of time to increase charges by 10 per cent. on each occasion. If that were the case, theoretically, there could be a 10 per cent. increase every day for a whole month, and the possibility of such action would inevitably undermine the whole work of the Transport Tribunal. I replied to the noble Lord that though this was theoretically possible, it would be highly improbable; but we have tried to meet his point in this Amendment.
There are two procedures under this clause, one for passengers and one for freight. Passenger fare increases have a quick procedure before the Tribunal and freight rate increases can be made by notice in the Gazette. Under the Amendment it is still possible for the Commission to raise the fares on two or more occasions, but it is provided that the aggregate increase shall not exceed 10 per cent. until the full procedure laid down under subsection (5) of this clause, applying Section 79 of the Transport Act of 1947, has been concluded and the level of the maximum charges laid down again. I think this meets the point raised by the noble Lord. May I also mention that the provision dealing with freight does not yet apply because there is no charges scheme up to the present time.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert ("percentages as may be so specified in relation to those maximum charges respectively."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his kind words about my Amendment. Although he was not able to accept it on Committee stage, he has carried out almost everything which I wished to do and, although in quite a different way, he has
208
prevented any increases under the headroom clause from being more than 10 per cent. in one year. I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his consideration.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 6, at end insert—
("Provided that the increase made in any one maximum charge by a notice published under this subsection or, where more than one notice so published is in force at the same time, by all the notices so in force taken together, shall not exceed ten per cent.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords. I beg to move the next Amendment, which is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 14, leave out from ("necessary") to the end of line 26, and insert—
("Provided that the Tribunal, on any such application—

(a) shall not, in relation to any scheme, make any order which will, in their opinion, either alone or together with any other order under this subsection which is still in force and affects that scheme, result in an increase of more than ten per cent. in the revenue of the Commission from the charges to which that scheme relates;

(b) shall not make any order which in their opinion will result in the revenue of the Commission from passenger transport services provided for the purposes of so much of their undertaking as is at the passing of this Act being carried on through the London Transport Executive being increased by more than so much of the increase in the costs of the Commission which was the occasion of the application as is properly apportionable to the provision of such services.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this Amendment carries out my undertaking to the Realm of Scotland. Your Lordships will remember that we agreed to increase the Commission to a number not exceeding fifteen and in that enlarged number I promised there should be two who were thoroughly conversant with Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 23, at end insert ("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.")—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, on behalf of my Scottish colleagues I should like to thank the noble Viscount for introducing this Amendment, which will ensure that the special interests of Scotland are fully considered by the Commission.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I rise once more to call attention to the due claims, rights and what ought to be privileges of Wales. Your Lordships may remember that last night there was another Amendment on the Order Paper which recognised the due rights and privileges of Scotland. I made no objection to that. Now on this Amendment I am returning good for evil. Last night the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, did not support me but, on the contrary, made a strong speech against me on the curious ground that Scotland is larger than Wales and farther away from London. I could turn this argument the other way round, and say that I think the Government ought to look after small countries because the larger are well able to look after themselves. But I do not do that. I base my claim on the justice of the case. Everything that the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, said in his successful plea for Scotland could be said of Wales. It is a separate nation, with separate problems and it has difficulties of its own. This has been recognised by Her Majesty's Government because they have appointed a special Secretary of State for Welsh Affairs. I want to take Sir David Maxwell Fyfe out of the unemployed list and give him a job in transport. As I said last night, I feel sorry for him when he has to go round Wales, as he will have to do, and explain to the Welsh people why his opinion and advice have not been sought by the Government with regard to transport in Wales.
On the last occasion, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, suggested that he might approve of the Amendment then submitted on the curious ground that it came within the formula put forward in Lord Goschen's speech with regard to England and Scotland. It seems curious, but that is what the noble Viscount said. He quoted the Goschen formula in his speech, although incorrectly. I mention that because it shows once more that the Government have not really gone into this case as carefully as they might have done. If
210
they had, the noble Viscount would not have quoted incorrectly the formula which Lord Goschen elaborated and which is set out in the report of the Arts Council.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the formula has nothing to do with the Arts Council. I have not the vaguest idea of who the Arts Council are. But I have suffered under the Goschen formula all the time I have been a Minister and those who can go back farther than I are well acquainted with it.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I under stand that the Arts Council in Scotland received grants under the Goschen formula. The noble Viscount adduced the Goschen formula and incorrectly de scribed it to the House. I merely mentioned that in passing because I do not think we ought to allow anything incorrect to remain in our proceedings. It does not really matter from my point of view, because, Goschen formula or not, I suggest to your Lordships that once representation has been given to Scotland, representation should be given to Wales and there should be equally representation from England. Once the thing has been put on a nationalistic basis there is no reason at all why both England and Wales should not be equally represented and people appointed to the Commission because they are Englishmen and because they are Welshmen. I should never have made this point, because I do not think it is so important to have people of various nationalities on the Commission, but Lord Bilsland put down the Amendment and the Government have accepted it, and once the Government have accepted a proposal of this kind on a nationalistic basis I think they should carry their nationalism to the full extent and recognise the due claims, not only of Wales, but of England.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I should like to raise another Scottish voice from this side of the House to say that a great deal is contained in the four lines of the Amendment. I venture to express fears and apprehensions about this Bill as a whole, but it seems to me that in these four tines there is provided at least some protection from the damage and disabilities and disturbances that Scotland may suffer under the Bill. To that extent I am grateful for the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I must claim my right of reply. I am glad to find myself on this occasion in the same Lobby, so to speak, as Lord Mathers, but I hope we shall not have to go into the Lobbies over this matter. The Goschen formula, which was alluded to by myself, slightly by way of persiflage on the last occasion, was described with perfect accuracy. I did not refer to the Arts Council, whatever that body is—and I am sure it is an admirable one. No doubt it gets a grant. If there is an Arts Council in Scotland which is entitled to get a grant, then I have no doubt it gets the grant on the Goschen formula. When I described the Goschen formula as eleven-eightieths, that is exactly what the Goschen formula is.
LORD MATHERS: Will the noble Viscount allow me to say this? The Goschen formula is not eleven-eightieths. That does not describe it correctly. The Goschen formula is eleven-ninety-oneths; it is eleven as to eighty; that is, not eleven parts of eighty, but eleven parts of ninety-one.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I bow and apologise. It is then eleven-ninetyone—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oneths!
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I never could do arithmetic. I accept that as I often in another place used to accept instruction from Lord Mathers. Be that as it may, there really is complete justification, I think, for giving these two special seats to Scotland or to persons who are particularly conversant with the circumstances and requirements of Scotland.
Let me tell the House in a sentence or two why I think Scotland is distinguishable from Wales. It is not that we want to back Scottish nationalism as against Welsh nationalism. It is not because of the comparative size of the two countries. But, for all these purposes of transport, Scotland will be an entity in a way in which Wales, I imagine, will not. I do not attempt to forecast with accuracy the shape of things to come, but I should imagine—indeed, I think the Bill lays it down—that Scotland, on decentralisation, is to be a region or an area, or whatever it is called. Therefore that is recognised in advance; but when it comes to
212
making the areas under any decentralisation scheme, I should think it extremely improbable that Wales would figure as an area. In nearly everything, certainly in all questions of transport, South Wales and North Wales really fall into different areas. Anybody who has travelled there knows that. The one thing that you certainly cannot do by any known means of transport, except perhaps a helicopter, is get from South Wales to North Wales, or North Wales to South Wales. If you are going to use the railway you have to go right round, almost to Holyhead, to get across.
I imagine that when it comes to Wales —which shall have full consideration; I will not go through what I said again but I recited last time the provisions regarding the special consultative council and so on, for Wales under this Bill—and when it comes to splitting up under any decentralisation scheme, it will be almost certain that South Wales, Cardiff, and that area, will fall into the south-western area, linking up with Bristol and so on, and North Wales will be much more likely to link up with Cheshire and Lancashire. Though I appreciate that as a good Welshman Lord Ogmore had to enter the lists on behalf of Wales, I really think there is a good case for putting Scotland in this special position.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to add to the clause:
"(4) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the matters to which licensing authorities for public service vehicles and licensing authorities for goods vehicles are to have regard in exercising their discretion to grant or refuse applications for licences do not include the duty imposed upon the Commission by paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section three of the Transport Act, 1947, as amended by subsection (1) of this section."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is one of the exceptional cases where I am advised, and therefore think, that it is desirable to avoid doubt. The question was raised whether the words in the Bill as it stands could or might conceivably lead a licensing authority to consider that where an application is made for a licence the Commission have some special position of privilege or preference. I declined to accept an Amendment earlier because I wanted to be sure that I was

213
not unnecessarily putting in some interpretation clause when it would have been wrong. I have now consulted the legal authorities, and I am advised that there might be such a doubt and that therefore this is one of the cases where it is wise to put in a clause of this kind. Therefore, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 39, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for moving this Amendment which does in fact meet an Amendment which was introduced during the Committee stage in my name and the names of noble friends. We had drawn attention to the statutory duty imposed upon the Commission to run a passenger service on the roads, and we had rather hoped to leave it that the Commission should have the power to run the buses bat should not be under a duty to do so. We were nervous because we thought that where the duty was imposed upon them by the Act they would have an advantage when they applied to licensing authorities for licences. We feel that this important point has been covered, and on behalf of my noble friends and myself who raised the point originally I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26:
Provisions as to pension rights
26.—(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 with that employment, having had pension rights under pension schemes (hereafter in this section referred to as "existing pension schemes"), cease to be in the employment of the Commission 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 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
214
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 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.
3.30 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHhad given notice of three Amendments to subsection (1), the first being after "emoluments" to insert:
"or change in the nature or terms of their employment."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60 together. Noble Lords will remember that on the Committee stage I raised a point as to whether a Government Amendment moved to this clause did what it purported to do. It purported to make crystal clear the position of an employee who was in a pensionable job inside the British Transport Commission, whether or not he lost his compensatory rights if removed from that pensionable job to a non-pensionable job. There was no question of his rights being affected if he had left the employment of the Commission, but only if he remained in the employment of the Commission. The noble Earl. Lord Selkirk, and I had quite a discussion about this matter. I preferred what was in the Bill the noble Earl preferred what he was moving into the Bill. I have taken legal opinion, as high as is open to me, and that legal opinion, with great can dour, said that we were both wrong and that this was the only way to put it right. Therefore, I have put down these three Amendments to make it quite clear that an employee who is in pensionable employment within the Commission, who through reorganisation envisaged under this Bill goes to a non-pensionable job within the Commission, does not lose his compensatory rights. Noble Lords can see the Amendments, and I do not think I need explain how the clause will read. For the purpose of any discussion that may be necessary, I beg to move Amendment No. 58.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 35,after ("emoluments") insert ("or change in the nature or terms of their employment".—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth).
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that this was the only occasion during the whole of the Committee stage on which discussions were asked for.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I know of no other. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell me of any other occasions.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, six of them.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am referring to occasions when discussions were asked for, and held. What I say is that, so far as I know, this was the only occasion when discussions were asked for, and they were certainly held in this case. The noble Lord has drawn attention to the point of a possible change in the Commission from pensionable to non-pensionable employment. I said on the Committee stage that I thought it unlikely that there would be a case of that character at all; I have no ground for changing my mind in that respect. How ever, if there should be one case of that character, it is right that provision should be made, and accordingly we are happy to accept these Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 38, after ("in") insert ("or consequential loss of").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I should like to say that I am grateful to the noble Earl for accepting these Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 38, after ("may") insert ("or might have").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Amendments as to Trans port Tribunal]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) It is hereby declared that the repeal by the Railway and Canal Commission (Abolition) Act, 1949, of section seventeen of the
216
Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 (which contained provisions as to appeals from the Railway and Canal Commission), and of all enactments applying that section, did not affect the said section seventeen as applied to the Transport Tribunal by section twenty-six of the Railways Act, 1921, and by that section as extended by subsection (13) of section thirty-seven of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and paragraph 5 of the Tenth Schedule to the Transport Act, 1947."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. Your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage, we had an Amendment much in the same terms, which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor withdrew owing to a certain decision in the courts. This Amendment has been drafted in a more appropriate form, and is now submitted to your Lordships. The position is this. The 1921 and 1947 Acts transferred from the Railway and Canal Commission to the Railway Rates Tribunal (now the Transport Tribunal) certain jurisdiction, and applied the same procedure for appeal. In the Act of 1949 the Railway and Canal Commission was abolished, and with it the right of appeal. Doubt did arise as to whether the Act also abolished the right of appeal from the Transport Tribunal. Now that right has been upheld in England, but there is still the possibility that it may not be upheld in Scotland. Accordingly, to avoid doubt, this Amendment has been put down. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 13, at end insert the said sub-section.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule:
1. If the Commission, before the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act, apply for the grant of an A licence or a C licence authorising the use of any motor vehicles which at the passing of this Act belonged to the Commission and no other motor vehicles—

(a) the application shall not be refused; and

(b) the licence shall be granted for so much of the five year period (as hereinafter defined) as remains unexpired on the date when the licence is expressed to take effect, and subsections (1) to (4) of section three of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, shall not apply to the licence; and

(c) no fee shall be charged in respect of the grant of the licence:

Provided that no application for an A licence shall be made under this paragraph in

217
respect of any motor vehicles which at the passing of this Act were being used by the Hotels Executive, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive or the London Transport Executive, exclusively for purposes other than hire or reward.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKhad given notice of several Amendments to Paragraph (1), the first being after "vehicles" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert:
"then, subject to the provisions of this paragraph."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on be half of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. It relates to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Teynham in Committee, which my noble friend Lord De La Warr undertook to look at. It is this. It is known that at the present time the Commission have a considerable number of vehicles in store. It is at least theoretically possible, as the Bill reads at present, that for each vehicle they possess in the road haulage undertaking they are entitled to an automatic "A" licence. Some of these vehicles are obsolete vehicles of little value, but they could be replaced by brand new vehicles. If this were done, it would have a depressing effect on sales under this Bill. Accordingly, we think it desirable that the position should remain as it is.
This Amendment, together with the next three, has this effect. The Commission may license eleven-twelfths of the vehicles which they held in the road haulage undertaking in December, 1952, and they will, of course, be entitled to an automatic licence for all these vehicles. They are also entitled to similar licences for other vehicles, except those used exclusively for purposes other than hire and reward at the passing of the Act. This refers, to a great extent, to the 14,000 vehicles used for collection and delivery by the railways, and probably to a few held by the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. With regard to the remainder of the vehicles, they may obtain "C" licences if they so desire. We suggest that this is fair and just to all parties, and leaves the Commission with sufficient margin to meet obligations which may arise in the event of trade or seasonal fluctuations. If I may refer to the proviso in Amendment No. 65, the effect there is this: that as the numbers
218
of vehicles held by the Commission are reduced by sales, the number of "A" licences to which they will be entitled will be correspondingly reduced. And the Commission, under subsection (4), are obliged to furnish to the licensing authority a certificate that the grant of an "A" licence will not contravene this Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 22, after ("vehicles") insert the said words.— (The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Government for setting down this Amendment, which well covers the point we raised On the Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 30, leave out ("Provided that") and insert ("(2)").— (The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 32, leave out from ("used") to the end of line 33.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 34, at end insert—
("(3) The total number of motor vehicles the use of which is authorised by A licences granted under this paragraph shall not at any time exceed the sum of the two following numbers, that is to say—

(a)eleven-twelfths of the number of motor vehicles which. at the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two, were property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage under taking; and

(b)the total number of motor vehicles belonging to the Commission at the passing of this Act, not being property then held as aforesaid and not being vehicles which were then being used exclusively for purposes other than hire or reward:

Provided that where any motor vehicles are sold as or as part of transport units, the total number of vehicles the use of which is allowed by this sub-paragraph to be authorised as aforesaid shall be reduced by the number of motor vehicles so sold.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after the Second Schedule to insert following new Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE
Meaning of "Road Haulage Capital Loss"
1. In section thirteen of this Act the expression "the road haulage capital loss" means the amount, as determined by the Minister, by which the aggregate of the sums referred to in paragraph 2 of this Schedule exceed the aggregate of the sums referred to in paragraph 3 of this Schedule.
2. The sums first referred to in paragraph 1 of this Schedule are the following sums—

(a) the aggregate net value of the property sold under section three or subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section six of this Act, as at the time of the respective sales, as shown in the books of the Commission but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the sale so far as not already taken into account;

(b) the aggregate net value of the property of any company the shares of which are sold under section five of this Act as at the time when the shares are transferred in pursuance of the contract of sale, as shown in the books of the company but—

(i) adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the transfer so far as not already taken into account; and

(ii) increased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any rights of the company as at that time not already taken into account; and

(iii) decreased by the value, if any, as so shown of the liabilities of the company as at that time;

(c) the expenses incurred by the Commission in connection with—

(i) sales under the said section three and the said subsections (1) and (2);

(ii) the making over of property to companies under the said section five; and

(iii) the sale of the shares of any company under the said section five,

so far, in any case, as not included in the sums shown in the books of the Commission as expenses deductible in computing sums shown therein as net traffic receipts;

(d) such amounts as may be just in respect of any sums paid or liabilities incurred by the Commission before any sale under the said section three or the said subsection (1) or subsection (2) or the making over of any property to a company under the said section five, being sums paid or liabilities incurred for rights or benefits which, as results of the sale or, as the case may be, the making over of the property, are not, or are not wholly, enjoyed by the Commission; and

(e) so much of that part of the sums shown in the balance sheets of the Commission as goodwill which is ascribable to the road haulage undertaking as—

220

(i) ought justly to be apportioned to the property which was the subject of any sale under the said section three or the said subsection (1) or subsection (2) or was made over to a company under the said section five; and

(ii) is not otherwise taken into account under this paragraph;

(f) any losses incurred by the Commission in respect of contracts entered into by them for the purposes of the existing road haul age undertaking, being losses incurred as the result of the disposal of the property held by the Commission for the purposes thereof and not being losses which could reasonably have been avoided by the Commission; and

(g) two million pounds (in respect of assets forming part of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking the cost of which has been charged by the Commission to revenue):

Provided that, if under the contract for the sale of the shares of a company under the said section five, the price paid there for depends to any extent on the position as respects the company on a particular date, sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph shall have effect as if the references therein to the time of the transfer of the shares were references to that date.
3. The sums secondly referred to in paragraph 1 of this Schedule are the prices at which property is sold under the said section three or the said subsection (1) or subsection (2) and the prices at which shares are sold under the said section five.
4. In this Schedule—
"price," in relation to property sold under section three of this Act, means the aggregate of all the sums for which the purchaser becomes liable to the Commission as the result of his purchase of the transport unit in question, irrespective of whether the sums are ascribable to property or to other rights which he obtains as the result of his purchase, adjusted, however,—

(a) by adding the value, if any, as at the time of the purchase. as shown in the books of the Commission, of any liabilities of the Commission to third parties taken over by the purchaser from the Commission; and

(b) by subtracting the value, if any, as at that time, as so shown, of any obligations of third parties to the Commission taken over by him, not being property;

"net value" means value after deducting depreciation;
and the references to values and sums shown in the books or balance sheets of the Commission or a company to which property is made over under the said section five are references to the values and sums so shown after, making the appropriate adjustments of provisional items, and, if the Commission or the company in making up their books or their balance sheet for the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two or any subsequent year,

221
depart to any substantial extent from the principles and practice applied by the Commission for the years falling before the year nineteen hundred and fifth-two, all adjustments which are necessary to produce the result which would have been produced but for the departure."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. The Amendment is basically drafting. It is the movement of subsections (4) and (5) from Clause 13 into the Schedule, to which I referred yesterday. I should state, as was said yesterday by my noble friend Lord Swinton, that it does include two Amendments. The first is that in calculating the road haulage loss under sub section (2) there will be included a sum of £2 million for equipment and stores purchased by the Commission out of revenue. This was explained in detail by my noble friend.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is paragraph 2 (g).
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes. The other point is to make clear the meaning of "net value": that the methods of accounting in 1951 are to be the basis on which the calculation of net value of property is to proceed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After the Second Schedule, insert the said new Schedule.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
3.40 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, as an Amendment to the proposed new Third Schedule (Meaning of "Road Haulage Capital Loss"), in sub paragraph (a) of paragraph 2, to leave out "as shown in the books of the Commission" and insert "at replacement cost at date of sale." The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I attempted to convince your Lordships that the basis upon which an endeavour is made in this Bill to arrive at the road haulage capital loss is inequitable and unfair, both to the Commission and to the taxpayer. I want to argue the point again this afternoon. We view this as a very serious matter from the point of view of the taxpayer's interests. What we are seeking to do is to arrive at the value of the assets of the British Transport Commission to which this Schedule applies, for the purpose of determining the capital loss after the battle of disposal is over and the curtain comes down.
If your Lordships will read one or two sub-paragraphs of this Schedule you will see how the computation is made. The basic question is: What is the value of the asset? If your Lordships look at sub paragraph (a) you will see that it says:
"as shown in the books of the Commission."
I argue that no company, no businessman or set of business men, if they were disposing of a business, would ever base the price which they would ask for their business upon the basis of book value. If they were prudent business men—and we must assume that the Commission is composed of prudent business men—they would write their assets down, not only to the limit which would be allowed for tax purposes, but also below that limit. It is well known that many companies write their assets down and down, and their policy is a good policy. It is true that when they come to be assessed for tax, very likely the inspector will write some of those assets up again.
We say that it is grossly unfair that the assets of the Commission should be taken at their book value in order to arrive at the loss, if any, which will be established and which the levy will have to recompense. I am not going to say anything about the levy; I have talked enough about that. I hate the levy. I think it is the most atrocious piece of financial jugglery that has ever been instituted by a Statute of this country. But there it is. Your Lordships have decided that you like the levy. All I am trying to persuade your Lordships to do is to say that the levy shall be applied to any loss that the Commission make, equitably and fairly. On the Committee stage I sought to substitute for the words "as shown in the books of the Commission" the sane formula as was used in the 1947 Act, when these self same or similar assets were purchased from the haulage industry and the concerns that were taken over. When I did that. I argued the case as well as my ability would allow ate, and in his reply the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said quite a lot of things. The noble Viscount started off by saying (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 180, col. 1272):
"This would be an odd Amendment coming from any quarter, but t is odder still when moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas."
When the noble Viscount starts off like that I always know that his case is

223
pretty thin. That I feel instinctively. The noble Viscount went on to say:
"The whole object of Amendment after Amendment which the noble Lord has moved is so to delay in every way the operation of this Act that it may fail completely. I think the noble Lord has been perfectly frank about this and has not concealed it. His attitude has been: 'If we are not going to win by hook, we will win by crook.' The noble Lord said. 'By hook or by crook'."
Well, I said nothing of the kind.
The noble Viscount said just now that he hoped that all the words he has used during nine strenuous days would never be enshrined in an Act of Parliament. I am sure he also wishes that no word he has used against me and my arguments—and they have been many, and sometimes they have been potent—will be enshrined in my heart. I can assure the noble Viscount that that will not be so. I bear him no malice. They have amused me considerably at times, but they have not concerned me. I know that the noble Viscount is a good sports man and that he will take that in the spirit in which I mean it. I am not concerned with the noble Viscount's odd pleasantries, but what I am concerned with is that, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, he should say this (col. 1274):
"The procedure suggested would be extremely inconvenient."
It would be. It would be very inconvenient to have to write these assets up to their true value. As the noble Viscount said:
"It would lead to the maximum of delay."
May I invite your Lordships' minds back to the first Amendment I moved on this Report stage—as to the essence of speed?
The noble Viscount goes on:
"If, instead of a plain statement in paragraph (a), we substituted the current replacement value, as the noble Lord's Amendment seeks to do, every vehicle would have to be valued by reference to the current replacement value of a similar vehicle, depreciated (as the clause in the Act cited runs) at 20 per cent. We should have to revalue every single one of 40,000 or more vehicles which are to be sold. This revaluation, with the revaluation of all other property, would be a difficult and laborious task and would involve considerable delay."
That is what we had to do when we took these assets over— we had to have valuers. Suppose we had gone to the road haulage industry under the 1947 Act, and said:
224
"The only value at which we are going to buy these assets is the value at which they stand on your books. If you are prudent men—and we know some of you have been—and have written them off altogether, you w ill have to give them to us; we are not going to pay you any thing for them. If we had come to the House with the argument that all we were going to pay for these assets was the value at which they actually stood in the books of the concern, I wonder what the noble Viscount would have said to my noble and learned friend who was then leading on the Transport Bill?
What did we do? We set up a most elaborate system of valuation and replacement value right the way through. We engaged valuers to see that the proper value was established, on the best professional valuation. We then set up a Tribunal to which these concerns could appeal if they were not satisfied with the valuation. Only last week, one of the decisions of this Transport Arbitration Tribunal came before this House, sitting in its Judicial capacity, and the verdict went against the British Transport Commission. And I should estimate that it will cost them about £2,500,000. When the State buys from private enterprise a true value has to be paid. But when private enterprise purchases from the State another and depreciated value is paid.
LORD HAWKE: Can the noble Lord say whence he draws that statement? This has nothing to do with the sale price.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are assessing the value of the assets.
LORD HAWKE: At sale price?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Lord will do me the honour of reading my Amendment he will find that it says:
"at replacement cost at date of sale."
That is exactly the valuation that we gave when we took over these assets. I say that the assets that are now left with the Commission should be valued on that basis, to see what compensation is payable out of the levy. The noble Viscount says that this would cause undue delay. He also says that it would mean revaluing every asset. But they have got to do

225
it now, because if the noble Viscount will read the fourth line of the suggested new Paragraph 2 (a) of the proposed new Schedule he will find the words:
"…as shown in the books of the Commission but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the sale so far as not already taken into account;"
So every asset has got to be picked out: every one of these 40,000 vehicles—or all that remain of them. They have to be depreciated by the accountants who do the job. I say that if they have got to be depreciated down to that written down value, at the same time they could he appreciated up to their replacement value.
LORD HAWKE: All that happens after the sale.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes—I have explained that. It is one of those peculiar bookkeeping transactions that will have to take place to arrive at the value of the assets after the sale, to see what has to be paid from the levy. I beg noble Lords to look at this as a strictly business accounting transaction. It means that, until the thing is done in the way in which I am suggesting it should be done, in honesty and fairness to everybody, the only compensation which the British Transport Commission will receive out of the levy is that amount by which the sale price falls below the book value. I say that the amount of levy should be that by which tae sale price falls short of the replacement value. It may be that while there will be no levy to be paid, the cost to the taxpayer will be millions of pounds, because the price that the assets fetch over and above the book value but below the market value will have to be met by the Commission.
The Government have conceded my point—that was evident in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, yesterday. He said that the Commission have now convinced the Minister that they had been so prudent in their finance that they purchased £2 million worth of tyres, tarpaulins and ropes and charged them not to capital but to revenue. The transaction, therefore, did not appear on the capital account of the Commission. So if the book value had been taken at any time in that year—I suspect it was the year ended December, 1951—it would not have shown that £2 million. How many more such cases are there? This
226
is a common practice among business men—to charge what they can to revenue and never capitalise anything at all if they can help it. What did the noble Viscount say on this subject? He said yesterday afternoon (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 181, col. 146):
"Naturally I have inquired why this new element has to be introduced at this late stage. The explanation is that, in taking the value of the assets which have been included in the Schedule, the Ministry naturally confined themselves to capital assets, as shown in the books of the Commission. The Commission have now represented to the Ministry that if they"—
that is, the Commission—
"had contemplated that the Road Haulage Executive would have a comparatively short life they would not have charged these items entirely to revenue but would have charged them, or a good proportión of them, to capital, subject to depreciation."
I say that that is the very case which I made on the Committee stage—word for word. I said that if the Commission had been told when it started its life in 1947, "You have only five years to run: you will be sold up at the end of that time," their financial policy would have been entirely different. They would have charged everything they could to capital. But, being good business men, they did not. And now they have to suffer for their business acumen by not getting it back under this valuation.
The noble Viscount also said that if you want to make this charge at replacement value, then you have got to take goodwill at replacement value—and that goodwill has gone. With great respect, the noble Viscount used there another most fallacious argument. It does not hold water. Goodwill is one of those telegraphic expressions: you can call any thing goodwill. It was really compensation for the cessation of business on a basis of what profits were likely to be earned. You can call this £33 million "purchase of monopoly," and if the monopoly has been broken the £33million has gone. But the £33 million is only a bookkeeping entry and what we set against that £33 million will be what the Commission get for the sale of their assets over and above what they cost. What is going to be done with the rest? I am not going to enter into an argument on that point this afternoon, and I do not suppose that any noble Lord can tell the how that is going to be apportioned. I

227
have said enough to convince any fair-minded business man that the proper basis to adopt is:
"at replacement cost at date of sale."
"Replacement cost" is a very easy term. You find that valuers use it every day in the week, and it is going to cause no hardship and no harm.
Let me give your Lordships a simple illustration. If any of your Lordships has a motor car insured, and it is written off by an insurance company as a total loss, they will give you back its replacement value—what it would cost to replace that vehicle by another in the same condition as the vehicle was in when it became a total loss. I think I have said enough— at least, I hope I have—to convince your Lordships that in the tax payers' interest the levy should be based on all these other considerations of plus and minus, about which I have no com plaint at all, except that the assets of the Commission should not be taken at book value because it has been proved conclusively by the noble Viscount him self that book value is an entirely fictitious figure. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In sub-paragraph (a) of Paragraph 2, leave out ("as shown in the books of the Commission") and insert ("at replacement cost at date of sale").— (Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, at first sight the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has proposed looks very clear, and perhaps more simple than it really is. As the noble Lord went on speaking, I began to think that the matter was more and more complicated, whereas, when I read the Amendment on paper, I though it was extremely simple. Let us get clear one thing first: my noble friend's Amendment has no reference to what price the purchaser pays for an undertaking which is sold. He will pay the right commercial value, and if a motor vehicle is worth more than the book value, he will then pay for it; otherwise the Board or the Commission, or whoever it is, will not receive the tender. So what we are dealing with is: what should be paid to the Commission for the loss of the goodwill of those vehicles?
The one word which the noble Lord opposite did not use quite so freely as
228
I thought he was going to at first was the word "goodwill." May we look into that a little more closely? From the bookkeeping point of view, I think noble Lords will agree that, if you write down, if you depreciate machinery or vehicles and want to show them in your balance sheet at a higher value than the depreciated value, the only proper way to do that is to raise the item for goodwill. Are we not getting to the point where, if we want to make a higher value than the depreciated value, we must include an amount for goodwill representing the difference between the depreciated value of these vehicles and the actual value which it is thought they would have in the market? Goodwill comes into this matter already, and the Commission is being given goodwill on the basis of the value they paid for it. That, I think, is treating the Commission very generously. After all, that goodwill, in our opinion, has been very largely dissipated, but we are leaving the figure as it was. If we want to deal with the matter which has been raised by the noble Lord opposite, I think we should deal with it not in the way that he suggests but by dealing with this increase as goodwill. I believe that that is the right way to do it, because I do not think that you can deal with good will differently in one breath from what you can in another. I do not believe that we should be right to do what is suggested. If we are going to reject the book value for the physical assets, we should also reject the book value for goodwill. If we are going to deal with goodwill at all, let us deal with it either in one way or in the other, but let us be consistent. I think the way my noble friend intends to deal with it is the consistent way.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Amendment to my Amendment has said quite frankly that he was asking the House to reverse the decision which they took after a full debate when we were in Committee. That, of course, is quite true, because he asked us last time to substitute for our words the words "current replacement value." To-day he is asking us to substitute "replacement cost at date of sale." Those two sets of words, for all practical purposes, are identical. There is no doubt at all that if we were to do this it would involve Great delay. The noble Lord said we ought not to conduct

229
these valuations by taking the values as they stand in the books but to conduct the valuations exactly as they were con ducted under the 1947 Act. I have just been informed that though the 1947 Act was passed in 1947, the valuations are not yet complete, so even if we speeded up this operation it would take a long time.
Observe that it would mean revaluing 40,000 vehicles, and the delay would certainly adversely affect the price. We all want to get the best price we can for these assets. In a sense, I might almost say, the only people to whom it does not much matter what the price is are the Commission, who get this tremendous amount as payment for goodwill. But everybody who will have to pay the levy is very anxious that the price should be as good as possible. As was pointed out over and over again yesterday, and at other stages in the debate, one of the things which will affect the price is the speed with which this sale can be conducted; and we do lay some stress upon speed. We lay stress upon speed, for two reasons: first, that the trader will get an efficient service as soon as possible, and secondly, that we may get the best possible price, because when you are selling a unit or shares in a company you are selling an asset with an "A" licence attached to it and the value of that "A" licence diminishes as the date for the lifting of the 25-mile limit draws nearer. You have got to build up your trade around what you buy, except in so far as it comes naturally with it; and you naturally want to build that up before a very large amount of extra competition comes in. The moment the "25-milers"are launched freely upon the roads, of course, the competition will be greater. Therefore, this delay would quite definitely diminish the price which these vehicles would fetch on sale.
These assets also include buildings. It really is an odd thing to say that we should take the replacement cost of buildings, irrespective of what may be the market value of the building to-day, or the condition that the building is in. The noble Lord said that it is unfair to take this figure, because no doubt the rate of depreciation has been very generous and because the Commission would have run their finances quite differently if they had known that the Read Haulage Executive
230
was coming to an end. I have just asked whether there is anything in that point, and I am informed that there is not. I am told that the rate of depreciation has been a normal rate of depreciation and very much the rate of depreciation pro vided for in the 1947 Act—in other words, that the depreciation has been normal.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said we ought to make some exception because yesterday I asked the House to bring in £2,000,000 for tyres and these other things. Of course, that has nothing whatever to do with it. The reason I asked the House—I admit at the last moment, because the Commission made their case only at the last moment—to bring in £2,000,000 for tyres was that these tyres and tarpaulins and so on, though they were going to be sold, did not appear in the books as capital assets. They had been bought out of income and had been charged to income, and what we were doing was to write them back from income to capital, treating them as if they had been capital assets. I think the House accepted that as a fair thing to do. But the fact that we are doing that is certainly no conceivable argument for altering the basin of valuation provided in the Schedule.
Finally, my Lords, there is, of course, the overwhelming argument used by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. Obviously, you must play fair all round. If you are going to take replacement value or current value for the physical assets, you must take current value for the goodwill. You really cannot say," I am going to conduct this valuation on a selective basis. I am going to take the system of valuation which will suit me best, although it may be entirely different for one set of assets as against another. "Certainly the Commission would not thank the noble Lord if we carried out this Amendment to its full and logical conclusion, although the people who are going to pay the levy would be quite delighted to see it done.
If we take current value for these physical assets I do not know whether the amount would go up or down very much, but I think that probably it would not make much difference. But you cannot take current value for goodwill on the basis of the £8 £9 million or £10 million a year which was being made by the nationalised companies before they

231
were nationalised but which to-day, alas! is no longer represented, by reason of the failure of the Commission to make a real profit. I am not blaming them; I think they were given an impossible job to do, and that is why we are getting rid of it all. Where a large profit has turned into either a loss or, at best, on the most liberal showing, one-tenth of what the profit was before, obviously the goodwill is down by something like one-tenth. If this were an ordinary commercial transaction between two companies, the Commission could never have got anything like as good treatment as they are getting under this Bill. We are asking the House to treat this non-existent goodwill as if it still existed, and, for the purposes of the levy, to take it at the value at which it still stands in the books; and we are going to levy the difference in so far as the sale does not diminish that amount. It may be that the whole of that goodwill will have to be found out of the levy, and the only justification for doing that is, that if you do not do it, the taxpayer will have to pay it.
It is said that this is an unfair provision so far as the Commission are concerned. In answer to that, I would say that in the whole of my business experience I have never known any company treated as fairly or as generously as the Commission have been treated in this matter. For all those reasons I certainly hope that the House to-day will reaffirm the decision which it took after a full debate on the Committee stage, and will declare that it thinks the proposals standing in this Schedule are fair and reasonable, and should remain in the Bill.
4.14 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, it would take a long time to answer all that the noble Viscount has said, and I do not propose to detain your Lordships for that length of time. I must confess that it is very strange to me. Perhaps the noble Viscount is suffering under the great handicap of having had to take charge of this Bill at the last moment. He made many erroneous statements—I am sure not wilfully. He spoke of delay. First of all, in this Schedule we are dealing with the question how, in the last and final budget, we are going to get at what really has been the loss, if any. It says in the
232
Schedule "after the sales have been made. "There is no delay in this whatsoever. The sales go on and instalment payments from the levy are made to the Commission. That is quite plain. I know the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, is following that. In the end, how are you going to get your final balance? How are you going to get at what has been the road haulage capital loss? This is the procedure by which you are going to do it. To get at that loss you have to take every single asset that has not been sold. You have got to depreciate it; but nothing is allowed for appreciation.
At this time in the proceedings, and after all the debate we have had over the last few days. I am not going once again to refute this alleged £10 million that the road haulage industry was supposed to have made before nationalisation. In the opening speech which he made on Second Reading my noble and learned Leader disposed of that. The noble Viscount has taken no account of the goodwill. The goodwill figure in any business is what that business will fetch over and above the value of the physical assets. Anybody in your Lordships' House who has done any business knows that you go into a transaction as a seller with a buyer; your physical assets are such-and-such and your goodwill, if you call it goodwill, is anything you can get over and above that, and it is a bargain between two people. I deny completely that there is not a substantial amount of potential goodwill in some of these companies and units that are going to be formed. That will of course be taken into consideration over and above the price.
I maintain that my point is a sound one. Time will tell. I do not suppose that now this loss will be so substantial out of the levy. It may be substantial out of the Commission. It will have to be amortised and perhaps be a cost to the taxpayer. I cannot convince noble Lords opposite, but after all this is over I think they will come to the conclusion that I am right, and that this is the only possible way in which to do it. This would be the course that they would adopt if they were dealing with their own businesses in their own private avocations.
I am not going to discuss the matter further. I do not know how many

233
speeches I have made during the course of the Committee and Report stages—I should not like to count them. But as this is the last speech I shall make on this Bill, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the whole House for the tolerance and courtesy that they have shown me during all the many arguments we have had, ranging over about 130 Amendments on the Committee stage
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.30 p.m.
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 SELKIRKhad given notice of three Amendments to Paragraph 5, the first being, after "body" to insert, "being either a harbour authority or a body." The noble Earl said: My
234
and nearly seventy on the Report stage. I very much regret that my final words on the Report stage of this Bill have to be to ask your Lordships to indicate your opinion on this matter in the Lobbies.
On Question, whether the Amendment to the Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Mathers, L.

Greenhill, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Ammon, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Ogmore, L.

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

Pakenham, L.

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

Kenswood. L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Kershaw, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chorley. L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Winster, L.

Crook, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Wise, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Bridgeman, V.

Freyberg, L,

Buckmaster, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Falmouth, V.

Gifford. L.

Furness. V.

Hacking, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Goschen, V.

Hawke, L.

Reading, M.

Long, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Willingdon, M.

Ridley, V.

Jeffreys. L.

Simon. V.

Jessel, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Swinton, V.

Layton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Trenchard, V.

Llewellin. L.

Birkenhead, E.

Mancroft, L. [Teller.]

Buckinghamshire, E.

Abinger. L.

Moyne, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Audley, L.

Palmer, L

Baden-Powell, L.

Rea. L.

Hardwicke, E.

Barnby, L.

Remnant, L.

Ilchester. E.

Belstead, L.

Rossmore, L.

Iveagh, E.

Carrington, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cawley, L.

Schuster, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cherwell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Munster, E.

Derwent, L.

Teviot, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Digby, L.

Teynham, L.

Radnor, E.

Dorchester, L.

Turnour, L. (E. Winterton.)

Rothes, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Waleran, L.

Selkirk. E.

Fisherwick, L. (M. Donegall.)

Webb-Johnson, L.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Wolverton, L.

Allenby, V.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I beg to move this Amendment. Under subsection (6) of the Third Schedule, the provisions of Section 39 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, are applied so that representatives of harbour authorities may make representations to the Transport Tribunal if they consider that they are being unfairly treated in comparison with the way in which the Commission treat their own harbours. The Amendment enables individual harbour authorities to make representations in the same way. May I add one point? It has been represented to us that individual harbour authorities

235
should be able to make representations to the Transport Tribunal on the ground that they are unfairly treated in the matter of railway charges in comparison with other individual harbour authorities, not connected with the Commission. We do not think there is any need to put provision for that in the Bill. Under thesection of the Transport Act, 1947, dealing with consultative committees, it is possible to make representations to an area committee which will come to the Minister, who, if he were satisfied that there was a genuine and proper case, could issue a direction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 31, after ("body") insert ("being either a harbour authority or a body").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, leave out lines 40 to 43 and insert—
("(b) the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of the said section thirty-nine to coastal carriers being placed at an undue or unfair disadvantage and the references in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of the said section thirty-nine and paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph (2) of this Schedule to coastal carriers being placed at an undue or unfair disadvantage in the competition were references to any harbour authority being placed at an undue or unfair disadvantage; and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 46, leave out ("harbour authorities") and insert ("any harbour authority").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EASTER RECESS
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before the House adjourns, it may be convenient to noble Lords if I give the dates for the Easter Recess. It is proposed to adjourn for the Easter Recess on Thursday, April 2. On that day the House will meet at eleven o'clock, when a Royal Commission is expected. The House will meet again after the Recess on Tuesday, April 14, on which day, your Lordships may like to know, the Chan-
236
cellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget in another place.

WRITTEN ANSWER PRESERVATION OF BEAUPRE HALL
LORD METHUEN LORD METHUEN asked Her Majesty's Government if steps can be taken to schedule (or make a Preservation Order) and to maintain the important Tudor building known as Beaupre Hall (Norfolk) which is empty and in a ruinous condition.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): The Minister of Works has certain powers under the Ancient Monuments Act, 1913 and 1931. Briefly he can safeguard an ancient monument by including it in the List of monuments prepared under the Acts. In this event the owner is required to give the Minister of Works three months' notice before carrying out works affecting the monument. Where a monument is in danger of demolition and its preservation is considered of national importance, it may be safeguarded by a Preservation Order made by the Minister under the Acts. When a Preservation Order is in force, work can be done to the monument only with the written con sent of the Minister.
Beaupre Hall was included in the List of Ancient Monuments in 1947 and therefore the owner is required to give notice of any intention to carry out works affecting the monument. No Notice has been received of intention to demolish Beaupre Hall, so that the question of making a Preservation Order under the Ancient Monuments Acts has not arisen. In 1949, Beaupre Hall was offered to the National Trust, who asked the Minister of Works whether he would become guardian of the monument under the Ancient Monuments Acts, if they accepted it. In cases where the Minister accepts guardianship of a monument he becomes responsible for maintenance. The funds available for ancient monuments are strictly limited. In 1949 the estimated cost of initial work necessary at Beaupre Hall was £25,000 and after careful consideration, the Minister refused the National Trust's offer. If a Preservation Order were made, the Minister of Works would be empowered to take compulsory

237
guardianship on the ground that the monument was being neglected; but in view of the cost of repairing and main taining it, which would be considerably higher than in 1949, I can hold out no hope that money could be spared for this purpose.

MILFORD DOCKS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before five o'clock.
*See Cols.135-6 and 193-4

*ERRATUM: TRANSPORT BILL DIVISION
Following is the revised Division List (referred to by the Marquess of Salisbury at the start of to-day's proceedings) on the Amendment to Clause 4, moved yesterday by Lord Lucas of Chilworth:—at page 7, line 20, leave out ("five-fourths") and insert ("seven-fourths").
Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Crook, L.

Ogmore, L.

Jowitt, E.

Haden-Guest. L. [Teller.]

Pakenham, L.

Henderson, L.

Pethick-Lawrence. L.

St. Davids. V.

Kershaw, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lawson, L.

Strabolgi L.

Archibald. L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Uvedale of North End, L

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

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Winster. L.

Mathers, L.

Wise, L.

Burden, L.

Noel-Buxton. L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Davidson, V.

Gifford. L.

Falmouth. V.

Hampton, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President)

Furness, V.

Hawke, L.

Goschen, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Harcourt. V.

Hylton. L.

Long, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Bathurst, E.

Swinton, V.

Kinnaird. L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Leconfield, L.

De La Warr, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Llewellin L.

Mansfield. E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Mancroft L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Braye L.

Moyne. L.

Onslow. E. [Teller.]

Carrington, L.

Palmer, L.

Radnor, E.

Cawley, L.

Rea, L.

Rothes, E.

Cherwell, L.

Remnant L.

Selborne, E.

Derwent, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Selkirk, E.

Digby, L.

Schuster, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Teviot, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Teynham. L.

Bridgeman, V.

Freyberg, L.

Wolverton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.