Sitting of 10 March 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the chair]

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF AGREEMENT, SOUTH AFRICA
THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. STUDHOLME) reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as follows:
I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order, 1955, and the Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (South Africa) Order, 1955, be made in the form of the respective Drafts laid before Parliament.
I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
    SALFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
    Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION

    Swimming Baths
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Education if he has considered the new method of constructing schools prefabricated swimming baths; and to what extent he plans to have this method used in schools under the jurisdiction of his Department.
    The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): I am not aware of the method to which the hon. and learned Member refers. If he will let me have particulars, I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very surprising reply having regard to the resources at his disposal? Will he inquire from his own experts about this method, which is well-known and well-recommended for its efficiency?
    Sir D. Eccles: The Ministry of Education is not perfect. We are grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. A prefabricated swimming bath sounds very interesting.

    Grammar Schools (Maintenance Allowances)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement showing what the results are of the consideration given to the recommendations of the Central Advisory Council for England in respect to the early leaving at grammar schools; and what proposals he has to make for increased maintenance allowances.
    Sir D. Eccles: There are many recommendations in this report calling for consideration by many different bodies. I have discussed proposals for increased maintenance allowances with representatives of the local education authorities and of the teachers and hope to announce them before long.
    Mr. Dodds: While recognising the great difficulties, and thinking that "before long" is not too long, may I ask whether the Minister appreciates the tremendous interest there is in this matter? Can he give a little idea of how long is "not so long," if for no other reason than to obviate my having to put further Questions to him?
    Sir D. Eccles: I agree with the hon. Member that the matter mentioned in the Question is one of the weakest links in the chain of education. I saw the local education authorities only this week, and we made good progress. I would not like to be definite about a date, but I should think it will be a week or two.
    Miss Bacon: Will the Minister attempt to make the maintenance grants uniform throughout the country?
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir. That is one of my intentions.

    Further Education
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Education whether he is now able to announce the results of his inquiry into those aspects of the conditions and amount granted for various professional purposes for further education which he had under review on 11th November, 1954.
    Sir D. Eccles: Not, yet, but I hope to have some advice to offer local authorities on these matters when my review of university awards is complete.

    Service Men's Children
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Education what progress has been made in his discussions with his right hon. Friends representing the three branches of the armed Services, on the education of Service men's children.
    Sir D. Eccles: I regret that I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War told the House last Tuesday in the course of the debate on the Army Estimates.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that he told me in reply to a Question on 21st October last year that the discussions were going quite well? Can he at least say whether, after all these months, the principle has been established that the children of Service men shall not suffer unnecessary educational handicap because their fathers are serving in the Armed Forces?
    Sir D. Eccles: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. The difficulty is that the scheme that we first thought was practicable has been found to require legislation, and we have therefore had to change our ideas about it.

    Subnormal Children
    Mr. MacCollasked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that children who have been ascertained to be educationally subnormal or maladjusted are being brought before juvenile courts as beyond the control of their parents and committed to local authorities as fit persons, because they need closer supervision than they can obtain at home while they are awaiting vacancies in suitable special schools; and whether he will seek powers to enable local education authorities to provide temporary residential
    590
    accommodation for such children without the necessity of bringing them to court.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I will consider this matter with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

    School Accident Claims (Insurance Policies)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Education whether his attention has been called to a recent case in which a boy lost an eye from an accident which occurred while at school at Ilford, and received no damages, compensation or costs, and a similar case at Tredegar, in which a boy was injured by a knife in his leg, which has since had to be amputated, and, although substantial damages were awarded, they were withdrawn on appeal, and he has had to find costs, amounting to about £300, to fight the case; and what action he proposes to take to secure that, while children are under the authority of an education committee, they are safeguarded against such contingencies by adequate State-aided insurance.
    Sir D. Eccles: I know of the first case from the Press and of the second from the hon. Member and have great sympathy with the children and parents concerned. I am not aware that local education authorities could properly incur expenditure on the purchase of insurance cover in respect of accidents which give rise to no legal liability on their part. These incidents, though regrettable, are rare. Amending legislation could not be justified at the present time.
    Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that I have received information about quite a number of cases since I put down this Question—cases of similar accidents in which children have been seriously injured for the rest of their lives through no fault of their own, and not in all cases due to negligence on the part of the local authorities; and since the children lose from two to three years of their school life, have no means of recovering anything as compensation or making a claim of any description and are handicapped for the rest of their lives for something which happened under the jurisdiction and care of the local authorities, should not the

    591
    local authorities take some responsibility for such accidents in the same way as an employer does in business or a motorist does when driving his car? Would the Minister look into this matter again to see whether something can be done along those lines?
    Sir D. Eccles: I am sorry about these accidents but, as the law stands, I am advised the best that we can hope for is ex gratia payments from time to time. It would require new legislation to permit local authorities to take out insurance policies.
    Mr. Edward Evans: Is the Minister aware that governors of private schools, which have the support of and draw grants from his Department, almost invariably take out a comprehensive insurance policy to cover nearly every liability which they might have? Surely this problem ought to be examined very much in the light of what my hon. Friend said.
    Sir D. Eccles: I will undertake to examine it, but the question will turn on whether we can introduce legislation if the examination leads to the conclusion that such insurance ought to be taken out by local authorities.

    Science Films
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Education (1) what representations were made to his Department in 1953, 1954, and the present year, respectively, by the Governors of the Educational Foundation for Visual Aids, asking for financial assistance for the production of advanced science films; and what replies were made; and
    (2) whether he has considered the proposals sent to him by the Educational Foundation for Visual Aids for the production of 50 science films to assist in the advanced teaching of that subject; what estimate he was given of the cost of production; and what assistance he proposes to give.
    Sir D. Eccles: In September, 1953, the governors asked for an annual grant of £50,000 for the production of science and other films. During 1954 they informed my predecessor, and later myself, that they intended to give priority to science films, four of which have so far been made at an average cost of £2,400 each.
    592
    I have had correspondence and discussions with the governors, and I am shortly going to talk over with the local authority associations the whole question of the educational value of films.
    Mr. Stewart: Is it not the case that the local authorities are inhibited by the economies urged on them by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor from using these films on a scale which would make production commercially possible? Is it not, therefore, all the more incumbent upon the right hon. Gentleman to give the Foundation the help which it was originally led to suppose it would have?
    Sir D. Eccles: I have looked carefully into this matter. The facts are that some people doubt the value of films, others would prefer more books and others would prefer laboratory assistants. I think I must examine the relative merits of spending money in one direction or the other.
    Mr. Wade: Is the Minister aware that the four films to which he referred have been very highly praised by science teachers? Is he also aware that if a grant were made industry would be prepared to contribute and probably would double the value of the grant?
    Sir D. Eccles: I have had the hon. Member's idea in mind.

    School Uniforms (Cost)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Education whether he will investigate the need for, and the high cost of, school uniforms.
    Sir D. Eccles: Local authorities have already been asked to see that their schools do not require unreasonably expensive uniforms. I do not think an investigation is called for.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that the elaborate and expensive snobbery of school uniforms—[Hon. Members: "No."]—I repeat, the elaborate and expensive snobbery of school uniforms puts a heavy strain on the purse of many parents? If it is not possible to teach children to read or write without putting them in uniform first, will he at least see that the articles of uniform consist of articles which are in general supply?
    Sir D. Eccles: I think most authorities have arrangements for assisting the parents of children for whom they are responsible with the cost of the school uniform in cases of financial hardship. I should have thought the hon. and gallant Member might see something in the "new school tie."
    Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that those who are connected with schools find a great advantage in creating a team spirit, which is assisted by having a school uniform, while they appreciate that it is necessary for it not to be beyond the reach of parents—and it very rarely is.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) is wearing an M.P.'s uniform and is therefore prejudiced?

    Transport Fares
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Education if he will consult the British Transport Commission with a view to raising from 14 to 15 years the age limit at which school children can travel at reduced fares.
    Sir D. Eccles: Arrangements already exist for children of compulsory school age to travel to and from school at half fares on the British Transport Commission's railways, London road services and on the majority of other road transport undertakings.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that in quite a number of cases children between the ages of 14 and 15 are penalised, compared with children under the age of 14? Is not this a casein which, in this respect at least, there should be uniform treatment of all children up to the age of 15?
    Sir D. Eccles: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will bring to my notice any case of children being penalised while going to and from school, I will be glad to look into it.
    Mr. John Hall: Will my right hon. Friend consider extending this facility to all school children, including those who go to denominational schools?
    Sir D. Eccles: That is another matter.

    University Students (Grants)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Education when he expects to be ready to make a statement on grants to university students.
    Sir D. Eccles: Soon, I hope.
    Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman make this very soon, because we have been waiting for some time?
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes, I will do my best, but the number of bodies who have made representations to me is extraordinary and I feel that I ought to take all those representations into consideration.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Will the Minister make his statement in such a way that students going to college and university at the next academic year will be covered by it?
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes. I intend to start the new scheme, whatever it may be, in September next.

    Training College Grants (Report)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Education whether he will make representations to the representatives of local authorities who are due to report to him on grants made to students in training colleges to expedite their report; and whether he will consult other educational bodies about their grants.
    Miss Baconasked the Minister of Education if he is now in a position to give any information about grants to intending teachers in training colleges.
    Sir D. Eccles: I have just received this report and hope shortly to discuss it with the local authority associations.
    Mr. Willey: Again, having achieved the basic purpose of getting the report, will the right hon. Gentleman once more expedite consideration of this matter, because the situation is embarrassing local authorities.
    Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many local authorities are using the fact that the report has not been published for delaying any action about training college grants? Will he therefore regard it as a matter of very great urgency?
    Sir D. Eccles: Yes, I will. But I have had only three days to look at the report.

    Health Statistics (Average Weights)
    Mr. MacCollasked the Minister of Education what steps Her Majesty's Government is taking to arrest the decline in average weights of school children under eight years of age reported by his chief medical officer as having occurred since 1950.
    Mr. Vosper: The report referred not to average weights throughout the country, but to a number of areas where the average loss of weight was only about ½ lb. The principal school medical officers are watching this point.
    Mr. MacColl: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this loss has to be set off against the increase which was shown between 1948 and 1950? Is it not a disquieting commentary on Government policy that, after we held the position right through the food shortage, the weight has now fallen?
    Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member should not draw too many conclusions from the loss of ½ lb. in weight. He might also consult Table V of the same report and the preceding report, from which he will find that the general condition of pupils has improved steadily from 1950 to 1953, the percentage categorised as "Good" rising from 39 per cent. in 1950 to 44·7 per cent. in 1953.

    Equal Pay
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Minister of Education if Her Majesty's Government will now accept the recommendation of the Burham Committee that the principle of equal pay for women and men in the teaching profession should be realised over a period of six years.
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Education when he hopes to make a statement on the recommendation of the Burnham Committee that equal pay should be introduced in the teaching service.
    Sir D. Eccles: The Burnham Committee's recommendations for equal pay have not yet been submitted to me. They are at present being considered by the associations represented on the committee.
    Mr. Brockway: When they are submitted, in view of the acceptance by this House of the principle of equal pay and the promise of the Government that it
    596
    would be applied as rapidly as possible, will the right hon. Gentleman consider shortening the period of six years which is now proposed?
    Sir D. Eccles: I do not think it would be right for me to say anything until I have had the recommendations of the Committee.

    Science Teachers (Recruitment)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Education whether he will now make a statement on the training, salaries, and recruitment of teachers of scientific subjects.
    Mr. Marloweasked the Minister of Education whether he will make a statement on the Burnham Committee's recommendation for increased allowances for teachers of advanced work.
    Sir D. Eccles: I have today told the Burnham Committee that I approve their recommendations. I expect them to be fully carried out by all local authorities. The proposed increases in pay will greatly improve the career prospects for these teachers. No distinction is drawn between teachers of different subjects, but, as the House knows, the greatest anxiety is in the field of science and mathematics. The Government are therefore reviewing the whole question of scientists in the public service, so as to ensure that the best and most economical use is made of them in the national interest. Meanwhile, the Federation of British Industries is asking all its members to refrain from raising salaries in competition with the Burnham proposals, and to review the use they make of science graduates.
    I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is dealing with the position in Scotland in answer to the Question on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison).
    Mr. Chetwynd: Whilst welcoming that answer, may I ask the Minister whether he expects those steps to meet the acute shortage in the near future? Can he say what action he will take to see that graduates in industry can give part-time service in the field of science education?
    Sir D. Eccles: I can assure the hon. Member that that is one of the questions which the Federation of British Industries is bringing to the notice of its members. Undoubtedly it is very necessary that we should get as many part-time teachers from industry as we can.
    Mr. Marlowe: In view of the reference of my right hon. Friend to science and mathematics, is he satisfied that boys are staying long enough at secondary schools to avail themselves of further education in order to qualify in those subjects and, thereby, fulfil the demands both of industry and the teaching profession?
    Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir, I am not satisfied, and that is one of the reasons I am considering additional maintenance allowances for secondary school children.
    Mr. M. Stewart: In connection with the last supplementary question, has the Minister noticed a recent publication from which it appears that at comprehensive schools there is a tendency for pupils to stay longer at school than at non-comprehensive schools?
    Sir D. Eccles: I think I know the publication to which the hon. Member refers, and I read it with great interest. I do not think the samples taken are of sufficient range to give very reliable information.

    Secondary School Places
    Miss Baconasked the Minister of Education how many extra secondary school places he estimates will be required in the next three years; and what plans he has for providing them.
    Sir D. Eccles: The number of secondary school places required depends on the needs of particular areas as well as the total number of children over 11. The number of places now under construction is 195,000, and 250,000 more are programmed to start building in the next 12 months. By 31st December, 1957, the secondary school roll is expected to increase by about 330,000.
    Miss Bacon: Whilst it will be necessary for me to consider those figures when I see them in writing, may I ask the Minister, since he sets his face against the comprehensive school, if he realises that there is a danger over the next few years that overcrowding will take place
    598
    in the secondary modern schools and, therefore, the percentage of children proceeding to grammar schools will probably decrease? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that that will not happen?
    Sir D. Eccles: It would be impossible to give a definite assurance about the proportion of grammar school places, but I thought my answer would give some comfort to the hon. Lady because the number of places I hope to see completed in the next three years is 445,000 and the increase in the roll is expected to be 330,000.

  HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES (EDUCATION)
  Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement regarding educational development in the British Protectorates in South Africa.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): Annual expenditure from revenue on education in the High Commission Territories in the last 10 years has increased from £188,000 to £349,000. During the same period, grants under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act totalling £424,000 have been made for the extension of primary, secondary and technical schools, and the construction of a trade school, and two teacher training centres.
  Her Majesty's Government propose further to develop educational facilities in the period 1955 to 1960 with moneys provided mainly through the proposed new Colonial Development and Welfare Act. In Basutoland it is proposed to build six new secondary schools and two new teachers' training institutions. In Bechuanaland it is proposed to enlarge the Bamangwato College as a combined secondary, technical and agricultural school for the whole Protectorate, and to build, four new African junior secondary schools. In Swaziland increased grants are to be made for additional teachers and class rooms in Government and Government-aided mission schools.
  In addition to these developments financed by Government, the various missions have continued to extend their

  599
  educational work in the Territories. In all three Territories post-matriculation classes are being introduced so that African students can qualify for admission to the new University College at Salisbury. The aim is to make as much use as possible of Salisbury for the University education of students from the Territories.
  Mr. Brockway: Whilst expressing appreciation of the important statement the Minister has made, may I ask him—in view of the situation in South Africa—continually to bear in mind the desirability of giving air example on the widest possible scale of education for African children?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Of course, Her Majesty's Government will continue to press on regardless of any other actions elsewhere.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Oil (United Nations Report)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the report on the influence of cartel arrangements on oil prices submitted to him by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; and whether he will introduce legislation in order to end these arrangements, so far as this country is concerned and to establish price control.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I have nothing to add to the answer given on 24th February by my hon. and learned Friend to a similar Question on this subject.
    Mr. Warbey: Are the Government really satisfied with the position in which we continue to pay Gulf prices for Middle East oil? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Report referred to says that some Middle East oil companies are making 400 per cent. profit on every gallon of oil? Will he do something to put an end to this costly racket?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I did say in answer to the previous Question that I was continuing to bear these things in mind.
    Mr. Stokes: Has the President really examined the matter yet? Is he aware that it costs only £1 a ton to put oil into a tanker in the Persian Gulf, whereas it
    600
    costs nearly £3 10s. in the Gulf of Mexico and the result is that the price is kept up to £4 10s. a ton to keep the American oil companies in business?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I said that I shall continue to bear this industry in mind as a possible reference to the Monopolies Commission. Both I and, I think, the previous Government have shown good sense in not debating matters before reference to the Commission.
    Mr. John Hall: Does this not show the advantage which would accrue if the Report were made available to hon. Members? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider my original request to have the Report made available in the Library?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a question for the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is nothing in the Question about a reference to the Monopolies Commission? Can he confirm the statement published today, to the effect that this matter is to be referred to the Commission?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think the whole question could be referred to the Foreign Secretary if there is no mention of reference to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Beswick: Since the right hon. Gentleman introduced the question of the Monopolies Commission and it is now more than two years since he said that he was bearing this matter in mind, can he say when he will come to a decision about referring it to the Monopolies Commission?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I will take it into account with other matters suggested to me at the appropriate moment.
    Mr. Stokes: Are we to take it that the period of gestation of the Minister is like that of an elephant?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: What the right hon. Member can assume is that we prefer on the whole to investigate the facts before announcing action on them.
    Mr. Dodds: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment on Friday of next week.

    G.A.T.T. Discussions, Geneva
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade recently concluded at Geneva.
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the discussions at Geneva on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 8th March to similar Questions.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether these agreements will tend towards a diminution of unemployment in, and emigration from, the West Indies—and particularly Jamaica?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman had better await the publication of the documents, so that he can study them for himself.
    Mr. Wilson: We have all seen the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend earlier in the week, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very deep concern is felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House that, although he has produced one useful contribution in relation to the West Indies, he has thrown away many of the protections which this country has had in relation to quantitative restrictions and balance of payments? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell his right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal that when we have had a chance to study these documents we shall certainly want to debate them?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Without accepting any of the implications contained in the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I suggest that he may find it useful to look at the documents before we have a discussion upon them. That is why, as I said in my answer, I propose to publish a White Paper dealing with this matter.
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish as a White Paper copies of the speeches made by himself and other spokesmen
    602
    on behalf of the United Kingdom delegation at the plenary meetings held at the beginning and ending of the Geneva discussions on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I released to the Press my speech of 8th November last, in plenary session, and this was also printed in the Board of Trade Journal of 13th November.
    Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does it mean that the full text of that speech is available, or only a summary?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think it is the full speech.
    Mr. Wilson: If it is the full speech, I think we shall want to study it, because some of us fear not only that some essential British interests have been thrown away in the matter of import restrictions, but that the President took a leading part in suggesting to the Conference that those restrictions should be eased in this way.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: My speech has been available to hon. Members quite a long time now.

    Trade Commission Staff, Canada
    Mr. de Freitasasked the President of the Board of Trade the size of the staff of the United Kingdom Trade Commission in Canada in January, 1955, 1954, 1953, and 1952, respectively.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Eighty-eight, 84, 76 and 88.
    Mr. de Freitas: In view of the alarming falling off in our exports to Canada, is the President really satisfied that the staff of the United Kingdom Trade Commissioner in Canada is large enough?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The falling off in our exports to Canada is due to causes other than the staff in Canada, which does an admirable job of work, and to whose efforts I have had tributes paid by many industries.
    Mr. de Freitas: In view of the fact that these exports have fallen off, and the obvious importance of getting them back, will the President undertake to look into the matter again and see if the staff in Canada can help to restore the position?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The staff there certainly do help our export trade. Under all Governments they have done a very fine job of work. If I thought it necessary to increase their numbers I should do so, but I am not so satisfied at the present time.

    Traders' Stop Lists
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will revoke the import licences of firms importing tea and other foodstuffs who withhold, or threaten to withhold, supplies from grocers who sell these foodstuffs to the public at prices lower than those fixed by the trade concerned.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.
    Mr. Wilson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice which is going on is a scandalous one, and is artificially keeping the cost of living higher than it otherwise would be? Is he seriously telling us that he will spend two years considering whether to refer the matter to the Monopolies Commission, wait another two years for its report, and then decide whether to take action? Has not he all the facts in this case, and will not he take action now?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I should use import licences—which are supposed to be used for balance of payments reasons—as a method of enforcing decisions of the Monopolies Commission. I find it a remarkable suggestion, coming from him.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I never suggested that he should do this to enforce the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission? I hope that he is not going to waste two years referring the matter to the Monopolies Commission. Is he aware that he has a responsibility to the public, and especially to the old-age pensioners, in this matter? Cannot we have some action from him at some time?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Member knows the rules about import licensing, and he also knows that what he has suggested would be a most improper use of them.

    Crawler Tractors
    Mr. Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent he has been able to relax the restrictions on the imports of crawler tractors from Canada and the United States of America; and how many will be imported for agricultural use this year.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: We are still unable to afford imports from these sources of crawler tractors for which alternatives offering roughly similar advantages are available without the expenditure of dollars. So far this year licences have been issued for 35 of the heaviest types of crawler tractors, but probably none of these will be used for agriculture.
    Mr. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are certain conditions in farming where a crawler tractor—especially one of American or Canadian make—is necessary for the efficient working of the land, and that farmers are having to continue to use the ones which they bought during the war, whose maintenance costs are unduly heavy? Will he look at the matter again to see whether agriculture can be given some small quota from the imports of these tractors?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: These tractors are brought in under individual licensing arrangements. I am prepared to look at any individual case which my hon. Friend puts forward, but I have to take into account the question whether alternatives offering roughly similar advantages are available without the expenditure of dollars.

    Hire-Purchase Agreements
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet reached a decision about the collection of hire-purchase statistics from retail traders.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I am continuing to investigate the practical problems of collecting these statistics, but there are many difficulties.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every commentator who has written about hire-purchase in recent months has referred to the complete absence of statistics here? Is he further aware that figures are available in the United States, and that he has

    605
    left his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to take a very big leap almost completely in the dark?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is substance in the complaint that the statistics of consumer credit of this character which are available are inadequate, and I am looking into the situation with a view to seeing whether I cannot get better figures made available, without placing upon the traders concerned too great a burden in the way of forms and inquiries.
    Mr. K. Thompson: In trying to reach a decision upon this matter of the collection of hire-purchase statistics, will my right hon. Friend also try to institute some system by which he can learn what is happening in the check clothing trade, which also offers credit on a very large scale?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: One of the difficulties is that the question of consumer credit covers a fairly wide field, but there is substance in the point that better statistics could be made available.
    Mr. Jenkins: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet consulted retail organisations in the matter, and, if so, has he had any answers?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am consulting all the appropriate organisations upon this subject.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a sample investigation would probably give him the information he wants as to the trend of hire-purchase credit?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That may be so, and it is one of the possibilities that I am bearing in mind.
    Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that on the last occasion when hire purchase was restricted the regulations were evaded by a system of rental agreements; and what steps he is now taking to prevent a recurrence of this practice.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The new Order, like the old, does not apply to simple hire. It contains, however, a new
    606
    definition of hire-purchase agreements in order to avoid certain difficulties which arose last time.
    Mr. Rankin: Can the Minister assure us that under the hire-purchase restrictions the system of rental agreements which resulted in such vicious exploitation upon the last occasion is not going to be possible?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have said that the definition is so drawn as to avoid certain of the difficulties which arose last time.
    Mrs. Braddock: Will the President get some of his inspectors to check up upon the type of repayment book which is being issued in respect of hire-purchase agreements? There are cases where the only way a person can tell the difference between rental payment and hire-purchase buying is by a slip of paper stuck in the back of the book. Does not he think it is time that this matter was looked at in order to see whether a very definite distinction can be made between the type of book used for hire-purchase payments and the type used for rental payments?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall naturally use my best endeavours to see that the law as it stands is enforced.

    Glove Imports
    Mr. Peytonasked the President of the Board of Trade the numbers and values of leather, knitted and fabric gloves imported into the United Kingdom in the years 1953 and 1954.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Mr. Peyton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these figures, which have been published in answer to an earlier Question this week, represent a very grave problem for this small industry? In considering the more general problems which were raised in this House yesterday, will be undertake to see that the present needs of this industry will not in any event be overlooked.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall certainly bear in mind the representations which my hon. Friend has made.

    Following are the figures

    —

    1953

    1954

    Th. doz. pairs

    £'000

    Th. doz. pairs

    £'000

    Leather

    34

    299

    36

    274

    Knitted, etc. (including mittens)

    365

    548

    694

    907

    Fabric

    49

    99

    226

    368

    TOTAL

    448

    946

    956

    1,549

    Mr. Peytonasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to safeguard employment and production in the United Kingdom glove industry against imports from Hong Kong in view of the recent increase.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend on 9th December last.
    Mr. Peyton: In regard to the question of employment and production in this industry, will my right hon. Friend recall that a very large proportion of the work in the industry is done by outworkers, and that the unemployment figures are therefore wholly misleading? Will he bear in mind that at the present time both employers and workers feel a very considerable degree of anxiety about the situation?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall bear in mind all the relevant considerations, but among them I shall have to remember the fact that the United Kingdom sold about twice as much to Hong Kong as it bought from Hong Kong in 1954.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Association Football (Tax)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the prejudicial effect of the entertainments tax on football; and if he will now take steps to exempt football from this tax.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the wide support there is for
    608
    this urgent, practical and sensible reform, and will he take steps to implement it before the Government go out of office at the coming General Election?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not called upon to answer about forthcoming General Elections. I understand that some hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies have already been to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter, and that the Economic Secretary is to receive a deputation from the Football Association, and I have received another representing the clubs playing under another code. So the Government are not ill informed on the subject.
    Mr. Dugdale: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it very much better to have a tax on capital gains rather than such a severe tax on the most popular game in the country?
    Mr. Brooke: There is another Question on the Paper about that very subject.
    Mr. Jay: In view of the very favourable effects on English cricket that followed the tax concession in that case, does the hon. Gentleman not think the same could be done for football?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for that original tribute to the work of this Government.

    Profits and Capital Gains
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to overcome the current dangers of inflation, he will take early steps to increase taxation on distributed profits and to impose a tax on realised capital gains.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.
    Mr. Warbey: Yes, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor has already anticipated his Budget statement by the action he took a fortnight ago? Was not the main purpose of using the clumsy and inequitable weapon of a rise in the Bank Rate to enable him still to introduce a soft Budget for election purposes? Will not the hon. Gentleman advise his right hon. Friend to see that the burden of reducing consumption is put where it ought to belong?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot say anything about the Budget that is coming. I thought the hon. Member would be aware of the distinction between a Budget statement and the raising of the Bank Rate.

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Gowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the hardship caused, he will reconsider the problems of retail shopkeepers which arise on every occasion when Purchase Tax is reduced; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Brooke: This problem was very fully examined only two years ago by an independent committee, but they were unable to devise a satisfactory and practicable solution. My right hon. Friend has previously indicated that he is ready to examine any further useful proposals for a solution which may be made, but all those suggestions which he has so far received have contained some fatal weakness.
    Mr. Gower: Would my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not possible, without achieving a perfect solution, that some approximate solution may be found?
    Mr. Brooke: An approximate solution not only might involve some loss of revenue but might open the door to the malfeasance of unscrupulous persons.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the retail trade is grateful for the consideration given to the schemes put forward by the trade but, nevertheless, retail traders think that a little more initiative by the Treasury itself might help to solve the problem?
    Mr. Brooke: This matter was examined by a very powerful committee which was unable to find a solution. When recent reductions of Purchase Tax have been made, retailers have appeared to be so grateful that they have not sent in to me complaints of an absence of a solution of this problem.

    Exchequer Equalisation Account
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will transfer the operation of the Exchange
    610
    Equalisation Account from the Bank of England to the Treasury.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I see no reason to alter the existing arrangements which have worked satisfactorily from the inception of the Exchange Equalisation Account.
    Mr. Jenkins: In view of the well-known predilection of the Bank of England for convertibility, and in view of the fact that the new use of the Exchange Equalisation Fund may well lead to convertibility by the back door, does the hon. Gentleman not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had better keep a pretty close eye on the Bank in this matter?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that the hon. Member is under some misapprehension. Policy remains the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Bank of England, as agent, conducts the day-to-day operations of the Fund with a very high degree of technical ability.

    Hire-Purchase and Credit Sales (Limitation)
    Mr. Parkinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fresh guidance he has given to the banks on the subject of the provision of credit to traders who finance and administer their own hire-purchase sale.
    Mr. Maudling: The guidance recorded in my right hon. Friend's reply of 25th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) applies to all forms of hire-purchase finance.
    Mr. Parkin: Will the Minister bear in mind that the small trader, administering his own scheme and knowing his own customers, is very often able to carry out the work more cheaply than hire-purchase firms can do and therefore is not obliged to demand such onerous rates of interest? Will he think of giving some special consideration to the small trader?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that the arrangements made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade are working out very satisfactorily to all concerned.

  NUCLEAR WEAPON TESTS (RADIOACTIVITY)
  Mr. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will take the initiative in proposing the establishment of a United Nations Commission to study and assess the potential dangers to human beings from nuclear tests throughout the world.
  Mr. Reevesasked the Prime Minister whether he will instruct the British representative at the United Nations to propose that the United Nations should set up an international monitoring service to detect atomic and thermo-nuclear test explosions and that the United Nations should seek to limit the number of experiments, in view of the fact that continued tests may lead to long-term damage to the human race through a general world-wide contamination of the atmosphere.
  Mr. Palmerasked the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will support the establishment of a United Nations Commission to assess the long-term effects and dangers of nuclear bomb tests throughout the world.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): According to paragraph 40 of the official report issued by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on 15th February, the atomic and nuclear tests so far carried out have only released enough radioactive material into the atmosphere to cause an individual living in the United States to receive the same quantity of radiation that he would have received in having his chest X-rayed at a hospital. The experts whose advice is at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government see, I am informed, no reason to dissent from this opinion. All aspects of the nuclear problem and their bearing on international relations must, of course, continue to hold a prime place in our attention.
  So far as the genetic effects of exposure to varying levels of radiation are concerned, I understand that an extensive programme of research is already in progress both in this country and the United States of America. In addition, I am informed that the Federation of American Scientists have proposed an immediate United Nations study of the protential genetic risks of nuclear weapons tests. It seems, however, that they are envisaging
  612
  dangers from a number of tests greatly in excess of those likely to be carried out in the foreseeable future.
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the many statements which have been made as to the effects of nuclear tests, and in view of the reply which the Prime Minister has just given, does he not consider that it would be very much to the public advantage if an international body could collect all the available evidence and issue it through a report so as to relieve, so far as it can, the mind of world public, which has been disturbed as a result of the many statements, some of them rather exaggerated, that are being made today? Will he not express the willingness of the Government to cooperate with the American and Russian Governments in securing an international investigation through the United Nations?
  The Prime Minister: We are, as I have said in my answer, following this with the closest attention. I do not wish to add to that at the present time.
  Mr. Reeves: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does see, as his answer would suggest, the seriousness of this problem? Nuclear scientists all over the world are making pronouncements which are most alarming. This information should be gathered together so that humanity may know what is involved in it all, and so that the whole thing can come under public management.
  Mr. Palmer: Is there, in anything that has been said by the Prime Minister, an objection to a United Nations commission investigating the matter?
  The Prime Minister: I have said that all these matters are under consideration.
  Mr. Strachey: Will not the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind to the fact that, quite apart from whatever may be the danger level of these tests, this is by far the most promising way of beginning a process of international control, because of the supreme advantage that it is self-policing, because any new test can be detected no matter in what part of the world it takes place?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I am certainly aware of that.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall also that the Federation of American Scientists, having considered

  613
  the report of the Atomic Energy Commission, has said that the tests may reach a level which can be shown to be a serious genetic threat to peoples all over the world? Since other Governments are considering further programmes of tests, ought we not to take action at the earliest possible moment?
  The Prime Minister: As I say, all this must be considered not only by ourselves but in consultation with our allies.

  DISABLED EX-SERVICE MAN (MOTOR CAR)
  Sir D. Robertsonasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the Motion with reference to the case of Mr. John Kennedy Macleod, a disabled ex-Service man, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and of numerous other right hon. and hon. Members; and whether, in view of the recent transference of powers dealing with such cases, he will arrange for facilities for this Motion to be discussed at an early date.
  The Prime Minister: The decision in the sad case of Mr. Macleod conforms with the rules followed by the Ministry of Health as well as by the Scottish Office. I have, however, after studying the discussion in this House and the undertaking then given by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that the case was open to reconsideration, come to the conclusion that, in view of Mr. Macleod's increasing age, it should be reconsidered now. At the same time my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who are in full accord with this answer, will consider the introduction of an element of latitude into the interpretation of the rules governing these borderline cases.
  Sir D. Robertson: May I express my gratitude and that of all my hon. and right hon. Friends—on both sides of the House—who so warmly supported the Motion, and thank my right hon. Friend for his goodness in bringing about this very wise decision?
  Mr. H. Morrison: May I join with the hon. Gentleman in expressing our satisfaction that the Prime Minister is seeking to get things straight? Would he be
  614
  good enough to look into the allocation of duties between the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland? It does look as though two Ministers have a hand in this matter, and I wonder whether the Prime Minister would be good enough to look into that to see if the Parliamentary accountability and the Departmental accountability could be straightened out. It seems to be shared by two Ministers, which is unusual.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I will certainly give it my personal attention.

  UNITED KINGDOM AND U.S.S.R. (PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS)
  Mr. Parkinasked the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the declaration of the Supreme Soviet of 9th February, afterwards transmitted by diplomatic note, that the establishment of direct contact between parliaments and addresses by parliamentary delegations of one country in the parliament of another, would be in accordance with the peoples' desire to develop friendly relations and co-operation; and whether he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: I have read the suggestion contained in a statement which was transmitted to Her Majesty's Embassy and other Missions in Moscow. Her Majesty's Government have always favoured interchanges between Members of the British Parliament and those of institutions of foreign countries which are of a similar status. In the reply given to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 25th October last, my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that he hoped we might in due course have an opportunity of welcoming a delegation from the Supreme Soviet to this country. This is quite a different question from inviting members of a visiting delegation to participate in the deliberations of the House of Commons, and we should certainly rely upon Mr. Speaker to ward off any such incursion into our debates.
  Mr. Parkin: Has the Prime Minister given sufficient consideration to the fact that this appears to be an invitation to other Parliaments to send delegations to the Soviet Union? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it refers to

  615
  parliamentarians and not executives and heads of Governments who are not always Members of Parliament?
  Would he bear in mind that his own record as a parliamentarian would fully entitle him to consideration of his inclusion in the delegation? When the right hon. Gentleman goes away on holiday and enjoys himself, as we all hope that he will, will he look at Mount Etna and reflect that a little eruption from himself in Moscow and a little fall-out of cigar ash would be a much more harmless experiment than some which we have been discussing recently?
  The Prime Minister: Before anybody can take part in our debates in this House, they have to be British subjects and also have to be elected by a constituency under conditions which are thought to be proper and correct in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Alport: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he considers that one of the obstacles to the successful conclusion of this proposal may be the fact that no parliamentary institution in the proper sense of the word exists in the Soviet Union?
  Mr. Rankin: While the Prime Minister might not be, and evidently is not, sympathetic to any foreign delegation meeting within this Chamber, would he be prepared to follow the precedent established already of meeting in the Royal Gallery?
  Mr. Warbey: Will the Prime Minister look at this matter with an open mind? Might it not be of very great advantage to delegates of other countries, including the Soviet Union, in being compelled to take part in the knock-about of British Parliamentary debate?
  The Prime Minister: As far as this House is concerned, I have considered the matter with an open mind and have come to the conclusion that the solution is the closed door.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that if there is to be the knock-about sort of idea which the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Warbey) suggests, it pre-supposes a sense of humour which is entirely absent in Russia?
  The Prime Minister: I would not be prepared to go so far as that general assertion, but I feel that we are an organisation, a society of our own, and we should keep our talk among ourselves, I think—and I trust.
  Mr. Rankin: What about the Royal Gallery?
  The Prime Minister: There are lots of places in the Palace of Westminster in which people may often meet and have often met to talk about all sorts of things—in the most friendly way.

  IMPORT LICENCE (LOVE BIRDS)
  Mr. Rentonasked the Minister of Agriculture when he proposes to issue a licence to Mr. A. Jackson, of Waresley, Huntingdonshire, to import 100 pairs of love birds from Rhodesia.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): The import of birds of the parrot family is banned because imported birds have caused outbreaks of fowl pest and ornithosis among poultry. As a concession, noncommercial breeders are allowed to import small numbers of these birds, and Mr. Jackson has been offered a licence to bring in up to 12 pairs.
  Mr. Renton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are not enough love birds in this country? Is he aware of the sensitivity of these birds to a change in climate and that they suffer heavy casualty rates in transit from Africa? Will he, therefore, not agree that to import 100 pairs is not excessive? Will he look at this matter again with greater sympathy when I have given him some more facts?
  Mr. Mellish: Would it not be a good idea if we left them in Africa to enjoy themselves?
  Mr. Nugent: I am afraid that I cannot look again at this matter, because we have already extended the concession as far as we can to the 12 pairs, unless my hon. and learned Friend would like to ask for another pair to give to Members of the Opposition.

AGRICULTURE

  Swine Fever Vaccines
  Sir L. Plummerasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that the new lapinised virus vaccine is effective against swine fever; whether it will be cheaper and give a longer period of immunity than crystal violet vaccine; and whether he will make a statement.
  Mr. Nugent: Lapinised vaccine is still in the experimental stage at the Ministry's Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge. Results so far obtained indicate that it will confer a high degree of protection against swine fever. It is cheaper to produce than crystal violet vaccine. The duration of effective immunity cannot yet be precisely determined but it is known to be more than one year. My right hon. Friend is anxious to take advantage of this highly promising development as soon as possible; but the experimental work must first be satisfactorily completed.

  Rural Electricity Supplies
  Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement about the progress of rural electrification in Wales in the respective areas of the two electricity Boards which serve the Principality; and how progress compares with comparable areas in England.
  Mr. Nugent: The percentage of farms connected to main electricity for the first time in both North and South Wales was 3·8 per cent. in 1953 and 5·3 per cent. in 1954. There is no exactly comparable area in England, but the figures for England as a whole are 4·2 per cent. and 4·7 per cent. respectively.

AGRICULTURE (ANNUAL REVIEW)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. CROUCH: To ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement on the negotiations that have been taking place between himself and the farmers' union with regard to prices to be paid for farm produce during the coming year.
Mr. HURD: To ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement on the outcome of the annual farm price review.
The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I will, with permission, answer Questions Nos. 59 and 63.
Yes, Sir. The statutory Annual Review of the economic conditions and prospects of the agricultural industry in the United Kingdom has been concluded. The Government have made their determinations on the guarantees to the industry in the light of the Review. These are set out in a White Paper which is now available.
The general production policy of the Government is unchanged. The main objectives of policy continue to be to foster a high level of net output by encouraging beef, mutton and lamb and the production and use of home-grown feeding-stuffs. It is necessary to avoid stimulating further the production of pigs.
The condition of the industry has been adversely affected this year by the particularly bad weather. There has also been a substantial net increase in costs. The actual farm net income for 1954–55 is forecast at £280 million, as compared with the final figure of £320½million for the previous year, though on a normal weather basis—hon. Members may wonder what a normal weather basis is in this country—the forecasts are £312 million for this year and £306½ million for last year. Net output is estimated at 53 per cent. above pre-war, as compared with 55 per cent. a year ago. I am sure the House will join with me in paying a tribute to the determination, hard work and skill of the industry, but for which a greater decline could have been expected.
These circumstances, with the other factors to be taken into account, have been fully considered by the Government in determining the changes to be made in the price guarantees and in the production grants. The net effect of the determinations is to increase the total value of the guarantees in a full year by £28 million. The Government regard this increase as necessary to give the industry the stability and resources that it needs in present circumstances, if it is to play its full part in meeting the requirements of the national economy.
It has been decided to increase the price guarantees for fat cattle, fat sheep and lambs, milk and eggs for 1955–56, and for coarse grains, potatoes and sugar beet of

619
the 1956 harvest; to increase the calf subsidy, the lime and fertiliser subsidies and the ploughing grants, and to make a special payment on hill sheep; to reduce the price guarantee for pigs; and to leave unchanged the price guarantees for wool for 1955–56, and for wheat and rye of the 1956 harvest. The importance of minimising the cost to the Exchequer has been recognised by the reduction in pig prices. The increased production grants and cereal prices are designed to help reduce the strain on the balance of overseas payments by encouraging the production and use of home grown feedingstuffs.
The Government is confident that these determinations should substantially help the industry, in the face on this occasion of heavy increases in costs coupled with exceptionally bad weather, to maintain and indeed increase its net output and income.
Mr. Crouch: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend in making this statement one week earlier than either of his predecessors? May I also ask him whether this is an agreed statement with the National Farmers' Union and whether, with the increase in the amount of the Government subsidy of £28 million, he is really happy about the pig position, because the pig breeders have responded to the appeal of the Government for greater output? Today we have some 240,000 pig breeders as opposed to 140,000 before the war, and a lot of them are small men, who will feel the drop in price.
Mr. Amory: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I am glad to say that this was an agreed settlement with the three Farmers' Unions. As to the second part of his question, I should like to assure him that we have looked at the position very carefully indeed, and at the present prices and costs of production it is simply impossible to envisage a further increase in numbers without a substantial reduction in cost. When he looks at the White Paper, he will see that, in general, we have done our very best to meet the position of the small farmers to whom he refers.
Mr. T. Williams: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman three very small questions. Can he tell us what is the total increase in costs for the past year?
620
Secondly, could he sub-divide the cost into increased prices and into the cost for the various increased subsidies, such as ploughing, calf subsidies, lime and fertilisers? Thirdly, will he tell the House whether the increased subsidies form part of the £28 million increase?
Mr. Amory: I am not quite sure that I have got the three questions correctly, but if I do not give the right hon. Gentleman the answers now, he will find them in the White Paper. First of all to answer the last point, yes, the increase in the production grants is part of the £28 million. As regards the next question, I am not quite sure that I got it right, but the estimated total increase in costs for the coming year which will fall on the industry is something like £45 million. But, as he knows very well, that has to be reduced to keep it to the terms of the Price Review commodities, and when that process has been carried out, the £45 million comes down to £25 million to arrive at the commodities that fall to be covered by the Price Review. I could explain the difference to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he will find it explained in the White Paper. I think I have missed out a question, the second one.
Mr. Williams: I asked the right hon. Gentleman—it is my fault for putting three questions—whether he would subdivide the proportion of the £28 million that will go to increased prices and the proportion that will go to increased subsidies?
Mr. Amory: Again, the right hon. Gentleman will find it in the White Paper, but from memory the £28 million is divided like this. About £11½million of the increase is for production grants and about £9 million for crop prices, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, will go to crops of the 1956 harvest. The remainder, some £8 million, goes on increased livestock prices.
Mr. Hurd: May we deduce from what my right hon. Friend has told us that on this occasion the Government have stretched a point or two in the reckoning so as to take some account of the bad season that has handicapped farming, and also so as to refresh the confidence of the farming community in the profitability of high output?
Mr. Amory: As my hon. Friend knows, normally the Price Review takes place on the basis of normal weather and one disregards the bad weather. But this year the weather has been so exceptionally bad that the effects of it, in our opinion, may well run into a second season, so that we have felt it impossible to disregard the effects on the industry generally. So this review is designed to put the industry into good heart and to provide it with resources to enable it to recover from this season and to continue with its record of excellent progress.
Mr. Elliot: Would my right hon. Friend expand a little further his reference to hill sheep, because the situation is acute and great anxiety is felt by the flock masters. Can he say whether his proposals apply to the present season?
Mr. Amory: As regards the special payment for hill sheep, it is really a certain payment in advance as against a possible hill sheep subsidy that may be payable next year. It would have to be taken into account in that connection, but it is so clear that the hill sheep producers have suffered exceptional losses in the recent weather that we thought it important to take action now. The sheep producers will also, of course, receive benefit from the slightly higher prices for mutton.*
Mr. Elliot: May I assure my right hon. Friend that the steps which he has proposed will be gratefully received by the hill sheep owners in all parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Grimond: Arising out of that last answer by the Minister, can he say whether a claim for the payment can now be put in by producers who have lost sheep in the recent storms? Is it an immediate payment? Can he also give a little more detail as to the form it will take?
Mr. Amory: The hon. Gentleman will see it in the White Paper. It is a payment per head and will not require an immediate claim.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. There is a White Paper to be considered.
Mr. Peart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not usual, when the Price Review is announced in this House, that
* [See correction in OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1955, c. 852, last paragraph.]
622
there is liberty for back benchers to put questions?
Mr. Speaker: It is a matter for my discretion. I would point out to the hon. Member, and to the House in general, first, that there is a White Paper available in the Vote Office; secondly, that there is a Motion about agriculture for tomorrow's business in very wide terms, when these matters can be pursued. At the present moment there is no Question before the House, and therefore the matter cannot be further debated.
Mr. Mellish: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With regard to your statement concerning the Private Member's Motion tomorrow, would you not express an opinion that the Motion should not be on the Order Paper in view of this important statement today? This is a matter for which the Government should find time for the Opposition. It is not a matter to be discussed in Private Members' time.
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member himself has a Motion upon the Order Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will 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, 14TH MARCH—Debate on the Opposition Motion of Censure relating to world disarmament.
TUESDAY, 15TH MARCH—Supply [7th Allotted Day]: Committee stage of the Navy Estimates, Votes 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15; the Army Estimates, Votes 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 and 11; and the Air Estimates, Votes 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 11.
WEDNESDAY, 16TH MARCH—Supply [8th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Class II, Vote 9—Colonial Services;
Class II, Vote 4—United Nations, of the Civil Supplementary Estimates.
At 9.30 p.m., under the provisions of the Standing Order, the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Excess Votes required before the end of the financial year.
Consideration of the Motions to approve the Draft Police Pensions Regulations relating to England and Scotland.
THURSDAY, 17TH MARCH—Supply [9th Allotted Day]:
Report stage of the Navy, Army and Air Estimates and the Civil Supplementary Estimates.
At 9.30 p.m., under the provisions of the Standing Order, the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Excess Votes required before the end of the financial year.
FRIDAY, 18TH MARCH—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether the Government intend to give any time for discussion of the Ministry of Defence pamphlet on the treatment of prisoners of war in Korea? Is he aware that there are damaging statements in that pamphlet, damaging either to the Ministry of Defence if they are not true, or damaging to the individuals concerned if they are? Is he also aware that the matter cannot be left where it is at the moment?
Mr. Crookshank: I have not considered that for the immediate future—at any rate, certainly not for next week.
Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman announce the date of the Budget?
Mr. Crookshank: I am afraid not.
Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will announce the date of the Budget? It is getting late.
Mr. Crookshank: As soon as possible.
Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman cannot name the date of the Budget, can he assure us that we shall be meeting next week?
Mr. Crookshank: I do not quite understand. I shall be here. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not coming.
Mr. Mellish: Would the Leader of the House take note that the Motion standing in my name for tomorrow makes
624
serious allegations of corruption against the party opposite, and in view of his known concern to remove these allegations, will he have a chat with his hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) to find out whether the subject of his hon. Friend's Motion would not be a better subject for a Motion to be discussed in Government time?
Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman is trying to supplant one of my hon. Friends, who has the first Motion for tomorrow. He cannot do that.
Mr. Harold Davies: May I ask the Leader of the House if, in view of the importance of the statement on agriculture made today, a chance will be given in the near future to both sides of the House to discuss this important matter in Government time and not on a day when most hon. Members are away?
Mr. Crookshank: This matter is down for debate tomorrow, and will be in order arising out of my hon. Friend's Motion. If it is not convenient for hon. Members to be here, that is not my fault.
Mr. T. Williams: Does not the Leader of the House know full well that nobody will be able to debate legislation tomorrow?
Mr. Crookshank: There was nothing about legislation, as far as I know, in the statement made by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Peart: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said, that tomorrow is a Private Members' day? It is a Private Member's Motion on agriculture and it is essential that we should have time to discuss the implications of the Price Review.
Mr. Crookshank: So far as debating a matter is concerned, there is no difference in whether it is Government time, Opposition time, or Private Members' time. The point is that it should be debated and there is an opportunity for that tomorrow.
Mr. Pannell: Will the Leader of the House remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) asked him what action the Government propose to take on the Report

625
of the Select Committee on Accommodation? The Leader of the House has twice stalled on this issue. Can he provide us today with an answer whether the Government propose to implement the Report?
Mr. Crookshank: No, I am not going to provide an answer today because the right hon. Gentleman himself has a Question down on the Order Paper. We shall have to wait and see what answer is given to the Question when it is asked.
Mr. Stokes: That may well be, but can the Leader of the House say that, when we have the answer, he will pay immediate attention to it, and give an opportunity for the necessary action which we hope will be involved?
Mr. Crookshank: I think we had better see first what the answer is.
Mr. Harold Davies: Am I now to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the party opposite thinks so little of British agriculture that it can pass over a matter of major policy on agriculture to a Friday on a Private Member's Motion?
Mr. Crookshank: It is very much the other way round. Presumably my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) guessed that this statement would be made today and put down his Motion for tomorrow.
Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that we shall require Government time to discuss this, and the mere fact that someone, by chance, has a Private Member's Motion on the Paper
626
does not relieve the Government of the necessity for giving time to debate it.
Mr. Crookshank: I never said it did. All I said was that there is a good opportunity tomorrow. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes the matter to be further considered, it can be done through the usual channels, but that does not affect the debate tomorrow.

BILL PRESENTED
  PENSIONS (INDIA, PAKISTAN AND BURMA)
  Bill to enable effect to be given to arrangements as to pensions and connected matters made or to be made between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of India or the Government of Pakistan, and to amend the law in relation to certain pensions and other benefits arising out of service in or connected with India, Pakistan or Burma, presented by Mr. Dodds-Parker, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Henry Brooke; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [6TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order for Committee read.

Air Estimates, 1955–56

  MR. GEORGE WARD'S STATEMENT
  3.50 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I beg to move, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.
  The Air Estimates for 1955–56 are for a net total of £513,900,000, which is £22,260,000 more than the net total provided in the current year. These figures allow for £26½million of United States aid as compared with just under £45½ million this year. Without allowing for this aid, the Estimates are £540,400,000 for 1955–56, an increase of £3,400,000 over this year. Therefore, in spite of the reduction in the total defence budget, we shall next year be spending slightly more on the Royal Air Force.
  The broad pattern of expenditure remains the same, but we shall be spending more on aircraft and armament and on radio and radar equipment. Some 47 per cent. of the total will go on aircraft, ammunition and stores of various kinds. We shall need rather less money for petrol and oil and less for clothing; and rather more for pay and allowances.
  We are again providing for much help from the United States. The Estimates for 1954–55 included provision for dollar payments to be made by the United States Government towards the cost of military aircraft manufactured in this country and supplied to the Royal Air Force for the defence of the North Atlantic area. The 1955–56 Estimates make provision both for the spending of as much of this allotment as is left over and also for further assistance of a somewhat similar kind. This aid will be sterling received on the sales of American agricultural products. We have also provided for £10 million of a new form of assistance, under which the United States Government will buy modern military aircraft and equipment, including ammunition, from Her Majesty's Government under offshore contracts and will hand them over to the Royal Air Force. We expect to get
  628
  further instalments of this kind of aid over a period of about three years. I should like to express the gratitude of Her Majesty's Government to the United States Government for all this very generous assistance.
  The advent of the hydrogen bomb has only underlined what I said last year about the need to build up a powerful bomber force. As the Prime Minister has said, if we and our Allies remain strong, steadfast and determined, the possession of these weapons is the greatest deterrent to war on a global scale. We must not shrink from our responsibilities. The knowledge that, if we are attacked, we have a bomber force able, in conjunction with our Allies, to take decisive counteraction in the shortest possible time, will be a most effective contribution to our security.
  The first task of the Royal Air Force is, therefore, to build up our deterrent in the shape of the V-bomber force and its weapons. Our atomic stockpile is steadily accumulating and Valiants are now coming into Bomber Command. This is the first answer to our requirement for a strategic bomber capable of operating at great heights and speed in all weather conditions. It has a better performance than the American B.47 which is the backbone of the Strategic Air Command. The Vulcan and the Victor both promise considerable improvements on the Valiant. Something of the capability of these aircraft is shown by the fact that both of them have already flown in development flights at over 50,000 feet within a small fraction of the speed of sound.
  There has been no major setback with the development of the Vulcan and we expect it to come into squadron service next year. The first production Vulcan has already flown. As the House knows, the accident to the first prototype Victor has set back the trials programme, but, all the same, we hope that this aircraft will come into service not very long after the Vulcan. In our opinion, both these bombers are a good deal better than comparable projects in the same stage of development elsewhere.
  I should like to tell the House something of how the Royal Air Force is adapting itself to meet these increased responsibilities. Over the past two or three years, much has already been

  629
  accomplished. The House must not think that we are only just beginning our preparations. But the task remaining is still a formidable one. It is made easier because we are building on well-established foundations. Bomber Command has remained since the war an experienced and efficient force. The Canberra bomber force, which is at present the principal part of the Command, is not only an effective all-weather striking force but it is also a most useful lead-in to the V-bomber. Bomber Command is fully acclimatised to jets, and, not least in importance, the Canberra is providing the Command with experience in high speed mobility.
  The essence of the new bomber force, and indeed of strategic air power, lies in its flexibility both to strike quickly at targets far away and, with the help of Transport Command, to move from base to base at short notice. The Canberras are already making many hundreds of flights a year to overseas bases in all parts of the world. This mobility and flexibility will be developed by the V-bombers and further improved by the use of flight refuelling. It will be possible to refuel a large proportion of our V-bombers in flight. Sets of equipment are being designed which can quickly convert a bomber into a tanker. Assisted take-off from shorter runways both at home and abroad will also be possible. Some of the aircraft will be interchangeable between the bomber and the photographic reconnaissance rôles.
  To give the crews the best possible training, synthetic trainers, which we now call flight simulators, have been ordered for all three V-bombers, and the first one for the Valiant will be in operation very shortly. These trainers can simulate every aspect of flight and will be valuable not only for initial conversion but in replacing much expensive flying practice in the air.
  The aircrews are being specially selected, and exceptional measures will be taken to raise them to the peak of efficiency. For example, in no aircraft will the captain be less than flight lieutenant in rank, and we shall lengthen the tour for crews in Bomber Command. Much of the training will be carried out far away from the United Kingdom. For example, we are planning to have practice bombing ranges abroad in areas remote from habitation, which will give us
  630
  facilities far greater than any we could have in this country. This perhaps gives some idea of the scale upon which these bombers will operate. It will be routine to do a practice bombing trip to these ranges from this country in a few hours. We have also introduced apparatus by which bombing can be done well out to sea and plotted by radar.
  We are doing all we can to ensure that a surprise attack by the enemy will not cripple the effectiveness of the V-bomber force and its ability to retaliate at once. The Command will have its main bases, on the development of which we have already made considerable progress, and a widely dispersed network of operating sites at home and abroad. It is also being organised to maintain a high state of readiness and flexibility. These steps are an important contribution to the deterrent, because an aggressor could not safely attempt a surprise assault unless he could be sure of attacking all the American and British strategic airfields simultaneously.
  Before leaving Bomber Command, I should like to pay a tribute to those whose foresight conceived the V-bomber force. The need for it is, I think, now fully realised by the great majority of the House and the public. I gladly give the credit for this to the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), whose knowledge of the R.A.F. and his continued interest in it are well known to all of us.
  I now turn to Fighter Command. We have heard a good deal about deficiencies in the re-equipment of Fighter Command and we have never concealed our own disappointment at the setbacks which have affected the day fighter re-equipment programme, culminating in the most regrettable necessity to abandon some marks of the Swift. The public anxiety in this matter has been more than shared by Her Majesty's Government. But it is most important not to exaggerate the extent of these setbacks, nor their effect on our fighter defences as a whole. The re-equipment of our day fighter squadrons with Hunters is now well advanced. The final number of modern fighters in the front line will be achieved only a few months later than we planned.
  We are not in the least complacent about the delays we have had with our new day fighters. The House heard last

  631
  week from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Supply a full and comprehensive statement about the aircraft production position. His speech and the White Paper on Supply of Military Aircraft explained the steps which the Government had taken and are taking to improve matters in this highly technical field.
  But I do not see why we should assiduously cultivate an inferiority complex about the qualities of our fighter aircraft. In spite of aspersions which have been cast upon it, the Hunter is a first-class fighter flowing rapidly into squadron service. The need for incorporating certain modifications, such as the dive-brakes, has delayed its full operational clearance and, as the House knows, there are still restrictions on gun-firing. But these are largely due to the enormous punch which we have packed into the four Aden guns of the Hunter to enable it to kill the bomber. High combat speeds and nuclear bombs make this killing power enormously important. The Hunter can hit about nine times as hard as its predecessor. Those Members who have seen that extremely impressive film of attacks on aircraft with Aden and with other types of guns will appreciate what this would mean to an enemy bomber. Let us not exaggerate the difficulty. It is only at great heights and only in particular circumstances of temperature and aircraft attitude that there is any difficulty at all and we are well on the way to curing this temporary defect.
  We have no doubt that the Hunter is a day fighter capable of dealing effectively with any type of bomber likely to be available for attacks on this country for some years. The Hunter is popular with its pilots and, incidentally, extremely easy to fly in formation at all altitudes. To say that the Hunter is anything but a success is not only wrong, but, in my view, most damaging and dangerous to this country. The Russians have produced fighters quickly at the expense of aids and firepower. They have sacrificed control characteristics at the high speeds of modern combat to rapid re-equipment. These shortcomings were amply demonstrated in Korea when their MIG 15s suffered very severe losses at the hands of the American Sabres. Nevertheless, much is still made of the
  632
  MIG 15 and its development, the MIG 17.
  The proper comparison between these aircraft and the Hunter must be made on the basis of their efficiency against bomber attacks. An interceptor fighter must have adequate performance, good flying qualities, powerful armament, adequate ancillary equipment, and must form an integral part of an efficient fighter defence organisation. Taking all these essential qualities into account, the Hunter is certainly much better than the MIG 15 and indeed better than the MIG 17, too.
  So far I have dealt with the Hunter as an interceptor. But it also has a ground attack role and it has been developed with this in mind. The Hunter will form an important part of the 2nd Tactical Air Force, and it is that ability to use the aircraft in the ground attack rôle on the Continent that is likely to be of the greatest importance. As the House will know, the Americans have shown confidence in the Hunter by placing a large offshore contract for it. It is also destined for the air forces of Holland, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden.
  Last year I announced the placing of orders for pre-production models of a new supersonic day fighter. While I cannot for security reasons make any detailed statement on its progress, I am glad to say that its early flights have shown considerable promise.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Supply gave the House a full report last week on the progress of development with the Javelin which is now proceeding. In addition to its battery of Aden guns, the Javelin will be capable of carrying air-to-air guided weapons. But this is only the first version. A later generation all-weather fighter will be developed from the Javelin and a development batch of 18 aircraft has already been put in hand. As I have told the House, we have placed production orders for air-to-air guided weapons and good progress is being made in this field. The development of the Javelin will carry a still more advanced electronic and guided weapons system.
  Before I leave our air defence system, let me say that I do appreciate the anxiety with which the House and the public await news of progress with surface-to-air guided weapons. This is a natural

  633
  anxiety which is given point by an impression that such weapons are the logical successors to the anti-aircraft gun and by the announcement that a part of our gun defences has been disbanded. However, it is wrong to think of surface-to-air guided weapons as improved guns. In the face of the immense destructive power of the hydrogen bomb, the area of defence that we have known in gun-defended zones is quite useless. Surface-to-air guided weapons are not replacements for local gun defences. If they are to be compared with anything, it is with the manned fighter, except that in the guided weapon electronic guidance replaces the human pilot. Our guided weapons must be capable of engaging bombers well away from vital targets. Indeed, by a combination of guided weapons and manned fighters we must try to bring the bombers down well out to sea.
  We have developed surface-to-air guided weapons to a point where we can expect a reasonably effective performance from them. But any system is very expensive and very complicated to install, and the problem of co-ordinating guided weapons and conventional fighter defence, quite apart from technical development, must still be the subject of a great deal of study and experiment. The stage at which large-scale production is justified is bound to be very much a matter of judgment, and naturally I am aware that these weapons have already been deployed in the United States. But my noble Friend and I are satisfied that if we are to justify the spending of a lot of money from our limited resources we must be able to base our system of surface-to-air guided weapon defence upon a weapon which will really meet the threat and at the same time be capable of further development to meet increased performance on the part of the attacker. We intend to go into production with a conception which will meet these requirements.
  I come now to the flying squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. I yield to no one in my admiration for the squadrons and my pride in their record. I would certainly not lightly be a party to any changes in their rôle and organisation which were not forced upon us by the facts of the situation.
  We have to face the fact that before long the main threat to this country will be from the high-flying bomber armed
  634
  with a nuclear weapon. We cannot count on a period of warning against attack. Instant readiness will be essential always. Moreover, our fighter defences are becoming ever more complex. It follows that instant air defence against the nuclear threat is likely to make increasing demands on aircrew and so to become a full-time job which should be undertaken by the Regular squadrons of the Royal Air Force.
  But the Russians are still equipped with TU4 aircraft which could reach this country. There remains the possibility of airborne attack or diversionary raids of paratroopers from relatively slow-flying transport aircraft. The Meteors and Vampires of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force would be highly effective against these threats. We have, therefore, decided that the Auxiliary squadrons will remain as fighting units in the front line in this rôle and on these types. This does not alter the scheme previously announced for certain Auxiliary pilots in each squadron to fly Hunters in the Regular squadrons and provide a valuable immediate backing to the defence against nuclear attack.
  We shall, of course, have to review this policy in the light of the threat from time to time, but in present circumstances we are satisfied that our plans for the future of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force as they have now been developed represent a sound investment which makes the best use of the skill and enthusiasm of the pilots and ground crews.
  The House will have noted with interest the addition to Coastal Command of Seamew aircraft for inshore maritime reconnaissance. This was a gap in our maritime defences which no existing aircraft filled precisely, but the Seamew is well suited to this particular role. At the same time we are developing new antisubmarine helicopters and a suitable technique for operating them. A most effective development in anti-submarine warfare is an improved method of detecting "snorting" submarines. This is being fitted progressively to all long-range aircraft in Coastal Command.
  Mr. James Callaghan: There is a question that I should like to put to the hon. Gentleman. He may be dealing with this subject later, and, if so, I apologise for interrupting.

  635
  Can he say what co-operation there is with the Navy, which is also developing helicopters for exactly the same rôle?
  Mr. Ward: I think, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that relations between ourselves and our naval friends are extremely close. We never have any arguments.
  Mr. Callaghan: That is rather a bromide answer, if I may say so. Is there, in fact, an effective and close relationship worked out on the use of helicopters, the type of helicopters, and all the rest of it?
  Mr. Ward: Yes. Of course, we are working in close co-operation with the Navy.
  Mr. Edward Shackleton: The hon. Gentleman referred to a new detecting device. I do not think he said what it was. Is it still on the secret list?
  Mr. Ward: Yes, I am afraid so. I wanted to say what it was, but I was not allowed to do so.
  As the Statement on Defence has made clear, the development of the newer kinds of weapons does not mean that we can dispense with conventional forces, particularly in the cold war. But the increasing mobility and flexibility of air power does mean that we can make more radical changes in our forces outside Europe.
  The Royal Air Force has responsibilities extending half-way round the world. It is only by planning and practising mobility that we can provide for all our commitments with the forces we have got. This year we shall be sending whole squadrons of Canberras to the Middle East from time to time on training and reinforcement exercises. The Middle East Air Force can now be reinforced by jet bomber squadrons from the United Kingdom in less than a day. Indeed, only recently two Canberra squadrons reinforced Cyprus in six hours' flying time.
  From a concentrated and centralised organisation in the Canal Zone the Middle East Air Force is gradually being transformed into a series of self-contained forces at important points in the Middle
  636
  East area. I was myself recently able to see something of the redeployment in progress and I can tell the House that it is going extremely smoothly, with the Royal Air Force working in the closest possible co-operation with the Egyptian Air Force.
  In the Far East we are preparing reinforcement plans in the same way as for the Middle East, both for our present, and in particular for our future, types of aircraft. The arrival of Pioneers in Malaya last year has made possible important developments in the conduct of military operations there.
  Nor is the development of strategic mobility confined to flying units. No less important is the ability to move formations of the strategic reserve which the Army are now building up. We are increasing our resources, not only in Transport Command, which will be greatly strengthened by the arrival of the Comets, but in the civil field also.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War told the House on Tuesday, we are forming a Joint Experimental Helicopter Unit in April. I believe that experience in the late war and more recently especially in Malaya shows that there is a very fruitful field for co-operation between the Royal Air Force and the Army with the object of greatly improving the tactical mobility of ground forces.
  In our search for safety and efficiency we are always trying to improve our methods of flying training. We are strengthening our flight safety organisation, and I am very glad to say that the accident rate continues to improve. The jet fatal accident rate is now less than one-sixth of the rate when jet aircraft were first in full service and less than half what it was two years ago. Moreover, the fatal accident rate for all types of aircraft is less than one-quarter of what is was in 1921 when the Royal Air Force was equipped with DH9a bombers and Bristol fighters, which nowadays many people nostalgically regard as having been the height of aerial safety. The comparison is all the more striking because nowadays our pilots have so much more to learn and must be prepared to fly and fight in all weathers.
  We are developing a dual version of the Hunter which may eventually replace the Vampire trainer in Flying Training

  637
  Command. Another interesting development is the jet Provost for primary aircrew training. As the House knows, we have ordered a number of these for evaluation trials and the first one flew at Farnborough last year. The possibilities of this aircraft are most impressive. When it has emerged satisfactorily from the exhaustive tests which the Central Flying School will give it, we plan to begin an experimental all-jet pilot training scheme. Thus before long we should see the first pilot to complete his training without ever having flown with a propeller. I think there is a good chance that this development will bring about a real advance in our training methods and should help greatly to reduce the number of men who fail to pass the training courses.
  Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcock: Would the hon. Gentleman mind going back to the question of the Comet? Did I understand him to say that it was being delivered, and if so, can he give us any idea of what use will be made of it? Is it to be used for passengers or freight?
  Mr. Ward: I hope I did not say that they were being delivered. We are to get strengthened Comet II's in Transport Command. As I understand it, they will be used for freight to start with, but they may go on to passenger carrying.
  Mr. F. Beswick: The hon. Gentleman referred to "strengthened" Comets. Is that a fact, or are the fuselages for delivery to the R.A.F. already built? And can he answer the question, already asked by my hon. and gallant Friend, about what use will be made of them?
  Mr. Ward: I did answer that question. They are to be used in the normal Transport Command work.
  Mr. Beswick: For passengers or freight?
  Mr. Ward: Eventually for passengers. We shall probably start with freight. But we have not yet got them. When we do get them, we can consider the question of their use. They are to be part of Transport Command equipment. There is nothing funny about this at all.
  Mr. Beswick: I am not suggesting that there is anything funny. What I did
  638
  think was slightly funny was that the hon. Gentleman does not know for what purpose they are to be used, and that when he gets them he will probably make up his mind.
  Mr. Ward: The hon. Gentleman was himself in Transport Command, and he knows that the tasks of Transport Command are varied. I do not propose to lay down any particular task for the Comet. We shall see later.
  Mr. Beswick: The hon. Gentleman is at fault here. There is some public interest in this matter. This is an aircraft not to be used for civil operations, and people wish to know whether it is to be used in the Service for carrying passengers. That is all I am asking. A perfectly simple and straightforward question has already been put by my hon. and gallant Friend, and it has not yet been answered. Are they to be used for carrying passengers?
  Mr. Ward: I did say that eventually they would be used for that. But they cannot carry passengers until they have a certificate of airworthiness. It is a little early to say whether they will have that certificate, but if they have it, there is nothing to prevent them from being used for carrying passengers.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal for fewer interruptions? I had to draw the attention of the House the other day to the growing habit of conducting these debates as if they were conversations or cross-examinations. Hon. Members will have plenty of opportunities to put their own points of view. Meanwhile, it prolongs our affairs if an hon. Member who has a narrative to dispose of is continually being side-tracked by questions.
  Mr. Ward: I do not wish the House, and particularly the hon. Member, to think that there is anything funny or anything to conceal here. All I am saying is that these aircraft will have to have a certificate of airworthiness. If we decide to start off with freight, it does not mean that they will not carry passengers.
  Group Captain Wilcock: As mine was the original question, may I say that the object of my question to the Minister was to find out when we shall have the strengthened Comets in Transport Command? It was not a criticism of Transport Command. The information I wished to

  639
  obtain from the Minister was when Transport Command is to be added to by good aircraft and when we shall get the Comet.
  Mr. Ward: I appreciate the object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I know that he is as much interested in the Air Force as a whole as anyone is. I can only say that we shall get the Comets as soon as we can and as soon as they are strengthened and ready to come in.
  May I now turn to the question of aircrew? I am glad to say that we are now fully manned in all categories, although we are not yet attracting into the Service enough candidates of the right type for aircraft training to replace those who will be completing their engagements each year.
  We have now made one important modification to the direct commission scheme and we think that it should be even more attractive. Under the original scheme a man stood a very good chance of having a long-term pensionable career but we could not promise it to him when he first came in. Now when a man comes in on a direct commission he can choose from the start either to serve to pensionable age or to take an engagement for12 years. If he chooses the 12-year engagement, he can leave after eight years' service if he wants to or transfer without disadvantage to the pensionable engagement. I do not think that many other occupations offer such a free and attractive choice of prospects to newcomers.
  In the past year, after the direct commission scheme had been introduced nearly 2,000 fully-trained and highly experienced pilots and navigators who came in under earlier schemes volunteered to stay on for longer periods of service. In addition, nearly 1,000 extended their service under earlier schemes. Although these figures are encouraging, the first year of a new scheme is bound to show a purely temporary increase in the number of those who extend their service. There are still many pilots and navigators in the service whom we should be glad to have with us for a longer time. I hope that the improvements in the direct commission scheme which I have just announced will persuade many of them to volunteer for longer service.
  640
  Entries to the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell are still disappointing. The standards set are necessarily very high and we realise that the number of such young men is not unlimited. But the future of the Royal Air Force and the defence of the country largely depend on our ability to solve this problem and improve the position. The House will remember that the Cranwell Scholarship Scheme was introduced in November, 1953. In its first year, the scheme has had encouraging results. Over 800 candidates from schools of all types well spread over the British Isles have competed in the four competitions held. The 71 boys chosen for awards are most promising and the first group of them will enter Cranwell next September. We are greatly indebted to the headmasters who have served on the selection boards and have been of such help in operating the scheme.
  All that I have just said about aircrew applies to pilots and navigators equally. Too many people even now tend to ignore the great responsibilities of a navigator in a modern military aircraft. The success of a mission depends on the team-work of the crew, but in that team very special qualities are called for from the navigator. We are introducing a navigator's course into the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell, and the Cranwell Scholarship Scheme is open to boys who want to be either navigator or pilot. Career opportunities for navigators will be comparable with those for pilots.
  Turning to ground personnel, I can tell the House that we have improved the state of manning in the Force and also the balance between the various trade groups. To maintain the numbers, however, it is still necessary in some trades to give long training to men on short engagements who can give us too little productive service. The improvements in pay and allowances which we made last spring and the measures which I announced to improve the career prospects of technicians have undoubtedly helped to persuade a number of men to stay on.
  The House is well aware of the importance of raising the level of experience, and I am glad to say that during the last year the numbers of men serving on engagements of 12 years or more increased by nearly 15 per cent. There are

  641
  indications that this trend is continuing, but if our manning problems are to be solved it is essential that the number of long-service men should continue to increase. We shall have an Amendment on this subject later in the debate.
  In the highly-skilled advanced trades I am glad to say that we have now achieved full manning in the aircraft and electrical groups and we hope to achieve it shortly in the armament group. This does not mean that these advanced trades are yet manned mainly with long-service tradesmen. We are still having to train a number of men on short engagements and National Service men with engineering experience. We are also making good use of the National Service men who come to us after an apprenticeship in industry.
  Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: On this point regarding technicians, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that over the years ahead he will get sufficient highly skilled technicians to be able to maintain the tremendously specialised aircraft which he spoke about in the earlier part of the speech? It will not be very useful to have the wonderfully specialised aircraft if they cannot be maintained.
  Mr. Ward: I agree that that is of the greatest possible importance. We are doing everything we possibly can to attract these people to stay in the Service. But if the hon. Member listens a little longer, he will perhaps get a better picture. In any event, we shall spend quite a lot of the afternoon in debating that very point on the Amendment which will come before the House.
  Mr. George Wigg: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the important and vital question of prolongations. What I do not understand is how in 1951, with about 8,000 men, the Royal Air Force managed to get prolongations amounting to 63,000 man-years, whereas in 1954, with about the same number of men, the man-years figure is down to 45,000. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman's policy is worse than that of the Secretary of State for War, but on the figures it appears to be so.
  Mr. Ward: If I remember rightly, there was a pay increase in 1950, which would be reflected in the figures for 1951. Of course, the 15 per cent. of people signing on this year for 12-year engagements no
  642
  doubt reflected the increased pay that we introduced last year. That probably answers the hon. Member's question.
  The position in the fourth trade group, radio engineering, is more serious. The problem here is to find enough young men who are able to cope with this very difficult and highly specialised training. We have not yet achieved full manning, but we have managed to increase the number of advanced tradesmen in this group during the year, partly by the methods I have just described and partly by finding and training National Service airmen who have no previous experience, but nevertheless have suitable aptitude. Although their period of productive service is short, and we would like many of them to take on longer engagements, they are filling a highly important rôole.
  While we have been building up our strength of advanced tradesmen, we have also been making strenuous efforts to close the gap from the other side by reducing our requirements. By a careful review of establishments, we have substituted some 2,500 less skilled posts for more highly skilled posts, thus economising in training and making the services of our most skilled men go further.
  I do not want to be over-optimistic, but the picture on the personnel side is undoubtedly brighter than it was last year. And perhaps the most encouraging part of it is that the recruiting figures for establishments such as Halton, Locking and Cosford, at which we train our long-service airmen, are now very satisfactory. It is, after all, to these boys that we look for the advanced tradesmen of the future. One of the brightest spots of all is that the number of boy entrants coming forward now justifies the opening of a new training school, and we hope to do this later in the year.
  Of all the things we can to induce men to make the R.A.F. their career and keep them contented, by far the most effective is to try to give them a more settled family life. Indeed, during my recent tour of Middle East stations, I found that the greatest single cause of complaint was the enforced separation of many officers and airmen of all ranks from their wives and families. In the Canal Zone particularly, conditions during the past few years have put a particularly severe strain on married officers and airmen.

  643
  And so most of the 260 married quarters which we hope to start overseas in the coming year will be in the Middle East. In Cyprus and elsewhere, we are putting up married quarters at the same time as we build the new airfields and barracks that we need for the redeployment.
  Group Captain Wilcock: Has the hon. Gentleman's Department considered shorter tours instead of married quarters—in other words, to bring people home, as the Navy does, by Transport Command after a shorter period abroad?
  Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. A scheme has been, and is being, considered to try to solve this problem, but the real answer is to build more married quarters. That is what we are trying to do as quickly as we can.
  Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to deal with a matter on which he and I have corresponded many times: the problem of the Air Force man who leaves the Service? People are inclined not to be recruited into the Service because they will have nowhere to live when they leave. I raise the question because in my constituency there is an aerodrome at which people are continually being evicted from married quarters and they have nowhere to go.
  Mr. Ward: The hon. and learned Member will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing made a statement about that matter a few days ago. I ask the hon. and learned Member to refer to that statement. If it does not satisfy him, perhaps he will raise the question again and I will see what I can do to answer him in winding up the debate.
  Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: There is to be a debate on an Amendment relating to manning. The hon. Gentleman said that he is more optimistic about manning this year than ever, yet in the Memorandum his noble Friend says that the percentage of National Service men this year will probably rise. Will the hon. Gentleman deal with that matter now or when we discuss the Amendment?
  Mr. Ward: I will deal with any question that is raised in the debate on the Amendment, and if that is raised I will
  644
  certainly deal with it. But I was talking about the number of people who have signed on for 12-year engagements—the long-service men—in the four advanced skilled trades.
  I have dealt with aircraft and manpower at greater length this year than usual and I apologise for the fact that I have left myself no time, without tiring the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—to discuss organisation and other matters; but I shall do my best to deal with any questions that the House may have when I wind up the debate.
  In 1952, in drawing the attention of the House to the state of our air defences, I said it would be some time before we could begin to equip our squadrons with our own latest types. I went on to say that we had temporarily lost our lead and could not regain it for some time to come.
  We have been well aware of the immense difficulties facing the aircraft industry, caused mainly by the run-down of that industry after the war and its subsequent over-loading when Korea started. But our impatience should not lead us into the serious dangers of underestimating the capability of the Air Force either now or when it is rearmed. If we make this mistake, we shall do two things. First, we shall do unnecessary damage to the public confidence and may well undermine public support for what is now generally accepted as the most important part of our defence policy. Secondly—and do not let us ignore this danger—we could lead a potential aggressor to take a wholly false view of our present ability to defend ourselves against attack.
  I would not for a moment deny the right of any hon. Members to inquire critically into the state of our air defences. Indeed, it is their duty to do so, and I used to exercise it myself year after year from the benches opposite. Much of the criticism has been moderate and informed. But there have been some exceptions, notably from the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt). In my view, neither the essential right which I have mentioned nor the cut and thrust of party politics, in which we all indulge from time to time, can possibly justify the constant assertion and reassertion of damaging untruths and half-truths about so vital a subject. A deliberate campaign of denigration will get us nowhere and can only do immense harm.

  645
  I was impressed by the intervention of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) during the Defence debate. He asked the only really important question. It was simply this:
  "Do the Government really think—whether there has been a deficiency in armaments or not—that they are now on the right lines as regards equipment, and are therefore able to give protection to the British people and to the people of Europe through the steps that they are taking today? That is all I am concerned about."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 2101.]
  That is what we should all be concerned about. The essential questions are these: What can the Air Force do now? What will the Air Force be able to do when it is fully re-equipped? Is our new equipment going to be up to its job? I want to end my speech by trying to give concise and objective answers to these questions.
  Of course no nuclear war can be anything but devastating and appalling, but I am quite confident that Fighter Command as it stands today provides an extremely efficient and powerful defence capable of dealing with any type of bomber which the Soviet air force now has in service, and when it is fully rearmed the Command will have day and night fighters well capable of destroying the new jet bombers which the Russians will then have in service.
  When Bomber Command is fully re-equipped, it will have aircraft which will be able to reach their objectives against the kind of opposition they are likely to meet. Meanwhile we have laid the foundations for these bombers which are starting to come in. We have a Canberra force trained to a high standard of efficiency and a Coastal Command equipped with good maritime aircraft and anti-submarine weapons. On the Continent, the Second Tactical Air Force provides a valuable contribution to the defence of the central theatre, and its equipment is being modernised.
  In short, the standards of efficiency of the R.A.F. have never been higher. From the information available to me, I say with every confidence that it would be nothing short of disaster for the Royal Air Force to have to exchange its weapons with the corresponding weapons which the Russian air force has today and has in prospect. Our airmen are fully conscious of the supreme responsibility which fate
  646
  has cast upon them for the safety of these islands and for the cause of freedom.
  Mr. John Rankin: Are the Government?
  Mr. Ward: I want to send out from this House today a message of confidence in the spirit and skill of our airmen and of our determination to do all we can to give them weapons and equipment which will be superior to those of their adversaries, not only today and tomorrow but whenever they may need them; and an assurance that before we put them into their hands these weapons will be as technically perfect as our fine craftsmen can make them. Only thus can we keep the great shield of air power always burnished and bright.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I would ask him one question. We have passed into the atomic phase. In the last war we could stop between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the raiders. Now that the enemy flies twice as fast and twice as high, what does the hon. Gentleman mean in saying that the Royal Air Force can make these islands safe?
  Mr. Ward: I do not say that the Royal Air Force can make this country 100 per cent. safe. All I say is that the equipment we have today would be effective against the bombers which the Russians are able to throw against us at the present time.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Henderson: The sentiments expressed by the Under-Secretary of State towards the end of his speech, especially his reference to the courage and skill of the Royal Air Force, will meet with agreement from every Member of the House. He made a comprehensive statement, delivered in the agreeable manner that we have come to expect from him during the past three years, but it leaves the House very much in the dark on some very important matters connected with the Royal Air Force.
  The hon. Gentleman told us nothing about the size of the front line or about the number of squadrons. Indeed, he seems still to refuse to accept the advice which the present Foreign Secretary tendered to me on one occasion, not to hide behind the veil of secrecy. He rather chided one or two of my hon. Friends

  647
  for raising matters critical of the state of equipment in the Royal Air Force, but that is part of the price which any Government have to pay if they will not take the House and the nation more fully into their confidence.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) knows, I do not always agree with the strictures that have been made on this side of the House, but my hon. Friends are fully entitled to raise various points with regard to the fighters and bombers that are to come into service in the Royal Air Force. Now that we are in the hydrogen era, is there still the same necessity to impose a ban of secrecy upon the size of the Royal Air Force? I was very much in agreement with the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State last year that the important thing these days is quality rather than quantity. I should have thought the Government would be much more concerned in dealing with quality and be not quite so secretive about the numbers.
  Last week, the Prime Minister said that force and science, hitherto the servants of man, were threatening to become his master. Consequently the world is faced today by a mortal danger which, while it may be held off by a defence policy through deterrents, can only be actually and effectively removed by political action. Therefore we should intensify our efforts to get a comprehensive agreement with the Russians to control and eventually to abolish all these dreadful weapons of mass destruction. This is an essential step to a genuine system of world collective security, backed by an international police force. People of all nations today are worried by the deep anxieties to which the growing danger of mutual destruction has given rise.
  If, as is widely recognised, the choice is between mutual extinction and mutual existence, there is surely only one decision for both us and Russia. I believe that the nations are looking to their leaders for a new political and diplomatic effort to rid the world both of the fear and of the means of self-destruction.
  But, meanwhile, it is our duty today to consider how best security and freedom can be safeguarded against the
  648
  threat of aggression, and how best to organise our air defences to meet the threat of nuclear war, for in present circumstances, until we have achieved a comprehensive disarmament agreement which is fair to all and which provides equal security for all, we must plan and provide for our effective defence by deterrents against possible aggression; otherwise we should be dooming ourselves to eventual surrender.
  That is a hard fact which has to be faced, and it is a fact which the country will face. Moreover, we must recognise that if a policy of deterrents is to have a chance of being effective, not only must the deterrent weapons be in our possession but we must also have the means of delivering them.
  Last week the Prime Minister stated that in his view the Russians are unlikely to be in a position to launch a nuclear attack on this country for three or four years. That may be so, but we must not under-estimate their capabilities. According to American newspapers and, indeed, other sources of information—I do not know whether the Under-Secretary will agree with what I am about to say—the Soviet Union today has at least 3,000 bombers. It is said that 1,000 of them are TU4s, piston-engined copies of of the American B29. There are possibly 1,200 I128s, twin jet bombers equivalent to our Canberras.
  It is also stated that the Russians have several hundreds of the new T39, twin-engined jet bombers of considerable range and performance, and that they are building fast, high-altitude long-range T37s, jet aircraft of a modern type comparable with the American B47s and B52s, probably the best bombers in the world at the present time.
  While these latest Russian jet bomber aircraft may not yet be in squadron service, we should make a great mistake, I think, if we under-estimated the time at which they will come off the production line. In short, the Russians are now synchronising their atomic and nuclear weapons with the necessary means of delivering them, although we were told by the Prime Minister last week that there is as yet no evidence that the Russians have developed the mechanism which will enable them to carry and deliver a hydrogen bomb from aircraft.

  649
  Can we and our American and other Allies afford to ignore the build-up of these powerful Soviet bomber forces? If it is our policy to build up a deterrent, surely we must build up our own bomber force in conjunction with that of our American Allies.
  I do not propose tonight to argue the ethics of conventional as against nuclear war. I cannot see any logical or ethical difference between the saturation bombing of Hamburg or Dresden by high-explosive bombs, involving the deaths of 100,000 and 200,000 persons respectively, and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with two atomic bombs, involving the deaths of an almost equal number of persons.
  Nor do I consider it practicable to ban this or that type of weapon of mass destruction, or to ban the nuclear bomb and retain the high-explosive bomb. Science has gone too far, and today the dividing line between conventional and nuclear weapons is becoming almost obliterated by recent scientific developments. Today conventional artillery can fire atomic shells, conventional rockets are being fitted with atomic and hydrogen heads, conventional fighter-bombers are being equipped to carry and drop the atom bomb. Strategic bombers are being equipped to carry both strategic bombs and high-explosive bombs.
  The world has entered a new era of warfare. Mankind cannot now chose its type of warfare; its only choice is to abolish warfare of every kind. But until we have attained the goal of world disarmament and established international relations on the basis of co-operation and co-existence, we are entitled, in my view, to make it clear beyond all doubt that the free peoples intend to safeguard their freedom, independence, and way of life, and, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said last week, that in the event of open aggression retaliation would be devastatingly certain.
  In these circumstances, Britain's major contribution must be to allied strategic and tactical bomber strength. I agree with what the Under-Secretary said about Bomber Command and the need for a modern strategic bomber force. Of course, we cannot hope to compete with the United States Strategic Air Force in numbers, nor, indeed, is it necessary for us to do so. But, as I said last year,
  650
  we must not put all our eggs into the copious American bomber basket.
  Our contribution, first, must be a relatively small but highly efficient force of modern V-bombers capable of filling a strategic rôle. I would again suggest that such a force need not exceed 100 in number, equipped, as they would be, to carry either nuclear bombs or high-explosive bombs. I mean a front-line strength of about 100 in number. As I said last year, the days of the sky being filled with a thousand bombers has, in my view, gone for a very long time to come, and probably for ever.
  Secondly, in the tactical role there would be the powerful force of Canberra light bombers, to which the Under-Secretary referred—admittedly aircraft of outstanding performance which are, or can be, I believe, equipped to carry the atom bomb. Thirdly, there would be our fighter-bomber force with a similar role, and similarly equipped.
  It appears from the White Paper, from the Air Estimates Memorandum, and from the debate of last week, that our V-squadrons are unlikely to be operationally ready before 1956. In these circumstances, I still consider that it was a mistake to disband the B29 squadrons, the Washington squadrons, which were always intended to strengthen Bomber Command pending the arrival of the V-squadrons.
  But if we are to be associated with our American Allies in building up this formidable strategic and tactical bomber force, with all its devastating and frightening potentialities of attack, I suggest the following considerations to the Government. First, once we are in a position to make our contribution to a strategic air force, this country must be assured of an effective voice in the planning and decision of air strategy. In my view, a joint planning staff, as suggested in the "Manchester Guardian" a few days ago, is essential if there is to be proper and adequate co-ordinated strategic air responsibility.
  Secondly—the Minister of Defence will correct me if I am wrong—we have been told that we are producing the hydrogen bomb in this country. That suggests that we already have the "know-how." Why cannot arrangements be made between ourselves and the United States to streamline production of nuclear weapons?

  651
  That is all the more important if it is correct that advanced British processes for making the hydrogen bomb are more efficient and less expensive than those of America. Whether that is so or not, I do not know, but if it is so it seems to support the consideration I am putting forward.
  Surely it is not necessary to have competitive production by Britain and the United States in this field? That would be duplicating the use of defence resources in plant, scientists, manpower and money. Why should there be division of resources in producing identical weapons when, by sensible co-operation, there could be greater individual concentration on other new weapons, to the advantage of both countries?
  Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I think everyone will agree with the right hon. and learned Member, but would it not also be necessary to repeal the McMahon Act, which was passed after the war, if that happy state of affairs is to come about?
  Mr. Henderson: I am not suggesting that this House can repeal the McMahon Act, or that this House can control the American Government.
  What I am putting forward for consideration is the view that we should certainly be justified in bringing to the attention of the American Government the fact that if they want the best combined defence effort of this country and their own they must take into account the economic resources of our country, which make it quite impossible for us to provide everything of the highest quality in the greatest quantity.
  Mr. Paget: The McMahon Act covers only nuclear work, it does not touch ordinary defence.
  Mr. Henderson: Yes, I was widening the field of co-operation to nuclear weapons and suggesting the need not to impose on this country the expense—perhaps great expense—of producing hydrogen bombs when we can make our contribution in the "know-how" and the ability to produce them cheaper than it is possible to produce them today in the United States.
  Mr. Wigg: This is a very important proposal which my right hon. and learned
  652
  Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) is putting forward, that we should rely on the availability of the American fusion deterrent. Can my right hon. and learned Friendsay why he rejects the idea that we should produce the fusion deterrent, and does he reject the idea that we should buy American B47s?
  Mr. Henderson: I think I made it clear that America and ourselves are full partners. It should not be necessary for us to work along parallel lines.
  I am not suggesting that we should not exchange bombers. If they like, they could have some of our V-bombers when they come off the production lines, and give us some B47s. The point I am trying to make is that it seems unnecessary, undesirable and unfortunate that we should work along independent and parallel lines in producing weapons of war which are for the use of both countries.
  My suggestion would enable the United States to build up a stockpile of atomic and hydrogen bombs, supply our strategic bomber forces with them, and thus enable this country to devote its more limited scientific, financial, and productive resources to other new, important weapons such as guided missiles. There are obvious limits to what we can attempt with our resources compared with those available in the United States and the Soviet Union.
  In that connection I ask whether the Government are taking any steps to secure agreement with the United States regarding the exchange of information on nuclear weapons and guided missiles. I know the difficulty with regard to the McMahon Act, but I think it is important that the Government should make some attempt to make an arrangement for the exchange of this type of information. I also ask the Government whether they are considering the question of rationalisating production on the lines I have suggested.
  I come to my third point, dispersal. I was very interested in what the Under-Secretary said about the dispersal of our bomber squadrons. I think all of us would agree that at all costs we must avoid the danger of surprise knock-out blows against our strategic air squadrons and bases. The Under-Secretary did not say where those air strips and landing grounds which, I understood, were to be

  653
  made available on the basis of dispersal, were to be placed. Why should we not secure air strips in Central Africa, the Middle East and, if necessary, further afield? Surely those areas would assist us in implementing the policy, to which I understand the Government have committed themselves, of dispersing to the widest possible extent the strategic bomber squadrons that will be available in due course.
  I therefore welcome, in the Memorandum accompanying the Estimates, the reference to the rotation of bomber squadrons which, I imagine, is related to the implementation of this new policy of dispersal. That, of course, does mean that the landing strips and widely dispersed airfields will have to be properly equipped and supplied. That will add to the bill which will be presented to the Air Ministry.
  I wish to say a word or two about the early warning system. One of the most important elements in air defence is early warning. The Under-Secretary will not deny that completion of the plan "Rotor" is most satisfactory. I think the Minister of Supply acknowledged our part in this plan last week. The plan was initiated in 1950 by the Labour Government.
  I know there is an expert on the back benches opposite who perhaps knows more about it than I do, but the Under-Secretary will agree that radar warning is limited by the physical properties of the beams to a distance of approximately 180 miles, providing us with a bare 10 minutes warning. I was not sure whether I heard the Under-Secretary correctly, but I understood him to say that we cannot count on any warning against attack. Those were the words I took down, but whether or not he was referring to something else I do not know.
  Mr. Ward: I did not mean once the bomber force had taken off, but before it took off.
  Mr. Henderson: That is a very different matter and is not quite what the hon. Gentleman said.
  We will agree that first we would have 10 minutes warning on our radar chain around the United Kingdom. In my view that is not sufficient. That is why I believe we must have an effective radar chain across Western Europe. That is
  654
  vital, not only for the protection of our European Allies, but because it would extend our own warning to at least 45 minutes. Those 45 minutes might be very valuable, and indeed vital, to the successful operation of our air defence.
  Can we be told whether an effective radar chain with the latest type or equipment is being built across Western Europe from Norway to the Mediterranean? I know that is a N.A.T.O. responsibility, but it is very vital when we are discussing the air defence of our country. Can we be told a little more about our own reporting system? American and Canadian authorities are much more frank than we are.
  We are told that they are constructing three radar chains, one stretching along the United States-Canada border—known as "Pinetree"—another 500 miles further north—known as "The Mid-Canadian" chain—and a third lying on the northern edge of the North American Continent—called the "Distant Early Warning."
  Although the question of a radar chain across Western Europe is a N.A.T.O. responsibility, I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us some indication that the Government are pressing for high priority to be given to the completion of this radar system. In addition, one has only to look at the map to realise that there are wide areas of sea which cannot be covered by land radar stations. The Canadians and the Americans are using radar ships. Are the Government considering the possibility of doing likewise?
  I now turn to the question of fighter defence. I agree with the Under-Secretary that so long as piloted aircraft are in use fighter defence must be an essential part of our air defence system. Although a large part of our fighter force, both at home and abroad, is still composed of Vampires, Venoms and Meteors, we should not overlook the squadrons equipped with Sabre jets which we have (received from Canada and the United States. Whilst these were received after the Labour Government left office, I am sure that the Under-Secretary knows that upon the initiative of the Air Ministry all the arrangements for their supply had been completed before we left office.
  I agree with the Minister of Supply that all fighter forces, including those of the Russians and the Americans, have a large proportion of obsolescent aircraft,

  655
  but that does not mean that they have a low operational value. I agree with the Under-Secretary that our fighter forces today could give a very good account of themselves if it were necessary for them to do so. I agree with the Minister of Supply and the Under-Secretary that the Hunter compares favourably with the F 86, the MIG 15, or even the MIG 17, but it is none the less most disappointing that the Hunter is not in squadron service in greater numbers today.
  It seems to me that the policy of super-priority has been spread over too many types and has consequently failed to achieve its main purpose. So far as I can see, the production dates for the Hunter, the Javelin and the three V-bombers, anticipated in 1951, do not seem to have been advanced at all as a result of super-priority being given to them. It is also disappointing to be told of the many teething troubles which have slowed down the production of the Hunter and the Javelin.
  In my view my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley were absolutely right to draw attention—as they did in their own effective ways—to these teething troubles. At the same time, anybody who has been connected with aircraft development and production will know of the constant setbacks which occur due to teething troubles. To my own knowledge, the Canberra, which is today one of the finest aircraft in service, had more than its share of them. It will also be remembered that only a few days ago, for technical reasons, the United States Air Force had to ground the equivalent of our Canberra—the B 57—and their super-Sabre, the F 100 is certainly having considerable development difficulties.
  The story of the Swift is a dismal one, and it is an expensive loss, but, as the Minister of Supply pointed out, that kind of trouble is not peculiar to our country or our Air Force. At the same time, I find it difficult to understand why it took the Government so long to discover that it was a failure. In March, 1953, the Under-Secretary described it as one of the finest fighters in the world, and only in recent weeks have we been told of its failure. It is of the highest importance that the time taken to discover defects
  656
  and put them right should be reduced to a minimum, in order that the supply of operational aircraft to the squadrons may be speeded up.
  I now want to say a few words about the light fighter. Last year I urged the Government to consider the provision of this type of aircraft, which I was informed cost one-third as much as the Hunter, was almost its equal in performance, and took only one-third of the time to produce. I think that the Government are wrong in their view of this aircraft. I am told that there is in prospect a Mark II, which is capable of travelling at supersonic speeds, and which could be in production by 1957 or 1958.
  Can we be given any information about the attitude of the Government to this aircraft? I know that it has not yet flown, and I am well aware that the Midge has a civil version with an engine which is not suitable for military purposes, but I should like to know whether the Government will give serious consideration to the question of a supersonic light fighter in addition to the P1, to which the Under-Secretary has referred.
  The Government recently announced that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons were all to have their operational role taken away, and, indeed, their aircraft. Today we have been told—as we were told in the Memorandum on the Air Estimates—that that decision has been reversed, and that they are to have their Vampires and Meteors returned to them. I welcome that announcement, although I consider it regrettable that the decision was ever made. From contacts which I have had with them in the past, it appears to me that these 20 squadrons constitute a Reserve force of the greatest value, and I can only hope that their splendid morale, based upon their great traditions, will in no sense be impaired by the treatment which they have received.
  I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether it is intended to restore them to their operational role. If so, could not the more advanced squadrons in due course be given light fighters, if that type of aircraft is to be provided for the Air Force? It seems to me that they would be ideally suited for the Auxiliary squadrons, especially as the light fighter, whether subsonic or supersonic, has great manoeuvreability. I also believe that the

  657
  light fighter could play a very valuable operational rôle in the Second Tactical Air Force in Europe.
  I believe that the Government were unwise to state in their White Paper that we have a better night defence than any other country. I know that the word "system" was afterwards introduced, but, even so, I doubt if there would be general agreement outside this country that that claim is justified. Certainly the American Press did not share that view. We probably have the best reporting system in the world, but until we have an adequate supply of Javelins, equipped with the latest guided missiles, we should avoid making complacent comparisons about the night-fighter defences of this country and other countries.
  In any event, comparisons with other countries do not carry us very far. However good our night defence system may be—and I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) will be interested in what I am about to say—we must be frank and admit that there can be no absolute security against the bombers. What proportion would get through is the question which was put to the Under-Secretary. My view is that it is anyone's guess, but it is probable that a high proportion would get through. Whether they would be those that carried nuclear weapons is another matter.
  The fact that an absolute defence is impossible, however, is no excuse for not doing what we can to strengthen our night defence. Both the Venom night fighter and the Meteor 14 night fighter should be capable of dealing with the earlier types of Soviet bomber, which today constitute the greater proportion of the Soviet bomber force. It must be admitted, however, that they do not have the performance to deal with the latest Russian types—the T37 and the T39—to which I have already referred.
  The Javelin is another proposition. With its speed of from 600 to 700 miles an hour and operational altitude of 50,000 feet it should be most effective against any subsonic type of fighter or bomber—provided, of course, that its performance comes up to expectations, and provided it is equipped with air-to-air guided missiles. I was glad to hear the Minister of Supply say last week that
  658
  the Javelin is expected to become available in substantial numbers during 1955, and that its development problems, one of which is quite serious, I understand, are being overcome.
  I understood the Under-Secretary of State to say he could not give us any information on the P.1. I should like him, however, to say whether he is satisfied that the development of P.1is making good progress. I would ask him what is the position with regard to a supersonic night fighter to follow the Javelin. It is almost certain that supersonic bombers are being developed in other countries which can be dealt with only by supersonic day and night fighters.
  I thought the statement by the Minister of Supply on guided missiles was disappointing. He stated that production orders have been placed for only one weapon, presumably an air-to-air weapon, for which the development contract was placed in 1949. The Government have only themselves to blame for this disappointment, because it was as far back as October, 1953, that the then Minister of Supply, in a written answer, said that we were now entering the trial stage of what he described as several miniature rocket weapons capable of flying at high supersonic speeds. It is now evident that we have not reached the production stage, with one exception, and I suggest that it would have been wiser frankly to have stated then that we were several years away from the production stage.
  It may be that piloted aircraft will continue in a major rôle probably until the early 1960s. We are then likely to enter the era of the inter-continental missile of the guided ballistic types capable of accurate flights between continents. It appears that the United States and Russia are developing guided missiles, inter-continental ballistic rockets, with speeds of anything up to 3,000 miles an hour. Only recently we were told by the American Chief of Air Staff that they are developing such a missile which he calls "Atlas."
  Mr. Finletter, the former American Secretary for Air, in his book, "Power and Policy," states that the Russians also are working on such a weapon, and there is evidence already that the Russians have a V2 with a range of about 400 miles. It is obvious, in these circumstances, that

  659
  our own country will be well within the range of these various types of rockets, and I ask the Under-Secretary of State, are we ourselves developing a long-range rocket?
  Can anyone doubt the vital importance of research and development if we are to keep pace with technical advancement? If this is to be so, surely more and more emphasis should be laid on research and development in defence preparations. All these developments to which I have referred will be of extreme importance; there are the hydrogen weapons, the long-range bombers, the guided missiles, the increased facilities for research, the new Civil Defence measures—all these in addition to our ordinary conventional Forces.
  Even allowing for reductions and savings and reorganisation, it seems obvious that all this will involve this country in an increased expenditure during the next three or four years. The Minister of Defence said the other day he could not predict
  "… how long or how costly the journey would prove to be."—[OFFICIAL REPOR, 2nd March, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 2181.]
  but sooner or later the Government will have to put the picture before the country.
  The advent of the hydrogen bomb has profoundly changed the basis of war. It raises problems affecting both the traditional organisation of the three Services and their inter-Service relationship. We have also to take into account the fact that we are approaching the era of press-button warfare. All these developments will be far-reaching in their effects upon defence organisation.
  The whole question of National Service will also require to be reviewed in the light of the changed strategic position. As we approach more closely to the rocket era, the mass of men and material required in the past will give way to the need for relatively small numbers of highly trained and—I would add—highly paid technicians. In my view, therefore, all these problems call for urgent examination by the Government, and I would ask either the Under-Secretary of State or the Minister of Defence to tell us what steps the Government are proposing for dealing with these urgent problems.
  In the light of all these technical and scientific problems affecting the Royal Air Force we must not overlook the human
  660
  element. There are 260,000 men and women serving in the Royal Air Force today. Their standards of pay, their accommodation, their married quarters, the education of their children, and their settlement in civilian life on the termination of their service, are all human problems which profoundly affect the contentment and morale of the Royal Air Force itself. These human problems must continue to be the concern of the House.
  The House and the whole nation are entitled to expect and to require the Government to do everything within their power, in conjunction with N.A.T.O., to enable us, by joint effort, to save mankind from the threat of mass destruction which hangs over the world. This threat of mutual annihilation is already a terrible one. It will become even more terrible when the stage of press-button warfare is reached.
  Of course, we are right to build up deterrents against aggression, but the safety of the human race cannot be entrusted for long to the dangerous and precarious equipoise of the forces of mutual destruction. There is still time—but, perhaps, not too much time—to lead mankind out of the perils which threaten to overwhelm it. Salvation can be found in the long run only by taking out of the hands of all Governments the means of bringing inescapable doom down upon us all.
  It is the most urgent duty of Governments and Parliaments to work out a political agreement between East and West thatwill reduce and finally remove not only the risks but the instruments of war. The Prime Minister, in reply to a Question I recently put to him, agreed that world disarmament was the immediate aim of this country. Immediate aims call for immediate action. The public interest and the public will demand that such action be taken, and I believe that decisive political results can be achieved only by an agreement at the highest level.
  To my mind, therefore, the political and diplomatic resources of the West should now be directed to bringing such a conference at the highest level into being as soon as possible. That is the path to peace. It must be taken sooner or later, and in my view, the sooner the better.
  5.28 p.m.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: With a great deal of what we have just heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) we can all agree, but I felt that we were possibly putting the Royal Air Force rather out of perspective. Was he not trying to put upon the Royal Air Force responsibilities which really should be spread far wider and not all be put on one of Her Majesty's Services?

  However, I would return for a very short time to an aspect of the Estimates which I had the pleasure and honour of examining last Session as Chairman of the Sub-Committee which looked into the manpower question of the Royal Air Force under two Votes. I do not want, in so doing, to anticipate the debate we are to have presently on an Amendment to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs).
  First I should like to clear up a matter mentioned by the Under-Secretary of State for Air, namely, the effect of jet training of pilots at an early stage. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can bear to listen to the question, but if he could I should very much like an answer, either now or later. My hon. Friend assured us that in future jet training would be introduced at the earliest possible moment at which the right type of machine became available as far as the pilot went, but in that respect he did not mention the navigator.
  At the moment, the navigator goes into the air with a jet aircraft only when he goes to a "conversion unit." It appears to us that that is far too late a stage at which to subject this extremely expensive, valuable and gallant young man to strain and stress, the effect upon him being completely unknown. He practically completes his training before there is a possibility of seeing how he will react to jet flying. If the pilot is trained at the earliest moment on a jet machine, where does the navigator come into the picture?
  It would be reassuring if my hon. Friend could give us an assurance that the navigator will be given at least some experience of high altitude jet flying at an earlier stage. Unless that is done, not only will there be a disappointment in the minds of young men who later find
  662
  these experiences impossible for them through no fault of their own, but it will be very expensive indeed. It is wrong to subject a man to a highly expensive, long course of meticulous training and then to find all that wasted because only at a late stage is it discovered that it is impossible for him to serve in a jet aircraft at high altitude.
  The whole question of skilled trades and advanced trades and manpower needs going into in far more detail. I had an impression that even today, with the realisation of the appalling importance and danger of shortages in these advanced trades of the Royal Air Force, no forward picture was being projected and no one body was responsible for projecting that picture forward among all the interested parties. I am not speaking only of Ministries.
  Industry can represent itself far better than it can be represented by a Minister, but industry, the Ministry and obviously the Services should have some joint organisation, some body or committee to study not merely the problems of the moment as they arise. I admit that the machinery is there for that. There should be some body to study the problems which are likely to arise in future, in view of the increasing skill of men that will be called for with the emergence of these modern scientific weapons in this ghastly era through which we have to fight our way.
  It is not only because of the more rapid emergence of the hydrogen age that we have been caught short, but also because of the more rapid development of the scientific age generally in connection with Service matters and defence. We should not go on being caught short in this respect. There should be someone or some body looking ahead to a greater degree than apparently has been found possible up to now.
  I fully appreciate that the problems of the moment as between industry and the Services, the problems arising today and those which will arise next week are being, can be and should be dealt with, because the organisation is there. I am not suggesting that everybody is at loggerheads and that the Ministry is fighting the industry and the industry fighting the Ministry and so on. That is not the case.
  There should be, however, somebody, and a very strong-minded man, who can

  663
  say, "I do not believe that you have looked far ahead. Please look again. Use a telescope. Do not merely look over the next three or 12 months, but try to see what you need and can get in three years', five years' or even ten years' time. "Unless wo do that, we shall find ourselves woefully short of the human beings who will work these highly scientific instruments, whether they are forged for defence or attack. I, therefore, strongly urge that this problem should be looked into as a matter of real urgency.
  I do not want to make it appear that my experiences and those of my colleagues on the sub-committee were confined to bad cases. They certainly were not. We saw some magnificent work and some magnificent men, but we came across some rather difficult things. I must say something about accommodation in Technical Training Command and in Maintenance Command. The unfortunate thing was that although the accommodation of our operational stations was on the whole of a higher grade, accommodation in Technical Training Command was frequently of a very bad grade. That experience of bad housing accommodation and the bad housing of instruments affected the young new entrants into the Service at the very first and worst moment. Nothing could deter a young man more strongly than some of the conditions we saw. It is really a terrible situation.
  I know that the official answer is, "This camp will be destroyed and will not be used very much longer." Let us take the one example of Yatesbury. That camp has been held in suspense for year after year. Thousands of young men have passed through it and there are stored there over £1 million worth of instruments in connection with training. They are stored under the most appalling conditions, and there is the highest possible form of fire risk that one could find in a camp. It is wrong that that should be allowed to exist for one month longer than is absolutely necessary.
  What is the reason for the doubt as to whether the camp should continue in being or not? That reason for doubt is largely a matter of geological interest. Surely someone can make up his mind on the battle between the geologists and the training of young men for the Royal Air
  664
  Force. If the place is to be maintained, let us translate it into decent buildings, so that no young men will be deterred or held back but rather will be encouraged to remain in the Service.
  There was another fascinating facet to that picture. I do not think we could possibly have found a keener staff, keener training, or better morale. Our report was unanimous that it was amazing that, in spite of the difficulties and the long distances involved in attending classes, the general set-up and the morale in that camp were magnificent. That is a very great tribute to the training given in the past to the officers and staff of the camp. I hope that the training of officers and non-commissioned officers of the present day will bring out that spirit, which can be instilled into the hearts of those coming into the Service.
  Mr. de Freitas: The hon. Member has mentioned Yatesbury and has spoken of the difficulty about the decision whether the camp should be a permanent one or not. He referred to an argument from a geological point of view. I do not know that argument, and I doubt whether my hon. Friends do. Will the hon. Member develop that argument so that we may see what issues are involved?
  Sir I. Orr-Ewing: I think that the hon. Member will find the evidence in the Report of the Select Committee. There was some objection to the camp being made a permanent camp on that stretch of country because the area is of great geological interest. At the time, that impressed the minds of those who were responsible for constructing the camp. I do not want to be unfair about this, but this question of geological interest was a sore point when consideration was being given to the question of translating the camp from temporary wooden hutments into permanent buildings. I would not say more than that, but that factor certainly entered into the picture.
  There is one other thing which I wish the Under-Secretary of State had mentioned, and that is the question of encouragements to efficiency in the Service. So many of the public still think of the R.A.F. as a Service in which a very high proportion of the personnel fly at high speeds and spend a lot of their time in the air. As we know, it is just the exact opposite. Large proportions of

  665
  those in the Service never get inside an aircraft at all, but at the same time those who do not go into the air are performing as valuable a function—in some cases a more valuable function—than pilots, navigators and other members of the aircrew.
  But the difficulty is to get that across and fixed in the minds of those who believe they are performing dreary duties. The trouble is to get into their minds that looking after equipment in the maintenance unit or the work that is done for training in Maintenance Command is very important. Some of these men look on it as a monotonous job to look after instruments for aircraft which they have never seen, and yet it is an essential part of the Service.
  I believe the Under-Secretary of State could do a little there, and I hope a lot more can be done to push it into the minds ofthose concerned, especially those far removed from the air, that there is a very important connection between the work that they are doing and the actual point at which it helps the pilot to make the aircraft more efficient. That would bring these people right into the picture and right into the aircraft
  We had the temerity to suggest that more should be done to take ground maintenance unit men and other personnel to different stations so that they could see the aircraft into which went the bits and pieces which they look after. We were told that it would be a very expensive business, but I do not care how expensive it is so long as it brings results. I believe that it would result in increased efficiency and economy. We asked one officer in a unit employing thousands of men, "How many of your men have been inside an aircraft?" and he replied, "I do not suppose 1 per cent. have." Yet they were looking after bits and pieces which were absolutely vital to the aircraft and without which it could not possibly survive. I hope something can be done about this thing. It needs drive and it needs push. It is not a very easy thing to arrange, but could it not be done at intervals? Surely the time and money for it could be taken out of something else; for instance, a parade cancelled.
  In that connection I would press very hard for another improvement. I know something is being done about it already by way of investigation, but can it be
  666
  hurried on? I am referring to the pricing of the articles which these men handle, so that they will know what the bits and pieces cost and what their value is. I have been told so often, "We do not think it would help very much," but more intelligent people do not agree with that.
  I recall being in a little hut where we saw on the table the results of bad workmanship compared with good workmanship, the result of bad storage, defects and things that had gone wrong. But what a pity the price was not attached to them. What was being done was of immense value, but could not the price and the value be put on the articles? It would be of such immense help to be able to say to personnel looking after such equipment, "Do you not realise that if any thing happens to that piece of equipment you will hold up something worth £100,000." I believe it would be of great value to be able to tell the men something like that, or "Look here, if you drop that, it is going to take a long time to replace it, and the instrument is going to be out of commission for a considerable time."
  I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some sort of assurance that these things will be pressed forward rapidly. The costings of the service in the Royal Air Force at the moment are based, so far as the commands are concerned, almost entirely on a man-hour basis, which gives a very fictitious picture. It does not mean the same thing to the ordinary human mind as assessment in terms of £ s. d. If something could be done to translate these man hours and fractions of man hours into £ s. d., it would transform the picture.
  I am sure such a translation could be carried through, and so soon as the information is disseminated throughout the Command so soon will there be a higher rate of efficiency in the Service. I am perfectly certain of that, and every man in industry experienced in the handling and management of men and responsible for the direction of management will agree with us in this. I know the Service is not an industrial concern, but I do urge that that should be done as quickly as possible.
  I intended to speak for only a few moments, and I do not want to say anything more. There is, however, one aspect of this manpower issue which

  667
  impressed every one of us who had the great honour of going round so many types of stations. I do not think any of us would deny that we met some magnificent men whose history and record of actual work should be better known in the Service and by the public. I know it often cannot be, but it should be where-ever possible.
  It takes a lot of courage when flying for Training Command for an instructor deliberately to make an aircraft get into trouble when travelling at a high speed. What is more, it is much more difficult to get the modern aircraft out of trouble when it is put into it. It takes an awful lot of courage, skill, pertinacity and bravery deliberately to force an aircraft into trouble to find the right way to train people to keep out of that trouble or to train them to emerge from such trouble if they do happen to get into it. Yet that goes on day after day in the Royal Air Force. I say it needs cold-blooded courage to do a job like that properly.
  These things should be better known to the public, because they are worth telling. We certainly never could have found greater courtesy or men with finer records than those we met, and they need all the encouragement that we can give them because, however wonderful the instrument or however marvellous the weapon, the real success of the Royal Air Force lies in the individual human being and what he is doing and is prepared to do. There is a magnificent spirit in the Service. For heaven's sake, let us do everything to encourage and to maintain it.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Winterbottom: I am very glad that I have been called upon to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir I. Orr-Ewing), because it was under his amiable and efficient chairmanship that I had the great honour of visiting Technical Training Command, Flying Training Command, and Maintenance Command in connection with the survey undertaken by the Estimates Committee. It was for me an inspiring and fascinating experience.

  Quite frankly, the first impression of a layman looking at the R.A.F. is the appalling complexity of the problem being faced. Simply to examine the
  668
  lubrication diagram of a bomb sight induces in my mind a haze, because this enormously complex and immensely expensive piece of apparatus has got to be maintained in fair weather and foul by a body of men who have to possess skills beyond the ordinary. The converse of the complexity of the R.A.F. is that we must have in it men of outstanding ability. The problem is serious in every aspect of the R.A.F., but, as the Under-Secretary of State pointed out, the most difficult of all aspects is that of arranging for an adequate supply of radio engineers to deal with the new types of radar equipment which are coming into use.
  Two problems are involved in staffing up this branch of the R.A.F. The first is the degree of intelligence required to carry out the simplest maintenance tasks on these pieces of apparatus. The second is represented by those attractions of civil life for the young men who have been trained by the R.A.F. It will be of interest to the House to know roughly how this problem is tackled, because it gives a measure of its immensity.
  The only type of young man capable of undertaking this routine work is one who has either a university degree or a General Certificate of Education taken at the higher level. That type of young man is rare. Having joined the R.A.F., he is exempted from a great deal of his basic military training and is sent at once into specialised training for this branch of radio engineering. His training may last a year or even longer. Indeed, we have received evidence that in certain branches only eight months work can be obtained from a National Service man.
  That is serious in itself, but even more serious is the fact that, when he has received this training, he has become an extremely attractive technician for the radio industry and most of these young men join that branch of the R.A.F. with a view to improving their technical qualifications before leaving and going back into industry. The Air Ministry conducted a survey of 30 per cent. of this type of intake and found that not one of these young men would stay in the R.A.F. after this period. Clearly the problem is extremely serious, and I thought the Under-Secretary rather underestimated its seriousness because, although he said it was serious, he did

  669
  not draw the attention of the House to its extent.
  There is one other aspect which should be stated in considering the length of National Service. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends consider two years to be too long, but if a young man is able to give only from eight months to a year of service after he has received highly concentrated and specialised training, 18 months of National Service would rule him out because he would be useless. So we must not forget this factor which, although only small in numbers, is important in significance when we are thinking of National Service.
  I think my colleagues on the Estimates Committee will bear me out when I say that the present system works, but it works only because of improvisation, only because there is a considerable degree of dilution of skill, and perhaps even most of all because of the devotion and consistent over-work of officers and senior non-commissioned officers in the R.A.F. The average technician and senior N.C.O. in the R.A.F. is doing his own job, the inspection and maintenance of highly complex pieces of machinery and, in addition, he has to supervise the work of the part-trained mechanics. He cannot devote his whole time and attention to his trade but must constantly look over his shoulder to see that no mistakes are made by half-trained men.
  Just as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has suggested that we pay tribute to the work of flying instructors, the House would do well to pay tribute to the work of the senior N.C.O.s of the R.A.F. who at great cost are holding the organisation together. While this works, we should not delude ourselves that the organisation is a particularly efficient one, because of the degree of dilution of skill that has to be accepted.
  If we consider the experiment conducted at Tarrant Rushton, the House will understand what I mean. There a civilian firm was entrusted with the job of running a jet flying training school and was able to employ skilled men for the technical work. Everyone on that airfield was a trained technician. The result was that an Air Ministry estimate showed that at Tarrant Rushton 145 civilians were doing the work which would have to be done by 350 Service
  670
  men. Although the work done there is not on all fours with the work that has to be done in an R.A.F. flying training unit, nevertheless the point it brings out is that if we could staff the R.A.F. with wholly trained and skilled men, we should be able to bring into being considerable economies.
  Arising from that, there is one idea which has been gaining strength constantly in my mind. Before I express it, may I say that I know how dangerous a little knowledge is, and the mere fact that I have spent six months or so in the R.A.F. with some of my colleagues does not give me the right to call myself an expert. The impression I am gaining is that we should be considering carefully whether or not we should take energetic action to move towards an all-Regular R.A.F., or an R.A.F. as near to an all-Regular Force as the Navy is at present. The Navy has about 7 per cent. of National Service men and the R.A.F. from 26 per cent. rising to 30 per cent. I believe that we should try to move to below 10 per cent. of National Service men in the R.A.F.
  Mr. Wigg: But my hon. Friend realises that if that is done it will cause an acute manpower crisis inside the Army, because it has been established that there is only a certain number of Regulars and, if they are not divided fairly between the Army and the Air Force, we might as well wind up the Army.
  Mr. Winterbottom: I was not laying it down as a law of the Medes and Persians. I only stated it as an idea that was growing strongly in my mind, having looked at the R.A.F. I would not attempt to steal technicians from the Army and thus immobilise it. My point was that what we should try to do in the R.A.F. is to free that important section of its highly skilled men, who are employed now in training young National Service men for short periods of service, to come into the squadrons and themselves become part of a front-line Air Force.
  I do not see how we can attract to the R.A.F. a hard core of skilled technicians of high quality in every branch unless the incentives are increased considerably—higher incentives of technical pay and of housing, education and the rest. There is no doubt that officers and

  671
  other ranks will stand a great deal of discomfort for themselves if their wives and families are well cared for, if there is housing for them and if their children have conditions of education equal to those that they would get in civil life, and I think we can in due course increase the proportion of Regulars to the sort of percentage that exists in the Navy.
  There is another point to make in favour of the argument. In the strategic position that we are facing at the moment, what is important is the condition of the R.A.F. during the first 30 hours of battle and not after the first 30 months. The number of enemy attackers which are destroyed in the first shock of battle may well determine the result. I feel that a completely trained and balanced force in being at the outbreak of hostilities is more important than the possibility of a very fine force at the end of a couple of years.
  There is another factor in favour of the argument. I believe—my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) will probably have a more authoritative view on this than I have—there is a case for reserve divisions in the Army and that the present system in the R.A.F. is inefficient because when so many young men have passed through the machine they are no longer of any use to the R.A.F. at all. We turn them into civil defence workers. The hardcore of highly trained men who have been training these younger men over the years in preparation for a short period of service have wasted their time and efforts, and they might just as well have been part of a Regular Royal Air Force occupied in preparing a front line Air Force up to the maximum pitch of efficiency for the first 30 hours of battle.
  That is the one point that I wish to make. Perhaps it could better have been covered on the subsequent Motion. However, it arose from our studies in the Select Committee, and I felt that this was an opportunity to speak about it.
  6.3 p.m.
  Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom) has made a constructive speech which I am sure will give the Air
  672
  Ministry much to consider. I wish the terms of reference of the Select Committee had been wider so that it could have considered the whole aspect of technical services in the Royal Air Force. I have always felt, and still believe, that the Air Force is not as strong in the technical services as is the Navy. The great tradition of engineering and the status given to engineering officers has helped the Navy enormously. The R.A.F. lacks that backbone. I should like the Air Ministry to consider the matter—steps have been taken at the engineering college at Henlow—and do more about it, giving a better status to technical officers.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) made a fair and constructive speech. I wish the Labour Party had called him to speak in the defence debate last week. It was most significant that he should be left out. His place and the place of his right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), a former Minister of Supply were taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), a former Secretary of State for Air, and the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt). I suspect that they knew too much about the subject and that was why they were not called to take part in the debate.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Aston in his place. I wrote to him to say that I should refer to his speech in the defence debate last week. In recent weeks he has asked a series of Questions about aviation. He certainly hit the headlines in the United States, if not in this country. Whether he set out to do that is immaterial, but it has done infinite damage to this country. His speech last week—I want to be frank—was quite irresponsible for an ex-Minister of the Labour Government. It was in no way helpful. It was not constructive. He went out his way to denigrate plans set on foot by his own Government, many of which could not possibly have matured by this time.
  Furthermore, much of what he said was very inaccurate. He talked about transport aircraft and said:
  "There is not the slightest sign of any such transport, except that the Government, true to their principles of free enterprise, have been giving contracts for trooping to private charter air companies. ……"

  673
  He went on to say:
  "The transport required to move the equivalent of a division ought not to be in private hands but in the hands of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1955; Vol. 315, c. 2007.]
  I would remind him that at the time of Abadan transport aircraft were in the hands of the Government, and yet we saw airborne troops being taken to Cyprus in an aircraft carrier, a journey taking 11 days. That is what was done by his Government. Furthermore, contracts for transport aircraft were cut and men were made redundant in the works and on the design side. Men were then lost to the industry, and they have not returned to it because they went to the motor car and other industries. It little behoves him to criticise this Government for what is being done in respect of Transport Command.
  Furthermore, every word that he says has an untold effect upon foreign orders. The aircraft industry is exporting £65 million or £70 million worth of goods a year. What will the men in the shops think if they are out of work because of his irresponsible speeches? What will the unions think about it? I thought his speech more disappointing than anything I have heard in the House for a very long time.
  If criticism is wanted, why did not the Labour Government cancel the Brabazon project? The amount spent on it was £14 million, and it ought to have been cancelled at least two years earlier. I am not quarrelling particularly about that, because it is always difficult to say when one ought to cancel a certain contract. It may be that things were wrong with the Swift from the beginning, but the defects did not come out until recent months. If the Government had cancelled that contract too soon, they would probably have been criticised on that score.
  Mr. John Rankin: Is it not problematical what amount we lost through carrying on with the Brabazon longer than the hon. and gallant Gentleman says should have been done? Did we not as a result of that expenditure gain a great deal of invaluable knowledge about any aircraft up to a weight of 300,000 lb.?
  Air Commodore Harvey: We used to be told that in the days of the Labour
  674
  Government when we asked what we were getting for the expenditure. We were told that the whole aircraft industry would benefit. I do not want to get carried away on the subject, but only a few weeks ago hon. Gentlemen opposite were speaking against the Britannia aircraft, but that is really the only aircraft which has benefited from the Brabazon project.
  I hope the Government will take more interest in helicopters. So far it has rather been left to the Royal Navy. There are firms which are short of work. Perhaps the present type of helicopter will have a comparatively short life. It may be that jet helicopters will come along, and perhaps in a few years' time the existing type will be out of date. However, there are tasks which the helicopter can carry out, particularly anti-submarine work, and more should be done about its development. I should like to know what progress has been made with automatic pilots for use in helicopters and instrumentation for blind flying, because so far the helicopter is not very useful at night.
  I want to criticise the method of procuring aircraft for the Royal Air Force. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Supply will not take exception to anything I have to say, because the little I have seen of him in the few months since he took office leads me to believe that he could not have been more fair. He has done everything to make the set-up work and he has done a great job of work in doing so. However, I do not believe that the supply of military aircraft should be in the hands of the Ministry of Supply.
  The Ministry of Supply, as I understand it, employs something like 140,000 people. It is a vast Ministry covering many subjects. The building and construction of both military and civil aircraft is so important not only to defence but to the economics of the country that it should be taken right out of the control of the Ministry of Supply. I understand that the Air Ministry does not want it, although that system worked before the war. If that is so, responsibility should go to the Ministry of Defence where we are fortunate in having a very able and strong Minister who would be capable of proportioning aircraft between the different Services.

  675
  At the moment the Air Force is represented at the Ministry of Supply by one Air Marshal, the Controller (Air). That Air Marshal carries tremendous responsibility, and I do not believe that it is possible for one man to carry that responsibility outside his own Ministry. I would much rather see responsibility taken from the Ministry of Supply and put under one roof. The complications of designing and constructing modern aircraft are enormous. It is very easy to say that a particular aircraft should be built to time, but no sooner has one trouble been put right than one gets into further difficulties which could not have been foreseen and months of research and development work must continue. That especially applies to aero-dynamic advances and materials.
  Another criticism is that prototypes are publicised far too soon. Immediately a prototype flies there are headlines in the newspapers declaring, "Britain's New Fighter," or "Britain's New Bomber. "Photographs are published and the public is led to believe that a new military aircraft is in being. But that is only the beginning of the story and there is a long way further to go.
  In addition to aircraft being taken over by the Ministry of Defence, I suggest that armament electronics—that would include guided missiles—should come under one Ministry. There must be closer co-ordination between the manufacturer and the user. At the moment it is completely missing.
  Mr. Wigg: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for giving way. If he complains about prototypes hitting the headlines, what has he to say about the Farnborough Show? Is not the whole purpose of the Farnborough Show hitting the headlines and nothing else?
  Air Commodore Harvey: In the past that is what has happened. I am not saying that I agree with it. I was saying that secret aircraft ought not to appear so that even the Russians can go to Farnborough and have a look at them. This is the first time I have been in agreement in the House with the hon. Member.
  Since the war the arrangement among the manufacturer, the Ministry of Supply and the Air Ministry has worked because
  676
  the design side and the technical people have kept in touch with the Air Ministry. Whether they were supposed to or not I do not know, but that is what has happened. If it had not been so, the system would not have worked. But in modifications and further development there must be close liaison between the manufacturer and the user.
  It was said this afternoon that we are in the transitional stage. We are still using many of the orthodox type of aircraft and moving into the field of guided missiles. Let us now face up to the fact that this country is desperately short of scientists. I am told that last year only four men left London University to teach science. When a man has been trained for five years at a university, it still takes another five years before he is of use to industry. That means 10 years' training in a country desperately short of scientists.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should suggest to the Minister of Labour that engineering students of degree standard should be exempt from National Service. I cannot for the life of me see why these men are called up when they have had this expensive training and when in the event of war they will be used in their trades. Yet they are called up today for two years' military service, wasting and forgetting much of their knowledge. In a day when we are supposed to be building deterrents, it is vital that these men should be furthering their training and helping towards solutions of these problems.
  The Government should concentrate everything in their power, even at the sacrifice of other things, on guided missiles. In the autumn I was fortunate enough to be in Australia, when I visited the ranges at Woomera. Much has been done, but much more could be done, and we have to have these guided missiles. While not wishing to be alarmist in any way, the best fighters in the world will not shoot down—and nobody will claim that they will shoot down—100 per cent. of the bombers coming in. Fighters may be grounded by fog conditions. It is not unusual to have fog over the whole of Britain and Western Europe. What will happen to the defences if the bombers take off in clear weather? It is essential to go ahead with large sums of money spent on the development of guided weapons, both air-to-air and ground-to-air.

  677
  What is being done about servicing the new bomber force? Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that he has sufficient technicians to service them both at home and abroad. If not, has he considered taking on a number of civilians, or putting the work out to contract? These matters have to be dealt with now. There is not a day to be lost if the aircraft coming at the end of this year are to be kept in the air, although I agree of course that the problems are complicated.
  I want in the few minutes available to refer to the conditions of the education of children in the Royal Air Force. I believe there are about 180,000 children of officers, N.C.O.s and other ranks. One of the problems of getting trained men is that they are not prepared to face up to the disruption of their children's education. It is noticeable that this year Regular engagements for long-term and semi-long-term have declined.
  Another point is that an eight years' service commissioned officer is not told until within a few months of the expiration of his term whether he will get a permanent commission or not. He must be given far more warning and then he might decide to stay on. I met one only the other day who said that he was leaving the Service because he could not run the risk of going out at 34. He should have been told whether he was staying on or not.
  With the advent of the cold war the hardship of married families has enormously increased. Much has been done to lessen the number of postings at home and overseas, but many still take place and constant changes of station completely disrupt the home. The interruption of the education of children is the most harassing problem of any of the families. If a man with children is serving in the Air Force, he has either to keep the family together, which means constant changes of schools—and I am told that some children have been up to as many as 10 schools by the time they are 15, which is a bad thing—or he has to face the alternative of installing the family in a permanent home, leaving them there and travelling around on his own. That is bad from many aspects.
  Lastly, on this point of education, officers and N.C.Os. and other ranks simply cannot afford to send their children to boarding schools. I want to
  678
  know what the State intends to do about implementing the Education Act. The total number of children of parents serving in the Army, Navy and Air Force is not small. They are fine children, they are of all ranks and they are brought up in the tradition of their Service. Their parents cannot afford to send them to boarding schools while they are abroad.
  Why is it that members of the Foreign Service, if they are Branch A, get £150 a year free of tax to educate children at home while they are serving abroad? Even members of the Works and Buildings Department in the Air Ministry get a grant of £70 a year, I believe, while a young flight lieutenant or a senior officer with children gets nothing at all. I cannot see it. There is far too much differentiation between the two. I hope, however, that something will be done about it.
  I think that today the trouble in regard to recruiting for the Royal Air Force is that the Service and the Government do not realise the hardships. First, there is the risk aspect of flying. The young officer goes into it with his eyes wide open. He does not mind the risk aspect so much at the age of 19 or 20. By the time he is in his late 20's, and probably married, there is a great risk that he will be killed while flying one of these very fast aircraft.
  He has frequently to take out an insurance policy to cover his life, because the pensions are quite inadequate to keep a widow and children. He is supposed to supplement by savings his wife's income in the event of his being killed. No serving officer today can save money. Most of these young officers have bills owing and great difficulty in keeping their heads above water. I hope that the Government will try to do something about this if they want men to stay in the Royal Air Force either as Regulars or on other engagements.
  For a great many years these debates, although we have attacked each other's views, have been on a most friendly basis. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been constructive in what they have had to say. We are moving today in a day of peril. Nobody quite knows what will happen in the world. Precautions can be taken, but we cannot always attach a great deal to them. This small Air Force of ours is now the main deterrent.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Nonsense.
  Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is used to talking nonsense. It is the main deterrent, and I think that he is only one of few in the Labour Party who do not think so.
  Mr. Hughes: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to use the argument that the Air Force is the main deterrent from the point of view of the Labour Party, let him read the speech which the Leader of the Opposition made on 4th April last year in which he condemned deterrents. Let him answer that.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Instead of doing that, I would rather be a fly on the wall at the meeting of his party next week to hear what goes on.
  I conclude on this note. We are all very proud of the Royal Air Force. It is now referred to in some quarters as our senior Service; but I do not want to quarrel about that. All the Services have to work together, and the more that we can do to help them to be efficient, to run their Services economically and to maintain their great traditions wherever they are in the world, the more likely we are to make our contribution towards the peace of the world.
  6.24 p.m.
  Sir Richard Acland: I regret that I cannot follow the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) in his arguments on many of the detailed points on which he has made such very constructive suggestions, beyond saying that I was interested in the point he made about the possibility of fog grounding the whole of our fighter force. That only goes to emphasise a point which is part of the foundation of my own view, namely, that there is, of course, no defence against thermo-nuclear attack.
  Although the hon. and gallant Member urged that to remedy the possibility of our finding ourselves with fog-bound piloted fighters we should go ahead as fast as possible in the construction of the guided missile, I think that he would agree that we are not likely to perfect the guided anti-aircraft missile before our potential opponents have perfected the guided ground-to-ground, aggressive, long-range rocket, with a thermo-nuclear warhead, against which the guided counter rocket is no defence whatever.
  680
  In any event, I want to leave these relatively small considerations, because this evening it is my purpose to oppose the Air Estimates on the grounds that they make provision for the strategic bomber force whose sole purpose is to carry the hydrogen bomb. I believe that that decision is wrong. I do not regard it as being relatively wrong or wrong in some small way. I regard it as being absolutely wrong, and I believe that the taking of this decision is the crucial decision which heads us towards disaster: whereas, if we had the courage, the vision and the clear sightedness to refrain from this decision, the defence of our country and the peace of the world for the next quarter or half century might yet be secured.
  I feel so intensely on this problem that I have to make a personal point. It is no longer possible for me—or rather to be more accurate I should say that for rather special reasons it is only possible for me for a few days longer—to go along with the majority of my colleagues on these benches who take the other view. This, therefore, is certainly the last speech that I shall make in this House except on the other side of the next Gravesend by-election, and it could, therefore, be the last speech that I shall make here for a quite considerable time. I have to face that possibility.
  I want to make another personal point, with your permission, Sir, and that of the House. In taking the line which I take this evening, with this emphasis, I am bound to start with the word Peccavi. I have myself sinned in regard to this issue because, of course, I should have protested, or protested much more vigorously, not merely against the hydrogen bomb today but against the A-bomb and the strategic bomber force in each year that this matter has come forward since the war.
  I did, indeed, make a speech at this time last year against the strategic bomber force, and, to that limited extent, I am consistent. For the rest, I can only say two things in extenuation of my failure. One is that in the last 12 months something has happened. The hydrogen bomb has been actually exploded, and Japanese fishermen have been killed hundreds of miles from the explosion. That is something which affects anyone's emotions, and makes one understand and

  681
  grasp the significance of things which, to be quite candid, one ought to have grasped before but did not. There is another change in the situation that has occurred during the last 12 months which I shall come to in the course of what I shall have to say.
  Now, in considering the strategic bomber force, with all its terrible implications to humanity, I am bound to say, first of all, that the purely pacifist argument is enormously strong. When honestly stated that argument is quite simple. It is that this sort of thing is morally wrong. There is no room whatever for calculation about any consequences in the pacifist argument. Whatever the consequences may be, they assert that war is wrong.
  That argument, which completely discounts the calculation of the consequences, can today be reinforced by another which is not without significance. It is a truism that there have been great changes in the methods of waging war in the last decade. In 1939, it was myjudgment—perhaps I was wrong, but I thought it right at the time—that all the worst that could be done to the human race by the sort of war that seemed probable in the 1940s could not exceed the damage which would have been done to the human race by the world victory of Nazism.
  I am not sure that a comparable judgment could be made today. We look, of course, at what is worst in Communism, and we are apt to forget some of its material achievements. I think, perhaps, that is no worse than the attitude of those who look only at the material achievements and quite forget what is bad and evil in it. What is evil—if one thinks of it extending over the whole earth and lasting many years, perhaps decades—is a daunting prospect. But it would not last for ever.
  To confine the spirit of man within a spiritual strait-jacket for ever is absolutely inconceivable. All I have to say is that it is not a self-evident proposition that the damage done to the human race now, and in the centuries in the future, by the world victory of Communism would be worse than the damage done to the human race by a hydrogen-bomb war fought in order to prevent it.
  682
  Now I will pass to some much more practical considerations, and I would say that these are the ones which, in the end, decisively move me. I want to stick as closely as I can to purely strategic considerations, to the problems of defending this country and sustaining the peace of the world for the next 25 or 50 years. But it is very difficult to confine oneself to what are strictly called strategic, let alone tactical, arguments; for the fact which emerges—and this was confirmed in part by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield—is that there is no defence in weapons today.
  There is no way of saving ourselves unscathed through the next quarter-century or half-century by the disposition of this weapon or of that, or by the adoption of one or the discarding of another. The fact is that, in the new conditions of warfare, strategy has become policy and there is no other long-term strategy except policy.
  Here, then, let us come to some of these strategic facts of our situation. We now say, quite openly, that what we rely on to save the peace of the world is the deterrent—the H-bomb—and it is this which makes a decisive difference compared with the situation a year ago. It makes a difference particularly in relation to the problem of co-operation with our American friends, a point which was touched upon by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson).
  Twelve months ago was the last occasion on which, in the last resort, we were relying for the defence of the free world upon men on the ground; armed men—some, maybe, armed with atomic artillery. But the essence of the defence of the free world, as we conceived it 12 months ago, was by men on the ground. When we consider men—and in part of this Estimate we are doing so—the fact is that Western Europe has far more men than the United States. It would have been churlish, it would have been intolerable, to suggest, when defence depended on men on the ground, that the United States should provide all the men and Western Europe none. That would have been a fantastic suggestion.
  But now the situation is entirely different. For the defence of the free world now and henceforth we count on the deterrent. In this connection, the

  683
  United States of America—far from being, as it is in terms of manpower, smaller than Western Europe—is fantastically larger in its industrial capacity; in its power of producing aircraft and other weapons, and, of course, fantastically larger still in its taxable capacity.
  Even were that not so, the fact stands out that the United States alone, without any assistance from anybody, has got the whole of the deterrent that is needed. Whereas when the matter ultimately depended on men, the United States rightly asked, and insisted, that others concerned should make their contribution in men, the United States—so far as I know—does not even want us to make any contribution to the thermo-nuclear deterrent. The Americans have got enough of it themselves in their own country.
  I do not know whether all hon. Members have read the remarkable article by Cassandra in the "Daily Mirror" of 24th February. I confess that I should normally expect to find deeply significant articles more frequently in the "Manchester Guardian" or "The Times" than in the "Mirror." But when we find them in the "Mirror," they are not less impressive for that. Our friend, Mr. Connor, paid a visit to the headquarters of the American strategic bomber force. He had the advantage of being shown round and of discussing its present strength and problems and intentions in a big way.
  Among other things, he wrote:
  "The spearhead of strategic air command is over 1,200 B 47 six-jet bombers and swiftly increasing reinforcements of the new B 52 eight-jet bomber …the B 47 is … capable of carrying the hydrogen bomb …at over six hundred miles an hour at … nearly fifty thousand feet. And its range—by being refuelled in mid-air … can take it to any part of the Soviet Union—and back."
  What has the R.A.F. in being, or in prospect, which can compare for one moment with that? What have we in prospect, in three or in five years time, which will compare with what this will by then have grown into? And what are they doing?
  Reading between the lines—one does not have to go very far between the lines, one can read the actual plain meaning of the words—it is pretty clear that the American's strategic bomber force has already photographed every square mile
  684
  of the Soviet Union by night, at over 50,000 feet, with infrared photography. There they are, in fact, poised and ready.
  And then come these words:
  "I questioned General LeMay on the possibilities of a 'preventive war.' He would express no direct opinion, but said that when it comes to trading knock-out punches … it might not be the best policy to sit and wait until you are hit so hard that you never wake up again."
  We in the West naturally have fears—justified or not I will not argue—that some time, when it suits their case, and when they think they can get away with it, the leaders of the Soviet Union may launch an unlimited military assault upon us. But were one a Russian responsible for policy, and were one to read that article, might not a slight cold shiver travel up and down one's spine?
  At any rate, the position is that here are these two giants. They threaten each other with complete extermination. The American Air Force is quite sufficient to carry out the threat of complete extermination if need be. To that possibility the R.A.F. of today, and even the maximum possible R.A.F. that we could build by concentrating all our economic resources upon it, would make a hardly significant addition.
  I must turn aside for a moment to deal with one argument which has been particularly prevalent amongst hon. Members on this side of the House. It has been stated that in some curious way the possession of a strategic bomber force armed with hydrogen bombs will make us independent of the Americans. That is the most extraordinary argument that I have ever heard. I hope that you, Sir, and the House will allow me time to spell out the strategic nonsense of it, because if by the possession of strategic bombers armed with hydrogen bombs we make Britain independent of the United States we must mean one or both of two things.
  We must either mean that with our bomber force we could threaten the U.S.S.R. with the ultimate deterrent, even if the United States stood passively by; or we must mean that if the U.S.A. got itself into the position of exchanging hydrogen punches with Russians in circumstances of which we did not approve, we should have the power to keep out. But surely if we examine either of these

  685
  propositions we shall find that neither can be maintained for a single moment.
  It is a very unpopular thing to say anything which reminds us of how small is our island. But can anyone in this House get up and tell me that, with the U.S.A. standing neutral, we could sit across from a tough Russian negotiator at a conference table and say to him, "If you do not give way to us then we are going to drop our hydrogen bombs on you"? In a hydrogen-bomb war, with the Americans out, and with Britain fighting the U.S.S.R. does anyone think that we could annihilate one-quarter of the bases from which the Russians would launch their bomber planes and their rockets before they had destroyed, mainly by short-range rockets, every possibility of organised life here, let alone any possibility of carrying on a military struggle? If it is thought that by possessing a strategic bomber force we make ourselves independent of the Americans in the sense that we could threaten the Russians without the Americans, then I say it is untrue.
  What about the other argument? If the Americans and the Russians start trading H-bombs with each other, various countries might have the good luck to escape from the consequences. India might be left out; or Italy or New Zealand might be left out—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: And Ireland.
  Sir R. Acland: My hon. Friend says Ireland.
  The argument that I am going to advance now is one of a relatively lower level of national selfishness, but I offer it all the same. We might be left out if we have not a strategic bomber force or the hydrogen bomb. But if we have a strategic bomber force and the hydrogen bomb, which cannot add 5 per cent. to the strength of the American onslaught, one thing is absolutely certain—that we shall, from the first day, be in any hydrogen-bomb war into which the Russians and the Americans get themselves.
  I must, I am afraid, pick out one argument used by the Prime Minister in the course of his speech in the debate on defence, because it seems to me an argument which anyone of his strategic capacity ought to have seen through. He said that we must have a strategic bomber force of our own in order that,
  686
  if the hydrogen-bomb war started, we should be in the happy position of picking and choosing our targets and of not having to rely on the Americans to bomb targets for us.
  With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is irrelevant. Let anybody advance to me an argument about the kind of weapons which we might need for the kind of cold war action such as in Korea, which might take place again without leading to the hydrogen bomb; such an arrangement is relevant. Let anybody offer in argument the idea that this course or that course could make the use of the hydrogen bomb less likely or more likely, and I say that is also a relevant argument. But to start offering apparently as a decisive argument a calculation based on what happens if and after the hydrogen war itself has broken out, is irrelevant, because when it breaks out it does not matter whether we pick and choose the particular targets which the Americans might not have chosen for us. It is the end.
  In passing, may I repudiate the idea that a hydrogen-bomb war would mean the end of the human race. In some parts of the world men would survive, and although they might have to revert to infanticide to rid the world of monsters, they would none the less survive. But not for us. If this war breaks out and we are in it, that is the end for us.
  That brings me back to the question of how to stop it, and here in the short run I accept the answer that was given in the defence debate by the Prime Minister. In the short run, the hope of not having a hydrogen-bomb war rests in our belief that these two giants, counterpoised against each other in hatred, fear, power, and suspicion, may each be so terrified of the damage that might be done by one to the other than neither will take the responsibility of unleashing the final holocaust. That is a real hope, though not a certainty, in the short run.
  But what about the long run? How long has the human race to live on this razor edge of tension, with the minds of our young men in schools and universities—as hon. Members must know it in cases of their own children—distorted through the domination of their lives by this fear which hangs over all of us? How long is it to go on? Surely the only relevant, strategic question is, what line of policy

  687
  can we possibly adopt which will give us some chance—I do not say a certainty because we cannot say "certainty" in these matters—to play our part in relaxing, over the decades, this tension between these two giants which strains the world to distraction.
  Consider the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. in isolation, and assume, for the purposes of argument, the hypothetical case that they are the only two nations in the world. I would say that in such a situation there could be no long-term hope for the relaxation of the tension at all. It exists between these two great Powers, and nothing that can happen so far as either of them is concerned will ever begin to lessen the tension.
  I say, not in hatred or even in criticism of the people or the Government of the U.S.S.R. or those of the U.S.A., but just because of the nightmare situation in which they find themselves, that, as far as those two giants are concerned in their relations with each other, there is no possibility, except a continuance of fear, distrust, power to meet fear, more fear because or more power, more hatred because of more fear, more distrust and more tension.
  Therefore, the only hope of the world and for our children and grandchildren lies in this: that some other peoples, extending at each moment the very maximum of tolerance, sympathy, and understanding, and, of course, constructive criticism, both to America and to the U.S.S.R., may be able, over the course of years, to show those two giants the way of learning to tolerate each other. India has done a little of this essential work within the last couple of years.
  I do not want to whitewash the Indians completely as if they were saints. Alas, their relations with their nearest neighbours are sometimes open to criticism, whether it be valid or not. But in relation to the great world and to the tension between East and West, the Indians, in the last 12 months or two years, have achieved something.
  I will add something more. The Foreign Secretary achieved something in relation to the conflict in Indo-China. Let me point out, however, in relation to the question whether we need to possess power in order to achieve such results, that the right hon. Gentleman
  688
  achieved this success before we were committed to building the hydrogen bomb and a strategic air force; and, much more important, he achieved his success after it had become clear that we were not in any circumstances going to use force in relation to the Indo-China conflict.
  By embarking now upon the building of the strategic bomber force, which has no purpose except to carry the hydrogen bomb, we place ourselves for ever—or at least until this decision is reversed—outside the arena from which we could be effective in assuaging the ghastly tension between the two great countries which tears the heart out of mankind. By making ourselves an integral part of one of the two poles between which the tension rages, we can do nothing more to relieve it.
  All our actions from now on will only serve to intensify fear, hate, power, and suspicion. We are handing over the task of assuaging the tension to others, such as Sweden, India, Indonesia, and a few more. My fear is that without us those others are not quite strong enough to succeed. If we pursued the strategic policy necessary to join them I believe that we and they together might bring it off.
  I hope you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for ending by making a few personal points. My arguments, such as they are, are not, of course, strengthened in any way by anything that I intend to do about them. They deserve only such attention as they can earn on their merits. No man will expect, in a large organisation, that everybody will always agree with him. Often he has to vote in a minority, and then shrug and go along with colleagues whom he trusts but who take a view different from him.
  To each, however, there is bound to come a time when he has to say to his friends that here he has come to an issue that he feels to be so decisive that he cannot keep company with them any longer with only such mild protests as a speech, a Motion on the Order Paper, and perhaps an occasional naughty vote in a Lobby which the Whips suggest to be the wrong one. The time must come when he has to stand up and take the final step and say, reluctantly, "On this issue we must part company and I must test out what the electors feel about it."

  689
  I would say to my constituents, if I could, that I understand the difficulties which I shall impose upon them. Indeed, the prospect of that has been by far the strongest argument which might have deterred me from the course which I am pursuing.
  But at this time, when I am sure that many little people are bewildered by the fact that both the leading parties have accepted this horror and—if I may say so with all friendship—when the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in the defence debate last week was, to say the least of it, so bewildering—somebody must go to the limits of what is possible within the framework of our democracy in order to assert that reconciliation, sympathy and understanding—even sympathy and understanding for men and nations that we believe to be wrong—are, in the end, stronger and more decisive forces than anything that comes out of the instruments of unlimited physical power. I should not be true to myself if I did anything other than that.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. P. B. Lucas: However much we may disagree with the conclusions of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), all of us will admire his candour and his sincerity. The steps that he has announced he is going to take require great courage, and I for one respect him greatly for it. Although I disagree with his conclusions, I do not have the time to follow him at any length. I would, however, say this: until we can get total disarmament in conventional as well as in hydrogen weapons, the best deterrent to aggression is the establishment of the strategic air force. It is not enough for the Americans to have it. We have to have it ourselves.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), in a valuable speech this afternoon, referred to the light fighter and its possible use by squadrons of the Auxiliary Air Force. I am particularly glad that he raised this subject. I understand that such trials as have been undertaken with the earlier type have been satisfactory and that the Service is pleased with it. It might very well be the answer to the re-equipment of selected squadrons of the Auxiliary Air Force to give them
  690
  this aircraft. Some of the squadrons might well use them, and operate them without any greatly increased risk of accidents. And it is to the question of the accident rate that I wish to address myself in the few moments that I shall detain the House.
  It is estimated that we shall this year spend £186 million on the provision of new aircraft. It makes a poignant reflection that during subsequent months flying accidents will dissipate a not inconsiderable fraction of this expenditure. It has always been so. It is one of the more ironical aspects of Service life that, despite the great advances in design, technique and knowledge, and despite all the vigilance that is shown, the accident rate remains at its present level.
  We all recognise that security has prevented successive Governments from doing more than give some general indication of the accident trend. The statement by my hon. Friend this afternoon and other statements that he has made suggest that the number of accidents in relation to the hours flown has, on the whole, decreased since the war. I do not question that, and I was very glad to hear his statement, but the rate of accidents in the R.A.F. at the present time is still high enough to give rise to uneasiness. One has only to look at the newspapers, which, after all, cannot report everything, to realise that it must cause concern. It demands constant probing for some new approach.
  For the flying commands, a reduction in the number of casualties should now be the primary concern. Over-riding all else is the human factor. All losses in Service personnel are grievous, but I feel the losses in this Service acutely because of the exceptional qualities demanded of those whose job it is to fly modern aeroplanes. One can appreciate the attitude of parents to sons who contemplate taking up a military flying career. One ought not to disregard the effect that this alone must have on the recruiting of aircrews. It is something that we must face. We all know that many young men are determined upon entering the Service irrespective of anything that their parents may say to them, and we admire them for it. It may well be that this is the spirit which, beyond all, breeds success. Certainly it is highly cherished, and rightly so, by the Service.

  691
  It is inevitable that the human side should govern and dominate our thoughts, but with the complexity of modern aircraft which are now coming into squadron service, with all their costs and the problems of design, development and production, these losses take on an increasingly serious economic aspect. It is often said that flying is as safe or as dangerous as a pilot makes it. Broadly speaking, I believe that assertion to be true, but I doubt whether much more can be done by improving flying discipline to reduce the number of casualties.
  The flying discipline in the Service at the present time is very high indeed, and it would be hard to find room for improvement there. Likewise, the standard of flying instruction in the training schools is very high. I am inclined to think that it is the highest in the world. Our flying instruction has always been of an exceptional standard, and I doubt whether any comprehensive advance to greater safety can be contemplated in this field.
  It would seem that on the flying side at the moment, with training discipline and so forth, it is unlikely that we can expect any adjustments which might widen the margin of safety. One of the problems which the latest types of Service aircraft pose is that they react so quickly. If a pilot gets into difficulties he does not have so much time nowadays to sort himself out as he did with the earlier aircraft with their lower wing loadings. In these days of jet propulsion, the limited endurance of fighter aircraft does not give the pilot the same latitude for the human errors which are bound to occur no matter how skilful he may be, and the position becomes more serious in difficult weather conditions.
  One knows only too well the amount of thought, care and research which has gone into the problem of reducing the rate of casualties. I am sure that my hon. Friend's statement will reassure us, but I do not think we should rest content. We should not conclude that nothing more can be done to improve matters. For instance, I am not at all convinced that it would not pay us substantially to revise our conception of the type of minimum weather in which our pilots should normally be asked to operate. I am well aware of the necessity
  692
  to establish in a pilot confidence to fly in bad weather and to encourage the determined, "press on" spirit. Equally do I appreciate the need to combat any suggestion that the Royal Air Force should become a "fair weather" Air Force. I believe that the spirit of determination in the Royal Air Force today is the same as it has always been. It is such among aircrews that in an emergency they would be prepared to accept almost any risk if they felt it was their duty to do so.
  Therefore, I say that the important question is to decide whether there is now a case for raising the minimum standards of weather in which pilots are expected to operate. The United States Air Force, which cannot be said in any sense to be a "fair weather" Air Force, does not normally fly in conditions which we have come to regard as minimum. My information, which I have not been able to confirm, is that its accident rate, having regard for the amount of aircraft used and the number of hours flown, is not as high as ours. It is true that the peculiar meterological conditions in this country demand that a pilot should become proficient and able to operate in all weathers, but I hear that a vigorous attempt is being made in one command in the Royal Air Force—I do not think it would be right to mention it—to introduce easier standards with the one intention of reducing accidents. My information is that the trial has not been wholly unsuccessful. However, I believe that the initiative should come not from command level but from the top and be driven right down through the Service.
  What is needed is a new look at an old and worrying problem. A fresh approach might well be tried even for a year or two on the basis of an easier minimum weather standard. I do not for an instant believe that this would make pilots hesitate to operate in the very worst conditions if a supreme emergency ever arose. It might even achieve results the benefits of which would far outweigh the disadvantages, and perhaps provide a fresh measure of confidence where there is now understandable concern.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. George Wigg: It was with great sadness that I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). For many

  693
  years he and I have been close personal friends. Before I came to the House I felt a great measure of affection for him. and our close association has increasingly tended to strengthen my regard for him.
  I am certain, as will be everyone else who knows him, that he has acted from the deepest and most sincere motives, and I am sure he will accord to those of us who do not agree with him the same feeling that we are sincere in our way. Although I do not agree with him in the action that he has taken, I am, like him, by no means certain that I am right and can only hope and pray that I am. During the past few months since I became aware, perhaps only dimly, of the impact of the hydrogen bomb, I have striven to understand. I have tried through the Press in Dudley to make my constituents aware of the nature of the problem. I have also tried to do something by my speeches in this House. I am sure that the doubts in my hon. Friend's mind are shared by millions of our fellow countrymen. They have come face to face with something which they do not understand. I am afraid, deeply afraid, that unless a great deal of responsibility is shown by all leaders in public life, we shall find many, like my hon. Friend, taking short cuts which may lead us to national disaster.
  My hon. Friend, like myself, had the very great privilege of knowing—in the case of my hon. Friend of sitting at his feet—a very great scholar, the late Master of Balliol, Lord Lindsay. My hon. Friend had the good fortune to be a Balliol man. I knew Lord Lindsay as a friend, and I came to know him through attendance at classes organised by the Workers Education Association. As I grew older and came to this House I used to meet Lord Lindsay almost weekly, and many times I have discussed the problem of power and morality with him, as I have discussed the same problem with my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend. As I see it, although I have no right to say these things publicly, because I am not good enough or worthy enough to say them, it is the duty of all who profess and call themselves Christians to try to maintain and sustain that state of affairs in which the humble and weak can live their lives out to the full.
  I am sure Lord Lindsay tried to teach the hon. Baronet, as he tried to teach
  694
  me and as he has written in his book, "The Two Moralities," that the first duty of us all is to maintain the law, for without law there is bound to be anarchy and chaos. We are now faced with a situation which is likely to break up every conception of law and to destroy all that which we have evolved through the long history of mankind and by which we maintain a society which enables the humble and the weak to live in peace.
  I am not sure that this country, by accepting what I might call the theory of the deterrent, will bring about the state of affairs we want. If the hon. Baronet has his way, it means that we should all turn our backs on the nature of the world in which we live. That is what he is doing and, if he will allow me to say so, he is doing it rather emotionally and without a very careful study of the facts. After all the great contributions he has made to the public life of this country, he ought not to base his views on an article written in the "Daily Mirror." It may be that General Twining and General LeMay may be loquacious, as Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, but I have some doubt whether very senior officers talk in quite the way that Mr. Connor claims they talked to him.
  If any part of the case of the hon. Baronet is the conviction that night after night United States bombers are flying over Soviet territory photographing by infra-red rays so as to plot bomber targets for the day of the great opening phase of a preventive war, I do not believe it. I will tell my hon. Friend why. It is because I have much greater confidence in the competence of the Russian Air Force than that. Consider what it means. First, we know that the Russian fighters can get above the ceiling of anything the Americans have yet produced, and if they can get above them they can get at them. If United States aircraft go in night after night, first, there is the very strong probability that sooner or later one of them will have engine failure and land on Soviet territory. So far that has never happened. I also think it extremely probable that on at least one occasion the Russians would have made contact with one of those intruding aircraft and it would have been shot down. I do not think the Russians would have failed to photograph it. They would have announced it to the Press of the world and have proved conclusively that the

  695
  Americans were planning offensive intervention. Therefore, on the spur of the moment, for that reason, if for no other, I would take the argument with a very great grain of salt.
  Sir R. Acland: My hon. Friend may be right about that, but that particular point is no essential part of my case. The only part which is essential to my case—I do not think my hon. Friend will dispute this—is that the United States and the Soviet Union are capable, or within a matter of a few months or years will be capable, of dealing mortal blows at each other. That is all my case rests upon.
  Mr. Wigg: I would not dissent from the proposition of the hon. Baronet that our peril is great and the time is short. Indeed, I would go a little further. I do not believe in the Prime Minister's story that we have three or four years. I think that concept was introduced into the argument of the Prime Minister for internal political reasons. I am prepared to accept here and now that both Russia and the United States have the fusion weapon and both have the means to deliver it.
  What we have to ask ourselves, if that is the kind of world in which we live, is what about our own country. As I said in the debate on the Army Estimates, it is possible to do what the Government are doing and to add the nuclear weapons to what we have already. It is possible, also, to have what I regard as a manly form of neutralism—a neutralism of the kind the Swedes and the Swiss have—which makes positive demands on its citizens. That kind of neutralism says that no longer are we in the position to exercise an influence and, therefore, we will build up a fighter force and civil defence and contract out of world affairs, acting only within what we regard as the limits of our power.
  On the other hand, there is another way in which I am afraid the hon. Baronet and the Prime Minister will lead us if we are not very careful. That is a kind of hopeless neutralism, the kind of thing which disfigured life in France in 1940. That is what I want to escape at all costs. If we have to choose between the two, I prefer the first. That is where I stand on the issue, but that is not all
  696
  the story. Like my hon. Friend I believe in and value the way of life which has been built up during the past 2,000 years in this country. I still believe it has a part to play. I believe that the one thing which will make war certain is if we contract out. Like the hon. Baronet, I look into the future with very grave doubts indeed. If there is a possible chance of mankind escaping the major catastrophe, I believe it will come because this country—I am not now speaking for the Labour Party but for the country as a whole—exercises its power and determination to lead mankind into better ways.
  There is no choice between disarmament and complete disaster. In my turn I say it would not be honest if I thought for a single moment that there is a short cut to general disarmament. It is a prize to be fought for, a prize to be won. There is no short cut. Like the hon. Baronet, I have three daughters. I have had a much rougher time than he has, and if there is anything left for me to do in life it is to try to give my girls a better life than I have had myself. I, too, would resign my seat and walk out of public life if I thought that by my example I could do anything to find a short cut. But there is no short cut. The only way is the hard way and the hard climb born of the fearless, honest courage that comes from examining the facts and facing them. The hon. Baronet has chosen to go his way and, unfortunately, I must go mine. I am very sorry, and I very much hope that nothing that happens will affect our personal relations.
  I turn now to something very different. I tried to indicate, first in the defence debate, again in the debate upon the Navy Estimates, and yet again in that upon the Army Estimates, that the Government's defence record is wholly deplorable. I have given notice to the Minister of Supply that I should say some things about him and refer to things which he has said, which would be much better said in his presence than in his absence. I have been questioning the Government about the state of our defences, especially about night fighters. The Minister of Supply was kind enough to answer a Question which I put to him concerning the relative merits of the British night fighter in use in this country and the United States F.86D.

  697
  In his reply the right hon. and learned Gentleman said two things which amazed me. First, he said:
  "In any case the F.86D is a single-seater night fighter and we do not use single-seater night fighters."
  Secondly, in reply to a supplementary question from me, he said:
  "I do not believe that single-seater night fighters could operate in the climatic conditions around this country."
  When I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that I almost went through the roof. I was so shocked and horrified, Mr. Speaker, that I subsequently made some remarks about the nature of the reply which met with your disapproval, and you asked me to withdraw them. I said:
  "Certainly I will withdraw the word 'dishonest,' and I will replace it with 'grossly misleading.'"
  I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell the House and the country the facts. The reason I got excited about this was that it was within my knowledge that there were in this country three squadrons of F.86D's, which had been here for the last four months, under the operational command of Fighter Command—and there was the right hon. and learned Gentleman trying to get the Government out of a tight corner by telling the House and the country that single-seater night fighters were no good in Britain.
  He surely must have known that three squadrons of single-seater night fighters were based here—at Manston—and were in operational use in Fighter Command. The only reason why I accepted your rebuke and withdrew my original phrase, Mr. Speaker, was because I was thinking of security considerations. I therefore bit my tongue and said nothing about it despite the fact that reference to the presence of F.86D's in the country had appeared in the Air League journal "Air Pictorial."
  Since that time the facts have come out, and I should like to quote from last Saturday's "Daily Express" which reported that the 406th Wing of the United States Air Force had three squadrons ofF.86D Sabres, with two squadrons at Manston, Kent and a third at Bentwaters.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Were they F.86D's?
  Mr. Wigg: Yes—three squadrons of F.86D's, the aircraft in respect of which I put down my original Question.
  "They are under the direct operational control of Royal Air Force Fighter Command"
  said the "Daily Express." This is an astonishing situation. I was flabbergasted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's denial and—speaking to him somewhat sternly—I very much hope that he will give an explanation, not to me, for I make no claims for myself, but to the country, because it is the country that he has misled. I knew at the time that these squadrons were in existence.
  The Minister of Supply (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I am grateful to the hon. Member for being courteous enough to tell me that he was going to raise this point. I admit that the answer to which he refers—made upon the spur of the moment in reply to a supplementary question—is an overstatement. I said:
  "I do not believe that single-seater night fighters could operate in the climatic conditions around this country."
  I regret that I made that statement, and I certainly withdraw it, but in my reply to yet another supplementary question I said:
  "I think there are great advantages in having twin-seater night fighters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 878–9.]
  That is the position which I was really taking up, and in my considered answer, when I said:
  "we do not use single-seater night fighters."
  I was referring to the Royal Air Force.
  Mr. Wigg: I gladly accept the Minister's explanation. Whether or not the country will is another matter. I have established the fact that a Minister of the Crown, in giving information upon this vital subject, has been grossly misled by his Department—because I now return to the White Paper on the Supply of Military Aircraft and my reason for putting down my Question in the first instance. Paragraph 40 says:
  "This country has an effective air defence against what any potential enemy is at present able to bring against us. By night, the most likely time for attack, we have a better defence than anyone else in the world."
  In his reply to the Defence debate, the Minister moved his ground a little. He moved from "a better defence" to "a setter defence system." I do not deny hat it is more than probable that our

  699
  system of radar reporting and control is infinitely better than anything which anyone else has; indeed, it would be surprising if that were not so, because we had much more experience than anyone else during the war. My Question was directed to the kind of aircraft we were operating at night, because even when one finds one's quarry one still has to shoot it down. As far as I know, the only effective night fighter operating at the present time—and I emphasise the present time—is the F.86D.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I query the word "effective." It surely cannot be true that the F.86D is the only effective night fighter. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment upon the report in "Aviation Week," which says:
  "… the M.P. from Dudley has 'flipped his wig.' This is a prime example of how a poorly informed politician can befuddle the public on the real military security problem with his raucous cries of 'wolf' when no real danger exists."
  Mr. Wigg: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, but he has abused my courtesy. I thought that this matter would be introduced during the debate, and my speech will now have to be a little longer than I had intended.
  I shall tell the House why this attack was made upon me by "Aviation Week." It was because I put down three Questions on the Order Paper about breaches of security. There was not much in two of them, but the third one, dealing with infrared, in my opinion is a gross breach of security. If I am wrong about this, I hope that one of the Ministers now sitting on the Front Bench will say so. The periodical has attacked me because the leak about this subject was revealed to a representative of that periodical by a senior officer of the Royal Air Force, when the member of the staff of "Aviation Week" was at a luncheon, and the Royal Air Force officer was speaking off the record. A representative of "Aviation Week" broke that embargo, and when I put a Question down I was attacked in the American Press. I am proud of that. The American Press would not go out of its way to attack me at great length, and circulate a copy of what it says in attacking me to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House—
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: It did not.
  Mr. Wigg: —if I was not near the mark.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: It did not do that.
  Mr. Wigg: It was sent to every paper in London.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I read "Aviation Week."
  Mr. Wigg: Maybe the hon. Gentleman does, but it did what it did because I got very near the truth. I affirm that that major security breach came about as a result of an action of an officer of the Royal Air Force, which, in certain circumstances, I am prepared to reveal to the Government; on one condition, that they will charge the representative of "Aviation Week" in the courts with an offence against security and court martial the Royal Air Force officer concerned. If that does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman opposite, I suppose nothing will.
  However, I am not going to be put oft my stroke by that diversion. I come back to the point with which I was dealing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to give an explanation of what had happened about the F86D. I was saying that the only effective night fighter we have at present—
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Against what?
  Mr. Wigg: A night fighter has to locate the enemy bomber. What would happen if the TU4, with a speed of about 300 knots, came over here? Let us assume that a Meteor night fighter is waiting for the TU4 to come over. The Under-Secretary of State can deny this if it is untrue, but I say that that Meteor night fighter is incapable of firing its guns effectively at a greater speed than 330 knots.
  Mr. Ward: The Meteor is capable of firing its guns effectively at all speeds, including top speed.
  Mr. Wigg: I categorically deny that. I assert that if the TU4 came over at 300 knots and went into a shallow dive it would get away from the Meteor. If I am wrong, why is it that the F86Ds have had to be brought over for the defence of this country?
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: They have not.
  Mr. Ward: The hon. Gentleman is doing precisely what I warned the House about in my speech earlier. He is making the wildest possible assertions which are completely untrue. There is absolutely no truth in the assertion that the Meteor cannot fire its guns at high speed. The Meteor can fire its guns at any speed, including full speed. As to the F86Ds being here, why should not our American allies come here and be with Fighter Command and learn its ways, and the men get to know each other?
  Mr. Wigg: That is a good idea, but why was their presence denied? We have the fact of their presence admitted now, but it is said on behalf of the Government that the F86D single-seater fighters are not effective in our climatic conditions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has partially explained that, but the fact is that there are three squadrons of F86Ds here, and I assert that the F86Ds here have been brought under the control of Fighter Command because that is operationally necessary and there would be an enormous gap if they were not here.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Nonsense.
  Mr. Ward: Why does the hon. Gentleman have to make these assertions which are untrue, as I have told him?
  Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has made extremely wild statements, and has not yet withdrawn them, in spite of what my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend have said. I wonder if they would arrange for the hon. Member to be taken up in a Meteor firing its guns at 500 or 600 miles an hour? I wonder if he would go if it were arranged? Then he would see.
  Mr. Wigg: Certainly, I am quite willing to go to see for myself. I was asked to go to see the Hunter, and I went down to see the Hunter. However, I am certainly not going to be put off my stroke when I have managed to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the Government have made claims which cannot be substantiated. I assert that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's claim in paragraph 40 of the White Paper is wholly untrue.
  I do not want to take up many more minutes so I shall not quote at length,
  702
  but one has only to read the reports which have appeared in the American Press, and I instance particularly the "Washington Post" of 3rd March as an example, to see what the Americans are thinking about the nonsense that was talked by the Minister of Supply. It is common knowledge that the Americans did not believe a word of it. They do not believe a single word of it. Neither, in their heart of hearts, do hon. Gentlemen opposite. We are going through one barrage of illusion to another.
  That brings me to my last point, for I promised not to be long. I come to the question of the V bombers. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on the skill with which he skated round that subject. He talked about the Valiant coming into operation, and one Vulcan which had come off the production line. He did not say very much about the Victor.
  Air Commodore Harvey: What would the hon. Gentleman have liked him to have said?
  Mr. Wigg: He was very careful not to say much about it. He did not say the one Victor in existence was grounded, nor did he say it is not flying very much these days.
  Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is really irresponsible. He is absolutely hopeless. Without giving any State secret away I can tell him that the Victor was flying for six hours last week at 50,000 feet. He should withdraw his remarks.
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Withdraw.
  Mr. Wigg: No. I did not say that the Victor was grounded. I was very careful to say it was not grounded. What I am saying is that it is not doing very much flying these days.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Six hours.
  Mr. Wigg: Yes, I am saying it is not doing very much flying these days—because it is having trouble with its tail. The tail trouble which caused the first Victor to crash is still present in the Victor II.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Rubbish. The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says "Rubbish." Let us put it to the

  703
  test. At the present moment, there are 10, or about 10, Valiants. There is one Valiant Squadron at Gaydon and another is being formed at Wittering, and then there is one Victor and one Vulcan.
  I ask the Minister of Supply, how many does he expect to have in a year's time, 20, or 30, or 50? Every prophecy ever made about the Hunter and the Swift was wrong. Before the debate ends tonight let us be told so that we can check against the facts, not against assurances. Let us be told whether this time next year we shall have 20 Valiants or four Victors or four Vulcans. What shall we have? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be good enough to tell us that, I for one shall be satisfied.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman said earlier, I thought, that he subscribed to the view that we should have a deterrent bomber force. Does he want us to tell a potential enemy precisely how many planes we have?
  Mr. Wigg: Of course I do not want any information given away to an enemy. That is why I put my Question about the security leak, and have said what I have said about it, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hon. Friends behind him do not like it.
  What I want is this. I want the British public to be told as much as possible subject to security—as much as security will permit. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that for security reasons he does not want to give this information, well and good. At present I am only reporting what is printed in the British or American Press.
  No one has told me. I have no contacts on the Air Council. I have read in the Press—and if necessary I will give the references—about where these squadrons are being formed and the numbers. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "This is a security risk, I cannot give you the information," I am satisfied. If it is not a security risk, I hope that he will be kind enough to tell us what he expects to get, so that the House and the country can make sure that we are having value for our money.
  Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member made the wild assertion that the tail of the Victor was not safe. He should bear in mind that a crew flies that aircraft
  704
  daily, and he should remember that those men have mothers and wives. The hon. Member should ask the Minister of Supply if he can go to Farnborough, where he would be reassured by Sir Arnold Hall and his team that the figures have been re-calculated and there is now agreement, in view of the modifications that have taken place, that the tail is safe. The hon. Member should withdraw.
  Mr. Wigg: No, Sir. I did not say that it was not safe. I said that there was trouble with the Victor's tail.
  Air Commodore Harvey: No trouble.
  Mr. Wigg: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not be so enthusiastic about the Victor.
  Air Commodore Harvey: I am giving the hon. Member the facts.
  Mr. Wigg: I want the Minister to tell the country, as far as he can inside the security requirements, what the facts are, because I am quite certain that we are spending vast sums of public money and we are trying to do too much. I have said before that if we try to do all these things we shall have neither deterrent, V-bombers nor fighters nor anything else. I do not want to say that the Victor is unsafe. All I ask is that the Minister should put some jerk into things and obtain value for some of our money.

LONG ENGAGEMENTS
7.42 p.m.
Mr. Michael Higgs: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead there of:
"this House urges that continued efforts should be made to increase the numbers of personnel serving on long engagements with the Royal Air Force in order to increase efficiency with economy."
I am sure that the House will sympathise with me when I remind hon. Members that my constituency is bounded on the north by that of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and on the south by that of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air. The House will understand why I still keep my tin hat within easy reach. The aim of the hon. Member for Dudley may perhaps be no more accurate than his facts.

705
I thought that it might be appropriate, and the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley has justified me in the supposition, that we should turn aside from considerations of grand strategy or from the topic of machines and talk for a short time about the men in the R.A.F. I make no apology for doing that, because so much of the time of the House has been spent on R.A.F. machines rather than on the men.
Just as the changed type of global warfare has its effects on machines, it must have an effect upon the men and their training. It has been said again and again that we shall not have another war in which small Regular forces can act as a nucleus around which we can build Territorials, reservists and militiamen. No enemy in a future war will give us time to build our Forces in that way, particularly when we are dealing with the Royal Air Force, which must be in the forefront in the first minutes and hours of a war. We must accept the fact that those critical early hours will inevitably be fought by Regulars of the Royal Air Force and National Service men, and that it is not much good in that initial period to talk about ways in which we can build round them.
It is true that the disbandment of Anti-Aircraft Command, of which I was a humble member, came about not by reason of lack of weapons but by the knowledge that those weapons are no longer any good. That has an effect upon the Royal Air Force in the sense that it most nearly affects the defence of the country. In all these respects, as we have heard today and in previous debates, the weapons and instruments which go to direct those weapons become more and more complicated as each year's Estimates come round.
The advent of an increase in the strength of night fighters which, whatever has been said in the last few minutes, is taking place and will continue to take place, inevitably involves radar on the ground and in the machines. Then there is the advent of jet bombers and fighters. All these changes mean that more and more people who serve in and with the Royal Air Force have to be technically highly-qualified men. That applies not only to those who actually fly but to those who maintain and repair machines and instruments. It may well be that a
706
large part of our discussion on my Amendment may centre round those very important people who have to do maintenance and repair work, and also form crews for radar and other instruments.
It has been said already, in anticipation of my Amendment, that, as aircrew and repair and maintenance personnel, the National Service man is a very uneconomical asset. That also applies to a man who is on a very short-term engagement. It is for that reason that I ask the House to consider means whereby we can have a higher percentage of the Royal Air Force personnel serving on long engagements. If a man serves two or three years, he spends half of that time being trained. And that is not the end of the matter, because during the other half, although trained, he is inexperienced.
The period of training is long, and correspondingly a high proportion of men must be employed on training. It follows that if we could reduce the proportion of people who serve on short engagements and increase the proportion who serve on long engagements, not only should we have better people to do the work, in the sense that they would not only have been trained and would have had a considerable length of experience, but that they would not be required to spend so much of their time in traininga large proportion of short-service men. Furthermore, we should have a reduction eventually in the need for National Service men. That is why I have ended my Amendment with a reference to efficiency and economy, because I believe that in this way those two ends can be achieved by the same means.
Against that background of the undesirability of having a high proportion of people on short-term engagements, there are figures in the Air Estimates and in the Defence Estimates which are a little disturbing. It is true that the Under-Secretary of State for Air has given us more encouraging news today, but it is apparent from the White Papers on our air and defence needs that over the past two years or so there has been an overall reduction in the strength of the R.A.F., and that the reduction in the numbers of Regulars, as opposed to National Service men, is the same proportion as the overall reduction. In other words, although there is a reduction in the total, there is

707
no increase at all in the proportion of Regulars.
It will be seen from the forecast of what the position will be this year that the total strength of the R.A.F. is expected to fall by a little over 5,000 whilst the strength of Regulars will fall by 9,000, or getting on for double the first number. In view of the background to which I have referred, that is a very worrying figure. That is why I ask the House to consider what steps we can take to increase the numbers of men who are serving on Regular engagements and, of course, preferably longer engagements.
I thought that the House might like to divide this subject roughly into two. First, there is the question of the steps which we can take to attract men into the Service and the remuneration and means whereby one can pick them up, wherever they can be contacted. The all-important matter of conditions when the men are inside the Service forms the second question. The latter aspect I propose to leave to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Woollam), who, if he is fortunate enough to be called, will second the Amendment. He has the advantage, in speaking on this topic, not only of being, I believe, the youngest Member of the House, but also of having served recently in the Royal Air Force. I am looking forward particularly to what my hon. Friend has to say on that aspect.
For my part, I propose to invite the House to consider how we can get people to the recruiting office. Obviously, the first question that would appeal to most people is that of pay and allowances. It is possible, I think, to over-estimate the importance of the general question of rates of pay. They are, of course, important to a young man who is choosing his career—and we are talking about careers in the Royal Air Force and not simply short and obligatory periods of service. In any event, it would probably be wrong that we should seek a sweeping general review of rates of pay so soon after the changes which were announced at about this period last year.
I wonder, however, whether all possible steps are taken to ascertain where, if at all, the question of rates of pay and allowances is a deterrent. I wonder whether all possible steps are taken, as a good commercial concern would take,
708
to contact the people who do not join the Service. If one inquires to find how rates of pay are regarded, it is easy enough to go to a barrack room and ask the people who have their pay books in their pockets; but for the purpose of the Amendment, the man we should seek to get at is the man who does not come into the Air Force. We should ascertain why he does not join.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom) referred to some sampling which had been done of a cross-section of the Royal Air Force. Although, obviously, we cannot ask this year for a sweeping review of pay and allowances, some inquiry might be made among people who write, in response to advertisements and to announcements on the radio, to ask for particulars but who do not then join the Air Force. In that way, it might be possible to find out what is the deterrent. I wonder whether, amongst the younger men, those of the age at which they might sign on for 12 years or longer, one would not find that one of the greatest deterrents on the financial side was, not the position of the man himself, but the position of his wife and family.
A young single man, with no domestic responsibilities, serving on a Regular engagement, is all right. Everything is done for him, and I do not think that many people would argue that he does not now have sufficient pocket money. I believe, however, that if my hon. Friend were to undertake research, he might find, in the case of a married man, that the total amount of money which his wife received in respect of her husband's allotment and her allowance compared very unfavourably with what she might expect to receive had her husband been doing a comparable job in industry. If the time comes when consideration is given to pay and allowances, that is the direction in which we might look.
I should like to mention one other matter to which earlier reference has been made. We have been given very encouraging figures about safety and the accident rate, and one hon. Member has referred to the risks that aircrew must undertake. Questions have been asked recently in the House on the subject of life insurance and the effect of joining the Royal Air Force upon the ability of a young man to insure his life. I do not know to what extent the Government

709
could help by underwriting in some way with life insurance offices the additional element of risk occasioned to a young man who joins the Royal Air Force.
Certainly, one could argue that if there were an additional element of risk in a career, it should fall upon those who employ and who have the benefit of the man's services rather than upon the young man himself and his family. That is one possible disincentive to a young family man who comes to decide the question, "Shall I join as a Regular Air Force man?"
The next question to arise on the aspect of finance is the competition of civilian industry with the R.A.F. We in this country have never really decided on what basis we pay our Service men, whether sailors, soldiers or airmen. We have never really decided whether we pay them what they are worth, what their services are worth to the Service in the open market, or whether we pay them what we can get away with—in other words, what it costs them and their families to live.
The very fact that we pay family allowances—marriage and child allowances, and so on—to a Serviceman in addition to his pay is an admission that we do not pay him what he is worth to us, but that we pay him what it costs him and his family to live. That inevitably means that if we do not pay men on the basis of what they are worth in the open market—and to do so would mean a substantial increase in Service pay all round—we must compete with industry in other ways.
When one comes up against this question of competing interests, one can either meet them directly or one can compromise. Alternatively, one can get in first in point of time and hope to overcome one's disability by being on the spot first. I should like to suggest one way in which we might compromise. If we find that it is extremely expensive to pay all men on Regular engagements a wage which would attract men from comparable jobs in industry, another way to resolve the dilemma is to see to what extent we can employ industry instead of taking the men from industry.
I know that in time of peace there is considerable attraction to a Service Department in the idea of putting out to
710
civilian contractors all sorts of jobs which are normally done by Service men. If it were simply a question of peacetime manning, a great deal more of it would be done, but I admit at once the objection which can be summed up in the question, "What happens when war breaks out?" If a firm of civilian contractors maintains the aircraft of a formation, and the formation is moved out to the Far East, what is to be done about the civilian contractors? They cannot be moved, they are not in uniform and subject to orders, and they cannot be compelled to go.
I wonder whether that difficulty can be linked in any way with National Service and the hope that some of us hold that one day National Service may no longer be necessary. I wonder whether it is possible to find a way of eating into National Service and at the same time achieving that end. There are two ways of reducing the total impact of National Service on the community. One is to say that, instead of serving for two years, each man should serve for 18 months. That is a substantial reduction.
Another way is to require fewer men to undergo National Service as such. I wonder whether it would be possible, with the assistance of the industries concerned, to initiate a scheme whereby maintenance and repair work could be done by civilian contractors employing personnel who, by virtue of engaging and remaining in that type of work, were excused from National Service upon the understanding that they did this work in a civilian capacity until cither they had reached a specified age or had worked for a certain number of years, and then joined a Reserve. In the event of war, they would put on their uniforms and serve, overseas if necessary, in the same capacity as they had been serving already.
In that way we could create a substantial category of men whose services are necessary both in peace and in war. They would serve in a civilian capacity in peace-time and so rid the Air Force of the responsibility of training and housing Service men. That may be a far-fetched idea, but it may be a suggestion worth following up because, even if it is not in itself a workable scheme, it might lead to the discovery of some other means of achieving the same result.
That is one method by which we might get round the difficulty of civilian competition. Now I want to mention one or

711
two ways in which it might be possible to anticipate civilian competition. For flying duties at any rate, and particularly to the young man, there is a great attraction in joining the Royal Air Force. I believe that this attraction extends, though perhaps to some extent vicariously, to those tasks which, while not in themselves flying, are associated closely with it. I refer to the maintenance of the aircraft, their repairs, and the operation of radar and other equipment which makes flying possible and effective.
It is probable that other less remunerative parts of the Royal Air Force might attract large numbers of recruits if only they were contacted early enough. My hon. Friend has said something today about the Cranwell schemes, which were announced at about this time last year, and he also mentioned schools liaison, so I shall say no more about that. However, I hope that publicity will be extended to places where it is likely to catch the eye of the potential recruit for whom we are looking.
If we want a young man to make a career of the R.A.F., we must catch his eye by an advertisement at the time when he is making up his mind what his career is to be. My son is not old enough to think of that yet, but my daughter has, since she was 12 or 13, been talking about what she will do when she leaves school. I wonder how much publicity appears in places where it will catch the eye of boys of 12, 13 or 14 years of age, because that is when they get their first reasonable ideas of what they want to do. I wonder if the B.B.C. could be used, and, if so, at a better time than 1.15 in the middle of the day, because my own children certainly do not listen to the B.B.C. then.
In this connection, there are two other matters that I want to mention. The A.T.C. operates at schools, and I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage this because that service, too, is catching the young man at the time when he is making up his mind about what he will do when he leaves school. In many cases the next stage in his career is when he passes through the hands of a person called the youth employment officer.
That officer is a servant of the education authority and works with a committee of local manufacturers and others who have their fingers upon the local labour
712
market and who, in this respect, are the direct enemies of my hon. Friend because they are the pople who want to get young men into the factories. I hope that my hon. Friend will take a tip from me and will make sure that his Department, and perhaps other Service Departments as well, are well represented, because those who give advice and assistance to the youth employment officers catch hold of a young man at the time when he is making up his mind about his career.
Anything that brings discredit or disfavour upon what goes on in the recruiting office is a deterrent. It so happens that over a period of a year or so a number of cases have arisen in my constituency of young men who have gone to report for National Service and who, after their medical examination, have been offered, and have accepted, the opportunity to sign on for a three or four-year engagement in the Royal Air Force instead of doing their National Service. In due course they have reported for duty, and then they have been told that the medical examination, which they passed in the highest category, is not of a sufficiently high standard for the Royal Air Force, and they are sent back home.
It remains then for the Army to take them up or, in a remote case, the Navy. Often, however, there is a period of three or four months in which they are waiting about for the Army to call them up and during which they are doing nothing. Their former employers will not take them back, and they find difficulty in drawing unemployment pay because, although they are available for employment, employers are not willing to offer them attractive jobs, as they know that they will lose these young men again in a short time. No doubt other hon. Members have heard of such cases, and there have been a sufficient number of them in my area to have attracted a little attention.
It has got round amongst young men that if they go to the recruiting office and volunteer for three or four years in the R.A.F., they will only be a few days on the R.A.F. station before they are sent home again, and that then there will be a period of three or four months before the Army calls them up, so that their National Service will occupy that much longer time before they can get down to the civilian job which they intend to make their career. That may be a small

713
point, but it deters young men from going to the recruiting office and inquiring about medium-term engagements in the R.A.F. If such things can be put right, it will help to increase the numbers.
I hope that other hon. Members will take advantage of this Amendment to make suggestions to help what I believe to be one of the most important aspects of each of our three Services, and especially of the Royal Air Force. In that way, we may reach the time when our Forces can be run substantially by Regulars, and substantially by those who wish to make the Forces their career, thereby reducing the numbers of those who are there only because they have to be.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. John Woollam: I beg to second the Amendment.
On rising to address the House for the first time, I hope that I may be granted the customary indulgence which is extended on these occasions.
My reasons for seconding the Amendment arise from my own experience. I cannot claim to have expert knowledge. However, I can claim that I am the only hon. Member who is a National Service man called up under the Acts and still on the Reserve. I believe I am the most recently serving member of the Royal Air Force in the House, and it may well be the case that in this year's debate I shall be the only substantive A.C.2 to speak on the Air Estimates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) has already alluded to the fact that I shall be turning my attention to the deterrents to recruiting for long-term engagements in the Royal Air Force. Pre-eminently, there is the influence of excessive postings, or, as it is termed, "turbulence." Perhaps in a facetious aside I might congratulate the anonymous word coiner in the Air Ministry. The word might represent a technical problem in aerodynamics or an organic disturbance, but it describes admirably the seething life in the Air Force since the end of the war and at the present time.
It is inevitable that much of the present turbulence is due to major changes of policy. I wonder whether, when posting decisions are taken, there is proper comprehension of the costs involved. Pay
714
accounts, movements, Records Office, stores—in all of them it is common knowledge that the number of men moved is far in excess of what would be required if postings could be got down to a normal figure.
I sometimes wonder whether we could not have a closer and more original analysis of the whole matter of the form of our long-service engagements. Could we devise fresh forms which would incorporate posting privileges? There might be a case for putting aside certain categories of men working at certain stations, such as technical staff at maintenance stations, where they would have some guarantee of very limited postings and, perhaps, reduced financial rewards. I put that proposal forward hesitantly, but I am sure there must be a much more analytical examination of this very fruitful aspect of devising fresh forms of long-service engagements. I am never satisfied with a mere allusion, as an excuse, to the question of overseas commitments.
I should have thought there was a possibility of drawing together the stations of Technical Training Command and Maintenance Command into a certain area or county. There is no technical or organisational merit in the present distribution of the stations of those commands. They just happened that way at the end of the war. Certain stations fell vacant and were offered or allocated to certain commands.
It might be that if some radical reorganisation could take place those at some of those stations could be drawn into a certain area. This would mean that less time would be taken in group visits, and fewer personnel would be required at group headquarters, and there would be the knowledge that a posting within the command would not necessarily take one outside the available married quarters or beyond the area of the county education authorities. It would also mean the end of hutted stations. However, it would certainly cost a great deal of money.
I should have thought that any such reorganisation in those two commands must be the consequence of certain other decisions, such as how long it will be before we can get a final judgment on the future use or existence of many stations and how long the patching of temporary

715
stations will go on. This started as an expedient, but it is now a policy. I wonder whether a calculation has ever been made of the merits and the costs of pay increases—I understand the recent ones will mean an increase of £3 million—compared with what could be done with the same amount of money if it were treated as capital expenditure in the rebuilding and resiting of stations.
On the whole question of postings, I recognise that if we are to effect a radical rather than a marginal improvement, the turbulence may well get worst before it gets better. I accept that. I would also recognise that excessive postings, housing, education and station accommodation problems are all inextricably locked together. It is a vicious circle, and breaking it will be a very extensive operation.
With regard to housing for ex-Regulars, we welcomed the Minister's statement last week. I confess that I am not over-optimistic about the influence of the statement on recruiting. I look upon it merely as justice for Service men that that decision has been made, but I cannot foresee much improvement in recruiting resulting from it.
A man who is thinking of signing on for a very long term of years will not attach a great deal of importance to the probability of getting a house at the end of his time, whereas a man already in the R.A.F. who is considering re-engagement finds it a positive inducement to him to leave. I know, from my experience during the last few years, the number of senior N.C.O.s who sign on again merely for the reason that they are in married quarters and know they have no chance of a council house if they leave.
That leads me to the wider question of station accommodation. I spent my two years' National Service in Technical Training Command. I did my basic training at Bridgnorth and my trade training at Wellesbourne Mountford, and for the rest of my time I went to that Mecca of aeronautical enthusiasts, Padgate. Those three stations are in Technical Training Command, and they are all hutted camps. In all three there is a daily disciplinary fight against damp, decay, dust and dilapidation. Everyone recognises that. We all had to discipline ourselves to fight against it. The evidence given last year before the Select Com-
716
mittee was most devastating. I appreciated the evidence given about the cookhouse at Bridgnorth, which horrified one of the witnesses.
What troubles me is that it is a tragedy for the R.A.F. that the reception units and Technical Training Command stations to which almost all recruits go at the beginning are for the most part hutted camps built in war-time or before the war for temporary or emergency purposes, and for 15 or 20 years reprieved but never rebuilt. The result is that we are achieving the worst impression on the maximum number at their most sensitive stage.
The educational problems of Service men have been talked about a great deal during past weeks, and I can only stress the familiar. In the first place, it is a consequence of excessive postings. If men are posted every two years—it is probably every 15 or 18 months—it means that their children during their school life up to university age will probably attend six different schools, be under six different education authorities and experience six different curricula.
What is worse, education authorities offer widely varying numbers of grammar school places. The numbers vary dramatically from county to county. So the scholarship chance for a Service man's child is really a matter of the throw of the dice or a move of the posting cap. The situation is getting so much worse, because the educational standard of R.A.F. personnel is going up. Evidence given before the Select Committee last year was that in the Technical Training, Flying Training and Maintenance Commands 80 to 90 per cent. of the men were tradesmen of considerable skill.
In radio, instrument and electronic trades there is not only considerable skill, but a high standard of education and no mean intellect, or the men could not comprehend the science with which they have to deal in these trades. These are the very men who are likely to be ambitious and to desire their children to have the educational qualifications which they enjoy. They are the very men who can walk out into a very well-paid and stable job in industry. That is the darkening situation which faces us in relation to skilled men in the Air Force.
In mentioning all these things I have strayed into controversial matters. I

717
think that I have covered myself with the dust of the arena. I will now climb back on the wall, but as I do so I hope that my hon. Friend will observe on which side my legs are dangling. Those of us who, like myself, come into the House during the lifetime of an existing Parliament know that our arrival or non-arrival can be taken as no cause to hearken unto the ides of March. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not feel that he has heard the winds of March in the muted but querulous tones of this little "Woollam."
8.23 p.m.
Mr. William Paling: It falls to me as a very pleasant duty, following on the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Woollam), to offer to him the congratulations not only of myself, but, I am certain, of the whole House on a magnificent speech. It was delivered in a very pleasant manner with obvious sincerity and it is clear that he knows his subject. He made an excellent speech, and I am sure that every hon. Member will look forward to hearing him on many occasions.
I may be following rather different lines, but nevertheless I support the Amendment because about two months ago I had the pleasure of going with the delegation to Germany to see the Army of the Rhine. On my return I had numerous letters from men in the Air Force in Germany and elsewhere asking why we did not see them, as they were certain that they had more complaints to ventilate than had the Army.
Strangely enough, I have about 23 sheets of typewritten complaints, but not complaints for the sake of complaining. Every one is from a long-service man, each wanting to put forward complaints which have apparently been raised time and time again, and asking for something to be done to encourage men to stay in the Air Force. Almost every man who has written has mentioned that point. It is obvious that they want something to be done so that they may retain their admiration of the Service to which they belong.
It is rather significant that every letter I have had has been from a long-service man. There must be something in the complaints, many of which have been
718
raised this afternoon, but which I intend to raise in a rather different manner. I have made copies of one or two extracts from the letters covering the various phases of the difficulties and problems. To every letter is attached one sentence asking that a delegation should visit the Air Force to receive complaints on the spot and to see for itself what is wrong.
I had a letter from a man with 22 years' service, saying:
"When an apprentice joins the R.A.F. he is young, keen and energetic. He was, when I joined the R.A.F. of considerable intellect to pass the R.A.F. entrance examination. … But his brain power is sapped, his initiative stifled, until he becomes an obedient little cog in a vast wheel."
He later goes on to discount some of that statement, but going on to the question of trades he says:
"No one knows where they are going. I finished my apprenticeship and passed out as a Fitter II. This trade was placed redundant and after the war we were asked to change to Fitter I. Within two years this trade was placed obsolescent and we were given a list of trades that we could remuster to. We did not remuster to these trades because they were not trades directly concerned with aircraft, and when the new Trades Structure started we were incorporated into Aircraft Fitters. Now once again, we have been placed redundant, for Aircraft Fitter is considered again obsolescent.
"This is only one example, but it is multiplied throughout the R.A.F. in all trades. … I am a Chief/Technician. …"
Various other people of similar ranks have written in the same strain. They are people who have served up to 22 years in the R.A.F. and until these last few years they have been proud to serve in that Service. These things have cropped up year after year, but the utmost consideration has not been given to the position of men who compose the Service. So we get a run of letters such as that which I and many other hon. Members have received.
My correspondent goes on to state:
"As far as trades are concerned in the R.A.F., the typical fitters' advice to a would-be entrant is to steer clear of Aircraft. 'Get yourself swallowed up into the swollen admin, side of the R.A.F.'."
Presumably he is feeling a little bitter. Nevertheless in his letter he stresses the need for investigation, and for getting to know what is wrong, because these men want to serve and to be proud to serve the Service they are in.

719
I come to the question of pay and promotion. On this, I have a letter from another fitter, who says:
"A fitter is always at the sticky end of the promotion wicket. He takes the largest slice of the responsibilities and duties in the R.A.F., yet he gets the slowest promotion. This is not only reflected in pay, but also in gratuities and pensions. There are so many cases of this that it would be difficult to quote them all. In my stores, we have a young lad not yet twenty. He is a full substantive corporal after only fourteen months in the R.A.F. His fitter counterpart has to wait five or may be more years for the same rank. This, if he stayed in the service would affect his pension and gratuity. Thus, one's pension and gratuities are not a reflection of faithful service but of being lucky enough to be in the right trade at the right time and getting promotion for higher pension."
If this is a fact, it is surely time that something was done about it. I am assured by the writer of that letter that these complaints have been made time after time to visiting committees, and that the Ministry is not unaware of these problems about which the men are grumbling at the present time. If we are to retain and increase the number of long-service men in the R.A.F. something must be done to deal with these complaints about which they are writing.
Surely it is up to the Minister to ensure that steps are taken to investigate these complaints in the stations abroad and in this country, because obviously there is something wrong. Coupled with that there must be a terriffic waste of money.
Then there is the question of children's education, which was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) and other hon. Members earlier today. This seems to be a very difficult question, particularly for those serving overseas. I do not think that I can do better than quote a letter from a man who has been in the Air Force for about 14 or 15 years. He says:
"This is a very important problem to long-service men. Once a serviceman's child reaches the period of advanced schooling, from ten years onwards—the problems surrounding his or her education are multiplied enormously. They have to change their schools so frequently, and the secrecy surrounding their progress especially in the newfangled education test is somewhat puzzling. If they take the school test which is given them here, we may find on our return home that this is not acceptable in some grammar schools as a scholarship standard. Parents are left to find out the best course for their own
720
children. For a child of a Serviceman to reach a fair standard of education reflects great credit on the child and on his or her parents."
There is another problem which seems to exist both in the Army and Air Force. It is that many serving officers, as well as N.C.O.s and men, have been abroad for many years. They come back to this country and their children are qualified to go into grammar schools. But they find that it is almost impossible to get them into grammar schools, because no authority will accept the parents as being resident within the bounds of its particular town or county.
When I was in Germany this point was raised on several occasions. This is not a specific case, but suppose a man who has been in Buckinghamshire goes abroad for a number of years and comes back. He is no longer recognised by that county as being entitled to any services, educational or otherwise. I was assured by senior officers that that is so, and if it is, I think it time that the matter was gone into properly for the sake of the youngsters and their education.
There are, of course, quite a number of other problems. There is the question of the N.A.A.F.I. It arises time after time, and it arose when we visited the Army. I will quote just one section from a letter:
"The N.A.A.F.I. despite its pitiful excuses and painful attempts at business, provides, or is supposed to provide, our food and clothing. The choice that faces us is one of Hobson's specials—take it or leave it. Thus we have to pay their price or go to the devil. The N.A.A.F.I. has many excuses—none of which hold water. But point out that cigarettes and whisky are cheap. True, but children do not thrive on these items."
I could quote one or two other extracts, but they are scarcely quotable in this Chamber.
This is a major complaint contained in every letter that I have received. When we visited the Army and met the wives' club, it was mentioned. We were made to understand that it was a very prominent complaint. When one looks into all the facts one finds that there is some substance in it, and I think that it should be investigated.
Without making any more quotations, I would remind hon. Members that there is the question of married quarters and allowances, and all the subjects which have been raised today. I believe that

721
these matters stand in the way of people signing on for long periods in the Services. If they were gone into honestly and thoroughly—even though it meant a delegation going out to inquire, and to talk to people and ask them for frank impressions or to express themselves in a frank way—I think that we should benefit from it.
We should then know what was in the minds of people who talk about giving up, and who say that their sons would never enter into a long-service contract. I think that these problems should be examined—education, rates of pay, pensions, gratuities, housing, and all the other matters—in order that we may get a better atmosphere among the people who mean so much to us.
I will just quote the words of a sergeant:
"Air Ministry have been told time and time again through travelling committees of all these complaints. When one sits and listens, it seems that there could not possibly be so many complaints, at one time, in one Service."
There is some sincerity about that.
I should like the Minister to take up these matters on the grounds voiced by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs); that if we want men in the Services, we must clear out of the way all these complaints and grouses, and give them a square deal for the job which we expect them to do. Then I am certain that we shall get an Air Force.
8.40 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Mulley: It is a great pleasure to me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dews-bury (Mr. William Paling), but it is a reflection on the interest that hon. Members opposite are taking in what to me is an important subject. It is significant that, apart from the mover and seconder of the Amendment, the only other Conservative back-bench Member present has only recently entered the Chamber. This is a problem to which the party opposite could devote very much more attention.
After those perhaps not uncontroversial words, I do not wish to enter into great political controversy. As a token of that intention—
Mr. Græme Finlay: The hon. Member has referred to me. I have been in the Chamber for a considerably longer period this afternoon and this evening than the hon. Member has been.
Mr. Mulley: Had the hon. Member been awake while he was in the Chamber, he would have noted that I referred specifically to the Amendment. Mere presence in the Chamber is not always necessarily a virtue. All hon. Members will have examples of that within their recollection.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) on his good fortune in the Ballot and on selecting this subject. Although the greater part of to-day's debate will be concerned with the far bigger problems of world strategy and the technical problems of weapons, machines and so on, there exists a problem of manpower within the Royal Air Force—indeed, in all our Services—and I welcome this opportunity for the House to concentrate attention upon it.
The aspect which I shall consider is, perhaps, best illustrated by the last three words of the Amendment, "efficiency with economy." I should like the House for a moment to look at the other side of the coin, so to speak, that is presented by the Amendment and to consider whether some part of the same objective could not be achieved by a better use by the Royal Air Force of its existing personnel. To make better use of those personnel would to some extent reduce the need for additional long engagements, and the employment of airmen and officers on proper Air Force duties would go far to give them much greater incentive to extend their engagements. The ordinary man who joins the Air Force as a volunteer does so not to become a clerk, canteen worker or batman, but because he wants to concern himself with flying or with the technical maintenance side of the Service.
The question of the use of Air Force personnel for jobs which, either in peace or in war, could be better, or as well, done by civilian labour has often been raised. I believe that, in its own slow way, the Air Ministry has taken one or two steps to implement the recommendations made by, for example, the Select Committee on Estimates on a number of occasions during the last few years. The question has also been raised by the trade unions and by the Trades Union Congress.
I ask the Ministry, and the Under-Secretary of State in particular, to give attention to reducing the number of airmen who are engaged on work of this

723
kind which could be done by civilians. I understand that two working parties which were set up to consider the recommendations of the Breen Departmental Committee have stopped working and that there is no evidence at present that the Air Ministry is aware of the urgency and need to follow up those recommendations. If the Air Ministry takes the trouble to look, it will find at all levels throughout the Service a number of posts in which civilian labour could replace airmen or officers, to the advantage both of those replaced and of the Service.
I do not suggest that clerical work can be done by civilians in every case. There may be instances in which, in the interests of training, because of the remoteness of the station, or the need for special service experience, there are special reasons for employing airmen. Nevertheless, the Air Ministry is too easily persuaded of these special reasons and is beginning to take the mere fact that a station is a little remote as a reason for not attempting to recruit civilian labour in the locality, although I am informed from trade union sources that it is very often available.
This particular problem arises chiefly, I believe, at the lieutenant level. There may be many civilian posts requiring no technical or air knowledge which are occupied by flight-lieutenants of whom, for some reason, there is a great surplus over the number required for purely Air Force purposes. I ask for this matter to be considered not merely from the standpoint of whether it would be better to employ civilians, but of the morale of both the lieutenants and the civilians. I do not believe that a flight-lieutenant who joins the Service because of his technical or flying interest will be too happy in a post which he knows can be easily filled by a civilian with much less experience and at about half the salary.
Civilians who are working loyally and well for the Air Ministry very often find their chance of promotion is blocked by the extension of posts to Service rather than to civilian personnel. It is very bad that Regular officers and airmen should be so extensively engaged as they are in non-Service posts. It is a very serious matter when National Service men are employed in posts which could be better and more economically filled by civilians. When one has to defend the existence of
724
National Service it makes the defence difficult when people cite instances from their own experience showing that the two years of their lives spent in the Service have been wasted.
In that connection I would congratulate the hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Woollam) on a most effective maiden speech. In addition to having that satisfaction, he can, almost uniquely, reflect that his Service career has produced material for that very good maiden speech. Many people who have spent two years in the Royal Air Force have nothing to look back upon as an achievement during that time.
I ask the Minister to give particular attention to this question of the employment of National Service men on routine clerical jobs. In 1953 it was officially reported, I understand, that 150 National Service men were working in the Air Ministry headquarters. A protest was made by the trade union concerned, and the reply was that National Service men had to be used because no civilians were available. It happened that at that time a great number of suitable clerks in Government Departments were being declared redundant. When the Minister is asked questions on these subjects by a trade union or by a Member of this House, he should look behind the first official answer he gets. He may find that the answer does not stand up to full investigation.
The Select Committees of this House, reporting on the call-up and posting of National Service men in 1952–53, noted that a great number of airmen were employed on office-machine work in the Army Record Office in Gloucester. I believe that the number has been reduced, but my information is that airmen are still employed on what is obviously a suitable civilian job. In Gibraltar, despite the representations which have been made to the Air Ministry, all kinds of jobs which could be done by local civilian labour are done by airmen, including National Service men.
I would remind the Under-Secretary of what a distinguished Member of the Government said on this subject. The hon. Gentleman may pay more regard to his words than to mine. The present Minister of Transport in 1949, when in the Opposition, described the use of National

725
Service men on office duties as a gross abuse of the National Service Acts. I appreciate that tonight the Under-Secretary is handicapped by the fact that, for understandable reasons—none of us would deny him a meal—he has not been able to spend very much time in the Chamber during this debate. However, I hope that we shall have an undertaking that the Air Ministry will treat this subject with a little more urgency than in the past and that we may have, besides intentions to improve, some tangible evidence of what has recently been done and some indication of the numbers of National Service men employed, for example, at Air Ministry headquarters.
This is an urgent and serious matter. It makes nonsense of going in for improved methods of recruitment and investigation of the excellent suggestions made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and others about persuading people to accept and extend Regular engagements, if those people are aware of the inefficient use of personnel while in the Service.
While I do not suggest that the points which I have raised solve the problem posed by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, I suggest that a contribution can be made along those lines. I would also stress that if the grievances from both the civilian end and the Service end could be rectified, it would improve the morale of the Service men and lead to better relations between the Air Ministry and its civilian employees. The better use of Service personnel would take us along the road indicated by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, one which I should be very happy if we trod, towards a reduction in the period of National Service. I urge the Government to consider these pointsas well as the points which have been made about increasing the numbers on long-term engagements. I hope we shall be given some evidence of the Government's determination to deal with these matters.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: With my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) on raising this subject. In case I do not find a suitable opportunity later on, I should
726
also like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Woollam), who made a most attractive maiden speech. I understand that on his journey to this House he emerged from a certain amount of fog in West Derby. I can assure him that there was no sign of that in his speech, which was, indeed, most clear and cogent.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove ends his Amendment with a reference to efficiency and economy. He is well justified in doing so. The Royal Air Force depends very much for efficiency on its manpower, and if it does not use its manpower economically, it will be very severely hindered.
My reason for speaking about this subject is that I was associated on the Select Committee on Estimates which examined the matter last year with two previous speakers in the main part of the debate.
My hon. Friend who reported on what he had found in Germany reminded us of one of the complications that exist in the skilled manpower situation of the Royal Air Force—that the R.A.F. needs to keep a certain pool of skilled men for service overseas. The demand which the Service has for skilled and highly skilled tradesmen is remarkably high, and the proportion of people in the Service who are of a high degree of skill, to the outside observer, is most astonishing. The R.A.F. does depend very much on a high degree of skill in its manpower and at present cannot get all the necessary skilled manpower it needs.
I think it worth while reminding the House that in discussing this question we are discussing one small corner of what we are beginning to recognise as one of the major economic questions facing us—the question of manpower and its use in the country as a whole. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) pointed out that we are short of scientists. We are short of all sorts of technically qualified people. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove, who moved the Amendment, pointed out the difficulties the Services are finding in getting people in competition with civilian industry, but it is not only the Services which find that difficult. The whole of the public service—the police, the teaching profession, one service after the other—is finding great difficulty in keeping

727
going in face of the intense competition for highly qualified manpower of any kind.
In the case of the R.A.F. the main shortage, as has been stressed, is of people concerned with electronics and radar, and particularly the more highly skilled tradesmen in those spheres. When the Select Committee considered this matter, it found a great deal of concern about it. Some witnesses who gave evidence expressed themselves, in a calm, thoughtful and collected way, but in the most grave terms about it. I was a little disturbed, therefore, when I read the Memorandum accompanying the Estimates to find the comparatively optimistic phrases used by the Minister. They suggested a certain amount of woolliness in handling the problem. In his opening speech earlier today, the Under-Secretary suggested a possible explanation. He said that things have improved since a year ago when the Committee was making investigations. I wonder if he was not also being a little over-optimistic.
One of the things we found was an impression—not merely an impression, but a number of specific statements—by well qualified witnesses that the problem would get worse rather than better and there would be an increased demand from the R.A.F. for skilled tradesmen. The new bomber force of Vulcans and Valiants has been mentioned. The question has been put to the hon. Gentleman of whether he can find the technicians to keep them in the air. After his speech I felt a little doubtful. It seemed to me that perhaps the gravity of the situation is more correctly represented in the Report of the Estimates Committee than it was in his speech. I ask him if he will reiterate, or in any way qualify, on second thoughts, the statements and general attitude of his opening speech. I hope that, as he said, the situation has improved in the course of the year, but I must say that I am a little doubtful, particularly in view of the possible needs of the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park tried to shatter the rather ghostly calm that has been engendered during the discussion of this Amendment compared with the somewhat hectic debate we had before it was moved.
People who talk about the supply of aircraft and more technical matters apparently do not manage to do so in
728
the comparatively non-controversial way in which we are talking just now, but the point where our interests touch theirs is very clear, and it was mentioned in the evidence given to the Select Committee. If we go on being short of technically skilled people the effect shows itself in a reduction in the number of flying hours. We were told by one commander-in-chief that at the present moment he was only just able to carry out his flying task, because he had only just enough technically skilled people to keep the required number of aircraft in the air. Once the supply of technically qualified people begins to drop, the drop shows itself in the fact that one cannot carry out the necessary flying task.
The R.A.F. itself is doing all it can to meet this problem. I think that all the Members of the Select Committee were most impressed by the extreme intelligence and efficiency, if I may respectfully say so, with which the Service appeared to be addressing itself to matters of this sort, but it is up against an almost insoluble problem. What it has to try to do is to solve its section of a problem which the country as a whole is not managing to solve.
The situation was very clearly put by one of the witnesses—Sir Victor Groom—in the answer to Question No. 1905, when he said:
"In my view there are not sufficient men or women in the United Kingdom who, having the necessary qualifications to fill these particular trades, are also prepared to give up some of their liberty and be bound by Service conditions. If you want to maintain the size of the Forces you have got to offer them … inducements … not all necessarily financial ones. …"
That point has been put by some hon. Members this evening.
I was glad to learn that the number of people who have been signing on for long-term engagements has increased. The Under-Secretary referred to an increase of 15 per cent. which, from the point of view of the Royal Air Force, and from our point of view tonight, is an excellent thing, but there is another point of view which we have to watch in a situation like that. The pool of people upon which we are drawing is itself limited by sheer natural capacity. We just do not have among the population sufficient people with the necessary intelligence and qualities to act as potential skilled tradesmen of this sort.

729
If, therefore, the Royal Air Force is succeeding in taking an extra 15 per cent. on long-term engagements, that 15 per cent. is coming from somewhere else—not the Army or the Navy in this case, though the Royal Air Force is in competition with the other two Services, as well as with civilian industry. If the people are not coming from the Army or the Navy they are possibly coming from civilian work which is equally necessary in the national interests. Not all civilian work which uses these people is equally necessary; some is of a much lower degree of priority. If this 15 per cent. were being attracted from unnecessary industries, or industries of second-rate importance, all well and good, but we cannot be sure of that.
We have a limited pool, and if one user pulls harder and gets more, another user does without to that extent—and that other user may very well be just as important in the national interest. The short answer is undoubtedly that we need a policy not merely within the Royal Air Force but on a national scale. For that reason, I think that the Select Committee on Estimates was right when it made its first recommendation, with which, I have no doubt, the hon. Member is familiar, that this question should be examined by the three Services, in conjunction with the Ministry of Supply and civilian industry, as a national problem. It is only by treating it as a national problem that we shall manage to get a proper solution to it.
I am sorry that so far the Air Ministry has not seen fit to give effect to that recommendation. It has given an answer to the Report we drew up, but it has not agreed to that recommendation yet; yet I think that if one looks at the implications of the question as a whole one sees that this is simply one special aspect of a problem that has been troubling the country now for some years, the problem of getting enough technically qualified people of whatever grade, skilled tradesmen, technicians, scientists, to carry out the increasing number of jobs that require men with a high degree of specialised knowledge.
9.6 p.m.
Mr. James H. Hoy: I wish to raise one matter with the Under-Secretary of State for Air. I am encouraged to do so because the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs), when he moved the
730
Amendment, spoke about the difficulties of recruiting and of the treatment of men when they appear at recruiting offices. I raise the matter with particular regard to young men who apply for commissions in the Royal Air Force. I have had correspondence with the Under-Secretary of State about it. He sent me a very courteous reply, but it was most unsatisfactory in so far as it dealt with the personal case that I raised with the hon. Gentleman.
There are young men in different parts of the country who wish to serve in the Royal Air Force and who wish to take commissions. The case I put to the hon. Gentleman was that of a young man in my constituency who wanted to do this, and he applied and was accepted. The Royal Air Force sent for him to go to a selection board in London. It is a considerable journey, even in the best of conditions, from Edinburgh to London. It is true that a voucher was provided for him, but in a letter to him it was said that though he was required to appear on a certain date there was no guarantee that he would be placed before the selection board on that day. He was advised in his own interests to book at an hotel at his own expense in the hope that he would be able to appear before the board the next day.
It seems to me that if the Air Ministry wants to discourage people from joining the Service, this is the way to go about it. There must be many young men in Scotland, Wales, or the North of England who would find it extremely difficult to be released from their employment or to lose wages to make application in that way. I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State for Air that he should not place deterrents of this kind in the way of those young men. There may be some of them who could well afford such expenses, but in the case I took up with him there was involved a considerable expense for the young man's parents.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should set up selection boards in other parts of the country, too, as was done during the war, and that young men in those areas should be able to go before those boards in conditions similar to those in which young men in London and the adjacent areas go to the London board. I put this matter shortly and sharply to

731
the hon. Gentleman tonight in the hope that he will regard it as a serious matter and give it serious consideration.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs), who was fortunate enough in the Ballot to draw the right to raise this subject today, will be well satisfied with the debate which his Amendment has started. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Air will look into the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy). It seems to me that if there cannot be a local board in Edinburgh, or Cardiff, or wherever it might be in Wales, every facility should be given to obviously keen young men if they have to come to London for interview.
I think we can all agree that one of the difficulties of the emphasis this year on aircraft and aircraft production and aircraft standards has been that we have tended to overlook the importance of the men. There is a general point which I want to make in the form of a rather personal opinion. I fear that our procedure in the House is out of date in that we have no Standing Committee on defence, in which we can examine in detail what is really behind the Estimates and the Government's policy.
I do not think that our procedure is such that we can give the necessary informed scrutiny to the propositions of the Government of the day. I cannot go to my constituents in the City of Lincoln and say that I am certain that they have had value for the money which they have spent in the last three years on defence. I voted for that money. It comes to about £7 million and I should like to be able to say, "Your £7 million has been well spent. You have had your defence." But I am prevented from doing it, first because I believe that on certain points the Government have hidden the facts. There are of course questions of security—
Sir Peter Macdonald: There are two Select Committees of the House which have been operating for a great many years, and which have powers to deal with the problems which the hon. Member is discussing. Those Committees can examine all Estimates.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It appears to me that this discussion is going beyond the terms of the Amendment.
Mr. de Freitas: With respect, I was speaking of the impossibility of dealing with manning problems because we have no standing Committee on defence. The Estimates Committee discusses different matters—and afterwards.
Sir P. Macdonald: The Estimates Committee discusses the Estimates before they are produced. The Public Accounts Committee discusses them afterwards. I served on the Estimates Committee for 20 years. Every Estimate that came before the House came before us. We could have examined them all if we had had the time. We selected certain Estimates for examination.
Mr. de Freitas: I agree that it is the Public Accounts Committee that discusses the Estimates afterwards, but I still say that there is no standing Committee of the House—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I find it difficult to see how the hon. Member brings this discussion within the terms of the Amendment.
Mr. de Freitas: On a point of order. I was replying to an intervention. Am I not entitled to say that in my opinion our procedure prevents the proper discussion of manning? I submit that that is relevant to the whole question of R.A.F. manning.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is relevant to the question of increased personnel, but a discussion such as that which was taking place just now on Committees of the House appears to me not to be relevant.
Mr. de Freitas: I am not trying to get round your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I should like to know, for instance, on what ratio of aircrew to aircraft the R.A.F. is working at the moment. That is a question to which I am denied the answer. Obviously there are matters of security, but if I were told in secret that the R.A.F. was working on a ratio of, say, 1.5 to one or 1.7 to one, or whatever it may be, I should be better able to know whether or not the R.A.F. was over-stating its manning requirements, and whether the problem was of its own creation and not a problem of persuading people to join the R.A.F.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That seems relevant to the main Question but not to the Amendment.
Sir P. Macdonald: Is it not a fact that we have been discussing a Report of a Select Committee on Estimates which dealt with this very problem of manpower? That is what has been discussed since I came into the Chamber, and is it not true that that Committee dealt with all the problems which the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) is now raising?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention he would have known that that was not the subject of the discussion earlier. The question was one of increasing personnel, but it was not on this point.
Mr. Ward: May I help the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas)? I do not want him to think we are trying to get away from the subject. But if I were to tell him the ratio of aircrew to aircraft it would give away the exact position, because when it appeared in Hansard the Russians would be able to find out the front line strength of the Royal Air Force.
Mr. de Freitas: That is exactly what I implied.
Mr. Ward: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that figures can be extremely misleading. If he wanted to know the number of people actually working to get an aircraft into the air, it would be very difficult to calculate that and to divide these men from, say, the R.A.F. Regiment.
Mr. de Freitas: The Under-Secretary has proved my point. I was saying that we should have a defence committee sitting in secret, to whom these figures should be given.
Mr. Ward: It is unnecessary.
Sir P. Macdonald: They are given.
Mr. de Freitas: The hon. Member says it is unnecessary while his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) thinks it is, which shows what chaos there is on this essential point. We cannot get this information because of our procedure. Some of it is deliberately withheld, no doubt for security reasons, but anyway we do not
734
have the full information which should be before us if we are to deal with an Amendment such as that which has been moved tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) referred to the Government's complacency about manpower and about the too optimistic statements which the Under-Secretary had made. Let us remember that in 1952 the Under-Secretary hailed the success of the new trade structure, the increased pay, which had come in two years before, in September, and the new engagements, and claimed, quite rightly, that 1951 was the best recruiting year that we had had.
But right from that very moment it seemed clear to many of us—and we said so—that the Secretary of State should not have been deceived as to the future trends. He appeared to regard this manning problem as over when he should have been facing the real difficulty of the future of getting Regular recruits; and even last year, the Memorandum forecast there was to be a decrease in the National Service proportions. In fact, that National Service proportion remained at 26 per cent., and we are now told that it is going to rise to 30 per cent.
Surely it is a complete misconception of the nature of National Service and the purpose for which it was introduced for the Under-Secretary to say that he is optimistic if, in this very year, it is contemplated that the National Service proportion is going to rise to 30 per cent.—in other words, the Regular proportion is going to decrease.
In the White Paper and the Memorandum there is no reference to the fact that National Service was introduced for cold war commitments and to build up a Reserve. The cold war commitments have been cut. There is less demand because of Suez, Trieste, and so on. Similarly, there has been a reduction in the need for the Reserves in the Royal Air Force. We further know that such Reserves are of little importance in nuclear warfare.
So I repeat what has been said from this Dispatch Box so often. We demand an inquiry into the working of National Service to see what can be done to eliminate it. What worries me is that there is no indication that the fundamental aim

735
behind the Government's policy is to get rid of National Service. The Under-Secretary is too optimistic about the manpower position.
Mr. Ward: May I clear this matter up as we go along? Clearly the number of two-year men depends on the number who are taking three, four and five-year engagements. If there are a lot of people taking the latter, there are fewer taking two-year engagements. It happens that this year fewer are taking three, four and five-year engagements and more are taking the two-year engagements, but there is nothing wrong in that—it is bound to fluctuate all the time—and it is much better to have a 15 per cent. increase in 12-year engagements.
Mr. de Freitas: I am not debating that. I am saying that the attitude of the Government is that they are ignoring the importance of getting rid of National Service as soon as possible, and that if the proportion rises in a year, no comment is made.
Air Commodore Harvey: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to his right hon. Friend's White Paper of 1951–52, which was published just before the Election, he will find that it said:
"This build-up of strength has been achieved by recruiting more regulars, extending the period of full-time national service men from 18 months to 2 years, and by retaining temporarily the services of time-expired regulars."
He did not do much about it then.
Mr. de Freitas: We had the commitment of the Korean war then, which made a great difference.
What is the Air Ministry doing to solve the manning problem and to meet some of the arguments put up by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and others? I have asked before, and have not had a specific assurance, whether we are not over-insuring wastefully in aircrew. Are we getting too many aircrew for the type of operations which can be envisaged for the future, and for the number of aircraft we can put into operation?
Another question is this: is the Air Force offering a full career to the technical officer in order to attract the right man from the university? He must know that he has a chance of getting to the top or he will not enter the
736
Service. I put this next point with a little diffidence, but it is important: what will it matter in 30 years' time that a man's eyesight at university age was not perfect?
Should we not be considering the full implications of pilotless aircraft? So long as our operational aircraft are piloted, of course the commanders must have been pilots. I have never heard anyone suggest that this should not be so, and we must not make that mistake. Yet, should we not begin to look ahead and plan for the push-button warfare by considering these extremely difficult problems? What evidence is there that in looking for our Regular officers we are considering the age of push-button warfare on which we are about to enter?
Again, where is there evidence of the planning of manpower for the quick changes that will be necessary in moving our bomber bases from England to Libya, from Libya to Iraq, or wherever it may be? Presumably these would have the necessary manpower, and this would consist of small care-and-maintenance parties, to be reinforced by aircrew maintenance parties. Has that changed the pattern of our manning—except, of course, that it will obviously have developed more emphasis on transport?
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove said that the Air Ministry must face the implication of having too few technicians by relying more upon civilian maintenance. The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom), and also given in the excellent Report of the Select Committee, are remarkable—the contrasting figures of civilian maintenance and of R.A.F. maintenance. Those figures are given in paragraph 37 of the Committee's Report.
There was once a fear that the R.A.F. might be grounded at a critical time by a strike if we relied too much on civilian maintenance, but that fear is rather out of date. The only possible enemy today is one with whom organised labour has no sympathy at all, and I think that fear should be forgotten.
Above all, the country must insist on Ministers of Defence being up to date in their attitude towards the Royal Air Force. This is most relevant to manning.

737
It may sound somewhat presumptuous to say this, but it is true: when the Prime Minister was in Opposition he used to speak from this Box in defence debates about front-line bayonet strength, about how many sailors slept at sea the night before—all quite out-of-date conceptions of military manpower. There was never a reference to fire power and the accuracy with which it was to be directed. He was continually harping on the idea of the front line and the number of people with swords in their hands. That was his basic thought.
The next Minister of Defence, Lord Alexander, a most distinguished soldier, seemed to have the same approach—the feeling that the Royal Air Force was somehow an aerial chauffeur service. We reached the point where we had the scandal over the master technicians, where he refused to recognise that the particular need of the Royal Air Force was for the highest N.C.O. technician grade, which has no parallel in the other Services. It was eventually recognised, but very late.
Air Commodore Harvey: Tell us about the previous Alexander.
Mr. de Freitas: I am not going as far back as that.
I want an assurance that the Government will recognise the exceptional position of the Royal Air Force as the deliverer of our deterrent weapon. It is most important that that should be done. For too long the three Service Departments have tried to keep in step, balancing pay rates, balancing trades and other matters which are totally different. The evidence which we have now is of the increased importance of the Royal Air Force in this world of today, and its manning must be adjusted to that fact.
It is right that at the end of this little debate within the debate I should say that my hon. Friends join with me in appreciation of the men and women in the Royal Air Force, and especialy those who have the thrills and also the risks of flying modern combat aircraft. We thank them for their great work and for the great service which they are doing. I was particularly glad to hear the Under-Secretary of State say that the proportion of fatal accidents today was fewer than was the case 30 years ago. That is a remarkable achievement. That in no way makes it
738
a safe Service. It is not, and never can be. The thrills are there. Wherever we go we should remember that these men and women are not just odd figures on a page of the Air Estimates but men and women making up the finest fighting force in the world.
9.29 p.m.
Mr. Ward: I am sure that the words with which the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) concluded his speech will be greatly appreciated by people outside this House and that none could disagree with the sentiments he expressed. He has had the honour to hold office in the Air Ministry, and I well know his enthusiasm for the Royal Air Force and his keenness to see that we do everything we possibly can for it. He had many constructive suggestions, as is usual when we get together to discuss what we can do to help.
We have had a very valuable discussion this evening. I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) for choosing this important subject for debate. I must also very warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby (Mr. Woollam) on his most excellent maiden speech. He is, he told us, the first Member to come here after doing a period of National Service in the Royal Air Force in peacetime. Tonight he drew forcibly upon his recent experiences and produced some extremely interesting, constructive, and helpful suggestions.
I hope that we shall have some further useful contributions from the hon. Member and that he will become a regular, as it were, in our air debates. From my six years in opposition, I know how easy it is to get out of touch with one's old service. He has probably had more recent contact with his Service than anybody else in the House, and I hope that he will give us the benefit of that recent experience and bring to our attention at the Air Ministry any points which might worry him after his recent service.
Our discussion on the Motion tonight may have been in apparent contrast to the larger issues which we discussed earlier and to which we shall presumably shortly be returning. But this contrast is more apparent than real. It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of getting Regulars on long service engagements. As the hon. Member for Lincoln said, if

739
we are to Have the dual deterrents of the V-bomber force and adequate air defence, we must not only have the aircrew to fly the aeroplanes, but the people to service them on the ground. Those must be people who are entirely experienced and under the supervision of first-class N.C.Os., and people who will themselves become first-class N.C.Os. in due course.
People like this cannot be found overnight, and it is to men on long-term engagements that we must look for the first-class craftsmen and the N.C.Os. There is nothing particularly new in all this for the Air Ministry. On the contrary, our post-war plans, as the hon. Member for Lincoln knows, have always been framed on the assumption that the Air Force will be predominantly a long-service force. The increasing uneasiness of the international situation has, however, compelled us to make good our current manpower shortage in the only way in which we can make it good, that is by the use of men on short-term engagements. But the eventual aim has never been forgotten, and the threat of hydrogen warfare only emphasises the importance of recruiting a proper number of men on long-term engagements.
It is unfortunately necessary when planning to consider these problems statistically. I do not want to weary the House with a great number of figures, because most of us assimilate figures more easily when they are in writing, but I must introduce one or two figures to try to put the matter into proper perspective. At the moment, the number of airmen in the Royal Air Force, roughly speaking, is 225,000, of whom just over 160,000 are serving on Regular engagements. Of that 160,000, 40,000 are men serving on engagements of 12 years or more, in fact the people we want.
This figure of 40,000 represents an increase of about 5,000 over the past year, so that we have not done too badly in the past 12 months, although I was taken to task by one hon. Member for being too optimistic. Obviously the improved pay and allowances which we announced last March have encouraged men to sign on for longer service and I hope that that improvement can be maintained.
I am not in the least complacent, as I was accused of being, about this rate of
740
progress, and I for one, and indeed the entire Air Ministry, will not be happy with the state of the Air Force until we have at least doubled the number of men on engagements of 12 years or more. What can we do? My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, in his excellent speech, asked what it was that deterred people from joining. He wondered whether is was money. He pointed out that the young single man was all right, but he wondered whether inquiries might not show that married couples were in fact worse off than they would be in industry.
There is no simple answer to this question, but perhaps it will satisfy my hon. Friend when I say that during the time that we were considering the last pay increases, which were announced a year ago, we did take very carefully into consideration the position not only of the single man but of the married man in relation to their civilian counterparts. Those pay increases were aimed at the rather older men in order to try to keep them in the Service. It is, therefore, likely that on the whole the increases benefited the married men rather more than they did the younger single men.
There are two ways in which we can tackle this very difficult problem. First, we can improve conditions inside the Service to encourage National Service men to convert to Regular engagements, and airmen on short service engagements to take on longer ones. The other way is to do our best to attract people from civil life to join the Service on long Regular engagements. The suggestions put forward tonight fall into one or other of these two categories—what one might call internal and external measures.
I had no idea that in such a short debate so many constructive points could be raised. I apologise if my speech is rather long, but I will do my best to answer them as briefly as I can. Let me start by dealing with what we are doing inside the Service. First, every station now has a part-time careers officer, whose duty it is to keep himself fully informed of the various advantages which the Royal Air Force offers to men who sign on for long engagements. He can give any man interested full and accurate advice. That has been a thing which was badly needed in the past.
Then we run a two days' course at the Air Ministry to brief the careers

741
officers and also the station commanders on the importance of this subject, and to tell them how we think they can help. The discussions during these courses very often bring to light various ways in which we can help to increase internal recruiting, and, what is just as important, they keep the Air Ministry fully in touch with feeling on the subject within the Service.
Internal recruitment does, however, meet with a good deal of what in another context would be called "sales resistance." My hon. Friend the Member for West Derby (Mr. Woollam) mentioned the question of "turbulence." I entirely agree with him that it is most important that we should cut down the number of postings as much as we possibly can if we are to get the recruits we want. This is a problem which we have very much in mind.
It is not quite so easy to cut down movements as at first it might appear. I know that people in the Service get the impression that Records Office is moving them round for fun, but I can assure them that is not so and that the vast majority of movements are essential. For example, men cannot stay overseas indefinitely, and they must be relieved by men sent out from this country. Then we must remember that we lose about 75,000 airmen every year, which is equivalent to turning over the whole of our ground strength every three years. I doubt whether any industrial concern has to deal with a manpower turnover of that enormous size.
With so many men entering and leaving the Service every year, the problem of postings cannot be very small. But we have been able to take a number of positive measures to try to solve this problem. First, unless it is likely to endanger efficiency, airmen are not sent from one station to another in this country simply to make good temporary manning shortages. Secondly, a number of qualified N.C.O.s who hold key positions on their stations have been "screened"—if that be the right word—from posting for a five-year period. Thirdly, airmen who are promoted in their turn on our central roster can be kept at their present stations in anticipation of a vacancy in their new ranks arising within six months.
These may at first seem rather dull and unimaginative steps forward in Records Office procedure, but I can assure hon. Members that they are working. A
742
Regular airman now stays on his station between postings for very much longer than was the case two or three years ago. I readily admit that the average length of his stay is still not what we should like it to be, but we shall go on trying to improve matters still further within the limitations which I have tried to explain.
The hon. Member for West Derby spoke of domestic accommodation and instanced several examples. I was very interested to hear of them and I should not like him to think that I shall not examine them very carefully. But I would say that I think that if he went back to some of the places he mentioned—which I understand he has not visited since 1951—he would find a considerable improvement. We have done a great deal about it since then. In the 1955–56 Estimates which I presented this afternoon, we have £4 million allowed for personnel accommodation and £5,650,000 for married quarters. That is about one-third of our provision for capital works, excluding U.S.A.F. works, which is not a bad proportion.
Of the £4 million for personnel, £1 million is for non-operational commands. My hon. Friend complained that while operational commands were reasonably comfortable, it was the technical commands which were not too comfortable But at any rate a quarter of what we set aside is for these commands and we hope even that proportion will increase as certain Bomber Command and Fighter Command units and the radar chain are completed in the near future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and the hon. Members for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) raised the highly important question of using more civilians and trying to cut down the number of airmen. The awful word "civilianisation" which has come into use describes two quite separate processes: first, the replacement of airmen by Air Ministry civilian employees; and secondly, the replacement of airmen by civilians employed by outside firms under contract to the Air Ministry. We are well aware of the advantages which both these methods offer for us.
By using the Air Ministry civilian employees instead of uniformed personnel, we have managed to civilianise the greater

743
part of our equipment depôts and aircraft storage units, as well as a number of repair and ammunition depôts. Two-thirds of the staff of the Records Office are now civilians. Nearly half the instructors in our School of Technical Training are civilians. This is a continuing process. We calculate that by these means we have been able to cut down our Service establishment by something like 10,000 posts since the end of the war.
It was the use of civilian contractors, I believe, in which most hon. Members were mainly interested. We already employ these contractors for servicing aircraft for certain communications flights and for the University Air Squadrons. Indeed, for some Army co-operation work the contractors do the flying as well as the servicing. Industry already repairs most of the defective aircraft equipment in this country and we have only one Service-manned repair depot dealing with aircraft in the United Kingdom.
We also make great use of contractors' working parties, which go round to R.A.F. stations and carry out work on the spot. For instance, quite a number of bodies of this sort have been flown to Germany recently to help Royal Air Force servicing staff to incorporate urgent aircraft modifications. I myself met some contractors' working parties when I was in Iraq the other day.
I have given those specific examples more or less at random to emphasise the way in which we recognise, and have recognised for some time past, the advantages of saving uniformed manpower by employing civilians. But Imust now bring out a word of warning and talk about some of the practical difficulties which stand in the way of extending this process indefinitely.
To start with, military considerations rule out that process for operational units. On the other side of the picture, outside industry is often suffering from exactly the same shortages of skilled men as we are ourselves. This applies particularly in the electronics industry. It is often difficult to find civilians who are prepared to work in the comparatively remote areas in which many of our airfields must be situated.
Another difficulty is that if we civilianised a great many of the posts at home, it
744
would mean that the Regular airman would spend nearly all his service overseas. If that were the case, we should find that civilianisation had not lessened our difficulties but had increased them, because very few men would sign on for long engagements if they knew that they would have to spend most of their time outside the United Kingdom. Those are only a few of the examples of the difficulties in the way of increased civilianisation, but I feel that there is scope for us to do more. The further savings in the numbers of airmen, however, are much more likely to be measured in terms of hundreds rather than of thousands.
We have several definite schemes in mind. We were planning, for example, to let out to contract the servicing and maintenance of the jet flying training school at Merryfield. However, owing to changes in plan, Merryfield is no longer being used as a flying training school, and so we are looking about to see where else would be suitable for this experiment. We have also decided in principle to civilianise the servicing of a communications squadron. Once again, uncertainty about our deployment plans is temporarily holding up the scheme. We shall do as much as we can, but we must always be certain that we are doing the best not only for a particular station or a particular trade but for the Service as a whole.
Mr. Paget: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I would like to raise a point which I have mentioned on the Estimates on several occasions with regard to the sources of civilianisation. Has the hon. Gentleman considered Italians for recruitment into the civil servicing of aircraft? They are very good mechanics and are suffering from unemployment.
Mr. Ward: That suggestion opens very much wider problems, which I cannot discuss now. We remember what happened about the Italians who came over for coalmining. It is very much outside my province. We are dealing, not with the employment of civilians by the Air Ministry but the employment of civilians by industry under contract to us. The employment of Italians would be a matter for industry to face.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: How many civilians are the Air Ministry now employing? Is it 100,000?
Mr. Ward: It is 75,000.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: Overseas?
Mr. Ward: No, here. About 29,000 more are recruited overseas.
On this matter of civilianisation we may get useful guidance from a committee which was set up last month by my noble Friend to review the methods of maintaining and servicing aircraft and other technical equipment with the object of getting more economy and efficiency. The committee is under the chairmanship of Air Chief-Marshal Sir Leslie Hollinghurst. The Vice-Chairman is Mr. F. C. Hooper, Managing Director of Schweppes Ltd. Among the members is Mr. James Crawford, President of the National Federation of Boot and Shoe Operatives, and Deputy-Chairman of the British Productivity Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove raised also the question of publicity and asked whether it was as effectively done as it might be. I can say with confidence that we have been able to make definite improvements over the last couple of years or so. We set up a committee on publicity, of which I am Chairman, and I am therefore in close touch with what is being done. I am examining suggestions of one kind or another all the time. Anything which hon. Members can suggest—my hon. Friend produced one or two new suggestions—we should certainly welcome. They will be considered very carefully by the committee.
We are not interested in publicity stunts. We believe that the Air Force can, in the long run, stand or fall on its merits and that no amount of line-shooting would help. We want to let the public see the Service as it really is. A great deal is done already by stations to achieve this aim. Last year more than 1 million people went to see the R.A.F. on Battle of Britain Saturday, and attendances have risen steadily since 1946, when the total was 122,000.
There are one or two other ways in which we have been able to help. For instance, we have decided to allow newspapers to make public the number of a particular squadron and the name of the squadron commander. We can do a great deal by keeping in touch with the schools and we are reviewing our system of schools liaison officers. We have
746
made an up-to-date film on Cranwell, are making a film on radio trades, and intend to start one shortly on the Women's Royal Air Force. These films, we hope, will be shown in public cinemas and will go a long way towards solving this problem.
My hon. Friend asked about youth employment officers. We get a great deal of assistance from them and they are among the authorities appointed to nominate candidates under various schemes for entry by young people into the Service.
My hon. Friend also raised an interesting question about medical standards, based on the experiences of one or two of his constituents. First of all, he asked, are we being too choosey about the people we accept? I do not think we are, and I can assure him that the medical standards of the R.A.F. and those of the Army differ only in detail. The principal difference, apparently, is in the ear, nose and throat examination. We have to be very careful about this, because airmen are much more likely to fly than soldiers. There is no question of setting up much higher standards than other Services and thereby losing Regular recruits.
I was asked about administration and about cases in which young men who had been rejected for Regular service in the Air Force had been at a loose end for three months before being called up for the Army. We have considered that recently in consultation with the Ministry of Labour and are now arranging that people who are turned down on medical grounds at Cardington for Regular service in the Air Force, but who are acceptable for National Service, will be kept at the station a little longer and called up for National Service right away.
Candidates who do not wish to carry out their National Service in the Air Force, or who for some reason or another are unacceptable to us, will have to return home but will be called up as quickly as possible by the Ministry of Labour for National Service in the Army. I hope that those arrangements will overcome the difficulty which my hon. Friend mentioned.
I am sorry that I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling), but the points which he

747
made have been reported to me. Many of them are well worth investigating and I will certainly undertake to do that.
Mr. de Freitas: My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of hon. Members visiting the Royal Air Force stations in Germany, as they have visited the Army. Will the Under-Secretary consider that suggestion?
Mr. Ward: As the hon. Member for Lincoln knows, the Royal Air Force is always delighted to see Members of Parliament and welcomes them. But this is a matter which has to be organised rather carefully, and I have no doubt that the usual channels will also have a say in it. But if any suggestion is put to me about it, I will be only too glad to consider them.
The hon. Member for Lincoln talked about over-insurance in the ratio of aircrew to aircraft. He has raised this subject from time to time and I have nothing very much to add to what I said last year, which is that the whole of this subject is examined from time to time and that it has recently been the subject of a very searching review by highly-qualified people. I am perfectly satisfied that the ratio is about right at present. Of course, no one is infallible, but I think we have got it about right.
As to the Royal Air Force offering a full career to technical officers, I think it does so now. If the hon. Member will examine what I said in my speech he will find a little more there. We have technical colleges where technical cadets are trained with the object of making a career in one of the technical branches of the Royal Air Force.
Push-button warfare will mean that it will be very much a matter of striking the right balance between the technical branch and the general duties branch. When it comes, we must still have leaders, and leaders are trained in a rather different way from scientists. Therefore we shall have to strike the right balance between the "X-chaser" and the "square-basher" if we are to get what we want in an officer.
Finally, the hon. Member asked whether mobility had altered the pattern. The answer is yes. That is because with mobility we can do with fewer people, and that is all to the good.
748
I am afraid this has been a rather rushed and sketchy winding up, but the discussion has been most fruitful and in the course of it many very helpful suggestions have been made from both sides of the House. I have not attempted to reply to all the points, but it is very difficult to say yes or no on the spur of the moment to any particular proposal for improving the situation. I will examine very carefully the suggestions which have been made and will write to any hon. Member if I feel he may like to have the information.
Mr. Higgs: In gratitude to the House and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his very full reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.
10.2 p.m.
Mr. Edward Shackleton: After the rushed and sketchy speech we have just had from the Under-Secretary of State, we wonder just what an unhurried and filled-out speech from him would be.
I should like to begin my remarks, because I am concerned with the future of the Air Force, by remarking on the obvious unbalance between the Navy and the Air Force in the matter of Ministers. Year after year the Under-Secretary of State, who is greatly liked and respected on both sides of the House, carries on a tremendous personal struggle by himself. Yet the Admiralty, responsible only for broken-backed warfare—I am not suggesting that the Ministers are broken-backed—have three Ministers to sustain their case in the House of Commons.
I will not go into the question of how Government appointments are made, but it is a fact that in the Labour Government and in the present Government the Air Force has nearly always been badly served in the House of Commons, not in the quality of Ministers, but in their number. We had a rare moment when two Ministers were in the House of Commons, but then the Secretary of State for Air was dashing all round the world settling Egyptian problems. I think we ought to have a little more of fair shares as between the Navy and the Air Force, all the more so when, returning to the original statements of policy of the Government, we find that it is the Air

749
Force which is mainly responsible, according to its policy, for the maintenance of peace by means of the deterrent. It has the principal rôle in the Armed Service.
Since I propose to speak to a large extent about the deterrent, I feel that I must refer to the speech of the hon. baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). He made a speech which was received by the House with very great attention, as is any speech which is made with deep sincerity. He referred to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) made a bewildering speech. I would say, with the utmost courtesy and friendliness, that I found my hon. Friend's speech bewildering. I will give the reasons for that. I know that my hon. Friend would not accuse any of us in any part of the House who believe in strong armed forces of desiring war, but I found his speech bewildering for a number of reasons.
First, it appeared at one moment as if he was taking up the complete pacifist position. If he did so, I can only say that all of us at times find it a temptation to adopt that point of view very strongly. I do not propose to argue with him purely on that. I found his speech bewildering because subsequently he proceeded to argue viewpoints other than pacifist ones, and when he proceeded to visualise this country as a kind of European India and Sweden as a sort of unarmed, or ineffectively armed, third force, it seemed that his remarks were directed in criticism of foreign policy. Again, he may be justified in taking that point of view.
Subsequently, however, he proceeded to suggest that, in any case, we ought not to take part in hydrogen bomb warfare or preparation for it because we could not have an effective part in preventing the United States and the Soviet Union from fighting. He appeared to rate those two great Powers equally in his speech, although I am sure he realises that the majority of the people in this country consider that, whatever criticisms we may have of America, they are less severe than those of some of the happenings in the Soviet Union.
Leaving that aside, I would regard it as—I will not use the word "cowardice"—the worst form of defeatism to suggest that this country cannot affect the trend of world affairs. I have always believed
750
that our influence in Asia—especially in Korea, where British influence was probably decisive at one time in preventing the breaking out of a major war in Asia—would have been stronger if we had had stronger forces there.
One may say that this is the sort of immoral argument that we would rather not face, but, frankly, in this situation we are doing things which smack of power politics, which use fear, and which one can say are immoral. However, this is the sort of conflict that has faced statesmen and politicians throughout the whole of history. They have not always had to face such conflicts as crudely, and sometimes as honestly, as Machiavelli, but we find that we are faced with these dilemmas and that we cannot dodge them merely by, so to speak, opting out.
I think that my hon. Friend, who, I know, was a supporter of collective security before the war and during the war, must see that if our foreign policy is right—that is a matter for another argument—we are obliged to play our part in a system of collective security. That seems to me to be the policy that this country is employing, and it is inevitable that if weapons like the hydrogen bomb exist in the world we must face the necessity for arming ourselves with them.
Sir R. Acland: The system of collective security in the thirties depended upon the fact of there being five, six or seven roughly equal nations, any one of which was capable of taking an effective part in a major war and had, therefore, an independent judgment. The whole system of collective security no longer really applies when we are left with only the two major Powers against each other with no others which can take an independent part at all in war.
Mr. Shackleton: Like so much of my hon. Friend's speech—I am not reflecting on him personally—that is an exaggeration. He has enlarged it so that it is no longer the precise truth. I still think that if he feels so strongly about his argument he must admit that it follows that there is an even greater obligation on this country to build up its armaments and atomic weapons. If other countries would arm and prepare to play their part, as Britain is, he would have less fear of the United States or of Russia. I am putting this only as a point of view, because I think that my hon. Friend's

751
speech was bewildering in that he did not sustain his position simply on the pacifist standpoint, which seems to me the only point on which it can be sustained. It was as bewildering as the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale.
This is a subject of such profound importance that we could go on debating it all night and I should like to say a few words about the Air Estimates, but felt that I also must not dodge the issue that my hon. Friend, in his own personal way, faced up to, and I felt that, as I must answer it, there was an obligation on me to make those few remarks.
I come to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State. I do not blame him for departing at this moment. I found much of his speech very good, except for the last 10 minutes of it. In the last 10 minutes he seemed to fall into all those errors into which the Navy and Army, and even the Minister of Defence himself, have fallen, in not fully applying the principles contained in the Government's White paper. The Government's policy, they say, is based on the assumption that if a major war breaks out it is probable that the free nations will use all major weapons, and if major weapons are used that means the hydrogen bomb will be used.
It is futile to think that this major weapon and its delivery is other than of the major importance. I criticised the Navy, when we were debating the Navy Estimates, for the disproportionate amount of national resources that were being spent on building up naval forces. In the same way, I am inclined today to criticise the Air Ministry for the insistence on building up what may be called conventional fighter forces.
Of course, it is building more modern aircraft. At least, we hope they will be more modern aircraft, but if the Air Ministry's present plans go forward it will be a number of years before the Air Force is equipped with the sort of fighter defence that would satisfy most people, or even the Government themselves. But the Government believe in sustaining peace by the threat of the use of the deterrent. That is the Government's policy, and I should like them to have the courage to carry that policy through. Everybody has the deepest admiration for
752
the traditions and quality of the Auxiliary Air Force squadrons, and certainly they want the aeroplanes for the jobs they may possibly do, it may be argued, for the next two or three years, in the present situation, but in the long run the whole of our resources, if we believe that peace can be sustained by the threat of the deterrent, should be concentrated on making that deterrent the most effective possible force.
Mr. Dudley Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating now the abolition of Fighter Command and our having no defence against any attack by a bomber force?
Mr. Shackleton: I agree that at the moment we are still somewhat in the transitional stage, and I am complaining that the present plans of the Air Ministry seem to indicate that we shall continue in the transitional stage for a number of years. I would rather spend the money on making the deterrent more effective now, since that appears to be the policy which the Government and the majority of the House believe to be the right policy for this country. It is quite certain that fighters will not protect the country from the hydrogen bomb and that fighters will not have a decisive effect in preventing war by the threat of use of the deterrent or by ensuring those first vital few hours when one hopes as few hydrogen bombs as possible are dropped on this country.
The Government take the stand that the threat of the existence of the hydrogen bomb and of our capacity to blow up ourselves and the world may stop war, and that if war should come the hydrogen bomb is the only possible thing that could save the country. It is doubtful whether it could, but I am certain that fighters could not. By the same token I believe that talk about Coastal Command is becoming out of date. That is a rather specialised extension of the Royal Air Force into the naval sphere.
I mention this without going into the more detailed arguments which I used during our debates on the Navy Estimates to show why it is unrealistic that Coastal Command should be handed over to the Navy. If there is subsequently no call for the same effort in "cold war" naval warfare, it is much better that Coastal Command should remain in the Air Force.

753
Meanwhile, Coastal Command at the moment is discharging with great efficiency the rôle which it is called upon to perform. References have been made in earlier debates to the relationship between the Navy and the Air Force, and especially between the Fleet Air Arm and the Air Force. Since I cannot ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air, and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty instead is here, I would only say that I wonder how often the Fifth Sea Lord, who is responsible for naval aviation, has visited Coastal Command Headquarters or even R.A.F. stations in the last few years, and how often members of his staff have had direct conversations with their opposite numbers in the Royal Air Force. The surface Navy has certainly a great deal to do with the Royal Air Force, but I should like to know how much the directors of the Fleet Air Arm do about keeping in touch with the Royal Air Force.
This brings me to the question of liaison. Every year I urge the Minister to ensure that there is closer and better liaison between the Services. I ask him to see that officers appointed to liaison duties are not those who have been passed over or have to be found a convenient job but that they are people who are keen and active and creative. It is a matter of profound importance. Officers serving with special responsibility for liaison duties can make a tremendous difference, as we saw in the last war with certain naval officers who served with the Royal Air Force. The influence of the right man is quite striking. It is no coincidence that the only portrait hanging in the mess at Coastal Command of anyone below the rank of Air Marshal is that of Captain Peyton-Ward, the senior Naval Staff Officer, so valued were his services. I feel that insufficient attention is being paid to the quality of officers who are required to serve on liaison duties.
A point which I want answered by the Under-Secretary is why the Air Ministry say that officers serving on reserve duties will have their names taken off the list at 45 years of age unless they join one of the official reserves, like the Volunteer Reserve. If people are prepared to undertake an obligation and to serve in wartime and are prepared to come back and undertake certain voluntary training without taking on specific
754
annual commitments, it seems wrong to me that they should be struck off at 45.
Let me turn very briefly to the broader question of the organisation of the Air Force. We had a very interesting speech earlier from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir I. Orr-Ewing) on the subject of organisation. The Secretary of State for Air and the Minister of Defence might do very well to read the Fleck Report on the organisation of the coal mining industry, because there are a number of interesting suggestions which might well be borne in mind in relation to the Service. We ought to look at the present emphasis on geographical command as opposed to more centralised control over a certain type of operation.
It is quite clear that bomber operations in any future war, especially where hydrogen and fission bombs are used, will have to be controlled centrally. The same thing is likely to apply in the other Services. In particular I have in mind maritime air warfare. During the last war there were examples of extraordinary failure to get out to the Commands in different parts of the world the latest tactics and the latest intelligence which were acquired in Home Commands.
I should like to suggest that the present directorates of the different divisions in the Air Ministry should in some way be integrated into the specialised bodies like Fighter Command and Coastal Command. It may well be that there ought to be an Assistant Chief of Air Staff (Operations) in charge of each different function. This is a view I have held since the war, and I believe there is some feeling in the Air Ministry that we ought to move in that direction. In considering the organisation and saving of manpower, I would urge, especially in view of the complications of N.A.T.O., that we should not ignore the possibility of a major reorganisation more along the lines of the Admiralty type of control being applied in the Air Ministry.
I should like to look at the future of the Royal Air Force. I think we must agree that its days, like those of the Navy, are numbered. That will not be because of the principles advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), although nobody would be happier than the Royal Air Force if his views led to a pacifica-

755
tion of the world. I believe that guided missiles in time will become the major instrument for the delivery of the deterrent, and, that being so, I should like to urge once again that we should consider—and I believe that the Air Force is more likely to be capable of taking the initiative in this matter—a major reorganisation of all three Services following on some sort of inquiry.
I would urge the Under Secretary to resist proposals which are coming mainly from naval sources—I am sorry to say a few Air Force people have been corrupted into thinking along the same lines—for joining the Navy and the Air Force. In a previous debate I gave my reasons for being against it.
If there is this problem as to the future of the Navy, the same problem is likely to arise with the Air Force some time within the next 10, 20 or 30 years. Another hon. Member asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air to look three years ahead. I admit that it is difficult, but I would ask the Minister of Defence to look rather further ahead than that. If we look 10, 20 or 30 years ahead, we shall be driven inescapably to the conclusion that, despite all the difficulties, some form of major re-organisation is necessary, involving a greater degree of unification and specialisation on a basis other than merely the differentiation of Navy, Army and Air Force. Today it would be, for instance, more logical to have a guided missiles force.
I would like to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on some of the very human things he said. Onehon. Member complained that the Minister did not appear to realise how much recruiting suffers from the difficulties and hardships that afflict Service men. It struck me, however, that the Under-Secretary of State in his opening remarks knew clearly how much suffering and difficulty resulted. However, I think that we are coming to a time when, the major purpose of National Service, which is that of providing reserves, having disappeared—and we know it has never really applied in the Air Force—we should start to strive more to get an all-Regular Air Force.
It cannot be done today, it may not be done for even a few years, but it is essential that the conditions which to-
756
day are a major obstacle to people taking on long Service engagements—conditions of uncertainty, housing and separation—have to be ameliorated. If the Under-Secretary of State and his noble colleague really press on with that, they will be doing a great deal to strengthen in a very real sense the defence of this country.
10.27 p.m.
Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I am often fortunate in following the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) and he is fortunate in that competition to speak in the Defence debates on his side of the House does not seem to be quite as great as it was on this side. I had the pleasure of listening to him speak in the Defence debate, the debate on the Navy Estimates and the debate on the Air Estimates—
Mr. Shackleton: Not on the Army Estimates though.
Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Having sat here for 22 hours in those various debates and not having been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps the House and you will forgive me if I do not revise my speech yet again. I revised it after the first day of the Defence debate after hearing the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Wyatt) when I had ready a blistering reply to him. I revised it after the second day of the Defence debate to make it slightly more suitable for the Army Estimates, and I revised it after the Army Estimates to make it still more suitable for the Air Estimates. However, there must come a time when one has to stop changing the child and deliver it.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Preston, South about the possibility of doing away with the manned fighter. It will not be possible for many years. I imagine that he had in mind that the guided missile would replace it, but I suggest that as long as the Russian Air Force is using manned aircraft, we should do well to have manned aircraft ourselves with which to intercept them. I have always been a little worried that we might put too much reliance on the guided missile, even when it is proven, because it must home on some form of radiation which might be jammed. I hold to the view that the closer we take the weapon

757
launching platform to the enemy, the less likelihood there is of anything going wrong, and the more likely we are to destroy the enemy's aircraft.
I want to add my support to a point made in the debate on the Army Estimates by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), in the Defence debate and again today, as to whether we ought not to revise somewhat our procedure in the House of Commons. It is difficult for any hon. Member of this House to comb through the Estimates, to comb through that immense sum of money—£1,600 million—and to come to a conclusion as to whether we are or are not getting value for money.
It is difficult to make constructive criticisms without giving away secrets, and the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) will, I am sure, support me in that statement. I wonder whether we ought not to think again about our method of conducting debates on defence. By the time we are able to draw attention to weaknesses, it may well be too late. The period of gestation of modern weapons from conception until they are in operational use is about six years. Mistakes, lack of action and other weaknesses in the defence field, therefore, do not become apparent to hon. Members of this House until it may be too late to rectify them.
I should like to add my support, therefore, to right hon. and hon. Members opposite who, having occupied Ministerial positions, speak with some authority when they say that perhaps the time has come for the creation of a House of Commons defence committee, a standing committee, which would permanently investigate the various problems of defence. Of course, there would be some who would say that that could not be done because there would be irresponsible people on the committee. I do not believe that the usual channels and the good sense of the House of Commons would elect irresponsible people to that defence committee. I think it might well be trusted with more secrets than could possibly be trusted to the whole House. I feel that this is a reform which at some time must come, and I hope that this idea will be examined through the usual channels.
758
On my next point, I must speak with some deference. I am one of the 200 Members of this side of the House who have been here only five years, and therefore there are many who are able to speak with much more knowledge of the tradition of this House, but I have never been able to understand this business of going into Committee of Supply at 7 o'clock until 10 o'clock. It seems to me that we lose the whole theme and thread of a debate.
I am not in any way detracting from the admirable speeches which we have heard, and particularly the maiden speech which was made tonight; it was most excellent and in every way useful. But might not it be possible to conduct that part of our debate on the Committee or Report stage of the Estimates and allow the Air Estimates debate to have a continuing theme right the way through? Otherwise, there is tremendous competition to speak before 7 o'clock, because it is well known that after 10 o'clock much of the interest in the debate has gone; the Press has gone home, and many other people have gone to bed.
When a matter of such importance is debated in this House, it is important to preserve a continuing theme and obtain the best possible attendance here. We live in an age when the whole of our defence and the deterrents which we are building up have been completely revolutionised by the arrival of the nuclear weapon. Surely we, as a House of Commons, are able to change our system a little in order to deal with these changed conditions. If we are not, I feel that we have something to learn on the subject.
My next point is a very broad one, but this debate has been broad, and I hope therefore that the House will tolerate this point. The Defence White Paper says:
"Above all, if the free world stands together determined if necessary to defend itself with"—
and these are the important words—
"all its resources."
There is one resource which we have completely and utterly neglected, and that is the resource of psychological warfare. It is amazing to me, when we are trying to sell to the wavering world the advantages of freedom and the results both spiritual and material, that we have not

759
set up any agency to direct policy and we have neglected the funds and the means of promoting psychological warfare.
If we are to face some 20, 30, or even 40 years of cold war in parts of our Colonial Empire, we ought to give more attention to this point. We are an active and honourable member of N.A.T.O., but I doubt whether N.A.T.O. is paying any attention at all to this point. We have obligations in S.E.A.T.O. and I am absolutely certain that there is no cohesion of policy over this form of warfare in that part of the world, although in a cold war period it is very important.
Throughout our three Service debates and in the Defence debate the question of manpower has rightly played a pretty important part. It has been suggested by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw that we should have a manpower inquiry. He suggested that it should be done, with a Select Committee inquiring into the whole field of manpower. I submit that that is much too wide. It would be more use if we were to have an inquiry into certain aspects of the problem.
I know that the answer from the Government Front Bench will be that there have been inquiries. Let us examine the inquiries that the R.A.F. has held. According to my information, it has held four inquiries in the last ten years. The first was the Breen Inquiry which dealt with the question of civilianisation, the second was the Bottomley Inquiry which reviewed methods of manning the R.A.F. in peacetime, there was another inquiry into the organisation of the Air Ministry and the fourth was into the system of command and administration of the R.A.F. There are other places where we might with advantage put the searchlight on the R.A.F., not only a Departmental inquiry, but with outside investigators, too.
The first inquiry I would suggest—and this was raised in our small debate between seven and ten o'clock—is how to attract more Regular Service men into the Royal Air Force. It was depressing to me to hear the Secretary of State for War say that come high employment, low employment, high rewards, low rewards, hell or high water, we still have the same number of chaps volunteering for the Regular Army. That is most surprising to me. I am not prepared to accept that
760
the same would happen with the Royal Air Force, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider the position.
Another problem which I should like to see studied is what it is that discourages a National Service man from signing on for a short-term, for three or four years instead of two years. What is it that prevents a three-year man from prolonging his service? Is it lack of stability, the movements which have been mentioned? Is it the pay factor, the size of the bounty, lack of schools, the communal life, the standard of the barracks? We all have theories based on our personal experience and I do not believe that one can give a reasoned and objective answer to that problem until a very wide inquiry has been conducted.
I should like an inquiry or Departmental investigation to examine methods of persuading trained and skilled men to extend their service. Each Service Memorandum has underlined that fact that the Services are becoming more and more dependent on the skilled man. Every day, every year the equipment is becoming more and more complicated, more and more difficult to maintain and therefore more dependent on the skilled engineer and the skilled mechanic.
We read that in the United States of America it costs something over £3,500 to train a skilled engineer or an electronic engineer. The Air Memorandum says that it takes a year to train a National Service man to become skilled in electronic maintenance. If it takes a year, it must cost this country nearly £2,000. Is not it then worth while to present these men, not with a bounty of £100 if they extend their service, but with something more like £1,000, when, with their experience, and perhaps with the rank of corporal or sergeant, they are invaluable to the Service? Should we not try to retain them and persuade them to extend their service by offering a bounty which would make it worth while for them to stay? Then, when they went out of the Service, they could set up in business or start to buy a house; at any rate, they would have some security for their future life.
The reply of the Air Ministry to the Select Committee on Estimates says that to train a man in advanced trades—that is, above the skilled trades—in the R.A.F. for two or three years is "a wholly un-

761
economic proposition." Yet we are having to do that very thing today. Therefore, I think it worth while to conduct an inquiry to see if we can persuade these men to stay on when they are most valuable and absolutely essential for the efficiency of the Air Force.
My third inquiry is on the question of civilisation. In answer to a question which I put to the Under-Secretary, we learned tonight how many civilians there were in the Royal Air Force. It is extremely difficult to find out from the Air Estimates, but under Vote 4 one discovers that there are some 82,000 to each works contingent. My hon. Friend told me that, including overseas personnel, there are over 100,000 civilian personnel in the Air Force. My first suggestion is that that should be made clear in the Estimates if we are to debate them intelligently.
Are these men in fact being used efficiently? It is a very large slice of the R.A.F. We have 190,000 Regular officers and men, 70,000 National Service men and 100,000 civilians; that is to say, on ratio we have six Regulars for two National Service men and for three civilians. That is the ratio in the Royal Air Force. I suggest that it merits careful consideration to see whether this enormous slice with such an enormous cost is being used efficiently.
I should like this inquiry to examine most carefully whether we could economically extend the field where civilian contractors run units themselves. I am not asking for any extension of this first form of civilianisation. I realise that on an R.A.F. station that is very difficult and may mar discipline. It is difficult to command a station with mixed uniformed and non-uniformed personnel. I am asking that we should inquire whether civilian contractors could more efficiently take over flying training and technical schools.
Experience in the Royal Navy and in the Air Force on that point is most enlightening. When civilian contractors take over, the cost of running schools falls by one-half. The number of men employed running civilian schools falls to one-third; that is to say, a civilian contractor employs one-third the number of men employed by the Service. It would appear to me, therefore, that we should achieve not only a saving of manpower,
762
but an immense saving in money, which is very important if we are to obtain efficiency. It is surprising to me that while the Navy seem to be swinging more and more in that direction, there does not, at the moment, seem to be the same movement in the Air Force.
When these inquiries have taken place, and we have seen what we could save in manpower, and when we have seen whether we could get extra Regulars, it might conceivably be possible to reduce the period of National Service. It would be neglecting the lessons of the 1930's if we took a risk by reducing National Service until we have secured extra Regulars or until Russia has shown, not by her words but by her actions, that she really means to live in peaceful co-existence.
Throughout the defence debate and the air debate there have been criticisms of the speed at which we are able to re-equip our Air Force. I humbly suggest that whatever we may do we have missed the main difficulty of quick rearmament. Improvements might be achieved if we reduced the number of projects which are being developed at any one time. That is necessary, if we are undertaking too much.
It is not possible for a country which is limited in size, and which is dependent upon high-grade exports for its survival, to employ too large a proportion of its skilled manpower in the manufacture of weapons. We cannot put that right straightaway. It will take some time slowly to run down the number of projects under development. The Minister has had to save by cutting flying-boat development and one or two other things. However much we want to do those projects, cuts are essential if we are to progress with reasonable speed. We have too few trained engineers to undertake the projects which have been put upon them. We have too few in our Service Ministries, and that affects the framing of the operational requirements. There are too few good engineers at the Ministry of Supply, which is the Ministry responsible for developing and producing these weapons. There are too few in industry itself and too few in the Armed Forces.
The depressing feature is that this situation will get not better but steadily worse unless we do something about it. It is alarming to look at the number of whole-

763
time students taking science and maths and who will eventually become trained engineers, and to compare them with the numbers in the United States and Switzerland. We appear woefully lacking in students of that type. In the United States, there are 3·6 technology students in every 1,000 of the population and 1·1 in Switzerland. In this country the figure is .5. We have one-seventh of the number of students per 1,000 of population compared with the United States. Even if we added all our part-time technology students at technical colleges, which do not exist in the same form in the United States, we should have only about a quarter the number per 1,000.
We cannot create students overnight. We have to start right back in the schools. I am glad that the Minister of Education made a statement this very day on the matter, but I wonder whether he has gone far enough. There will be tremendous competition for the services of these people. There is not only the defence programme, but the export drive, on which we are dependent for economic survival, and also the capital reconstruction programme; £1,200 million forrailways, £200 million for roads, £300 million for atomic work. We shall want surveyors, engineers and technical personnel if we are to carry out these programmes. I hope that the Minister of Education will be pushed very hard by the Minister of Defence. If he is not, we certainly shall not get our weapons in the future as quickly as we want them.
I hope that parents may be converted. If they need conversion they should look at the advertisements in our technical Press—the "Aeroplane," "Flight" and others, containing page after page of advertisements, every single week of the year, asking for draughtsmen, for stress-men and others. Here is an advertisement in which the de Havilland Aircraft Company offers excellent opportunities for designers and senior and intermediate draughtsmen. A. V. Roe's weapon research division wants engineers. The last 10 pages of the paper are filled with advertisements, some from Canada and the United States trying to attract our engineers in those directions.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: In Scotland it is impossible to get science teachers in the secondary schools. If the hon. Gentle-
764
man takes them away from the secondary schools, who will teach the children in those schools?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sorry that I have not made the point clearly. I said that we have to start by attracting the science and mathematics teachers back to the schools and that I was glad that the Minister of Education had made a statement on teachers' salaries, because we can do this only if we offer suitable rewards. That was the purport of my remarks.
Last week I went through one of our national papers, the "Daily Telegraph." On one page that advertises situations vacant I underlined the advertisements for engineers, physicists and the like, and of the first 148 advertisements which I counted, 91 were for people of that type. They are not asking for arts graduates or accountants. The people whom this country lacks—and I hope parents will understand this—and will lack for many years to come are trained scientists to carry out this work. I hope that as soon as possible we shall attract the teachers into our schools who are absolutely essential if we are to persuade adequate numbers of the right boys to take these subjects.
I apologise for detaining the House for so long. When I came into the House five years ago I resolved never to speak for more than 10 minutes, and on no previous occasion have I spoken for longer than 10 minutes. That does not mean that I always catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I hope I have not transgressed on this occasion.
Perhaps I may summarise briefly. I believe that we must have the courage in this House of Commons to revise our procedure and the method by which we conduct our defence debates. I believe that we should co-ordinate our policy and should spend considerably more on psychological warfare, which is essential if we are to win the battle of ideas against the Communist world. I believe that we should set up committees to study how we can improve voluntary recruiting and how we can use civilian personnel in the Service and civilian contractors outside the Service more efficiently.
Finally, I believe that we must review the rewards which we offer to science and mathematics teachers and tell parents and the world in general that we have

765
abundant faith that the future of any student who is prepared to show his prowess in the field of science and mathematics is secure in this country, where we badly need such people for our defence, export and capital programmes.
10.54 p.m.
Mr. James Hudson: I should like to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), particularly in his reference to science teachers. I am an old teacher, formerly in secondary and technical schools. That was many years ago, it is true, but I understood the importance of the matters which he raised. Our technical schools are comparatively few in number, especially when we think of the science teaching taking place in America and Russia. Both those countries are far ahead of us, with our 250 junior technical schools.
The importance of extending that type of work does not seem to be understood even now, because we have proceeded to improve the stipends of teachers in grammar schools. I do not complain about that, but they have taken priority. For many years we have been under pressure—and I have taken my part in that pressure—to improve the position of women teachers in schools, before we tackle the issue of the proper opportunity for the science teacher.
Yet all the time, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is this tremendous encouragement to science teachers to give up their jobs and go into industry where there are emoluments, prestige, and other things which are attractive—things which call them away from what may be their natural bent, namely, teaching in schools. It was right that that matter should be raised, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think that I am offensive when I say that I rise to speak about a matter of far greater importance.
I want to speak about the primary problem which we ought to be discussing tonight, and all the time. Paragraph 7 of the Memorandum accompanying the Air Estimates mentions the pimary programme. It says:
"The primary task which now confronts the Royal Air Force is to build up the V bomber force, with its nuclear potential, to a high state of efficiency and preparedness."
766
Something in similar words appears in paragraph 35 of the White Paper on Defence which we discussed last week. Paragraph 8 of the Memorandum adds:
"Should the deterrent fail, the function of the bomber force is, in conjunction with our allies, to make counter-action in war decisive in the shortest time …"
Yet the most responsible statesmen of our time, confronting this problem of the deterrent, and expressing it in their own way—our Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, President Eisenhower—have all indicated in words clear and precise that ultimately, by means of the bomber and nuclear power, there is no defence. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in attractive language, in a powerful speech in this House many months ago, said that in certain circumstances even the process of deterrent breaks down, because one is never certain that somewhere one will not come up against the paranoic who will not be deterred, who is mentally incapable of being oppressed by the thought of what nuclear forces can do. That same thought occurred in a parenthesis in a speech by the Prime Minister, when he said that all he was putting forward in regard to deterrents was rendered of no account where a madman like Hitler came into consideration, especially a madman at the end of a period of hostilities when he found that the net was closing round him.
But has not it been the fact, especially in the wars of the last half century, that one has been compelled, on feeling that one was winning, to draw the net round the adversary in such a way that the only policy for him was absolute surrender? It made it inevitable in war that a head of a State who found himself hemmed in by the forces used against him should be a paranoic, a war criminal, a madman. I ask the question, how is it possible in a modern war—prepared as we must be today, with the things we are called on to do now to destroy with one blow literally millions, maybe tens of millions—for a man to sit in control of such a situation and not be a madman? Indeed, even to contemplate the possibility of doing it as we are now makes one ask which of us is not mad at this moment to be seriously considering settling the problems of the world by destroying the world?

767
As we have all been saying, this is the end of the nuclear process. In these debates, although we are tied down, naturally, within certain limits and rules of order, there is not very much to say except what we are going to do in view of this situation. I know that hon. Members have managed to salve their consciences in this matter. I speak respectfully when I use that phrase because on every side of the House consciences are stirred. I do not believe that anyone on the other side of the House, or on this side, faces this problem callously. Everyone salves his conscience by saying, "Well, there is deterrence." What does this process of deterrence really boil down to? In what way is it different from the proposition that to make our power of destruction so frightful that no one will ever dare to use it is what we mean by deterrence?
In what way does it differ from the old Latin tag, which has given good service for many centuries, si vis pacem pare bellum—"If you want peace, prepare for war"? Is there any phrase in history that has been more damned by the experience of history, more shown to be a failure, where wars have inevitably come as a result of the preparations for war which were to prevent war? Is there any greater certainty that in the long run—
Mr. Paget: Can my hon. Friend quote an historical instance where that has ever happened since the Peloponnesian War?
Mr. Hudson: I should say in the whole history of Europe since the 18th Century.
Mr. Paget: Through weakness.
Mr. Hudson: No, there was no weakness in the days of Richelieu and Mazarin, no weakness in the arming of France. There was no weakness in the insistence of ourown English military leaders. There was no weakness at the time of Napoleon. There was the building on each side of armed forces against the potential enemy and the potential enemy, instead of being deterred, became the actual enemy. I am certain that history has proved that deterrence has failed to secure its end. That seems to be coming out in the speeches of the Prime Minister. It certainly came out in the answers which President Eisenhower
768
gave to newspapermen who wanted to know where he stood in face of the confessions of the Prime Minister on the matter.
President Eisenhower said that we have now reached a point in this struggle for deterring the potential enemy where it does not very much matter whether we go any further with the provision of deterrents. He suggested that there is a point at which one can be saturated with deterrents. It is possible to have a certain number of deterrents—perhaps a hundred bombs would require to be dropped upon the wide spaces of Russia, as against about five upon this island—and after that stalemate is reached. He went on to tell the Pressmen that he was not sure that the time within which we could enjoy comparative security upon the basis of these deterrents was anything like so long as the three or four years suggested by the Prime Minister.
I do not know what the constituents of other hon. Members are doing, but I know what mine are saying to me. They have learnt even more about this process of deterrents and the strategic bomber forces than many of us. I am not sure that Governments have not gone too far in disclosing to the public the nature of the horror which confronts us. I believe that television and the radio, as well as the newspapers, have so familiarised our people with the great mushroom cloud, the fall-out of radioactive dust, the genetic consequences which have already occurred—with the death of men and their permanent injury although they were hundreds of miles away from the explosion—that many of them know as much as we do. To deliver a speech in the average constituency today upon the issue of a strategic bomb is to frighten the people to death.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) intends to put this matter to the test. He intends to face his constituents. He has been criticised, I am sorry to say, by two hon. Members who sit on this side of the House. Nothing has been said about his view by hon. Members opposite, but this matter concerns them as much as it does my hon. and gallant Friend.
Sir R. Acland: I am not "gallant."
Mr. Hudson: He wants to be called merely an "honourable Member" but I

769
am proud to speak of him as "gallant" also. The test which he is about to carry out will serve me and everybody else. He is doing a very risky thing. He is doing what George Lansbury did in his day upon the question of women's suffrage. It is difficult, in an election, to keep one issue separate from the others. We do not know even now whether he will be able to succeed in his aim, but he holds it to be his duty no longer to accept all this talk about deterrents and the guarantee of security for our people by means of nuclear weapons.
He believes it to be his duty to consult his constituents about it, and they are people who live on the banks of the Thames in a place that is likely to be destroyed, and destroyed utterly, if the deterrent the Government talk about, and which is described in their White Paper, fails. My hon. Friend's constituents at Gravesend will feel the consequences of that failure. We know what the consequences will be. We have described them in this House. The Prime Minister has told us what they will be. If the electors of Gravesend send my hon. Friend back here again the responsibility for the implied guidance on policy will be theirs.
I would offer my hon. Friend a word of warm commendation and of thankfulness for doing this thing which I should hesitate to do. It will serve the interests of peace, whatever the consequences may be, just as George Lansbury served the interests of liberty, irrespective of the consequences to him. I do not think it is right—though I shall not say any more in criticism of my hon. Friends—of my hon. Friends to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend. We should put no discouragement in his way in adopting the attitude he feels it is his duty to adopt.
Sir R. Acland: The word "attack" is rather stronger than necessary to apply to the quite friendly comments made by two of my hon. Friends who have criticised my view. It is an over-strong word to apply to the sense in which they spoke.
Mr. Hudson: My hon. Friend has been more Christian in his approach to this matter than I, and, perhaps, I should not have used the word "attack."
Mr. Wigg: In so far as I have been referred to I would point out that I was
770
most careful not to say anything whatever in personal criticism of my hon. Friend. He disagreed with me, and I disagreed with him, but not in the sense of criticism of him or of attacking him.
Sir R. Acland: Quite right.
Mr. Hudson: I shall go no further with this argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend agrees that whatever was said was said in a very friendly way. I should be sorry to upset that friendly atmosphere. I did not think I was doing so. It seems that I did. I do not wish to persist in that matter.
My hon. Friend proposes to put himself and his constituents to a test. His constituents are most likely to be the victims of any failure of the deterrent, which is among the most serious possibilities we have now to face. It may be left to them, in the situation that now faces us. Theirs will be the responsibility for guidance to him and guidance to the rest of the House on what should be done.
I cannot go any farther with this matter, because the debate is about the Air Estimates, but I know what the alternative should be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] I will if I may, although I am not going to debate it. I merely meet the challenge. The alternative is the constant determination to carry on, day in and day out. meeting our opponents, and to continue to meet them, challenging them on their weak points and letting them challenge us on our weak points. This is what the Prime Minister himself promised at Edinburgh—and he is the leader of the Government—to seek negotiations day in and day out, never losing grip of the negotiating tail, refusing to let matters drift merely by slanging one another after the conference is over and one effort has temporarily broken down. The alternative is to go on meeting—
Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is putting forward a most interesting point of view, and there is a conference taking place at the present time, but he is evading the main issue in this debate, which is whether we are to build these aircraft and deterrents which will becarried in them or not. He cannot have it both ways. We are willing to negotiate, but are we to proceed to build the equipment or not?
Mr. Hudson: I can reply briefly that the assertion of leaders of this and other States is that ultimately we cannot rely on the deterrent for the purpose mentioned in the Memorandum accompanying the Air Estimates or in the Defence White Paper. Deterrents break down and war makes paranoics. Ultimately there is no guarantee of security on behalf of—
Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: Answer the question.
Mr. Hudson: I am answering the question.
Hon. Members: The hon. Member is hedging.
Mr. Hudson: Hon. Members opposite must make their own speeches if they get an opportunity, but I am submitting what I believe is an alternative. I was asked what was the alternative, and I am giving it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) said that it was an interesting proposition. He wanted me to face the question of the alternative to the bomber, and I replied that the bomber was not worth relying on.
Air Commodore Harvey: Shall we build it?
Mr. Hudson: That is my reply.
Mr. Paul Williams: Shall we build it?
Mr. Hudson: I am giving a frank reply. I tell this to my constituents—that the bomber and the deterrents will not afford security for this country, nor secure in the long run what we want. We are leaning on a broken reed, and for that reason I say that we ought to be more frank with our people and tell them that security must be found in entirely different directions. While I cannot promise that the meeting of the heads of States, which the Prime Minister said we ought to have, will find us a way out, I still think—
Air Commodore Harvey Air Commodore Harvey rose—
Mr. Hudson: I am saying what I prefer to do. I say that the risks are less and by that process we can find the only agreed line of policy which will lead to a lasting settlement. It is only through negotiation that we can find a policy which both our opponents and ourselves will accept.
Air Commodore Harvey: I am obliged to the hon. Member for again giving way. None of us in this House would disagree with the argument that he is putting forward—negotiate if it is possible with a view to bringing about disarmament—but here tonight we propose to spend a large sum of the taxpayers' money for aircraft and equipment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should spend that money on aircraft and equipment or does he say that we should scrap the lot?
Mr. Hudson: I did not say we should scrap the lot. I say that in my judgment no final security for our people will be found in bombers and in deterrents. That is what I continue to say to my constituents.
Squadron Leader Cooper: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question?
Mr. Hudson: I have answered the question.
Squadron Leader Cooper: It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to run away from this.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The purpose of an intervention is to clear up an ambiguity not to put an opposite point of view. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must await his own opportunity to do that.
Squadron Leader Cooper: That is all I am seeking to do, to get clarification. We are asked to approve in the Estimates tonight a sum of money for certain aircraft provision. We are asking the hon. Gentleman if he supports this provision or not. If he does not support it, presumably he will vote against the Estimates. That is all we are seeking to learn from him.
Mr. George Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My hon. Friend is seeking to make a speech with constant interruption by hon. Gentlemen opposite—three times in two minutes.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think any point of order arises upon that. Mr. Hudson.
Mr. Hudson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman wants me to say "yes" to suit himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. The hon. and gallant Gentleman

773
must not both ask questions and insist on giving the answers. Hon. Members must have the decency to listen if they want me to answer questions. I have spent some time in trying to meet fairly what was put fairly from the opposite bench below the gangway. I repeat, on the issue of how I should vote, that no question arises. There will not be a vote tonight, and if hon. Gentlemen want to know whether I will challenge a vote, I shall not.
Squadron Leader Cooper: That was all we wanted to know.
Mr. Hudson: It was not necessary for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to know that. What he has to meet is the argument that I have been offering. But the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, who was much fairer, said that I was putting forward—
Mr. Bing: Would my hon. Friend allow me to interrupt on a point of clarification? I do not think he understands the point of the interruptions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are unable to appreciate any argument and therefore they are only interested in whether they have to vote or not.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member was not really asking for clarification.
Mr. Hudson: You are wiser than all of us, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and perhaps we had better get on with the matter.
Squadron Leader Cooper: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hudson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has had most to do with creating the delay shouts "Hear, hear" louder than anybody else. I propose to get on with the business because I have nearly finished what I wanted to say. I believe that Governments today, political parties of all sorts, face, and have been facing for years, constituents who believe in the possibility of defence by great forces. Even I, as an anti-militarist, in my own division have known in the past that people expected me not to put myself in the way of either the party opposite or of my own party providing a certain modicum of defence weapons in order to guarantee what was called security.
Although I have always told them as frankly as I have told this House tonight where I stand and where they stand in the matter of the security they think is
774
being offered them, I have told them that they are leaning on a broken reed, and that the reed will fail them in a time of difficulty. They have not quite believed that until now.
The dilemma I face, and the dilemma which every hon. Member of this House faces, arises out of the fact that men and women know that if there were to be any further test of the arbitrament of the sword—it is no longer the sword but the hydrogen bomb—between nations for the solution of their difficulties, no defence is possible for any of them. And in an island like ours, which is small and right in the way of the processes of destruction by the greater Powers of the world, it is an impossible situation that we should be delivering the kind of speeches that we have been listening to tonight. The Under-Secretary's promise came to me like a new hope and a breath of fresh air, and I say: God speed him in his efforts.
11.25 p.m.
Sir Peter Macdonald: I have no intention of following the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) in his pacifist peregrinations or his quarrel with his own party, but I am very glad that some hon. Members in his party have accepted the challenge thrown out by the hon. baronet the Member for Grevesend (Sir R. Acland). We shall all be very interested to see the result.
I apologise for rising to speak at this late hour, but I have waited a long time, and I have heard the debate cover a very wide field indeed. I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary on the way in which he introduced the Estimates. It must put a severe strain upon him to have to make three speeches in one day, as he always has to do on these occasions, but, judging by the way he has dealt with two of them, I can see that he is equal to his task.
There is only one aspect of these Estimates, or the Memorandum accompanying them, with which I profoundly disagree, and that is paragraph 19 which deals with the question of flying boats. That paragraph says that it is not the intention of the Government to develop new flying boats for military purposes at present. I think this is a retrograde step and quite the wrong policy. The United States of America are embarking on the

775
development of military flying boats. There has been reference tonight to the question of research and development in this country, and the lack of money devoted to this purpose, especially in the field of science, where we are in a very bad way. Our position in nuclear research and development is becoming worse every day. This is one aspect of research and development in which the Government are making a great mistake.
The flying boat can prove itself equal to any military demand, as regards speed and power of attack, and in other ways it would be very valuable in what may prove to be a nuclear war. Untold millions of pounds have been spent by this country and the United States on the development of aircraft carriers. That may be a correct policy in a future war, but it involves enormous expense, and in addition the aircraft carrier is very vulnerable. We do not know what its real value will be in a future war; but the flying boat is its own carrier and does not require the same protection as an aircraft carrier. It is not so vulnerable at sea and it can do as good a job as any carrier-based aircraft at half the cost.
It has been proved since the last flying boat was constructed that a hull can be built which can stand up to most weather conditions at sea and in the air. It is estimated that five out of seven days a week, even in the North Atlantic, it can survive on the surface. Further researches have proved that a flying hull can fly as fast and deliver a weapon as well as any land-based aeroplane.
There is a later development by which they can produce their own pontoons and do their servicing at sea. The charge against flying boats in the past by B.O.A.C. and other people who operated them was that they were too expensive to service. Today, with these floating pontoons whose worth has been proved, aircraft can be serviced at sea or near shore and so dispense with the mass of servicing personnel required in the past.
B.O.A.C. was quite wrong to abandon the flying boat service. I have pointed out on more than one occasion that the service was so costly because it was not properly operated. There were too many personnel doing too little work. That is by the way. B.O.A.C. badly treated the builders of the Princess flying boat, first
776
by running out on them and then taking them up again—as they were obliged to do—and then running out again. It is nothing short of a scandal that these magnificent aircraft, beautifully built in every way, should be waiting for engines. I should like to press my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Supply, or whoever is responsible for the production of engines, to see that these aircraft are provided with proper engines at the earliest possible moment.
It is estimated that each of these aircraft could serve the purpose of nine troop carriers if they were properly operated instead of being kept in "moth balls" as they now are. There is also the question of scientists and the development of flying boats. That is something over which the Government are making a great mistake. This country has produced the best aircraft designers in the world. They were pioneers in flying boat construction and design, but there are very few left. I maintain that it will not be very long before flying boats will prove their worth militarily. We will then not have the designers, the scientists or the people to build them. One cannot create designers and craftsmen overnight. That is why I am very anxious that, in studying the question of the development of weapons and the scientific approach, we should not abandon the flying boats at this stage. I am sure that they can prove their worth to our military forces. One day they will be absolutely essential and we should have them and the men to build them.
11.34 p.m.
Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: After all we have heard about power politics, hydrogen bombs, aircraft travelling at tremendous speeds and at almost incredible heights and carrying the latest and most destructive weapons of war, I should like to turn the attention of the House for a few minutes to a very different kind of problem. It is a problem of the Royal Air Force on the ground.
The White Paper refers to personnel and paragraph 41 states:
"Our manpower problem is to ensure that our establishments—i.e., the number of trained men required on a station or in a squadron—are economical and that they are manned effectively."
I wish to enquire of the Under-Secretary about the manpower in the

777
medical branch of the Royal Air Force. I assume that, like the Army, the Royal Air Force is feeling the shortage of Regular medical officers, but that it gets its fair share of National Service doctors. During the debate on the Army Estimates I was interested to learn that there is an inquiry being held under the chairmanship of Lord Waverley to consider the matter of medical manpower for the Armed Forces. One of the problems that the inquiry is attempting to solve is that of integrating the work of the medical branches of the three Services and the National Health Service.
In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) the Secretary of State for War said about the medical services:
"I should explain that for all three of the Services there is a large-scale inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Waverley. That is considering the whole question of medical services, and I cannot anticipate the results; but there is no doubt that the recruitment, and the general future of these services is a major issue. I cannot say more at the moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 364.]
While the Ministers responsible for the three Services are awaiting the results of these deliberations, I find that the Royal Air Force is employing quite a number of civilian doctors. I learned this from Questions to the Under-Secretary of State for Air to which he replied on 25th February. I asked how many civilian doctors were employed full-time by the Royal Air Force. The hon. Gentleman told me that there were 27. He said:
"Their duties include routine medical examinations, diagnoses and treatment which do not necessitate admission to hospital, emergency attendance and inoculations."
I asked another Question about how many civilian general medical practitioners were employed on part-time medical work by the Royal Air Force and what were their rates of remuneration. The Minister informed me that there were as many as 114. I was interested to note that the Minister said in regard to remuneration:
"All rates are agreed with the British Medical Association."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1955; vol. 537, c. 205.]
A further Question that I put to the Minister asked how many part-time civilian consultants and specialists were employed in the medical branch of the
778
Royal Air Force and what were their rates of remuneration. The Minister informed me that there were 34. He added that six received honoraria ranging from £360 to £750 a year. The fees of the remainder were from 2 to 7 guineas for each consultant and 2½ to 4 guineas for each session as a member of a medical board. I wish to ask the Minister whether the fees paid to part-time specialists and consultants have been agreed with the British Medical Association. He told me that the rates of remuneration for part-time general medical practitioners had been agreed with the British Medical Association. If the rates for specialists and consultants have not been so agreed, each of them must have a separate agreement with the Air Ministry.
If that is so, is the Ministry undercutting the National Health Service scales of remuneration for medical consultants and specialists? Are the part-time consultants, specialists and civilian medical practitioners employed by the Ministry receiving any superannuation contribution? Are they given security of tenure of office? How do these appointments compare with similar appointments in the National Health Service? Unless they compare favourably, I foresee, possibly in the near future, that the Minister will have difficulty in getting the best men for this important work in the Royal Air Force. I would like him to ensure that part-time consultants and specialists are engaged and remunerated on a proper footing, as is apparently done with the part-time general medical practitioners.
Would the Minister be good enough to let us know something about the recruiting of medical officers for the Medical Branch? I take it that the junior posts are filled by National Health Service doctors and civilian doctors employed full-time or part-time. I am anxious to know whether there are enough men signing on as Regulars to fill the higher ranks in the future. The Medical Branch occupies an important place in the Service, and I should be grateful to be told whether the Minister is satisfied with the strength of the Royal Air Force in medical officers. I should be most obliged if the Minister would look into the matter of part-time consultants' and specialists' remuneration and security of office.
11.43 p.m.
Mr. Paul Williams: I apologise to the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) if I do not follow him in his technical discussion. I am not as technically qualified as he is. I would re-emphasise, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) that the Achilles Heel of our defence programme and of economic development in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth is the present shortage, and the future increasing shortage, of skilled technicians in industry for research and as teachers in the schools.
This is the paramount consideration on the technical side to which we should all have been addressing our minds in these debates. Without the technical knowledge and skill, and the development of the technical skill, this nation as a great Power will cease to be. To talk of defence whether in millions or in hundreds of millions of pounds will be so much eye-wash.
We must get away from the idea that the dirty job is a low-grade job and must reconsider our priorities in relation to jobs, vocations and trades. The sooner we follow the line adopted by my hon. Friend and openly advise parents to influence their children to go into engineering, the better. It is an expanding industry with an expanding, prosperous future. The more we do that, the more we shall contribute in a constructive way to the future security and future prosperity of the nation.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) agrees, because this point is of fundamental importance to our survival and to our economy. However much we may differ on other matters, this must be agreed on all sides of the House.
I must apologise for detaining hon. Members for a few extra moments, but I see the whole picture of defence not simply in terms of the United Kingdom but in terms of a greater picture—the picture of the Commonwealth of Nations. I believe the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) had something of this in mind when he was talking of the dispersal of our strategic Reserve in this country and in the Middle and Far East, too. Unless, in the sense of air bases,
780
we can build up bases in the Middle and Far East, our defences will mean nothing because, as we have heard in the debates of the last 10 days, one crushing blow could eliminate this country.
Surely it is important that we should be able to survive as a human race in other parts of the world. That is why we should apply our minds to ensuring that there are defence bases in the Middle and Far East which can take our V bombers, service them and put them in the air at the least possible notice.
There is need for still further improvement in the mobility of our military Reserve. We have heard much talk about the strategic Reserve in the last 12 months, and in the White Paper and the defence debate we were told something of the military aspect of that strategic Reserve, but I am not certain that we have sufficient aircraft of a suitable type to move the strategic Reserve as quickly as might be necessary.
I do not want to make a partisan point about it, because this matter is more important than party politics. May I emphasise the need for co-operation between the Ministry of Supply, the civilian operators and the Royal Air Force in coming together to reach agreed patterns of development for transport and passenger-carrying aircraft? It seems to me that we might be trying to build too many different types of aircraft. We might have nostalgic feelings about the flying boat, in view of its importance in the development of Commonwealth communications. We might like to see these different types of aircraft, but we may be trying to do too much.
Perhaps we can learn from the United States. I am not sure about this, and I hope that hon. Members will accept that I am trying to feel my way as a relatively new Member, but, if I understand the position correctly, the United States Administration gives certain guarantees in one form or another to producers of aircraft. It assists them considerably and encourages in a direct and helpful way in the expensive development tests of new aircraft by placing sizable orders for transport aircraft.
The difficulties, uncertainties and hazards of the development stage are overcome by a Government guarantee. Then, of course, the civilian operator can

781
take up this already successful aircraft and, at little extra cost, alter it for civilian or freighter purposes. Two obvious objectives are achieved in this method of development. The Service gets suitable, swift, modern aircraft, and the civilian operator gets a head-start over what happens in this country. Very often we may be debating the Comet II, or other aircraft, while the American is placing orders for the latest types of comparable aircraft and getting guarantees. There is evidence that Her Majesty's Government are working towards some form of guarantee, or assistance, in the early stages of the development of new aircraft. That was shown in the statement of the Minister of Supply about the Britannia and the Comet.
I urge the House seriously to consider the need for bringing together still more closely the Ministry of Supply, the Air Ministry and the civilian operator on this question of passenger-carrying and freight aircraft. Unless those three bodies can come closer together it may be that we shall fail to have the transport aircraft we need, and we may not be able to get the lead, if lead it is, in the passenger field of civilian operation.
I imagine that I should be out of order if I went on to say more about the civilian operator; but I hope that it will be in order for me to say that, without sound civilian operation in this country, including rather more competition than there is at the moment, we cannot have a military aircraft of the standing which this country deserves. We can only have that competition between firms, we can only have the class of aircraft we all want—and here I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon, North—if we provide through our educational system, through the incentives which we give the teachers, the technicians to do the research, and all the other workers who are needed.
I urge the Government—and I hope the House will forgive me for cutting short the comments I wanted to make—to consider the freight and passenger-carrying side and to give further freedom to civilian operators to compete with the Corporations, if need be. Also, I urge them to bring together the three bodies I have mentioned, so that the right type of heavy aircraft is developed for civilian and military use.
11.54 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Bing: It is pleasant to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) who made an extremely able speech. I should have thought that he would have been the one to advocate the flying boat; but no, he left that to one of his colleagues. The hon. Member gave the House the sort of speech which I think it is fair to say that hon. Members on all sides hope to hear in debates of this sort. It seems to me that he did not quite appreciate the paradoxes of what he was urging. He was saying that if we are to have more aircraft we must have more skilled workers; but if we are to have more skilled workers we must have more skilled apprentices.
We cannot at the same time, as my hon. Friends on this side of the House have been urging, have two years' conscription. How can we? It is a tax. Conscription is a poll-tax. It is all the more important a tax because so often it is not realised that it is a tax. Hon. Members opposite talk about reducing taxation. One of the most important reductions which should be made is a reduction of the tax on British skill and ability. In the United States there is no universal conscription, but a selective draft.
They have a far greater advantage than we have to start with. Therefore, it is rather difficult when we discuss the Estimates to discuss one apart from the other. If the Air Force has not got all the planes it requires that is partly due to the fact that the Army is calling up the people who might be making them. We cannot look at this problem other than in the round. That is the lesson and it has been the burden of a great many speeches, certainly from this side of the House.
When I heard the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) speaking, I was reminded of a number of strategic problems. Suppose his island was not the Isle of Wight, but Quemoy or Matsu? I will not go into that aspect of the matter. It also brought to my mind the book which probably many hon. Members have read, "The Naked Island," Russell Brandon's account of what happened in Singapore and in Malaya. I have often thought as I listened off and on to speeches in this debate that really this is another naked

783
island. Singapore was a naked island, not because the military leaders did not think it was adequately defended, but because they believed that it was impregnable. I say with all respect that when one has listened to hon. and right hon. Members one has wondered whether they were not briefed by exactly the same people who spoke so feelingly about the impregnabality of Singapore.
This is a naked island and those speaking in this debate should realise that that is one of the very serious issues which face us all. We have a responsibility. By the decisions we make we hold in our hands the life or death of countless people in this country who cannot speak for themselves, who can express themselves only through what we say here. Therefore, if we take a little time to discuss this matter we are at least discussing something of supreme importance to the people of this country.
I must say I am a little shocked at the way in which people discuss defence and say, "If this island is not defensible, we can defend it from somewhere else." Let us deal first with what happens here. If this island is not defensible, what is to happen, not to the R.A.F., but to the people not in the R.A.F.? The object of the Air Force, I should have thought, was to defend the country, not to make war on someone else from the Middle East. Hon Members opposite may have a different view; it would be interesting to hear it. What is the object of the R.A.F.? Is it to defend this country or is it suggested that it can move to some far off country and defend it equally well?
Throughout the whole debate there seemed to run a golden chain with link after link of unreality. Here is an argument based on ignoring everything else, taking the thing in a small technical sphere, so that we can be quite certain that none of the real problems is approached. I am not a technician in these matters, although I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Sunderland, South speaking of the value of technicians.
I spent a couple of years during the war as a corporal instrument mechanic. It was a very valuable experience, but it was not one which enables me to speak with any great authority upon the subject of modern electronics. I do not
784
understand technical matters concerning aircraft as well as do hon. and gallant Members opposite who have held high rank in the Royal Air Force, but I have always understood that these machines are propelled by some sort of fuel-petrol, or, in the case of jet aircraft, an alternative fuel. I may be wrong, and I shall be only too pleased to be corrected if I am mistaken.
If I am correct—to take just one practical case—if we are to have a broken-back war, as we were told we should have in the Defence White Paper before last, how are we to refuel these aircraft? It is all very well to say that we shall have so many aircraft, but if we are talking in terms of an atomic war how are we to face this problem? Behind an aircraft, no doubt, there stand many civilian workers. Various repairs, alterations and other things have to be done. One knows that only too well from one's experience of what happens with a civilian aircraft. A great number of people swarm all over it after it has flown a comparatively small distance, in order to service it. How will those civilians be defended? How can the Minister merely present the Air Force as if it were a number of aircraft upon an airfield?
This is the height of unreality. This is not a question of defence; it is a question of playing soldiers or airmen, as the case may be. This kind of argument is no doubt put forward by very able and honest officers—but that has always been our trouble in time of war. We have always had a great number of experts who have looked at the matter from too technical an angle. In the First World War they forgot that while one might have extremely well trained soldiers it was necessary for them to have some ammunition to fire. One has only to read Frank Owen's biography of Lloyd George to appreciate that the most able generals of that period overlooked that apparently essential point, and it seems that those who have briefed hon. Members opposite have approached this problem from exactly the same point of view.
I should like to give one example. Hon. Members opposite have said, "We must have all our resources dispersed. We must have them put into the Middle East and into Africa." Whereabouts in the Middle East and in Africa are we to

785
put them? If my right hon. Friend wants to intervene I shall gladly give way.
Mr. A. Henderson: I was remarking to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) that I had said that we ought to disperse our bomber squadrons.
Mr. Bing: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. We all appreciate his tenure of office at the Air Ministry. I make no criticism of what he said. All I say is that we should look at the matter from a realistic point of view, and if it is said that we are going to disperse our resources it is not my right hon. and learned Friend's province but that of right hon. Members opposite, who are responsible for the conditions which present a situation where they cannot put our resources anywhere.
In "The Times" a few days ago there was an article entitled "Defence South of the Sahara," which dealt with a great number of plans put forward by Mr. Erasmus, the Minister of Defence of South Africa, who was proposing to establish airfields and bases in Africa. This is the most unrealistic thing it is possible to conceive.
Mr. P. Williams: There is nothing new about that discussion. That sort of thing has been discussed for a great number of years. It is not new, despite the hydrogen bomb.
Mr. Bing: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. It is nothing new, but the situation in South Africa has changed. Is it possible to suppose that, because we ally ourselves with South Africa, the airfields in Africa will be safe? That question does not occur to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They regard defence as a compartment divorced from politics. The very fact of working with Mr. Erasmus, with a Government who say that nobody who is of a different colour from themselves, even though those of different colour from themselves are the great majority of the inhabitants of South Africa, has any rights at all, will affect the security of the airfields.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member's argument may be right or wrong, but, however it affects the South African situation, it does not affect the Air Estimates, which are what we are supposed to be debating at the moment.
Mr. Wigg: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, if an hon. Member is rebutting the argument for dispersal, surely it is in order, in doing so in detail, to point out that, in his judgment, it is incorrect to argue that we should so disperse our Air Force as to have to call upon the aid of the South African Government?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is wrong. The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is not entitled to discuss the colour question on the Air Estimates.
Mr. Bing: I was dealing with the strategic problem of dispersal, Mr. Speaker. Before you came into the Chamber it was said that, in the event of an atom attack, we must disperse our Forces. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) was one of those who urged dispersal. All I was saying was that, whether it is suggested the Air Force should go to Africa or whether it is suggested that it should go to Cyprus, we cannot consider that in a vacuum. If we are to have an aerodrome in Cyprus we have to consider who are to be the workmen to work on that aerodrome. If we pursue such a policy as to alienate all the people who live in Cyprus we cannot expect to have proficient service there. Indeed, we should find ourselves amid fifth column activities, strikes, and so on.
Therefore, to suppose that the policy, described in "The Times" report, of allying ourselves with South Africa, will mean that we shall have all the airfields we want in Africa, is to approach the matter entirely mistakenly. I was asking, where are these bases to be? It is perfectly correct for my right hon. and learned Friend to say that we should disperse them, but we ought to ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite where they are to be dispersed to.
Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. and learned Gentleman is asking the Government for too much. Should the Government at this stage say exactly where they propose to disperse our aeroplanes? Soviet Russia does not send us a map showing where its dispersed airfields are. In any case, if he thinks the dispersal scheme wrong, will the hon. and learned Gentleman put forward an alternative, and a constructive one?
Mr. Bing: I appreciate the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question. I am not suggesting we should have a map showing the exact location of the airfields, but I should have thought the Government could have indicated in which Continents they should be. That would be a start. If the suggestion, for example, is that we should have airfields in the Middle East, I ask, in which countries? Or is that a secret, too? Are they not to be located in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land? Is that where they are to be? In which countries does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest we should have these bases? It is far too serious a subject to be treated in this light and off-hand way. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "Well, we cannot disclose now where they are going to be." I do not think that there has been such a profound contribution since the late Viscount Caldecote was the Minister of Defence.
Mr. Wigg: It is not as bad as that.
Mr. Bing: My hon. Friend says that it is not as bad as that. I agree and accept the rebuke. Next to that, I think that it is the most profound contribution that we have had.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be a little bit serious on this subject of defence. They ought to approach it with some responsibility, or at any rate in some slightly more concrete form than they have seen fit to do. In an extremely forceful, able and brilliant speech earlier in our debate, by hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend, (Sir R. Acland) reached the conclusion as to what was the real problem worrying our people. It is that if we are to produce the aircraft for the purpose of delivering atomic weapons, then at the same time there is an obligation to protect the country from the retaliation which is undoubtedly invited.
We have been told a certain amount about guided missiles. One would have thought, in view of that, that the one thing we should try to do is to see that as far as possible from this country there was a neutral area where the potential enemy would not be in a position to establish bases for firing guided missiles. I should have thought that that was an argument, for example, for the neutralisation of Germany as a whole. I should have thought that that was an argument against the re-armament of Western Germany and of Eastern Germany, be-
788
cause if Western Germany is to re-arm then so, presumably, will Eastern Germany be re-armed.
Squadron Leader Cooper: It is already.
Mr. Bing: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that it is already. Is not that an argument for disarming it? Is not that an argument for trying to arrive at some agreement so that there will not be bases in either of the areas? I may be wrong in this.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: No, my hon. and learned Friend is not.
Mr. Bing: These are the sort of problems to which the House ought to be devoting itself. A valuable contribution to our debate was made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. I do not want to detract from what he said, but it is not a question of whether we have sufficient engineers or sufficient people to service the planes. That will not matter if three or four bombers get through.
Mr. P. Williams: It will matter if they do not come.
Mr. Bing: They will all be dead, so it will not matter. The real issue we have to consider is whether, in fact, we can produce a foolproof defence. As I said at the beginning, this is a naked island, a very small area with perhaps 20 centres of population. We have heard of the degree of development of guided missiles. It has been general talk perhaps, but my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), who is very knowledgeable in these matters, suggested that as the R.A.F. was becoming obsolete we should concentrate our whole consideration on aerial warfare and on guided missiles. But they go both ways, and what will be the defence against them?
Squadron Leader Cooper: Dispersal.
Mr. Bing: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says dispersal, but where? To which of the 20 centres of population does he think the population should go? Where is it suggested that the population of these islands should be dispersed to? Will one hon. Gentleman opposite get up and answer that question?
12.15 a.m.
Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South): In the earlier part of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) I thought he was rather more temperate than we usually find him in this House, but towards the end I thought he was quite as irresponsible as he normally is on these matters. It seems an extraordinary dictum which he tries to adduce, that one of his hon. Friends puts forward a certain argument and then, because an argument comes from his own side of the House, it is the responsibility of my hon. Friend to answer it and to prove it one way or the other. It is an impossible situation in which to put my hon. Friend.
Mr. Bing: Would not the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the object of debate is that a question should be put from one side of the House in order that it may be answered from the other?
Squadron Leader Cooper: Yes, but it would be fair to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he puts a silly question, he will probably get a silly answer.
Mr. Bing Mr. Bing rose—
Squadron Leader Cooper: What was the main burden of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman? It was, in effect, that one of his hon. Friends suggested that we should disperse our air forces, presumably all over the world, and he was then at great pains to prove that it was not a practical proposition. The implication arising from that would appear to be that, therefore, we must concentrate such forces as we have in this island. He then went on to show that two or three atom bombs were sufficient to wipe out this country and. therefore, presumably the implication is that we should not do anything at all about defending ourselves.
That kind of argument is the one which has been put forward in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—and it has landed us in trouble with the party opposite—
Mr. Emrys Hughes: You are all in trouble with the party opposite.
Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) says we are all in trouble with the party opposite. All I can say is that if he likes to cross the Floor of the House, he will find a united party here. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do not want him."]
Quite a lot has been said this evening about the speech made by the hon. baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), and a lot of praise has been meted out to him by his hon. Friends. The House always appreciates any hon. Member who takes up a personal position, particularly in the way that the hon. Baronet has done, and although we may not agree with what he has done, we sincerely respect him for his action.
It will not be lost upon the country, however, that quite a few hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken tonight, and have supported very strongly the point of view which the hon. Member for Gravesend put forward, have not sought to emulate his example. May we hope that within the next day or two we might see a few more consciences working on the other side of the House, and a few more by-elections, which will strengthen the hands of the Conservative Government at the present time?
However, it was not my intention at this late hour to indulge in this kind of comment. I want to speak for two or three minutes on a subject which I have raised in this House for the last five years in conjunction with Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton when he represented Inverness, the question of reconnaissance aircraft. In the last war we used Mosquitoes and Spitfires for this work, and throughout the earlier part of the war we succeeded in operating at very low cost because the opposition at that time was principally from Messerschmitt 109s. and Fokke-Wolf 190s.
They were also subject to attack from anti-aircraft guns, but in any future war which might break out, since we in this country have decided to do away with our own anti-aircraft defences, we must assume that other countries have also decided to do the same. Presumably, therefore, the aircraft which we would use for reconnaissance purposes would be subject to interception by aircraft only, or perhaps by guided missiles—we do not know.

791
Nevertheless, the principle which I suggest should operate in the Air Ministry now and in the future in relation to photographic reconnaissance units is that at all times they should be equipped with the fastest aircraft available. I believe that our squadrons at this time are equipped with Canberras and Meteors, and I want to ask my hon. Friend if he really feels in his heart, and if his technical advisers in the Air Ministry are satisfied, that if war were to break out tomorrow they would be justified in sending out airmen on deep reconnaissance flights several hundred miles into enemy territory in Canberras and Meteors.
I do not wish to appear to be dramatic on this subject, but I want to state the facts simply. When a bomber aircraft takes its bombs to a target it is over the target area probably for a matter of minutes. It drops its bombs, turns round and comes home. When a fighter aircraft is engaged in combat, again the fight is a matter of minutes. But reconnaissance aircraft fly hundreds of miles into enemy territory completely unarmed. That is what we have to remember. They have to rely upon the height which they can reach and on the speed that they can fly to get them home.
If, for example, an aircraft were doing a reconnaissance over Berlin, which was done many times in the last war, a complete photographic cover of Berlin would take about an hour and a quarter. It is a long time for an unarmed aircraft to fly over a heavily defended city at about 30,000 feet. Then that aircraft has to get home. We must remember that whereas a bomber's mission is completed when the bombs are dropped, and to that extent the crew are expendable, the mission of a photographic reconnaissance crew is not completed until the aircraft reaches home and the photographs are delivered. In any future war it will be essential for our whole defence that the eyes of the Royal Air Force shall be wide open and capable of seeing every move that a potential enemy might make.
I do not expect, for reasons of security, that my hon. Friend should disclose to the House the plans of the Air Ministry in relation to our reconnaissance squadrons, but I do want to be assured—indeed. I think the whole House does—that the Air Ministry has this matter in hand and
792
that it can assure the House that our squadrons will be efficiently equipped with the fastest aircraft available and which are aircraft of a type able to meet any opposition which they may encounter when flying over enemy territory.
12.25 a.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have no apologies to offer for rising at this early hour of the morning to continue this debate, because I believe that it would be a bad service to democracy and public discussion if hon. Members on both sides of the House just succumbed to the pressure of Government Whips and adjourned without giving full and ample consideration to the Estimates before us.
I know that when we on this side of the House were in office Ministers were anxious to get their Estimates through and we passed Estimates of thousands of millions of pounds with inadequate discussion. I was never a party to remaining silent when criticism needed to be made. I think that hon. Members on the other side should take the same attitude of criticism of their own Front Bench, if the Service Ministers come to the House and rush through their Estimates by the use of the Whips because jaded M.Ps. want to go home without doing their duty. That is a bad business for the House of Commons.
I do not believe that Members on either side of the House should grudge working nights occasionally. My constituents do; many of my constituents have just gone on the night shift. The pilots who man the aircraft at night have to work at night, and I see no reason why the Government Whips should look at me as though I were enemy No. I when all I wish to do is to stimulate Members opposite into doing their duty to their constituents and to their country. Indeed, I have listened to more Service debates than anyone in the House.
Mr. Wigg: No, no. Quite untrue.
Mr. Hughes: As many as anybody—
Mr. Speaker: These Air Estimates are before us and I suggest that the hon. Member might come to them now.
Mr. Hughes: Yes, Sir.
The Air Estimates amount to £513 million. There can be no argument about that. That is a colossal sum of

793
public money. I have listened very carefully to the speeches from both sides of the House, and there have been some disquieting criticisms from hon. and gallant Members who have had the experience of manning the Air Force in very difficult circumstances. There are others who have a knowledge of aircraft production.
I agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) that we should have a committee system for discussing in full detail the Estimates of the Air Ministry, as of all other Estimates, so that hon. and gallant Members could give us the benefit of their experience, and we could do our best to assist them with constructive criticism.
I was very interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), and that aspect is worth a day to itself. How shall we eradicate the bottleneck which has appeared in the development of modern aircraft production? I remember that the then Sir Ralph Glyn, who used to make constructive speeches in these debates, made a very interesting speech three years ago in which he asked exactly the same question: from where would we get the technical people, the scientists and skilled workers to produce the aircraft that are needed?
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South put his finger on the same point, and the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) also dealt with the problem, but without supplying an answer. It is all very well saying, "Attract young people from other professions," but if we attract young scientists from the schools into the aircraft industry, how are we to train the young students who have to follow on?
Air Commodore Harvey: Do not call them up.
Mr. Hughes: I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member. I fail to see the common sense of calling up people who will be unable to serve in the Forces in any case in the event of war. I do not see any reason why they should be called up at all. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield has completely converted me to that point of view.
Air Commodore Harvey: That is worth sitting up for.
Mr. Hughes: I wish to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Air and the Air Ministry for the consideration which has been shown about a matter which I raised in this House. I asked a Question about the bombing ranges off the northwest coast of Germany, and I produced an illustrated paper from a German friend which showed that a large number of wild birds had been killed as a result of bombing practice. I believe that considerable pains were taken to prevent cruelty to the wild birds by bombing operations during the moulting season.
In reply to a Question last Wednesday, the Minister said:
"My noble Friend and I have considered with the British section of this Committee"—
that is the International Committee for Bird Preservation—
"what can be done to minimise the danger to sheld-duck on the Cuxhaven Bombing Range, off the north-west coast of Germany, during the moulting season, when the birds cannot fly. During the next moulting season, only practice bombs will be dropped. These contain no explosive other than a small charge to set off a smoke marker."
I believe that these birds are entitled to consideration, and I am glad to know that the ornithologists seem to have come to my support.
The Minister continued:
"The Royal Air Force will co-operate with ornithologists, under arrangements to be made with the British section of the Committee, to inspect the range both before and after bombing, to establish the effect on the sheld-duck."
That has been done. I believe that public opinion in Germany will be very much impressed by the efforts that have been made. The Minister concluded:
"I have every hope that as a result of these measures we shall find that the species has been able to moult without being seriously molested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1955; Vol. 537. c. 285.]
I thoroughly approve of the activities of the Air Ministry in protecting the ducks during the moulting season, and wish that those activities may be continued and pursued to their logical conclusion.
It is not only wild duck that moult. There are other species. If we are to protect the sheld-duck, what about the swans, sparrows, thrushes, blackbirds and skylarks? What is to happen to the bird life of these islands if we go in for bombing operations on a large scale? We have heard about the extinction of the human species; we may have our

795
quarrels with the Russians, but what have the birds to do with them? Why should they be slaughtered?
Now that the Minister has taken this imaginative approach and has shown such sympathy towards wild ducks, let him remember that there are other living creatures, and carry that approach to its logical conclusion. We have no right to betray all living creatures in pursuit of the survival of what is called homo sapiens. The ornithologists seem to have been a most effective pressure group. I hope they will continue their pressure on the Minister, and I shall do my utmost to co-operate with them. I hope that the Minister will continue the good work.
There have been criticisms of conscription to the Air Force. When I travel by train I see a lot of these young conscripts, travelling in their Air Force uniforms. I do not know a great deal about the training of people who go into the Air Force. The Army was my speciality. I have recently read some extraordinary revelations about what goes on in regard to the discipline enforced in the R.A.F. I should like some Minister to assure me that the sort of thing that I shall quote from a reliable witness is not going on at the present time.
I read this description by a very famous writer about how discipline is enforced in the R.A.F., and I asked a young airman, "Surely this sort of thing does not go on now?" He assured me that in 1954 we are still getting this "square bashing" and this P.T.
Squadron Leader Cooper: What is wrong with "square bashing" and P.T.? I did six years of it and it did not do me any harm.
Mr. Hughes: I am not certain that the hon. and gallant Member is an objective witness about that. We all have our own opinions. I do not believe it did him any harm, but others may have a different opinion.
I want to know whether this description represents anything like what takes place now. because if so. then it is time that the R.A.F. was regularly surveyed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It reads:
"Perfection of drill resides not in individual perfections: nor would fifty of the best men in a new squad drill well. Smartness depends on knowing the man in front, and the man behind, and those on each side. All must
796
bring down their left heels simultaneously, with a slightly marked beat to keep time with a metronome in the brain."
What possible relevance has that to the piloting of modern aircraft?
Air Commodore Harvey: On a point of order. Is it relevant to the debate for the hon. Member to read quotations of something which happened 30 years ago?
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was far-seeing enough to see that point in advance. He said that he had talked to modern aircraftmen who had assured him that these things still go on.
Mr. Hughes: Yes, Mr. Speaker; you have stated the point precisely, and I am obliged to you for your protection. I should not bother about this if it had ended 30 years ago. I should not dream of going back into such ancient history.
What I am asking is: are these performances taking place on the barrack square at present and, if they are, what relevance have they to the training of airmen? The Minister has told me that it costs £25,000 to train a bomber pilot, and I want to know whether any of the £25,000 is wasted on activities of this kind. The description goes on:
"This comes with time, after training. It can only be done by a mind absolutely serene. It's a matter of trust, of unconscious certainty to tell you what right and left are going to do."
I am not talking about politics at all. I am dealing with the routine activities of the R.A.F. and I ask the Minister whether that sort of drill goes on at present.
"Then all feet will clash as one, and the flight be a flight, and not 50 men."
I want to know whether my constituents are being dragged up through a system of National Service and treated like this.
"After six hours' rough handling we could not be like that. Poulton insisted."
Poulton was the N.C.O.
"The trumpets went on calling. He set his teeth. 'No tea for you skunks today. I'll keep you here all night'. He had not seen Stiffy, the Drill-Adjutant, approaching from his rear."
Squadron Leader Cooper: "Comic Cuts" stuff.
Mr. Hughes: This was written by a very gallant officer who had great experience of both Services and was decorated

797
for his activities in the Middle East. This is Lawrence of Arabia writing to the hon. Member. These are not the words of a pacifist. This is a description of what goes on in the establishments of the Royal Air Force.
Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. Member discuss all these matters with the aircraftman he mentioned earlier, because it seems to me that he is now rather going into the past, and not dealing with modern conditions in the Air Force? If the hon. Member can tell me that the modern aircraftman said these things, it is in order, but I think that the hon. Member is now delving too far back.
Mr. Hughes: If I can be assured by the Minister that all this belongs to the dim and distant past, that my constituents are not treated in this way, I shall, in due course, accept the Minister's point of view. Before the Minister is able to judge, he has to hear my case. What I submit, Mr. Speaker, is that I have not finished this description yet, and that all I say is relevant to the discipline and drill methods of the Royal Air Force today.
It goes on,
"Stiffy called the Sergeant, endured a low explanation, and replied loudly for us to hear, 'Put them on again at five-fifteen, and let them have it.' So we fell in again after half an hour, knowing we were to be crucified."
Yes, it sounds humorous; but it was not humorous to this very sensitive person. A number of sensitive young people are being treated like this today, if my constituent was correct. I want to get an assurance that this sort of thing has been discontinued; that these men have not to submit to being bullied on the' barrack square.
Some of the language in this book I could not repeat to the House. People read what goes on, and we are entitled to know whether this sort of thing goes on in the Royal Air Force.
Mr. Wigg: I wonder if I can help the hon. Member. I served in the same unit of the Tank Corps as Lawrence of Arabia, and subsequently spent three years attached to the Royal Air Force, and what Lawrence has written in "The Mint" was not true then, and is not today.
Mr. Hughes: I know that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has great gifts of observation, but he has not second
798
sight. I am not talking about what Lawrence did in the Royal Tank Corps, but what he saw in the Royal Air Force.
Mr. Wigg: It is not true.
Mr. Hughes: How does the hon. Member know?
Mr. Wigg: I know perfectly well what went on at depots of the Royal Air Force, and in regiments, up and down the country. That description is the product of a high literary sense and an over-feverish imagination.
Mr. Hughes: I would not accept those aspersions on a great descriptive writer.
I know that the hon. Member for Dudley has qualities and experience, but he was not present everywhere. I would accept his advice on something at which he was present, but he could not have been present in the Royal Air Force everywhere at the same time.
Mr. Wigg: I happened to be attached to the Royal Air Force from 1924 to 1927 in Iraq, which had a depot organised on comparable lines to Royal Air Force depots in this country. Men came out there for a period of two years. I met them, and I know from that experience that the description in that book is untrue.
Mr. Hughes: That is an aspersion on a distinguished soldier.
Mr. P. Williams: Can we have an assurance that the hon. Member for Dudley was not the sergeant in the book?
Mr. Wigg: I can do better than that. I was not, but I could have been.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Dudley could not have been on every barrack square in the British Empire at the same time. I submit to the House that the hon. Member for Dudley, in total ignorance of these incidents, is trying to whitewash the Service.
Mr. Wigg: I have read the book.
Mr. Hughes: I do not accept the hon. Member for Dudley as such an eminent authority.
I will not harrow the feelings of the hon. Member any more, but he cannot discuss Lawrence of Arabia in this way. I want to know if the Minister will con-

799
tradict this book, which is in the window of every bookshop in London and is a tremendous indictment of the R.A.F. I want some assurance that the young recruits in the R.A.F. are not being treated in the way described in this book.
I will not continue about that, as I have said enough on it. I do not think the miserable apologetics of the hon. Member for Dudley have any relation at all to it, as I am sure hon. Members will, in their hearts, agree. This is the first time that they have co-operated with the hon. Member for Dudley. I want the Minister to come to the same conclusion about the hon. Member for Dudley as a reliable witness in this instance as he is about recruiting figures and manpower in the British Army. That is by way of a preliminary to what I was going to say. If hon. and gallant Members opposite want to continue their researches, I will lend them this book.
I want to ask further questions which have been put by the editor of the "Manchester Guardian," who is often a supporter of the Government. When we come to these matters we often find in the "Manchester Guardian" sound criticism which hon. Members should take into consideration when these Estimates are before us. After all, the sum involved here is £530 million, and this is the second instalment. We have granted nearly £1,000 million in one week. The questions which the leader writer of the "Manchester Guardian" put on 10th February this year are very pertinent to the whole of this debate.
The leading article was entitled. "Bombers, Why?" and began:
"The British strategic bombing force will consist of the new V bombers, the Victor, the Valiant and the Vulcan, equipped with British-made atom bombs. Possibly it may also have British hydrogen weapons. A vast amount of money will go into the building. The capital cost of each aircraft alone will be nearly half a million pounds"—
I want that figure to be remembered as I develop my argument—
"and the bomber force will be the strongest single element in Britain's defences."
The "Manchester Guardian" asks, "Is it necessary?" This is one of the most responsible newspapers in Britain.
"Is it sound in future strategy? These questions must be asked when a decision of such magnitude is under discussion."
800
When the "Manchester Guardian" says that these questions must be asked, I submit that I am justified in asking them.
The "Manchester Guardian" frequently criticises what it calls the pacifist point of view, but this is not pacifism at all. This is a highly relevant question which we should all be able to answer in our minds before we go into the Division Lobby tonight.
"In terms of deterrent"—
there is that wonderful word we have heard so much of during the last week—
"of persuading Russia that war would be folly—the British force seems not necessary. It will add but little to the deterrent value of the existent American force."
If it will add but little, why should we vote over £500 million for our Air Force?
The deterrent is already there, with the huge bomber force under the command of the United States of America.
"Apparently the American bombers—with bases in a ring from North Africa and England through Greenland and Alaska, to Japan and Okinawa, can now reach any part of Russia. They are equipped with bombs of every kind."
I remember arguing last year that if America has such a huge bomber force, which can act as a deterrent, why should this country, with its strained economic resources, be asked to have a huge bomber force as well? These questions are now asked by the "Manchester Guardian," and we are entitled to have an answer.
About the American Air Force it says:
"Many of its bases are beyond the reach of Russian aircraft and according to the military estimate will continue to be safe for some years yet. The deterrent value of the American air strategic command then must be very great. Will Russian calculations be altered if, let us say, to 1,200 American bombers are added 400 British or to a stock of 800 American nuclear weapons are add another 250 British bombs?"
I have sat here during all the debate, and I have never heard anyone make an honest attempt to answer that question.
Mr. de Freitas: I shall answer it.
Mr. Hughes: Good luck to my hon. Friend; I admire his courage.
We have heard criticisms that the Government are slow in providing the aircraft. We have had criticisms of the Minister of Supply because the bombers and the fighters and all the other para-

801
phernalia are not forthcoming. If the Labour Party had been in office now I ask whether the criticisms would not have been precisely the same—because the bottlenecks are not political matters; they are technical and industrial. If the Labour Party were now in power and the Ministers had been transposed, we might have had—I do not speak with the dogmatism of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley—the same kind of brief being read out by the Minister, and exactly the same kind of cross-talk.
What was the criticism of the Opposition Front Bench? It was that we cannot arm by half; if we are to have a deterrent then we have to have a sufficiently powerful air force. I have waited for many years to get some precise idea of how many bombers the Labour Party stood for. How many bombers does my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) think would be sufficient? He is apparently going to make an attempt to answer the argument of the "Manchester Guardian."
The argument put up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) was that the figure should be 100. A hundred would cost £40 million. I ask for an explanation. If we had 100 bombers, which is, apparently, the maximum number mentioned by the Opposition Front Bench, in what way would they add to the strength of the deterrent? I cannot find the answer to that one.
I believe that at the present time the American Air Force has an enormous force at its command, and that what we are trying to do is completely irrelevant to the situation. Consider the strength of the American Air Force. It has, according to a statement made by the American Secretary for Air, 960,000 men.
"Modern air power"—
says the report of the American Secretary for Air—
"combining the tremendous speeds made possible by present day engines and the enormous power of modern weapons, overleaps all traditional geographic barriers that have sheltered us throughout our history. If a nation has sufficient air power today, the destruction it can inflict on another nation staggers the imagination."
802
What about the Russian Air Force? These are facts from the American Secretary for Air, and I presume they can be relied upon as being accurate. He says:
"The Red Air Force consists of more than 20,000 active aircraft. They have medium bombers copied from our B29 capable of flying one-way missions to any point in the United States."
If they can fly to any point in the United States then presumably they can fly to any point in these islands.
"We have evidence that they are today developing and probably producing a heavy turbo-prop bomber comparable in both range and performance to our B36. In Europe they have light jet bombers capable of attacking almost any point in Western Europe from their bases just behind the Iron Curtain. Here also they have thousands of their MIG15 fighters ready to bid for air superiority and to harass the N.A.T.O. ground forces. This powerful air force is capable of immediate attack on any point in Europe and any point in the United States."
If that is so, I fail to see how any of the preparations which have been outlined tonight by the Under-Secretary of State for Air can possibly meet the situation. Even if only a fraction of those bombers get through, this enormous expenditure will be publicly unjustified. Is it suggested that we must arm unilaterally, without acting on the assumption that the United States will be on our side? Surely we are not going to prepare to bomb the United States of America? Surely we are not going to prepare to bomb our Allies in N.A.T.O.? The only targets we are likely to be able to bomb before these bombing planes become obsolete are those protected by the air force of the U.S.S.R. I believe it is quite impossible for us to argue on the assumption that we have got to build an air force which can possibly meet the air force of the U.S.S.R., when we consider some of the possibilities.
I listened to the Prime Minister say the other day that there were 100 bases ready from which bombers could set out to attack points in the U.S.S.R. in the event of war. I presume that the 100 places to be attacked are not only in the U.S.S.R. I presume that the Air Force has its map of potential targets on the Continent of Europe outside Russia. Some of those targets are in Germany. I believe the people of Germany are following with interest these speeches explaining what the R.A.F. will do in the next war. I cannot

803
conceive that if the Soviet Union attacks in the next war its headquarters will be in Moscow or in any other large Soviet town. They might be in Berlin. Is it part of our strategy to bomb Berlin?
We have heard a great deal about sympathy for the people of Berlin. We have heard how they are living under Soviet rule, and yet I venture to suggest that while we are expressing so much sympathy with the Germans in the East and in the West, part of our strategic policy in the event of war is the bombing of Germany with atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs. The time has come, not only for Britain to be neutral, but for the whole of Western Europe to realise that neutrality is a far more sensible policy than one of getting involved in a hydrogen-bomb war.
What about the deterrent We are to have a debate next week in which the Opposition will seek to condemn the Government because they are not pushing forward with three-Power talks. Exactly what this policy of the deterrent means is a mystery. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition, on 5th April last, completely exploded the theory of the deterrent, which last week was included in the Opposition Amendment on the subject of nuclear weapons.
The Leader of the Opposition then said:
"Let us consider the effect of this invention. Does it make war more, or less, likely? The question merits very close examination. It is contended that the existence of this weapon will itself prevent war. I recall the Prime Minister pointing out often in the years since the ending of the war that the existence of the atom bomb in the hands of the United States was a deterrent, preventing the U.S.S.R., with its great superiority in numbers and conventional weapons, from sweeping right over Europe in a major act of aggression. I thought he was right then."
But the Leader of the Opposition did not at that time take that point of view because he goes on:
"But as soon as the U.S.S.R. got their atom bomb the force of that deterrent was lessened. There was the certainty of retaliation, and, what is more, the possibility of anticipation. The whole position has changed."
If that was the position on the 5th April last year I cannot understand why I should go into the Division Lobby in support of a policy of a deterrent which
804
was denounced by the Leader of the Opposition at that time, for he went on to say:
"We see the same sequence in the production of the hydrogen bomb. There are those who contend that the possession of the hydrogen bomb can be an instrument for preserving peace. It is suggested that the threat of instant retaliation by the use of this weapon can be employed to prevent a resort to armed action anywhere. This idea can be detected in the speeches of some statesmen in the United States of America.
This is a profound delusion. The more absolute the sanction the greater the reluctance to use it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1954; Vol. 526; c. 38.]
I submit that the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on 5th April completely destroyed the theory of the need for nuclear weapons as deterrents.
If that theory was abandoned in April last year, I fail to see how the Front Bench can produce it now, a year later. The danger and the implications of the thermo-nuclear weapon have not lessened but increased during the past year, and therefore I think that the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) has carried that line of thought to its logical conclusion and has decided to put a point of view which will be listened to with a great deal of respect in this country.
I listened to the hon. Member for Gravesend with great interest because I have never consulted him. Indeed, I understood that he did not think on the same lines as I do. Here, however, we have a closely reasoned speech, not by any means a speech full of platitudes and generalities, but an extremely closely reasoned speech in which the hon. Member argued calmly and logically that the time had come when he could not agree to subscribe to this policy of big armaments through a deterrent Air Force.
Naturally I welcome such a recruit to the policies which I have been advocating now for many years. An hon. and gallant Member put a fair question to me: was I going to resign my seat? I do not see any reason why I should resign my seat, because a Member resigns only when he has changed his policy, and I have been advocating this policy for years now. It would be more logical to ask me if I would resign my seat if I joined the ranks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Certainly I would think it necessary to resign my seat in that event.

805
But these were issues which I discussed in my constituency at the last two Elections, and it is not for me to go back to my constituency upon them. People would ask, "What is new about this? We voted for you at the last Election and you had a bigger majority then, when you advocated this policy. Why should you fight a by-election now?". I know that it might ease the problems of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite during the period of the Estimates if I disappeared from the political scene, but I do not see the necessity, and I believe that the point of view that I have been putting, perhaps with very little success, during the last eight or nine years will be understood and appreciated, and that we shall get support, not only from people who are only to be regarded as cranks, but from realists who ask the question, "How can you possibly defend this country by sending bombers over there when, a couple of hours afterwards, their bombers will be here?"
This is a new kind of politics. The hon. Member for Gravesend is to give up his seat. That is the unconventional weapon in politics. Nobody can say that he has anything to gain politically; nobody can say that he is fighting for the leadership of the Labour Party. He is doing that because he is convinced that the policy behind these Estimates is a policy to which he can no longer subscribe.
It will be exceedingly difficult for members of the Labour Party to explain the Labour Party H-bomb to the electors of Gravesend. It is going to be just as difficult for hon. Members opposite. They will have to go to Gravesend and say, "In order to get safety and security, you have got to get more, bigger and better H-bombers." In face of what the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have said, I should not like to be among the Members who go to that constituency and try to answer the question, "What is your H-bomb policy, and how will it protect the people of this country?"
I want to deal with the possibilities in my own part of the world. I live near a big airport. Every week I come down here from Prestwick. I have done it for years, and nobody appreciates the skill and courage of pilots more than I do. But in this H-bomb age I do not escape
806
into security when I go home from London to Scotland. I live within 15 miles of Prestwick, and every time I go to Prestwick I see the American Air Force.
I realise that as a result of the American Air Force being at Prestwick there is a very grave possibility that Prestwick is on the Russian list of targets. If we have our map of 100 targets that we shall bomb in a future war, it is logical to think that somewhere in the U.S.S.R. there is a Russian chief of air staff with a map of targets in this country, so that if a war breaks out they may use what is called the deterrent.
I was very interested in an article in the "Manchester Guardian" which dealt with the possibilities. There has been a controversy between "Pravda" and the "Manchester Guardian." The "Manchester Guardian" had argued powerfully for the bigger bomber policy, and "Pravda" replied. One of the observations that I read in the "Pravda" article was, did the "Manchester Guardian" realise that Burtonwood would be liable to be bombed? Burton-wood is within a very short distance of Manchester. When travelling down from Prestwick I have stopped at Burtonwood, and I have seen the Americans there. The "Pravda" article says that people in glasshouses should not throw stones. We appear to be in a very vulnerable glasshouse if we start throwing stones at the U.S.S.R.
I am interested in how the situation is likely to affect the people among whom I live. Many of my constituents work in Prestwick. If a bomb is dropped in the neighbourhood of Prestwick the towns of Ayr and Kilmarnock and the whole of the West of Scotland are likely to be destroyed, burnt out, atomised. There was an article in the "Glasgow Herald" last week which must have filled with alarm everybody who read it. There was a map which showed that in the event of an atom-bomb attack upon Prestwick the radio-active dust would fall out as far north as Aberdeen, and over the whole of Scotland.
When I am asked to vote £513 million for something which will not defend me at all, I revolt and ask what is the sense of it. I believe that I can point out what is likely to happen in that part of the world. It would be completely fatal for

807
us. The range of total destruction in Glasgow from a hydrogen bomb equivalent to 20 million tons of T.N.T. would, one way or another mean the killing of almost everybody within a radius of five miles, if they were not in a deep shelter. That does not include only Glasgow. It includes nearly the whole of the industrial belt of the west of Scotland.
One hydrogen bomb on Prestwick or Glasgow and we are told it will affect Paisley, Renfrew, Clydebank, Bearsden, Coatbridge, Hamilton, Airdrie, Ruther-glen, Barrhead, Kirkintilloch, and a few more towns. When I see the American personnel at this air base, I realise that their very presence is a danger and a menace to the people of this country. I suggest that the time has come when we should cease talking the usual platitudes that we hear in these air debates, and that the Ministers, and especially the Minister responsible for Civil Defence, should assure us that the money is being well spent.
We are spending £513 million on the strategic bombing policy and only £70 million to protect the people. What nonsensical proposals have been put to us in the debate. There is the question of dispersal. One can disperse the Air Force, but how can we disperse the people of Prestwick and Glasgow and the rest of Scotland? There has not been a single attempt to answer that question. We heard about "guilty men" after the last war; there will be more guilty men if by any chance we get another war.
Sooner or later, if the Government do not realise it, the Opposition must realise it. They must demand a complete reversal of this policy. I have been asked what I would do about it. I would abandon the strategic bombing policy because if it is not likely to bring security, what on earth is it for? What would be the consequence? I do not believe that because we did not have American bases in this country the Russians would immediately come in.
Mr. Raymond Gower: Not immediately; they would ultimately.
Mr. Hughes: I should prefer to see this country temporarily under the control of the Russians or Communism than see it completely obliterated and radio-active. That is the alternative, much as I dislike
808
it. As I have told the House before, I should not be in a very safe position under Communism.
Mr. de Freitas: The hon. Member would be dead.
Mr. Hughes: Perhaps I should be. But I am alive this evening.
I suggest that when one has an opportunity of stating one's case and arguing it out, we should take it. Supposing I were dead, even if all the people who are very politically conscious in this country were dead, the great majority of people would be alive. Even if the Russians were here, I wonder whether the total number who would be exterminated would be two million or three million. I am assuming it at its worst. What about the people who are not interested in politics? What about the young people, the mothers and their children? Are the Government entitled to sacrifice them for the sake of an ideological war against Communism?
I do not believe that, if we put it to the ordinary, normal non-political people in this country, they would place ideological principles of this kind before the will to live and before the desire to survive. The will to live is the important thing. By pursuing this policy to its logical conclusion, we risk not only the human beings of this country, but the animals, the plants, the birds, the seasons—in fact, we risk turning the whole of this planet, after all that has gone into the making of it, into a mass of radio-active ruins.
Of course the Russians are taking the same risk. I am not here to apologise for the Russians, because I believe that the Russians are in just as much danger as we are. The atom bomb and the H-bomb are the enemies of all human beings on this planet. That is the uncomfortable fact—the fact which has to be burned into the brains of every Minister, every politician and every publicist in the world. Although I have taken some time in expounding this point of view, I am justified in doing so in view of the circumstances of this debate.
1.26 a.m.
Mr. de Freitas: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will allow me to say that it is shocking effrontery on his part to assume that it is necessary for him to teach his fellow hon. Members of

809
this House and burn into their brains the appalling effects of the hydrogen bomb. It is unnecessary for him to do that. He should not assume, even with his sincerely held convictions, that he is the only one who realises the terrible condition of the world today. Where we differ is in the lesson that we learn from that appalling situation and the steps which we take to meet it.
Year after year it has been my experience to follow my hon. Friend—and I mean friend—in these debates, either as a Minister or from the Opposition Front Bench. He always puts his case sincerely, but it is important that he should not think it necessary to convert us to a realisation of the horrors of this weapon. He asked me to answer the question which goes to the root of the whole attitude of the Opposition on this matter, namely, why we are called on to vote for a British deterrent.
First, we must not contract out and surrender ourselves entirely to American strategy. Secondly, we must have the power, if necessary, to choose a particular target, to which, in the event of war, our American allies might not give such high priority as we should. It was decided by the Labour Government in the late 1940's that we should go ahead with the V-bomber force with the deterrent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) wrote in the "News Chronicle" only yesterday:
"Those of us who concurred in the making of the atom bomb and tolerated the saturation bombing of the last war have no logical or moral case against the hydrogen bomb."
That, put in far better words than I could use, is the position of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Those of us who are still in the Chamber are waiting for the Minister to reply, and so I shall not keep the House long. It may be rather presumptuous for me to suggest it, but I feel that I shall carry all hon. Members with me when I say that as the Minister has had a very heavy day—he is the only Minister representing his Ministry in this House against two or three for the other Service Ministries—we shall be content if the hon. Gentleman deals only with the points raised by those of us who are still present, and writes to other hon. Members. I think that is only fair.
The most persistent theme of this debate has been the shortage of tech-
810
nicians under our education system. At present there is no sign that we shall ever be able to produce enough technicians to design, develop and produce modern, industrial and aeronautical equipment and maintain it. At every level we are short of engineers. The other day an estimate was given by Sir Roy Fedden that the United States produces each year 30 times and Russia 100 times as many engineers as we do. We know from the Report of the Select Committee that the Royal Air Force has had to assume the rôle of mass educator in the technical trades.
This is not a problem to be solved by one Department only. It is essentially a problem for the Government. Paragraph 36 of the excellent Report of the Select Committee calls for a permanent joint examination of the question of skilled manpower if we are to foresee and provide for future technicians, especially in the ever-widening field of electrical and electronic matters. We have no future in this country, industrially or in defence, unless we face this problem. It may be the last chance we shall have.
I would like to put one or two points about rockets. I cannot go over the long debate we have had in one form or another over recent weeks about aircraft. In the late 1940's I remember a discussion I had here with leading Americans, Mr. Finletter, the Secretary for Air, and others, and I came to the conclusion that it would be decades before we would have an intercontinental rocket with atomic warhead. We now know that it is only a few years from now that the 2,000 or 3,000-mile-an-hour inter-continental rocket with atomic warhead will be produced. What are we doing about these rockets?
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred to the representative of "Aviation Week" and the question of security. That is most important. It is intolerable if a publication can get away with breaches of security. I know that the security classification is often too high. If it is not justified, then we should look at it again. If it is justified, then the full force of the law should be used. I hope that the Under-Secretary will report to his colleagues on the matter.
Many hon. Members have referred, as I did when I was ruled out of order, to the lack of a standing defence committee in which we could have confidential dis-

811
cussions. This is a personal view. Although I am speaking at this Dispatch Box, I am not putting a considered party point of view. I believe we should have confidential information upon which we can make up our minds. When I have previously put forward this proposal it has been opposed by the Leader of the House. Two years ago he condemned it as revolutionary, but we are living in revolutionary times. The "Daily Worker" forgot that it was the party line in other countries to support this procedure and attacked me sharply for suggesting such a thing. So both the extreme Right and the "Daily Worker" were against it. Most people are shocked by the idea, which is completely new to our system of Parliamentary and Ministerial Government, but we have changed our Parliamentary system in the past. We lived our first 550 years without Parliamentary Questions. It is only in the last 100 years or so that we have had Parliamentary Questions, which are now an important part of our procedure.
If we had a standing defence committee, it would be responsible over the years for educating a number of hon. Members in the current problems of the Services. At present too often have we to rely on out-of-date theories and occasional visits and conversations. That is not good enough. It has the danger that it is bringing the House into disrepute, because the soldiers, sailors and airmen who know the subject which we are discussing realise that many of us are talking nonsense.
Mr. Shackleton: No.
Mr. de Freitas: It is a fact. I should like to contrast, on the one hand, the speeches of hon. Members of the Select Committee, who spent many months studying the R.A.F. and were speaking on matters of which they had direct knowledge, and the maiden speech of the hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Woollam), who came to the House straight from the Service, with, on the other hand, the many speeches which we heard in the Service and defence debates by hon. Members who had all the qualities necessary except that they were just out of touch.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) protested
812
at what I said, but he does his Reserve service and keeps more in touch. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley keeps in touch, but it requires a tremendous effort, which means that only a few hon. Members are in a position to do it. I think one day we shall have to consider the idea of having a standing defence committee.
All parties are committed to the great deterrent, and it is our duty to see that the great deterrent leads us to peace. For the first time in the history of mankind we have reached a stage at which the threat of appalling devastation is so great that there can be no victory in war. The statesmen realise it. The people realise it. I do not believe that the human race will commit suicide.
1.34 a.m.
Mr. Ward: I willingly accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) that I should try to confine what will be a brief speech to the questions raised by those hon. Members who are still here.
Let me start with the thoughtful and scrupulously fair speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), who began with a request for more information. As far as I remember, I used to start my speeches with the same request. I am not changing, but I say that I think that over the last three years I have given the House more information than I ever got from the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was Secretary of State.
Mr. A. Henderson: I think the Under-Secretary had better look at the Estimates speech for 1951. It is true that I only gave percentages, but he could work it out. He let the cat out of the bag because he said that at one time the Air Force was down to 1,000 front-line planes. I gave figures showing what there were when I left.
Mr. Ward: I am going to give some percentages. I believe that some of the information which has emerged recently in Questions and speeches would have been considered, only a few years ago, impossible to divulge in the House. What I can say is that in the last three years the number of fighters in the front line has increased by 35 per cent. and that

813
the night fighter element increased by 170 per cent. The bomb-carrying capacity of Bomber Command is more than 25 per cent. greater than it was a year ago. Two years ago only 20 per cent. of Bomber Command machines were jets. Now, nearly all of them are. Perhaps that gives the right hon. and learned Gentleman something to think about.
I can assure the House that I will give all the information that I possibly can within the bounds of security, and that I will take the House into my confidence as much as I can. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about the Washington, and said that it was a mistake to abandon it. Obviously, when the Canberra force was coming in we had to make room for it. Otherwise we would have been in great difficulty with airfields. We decided that on the whole it was better to replace the Washington squadrons rather than the Lincolns, for logistic and other reasons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about co-operation with the United States. We have complete co-operation in research, and so on, with the Americans in all fields of defence, except the atomic or nuclear. Certainly we will take into account what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. We realise its importance; but there are, as he knows, practical and legislative difficulties. Nevertheless, apart from co-operation in research on development and production problems, Her Majesty's Government still feel that, for reasons given by the Prime Minister and repeated by the Minister of Defence, we ought to have our independent forces of bombers and of bombs.
I was asked about the early warning system, and particularly about that on the Continent. I can say that the operation centres in this country are linked with similar centres on the Continent, and that those links are being extended and strengthened. We are giving them high priority. On the question of the Gnat, I have said, in answer to a question that we are interested in its development, but the first prototype has not flown. We shall have to evaluate it carefully.
Mr. Henderson: Is it supersonic?
Mr. Ward: I hope it will be supersonic. As regards Auxiliary squadrons, we will keep their future under close review. Presumably the right hon. and
814
learned Gentleman, in advocating the Gnat for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, would regard it as a fighter to meet the nuclear threat. It was precisely for these reasons that we were forced slightly to modify the organisation of the Auxiliary Air Force. We felt that it could not be immediately ready to meet the need. That is the difficulty there. With regard to the P 1, the aircraft is going very well; and in regard to the supersonic night fighter, there is development of the Javelin, which I mentioned this afternoon. A development batch of 18 is in hand. They will be capable of supersonic flight. Research is proceeding on the long range rocket, which was a point also raised by the hon. Member for Lincoln.
I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) that both automatic pilots and blind flying instruments are in process of development for helicopters and we shall get them as soon as we reach a more advanced stage. It is likely that we shall get the automatic pilots rather in advance of the blind flying instruments. My hon. and gallant Friend also asked about procurement and particularly about co-operation between the manufacturer and the user. In answer to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) I said that now we have R.A.F. teams in manufacturers' factories working closely with them and watching the development of new aircraft through all stages. He also asked about the servicing of the V bomber force. The first and second line servicing will be done by the R.AF., major repairs by industry, and we shall of course make use as much as possible of contractors' working parties.
I must admit that I was very disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I have heard him speak a great deal in this House, and he is no mean debater. I know he has a very genuine affection for the Services, and generally his speeches are helpful. His one aim is to try to help the Services. Therefore, I feel he did himself less than justice today in the speech he made. It is so strange because he leaps to the defence of the Air Force when aspersions are being cast upon it by an hon. Member on his side of the House. Yet he produced this curious attack on the R.A.F. with no truth in it at all.
Mr. Wigg: The last thing I want to do is to attack the R.A.F.; what I want is to improve its equipment. As I hope the hon. Gentleman will admit, I did drag out of the Government that I was right about F86D and the Minister of Supply was wrong.
Mr. Ward: I am speaking about the allegation about the firing of the night fighter's guns. I have since had an opportunity of checking with the commander of a NF11 Squadron and he assured me that he has never heard of such a thing and there is no reason why a Meteor should not be capable of firing its guns at all speeds. I wish the hon. Member would not do things like that. It does immense harm when it hits the headlines here and overseas, and it is very unfair to the pilots flying these aircraft.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) spoke mainly about manpower problems, and I have very little to add to what I said in reply to the debate on the Amendment earlier tonight. During that speech I did announce the new Committee which is going very carefully into our methods of servicing repair and maintenance. In addition, we are always very carefully watching the position and trying to save manpower wherever we can either by civilianisation or in other ways.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) suggested we should make greater efforts to ensure that tactical doctrines evolved in commands at home should be made known to commands abroad and suggested we should strengthen the operations staff at the Ministry. I am glad to say that we have just appointed an additional director of operations, and we now have separate directors of operations dealing with bomber operations, air defence, tactical operations and transport, and maritime operations.
He also mentioned the termination of Reserve liability of officers on the Emergency List at the age of 45. This policy is not peculiar to the R.A.F.; it applies to the other two Services as well, and is in accordance with the Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves Act, 1954. The officers concerned are those appointed to emergency commissions during the war, or who were transferred to the Reserve from short service commissions. It is clearly only fair that some limit should
816
be put upon their liability for recall and their places taken by younger men; but if any are willing voluntarily to join the R.A.F.V.R. we are only too glad to have them.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) referred to the decision announced by my noble Friend in his Memorandum that we should not be justified, in present circumstances, in undertaking the development of the new military flying boat. I well realise his feelings, and I can assure him that the House is not the only place where great affection for the flying boat is still felt, but we have to face the hard facts of a very difficult situation. We have to balance competing claims upon resources which are not big enough to provide for all the tasks which, ideally, we should like to undertake. On balance of priorities we have been forced to the conclusion that in a nuclear war there would be few tasks which only a flying boat could perform, and that we cannot afford to develop a new military flying boat. But for some time to come we shall have Sunderlands in service.
That is not to say that it need necessarily be the end of flying boat research. On the contrary, I understand that Saunders-Roe are themselves carrying on quite a lot of flying boat research, which I welcome and applaud. Nor does it mean that there need be an end to flying boat facilities and the demand for flying boats for export to other countries.
Sir P. Macdonald: I hear from the same firm that unless they get orders for flying boats in the not too far distant future, and unless somebody takes an interest in flying boat development in this country, the people they have employed upon research and development for all these years will not be available when we want them. Therefore, something must be done about research and development now.
Mr. Ward: I appreciate the difficulty, but I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is difficult enough to find the money for the things we must have in order to meet the nuclear threat, and we simply cannot afford to spend money upon anything which is not absolutely essential.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams)

817
spoke of the need for greater mobility of the strategic Reserve. I quite agree, and I did comment upon it briefly in my opening speech. I said that we had it very much in mind and were strengthening Transport Command by the addition of the Comet, and also that new aircraft were coming in in the civil field. Then there is the experiment which we are carrying out with helicopters, for the greater mobility of the Army.
My hon. Friend said that we were trying to build too many types of aircraft, but we must have insurance. It would be no good concentrating upon one type and then finding that it was not what we wanted; in other words, having to abandon it as we did the early marks of the Swift, and having nothing in its place. It was very fortunate indeed that we had such a good aeroplane in the Hunter, when it was found that we could not continue with the Swift.
I hope the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will not expect me to follow him either about the sheld-duck or "The Mint," or in his own particular ideas about strategic plans. I would make this one point to him. He spoke of guilty men. My recollection is that the guilty men were appeasers, not ones who wanted to arm themselves and be strong. I think the hon. Member should be careful, when he speaks of guilty men, to make sure of what he means.
The hon. Member for Lincoln spoke of security, and I am all for it—[Laughter]—as everybody knows. I find it extremely irritating, when I do my best to observe security, and try to keep my wicket intact at Question time, to avoid breaches of security, only to find that other people prattle in bars and elsewhere. It is extremely irritating, and certainly we shall do everything we possibly can to stop that wherever we find it.
He spoke, too, of a standing committee on defence. This is a wide subject that we could discuss for a long time, and I do not want to go into it in detail now. I would say this to the hon. Member. Let us avoid duplication, not only of the work of the Service Departments, but also of this House. I think that that committee would mean a great deal of duplication. We have already the Select Committee on Estimates, and it does a magnificent job,
818
and it is at liberty to look into any aspect of our defence affairs when it wishes. Whichever party is in power, and it could be any party at any time, it would be intolerable for a Minister of Defence or for any of the Service Ministers to have people looking over their shoulders the whole time when they are making their plans, and to feel, every time they have a new idea, that they ought to discuss it with them. The hon. Member has himself been a Service Minister, and I think he must agree with me on this.
Service Ministers should try to take the House into their confidence so far as they possibly can, and I hope that while I have had the honour of being at the Air Ministry I have done so. It is not easy to do so without breach of security, and one can never be quite sure, when one has a swift ball played, that one may not go too far when knocking it back. However, I have tried to take the House into my confidence and shall certainly continue to do so.
I thank hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House for their kindness and patience, and for the extremely helpful and useful debate we have had tonight.
Question put, and agreed to.
Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1955–56

  VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE
  Resolved,
  That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 272,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956.
  To report Resolution and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
  Report to be received this day; Committee to sit again this day.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock a.m.

EDUCATION
  G.C.E. (Secondary Modern Pupils)
  G.C.E. (Secondary Modern Pupils)
  Short Courses for Teachers (Applications)
  Short Courses for Teachers (Applications)
  Science Teaching
  Science Teaching
  School Building Programme, Plymouth
  School Building Programme, Plymouth
  External Examinations
  External Examinations
  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (ENTERTAINMENT FUNDS)
  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (ENTERTAINMENT FUNDS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Portsmouth
  Portsmouth
  Monopolies Commission
  Monopolies Commission
  Hire Purchase (Residential Caravans)
  Hire Purchase (Residential Caravans)
  Woollen Gloves and Linings
  Woollen Gloves and Linings
  Industrial Building Schemes (Development Areas)
  Industrial Building Schemes (Development Areas)
  Yarns and Fabrics (Imports from India)
  Yarns and Fabrics (Imports from India)
  Anglo-Swiss Trade
  Anglo-Swiss Trade
  German Exporters (Tax Remission)
  German Exporters (Tax Remission)
  FORESTRY COMMISSION (BUILDING SITES)
  FORESTRY COMMISSION (BUILDING SITES)
AGRICULTURE
  Machinery (Accidents)
  Machinery (Accidents)
  Wool (Price Guarantee)
  Wool (Price Guarantee)
  Food Subsidies
  Food Subsidies
  Virus Pneumonia (Research)
  Virus Pneumonia (Research)
  SEA DEFENCES, CHAPEL ST. LEONARDS
  SEA DEFENCES, CHAPEL ST. LEONARDS
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Dr. Pontecorvo (British Citizenship)
  Dr. Pontecorvo (British Citizenship)
  Naturalisation (Crown Services)
  Naturalisation (Crown Services)
  Mrs. Anna Kraumann (Visa)
  Mrs. Anna Kraumann (Visa)
  Protection of Birds (Advisory Committee Membership)
  Protection of Birds (Advisory Committee Membership)
  SERVICE OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY)
  SERVICE OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY)
  FUEL OFFICE, BATLEY
  FUEL OFFICE, BATLEY
  EMPLOYMENT (PLYMOUTH AND DEVONPORT)
  EMPLOYMENT (PLYMOUTH AND DEVONPORT)
  B.B.C. OVERSEAS SERVICES (MEMBERS' BROADCASTS)
  B.B.C. OVERSEAS SERVICES (MEMBERS' BROADCASTS)
EAST AFRICA
  Civil Servants (Political Organisations)
  Civil Servants (Political Organisations)
  Africans, Kenya (Capital Offences)
  Africans, Kenya (Capital Offences)
SCOTLAND
  Farm Land (Local Authority Housing Sites)
  Farm Land (Local Authority Housing Sites)
  Farm Roads
  Farm Roads
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (FACTORY, BELLSHILL)
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (FACTORY, BELLSHILL)
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  AGRICULTURE: ANNUAL REVIEW
  3.5 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Government the following Question, of which I have given private notice: Whether they have a statement to make about the Annual Review of the economic conditions and prospects of the agricultural industry.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, my right honourable friend will be making a statement shortly in another place, and noble Lords would not wish me to anticipate his remarks. With the permission of the House, therefore, I will interrupt the proceedings a little later in the afternoon and will make a statement then.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, before we resume the debate, I should like to ask your Lordships' leave to make an announcement on Business for next Monday and Tuesday, when the Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill will be taken. There is so much work before us on this stage that it will be necessary to ask the House to sit late on Monday night next. A dinner adjournment will be taken between seven and eight-fifteen p.m. The Report stage should be completed on the next day, Tuesday. Whether or not we shall ask your Lordships to sit late on that night also will, of course, depend upon the progress made on Monday.
CHATHAM INTRA CHARITY OF RICHARD WATTS AND OTHER CHARITIES BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR
3.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the revelations recently made both in this country and in the United States as to the treatment of prisoners of war in Korea, whether consideration will be given to taking steps to insert in Part I of the Geneva Convention, which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war, or in some other appropriate place, words to the effect that "Prisoners of war are not 'war criminals' and cannot therefore be punished by the enemy as such." The noble and gallant Earl said: My Lords, I am under no illusion why there is a fairly full House. I have been told, though in a courteous manner, to be quick and get out of the way. I shall endeavour to comply with the wish of the House. When I have asked my Question I hope to be told that all my fear is groundless and that the leak to which I shall refer has already been stopped. When I asked a Question recently on the same topic, I was told by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of altering anything in the Geneva Convention of 1949. I have not the slightest intention of attacking that Convention, because I believe it provides everything that can be required; but there is a loophole which would enable an unscrupulous enemy to get round its provisions although he was an adherent to the Convention.
Her Majesty's Government have recently issued a pamphlet called Treatment of Prisoners of War in Korea. Though moderately worded, the pamphlet leaves no doubt as to the terrible conditions under which many of our men had to exist during the recent war in Korea. Probably most noble Lords will have read that pamphlet. The details given in it are not new. In 1952, General MacArthur appointed a Commission to go into the question of war crimes in Korea, and their Interim Report, published in June, 1953, was illustrated by photographs taken on the spot which leave no doubt that the Chinese and North Koreans resorted to mass killing of prisoners as well as individual executions, and that prisoners were brutally treated and mutilated when they were either dead

905
or dying. No medical attention was given to their wounds, and starvation was rife.
Besides this Report, several books have been published. I have read only two of them, written by unimpeachable witnesses, one being Captain Farrar-Hockley, the adjutant of the Gloucester Regiment at the Imjin River, and the other the chaplain of the same battalion, the Reverend C. J. Davies, who is quoted in the Government pamphlet. These two officers were captured together, were separated for some time and then, in rather peculiar circumstances, found themselves neighbours in prison cells. These cells measured 6 feet by 3 feet by 3 feet—the size of an average bath. They had been built for prisoners condemned to solitary confinement. We read of a private in the Gloucester Regiment who had been confined in one of these cells for six months. In a cell on the other side of the Reverend C. J. Davies was a young American air corporal who had been there many weeks for denying that he had taken part in germ warfare. These cells were filthy and crawling with lice. No water or washing was allowed, and in some cases even men with dysentery were not allowed to leave those cells for three or four days in succession. Some of the guards thought it rather a good joke.
In November last the Secretary of State for War announced in the other place that 100 of our officers and men who had been reported as missing in Korea, and who had not been subsequently accounted for, were to be considered as dead. Dead, no doubt—rotted to death in those horrible holes. It may be said with truth that every rule that is laid down in the 1949 Convention for Prisoners of War was not only broken, but broken cruelly and brutally in every way. Yet the Chinese Government claim to have adhered to that Convention and to be supporters of it. How can that be explained? It is explained in the Government pamphlet very simply. It is explained that the Chinese Government held that prisoners of war who had been convicted as war criminals should not be allowed to benefit by the terms of the Convention, and it is added that the Soviet and other Communist Powers support that view. This gives us a very sinister outlook for the future.
The Chinese consider that the war in Korea is a war of aggression, and, owing to the unfortunate decision, or want of decision, when the General Assembly of the United Nations incorporated some of the principles of the Charter of Nuremberg into International Law, a new crime was introduced—that of taking part in a war of aggression. The guilt in that connection is collective or individual. A man cannot escape. He is either one of a group or he has committed the crime himself. As I say, he cannot escape. I believe—no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that the word "aggression" in that context has never yet been satisfactorily defined, and that many international lawyers of repute have put forward definitions with no success; so it is not clear what is meant by the word "aggression". The Chinese have interpreted the word in such a way that they look upon every person who lands in Korea and in any way furthers the war effort of the United Nations there as a war criminal. They say that the United Nations is an aggressor; therefore anyone who takes part in that war is a war criminal and is liable to death. That view has been put forward very often.
Captain Farrar-Hockley was taken before three colonels for interrogation. The proceedings were opened by the senior colonel saying to him: "You are a war criminal; you have no other status but that of a criminal; it is only due to our mercy that you are alive." What he went through afterwards as the result of that interrogation has to be read to be believed. Intermittently for days he was tortured, half-drowned, flogged and kicked. He came out alive because he was a courageous, and a brave man. We acquiesced in its being laid down that every one taking part in a war of aggression was collectively and individually a war criminal, and so long as that holds it is a very poor look out for the future, particularly in respect of the war for which we are supposed to be preparing. The rule, or whatever it may be called, may have been very necessary and useful at the time when the Convention was drawn up. No one questions that. But, surely it is hopelessly out of date and we should do what we can to have it altered, so that in the future we shall not run the risk that our men will be subjected to such infernal treatment as they have suffered in the last few years.
What chance has the individual now got? Can you imagine that an individual of a battalion from Hong Kong, or of a ship's company diverted from some distant ocean, or of an air squadron sent as reinforcements to Korea, will be able to determine whether the orders he is acting under are legal or not? And what option has such a man got? None at all. Some noble Lords may say, "What is the good of putting these Questions down? It does not really matter what is laid down; if the Chinese want to break it they will do so." I do not think that that is quite borne out. The Chinese are not entirely impervious to world opinion outside their own country. They have frequently mentioned the Geneva Convention, and they have suggested that their actions were justified by it.
As your Lordships will remember, there was at one period no protecting Power, and the Red Cross for some time were not allowed to send their officials to visit prisoner of war camps when there was any question concerning the treatment which was being given to these prisoners, and their condition generally. Undoubtedly the fear that inspectors would find out how matters really stood was a potent factor in improving conditions in camps elsewhere. When discussions for an armistice in Korea were begun there was a change, and Red Cross officials were allowed to visit selected camps. Conditions then became better. I suggest that if something on the lines which I have suggested were inserted in the Geneva Convention, it would greatly strengthen the hands of the senior officer of any prisoner of war camp when he had to represent to the enemy authorities the desires, wishes and necessities of the prisoners who were in that camp. He could then point to these words, and so maintain that the prisoners were not war criminals and ought not to be treated as such. The senior officer, in those circumstances, would have some standing, and the uneducated are always impressed by something in print.
There is said to be a silver lining to every cloud, and in this case surely it is the bravery, the steadfast courage and the loyalty of our men when they were prisoners of war in the hands of these infernal torturers. Two typical cases are given in the Government publication. One is of a second lieutenant who sent his
908
men to safety and said he could not go himself and must remain because, as he said, "I am an officer." That boy was only a very short time out of Sandhurst. The other was of a young private of the Northumberland Regiment who defied his captors all through and, as the official announcement said, was an inspiration to everybody of all ranks who met him. One of his offences was that he insisted on wearing a buttonhole on Coronation Day. One cannot read this account of what went on in Korea without noticing, particularly in the Gloucestershire Regiment, of which there were a large number of prisoners of war, how matters always came back to the senior noncommissioned officers. Their conduct appears to have been magnificent, as one would expect. And when I am talking about non-commissioned officers, I include the chief petty officers and petty officers of the Royal Navy, to whom I owe what success I have had in life. It is not always recognised that they are of the greatest value to the country and they should be much more recognised than they are.
If others will not go with us, surely we could try out a line of our own and say definitely that we will not tolerate the conviction or punishment of any subject of Her Majesty the Queen, of whatever creed or colour, unless he has been convicted after a proper trial on his own actions and taking into account the circumstances in which he was placed. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I hope that I may be able to make this matter clear in a few words. The matter to which the noble and gallant Earl has drawn attention is already covered by the 1949 Prisoners of War Convention. A prisoner of war may, in accordance with Article 99 of that Convention, be tried and sentenced for an act which is for-bidden by International Law. This, however, is subject to the safeguards that the act must have been forbidden at the time when it was committed and that there must be a fair trial in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. Therefore, if a prisoner of war has committed a war crime recognised by International Law, he may be tried and, if convicted,

909
be punished; but a prisoner of war is not, as such, a "war criminal." Thus the action taken by the Chinese in the Korean war to brand British prisoners of war as "war criminals" without proper trial, and to subject them, in consequence, to appallingly bad treatment, is entirely contrary to the 1949 Prisoners of War Convention as it stands at present.
Her Majesty's Government entirely share the feelings of indignation to which the noble and gallant Earl has given expression, and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to-day of making this absolutely clear, and also of making clear the profound admiration which we must all feel for the conduct of British prisoners of war during their captivity.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, it would obviously be wrong to pursue this matter further now, but is the noble Lord who has answered for the Government aware that many of us are deeply impressed by what the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, has said? It would be unfortunate if, because of procedure in your Lordships' House, the impression were given that this is a matter in which we are not interested. Some of us may want to revert to it at a later date to ask what action it is proposed to take. After all, the Government published this document and they are still in diplomatic relations with the Chinese Government.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
3.27 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order), on the Motion moved yesterday by Viscount Samuel, That there be laid before the House Papers in regard to the proposals for the reform of the House of Lords which the representatives of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties in both Houses unanimously agreed, at the Conference of 1948, might have been the basis for further consideration in detail, with a view to their submission to their respective Parties, had it been possible to achieve general agreement over the whole field of powers and composition; those proposals being as follows:

(1) The Second Chamber should be complementary to, and not a rival to, the Lower House, and, with this end in view, the reform of the House of Lords should be based on a modification of its existing constitution as
910
opposed to the establishment of a Second Chamber of a completely new type based on some system of election.

(2) The revised constitution of the House of Lords should be such as to secure as far as practicable that a permanent majority is not assured for any one political party.

(3) The present right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not by itself constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber.

(4) Members of the Second Chamber should be styled "Lords of Parliament" and would be appointed on grounds of personal distinction or public service, They might be drawn either from hereditary Peers, or from commoners who would be created life Peers.

(5) Women should be capable of being appointed Lords of Parliament in like manner as men.

(6) Provision should be made for the inclusion in the Second Chamber of certain descendants of the Sovereign, certain Lords Spiritual and the Law Lords.

(7) In order that persons without private means should not be excluded, some remuneration would be payable to members of the Second Chamber.

(8) Peers, who were not Lords of Parliament, should be entitled to stand for election to the House of Commons, and also to vote at elections in the same manner as other citizens.

(9) Some provision should be made for the disqualification of a member of the Second Chamber who neglects, or becomes no longer able or fitted, to perform his duties as such: (Cmd. 7380).

LORD LAYTON: My Lords, I do not think anybody who has listened to what has passed in your Lordships' House during the last half-hour can fail to feel satisfaction at the reply given by the noble Lord on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and also to hope most sincerely that it will be followed by action. The last time I spoke to your Lordships on a subject of general political principle, some nine months ago, I found myself, unhappily, in opposition to my noble friend and leader Lord Samuel. I am extremely happy to say that on this occasion I find myself wholeheartedly and enthusiastically on his side. I think he has every reason to be satisfied, with qualifications, with yesterday's debate. His own speech was a physical and intellectual triumph, and it must have been still more pleasing to him that it marked a step forward in this difficult subject on which he has spent so much time and on which he has been so persistent.
It is true that the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition, in

911
reporting the canvass he made of opinion in the Labour Party—a sort of personal Gallup Poll—expressed an opinion that was a disappointment after the statement he made in January. On the other hand, the Government position has been clarified, and I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for making the position clear, point by point, on the statement in the Conference Report. I think my noble friend must also feel satisfaction at the substantial measure of agreement shown in the House on the subject which he brought forward.
Let me elaborate that slightly. On the need of a Second Chamber, I think there was almost entire unanimity in this House. But that only gave rise to the question of whether the House, with its present composition, is able to carry out efficiently and adequately the functions that fall to it, or whether some Amendment or adaptation of its composition is necessary. I think it will be agreed by those who followed the debate carefully that, in spite of the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and of other points that were made, the balance of opinion was clearly, with various degrees of enthusiasm—or lack of enthusiasm, shall I say?—that some amendment or evolution is necessary. Further, there was a degree of common opinion on certain principles of amendment, though not on details. Moreover, the agreement on these points extends to part, at all events, of the Labour Party. The statement of the Leader of the Opposition, to which I have referred, contains certain references indicating that a number of people agree in substance on that general approach. I think it would be true to say, too, that the speeches from the Labour Benches, on the whole, would not be noticeably different from the general body of opinion expressed in this House yesterday.
It is also true that one of the leaders of the Labour Party, Mr. Herbert Morrison, has comparatively recently published a book on the subject of the working of the Constitution, including a whole chapter on the subject of the House of Lords, its functioning and its composition. He has written an article on it, in the course of which he says this:
"With regard to changes in the composition of the House, I adhere in general to the views
912
expressed by the Party Leaders in the Report of the all-Party Conference published in 1948."
That is a comparatively recent statement from Mr. Herbert Morrison. It seems to me that the formula which he uses is extremely close, so far as he personally is concerned, at all events, to that used by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in describing that Conference yesterday. But on the Labour side, and to some extent in other quarters of the House, I sensed a sort of feeling that, after all, this question does not really matter very much. I want to say, with the greatest force that I can, that in my opinion it matters very much indeed.
I should like to deal now with those three general concepts. The case for a Second Chamber rests partly on practical considerations of the working of the Constitution, and partly on political considerations. On the practical side, there will be no difference of opinion in expressing the case for a Second Chamber—it was referred to by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, yesterday: the great increase in the work of Government and of legislation; a tendency from time to time of blocking the channels; a Second Chamber, and a sort of division of labour, as it were, between the working of the legislative machine between the democratic Chamber, where political considerations are necessarily dominant, and a Chamber where political considerations are much less dominant. Expertise and calmer consideration, if necessary, should, and does, produce better results than single-Chamber Government. On that side, if there were not two Chambers, we should be forced to something like a massive devolution in the work of legislation and government as the only possible alternative. Many suggestions have been made in that direction from time to time. When I think not merely of Britain's domestic problems, but also of foreign affairs and the affairs of the Commonwealth, it seems clear that if it were not for the existence of a Second Chamber, we should require a radical alteration in the whole constitution of the House of Commons and of the legislative apparatus generally.
But there is also a political consideration. If a Second Chamber—certainly in this country, but I think this applies to others, too—can command the approval

913
and support of the nation, it may make good some of the deficiencies and help to ward against some of the dangers of a democratic Constitution. Let me say at once that it is not a disservice to the cause of democracy to say that there are such dangers and deficiencies. I am not saying that I want to put a brake on the wheel of progress, but it has been my lot to watch constitutional affairs on the Continent and elsewhere in recent years, and I feel that anybody who has done that cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that it is extremely important to watch the apparatus and the working of the constitutional machine.
Democracy is up against, and is being measured against, totalitarianism. Is it really efficient? There is no more important problem today than to keep our constitutional practice right up to date and to see that it works well and smoothly. I need not give illustrations, which will occur to almost everybody at once. We have seen what difficulty and trouble occurs to our French neighbours across the Channel from the constitutional point of view; and we have seen the problems that arise in the United States of America. I do not pretend that "McCarthyism" is due to flaws in the Constitution of the United States, but its magnification, and the way the problems of "McCarthyism" were spread, were not by any means entirely detached from the methods and practice of the Constitution. There is tremendous importance in seeing that these constitutional things are rightly worked.
This need to watch carefully applies in this country, too. Many of your Lordships will have recently read a book about the working of the Party system in this country. This is not a debate about the Party system, but few of us would doubt that the Party machines are tending to become possibly dangerously rigid, and that is something that must be carefully watched. The mover of the Motion pointed out that, for the first time, the Independent Members of the House of Commons have completely disappeared. The voting system of to-day might easily at the next General Election produce a Government dependent on a minority of votes in this country.
EARL JOWITT: The present one is, is it not?
LORD LAYTON: Where there are three Parties there is a different system, and it rarely happens that the actual Government concerned have a majority vote. That has certainly been so in the past. On one occasion when the Government were elected on a minority vote the Prime Minister, in his first speech in the House of Commons, said he realised that he had got a trust of a different kind from that which fell ordinarily to Prime Ministers and, because of that fact, he would not do this, that and the other. But it is a problem. It may well be that a Second Chamber helps to maintain a platform for independent points of view, or minority points of view; and as I say, might also help to make good some of the deficiencies and flaws that may arise under the Constitution. It was pointed out yesterday that, to a large extent, the hereditary Peers in this House do represent an independent point of view. Certainly they do, and the prestige of this House is largely due to that fact. At the same time, without any question it also produces a politically biased point of view and an overwhelming weight on one side. I think the reform of the constitution of this House could produce a Chamber which would provide a platform for many at present unrepresented elements in the community without permanently weighting the scales in one direction.
I now come to the further point of whether changes on the lines of the proposals mentioned on the Order Paper would make this Chamber more efficient and effective in carrying out the necessary duties of a Second Chamber. The speech, made yesterday by the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition certainly implied that in the Labour Party it is presumed and assumed that reform would greatly increase the prestige of this House—indeed, it is for that reason that some channels of opinion in the Labour Party go on to assume that, because of that increased prestige, there is a danger of an attempt to increase powers, which is something the Labour Party would oppose. I think it must be admitted that a reform, a modification or an evolution, whichever word you wish to use, in the composition of this House, would undoubtedly increase the prestige of the House. The decisive answer to the question, however, was given by the Leader of the House in reply

915
to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he spoke of the difficulties in running the House on present lines. It is as clear as it can be that as things are at present, those difficulties will necessarily increase. The refusal of so many people to accept a Peerage for economic reasons means that it is not possible, as things are at present, to get the right selection of Peers into this House. The levelling of incomes, the equalitarian trend of the whole of the community, means that very few people are free and at leisure to do the increasing work which ought to be thrown on an effective Second Chamber. The problem of the Leader of the House will inevitably get worse and worse.
As I said, the comments of the noble Marquess yesterday on the nine points of principle, though not of detail, clarified the position. This is not the occasion to go over them, because they have been discussed at great length before, but it is clear that they must include the following points. First, there must be the creation of a number of Life Peers on a carefully planned basis, designed to give a correct balance and also to maintain and develop the independent and expert characteristics of this Chamber. Secondly, there must be a considerable reduction in the number of hereditary Peers who sit in this House, whether there is abolition of the right of inheritance or not, because it is, I think, recognised that we shall get a hopeless situation if we have the continuous creation of Peers and retain the right of everybody to sit in the House.
Some arguments were given yesterday against the hereditary right to sit in the House as an absolute right. The attitude of this House is one thing, and the attitude in the country is another. It is well that we should consider opinion outside this House. Now the only evidence I have on that point is not immediately recent; it is about five or six years old; but I do not think there is any reason to suppose that the opinion of the country as a whole has changed very much since then. The only time since the war that a Gallup Poll has been taken on these issues—polls have been taken on many questions relating to the composition of the House of Lords, but only once, I think, on this specific point—was when the question was asked: "The sons of Peers inherit the right to sit in the House
916
of Lords. Do you think this should be retained, or should it be abolished? "The voting was 26 per cent. for it to be retained, 56 per cent. against retaining the right, and 18 per cent. "Do not know."
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Would the noble Lord give that last figure again?
LORD LAYTON: 26 per cent. for retaining the right, 56 per cent. for abolishing it, and 18 per cent. "Do not know," or gave no specific answer.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That does not add up to 100—I beg your pardon; it does.
LORD LAYTON: I would not compete with a banker, but I think 26, 56 and 18 make 100. In any case, even if it did not add up, there is no doubt at all that the proportion—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry, but did the noble Lord not say 26, 56 and 18?
LORD LAYTON: Perhaps I have not allowed for the discount! In any case, it is clear that the figures are so large that they show an overwhelming proportion—more than two to one—against the right of inheritance. I quoted those figures merely as indicating that opinion in the country does not attach great prestige to the fact of heredity in this connection. The third point is that, for the present at all events, the numbers should not be fixed. May I at this point make a brief comment on one other suggestion that was made more than once yesterday, and that is as regards possible inclusion among Life Peers of Members from the Colonial or Commonwealth areas? I should like to make only this comment: that we must be very careful in applying that proposition. It would be a great mistake to let it be thought in general terms that this was the opening of the door to a system under which we should have a great Senate of the Commonwealth, because that is really not in the picture. A great deal is to be said for the proposition that this House should have the benefit of such experience, but if it is done it must be done on the individual and personal basis, and not on any basis of representation.
Coming to one further point about the proposals, I would add that we should

917
not attempt at this stage, whatever the formula adopted, to try and get a new constitutional shape for the House of Lords in a final form. Having regard to the background history and all that has been said about evolution, I am certain that we must do this by trial and error, and move, as we have always moved, by degrees. But we do need substantial changes if the Howe is to be put into a condition where it does what is really needed. Substantial changes in the practical work of the House are needed at this stage in order to maintain and increase the prestige of the House in the country and to remove the bias that is felt about it from the Left.
To sum up, I do not think that the continuation of the House of Lords without readaptation is a possibility that is open to us—not, at all events, if we are thinking of taking a long view. The choice is between a single Chamber—which I think most of us reject—and evolutionary changes in this historic institution of which we are all proud members. The matter is urgent, for the reasons I have given. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to suggest that, while he was sympathetic, this was not a good time to do it. There is no great crisis at the moment, he suggested, between the two Houses. That is perfectly true, bat I submit that the improvement of our political institutions, both in theory and in practice, and their firm hold on the hearts and minds of the people are of supreme importance. That involves an evolution, a change. The right time to mend holes in the roof is on a dry day when the sun is shining, not to wait until the storm is pouring through the holes. The noble Marquess who leads the House asks for collaboration in helping to solve what is inevitably a complicated and difficult question. I am sure that at least the Liberal Party will respond to his invitation.

AGRICULTURE: ANNUAL REVIEW
3.52 p.m.
EARL. ST.ALDWYN: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will interrupt this debate to answer the Private Notice Question of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The statutory Annual Review of the economic conditions and prospects of t he agricultural industry in the United Kingdom has been concluded. The Government have made their determinations on the guarantees to the industry in the light of the Review. These are set out in a White Paper which is now available. The general production policy of the Government is unchanged. The main objectives of policy continue to be to foster a high level of net output by encouraging the production of beef, mutton and lamb and the production and use of home-grown feedingstuffs. It is necessary to avoid stimulating further the production of pigs.
The condition of the industry has been adversely affected this year by the particularly bad weather. There has also been a substantial net increase in costs. The actual farm net income for 1954–55 is forecast at £280 million, as compared with the final figure of £320½ million for the previous year, though on a normal weather basis the forecasts are £312 million for this year and £306½ million for last year. Net output is estimated at 53 per cent. above pre-war, as compared with 55 per cent. a year ago. I am sure the House will join with me in paying a tribute to the determination, hard work and skill of the industry, but for which a greater decline could have been expected.
These circumstances, with the other factors to be taken into account, have been fully considered by the Government in determining the changes to be made in the price guarantees and in the production grants. The net effect of the determinations is to increase the total value of the guarantees in a full year by £28 million. The Government regard this increase as necessary to give the industry the stability and resources that it needs in present circumstances, if it is to play its full part in meeting the requirements of the national economy. It has been decided to increase the price guarantees for fat cattle, fat sheep, and lambs, milk and eggs for 1955–56, and for coarse grains, potatoes and sugar

919
beet of the 1956 harvest; to increase the calf subsidy, the lime and fertiliser subsidies and the ploughing grants, and to make a special payment on hill sheep; to reduce the price guarantee for pigs; and to leave unchanged the price guarantees for wool for 1955–56, and for wheat and rye of the 1956 harvest. The importance of minimising the cost to the Exchequer has been recognised by the reduction in pig prices. The increased production grants and cereal prices are designed to help reduce the strain on the balance of overseas payments by encouraging the production and use of home grown feedingstuffs.
The Government are confident that these determinations should substantially help the industry, in the face on this occasion of heavy increases in costs coupled with exceptionally bad weather, to maintain and indeed increase its net output and income.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for making this important statement. I am sure your Lordships will want no further interruption now of the debate for which most of your Lordships have come here this afternoon. I would merely express the hope that if, after we have studied the White Paper, we wish to discuss without delay this year's Price Review, the Government will help us to find the time.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
3.55 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, at the outset of this century I was sent as an unpaid attaché to our Embassy in Paris, and there the senior secretary passed in review the merits of the staff. He began with some kindly words about the Ambassador and the counsellors, and a few more for himself; and so he descended the ladder of eulogy, until at last the eyeglass rested on the least of God's creatures. He said, "We do not know much about the new boy yet but, with that solitary exception, we can say that there is not a fool among us." I should, naturally, not have complained if your Lordships had repeated at the end of my life the verdict of the beginning, but I think it only honest to add that,
920
on one occasion, having made a speech in this House, I left the Chamber behind two of your most affable Members, and I could not help hearing one say to the other, "The worst of Van, is that he always exaggerates." I do not exaggerate when I say that this happens to be the best Second Chamber in existence. Many of your Lordships may retort that it ought not to be, and I can only say: "Well, it is."
Would any noble Lord on the Right, for instance, care to vaunt the superior wisdom of the French Council of the Republic which may still have in store for us before the month is out an exhibition of fecklessness? Or would any of the noble Lords on the Left care to extol the greater virtues of the United States Senate, and so incur the wrath of Anglo-America-phobes? Or perhaps some Liberal would rate above us the German Bundestag without knowing much about it, because there is not much to be known, and one would find it rather difficult to locate any figures of distinction there. Or shall we all get together and shout. "Hooray for the Italian Senate!" when only this morning we find The Times carrying big headlines, "Members come to blows in Italian Senate"? Only three days ago there was another such exhibition. I am afraid that there is really no getting away from it.
Somewhere in The Compleat Angler there is a quotation to the effect that of course God could have made a better berry than the strawberry, but he just did not. I beg your Lordships to forgive me for speaking well of you, because I am sure that my remarks will be exceedingly unpopular in some quarters. At the same time, I am only too ready to meet your Lordships' wishes in any way, and to any length that your Lordships care to go, particularly as it will not greatly affect me. I am far past being three score years and ten, and I have no male issue. Moreover, I would gladly accept points (6), (7), (8) and (9) right off, and perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will care to know that I think there is no case at all for forcing our company on those who do not desire it.
There also seems to be an extremely strong case for admitting Peeresses in their own right. But the crux of the

921
matter is really point (4). There, I confess, my apprehensions have been very greatly enhanced by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, yesterday, for he went as far as to suggest that we should take into our midst (to use his own words) a considerable number, and not a mere handful, of people, white and coloured, from all over the Commonwealth. And he said that that would crown their careers. My Lords, that would not crown them, it would drown us. This House belongs to this country and I hope it will stay so.
This, to my mind, preposterous dilution—or the prospect of it—leads me to make a speech rather different from the one that I should otherwise have made. In a word, it leads me to suggest to your Lordships that, having, in effect, got the best possible Second Chamber in an admittedly imperfect world, you might well be cautious in changing it. The French are just as often right as wrong in their famous saving that "the better is the enemy of the good." Do your Lordships so urgently need changing? Why should we so often stand in the white shifts of sinners? Why is a dun horse called in French a "cheval Isobel"? It is because, long ago, a Queen Isobel wore her white shifts so long that they turned dun. We stand in no need of shirts or apologies, but every time a dun criticism turns up many of your Lordships rush into the garb of contrition; and there sit the Lords of haute couture politique, snipping the sackcloth and lowering the waist, and changing your shape from A to H, or even to Z, in many varieties of beige.
La Maison Samuel has kept you penitentially attired for over 40 years, since Mr. Asquith first said that the matter of reform "brooks no delay"—though Tennyson had told him that brooks "go on for ever." Of course, there has been a great and inevitable delay, because there is a great and inevitable abyss between theory and practice. If Mr. Asquith had had to be as good as his word (I hope that none of us will ever find himself in so painful a predicament), he would have had to create hundreds of Peers. Half of them would have been "duds"—and he knew it.
It seems only yesterday that my late and truly lamented friend John Simon came to your Lordships with a proposition
922
for creating ten Life Peers per annum, in addition to the ordinary run of the Honours List. I should have seen no objection at all to that proposal, though I think he would have run into considerable difficulties after about two or three batches. But the proposals now under discussion go a long way further than that, and contemplate an unspecified number of Lords and Ladies of Parliament, appointed on grounds of personal distinction. Into those grounds I will dig shortly, but in passing to them may I observe that this is an age of fairly bad manners and here, in your Lordships' House, at least there is a refuge for dignity and reticence. Some of you may think that they are pushed too far. I would dissent so long as there is any tendency for other Houses to turn into "rough houses." Moreover, this is the last resort of the Independents; and as one of them I naturally reproach the Commons for having eliminated us. I think that Independents and experts represent a solid stock which your Lordships would be unwise to sell out to reinvest in pure speculation. Moreover, I feel, since point (2) in this programme obviously contemplates the equation of the two main Parties, that in the long run, in the inevitable and clamorous ding-dong of Party manœuvres, we Independents would be again squeezed out—and that is a position against which I should naturally protest.
My Lords, there is another point. You all know Tucker—little Tommy who "sang for his slipper." Well, he has now grown up, and he would be one of the first of the new nominees, because they would feel obliged to speak, if not for their fees at least to justify their selection. You do not know how lucky you are that many of us do not feel this mechanised urge to loquacity, and, indeed, that some of us, myself included, never speak unless we have something to say and know jolly well what we are saying. It is also a profound error to think that these persons of great distinction are so easily obtainable. You would not think so if you had spent ten years of your life, as I have, in sitting on honours committees. You assume, with enormous levity, that we can always find what we want because there are 50 million of us. That is a pure delusion. You politicians are very kind, except to each other; and I have known many of

923
you honestly delighted when "good old Smith" gets a distinction. But, to my knowledge, many of you have never paused to think that "good old Smith" got it only because "good old Brown" was not at all so good, and "good old Jones" was no good at all.
Of course, you will not believe me, because "Van, always exaggerates." But you might perhaps convince yourselves by casting a glance at, say, the Order of Merit. Its members are limited to twenty-four, and within the whole of my official experience its membership was never full because the men were not there. The Order would have been even emptier if the rules had not been violated from the first, because they explicitly exclude politicians. My recollection is that Mr. Lloyd George was an early "gatecrasher," and so opened the way to other even more famous footfalls in the echoing corridors of fame. Your Lordships may say that that is not a fair example—that the standard is too high. I readily grant you that. So let us take another illustration of human limitation, which was much in your notice last week—I refer to the French Academy. There are only forty members, but the vacancies have to be filled—and filled they are, somehow, and sometimes with names unknown to the French public. In all my experience it has never been possible, in the whole of France, to muster forty living men of the standard required.
I have heard it said that this House is dull. Pray, why? It is not because mass creation so far excels procreation. It is not because the House is incompetent—no, sir! It is not because it is uninformed—no, sirree! It is because the House is powerless, or virtually powerless. Yet there is nothing in these proposals about any addition of powers—nor do I suggest any—and the only condition on which the Socialists will agree to any change of composition is that the House should continue completely powerless. As I say, I do not suggest a change; but what I do suggest very strongly is that the only justification for reforms that go quite so far as point (4) may carry you, is that there should be some modification of impotence. I conclude that you will be wise indeed to accept a large part of these proposals—the points that I have named. But if you
924
go the full length, I predict that you will end in disappointment and that this House will be flooded with the mediocrity of which point (4) takes no account whatever. Then I shall never be able to tell again the story with which I began this speech.
4.10 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the House has listened with great pleasure to the amusing speech of my noble friend. I shall not follow him in great detail. I confess I remain a little puzzled as to what he wants your Lordships to do. I understood at the beginning of his speech that he was an advocate of inaction.
LORD VANSITTART: I thought I had made clear that I accepted four of the eight points right away, and that there were two others to which I assented though perhaps not wholly. Six of eight is a considerable number. I have quarrelled only with the extent to which point (4) may apply.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): NO more than three questions need be attempted.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I certainly understood my noble friend to end his speech by indicating some degree of acceptance of the proposals, but I do not think he dealt with the argument for action on the same lines as those put forward by the noble Viscount opposite and by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House. I should like to begin by referring to the speech of my noble friend, Lord Elton, which I know all your Lordships thought was a particularly valuable contribution. I should like to thank him first for what I consider to be a wonderful phrase, "the reservoir of intermittent attendance" which describes in a few words one of the great virtues of your Lordships' House. I also greatly liked what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said about the hereditary principle. Added to that, in my recollection of yesterday's debate, is what the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, said regarding the hereditary principle:
"To my mind it is far more important than any individual example of personal or intellectual brilliance."
That is a profound saying; and after the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton,

925
and those of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the hereditary principle needs no further defence.
I will admit to the noble Lord, Lord Layton, that my arithmetic was temporarily defective. All I did was to carry one instead of two—a thing that might happen to anybody. My common sense tells me that a Gallup Poll presented in the form quoted by the noble Lord opposite is utterly valueless. My experience, and I am sure that of many noble Lords on this side of the House also, does not coincide with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, that the hereditary principle is not highly regarded in this country. I believe it is, even among members of the Party opposite. Another point which I liked in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was his dislike of what he called, "a rationalised, planned Senate." I am obliged to my noble friend for that phrase, too. I have been able to think of nothing better than "a fancy scheme," but they mean the same thing. If so many noble Lords on this side of the House dislike a fancy scheme, it may be asked why were the Parties so near agreement in 1947. The answer is that such agreement was far more apparent than real. I am certain that many noble Lords on this side of the House would have had difficulty in accepting the proposals, as would many noble Lords on the other side of the House.
Another interesting point referred to by more than one speaker yesterday was the apparent contradict ion in the statement of fact between the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. In his Motion the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that the House is working perfectly and needs no alteration. The noble Viscount, who was supported by our noble Leader, used words to the effect that your Lordships' House is dying of inanition. Those two statements are not so irreconcilable as at first sight they appear. I believe that your Lordships' House is working extremely well and is doing a good job. But that does not alter the fact that we have to look to the future; and there is no doubt whatever that the noble Viscount and our noble Leader are right in thinking tint the time has come when we have to look to the future membership of your Lordships' House.
926
I will not go through all the reasons, already canvassed by many speakers, as to why fewer noble Lords than previously attend on this side of the House. Those reasons include business, greatly increased county affairs and other causes, which undoubtedly are affecting, and will continue to affect, attendance on this side of the House. But perhaps even more striking is the position with regard to noble Lords opposite. Not long ago I was told that, perhaps a year ago, there were forty-five noble Lords who adhered to, or took the Whip of, or who were members of, the Party represented by noble Lords opposite, and that their average age was sixty-five. If those figures are correct, it is obvious that the effluxion of time must, within a comparatively few years, reduce the Opposition in this House to a disappearing quantity; and, great as are the merits of your Lordships' House, I do nor think it could work without an Opposition. Consequently one of the most important matters we have to consider is not only the reduced attendance on this side of the House (about which I am not so concerned for I think that will be all right) but the necessity of providing an informed Opposition.
I think it is prudent—and my noble friend Lord Vansittart did not attempt to question it—to accept that we must look to some means of replenishing our numbers. By some meats or other we must have an increased supply of fresh blood. The obvious remedy is to permit the creation of Life Peers, and the first duty of the Prime Minister of the Conservative Party who brings in such a measure would be to make suitable appointments to replenish the Benches opposite. We know that there are numerous gentlemen in the country who would be willing to sit on these Benches were it not for the bar of the hereditary Peerage. I do not blame them. I think that any Conservative Prime Minister might cast a benevolent eye also on the Liberal Benches and do something to remedy the grievance voiced by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. The question is: Is it enough merely to allow the creation of Life Peers? Many would say "Yes" in answer to that question if it were merely a matter of dealing with composition—which, at the moment it is, At the same time there are, of course, some minor points which present themselves. There is the question of women. The minority in your Lordships' House

927
who would exclude women is now very small. It has remained silent in this debate, and for that reason I greatly regret that my noble friend Lord Saltoun did not speak last night (I saw his name on the list of speakers, but he did not speak) because I believe—though I am not sure—that I can pay him the compliment of thinking that he is one of the minority—
LORD SALTOUN: Hear, hear!
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: —that still holds that out of date view.
There is the other very interesting question, which was persuasively put by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, about heirs of Peerage. I view that with great sympathy. If we are going to do even a little to interfere with what I may call the sanctity of the hereditary Peerage, I would go a little further and say that, if an heir to a Peerage is doing good work in the House of Commons, it is in his interest and also in the national interest that he should be allowed to continue to do it. I do not see why he should not be so allowed, and I should be inclined to be completely flexible in that matter. I do not think that the Constitution would suffer if such an individual had an option. Let him serve where he likes; it is all to the benefit of the business of both Houses.
Then there is the question of the absentees, and here I think we have the real difficulty. It is true that the greater the number of the absentees the greater is that "reservoir of intermittent attendance." While on that subject I would say with what regret I saw that some newspapers seem to think it is a matter of reproach to your Lordships' House that there was a large attendance here for our debate yesterday. If it was not actually mentioned, there was an implied suggestion that noble Lords who came here yesterday were in many cases backwoodsmen, who came only because something of their own interest was being discussed. I am not sure whether such innuendoes are more ignorant than impolite. Those who attend here regularly know that any such references could only be misleading to those who may happen to read them. The problem we are dealing with, if we have to deal with the absentees, is simultaneously a reduction in our nominal numbers combined with an increase in
928
our regular attendance. That is not an easy thing to bring about. I was astonished to learn, and I think that some of your Lordships would be astonished to be told, that 740 out of 850 Peers have taken the Oath. That shows that membership of your Lordships' House is a privilege which is valued, and which most Members desire to retain.
If we are looking at composition, we have to remember also the very minor question of the black sheep. I am told—and it is not uninteresting—that certain categories are excluded. Peers who are bankrupt are excluded by Statute. I am told that those who commit treason or felony—a very narrow category of offences—are also excluded by Statute, though a different one. Minors are excluded by Standing Orders. If we are going into the question of absentees, there could be no better way of tackling it than by adopting the suggestion made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who proposed that there should be a Select Committee to examine matters in relation to the attendance of Peers by amendment of Standing Orders. I, for one, should welcome the establishment of such a Select Committee.
While I am speaking on the question of Members and who shall be Members, I should like to refer to a point which I consider to be of great importance, and which, though mentioned in passing yesterday, has not, in my view, had the attention it deserves: that is, whether the numbers are to be, determined or undetermined. Once again, if I may, I would refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I liked his reference to "indeterminate numbers" rather than "unlimited numbers." There is an unpleasant ring about "unlimited numbers," though it may mean much the same thing as "indeterminate numbers." I attach the greatest importance to our numbers remaining indeterminate. The noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, made a reference which sent a shiver down my spine: he referred to the possibility of the numbers being limited to 200. I can imagine no proposal more calculated to reduce your Lordships' House to the status of a body of "old buffers," as dignified as ineffective.
There are two reasons, and very important ones, why the membership should be indeterminate. The first

929
involves the question of the Royal Prerogative; that is one which I think should appeal to noble Lords opposite more than to noble Lords on this side of the House. A limited number of Members would prevent the creation of Peers for swamping, which is the constitutional safeguard of the Left Wing. It may be that the Party of the noble Lords opposite feel that, with the curtailment of the powers of your Lordships' House, no question of swamping would arise ever. I confess that one of the things that surprised me about the 1947 arrangements was that the Socialist Party seemed willing to accept proposals which, to my mind at all events, indicated a fixed number. I think it may be that there was a bit of shadow boxing on the part of the leasers of the Labour Party.
May I now refer to the contributions made to the debate yesterday by noble Lords opposite? I deeply regret that the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition has left the House, as I want to say something about his speech. I welcomed the constructive contributions of Lord Calverley and Lord Haden-Guest more than that rather costive contribution of the noble and learned Earl, their Leader, if it is not impolite to say so, I could not help thinking that if the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, had been a Back Bencher, speaking without responsibility, his contribution would have been more constructive and perhaps more useful. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said—I thought with great pungency—what the real reasons for the attitude of the Party of noble Lords opposite were. But I need not enlarge upon that.
Apart from the Royal Prerogative, the reason we should keep the numbers unlimited is that young hereditary Peers must be allowed to come into the Home to prove their merits. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House said that we needed young Peers to assist in the detailed work of the House. With the greatest respect, I would say that we need them for more than that—we need them because that is the only way they can prove their merits. I suggest to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that our principle should be: let the hereditary Peers choose themselves by their attendance. Lord Hailsham said that we could not expect young Peers to come here because of business and other things.
930
Being young is a relative matter. When I was Lord Hailsham's age, I expect I thought that thirty was young. Now I think that between forty and fifty is young. One of the only sure evidences I have of old age is when my family begin to mutter round the dining table. I think that Lord Hailsham is wrong when he says that we shall not get young Peers here; I believe that we shall. I think the attraction of your Lordships' House will bring professional and business people here if they feel that there is something worth doing. Consequently, I welcome the advance which, in my view, has been made since 1947. I thought the 1947 scheme was alarming. I thought then that our leaders seemed to be tending towards a fancy scheme; now, I think we are moving towards a valuable and constructive change.
There can be no complete and final scheme of House of Lords reform at one blow, and here I am happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Layton, who said something about trial and error. I hope that our leaders will remember that in this matter, as in all other great affairs, the simplest course is the best. Of two courses, if one is complicated and the other simple, let us take the simple one. That is why I shall be glad to see the disappearance of any question of electing Peers as is done in the case of the Scottish Representative Peers. For a large number it would be very complicated and it would not work. With indeterminate numbers it would not be necessary to bother any more about it. Once again I rejoice in the move which I think I see coming. It holds out a hope that your Lordships' House will continue to evolve constructively, as it always has done for more than a thousand years.
4.31 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have been connected with this subject ever since 1910. In that year I had to collect material and act as private secretary 10 my father when the Parliament Bill (later the Parliament Act, 1911) was debated. On this matter most people seem to have taken the line that the Parliament Act was uniform in its action. I differ from that for reasons which I will shortly give your Lordships. Since then, we have had the Parliament Act, 1949. Your Lordships will remember that Act and how it came about. It was not passed on

931
account of anything your Lordships' House had done, or was likely to do, but, as the Government themselves said at the time, for fear of what we might do to the Steel Bill. That action on the part of a Party, all of whose members for a long time past have with pen and voice proclaimed the wickedness of a preventive war, is one of the most difficult things to explain that I have ever met in my life. I think that possibly in morals and politics there is a great difference between what one does oneself and what somebody else does.
If the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, becomes effective, we have the proposal that there should be another Parliament Bill from our side, to be followed, possibly, by another Parliament Bill from the other side. We must remember that we are not the only people who have Constitutions for sale. It is a process which I am bound to say will bring lasting discredit upon Parliament, and I think it might also bring disaster to the country. I do not think there is a real demand in the country for any change in our constitution, but I think that proposals like this, repeated again and again, are the best means of convincing the public that we are unfit for our duties. After all, no-one is inclined to question the veracity of a notice of damaged goods.
Ever since 1910 I have felt inclined to discuss a change of the composition of the House, if there were to be considered at the same time some change in its powers; but everybody knows that whatever Party are in power in the House of Commons, they would never consent to an increase in the powers of your Lordships' House. To be frank, I think the House of Commons is perfectly right. It may be that here and there in the world there are individual men who are wise enough to be able to put aside power when it is offered to them, but I do not think there is on record any Assembly which, having power and having long exercised it with credit, has voluntarily given it up. If there is such an example, I should very much doubt whether history shows that the results justified the abnegation.
Although I do not like the continued harping on this theme, I welcome the noble Viscount's Motion on this occasion because it has drawn from our noble
932
Leader the most constructive speech I have ever heard upon the subject. In March, 1953, my noble friend Lord Exeter proposed that the House should, by Resolution, prescribe conditions to be complied with by Peers before their votes were accepted. This proposal was crushed from the Woolsack by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, as quite unconstitutional; and he quoted a precedent (I think it was the Bristol precedent) to show that the Crown was not entitled to withhold a Writ of Summons from a Peer. While that may be so, I think I have found better and later precedents which show that the House itself has ample power to exclude its Members. I am encouraged by higher authority to think I am right.
When, in the eighteenth century, a Representative Peer for Scotland, the Duke of Hamilton, was created Duke of Brandon in the United Kingdom, he was forbidden to sit as a Representative Peer by reason of his United Kingdom Peerage, and he was forbidden to sit as a United Kingdom Peer on account of his Scottish Dukedom. So they got rid of him from both sides. In our enlightened age we may say that that was wrong of them, and that it was not an action of which we should approve to-day. But the power to do wrong surely implies the power to do right; it does not mean that the power is not there. Just because the power exercised in the eighteenth century does not command our approval, that is no reason for saying that it does not exist. Moreover, such powers as these cannot fall into desuetude, because their very nature is such that they are likely to be required only at long intervals of time. I think a similar argument might apply to the Wensleydale case. If this is so, if I am right in what I think, we have within ourselves power to effect useful changes without the necessity of legislation at all. It seems to me that it would be a great gain to do that, and therefore I warmly welcome our noble Leader's proposal to set up a Committee to consider this matter and the precedents in respect of it from this angle—and in saying that, I know that I speak fort a large number of your Lordships.
I should like to turn for a moment to the proposals in the articles which form part of the Motion—whether they are agreed or not we do not know. I agree with the first article, of course, though

933
I am sorry to say that I do not like its language. I do not think there was ever a time in the history of this House when it was so lost to respect for itself or for its colleague as to consider the other place in terms of rivalry. I remember the unfortunate dispute in 1910, but that was a different matter altogether. As to the second article, I should very much like to know how that proposal is to be carried out. A costly and expensive device is now being fitted to our great liners to ensure their stability; but what device can be fixed to the human mind to ensure its stability and that it continues to think the same thing? The, noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, must have a vivid recollection of the many Liberal Peers who were created between the years 1905 and 1920, and I cannot help thinking that when he looked around his Benches yesterday he must have felt that stability of opinion was difficult to attain even in your Lordships' House. Therefore, I am much puzzled to know how the second article is to be carried out—in fact, it gives me the feeling that some of these articles were produced of a multitude of cooks and not of a multitude of counsellors.
I am bound to say that I think that the third article is a dangerous one. If it is laid down as a principle, it is one that is universally discarded by all men in their dealings with animals. Therefore, if it is not applicable to men, I submit that it is a vital biological difference, and it is much more important than the use of fire to distinguish men from the animals. The danger of this proposition seems to me to be that, given out in this sort of way by authority, it is apt to be accepted as self-evident by a large number of people who do not think; and no man is so wise that he can look ahead and say that the time may not come when it might be applied with lamentable effect at a much higher level. I could say a great deal on this point, but I prefer to leave it there. These three propositions, however, would have one sad effect on this House: they would deprive it of those people who, having no particular desire for popularity, and possibly in any case enjoying no particular popularity, hold views at variance with those of a large Party or the Press—they hold quite independent views, and do not hesitate to express them. Such persons may often be wrong, though I do
934
not think they are wrong so often as most people do. But even if they are geese, I think we might remember that, like the geese on the capitol, they may from time to time serve to waken a nation to its danger.
The next article deals with the membership of the Chamber. If we are going utterly to revise the Second Chamber, I do not see why we should not abolish all titles above those of a Baronet, and call ourselves Senators, in imitation of those Senates which we are going to imitate. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh asked me to speak about article (5). Our Monarchs have never been reluctant to make Peeresses, and I often think that they have sometimes made Peeresses for better reasons than they made Peers. But I do not think that the inclusion of Peeresses in this House would contribute in any way to our debates. I can give your Lordships one solid objection to it—there is not room. As your Lordships know, we are already very crowded, and the Lord Great Chamberlain has a difficult task in keeping the premises which we occupy from encroachment. I am certain that he would find it impossible to provide the necessary room if Peeresses were admitted.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Here, in the Chamber?
LORD SALTOUN: No, not in the Chamber.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Why does the noble Lord not say what he means?
LORD SALTOUN: Article (7) reads:
"In order that persons without private means should not be excluded, some remuneration would be payable to members of the Second Chamber."
Noble Lords opposite have often talked to me about a book that I possess called "the Black Book." One of the entries in the Black Book is a pension of (I think it is) £300 a year, payable to the mother of George Canning, who your Lordships will remember lived and died a very poor man, leaving his family in poor circumstances. This is always held up as being part of the distribution of public funds amongst Parliamentarians and people of influence and their friends. My own personal view is that the most economical way of making it possible for Peers whose circumstances are poor to attend and do their duty in this House is to do precisely

935
that: to give them a pension on public funds, at the discretion of the Prime Minister. Any other form is going to be much more expensive, and any ordinary statutory allowance would be difficult.
Article No. (8) is an act of justice but is, nevertheless, a dangerous provision. If noble Lords were allowed to escape from what have been called the "sepulchral integuments of the British Peerage," the younger, more energetic and more ambitious Peers would accept their freedom; and although it might be that the House of Commons would gain a little in force and ability, I am certain that this House would lose a great deal. If I were given fifty years, I would take the chance myself.
I have already said that in my view the Parliament Act, 1911, was a bad Act and unfortunate in its effect. Had steps been taken at that time to heal the breach, if they had remembered the advice of George Meredith,
"to keep the young generations in hail and bequeath them no tumbled House,"
it would have been a very good thing. But the effect of the Parliament Act, 1911, that has been most marked to me is the decline in the power and influence of Parliament as a whole, and not merely of this House. In 1905, when Parliament spoke, it commanded the assent and the support of everyone in the country. To-day there are many organisations—and not only political ones—that are so powerful that I firmly believe that a Government would be slow to challenge an issue with them; and, if an issue were offered, would be slow to take it up. I think that is probably the most marked effect of the Parliament Act, 1911, and it is the one that I regret the most. Whenever I show guests round your Lordships' House I never fail to point out that the two Houses are in reality one. The Queen on her Throne is the head, with the Two Estates, Lords Spiritual and Temporal at her side and, beyond, the Third Estate, with its Speaker facing the Throne. And I always add that though, for practical reasons and the adequate fulfilment of their various functions, they are thus drawn apart, they can truly perform the high duties committed to them by Her Majesty and her people only when the difference between them is seen to disappear.
4.50 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I have been listening with some surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, pulling to pieces these nine, to my mind, excellent points, more or less agreed between the Parties several years ago. I feel that we must at all costs rationalise and stabilise our position as the Upper House, and become more effective and more acceptable to the main mass of the people. In anything that I say I should not like it to be thought that I have not the deepest sympathy for ancient tradition. Also, I feel that we should have no sense of rivalry with the other place—indeed, our function is different and in different mood. To begin with, I should like to quote two sentences which Lord Bryce—who I am honoured to think was my godfather—said in 1921:
"There is no use in having a Second Chamber unless you give it substantial powers; but it is to be remembered that the more powers you give the more popular must be the composition of the Chamber."
I feel that we have now reached the stage when we must marry the two principles of composition—the hereditary principle and the creation of Life Peers, or the selection of Peers on some other basis than that of heredity.
Yesterday, the noble Marquess the Leader of the House told us, I thought very movingly, what it costs, what it means, to run the ship of this noble House, and I feel, looking especially to the future, that we must undertake basic and imaginative repair. In a sense, this Chamber of ours is watching us as we speak, as it has watched so many before us. I feel that in this country there will inevitably be over the next years a new tide, if you like, of extreme Radicalism that would be prepared to sink the ship if it had the chance, and possibly to declare a positive belief in government by a single Chamber. Therefore, I think that this is the time, as the noble Lord, Lord Layton, suggested, to put our House in order.
The fact that we are not elected by the people gives no reason why we should be any less democratic than the other place. I think it was rather a fine statement of Henry Sidgwick, when he said:
"The main end for which a Senate is constructed is that all legislative measures may receive a second consideration by a body different in character from the primary representative assembly, and if possible superior or supplementary in intellectual qualifications."

937
I am not suggesting that we are trying to be superior, but we do not want to feel any sense of inferiority; and as a younger Member of your Lordships' House I should not like to feel that in coming here whenever I can I am coming to a House that does not matter. I feel that it can matter as much as, if not more than, anything else.
In this modern age, one is aware of merit and belief in merit, and I know that a great many of us are here by an act of fate and not by an act of intelligence. That means that we have to prove ourselves once we are here. But I believe that if the composition of the House is matured so as to include people not on the hereditary principle, and narrowed down among the hereditary people to those who are willing to attend and to work, the House would then be acceptable to the nation, and that the nation would believe in this House just as much as in the House of Commons. We have the chance of debating the broad sweep of foreign affairs or anything else, without being ties and without always having to look over our shoulders to constituents. As I say, we should not try to resemble the other place. We have a genius of our own, and it is complementary to the genius of the other place. We should be more leisurely but not less lively. We should, of course, continue to realise that we are not the main executive power in the State We in this building have almost a sense of segregation. This Palace of Westminster is one vital focus of the nation—namely, the focus of government. Yet when one goes to the House of Commons and talks with people, particularly people of one's own Party, they say, almost with a cynical twist, "What have your Lordships been discussing today?" as if it did not matter. By adapting ourselves to the mood of 1955, I think we have somehow to get over that potential slur. There is ammunition for criticism, and I think it is based on the fact that there are so many of us who do not attend regularly, quite apart from whether we have the chance to attend.
I could not feel more proud and more humble in being a Member of your Lordships' House. Therefore, I find it un-understandable that quite a few of your Lordships have taken this rather negative view of the whole question. If we consider that this Upper House of the British Parliament is really important, and if we
938
essentially believe in a Second Chamber, then we must make it fit the mood of the times and become more fully acceptable to the people than it now is. At the moment, perhaps, reform of the House of Lords is not a topic which is discussed in every home and in every public bar of this nation. On the other hand, it is an issue of supreme importance, and I am sure that one result of this debate will be considerably more discussion of this issue. Everybody, whether a Member of this House or a member of the public outside, will realise that something must be done.
4.58 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but after listening for two days to magnificent speeches I felt there were one or two words I should like to say. First of all, may I humbly and sincerely say to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that during my period in your Lordships' House I have never heard a finer speech, Although I know I shall never reach the standard of his speaking, I hope that when my time comes, if it does, to reach his age, I shall be able to hold the attention as he does. I came into the general political side of your Lordships' House after the last war, although I took my seat some time before, and for a happy year, as some of your Lordships may remember, I was Assistant Whip to our noble Leader, who vas then the Leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately, I then had a long illness, arid since that time I have had to be away, earning my living. I tell your Lordships that only because I refute the words that have been said in some places, not in this House, that in yesterday's debate all the backwoodsmen turned up to save their skins. I remember well my year in this House and, looking around yesterday, I found there was hardly one face that did not recognise. I think that is something that should be said.
It has been a typical debate in this House on a great occasion. The only point which worries me about the future—I fully realise that reform must come—is that if Lords in Parliament are appointed and this House agrees, as I believe it does, that the young must be given the chance to come in and show their worth, how are they going to show their worth if they are not allowed to speak in your Lordships' House? To my mind, a distinction must be made between

939
sitting in your Lordships' House and voting in your Lordships' House. That is the one point I should like to make. I know it was made by the noble Earl yesterday. May I take the case of my son? When he succeeds me, he will not have the chance, maybe, of knowing noble Lords in this House. If he wishes to sit here, how is he going to get into this House to show his worth? That is the main difficulty, as I see it. As a result of this plan, it may happen that retired business men and other retired men, whatever their worth, will be appointed. Many of us have seen a certain advertisement for a famous insurance company. Let it never be said that we point to our noble Leader and say: "Without him I should not be able to supplement my pension." That is the fundamental question: how are the young men going to enter this House and have the chance to speak if they are not actually Lords of Parliament? I hope that the noble Viscount who is now going to answer will give us some hope that we may differentiate between sitting in Parliament and voting in Parliament, so that the young men will, so to speak, be able to try and sway the jury who are the Lords of Parliament. In this way the voting power required would still be retained and we should have the outside people who are still Peers of the Realm and who could come and sit, as they have done for so many years.
5.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, it will be universally agreed, whatever other views may be held about the subject of debate, that the debate itself has been extraordinarily interesting and valuable and, without exception in the speeches made, well worthy of the importance of the subject. The noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech at the beginning, said that he expected to hear as many views as there were speeches. Indeed, on the previous occasions when we have discussed this matter, whether in debate in this House or in discussion outside it, there certainly has been an enormous variety of views. But what struck me in this two days' debate, and I think it probably struck all of your Lordships, was that, whereas there was not unanimity—and one would not have expected it—there was a preponderance of identical opinion on quite
940
a number of aspects of this topic. That measure of agreement, where all are speaking their minds quite frankly and without any inhibition is, I think, significant.
There was complete agreement. I think, about the functions and powers of this House, just as there was general agreement on the value of a Second Chamber and the way in which it does its work—an appreciation which I think extends far outside this House and which this House enjoys universally, or almost universally, in the country. There was also, I think, complete agreement about what should be the relationship of this House to the House of Commons. There was again complete agreement—at least, I think so on—the undesirability of turning this House into an elected Chamber in any shape or form; and there was complete agreement that this House should not attempt to be a rival to the House of Commons, which it might become if it were put on an electoral basis. And then (and this I know my noble Leader will agree is important) there was an appeal from all three Benches, Conservative, Labour and Liberal, that Peers ought not to be precluded from the attendance which they are called upon by their Writ of Summons to undertake by the cost of coming here to attend and do their duties. Few, if any, would ask for or accept a salary.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in a speech which I thought was of extraordinary interest and with almost every word of which I agreed, expressed yesterday a view, which I expect we all share, about the independence of the House, the importance of its independence and also the importance of having, as we have in this House, non-professional politicians, one of whose chief values is their continuous contact with the world outside Parliament. But I must say that I agree that it is unfair to ask noble Lords to make a daily sacrifice, which many can ill afford, to do their duty. As one noble Lord (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hylton) said, speaking on this side of the House—I paraphrase what he said—why should this House be treated worse than the members of any local authority in the land? That view having been expressed in all quarters of the House, and not challenged in any quarter, is, I think, one which certainly should command attention.

941
My Lords, there are some, like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who say, "Why should we alter an institution which, whatever its anomalies, in practice works well? "Certainly no one could have pleaded the cause of "no change" better than Lord Elton yesterday. There have been a great many speeches, and I think that the great majority have favoured some reform in our composition. I feel, from the speeches delivered and the way they were received, that there would be wide support in all quarters of the House for a power to recommend the creation of Life Peers. Without Life Peers, I am sure that we in this House will not get a number of men whom we ought to have here, and who, for one reason or another, do not come—it may be either from their own personal disinclination or perhaps, still more, because they do not wish to burden and handicap, as it might do in business or in a profession, their descendants with the duty to succeed, generation after generation, to a Peerage. I am quite sure that we lose men who ought to be in this House, and who would gladly come here if the power to create Life Peers existed. That applies to a number of people, quite irrespective of party, and to people of no Party.
We were greatly entertained today by Lord Vansittart. He was true to his motto "Van. always exaggerates"—"or perhaps I ought to say, "Van, always underrates." He spoke of the hereditary Peers as being quite admirable creatures, and he said that, if you look round at the 50 million people who do not happen to be hereditary Peers, whether of first creation or succession, where on earth among them are you going to find any who are like us or who would be fit to come and associate with us? Having gone through the Honours List, he appeared almost to be saying, "I got here only because the other Under-Secretary of State was even worse than I was." It was a very good "turn," but the noble Lord really put the matter a little too high. We do not want a lot of supermen; we want sensible and average people—people of experience who will come and do their duty and be of great help. After all, the other place is not entirely composed of supermen, yet on the whole it is quite a good counterpart to this Chamber.
I think there is also the fact that we shall not get the kind of people we require
942
to do the business of the House. I would echo what my noble Leader said yester day: that it is the attendance of those of us who carry out the business of this House and, still more, those who come day after day to support us or to oppose us—and that is just as important—which makes this House work as it ought to work, as a critical and revising Chamber, as well as a debating Chamber. I do not believe that we shall achieve that position satisfactorily without the possibility of creating Life Peers. I think that is the answer to the doubts of noble Lords such as the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, who speaks with great experience—he was a Leader of the House at one time. I think that answer would satisfy him.
At the same time, I am quite sure that while the House would like the Prime Minister to have the power to recommend the creation of Life Peers, the last thing the House wants is that it should become a sort of antique dealers' fair, however priceless some of the museum pieces may be. We do not want that. That is why the older one gets, perhaps, the more one agrees how important it is that there should be an opportunity for young Peers. This is not a matter of theories. It is certainly reinforced by the examples of the young men who come into this House. We have seen them come in after their careers in the Army, or whatever it may be. They have come in and have made good; and some have been promoted. They could not have been found at all if they had not had the right to come here.
I was much interested to find that point of view re-echoed in the last speech but one—an extremely interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton. It applies to the Opposition just as much as to this side, because, as I have said, this House can do its job only if it has an effective Opposition as well as an effective Front Bench and supporters behind that Front Bench. These young Peers must be given the opportunity to prove their worth. I do not see how they will get that opportunity except by the right, when they succeed, to come here as hereditary Peers and, if they elect to do so, to speak.
My Lords, that raises the question whether, in any reform, we ought to limit the total numbers of this House. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh said that he did not like the word "unlimited"—what was the word he preferred?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: "Indeterminate."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes. I may perhaps, with great daring, give a personal view, though I should not at this stage presume to dogmatise. I am bound to say that the more I think of it the less am I attracted to the idea of having any numerical limit. The reputation which this House enjoys for fair dealing, and its consequent repute in the country, depend, I am sure, a great deal more on how we act than on how we are constituted or composed. I am not at all impressed by the necessity for a sort of mathematical system of proportionate representation, particularly if, as I think it would, it meant losing a lot of good men and a lot of good things which have proved their value in action. For all these reasons, on historical and on practical grounds, I am sure that there will be great unwillingness to surrender the hereditary principle. There, I must frankly join issue with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel.
A number of noble Lords have spoken about evolution. Well, it is not necessary to do everything in one step. If you try to do so, you may do some wrong things; and it is much harder to go back than to proceed gradually. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am to some extent thinking aloud here, but it is no good speaking unless one speaks frankly about what one thinks is wise and right, disregarding expediency. I feel that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was a little hard on the hereditary principle. He has never liked it. Far be it from me to denigrate the merits of Peers of first creation but I feel that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, overrated our merits a little in comparison with those of Peers of succession. One could pick out two elevens, and I am not quite sure which would win on virtue and performance; and by "virtue" I mean attendance. It is not true that all the Peers of first creation line up every day to attend—not a bit of it. There are many Peers of first creation who are never seen in this House. Conscious as we are of each other's shortcomings, I feel that we had better have a little more sense of equality, in that regard.
LORD MATHERS: Will the noble Viscount forgive me for reminding him
944
that there are noble Lords here under a mathematical system, who have to go through the process of election before they get to this House? The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, are examples, being Scottish Peers, who are limited to sixteen in number.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am well aware of that, and there are exceptions which prove the rule; but if the noble Lord were to take a Gallup Poll of the Members of this House as to whether or not they would like the Scottish principle of elected Peers extended to all other Peers, I do not think he would find a majority in favour of election.
LORD MATHERS: Then, as a corollary to that declaration—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am not making a declaration.
LORD MATHERS: —that personal declaration, would the noble Viscount be prepared to bring in a measure to qualify all Scottish Peers to sit in this House?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I must certainly have notice of that question. I ventured to say only that I did not think, if a plebiscite were taken in this House of Peers other than Scottish Peers (and there are a large number of so-called Scottish Peers who are also Peers of the United Kingdom), the noble Lord would find a majority of Peers of the United Kingdom in favour of making the Scottish principle universal. But there is of course a great deal to be said in favour of it.
It has been said—and I believe with every reason—that the present system works well and gives a good Chamber in practice, so why should we exclude any of those who attend and render good service. But those who render good service do so because they attend. If I sense the feeling of the House, I feel that there would be quite a large measure of support for excluding Peers who do not attend. Many of them do excellent work elsewhere and they cannot do both. A reform which gave Peers an opportunity of signifying at the beginning of a Parliament whether they wished to be summoned and to attend, and excluded those who did not so wish, would probably be acceptable. Such a reform would certainly remove the political

945
cockshy of an army of backwoodsmen lurking somewhere, always ready to attack. It is a complete bogy, of course, and not a reality, because the phantom army never goes into action.
It is quite true, as more than one noble Lord has said to-day, that yesterday's attendance in this House did not represent a great mass of backwoodsmen. I have seen this House equally full on the occasion of discussions on quite a number of Bills; but there are a number of Peers who cannot attend regularly and who yet make a very valuable contribution when they do attend. Two shining examples are the noble Lord, Lord Elton, himself, and the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. They attend from time to time, and speak with great charm; and they are therefore inspired with an enormous affection and admiration for this House as it exists at present. I suppose it is a case of absence making the heart grow fonder.
LORD ELTON: I hope that the noble Viscount is not suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, or I attend only when we wish to speak. I believe I probably attend twenty times or more without speaking for every time on which I burden your Lordships with my observations.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should not put it like that, but I can give the noble Lord the record of his attendance, as I happen to have looked it up. I think the ratio of his speeches to his attendances is a little higher than he has given, but I am not criticising the noble Lord; I think it is an excellent thing that Peers who contribute a great deal but cannot attend very frequently should be able to attend: I am not in favour of cutting them out. But I do not think it rests with those Peers to advise us—we who have to carry through the Business of the House—that we ought not to reform the House in order to get more people who can give that regular attendance necessary if the House is to function.
LORD ELTON: May I ask the noble Viscount one question on an important point which has not been made clear? The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, told us that the average attendance in this House was about ninety-seven a day, and I believe that is approximately correct. The noble Marquess complained, with every justification, that sometimes there
946
are only three or four noble Lords behind him. In other words, there is a striking contrast in the proportion between those actually in the Chamber and those in the House. How is this new Chamber to differ in that respect? Are the Lords of Parliament necessarily people who will not prefer sitting in the smoking room or having tea to sitting in the Chamber?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): That comment of the noble Lord will merely show the House that he is not quite au fait with what happens in this House. It is perfectly true that, on average, ninety-seven noble Lords attend the House. They come at the beginning of business, stay for one or two speeches and then have to go away on other business. They are not sitting in the smoking room (if there is one), or the library; but they have been in die House and are marked down accordingly. But anybody who attends this House, as most of us do, will know perfectly well that the figure of ninety-seven, although it is accurate, in the sense that it means that ninety-seven Peers have been within the precincts during that day, does not mean that they are attending the whole of the Sitting of the House.
LORD ELTON: May I just pursue the point? I entirely understand what the noble Marquess said. I understood it at the time. What I am asking is, why will it be different because these proposed new Members are called "Lords of Parliament"? Why will they be more likely to attend?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: For one excellent reason—you will choose a man who is more likely to be able to attend.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: May I ask the noble Viscount whether that figure of ninety-seven includes Peers who sit on half-a-dozen committees?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, I think it includes anyone who comes into the House, even thought he is sitting on a Select Committee or a Private Bill Committee or something of that sort. Of course, it is quite fallacious to judge of the day-to-day work of the House from an average.
Apart from the point which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House made, that it includes Peers who are, as my

947
noble friend says, sitting on Select Committees or who are here for, perhaps, only half an hour during the day, there are also days—yesterday was one—when the attendance is far in excess of ninety-seven. If there is some very important debate, whether it be on an important Bill or an important Motion—it may be so in the case of the Defence debate next week—the attendances will again be very large. But that still does not mean that we get ninety-seven Peers here on a day when only the more humdrum work of the House is being done: yet that is just the kind of work for which attendance and work and study are necessary. Take, for example, the Committee stage of a Bill. If the noble Lord is ever here for such a stage, he must know, or would know, that that is the testing time which shows whether a House is working. It may be that ninety or a hundred Amendments are put forward to a Bill, and those are Amendments which ought to be discussed if we are going to knock a Bill into the right shape. It is the work of this House as a Revising Chamber which is of vital importance, and which makes its reputation in the country. One noble Lord (I forget for the moment which) said that 1,000 or 1,100 Amendments had been rightly made in three or four major Bills. That means a tremendous amount of work by a limited number of Members.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Would my noble friend allow me to ask him to emphasise the fact that Committee work is done by perhaps a dozen or so noble Lords on one particular Bill, but it will be a different dozen who do the work on another Bill; and so it goes on.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is perfectly right; I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has said that. We find that one set of Peers who are experts in this or that matter work on one Bill, while another lot who are experts in something else work on another. In sessions like the present, with what is regarded as a light legislative programme, I do not know how many Bills have to come before us to go through careful examination at the Committee stage, but I suppose the number is much nearer a hundred than fifty—and all that work has got to be done.
948
Reverting to composition, I think that the House generally would accept the sort of view which Lord Hailsham put to us. I should have thought it would be very wise to give all those Peers who cannot attend a chance of not being treated as Members of this House. In fact, if I may so put it, why carry a burden— and it is a political burden when this House is attacked—which does not even want to be carried? I think it is right to say that those Peers would be quite glad not to have the Writ of Summons which orders them to attend. This is very much in line with the sort of ideas which the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, has propounded more than once, and which I think command a good deal of support. I am sure that it would be valuable for us to have an authoritative opinion on what is the right of this House to concern itself with the attendances of Peers, and to deal with that matter by Resolution and by Standing Orders, without saying whether, in a particular case, that is the right or the best way of dealing with it. I think the House ought to be told with authority what its constitutional position is in this matter. Therefore, I suggest that that might well be referred to whatever is the appropriate Committee, which should include among its members constitutional lawyers.
It has been said—and I agree—that the ideal thing would be to proceed by agreement, if we can. I must therefore admit that the speech made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, yesterday, was a disappointment to me; and judging by other speeches made by occupants of the Benches opposite, I rather think that it was a disappointment to those, or some of those, who sit with him and behind him, because they contributed a number of interesting suggestions about reform. I am not sure that, perhaps, the speech was not a bit of a disappointment to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, himself.
He told us that the matter was not urgent. I think it is urgent in the interests of the House. The noble and learned Earl said there was no crisis on. But that is just why the present is a good moment to do something. If we wait to deal with the reform of this House until we have a constitutional crisis—which under the wise leadership of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, we are, I am glad to say, very unlikely to have—that is exactly the worst moment at which to

949
deal with a matter of this kind. When the noble and learned Earl told us that his Party was so occupied with the H-bomb or the A-bomb that they could not deal with this matter, I could not help wondering whether the real deterrent was, not the H-bomb or the A-bomb, but the "B-bomb" in the shape of Mr. Bevan. I must honestly reject the contention that we cannot do anything unless we get the agreement of all Parties. Certainly that could not be an argument advanced by the Labour Party after the passage of the Parliament Act of 1949. And I do not think it can be advanced by the Liberal Party, though Mr. Asquith acted with a great deal more circumspection.
I have been interested, and agreeably interested, to note Lord Samuel's sudden zeal for immediate action—"action this day." But, after all, he is the elder statesman of this House now. Forty-four or forty-five years ago he was a member of the Government which passed the Parliament Act of 1911, when his Government said that the reform of this House "brooks no delay." With his health and vigour, which we are all so delighted to see, he cannot (I am glad to say) even plead that this is a death bed repentance. It is very agreeable to find him now keen about this matter. Rather like the case of the Labour Benches, however, I find that on the Liberal Benches all his followers did not sing the same tune, or even keep in harmony with him. The noble Lord, Lord Saye and Sele, in an admirable maiden speech, displayed the independence of his ancestor in the Protectorate Parliament. But we are ready to be encouraged and prodded, and my noble friend Lord Salisbury has voiced his sense of the importance of action, which I and all on the Treasury Bench certainly share.
It has been very valuable to the Government, as well as to the House, to have heard the views expressed by noble Lords who have the interests of this House at heart and who have contributed so much to its efficiency and prestige. Anyone who has sat through this debate and heard the speeches, and has sensed the atmosphere in which those speeches were received, must have been convinced of this. It certainly is my abiding impression, after listening, to the two days' debate, that whatever differences there
950
may be on ways or means, on timing or method, there has been an impressive unanimity, which transcends all differences, on the value of this House, on its present prestige, on its historic past and on pride in its service.
5.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the concluding, or penultimate, observations of the noble Viscount surprised me somewhat. If he had got up to say: "Here is this noble Lord, this melancholy vestige of the Government of 1911, once more troubling us with this eternal question," I should have had to apologise and not deny the soft impeachment. But when, ever since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House and increasingly as the years have gone on, I have begged and implored and vociferated that we ought to reform this House, I think it is rather too much for the noble Viscount to say that I am showing a sudden zeal, that I am showing unexpected and strange and sudden excitement over it. Perhaps the noble Viscount has forgotten what happened in I947, that it was I who, on behalf of my colleagues, first urged that there should be a Three-Party Conference. To my great surprise—it was deed a surprise—both the Conservative and Labour Parties showed that degree of enlightenment which enabled them to agree to my proposal. My surprise was still greater when we came to unanimous conclusions on several most important points.
I am not surprised to-day that the Labour Party are frightened of what they did then and are running away from the proposals which their principal leaders—I think Mr. Bevan was not then in the forefront—accepted at our hands as matters for consideration. Let me remind the noble Viscount that at the last General Election when the present House of Commons was elected, the Party of which he is an eminent and distinguished ornament announced to the public at large that they would propose to summon another all-Party Conference in order to discuss this question. When that was made impossible by the attitude of the Labour Party, they at once declared that nevertheless they would take action. And am I then so urgent and insistent if I humbly and respectfully put the question to them now?

951
I do not propose to survey the course of the debate, because of my somewhat unduly long speech of yesterday and because my noble friend and colleague, Lord Layton, this afternoon has done that so far as yesterday's debate is concerned. With all that he said I most cordially agree. Looking back over this two days' debate, two matters of great significance have become evident, one negative and one positive, which have come from the two Front Benches. The negative one is the declaration of the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition that his Party now propose to take no part in any discussion or any action for reforming the House of Lords. That is a great disappointment. What the reasons of it may be, many of us would wish to know. The situation was most scathingly and effectively analysed yesterday by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who made a devastating explanation of the present situation as it arises from the attitude of many of the rank and file of the Labour Party. However, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, would be the last to suggest that this action and that of his colleagues to which he gave expression should be a veto on the whole House and prevent any forward move at all. He did not claim that, and if he had claimed it, that claim would have been immediately rejected.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, contributed the new, positive element when, in a very careful and understanding speech, he analysed the whole of the conclusions that were tentatively arrived at, ad referendum, by the Conference to which we have referred, and left an impression on the House and I think on the country that at long last something is about to be done. He, and the Prime Minister in another place, have told us that they are now engaged on a detailed analysis of what they find to be a most complicated subject and are preparing a Bill. It is impossible to suppose that the Government, through their accredited chiefs in both Houses, would have said that and announced it to the public and that nothing concrete should follow. So I feel convinced myself that we shall see this question move at last, after this long interval of over forty years. In fact, the noble Marquess said, with regard to the negative attitude of the official Opposition, that if that is to be the case, they
952
—the Government—will go on without them. So that the situation is quite clear. So far as the Liberal Party are concerned, as my noble friend Lord Layton has said, we will co-operate most cordially in every way. Apparently the first step is to be the appointment of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to consider what are its constitutional powers in the matter of attendance, and possibly some other points of that kind.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I was going to make it clear to the noble Viscount that we should certainly favour the appropriate Committee. I suggested, as a possibility, a Select Committee. I do not know if that would be finally fixed, but we should favour the proposal of whichever Committee appears to be most appropriate.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: In the near future?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In the near future.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: The actual machinery is not important. Whatever the Government think is the right course, we shall be prepared to join and serve in any way that may be at all useful, and we can explore whether there is anything that can be done in this matter apart from legislation. But I confess that whatever can be done will be of a very limited character, and certainly cannot be a substitute for the larger reforms which I think the great majority of the House would desire.
I would draw attention to what was said by my noble friend Lord Layton, continuing a line of thought of my own yesterday, about the desirability, if it be feasible, not to have a voluminous and elaborate Statute—nothing in the nature of a blue-print, which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, fears so much. For my own part, I should prefer to see, if it is legally possible, a short and simple Bill couched in more general terms and leaving a great deal of the actual action to be taken perhaps through constitutional organs outside the Statutes, by means of conventions and agreements, and action by the Crown, by Orders in Council, or Committees of the Privy Council, or in other ways. Do not let us have a Bill of thirty clauses and ten schedules, fixing everything possible that needs to be decided. I made that point yesterday, and I attach great importance to it.

953
What we want is in line with the gradual evolution of our unwritten Constitution, and the less we put into a rigid Act of Parliament the better it will be, in my view. Possibly the legal advisers may say that a great deal must be put into the Statute; but that is as it may be. For example, on the question of fixing a determinate number of the House as a maximum at any one time, I should personally, as at present advised, agree with those who think it would be better not to have such a limitation, which would affect the Prerogative of the Crown—a Prerogative which in the past has been found useful in important and unexpected ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, in an intervention just now said: "Why was it to be expected that the new Lords of Parliament would be any better in their attendance than the present Peers?" For this simple reason: that they would all be men who would come to this House because they wished to be Members of the House. The great majority of those who do not now attend say to themselves: "Why should I attend? I am not specially interested. I did not make myself a Member of the House; I was just born that way"—just as criminals sometimes say: "It is not my fault; I did not make myself. I am what society and the fates have made me." The new Lords of Parliament will be appointed precisely because they are men who, on inquiry being made, wish to serve. They will be full of zeal, and the only danger will be that they may be so full of zeal that the House may be unduly loquacious. But if they are men of such excellent judgment and ability as we presuppose, they would be well aware of that danger and avoid it.
LORD SALTOUN: The noble Viscount will remember that some of the great men who have received Peerages in the last ten years are very conspicuous by their absence. They sit on the Cross Benches, but seldom come here unless they have something to say.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Probably the new ones will not be appointed precisely as men of that kind: they may be appointed as a dignity for the office, as a favour, or as a distinction. But it is not necessary for the whole 200, or whatever the number may be (I say nothing as to numbers) to attend with absolute
954
regularity every day; and as they get progressively older they will probably attend more and more irregularly—it would not matter very much.
One point that has been raised—and I referred to it yesterday—is that this House might be the medium, to some extent, in drawing the Colonies more closely to our system here. I made that suggestion very tentatively. I have nothing in mind such as the creation of an Imperial Senate. If that ever has to be done—and I do not think it will ever need to be done—it will have to be done ad hoc and deliberately, and the body created as such. I do not know why people should think we are not grateful for the attendance of such men in this House as the late Lord Bennett, or the present noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne. If they can come from Canada and Australia, why not also from the new self-governing States in other continents of the world?
The question of heredity naturally comes up as as a matter of principle—heredity as such, unsupported by any personal qualifications. I still adhere to the view that I have expressed, that it is indefensible as a principle for the appointment of the members of any Legislature, no matter how limited its powers may be. But I should be the last to say that this is a sine qua non, and that unless others concur my friends in the Liberal Party will not co-operate in effecting any changes that may be agreed to. From the beginning I have urged the importance of carrying out this change by general agreement, if possible if not in details, at all events in substance. Anyone who wishes to enter into agreement cannot say beforehand that he will only agree on certain conditions. I do not expect to get everything that I want; nor do I want the members of the Government to get everything that they want. I hope that if we surrender certain points or compromise on certain matters they will be willing to enter into it in the spirit of fair give and take.
With regard to heredity, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said just now that I was unduly disrespectful to the hereditary Members who are now sitting in the House; that one could easily pick an eleven from among them as good as any eleven from among the new creations. No doubt that is so. I have never failed in

955
anything I have said to pay due respect to the brilliant and invaluable qualities of many of those who sit here by hereditary right. I may mention, incidentally, the exemplar usually taken, the Leader of the House; but I would remind him that he came into this House first as a new creation; he was so much needed here that, in his father's lifetime, he came in with another title and rendered useful service before, in the course of nature, he succeeded to his present position. But that does not alter the fact that there are 800 Members, and that what has been said about the brilliant virtues of the exceptional ones among them is not characteristic of the average, and still less characteristic of those who are below the average.
I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, in his brilliant and entertaining speech, was guilty of one or two fallacies which went unnoticed along the stream of his oratory. He said, for example: "Look at the other Second Chambers in the world. See the faults that attach to the one in Paris, to that in Rome and to that in Washington. Why then"—and this is the conclusion— "should you wish to alter your own?" I fail to see that that follows from the premise. Because the other Second Chambers have faults from which particular faults we happen to be free, it is no reason to suppose that we are therefore perfect. And as for numbers, the noble Lord said: "How are you going to get the desirable people to serve in this House? Look at the Order of Merit: it is difficult to fill up even 24 places. Look at the French Academy: how can they get 40? But 850, that is just right."
Another significant fact about this debate has been the general agreement that, on the whole, there should be some change. The great majority of speakers, and certainly the most weighty speakers, took that view. But a considerable number, a minority, give fresh evidence, if that were needed, of the great force of inertia in the world; of the difficulty that always exists to get any change in any constitution at any time, because there is a kind of dead weight of the inactive persons who are always ready to find all virtues in what exists and none in what might be added. I am sorry to say that even to-day that view has been voiced to a large extent—although I do not think
956
he would himself admit it—by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who made yesterday so powerful and appealing a speech from his point of view. I remember him as a younger man—a keen enthusiast who came into your Lordships' House as a member of the Labour Party.
LORD ELTON: May I correct the noble Viscount? I came in as a supporter of the National Government.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: A supporter of National Labour.
LORD ELTON: Yes, National Labour, not Labour. I had the disgrace or the honour, whichever it was, of being expelled from the Labour Party years before I had the honour of entering your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: At all events, the noble Lord termed himself National Labour and was a follower of the National Labour Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald. In his youth the noble Lord was, by temperament and character, a crusader for the great causes. He has written books—St. George or the Dragon and another book more recently—in a spirit of enthusiasm and zeal. I am sorry to see him now sitting on the Conservative Benches and the exponent of what could only be regarded as a plea for the status quo.
I welcomed the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I observed that he underlined what had already been said from that Bench: that they would not now propose to raise the question of the powers of the House of Lords. We must proceed along other lines and leave that matter in abeyance—which I hope will cause many noble Lords such as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, to take a favourable view of whatever measures may be put forward, even though they do not participate in their preparation. The debate has shown a keen interest in your Lordships' House in this matter, a desire that some reform of some sort should be effected and soon. I cannot expect more. I think it would be unreasonable to ask the Government to produce their proposals until they have completed the preparation of their Bill. When that will be, and when a further step can be taken, must depend upon their judgment; and possibly the imminence of a General Election may have weight in

957
the matter. It may be that they would wish to place their proposals before the country before there is a General Election; or possibly they might think it better to await the results of a General Election before declaring them. I know nothing as to that, and it would be impertinent of me to express any opinion. I think this debate will have been helpful to the Government in their preparations, because it has evoked most admirably phrased and formulated expressions of the
958
various points of view which they would have to take into account before they presented definite proposals to your Lordships' House, to the other House, and to the nation. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at four minutes past six o'clock.