Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Wednesday, 6th June, 1945

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Private Business

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers To Questions

Austria (Provisional Government)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make relating to the powers and scope of the Provisional Government in Vienna; what Allied Missions are in Vienna; what Allied Missions are in Vienna at the present time; and when it is proposed to allow British Press representatives to proceed to Vienna.

I have been asked to reply. As regards the position of the Austrian Provisional Government, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 30th May, in reply to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Sir G. Mander). Allied military missions arrived in Vienna on 3rd June for preliminary discussions; but it may be some time yet before the Allied Commission for Austria is set up. As soon as the Commission is established I hope it will be possible for British Press correspondents to proceed to Vienna.

Could the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific about "some time yet"?

No, Sir, I do not think I can add anything to what I have said. We must first await the report of the Missions that have proceeded there.

European Relief Policy (Co-Ordination)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the anxiety caused by the reduction in rations and the conflicting reports of the condition, and needs of the populations of liberated countries, he will issue a White Paper giving authoritative information.

While sympathising with the objects which my hon. Friend has in mind, I am satisfied that any summary of information issued now would so soon become obsolete that it would not justify the great labour involved in its production.

Is the report issued by S.H.A.E.F., stating that there was starvation in Europe, authoritative, in view of other statements which have been made regarding Holland, Belgium and France?

It is extremely difficult to generalise about conditions in Europe. In some parts they are better than in others, in some parts they are very bad.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a statement showing just what can be done in the sending of food, and what it was planned to do, and which are the agencies?

A good deal of that information has been made available in the House, but I will see that the hon. Member's suggestion is considered.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is important for the morale of our troops overseas that they should not be under the impression that there has been any reduction in the rations of their families at home on account of the necessity of feeding Germans?

That is certainly a consideration which we must always bear in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the need for a co-ordinated policy for displaced persons, a representative of U.N.R.R.A. sits on the Inter-Governmental Committee for Refugees.

I understand that a representative of U.N.R.R.A. attends plenary sessions of the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees, in the capacity of an observer, and that representatives of the Inter-Governmental Committee attend the European Regional Committee of U.N.R.R.A. and the Technical Sub-Committee of U.N.R.R.A. in a similar capacity. The importance of a co-ordinated policy is fully appreciated, and I am informed that relations between the two administrations are close and cordial.

Would not my right hon. Friend consider having a member of U.N.R.R.A. as a full member on the Inter-Governmental Committee?

As far as I know, the present arrangements are working with perfect satisfaction to both parties. If there were any change, we would consider whether any improvement was necessary.

In view of the fact that when the Inter-Governmental Committee was set up U.N.R.R.A. did not exist, is not the position worth reconsidering? An observer cannot take part in discussions, and it is obvious to anyone who has studied the functions of these two bodies that there is a great possibility of their overlapping.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the rapid return of displaced persons to their homes is one of the most important contributions to economic reconstruction that can be made, and will his Majesty's representatives give the fullest support to the efforts of U.N.R.R.A. on that matter?

His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the importance of that question.

Is my right hon. Friend confident that his Majesty's representatives have been supporting U.N.R.R.A. in this matter recently?

I am confident that His Majesty's Government have been doing everything they can to support U.N.R.R.A. in this matter of displaced persons and in all other matters with which they deal.

15.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how he proposes to ensure the satisfactory integration of U.N.R.R.A. with the Allied Control Commission operating in Germany in order that the interests of displaced persons may be adequately safeguarded.

I am fully aware of the importance of this matter, which is at present under active consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the preparations for the Allied Control Commission have taken such a very long time?

I suppose it is because the situation changes so rapidly from day to day, and, until we see how the Control Commission does, in fact, operate, it is very difficult to lay down hard and fast plans for its operation.

Has the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster taken any action in this matter; and will he represent us at Berlin, or in any other capacity?

Perhaps the right hon. Baronet will put that question down. It is another and wider question.

Persia (Allied Forces)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the position with regard to the evacuation of Allied Forces from Persia, having regard to the note from the Persian Government on the subject.

12.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have made any reply to the Note addressed to them by the Iranian Government requesting the evacuation of British troops from Iran; whether he can give any information regarding the attitude of the U.S. and Soviet Governments to the similar request addressed to them; and whether he will give an assurance that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government, in all circumstances, to safeguard our Imperial interests in South Persia and the Persian Gulf.

The Tripartite Treaty provides for the withdrawal of all troops from Persia six months after the end of the Japanese war. In view of the Persian request and our desire to meet their wishes as far as possible, we are in consultation with the United States and Soviet Governments in this matter, but I have not yet been informed of their views. The answer to the last part of the question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lancaster (Brigadier Maclean) is in the affirmative.

Does the answer mean that, unless all troops are withdrawn, none will be withdrawn?

The answer actually means what it says. What I said was that the Tripartite Treaty provides for the withdrawal of all troops six months after the end of the Japanese war. The Persian Government have made a request, and we are considering that request, in consultation with our Allies.

Have the Persian Government been defeated on this matter?

Spain

Laval (French Representations)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Spanish Government has not yet handed over Laval as a war criminal; and will he make representations to the Spanish Government asking that this be done without delay.

This is a matter primarily between the French and Spanish Governments. His Majesty's Chargé ďAffaires at Madrid has, however, been instructed to support the representations of the French Representative to the effect that Laval should be handed over to the French authorities without delay.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that Laval is probably one of the most contemptible figures thrown up by the war?

What exactly are our powers when war criminals and prominent Nazis seek asylum in nominally neutral countries?

I think that question hardly arises out of the case of Laval, who is not, technically, a war criminal. To be a war criminal he would have to be nominated by the French Government as a war criminal, and so far he has not been nominated.

Is there any news of Ribbentrop?

Concentration Camps

10.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish the report of the representatives of His Majesty's Government who visited the concentration camps in Spain.

No representatives of His Majesty's Government have visited concentration camps in Spain.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a statement on this matter on the wireless yesterday; and, in view of the concern in this country over the atrocities in Buchenwald and Belsen, will he not arrange for representatives of His Majesty's Government to visit these camps?

I have quite a few responsibilities at the moment, but, mercifully, what is said on the wireless is not one of them. I doubt very much whether any useful purpose would be served at present by adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.

Would my right hon. Friend support the suggestion that there should be an international inspectorate to inspect all prisons?

That is quite a different question.

General Bor (Newspaper Article)

11.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to an article in the "Soviet News" of 25th May, issued by the Russian Embassy, which characterises General Bor, the defender of Warsaw, in most insulting terms; and whether he will protest against the circulation in Britain of attacks of this nature on a representative of another Ally.

I have seen the article to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and I share his regret that statements of the sort contained in it about one of our Allies should appear in an official publication of another.

Will the right hon. Gentleman do anything to stop attacks of this kind? Does he realise that this article called the heroic General Bar "an agent provocateur" and "a dirty adventurer"? Is it seemly that the Press department of an Embassy in London should publish this sort of thing?

I think that the view of His Majesty's Government on this matter is already known. If it was not known before, it should be known now, from the terms of the reply I have just given.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, for years, so-called official publications in London from the Polish Government have been uttering the most atrocious slanders about the leaders of a great Ally, the Soviet Union, and we have had no protest from the Foreign Office? Will he protest about those slanders now?

I have heard protests in this House on the point the hon. Member has made.

Is it going to be the policy of the Government to interfere with the expression of opinion by another Power? Is it not a fact that, on several occasions, protests have been heard from this side of the House about the anti-Soviet propaganda of the Polish Government in London?

Why does not the right hon. Gentleman deplore that?

I do not think it is a question so much of policy as of what is seemly, and, as I say, we do regret that statements of this kind about any Ally should appear in the publications of another Ally.

World Security Organisation (Secretariat)

14.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement concerning the proposal that the Secretary-General and the four Deputy Secretaries-General of the proposed World Organisation should be appointed on the nomination of the Security Council and for a period of three years only.

The four sponsoring Powers have submitted to the San Francisco Conference amendments to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals whereby the Secretary-General of the new Organisation and his four deputies would be elected by the General Assembly on recommendation of the Security Council for a period of three years, and the Secretary-General would be eligible for re-election. These proposals are at present under discussion by the Conference.

During their consideration, will the right hon. Gentleman and the Government bear in mind the danger that, if these five superior posts were to become short-term diplomatic appointments, it would be impossible to build up a really international body of the kind that is required?

I appreciate the point of view which the hon. Member is expressing, but I think that, on the other side, there is a good deal to be said for the argument that it is important that people in the international organisation who hold really important posts should have been, at some fairly recent date, in active contact with the world of men, so to speak, and not live in an abstraction of their own.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that those of us who worked in connection with the League of Nations know from experience the immense value of building up an international esprit de corps, which cannot possibly be done if you are going to make these diplomatic appointments?

Is there not considerable danger, in these matters, of failing to see the wood for the trees?

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, while the institutions at Geneva were taken seriously there was no difficulty whatever about superior officials maintaining contact with their Governments at home, which, as a basis of international security, is essential to the strengthening of the whole thing?

United States (International Trading Arrangements)

19.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the reciprocal trading arrangements made between the U.S.A. and other countries fit into the pattern of international relations as contemplated at Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco; and if he can give particulars of such arrangements.

The functions of the Economic and Social Council, which will form part of the proposed International Organisation, are at present under discussion at San Francisco.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if these reciprocity arrangements into which the United States have entered are not exclusive, but that any other countries will have the right to enter into agreements?

I rather fancy that the particular arrangements which my hon. Friend has in mind are bilateral trading agreements, but the position is, I think, that the United States is willing to enter into such agreements with any other country that will enter into them.

Syria And Lebanon

20.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will issue a White Paper giving a record of events in November, 1943, and May, 1945, in Syria and the Lebanon from the reports of the British Minister.

The deplorable events of November, 1943, and May, 1945, in Syria and the Lebanon have been fully described to the House in statements made at the time and widely published, and I do not think any good purpose would be served by publishing a White Paper, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.

Member Of Parliament (Visit To United States)

21.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) was recently invited to lecture in the U.S.A. under the auspices of the Society of Friends, at their expense; that the Foreign Office consulted the Ministry of Information and both Departments refused to sponsor such a visit or issue a new passport; that several Members of this House of all political parties have paid visits to the U.S.A. during hostilities to lecture; that Members of the American Congress of all shades of political opinion have visited this country under similar conditions; and, as this refusal violates the rights of a Member of this House and offends a considerable section of American opinion, whether he will reconsider this decision.

The general issue which this case raises has been reconsidered in the light of the changed circumstances. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be making a statement on this subject after Questions to-day.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what satisfaction that answer will give to all parts of the House? Does he realise that the hon. Member for Westhoughton is an officer of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and that his visit to the United States can do nothing else but strengthen the existing friendship between the United States and this country?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am deferring my comments until I hear the statement?

Royal Air Force

Aero-Engine Mechanics (Badge)

22.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that first-class fitters in the R.C.A.F. are en titled to wear a distinctive badge on their uniforms; and whether he will consider granting a similar distinctive badge, after certain tests, to first-class fitters in the R.A.F.

I am aware that the Canadian Air Council has authorised the use of a trade badge for Royal Canadian Air Force airmen and airwomen qualified as aero-engine mechanics. The introduction of a similar badge for the Royal Air Force would be contrary to present practice, but the question of badges will be further reviewed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable desire on the part of first-class fitters in the R.A.F. for this distinctive badge?

Yes, but there is a sort of practice or doctrine, and I think it should be carefully considered before changes are made.

Aerodromes (Agricultural Land)

23.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many acres of former agricultural land in Norfolk are at present being used for aerodromes; and when he proposes to release part of this area for farming.

The answer to the first part of the Question is, approximately, 24,400 acres, of which nearly 5,000 were in use as airfields before the war. Approximately 1,450, acres are at present let to farmers. With regard to the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my predecessor to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 28th February last. Meanwhile, there should soon be substantial increases in the acreage let for agriculture from these airfields.

How soon can we expect a statement from the right hon. Gentleman's Department about the future use of this kind of land?

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that it requires very careful consideration of the whole defence and strategic position of the future, and he would hardly expect me to make that investigation at the present time.

Why not?

Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that there are thousands of families homeless in Norwich, and that there is aerodrome accommodation available in the vicinity of Norwich?

Yes, Sir. We will make every possible effort to make every alleviation consistent with strategic needs.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that his officers at these various aerodromes discuss this matter with individual farmers, so that in cases where the complete aerodrome cannot be passed back, yet those parts which could be released can be handed back for agricultural purposes?

That is being done. That is the increased land released for agricultural purposes.

Has the Minister started his careful examination of the defence and strategic considerations involved?

These matters are, of course, under consideration by the post-war planning authorities of the Service Departments.

Night Flying, Peterborough

24.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to the people of Peterborough by the noise of a certain type of training aircraft which keeps children awake at night and is extremely annoying to the adult population; whether he will now arrange for training on this type of aircraft to be carried out on other airfields instead of at Peterborough; and pending such an arrangement, whether he will forbid all flying of this type of aircraft from R.A.F. station, Peterborough, between 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. with immediate effect.

I sympathise with my Noble Friend in this matter. Efforts are being made to find suitable accommodation for the Unit elsewhere, but I cannot yet say when a change will be possible. Meanwhile instructions have been issued that night flying is to be reduced to the minimum compatible with efficient training.

Low Flying Aircraft

25.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will have inquiries made about machines flying low over in habited areas; and whether there is a stated height to which machines shall not come below unless under special circum stances.

Careful inquiries are always made in order to identify aircraft which disobey the orders in force against unauthorised low flying. Members of the public often give valuable assistance by reporting the identification marks of low flying aircraft to the authorities. All aircraft are required to maintain a height of not less than 2,000 ft., except, of course, when taking off or landing, or when weather conditions would make this unsafe, or when flying in certain areas which have been selected for low flying training. When over towns and thickly inhabited areas, aircraft are required to fly at a height which would enable them to glide clear in case of engine trouble. The hon. Member will, however, appreciate that conditions in this island often make it necessary to fly below the normal stated heights.

I thank the right hon. Member for his reply, and would like to ask him whether he is aware that when I was recently in Blackpool aeroplanes were flying low over the town—much too low to give a feeling of safety—and I thought a warning ought to go forth?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will make representations to the American Air Force because I think some of these machines are American aircraft? Could he not make friendly representations?

The American authorities have been most co-operative and have taken very stern disciplinary measures parallel to our own.

Will the right hon. Gentleman issue further instructions on this matter, as this is a common practice all over the country and is really abominable?

Yes, Sir, the attention of all Air Force Commands was recently drawn to the order in force against unauthorised low flying and that has been specially emphasised lately, but I would re-emphasise the fact, which I am sure those who have had flying experience will know, that there are many days in the climate of this island when you must fly lower than 2,000 feet.

Will the Minister state shortly what the deterrent is? What happens to pilots who disobey the rule?

Very strong disciplinary measures have been taken, and I regret to say that even in my short period of office, it has been my duty to approve of sentences of dismissal from the Service for this offence.

26.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the disturbance to rest caused by aeroplanes which fly constantly over Bristol at low altitudes throughout the day and night; and whether he will take steps to abate this nuisance.

This matter has been brought to my notice. The following steps have been taken: pilots who regularly fly near Bristol are specially warned to avoid the town; appropriate arrangements have been made for the observation and reporting of offenders; and in addition, the attention of all Royal Air Force Commands has recently been specially drawn to the orders in force against unauthorised low flying.

Overseas Postings (Demobilisation Priority)

27.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will set out in detail the principles which are to be applied in drafting R.A.F. personnel for service in the Far East so far as the various demobilisation priority groups are concerned.

Men in early age and service groups for Class "A" release are not normally posted overseas except to Western Europe. For purposes of assessing priority of release there is no distinction between service at home and overseas; nor will a man be required to complete his overseas tour when his turn for release arrives.

Is it a fact that men in the 25 group have already been informed by commanding officers in France that they are liable to be drafted to the Far East?

I think this question was raised before, and any such order, if given, has been cancelled.

Is the Minister aware that I have a reply from his predecessor which indicates that the people on the spot determine these things and that men of the 25 group have been notified that they are liable to be so drafted?

That was an order of the 2nd Tactical Air Force in France which has been cancelled.

Royal Observer Corps

28.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether members of the Royal Observer Corps are authorised to retain any part of their uniform or any badge which would show that they had been of service to their country.

Yes, Sir. Former members of the Royal Observer Corps may retain the main articles of uniform, including the lapel badges which may be worn with civilian clothes. In addition, members who have been injured are in certain circumstances eligible for the King's Badge, and those who fulfil the qualifying conditions will receive the Defence Medal. Though the Corps is no longer actively employed, most of its members, with commendable public spirit, have volunteered to continue their membership. These members will, of course, retain their uniforms.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there will be any special recognition of those members of the Observer Corps who are allowed to wear the shoulder flash "Seaborne" because they volunteered for service at the time of D-Day in circumstances of great danger and difficulty in boats crossing the Channel?

I will look into that.

Marshal Stalin's Message

29.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will publish the congratulatory message that he received on or about 16th May from the Soviet Ambassador on the glorious part played by our Bomber Command in forging the victory.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the message addressed by Marshal Stalin to the Royal Air Force as a whole. That message and my predecessor's reply were communicated to the Press on 16th May. They have also been published to the Service in an Air Ministry Order. I am circulating the full texts in the Official Report.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether this message has also been widely published throughout the whole of Russia?

The messages are as follow:

From the Soviet Ambassador, Monsieur F. T. Gousev:

"I have the honour, on behalf of Marshal J. V. Stalin and my own, to express to you and to the valiant Royal Air Force sincere congratulations on the great victory over our common enemy—German Imperialism. Allow me to express to you my hope that the friendly co-operation between the peoples of Great Britain and the U.S.S.R., built up during the course of the war, will be successfully and happily maintained and developed in the post-war period."

Sir Archibald Sinclair replied:

"It is a great pleasure to receive your letter of yesterday, and on behalf of the Royal Air Force I thank you and Marshal Stalin for your congratulations. I share to the full your hope that the war-time comradeship between the peoples of Britain and Russia will ripen into a firm and lasting friendship. In that friendship, the mutual respect between the airmen of the Royal Air Force and those of the glorious Red Army will be a strong element."

Personnel (Re-Engagement)

30.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if men over 30 years of age, who signed on for a further period of service in the R.A.F. as an alternative to being transferred to the Army, will now be given the opportunity of reconsidering the obligation taken.

No recent regular engagements have yet been made final. Every airman who is provisionally accepted will have an opportunity of confirming that he is still willing to enlist.

Medical Staffs (Release)

31.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will give an assurance that doctors, medical orderlies and other medical staffs will not be retained in the R.A.F. after their release group has been reached.

Generally, the position is as stated by my predecessor on 25th April in his reply to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). I can, however, say that in the categories to which the hon. Member refers it has only been necessary to restrict the release of nursing orderlies in the group lists so far promulgated.

Clerks And Cooks (Release)

34.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether R.A.F. personnel engaged in clerk general duties are likely to be delayed in their release from the Services; and whether recruitment for this trade category will be expedited.

36.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why it is not found possible to release cooks in the R.A.F. at the same time as the rest of the release groups to which they belong; and whether he will take the necessary steps to remove this inequality as soon as practicable.

The proportion of men in the earlier release groups is greater in the trades of cook and clerk (general duties) than the average for the Air Force as a whole. It is, therefore, necessary, at any rate for the present, that the rate of release of cooks and clerks should be below the average, but steps are being taken to reduce the variation to a minimum by the re-training of airmen not due for early release and by training new entrants as they become available.

General Election

35.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether service candidates for Parliament have now been given leave to contest the election.

Yes, Sir.

Civil Aviation

Service, Orkney And Shetland

33.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will issue instructions to enable civil air services to use the most direct route to Orkney and Shetland.

Yes, Sir. The necessary instructions will shortly be issued.

Railway Companies (Air Lines)

38.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will specify by name the railway companies which operated air lines before the war in England and Wales.

The airline operations of the four mainline Railway Companies in the United Kingdom were conducted by a number of airline companies. These airline companies were:

Great Western and Southern Airlines Ltd.,

Guernsey Airways Ltd.,

Isle of Man Air Services Ltd.,

Jersey Airways Ltd.,

Railway Air Services Ltd.,

Scottish Airways Ltd.,

West Coast Air Services Ltd.

These companies had a total route mileage of approximately 5,700 miles. Of these companies, Scottish Airways operated exclusively in Scotland. Railway Air Services operated between England and Scotland, and Scotland and Northern Ireland. Isle of Man Air Services included a service between the Isle of Man and Glasgow. The other services operated in England and Wales and between England and North Ireland, Eire, Channel Islands, Scilly Islands and Isle of Man.

While thanking my hon. Friend for his very comprehensive reply, may I say that it is not a reply to my Question? May I re-direct my hon. Friend's attention to the specific words of my Question? I asked what were the names of the railway companies operating air lines before the war. He has given me a very long, interesting and, as I say, comprehensive study of the whole question before the war, but not an answer to my Question.

I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will raise this matter on the Estimates later to-night.

I have every intention of doing so.

Aircraft Works, Clayton-Le-Moors (Black-Out)

37.

asked the Minister of Aircraft Production if he will take steps to remove the black-out from the Bristol Aircraft Works, Clayton-le-Moors.

Black-out at this factory will certainly be removed as soon as suitable labour can be spared from more urgent work, which I hope will be in a few months' time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same kind of comment was made 12 months ago; and cannot the Department speed up this matter so that they can get on with the work?

As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the real difficulty is that of labour.

Is the Minister aware that there is labour available?

Nigeria (Constitution)

39.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received any report regarding the acceptability of the proposals for the future Nigerian Constitution and Government.

As I said in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on 19th April last, the Legislative Council of Nigeria on 22nd March debated the proposals and passed, without division, a resolution signifying its approval of them and recommending them for adoption. Since then I have received representations from various private bodies and individuals and these will be given due consideration.

Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether those representations from private bodies and individuals were in acceptance or rejection of those proposals?

Some were in favour and some against. One, particularly in favour, came from a body with which the hon. Gentleman is in the closest sympathy.

Will there be a chance for the House to discuss this question?

The hon. Member will recollect that I said the White Paper would not be introduced until the House had had a Debate. Recent events have, of course, prevented that opportunity arising.

Will this matter ultimately be debated in Parliament?

That is the Question I have just answered.

Merchant Navy (Releases)

40.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport under what conditions engineer officers of the Merchant Navy are to be released should they desire it.

My hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that this country will continue to need a Merchant Navy at least as large as that which we have today. In considering the question of release, it should be remembered that service in the Merchant Navy is the peacetime career of the majority of officers and men now at sea. The principles upon which those who desire to go will be released have been agreed with the representatives of the owners, the officers and the men. Releases will broadly follow the lines laid down for the Services, regard being had to age and length of service during the war. My Noble Friend proposes to proceed at an early date with the release of Groups 1–7 for the officers and 1–15 for the ratings in so far as the officers and men falling within these groups wish to be released.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this class of officer is urgently needed in certain kinds of civil employment—in marine surveying, marine engineering and the ship repairing industry, of course in limited numbers, and will he take this need into account in arranging for the release of any such officers when they desire to take up civil appointments?

Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend had that matter in mind when we decided to release this particular batch in the early stages.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary see that the rates and conditions of these officers are kept at the very highest possible standard so as to encourage them to remain in the Service?

That is another question.

Can the hon. Gentleman give a precise date when this will commence?

It will be at a very early date. The reason I did not give a date was so that we could inform the various organisations concerned.

Railways

London-Aberdeen Service (Restaurant Cars)

41.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in view of the fact that the journey between London and Aberdeen takes between13 and 14 hours, he can now cancel his instructions to the railway companies and so enable them to provide restaurant or buffet car facilities on that route.

The provision of restaurant or buffet car facilities reduces the number of seats that can be provided. Passenger services are likely to be heavily loaded for some time to come, and I regret that I am unable to say when it will be possible to provide these facilities on the journey between London and Aberdeen.

Could not my hon. Friend leave it to the railway companies? If he would remove his restrictions, there would be only one obstacle, and the railway companies could run these facilities if they were able to do so.

I have had special inquiry made into this matter recently, and I understand that the introduction of restaurant cars would reduce the seating accommodation, both because they cannot take so many people, and also because of the weight involved. However, I am keeping this matter in view, and if anything can be done I will do it.

Does not my hon. Friend think it is more important that there should be more sleeping cars rather than restaurant cars on the trains to Aberdeen?

I am, of course, aware of the limitations of transport in all directions. Restaurant cars cannot be provided as long as there is a shortage of seating accommodation.

Would it not be a good idea to advise the railway companies that John Citizen should have a chance of getting a seat for the ticket he buys?

Cheltenham-London Service

44.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he can now provide a fast train per day, each way, between Cheltenham and London, in view of the fact that at present the scheduled time of this journey of 100 miles is about four hours.

This matter is being reviewed, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

While I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, will he bear in mind that Cheltenham is about the worst served of any city in the country?

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that most of these trains have to stop twice at every station between Swindon and Gloucester, and that the delay is really intolerable?

Holiday Transport

66.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is satisfied that sufficient engines, carriages and trains will be available to provide holiday transport for the large number of workers who, for the first time, will be granted holidays with pay this summer and autumn; and, in view of the fact that the few extra non-scheduled trains now provided are, at present overcrowded, what improvements does he intend to apply.

My Noble Friend has asked the railways to run this summer such additional trains as their resources permit and the traffic requires, subject only to the overriding condition that they do not interfere with essential traffic. The number of additional trains the railways can provide for holiday traffic will undoubtedly be limited by shortage of engines and carriages.

As the trains already provided are cluttered up and packed to suffocation now, and there will be no more available, what chances have war-workers, or those who have made the munitions to win the war, got of getting a holiday this year and getting some comfort on the trains?

Everybody will have the same opportunity in this matter, but the hon. Member should not underestimate the difficulties we are in with the repairs and building programme.

If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Questions to the Minister of Labour to-morrow, he will find that I have not done so.

Organised Parties (Travel Permits)

42.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what is the basis adopted for granting permits to organised parties, such as bands, choirs, cricket teams, football teams, or any other groups who desire to travel by a public conveyance; and what is the maximum distance allowed for such vehicles.

Where it is desired to hire omnibuses or coaches for private parties, application must be made to the Regional Transport Commissioner for the issue of fuel for the journey. The relevant considerations are generally the availability of vehicles and crews without interference with essential services, the length of the journey and the adequacy of other means of transport. In the case of cricket or football teams engaged in representative matches or in the leading professional football competitions, a maximum distance of 50 miles is generally prescribed and for other cricket or football teams a maximum of 25 miles. In other cases the distance allowed depends on the circumstances.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Salvation Army band, Langley Moor, desired to travel to Dinnington and were refused, and because of that silly decision 10 men had to miss a shift in the pit, thereby losing that valuable contribution to coal production?

I understand that in the case of that particular Salvation Army band the journey involved a round trip of 220 miles. While we try to give these facilities wherever we can, in a case like that I think the Regional Transport Commissioner's decision was probably a right one.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that musical competitions and musical festivals are a part of the national life of Wales, and that the time has now come to relax some of these restrictions and enable the Welsh people fully to enjoy their national institutions?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that matter. We have given permission in a number of cases for these choirs to travel, but each particular case has to be considered on its merits.

Is the Minister not aware that in this case the driver was there, the petrol was there and the bus was there, and still they were not allowed to travel?

March upon music to victory.

In all these cases the drivers have buses, but we feel that they should be used on essential services.

Jarrow Tunnel Project

43.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in view of the importance of improving communications in the north-eastern area, he will give early consideration to the revival of the Jarrow tunnel project so that the plans can be ready as labour becomes available.

Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend recently discussed this question with the Joint Committee of the Durham and Northumberland County Councils.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman where the tunnel will emerge?

I cannot say.

Wartime Ministries (Continuance)

45.

asked the Prime Minister if he is able to make any statement with reference to the future of the Ministries of Aircraft Production, Information, Production, Food, Supply and War Transport; and if it is intended to continue them, in whole or in part, as separate Ministries.

I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. It is contemplated that it will be necessary to retain the Ministry of Information on a reduced scale during the war against Japan, each Department thereafter becoming responsible for publicity policy within its own sphere; that the Ministry of Food will be retained so long as the Central Government continues to control the purchase, sale, distribution and price of food; and that the Ministry of War Transport will continue after the war. While clearly no Government can pledge successors in a matter of this kind, the Departments concerned have been authorised to proceed on the above assumptions for planning purposes.

The offices of the Minister of Production and of President of the Board of Trade are now held by the same Minister. No decision has yet been reached as to the future of the Ministries of Aircraft Production and Supply.

Will my right hon. Friend consider taking steps before winding up a Ministry like the Ministry of Aircraft Production to see that concerns like the flying boats works of Short Bros, in Rochester, my constituency, are restored to their proper and rightful owners?

I am sure everything will be considered.

Three-Power Meeting (Venue)

46.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the desire of hon. Members in all parts of the House that his projected meeting with Marshal Stalin and President Truman shall take place in London; and whether, in view of Marshal Stalin's release from the control of military operations and his own domestic pre-occupations, he will press for the meeting to be held on British soil.

My right hon. Friend is sorry there is no chance of this.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that the possibility of Marshal Stalin coming to London would be considerably enhanced if he were to meet here a Socialist Prime Minister?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that President Truman and Marshal Stalin would be assured of the warmest welcome if they came here and furthermore that many of us would regard it as a just tribute to the unique part played by Great Britain in this war that one of these meetings should take place on this soil?

I have already expressed regret on behalf of my right hon. Friend.

Food Supplies

Fish

47.

asked the Minister of Food what arrangements he has made to ensure that catches of herring for which there is no possibility of immediate sale fresh shall be kippered and not wasted.

All possible arrangements have been made to kipper any herrings that cannot be sold fresh to the full capacity of the smokehouses.

In view of the reduction in the quantity of protein-containing foods, is it not important to increase the supply of fish?

Yes, Sir, most important.

Will my right hon. and gallant Friend make representations to the Admiralty to release, before October, the buildings and grounds at Lowestoft and Yarmouth which are required for kippering the large herring catch?

That is a question which should be put to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.

48.

asked the Minister of Food whether he will take the necessary steps to improve the distribution of fish in the rural areas of the North Riding of Yorkshire.

Yes, Sir, so far as I can.

Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that rural areas suffer a great disadvantage compared to urban areas in the matter of fish distribution, because they have no fish shops? Will he make representations to his colleagues that travelling fish merchants should have every facility to make fish rounds?

If it is merely a question of getting a fish licence, in any area where there is a consumer need there would be very little difficulty in getting a licence from my Department to sell fish.

49.

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that John Donnelly, of 211, Hilton Road, Sunderland, is hawking herring in the township of Crook, and travelling over 40 miles each day to do this work; and if he will arrange for a better distribution of herring in the Crook area and thus cut out this waste of time and petrol.

This man is carrying out useful work in distributing fish, and I see no reason to put him out of a job.

Is the Minister aware that business men in Crook cannot understand why a man should be allowed to travel 40 miles to sell fish on their doorsteps, when they are already selling fish?

I like to see fish sold on doorsteps if we can get the facilities to do it.

But is not the Minister aware that this man is travelling 40 miles to sell fish on the doorsteps of men who are in the trade? [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Surely the people in business ought to get better distribution which would give them a chance to sell.

This man is also in the trade as a distributor of fish. In regard to other facilities there, there are one fishmonger, 11 fish fryers, and nine fishmonger fryers to serve the Crook and Willingdon area, so there are plenty of "inlets" for fish.

Will the Minister make the amenities of Crook available to the whole country?

Potatoes

50.

asked the Minister of Food if his attention has been drawn to irregularities in the supply of potatoes reaching the Merseyside area; and what steps he proposes to remedy the existing shortage.

Yes, Sir, and all possible steps are being taken to ease the position, but I fear that some shortages are likely before the new crop is available in adequate volume.

Would the Minister care, without notice, to make a statement with regard to the prospects of the new potato crop?

The old crop potatoes are now coming towards their end. We knew from the beginning of the year—and I said so frankly to the House—that because of the difficulties of last autumn we should have difficulties at this period with our potatoes. The new Cornish crop is now coming in, and we are deflecting supplies to the areas where there are the least supplies of the old crop potatoes.

Are there any crops coming from Jersey?

No, Sir, not yet.

63.

asked the Minister of Food why Shropshire has been excluded from those areas to receive an allocation of Cornish early potatoes; whether he is aware that Shropshire as a producing county has exported all its potato surplus under instructions of his Ministry; and whether he will take steps to see that Shropshire shall share with other counties in receiving a reasonable allocation of early potatoes.

The stock of old potatoes in Shropshire is still sufficient to meet a fair proportion of the demand and I do not, therefore, propose to allocate Cornish new potatoes to that district at present.

Returning Foreign Visitors (Food Parcels)

53.

asked the Minister of Food what quantity of food raised in this country a Belgian or a Frenchman coming to this country on business can take back as part of his luggage.

After a mere visit here, none, Sir.

Does that mean that a farmer cannot give to a Belgian friend, who is starving, a bit of ham or bacon?

Ham?

Yes, Sir, it certainly does.

Fruit

54.

asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the extreme shortage of fruit reaching retailers; to what extent this is due to the diversion of supplies through other channels in which exorbitant prices are obtained; and what steps he is taking to deal with this matter.

Yes, Sir; because the sale of soft fruit has only just started. I have no evidence of sales through any but the normal trade channels, and when we have sufficient evidence that a sale contravenes our maximum price order a prosecution is instituted.

If the Minister has no information what are his enforcement officers and the police doing?

I regret to say that we have had quite a number of prosecutions, mainly of street fruit hawkers, for charging above the maximum prices.

Can the Minister tell us why it is possible to buy British strawberries in expensive restaurants at 2s. 6d. per dish or portion, and it is not possible to buy them in ordinary shops, through the normal channels?

I would not accept what the hon. Member says.

Strawberries are only to be found in restaurants; they cannot be found in the ordinary markets.

Can the Minister assure the House that his lack of information is not due to any reluctance on the part of the Government to enforce adequate control?

I can certainly inform the hon. Member of that, and tell him that the policy I have pursued as Minister of Food is just the same to-day as it was a year ago.

Can we have a photograph of a strawberry placed in the Library?

We might accompany it by a raspberry, as well.

Tomatoes

55.

asked the Minister of Food whether there is any prospect of tomatoes being available for retail in the shops in the County of Durham and the North-east area; whether he is aware they have been obtainable in London for the past month, and, having in mind the recent cut in rationed foods, whether he will endeavour at an early date to have some of the available tomatoes sent North where demand is very large.

Yes, Sir; supplies have already been sent to Durham and the North-east area and as more tomatoes become available more will go.

Is the Minister aware that his answer will give great satisfaction?

What steps is the Minister taking to control the distribution of over-ripe tomatoes during the next month?

Food Lists

56.

asked the Minister of Food whether he will put up in hotels, eating-houses, schools and council houses, lists of those foods which contain carbohydrates, fats, proteins and vitamins.

My Department already supplies a list such as my hon. and gallant Friend mentions to schools, domestic science colleges and lecturers.

May I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend whether there is any such list in the House; whether there are only two Cabinet Ministers who know what the list is, and whether man-power does not come before weapon power?

Certainly there is a list in the House, because I have one here. I also have a poster, a copy of which I shall be delighted to send to my hon. and gallant Friend if he knows any place which would like to exhibit it.

Shop Queues

57.

asked the Minister of Food whether he will in- crease stocks in retail shops and take other steps calculated to reduce the length of queues in the interests of the health of the people.

61.

asked the Minister of Food whether he can introduce some arrangement which will reduce the amount of queueing which now has to be done.

So far as the main rationed foods are concerned, the increase of stocks in retail shops would not reduce queues which are caused almost entirely by shortage of staff. As regards those foods which it is impracticable to ration, I regret that shortage of supplies prevents my taking action at present of the kind suggested by my hon. Friends.

Wheat

58.

asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to relieve the present glut of wheat in storage in the Southern area of England as, in view of the impossibility of accepting further deliveries, all his storage facilities for the use of. the millers being exhausted, farmers are compelled to keep the wheat in their barns, etc., subject to rat and mice attack; and, as further arrivals of Canadian wheat are making the sitution worse, if he will ship more wheat to the Continent to relieve the scarcity in France, Belgium and Holland, etc.

60.

asked the Minister of Food whether in connection with wheat for milling, he will give an explanation in respect of the difficulties farmers in many parts of the country are experiencing in selling their wheat, the difficulties the public are experiencing in many parts of the country in purchasing cereals, such as wheat flakes; and why, in view of the heavy stocks of wheat available, wheat flakes and other cereals are still to remain on points.

Recent heavy threshings of wheat have caused a temporary surplus in some areas which cannot be immediately absorbed by millers. My Department is purchasing and storing the surplus. Substantial quantities of wheat have been and are being supplied to the liberated countries of Europe. The reason why wheat flakes and other breakfast cereals have to be rationed is not shortage of wheat but shortage of labour in the processing factories.

Is there any prospect of relief in the near future?

As I have said, the Ministry have now undertaken to purchase and store the surplus.

Meat Ration (Offal)

62.

asked the Minister of Food whether he can do anything to bring about a more equitable distribution of offal, in view of the smallness of the meat ration.

Issues of offal are based on the allocations of ration meat to butchers who, generally speaking, spread their supplies fairly among their customers. I shall be glad to look into any specific complaint of which my hon. Friend may be able to give me particulars.

Does my right hon. and gallant Friend really believe that offal is at present fairly distributed? Is he inviting householders to communicate with him?

I was inviting my hon. Friend to communicate with me.

I shall send my right hon. and gallant Friend a large number of communications.

Home-Killed Meat

64.

asked the Minister of Food to what extent the meat produced in this country is sent to prisoner-of-war camps and foreign or frozen meat supplied to British people; and will he take steps to see that all the meat produced in this country is consumed by British people.

Home-killed meat is only supplied to prisoner-of-war camps in districts where imported meat is excluded at the request of the Agricultural Departments. The amount of meat involved is infinitesimal.

Ration Reduction (Petition)

65.

asked the Minister of Food whether he has considered a Petition from the inhabitants of Wattsville, Cross Keys, Monmouthshire, protesting against the reductions in rations and asking that they may be restored, or in creased, especially to men engaged in hard manual work; and what reply he has made.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." The answer to the petition is that the reductions would not have been made had supplies been sufficient to maintain rations at their previous levels.

Soap Supplies, London Area

51.

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the shortage of soap, soap powder and flakes, in the borough of Bexley and in London generally; and if he will take steps to enable housewives who were unable to get their last month's ration to draw it later.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." I am endeavouring to meet the increased demand for soap in the London area. I regret that I cannot adopt the suggestion in the second half of the Question.

Is the Minister aware of the hardship which is caused to housewives in view of the shortage of their ration? During the war period they have had no reserves, and really need their soap ration.

There are great distribution difficulties. In other countries, when people have not taken up their ration, in one period they are allowed to take it up later, but distribution becomes hopeless, and it is not a thing that I could contemplate doing here.

Can the Minister say whether a large number of people now eat soap.

I should not think any.

Is the Minister aware that many retailers were sold out of soap within three days of the commencement of the last rationing period?

The difficulty arose when we had to reduce the soap ration and a large number of people made a rush on the shops at that time. This was quite unnecessary, because there will be enough soap in the shops to meet the ration over the period. This rush put a strain on over distribution system, which cannot stand up to a great many people cashing their coupons on the same day. We are, however, getting the situation right.

Is it not a sine qua non of a rationing system that the Ministry should always honour the ration on time; and is not the necessity for doing so the reason always given for not rationing fish, for instance?

As I have said, there was this rush on the shops. Although the coupon is valid for a considerable period if everybody rushes into the shops in two or three days no system can quite stand up to that. During this period people will get their ration if they do not all rush to buy soap on the same day.

But is it not a fact that when women presented their demands for their ordinary month's ration the soap was not there? Why should not the shopkeepers have the soap, whether a woman wants to get it in the first, second, third or fourth week of the period?

Questions To Ministers

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Kirkwood:

92. To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to announce the setting up of a Naval base upon the Clyde.

Before leaving Questions, Mr. Speaker, would you allow Question 92 to be put? It is a most important Question, the Minister is here to reply to it, and you have several times allowed Questions to be put in this way.

There are a good many Questions between No. 67 and No. 92, and if I allowed the hon. Member to put his Question, all the other hon. Members with Questions on the Paper might want them to be answered also.

Is it not the case that this has been done on one or two occasions?

It has been done only as an exceptional procedure, when the Minister has wished to answer a Question and the House has agreed.

Members Of Parliament (Overseas Travel)

I ask the leave of the House to make a short statement in regard to overseas travel by Members of Parliament.

During the war in Europe it was the view of the Government, which was generally supported by the House, that Members wishing to travel overseas should stand on the same footing as other members of the community, that is to say, exit permits would be granted to them only if it could be established that the proposed journey was in the national interest. As hon. Members are aware, when France and later Belgium were liberated, it was felt to be in the public interest that Members of either House should be able to visit these countries and inform themselves of conditions there. Arrangements were accordingly made for exit permits to be granted freely to Members to travel within the limits of the ballot scheme.

Now that hostilities in Europe are over, the Government have decided that the restrictions on the departure of Members of Parliament should be abolished, and exit permits will therefore be granted to Members for travel to any destination on application. It will still be necessary for hon. Members, like other travellers, to pass through the controls at the ports, to carry valid travel documents, and to comply with censorship and currency Regulations. The grant of an exit permit does not imply that a passage will be available, and it will be necessary for a Member to secure the visas or military permits required to enable him to reach and enter the territory he wishes to visit. The number of Members wishing to travel to France and Belgium under the ballot scheme has never reached the number of places reserved for them on the transport available, and I have accordingly come to the conclusion that this Scheme now serves no useful purpose and should be brought to an end.

Members of Parliament will be able to travel freely between Great Britain and Ireland on production of a travel permit card or British passport in the same way as the public generally.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred almost exclusively to Europe and Ireland. Will travelling facilities of a similar nature be available to the United States of America, South America and other parts of the world? Will the Minister, in providing these facilities, realise that the House of Commons has imposed upon itself during the war far greater limitations than the House of Representatives or the Senate have imposed upon themselves in America, and that we have been very seriously deprived of travelling facilities during the last three or four years, that a large number of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives have come over to this country and no question has been raised, and that there ought to be no further limitation on the freedom of Members of this House?

It was because we realised that this restriction had been accepted by the House during past years that the Government have taken the earliest opportunity of doing away with the restriction. What I said applies generally to overseas travel and is not restricted to Europe and Ireland.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that currency will be available to Members of Parliament, as required, on a scale comparable with that allowed to senior civil servants?

That is not a question for me.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House whether, as most arrangements are still under the control of Government Departments, Members of Parliament will receive priority in any degree, as otherwise the concession will be valueless?

I can only deal with what is in my control. I have said that, as far as the exit permit is concerned, the restrictions are abolished. I could not make any general statement on transport facilities.

In the past we have been frustrated by obligations being passed from one Department to another. May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to realise that it is not sufficient for an exit permit to be granted? It is also necessary for the Treasury to permit Members of Parliament who wish to travel, to take cash with them out of the country, otherwise the only persons who can travel are Members who are favoured by the Ministry of Information, or business persons, who have resources abroad, and all the guarantees that he has given are worthless, unless other Government Departments insist upon the Treasury allowing cash to be taken.

I had no notice of this point being raised but I am in a position to say to the House that I have contemplated that rather special consideration should be given to Members of Parliament in the matter of foreign exchange, because in present circumstances we can fairly presume that Members of Parliament desiring to travel abroad have valid reasons of public interest for doing so.

I am not quite clear about this restriction. Is it the case that the restriction is one which Members of Parliament voluntarily imposed upon themselves and that the Executive does not claim the right in any way to prevent their free movement?

That raises the issue of the exact basis of what was done by the late Government. I think, now that these restrictions are being removed, we can leave that matter for further consideration.

Does this relaxation apply to Members seeking re-election, between polling day and the meeting of the new Parliament?

There will not be any Members of Parliament in that period.

Will the exemption extend to Members' wives if they wish to accompany their husbands?

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I wanted to travel on one occasion when there was transport but I was refused a permit, and on another occasion was told I could have a permit but no transport was available?

With further reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas), is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delicious limbo between 5th and 26th July will be the only chance that many Members will have of visiting Europe for business or political reasons, and cannot hon. Members of the present House be deemed still to be Members for this purpose?

None of us will be Members. We may or may not be, of course, after the interval. If cases arise in the interval, they will receive careful consideration, but my statement must be related to Members of Parliament.

Message From The Lords

That they have agreed to— Welsh Church (Burial Grounds)

Bill,

Emergency Powers (Defence) Bill, Without Amendment.

Water Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Bill [ Lords], without Amendment.

Library (House Of Commons)

Special Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 98.]

Business Of The House

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[ Mr. Bracken.]

Business Of The House (Supply)

3.25 p.m.

I beg to move,

"That for the purpose of concluding the Business of Supply for the present Session, Eight days shall be allotted under Standing Order No. 14 for the consideration of the annual Navy, Army, Air and Civil Estimates, including Votes on Account; and, as respects the present Session, that Standing Order shall have effect as if in paragraph (7) of that Standing Order the Eighth day were substituted for the Twentieth day so allotted."

On Tuesday of last week, the Leader of the House said it would be necessary for the Government to bring forward a Motion to obtain outstanding Supply in a reduced number of days. My right hon. Friend was not then in a position to announce how many days would be given for Supply. That, as he explained, depended on the time required for other business and talks had already begun with a view to ascertaining what measure of agreement might be counted upon in regard to outstanding legislation. There were certain Bills which the Government considered essential and there were other desirable Measures which Ministers in all parts of the House wished to see passed into law before the Dissolution. This desire was particularly manifested on Tuesday morning of last week, when, by general agreement, the Committee stages of the Distribution of Industry Bill and the Forestry Bill were completed. On the following morning the Scottish Grand Committee completed the Committee stage of the Education (Scotland) Bill. During the last two weeks, in an atmosphere of good will and co-operation we have been able to dispose of several important Measures which, ordinarily, would have occupied a very considerable amount of Parliamentary time.

We have also, as the House knows, undertaken to bring in the Bill to meet the wish, very generally expresed, that we should deal with the problem of polling day in certain localities where existing holiday arrangements make some change in detail desirable. We hope, too, that it may yet be possible to secure agreement on the Family Allowances Bill. In view of the limited time available, and after allowing for essential legislation and for the other legislation that is desired by the whole House, it is inevitable that we should make a considerable inroad upon the time available for Supply, and what we are proposing in this Motion is to complete outstanding Supply in a further three days, making eight days in all, five having already been taken before Whitsuntide. We shall, of course, require more than the three allotted Supply Days for other related business of Supply. For example, the Committee stage of a Supplementary Vote of Credit for war expenditure is being taken on Friday; the Civil Aviation Supplementary Estimate is being taken to-day, and we shall want to devote two days next week to the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

The public services must be provided for before the Dissolution. In our proposal we are following very closely the precedent of May, 1929, when Supply was completed by a reduction of the time normally available before the Dissolution which occurred in that year. By good will and co-operation we have, as I have said, been able to deal with a number of very useful Measures apart altogether from essential business in an extraordinarily short time, and I very much hope that the course which I am now proposing will commend itself to the House.

Would my right hon. Friend say whether the Family Allowances Bill is or is not to be proceeded with?

I am very sorry that my hon. Friend apparently did not hear what I said. I said that we hoped it may yet be possible to secure agreement on the Family Allowances Bill.

Can we be told when, because there are only four days available, and some of us besides the Labour Party are interested in it?

I am afraid the hon. Lady cannot be told in the course of this speech.

3.32 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has moved this Motion with his usual combination of businesslike efficiency and sweet reason- ableness. I am not here to quarrel at all with the allocation of the very limited time which we have before the Dissolution, but I think the House should take note that it is being asked to forgo a very important part of its functions, that is, the examination of the Estimates. We do not intend to divide against this Motion, because it is obvious that it is an inevitable consequence of the Prime Minister's choice of date for the General Election, but the House ought to consider what is involved. After all, the power of this House rests on the old principle that "Redress of grievances precedes Supply," and our procedure is designed so that there should be a full 20 days before the granting of Supply in which the Government can be called to give an account of its stewardship, and it is, by custom, the privilege of His Majesty's Opposition to call for the particular Estimates that they desire in order to review Government policy and administration. It is only when a full opportunity has been given for this full review that the Government receives the Supply that it requires, if, indeed, it receives it.

There was an occasion in 1895 when the Government were beaten on the Estimates. On that occasion a new Government was formed and the usual amount of time was given for Supply. We are to-day asked to grant the Government their Supply after only eight days instead of 20 days on the Estimates. I recognise at once that this giving away of the rights of the House is not without precedent. It was done in 1929. I looked up that precedent. Unfortunately my vigilant eye was absent at the time, I was in India on the Statutory Commission, and the whole matter seems to have passed sub silentio. However, it is not for me to reprove any lapses in the past. The then Leader of the Labour Party has long passed from our ranks. But if the House is asked to forgo its privileges there should be some compelling reason. To-day it is done by the choice of the Prime Minister. It involves, to use his own phrase, "a constitutional lapse." It seems a little odd that it should be the right hon. Gentleman, who made the other night most groundless allegations against my right hon. Friends of plotting to destroy the liberties of Parliament, who should so shortly afterwards come here with a Motion of this kind. There was, as a matter of fact, no reason whatever why necessary legislation and desirable legislation and all the financial business of this House should not have been concluded in the usual way.

Nothing but the decision of the Prime Minister to disregard every consideration but that of the urgings of Party interests has prevented this. I must say I hardly expected that he would regard these constitutional considerations. He had disregarded the convenience of a very great number of people, tired after long and arduous work in the war. He had forgotten the annual holiday, and that has to be put right by this House. He had given scant consideration to the claims of the fighting men to have a full opportunity of considering the issues involved and of casting their votes. He had ignored the question, brought before him very often by my right hon. Friend who was then Home Secretary, of the deficiencies of the register. Perhaps, therefore, it was hardly to be expected that he would consider the historic claims of this House. Nothing seems to have weighed against the clamour of the Conservative Press, or a part of it—not all of it, the less reputable part.

But though we must acquiesce I think we should watch very closely these infringements of the rights of the House and register our protest. Of course the procedure of this House is not sacrosanct. In the changing circumstances of the time, after due consideration, after careful consideration of the interests of this House and not of the temporary interests of a party, alterations in our procedure have to be made. It is one of the great advantages of an unwritten Constitution like ours that we can make these alterations. For instance, recently we set up a new procedure to deal with Statutory Orders. I think it was a very welcome improvement and that it works well, and I shall be the last person to suggest that we should be hide-bound by every regulation, every bit of procedure, that seemed good to our ancestors when conditions were very different; but we should be very chary of accepting grave departures from the historical principles of this House, except in times of great emergency and perhaps under the stress of war. After all, this reason for the careful examination of the administration of the Government before granting it Supply goes back to the very roots of our Parliamentary institu- tions. It rests on very cogent considerations of public interest. Let me say that no academic theorist from the Continent would believe, if he saw our Constitution written down, that it could work. It works because of the practical common sense of the British people. They want it to work and make it work, but it would not work unless there was, at all times, a very nice balance between the rights of the Government to legislate and to administer the affairs of this country, and the rights of the House to discuss and oppose legislation, and to examine and criticise administration. The Motion before us curtails the rights of the House, not for any reason of State but for a matter of party convenience.

The right hon. Gentleman is pointing out all the difficulties that have arisen. I wonder whether he would agree that none of them would have arisen if his party had not quit the Government before the end of the war.

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member, if he did not listen to me on the wireless last night, would look at the speech I made, in which he will see the very cogent reasons given by the Prime Minister as to how we should be careful—[An Hon. Member: "They were not cogent."] I have a higher opinion of the Prime Minister's constitutional propriety in making those remarks than his follower has. I think he was extremely just in the statement he made, in which he said it would be quite wrong to ignore the rights of the electors, but here we have this alteration in our procedure made not for some overriding circumstance arising out of the needs of the State but for party convenience, and for the convenience of a party whose authority rests on an election ten years ago won on a policy which was betrayed, and won by a party which had to be superseded by an all-party Government headed by the man it rejected.

3.44 p.m.

We have to be realists and recognise that the powers that be have decided, and it is fixed, that there is to be an Election in the middle of July. That being so, this Motion is inevitable, but none the less unfortunate. My right hon. Friend said the procedure of the House was not sacrosanct, but I think the ancient privileges and rights of the House of Commons, as representing the people, are a most valuable safeguard for the nation. It is not unreasonable to say that, as expenditure increases, control decreases, and at a time when we have these gigantic commitments, following the expansion of State activities, the taking away from Parliament of these Supply Days is a thing that the House of Commons should not accept without vehement protest. The House of Commons' control of finance is the oldest standing principle of our Constitution. It was achieved by a struggle dating back to the 14th century and it was accepted in the 18th century as established. As time went on that control weakened, and it is an unfortunate coincidence that the Chancellor, of all people, should come to the House and demand this relaxation. It has been stated by Redlich, the well known constitutional authority:

"Upon this fundamental principle, laid down at the very outset of English Parliamentary history, and secured by 300 years of mingled conflict with the Crown and peaceful growth is grounded the whole law of finance and consequently of the British constitution."

The limiting of the number of Supply Days to 20 dates back only to 27th February, 1906. It is, therefore, really an innovation. There was a time when the number of days allotted to Supply was unlimited, and it was possible, in consequence, to extort concessions as the price of acquiescence to a limitation of days. With the growth of Parliamentary activities the number of Supply Days was fixed at 20, and all the Votes not passed were subject to the Guillotine. This new restriction is unfortunate at a time like this, when we are likely to have great political and economic changes. They are inevitable. The new Parliament will embark on new problems, and it will be full of new men with new ideas and new enthusiasm. They will be impatient of the old traditions of Parliament, and will try to sweep them away. It is, therefore, unfortunate that the Government, who specially claim to be Conservative and the guardians of our constitutional traditions, should have to ask for the sacrifice of the remainder of our Supply Days.

I do not want to go over all the polemics which will be inevitable in the Election, but I do thank that the Government frivolously selected 5th July. They did not take into account any of the obstacles or difficulties. When I was asked, I said that if we were to have the Election by 1st July I did not see how it would be possible to have the necessary Supply Days and get the necessary legislation through, and I thought that by having it at an earlier date we could ask the new Parliament to deal with many of these problems. We know about the staleness of the register. I have already had unfortunate experiences in London. In London we suffer particularly, because, owing to the V bombs and the advice of my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Home Security, thousands of working women left London and went into the country.

The Prime Minister advised it.

I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman, because it was sound advice. I myself advised many women to go away. [Laughter.] I do not think the Government should take advantage of their appeal to deprive these women of their vote. Hon. Gentlemen jeer, but I happen to be an honest man. The women came back to London after the blitz, and they find that, as a result of taking the advice of the Prime Minister and the responsible Minister, and as a result of the Election being rushed, they are deprived of the right to vote. I am afraid that in some parts of the country there will be commotion, if not riots. There was no necessity for the Prime Minister to fix 5th July. A more appropriate date would have been October.

Why?

If my hon. and gallant Friend's intelligence is not great enough to understand why, I will tell him. The present register is full of printing errors and omissions, and an enormous number of people have left their homes and gone into the country for various reasons. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will be surprised to learn also that there are vast numbers of men overseas fighting our country's battles.

I have not forgotten that men are fighting overseas, but it is evident that those who no longer support the National Government have undoubtedly done so.

It is difficult for people overseas to know the personality and character of their candidates, and they cannot take an active part in the Election. There is no section of society more entitled to take an active part in the election of the new Parliament than the members of the three Services. By October more men will have returned to the country, the register will be more up to date, and I hope there will be a better atmosphere abroad.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, even if the Election were held in October, a large proportion of the troops serving overseas would still be abroad?

A large proportion would also have returned by that time.

rose—

I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to be allowed to continue his speech.

More Servicemen would be on the register by October. If there had been a little more mature thinking on the part of the Government, if the Government had listened less to Lord Beaverbrook, and if there had been more common sense, they would not have had to come to the House and ask it to sacrifice a large number of Supply Days and, at the same time, ask the nation to go to the poll on a stale register, which was out of date almost before it was printed, at a time when Servicemen are still overseas and the nation has hardly recovered from the nervous strain of five appalling years of war.

Like everybody else, I have visited my constituency in the last few days. There is no area in the country which suffered more from enemy attack. One-third of it is laid in ruins, and the women particularly stood up nobly to the ordeal. They say to me that it is rather hard, after going through five years of war, with their husbands and sons still overseas and the nation in a disturbed state, to have to go through the ordeal of what one of them, in a street almost cleared away, said to me was very like civil strife. They would have liked to have it in a cooler, calmer atmosphere. Other counsels have prevailed, however, and I am sure that my hon. Friends in the Labour Party and my Party will go into this conflict with confidence. This Parliament has done great work, it has stood the strain of the last few years, and to its credit it has never missed a Sitting. We ought to share pride in that fact. It does not matter how bad the blitz was, and the House of Commons Chamber may have been destroyed, but the House never missed a Sitting. It is unfortunate that that great record should be spoilt by this unconstitutional Motion, which is against all the best traditions of Parliament. It is a bad winding-up to this great story.

3.57 p.m.

After the rollicking speech to which we have just listened from the Whig Leader, I have some reluctance in bringing the House back to a sober consideration of the reasonable proposal moved by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have great sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Socialist Party. We all know that there was a great dispute in his party on the way in which this Motion should be dealt with. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), who is conveniently absent from his seat, indicated last week that he intended to make something of a demonstration on this Motion. More sober reasoning subsequently prevailed, and the Leader of the Opposition has made a speech of the most careful and skilful compromise. When I saw the Motion on the Paper and heard the indication given by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale of the opposition that would be offered to it, I wondered what the arguments would be. I think that there are only two lines that the Opposition could possibly take, and both of them have been taken to some extent in the speeches of the leaders opposite.

Would my hon. Friend say "election addresses" rather than "speeches"?

I rather fear that there may be something better in their election addresses. One of the arguments must be that indicated by the right hon. Baronet, who talked about this Motion being unconstitutional, although he is not going to divide against it. That argument amounts to this, that you can never have a General Election in the Summer. Until you have reached 5th August and had all the Supply Days it is uncon- stitutional in any event to have a General Election. That is the first proposition, and it will be interesting to see how those who wish to modernise the procedure of Parliament defend it. The second argument is that although there may be some cases where it is proper to have a General Election in the Summer, in this particular year and in these particular circumstances it is entirely improper. Let me say a word on each. But first of all I would say with what pleasure and agreement I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Baronet express their respect for our Standing Orders and for all the constitutional safeguards of Supply Days. I was delighted to hear it. Let me say that I agree with them entirely. I can think of only one thing which would justify this Motion, and that is a General Election. Nothing else whatever would justify dispensing with these Supply Days. That brings me to the question of the General Election.

To deal with the first argument, that you should never have an Election in the Summer, I do not believe that thinking men of any party really want to put forward that proposition. I think I am as keen a student, supporter and lover of the British Constitution as any Member of this House, but I think it is a glory of the British Constitution in which all parties have taken pride in the past that it is flexible, adaptable and not rigid, and that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition rightly said, we make it work. Until that argument is put forward with a little more force than it was by the right hon. Baronet, I shall not assume there is in any quarter of the House an hon. Member who really believes that it is always improper to have a General Election before Supply Days are completed, which must be by 5th August. If there is to be an election then there has to be a Motion of this kind. [Interruption.] I am not quite clear what is the effect of the interruption by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I realise his desire to intervene on all possible ocasions at this time, and it may be that he lacks instructions on precisely what to do to-day.

Anybody can see that that is a lot of nonsense. That is what might have been expected from the hon. Gentleman. It is about the cheapest thing I have ever heard.

I think it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had left the interpretation to his friend who made a quite lucid remark to the House. The other argument is that this particular election is wholly improper. That, unlike the previous argument, is not, on the face of it, nonsense. It is possible that some people might believe it. I wish merely to say that I listened to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the night before last. I was unable to listen to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition last night, but I had the pleasure of reading a full report of his able speech in to-day's paper. Without going into the merits of either of those speeches, I wonder if, taken together, they gave anybody the impression that a Government with those two right hon. Gentlemen in it would continue in perfect amity until October. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a proposal to the Socialist Party that they should remain in the Government until the conclusion of the Japanese war.

Continue the agony, you mean.

rose—

I will not be reluctant to yield to either of the hon. Members in a minute, but they might wish to hear a little more of my argument, because they may want to make quite a different point if they do. My right hon. Friend made a proposal that the Socialist Party should remain in the Government until the conclusion of the Japanese war. In the opinion of a great many people there was a great deal to be said for that proposal, and indeed a good deal in favour of that proposal had previously been said by right hon. Gentlemen who now sit on the Front Bench opposite. The Socialist Party rejected it and, let me say at once, for reasons which I can respect. I can quite conceive that in their opinion there were good and sufficient reasons for rejecting it. All I say—and I commend this to everybody in the House, quite irrespective of party—is that a General Election having been made inevitable, is there anybody contemplating the present state of the world who desires a British Government to conduct affairs either at home or abroad at this juncture without any certainty of life beyond a few months? I cannot conceive such frivolity.

While reading with the utmost enjoyment the reports of the Blackpool Conference I have seen two points on the subject of the Election made by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those two points were these: We think that an Election in July is a perfect scandal. Secondly, we are quite certain that the Socialists will win it. I would suggest that there is nobody quite so simple-minded as to believe that the Socialists believe both those things. If they go on saying that, many people will come to the conclusion that they have not the slightest confidence in either of them.

I think the other way.

Although I have been in the House only 10 years, I was sufficiently smart to realise the party to which the hon. Gentleman belonged.

I let you know that the first week.

Let us have some more rollicking.

Perhaps I have bored the hon. Gentleman, although I am not particularly sorry. When I realise exactly the strength of. the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Baronet, I am able at last to attach meaning to a phrase which puzzled me and puzzled the country when it was used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Morrison) at the Socialist Conference. On the last day he made an intervention on the subject of what he called "serious nonsense." I think he must have been anticipating the two speeches which preceded mine today.

4.10 p.m.

The hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat has spoken impressively and ingeniously and with that sincerity which prompted his recent well-timed resignation from the Government. His argument would have carried a little more weight, however, if he had not left out about three-quarters of the truth about the subject with which he was apparently dealing with such impartiality. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lime house (Mr. Attlee) was, of course, perfectly correct in observing that the date for this rush Election had been fixed to suit the convenience of the Conservative Party propagandists. These considerations in regard to streamlining the procedure of Parliament, for or against, do not really arise except in that relation. I think there are on all sides of this House hon. Members who are in favour of some modernisation of Parliamentary procedure when it is required in the interests of the House and the efficient carrying out of Parliamentary business. Certainly one of those who was most eloquent in advocating such modifications of procedure was the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton), and he found support from all parties on the last occasion on which he raised the matter. But that is not really the issue before us. Here we are asked to assent to this fundamental modification and curtailing of a constitutional right, not in the interests of the House as a whole but in the interests of the Conservative Party propagandists, who realise that their only electoral asset is the personality of the Prime Minister and that it must be cashed in on during the first glow of victory.

It is really rather extraordinary that some hon. Members opposite had the effrontery to intervene in order to suggest that it was not the Conservative Party which had fixed the date of the Election, and to suggest that it was the departure from the Government of the Labour and Liberal Parties which made that necessary. I suppose the Tory propagandists have studied fully the lesson contained in that famous Tory handbook, "Mein Kampf," that if you want to deceive the people you must tell a big lie, and go on telling it all the time; but it is time that that particular lie was nailed, and I think it is becoming generally realised that the suggestion that it was anything but the Tory propagandists who fixed the date for the Election is a complete lie. The first and the simplest proof is that the date of the Election, 5th July, was well known to the Lobby correspondents of the Conservative newspapers long before the Blackpool conference. [An HON. MEMBER: "Complete nonsense."] It is not nonsense at all. It is true.

May I interrupt the hon. Member for a moment? He is making a most serious statement. The Lobby correspondents in this House pride themselves upon the fact that they never betray information of any kind to anyone. If the hon. Member has the information that he says he has, could he not give it to us now?

I am very glad to have drawn the right hon. Gentleman to his feet, but I am not to be tempted into betraying the confidence of a colleague. That is a short and simple proof of the duplicity of the Tory propagandists. But the locus classicus, so to speak, is to be found in a speech which has already been quoted here and there—in the newspapers and on the radio. It will do no harm to put a few of the relevant sentences on record in Hansard. I mean the speech of the Prime Minister on 31st October last, when he said:

"We must look to the termination of the war against Nazism as a pointer which will fix the date of the General Election.…Indeed, I have myself a clear view that it would be wrong to continue this Parliament beyond the period of the German war.…I can assure the House that in the absence of most earnest representations by the Labour and Liberal Parties, I could not refrain from making a submission to the Crown in respect of a dissolution after the German war is effectively and officially finished."

He was not putting the onus on the Labour or Liberal Parties at all, but was insisting himself that it would be wrong to continue this Parliament beyond that period. But he also said:

"I cannot conceive that anyone would wish that election to be held in a violent hurry.…There must be an interval. Moreover we have above all things to be careful that practically everybody entitled to vote has a fair chance to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 664–667.]

"Above all things," he said; how careful they are being! Not only have the Servicemen overseas no proper chance, after the termination of the war in Europe, to consider the various policies of the parties as they would have done if the Election had been held in October, in accordance with the very sensible suggestion of the Labour Party, but the October register would have been, as we all know, a great improvement on the May register, which is admittedly full of imperfections. These considerations—the imperfections of the register, the difficulty about the vote of those returned from evacuation, the building trade workers, and others who have been directed to other parts of the country—were present in the mind of the Tory propagandists when they advised the Prime Minister to insist upon 5th July. I have no doubt at all, in fact it is becoming increasingly clear, that one of the considerations which did weigh with them as among the advantages of an early Election was that the maximum number of working class voters, in the Services and out of them, would be disfranchised.

4.18 p.m.

It was not my intention to speak, but as one who is not having a contested election, perhaps I can take an impartial attitude. It has been very interesting to hear the speeches made from the other side, particularly the one so full of sound and fury which we had from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party have yet to make out a case for having driven the people to a General Election, despite the fact that the Prime Minister gave them an opportunity to go on until the war with Japan was ended.

Does not the hon. Member realise that the Japanese war might go on for another two years? At any rate, that is quite within the realm of possibility.

I am more convinced than ever on the matter. The party of which the right hon. Baronet is a leader should not have been the first to give notice to leave the Coalition Government at the end of the war. They did so before the Labour Party took action and it seems to me that their attitude now is one of trying to excuse themselves to the electors by shifting the blame upon the Prime Minister.

As the hon. Member is dealing with this point, perhaps he will address himself to the Prime Minister's statement that it would be actually wrong to continue this Parliament.

The Prime Minister's statement was made when it had been announced that the Independent Liberal Party were going to leave the Government. The statement would not have been made if they and the Labour Party had been prepared to stay on until the Japanese war was ended. There is a tremendous body of opinion in the country which feels that hon. Gentlemen opposite have ratted before the job was done.

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) to call another hon. Member a rat?

Nothing of that kind reached my ears.

Having regard to the fact that the observation was heard by many hon. Members, may I ask whether it is not the case that one of the Rules of Debate in this House is that there should be no imputation of motives?

If there is anything disorderly in the use of the word in question, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, which is the more disorderly—its use as a verb or as a substantive?

That is a hypothetical question which I confess I cannot answer off-hand. Instead of all these points of Order, I think we had better get on with the Debate.

I am certain that the hon. Member opposite and I will not fall out about this matter. I am convinced that the right hon. Baronet opposite and his party were responsible for the break-up of the Government. I think there is no getting away from that. I reiterate that hon. Members on the other side know quite well that the people of the country think it is wrong—I do not want to insult anybody—to quit the job, and so they are endeavouring to lash themselves into a sort of enthusiasm.

Did not the hon. Gentleman also leave the ship?

No, I did not. What I did was to leave the party because of a difference of opinion, and it is an action which I have never regretted. It would be better if the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Member who has just interrupted me had remained until the job was finished. I am convinced that had they been free to make up their own minds that is what they would have done, rather than having had pressure put upon them from outside. The Leader of the Opposition was wrong constitutionally. In these matters, we do not vote money to the Government but to the Crown. I would be the last person to propose to take away constitutional opportunities from Members of this House to express their feelings and opinions. I am not making a great constitutional point of it, but I would say that all that has taken place so far in this Debate has been a series of election speeches consisting of absolute nonsense.

I should like to put one question to the hon. Member. Does he not agree that it is not a matter of voting money to the Crown at all? The Crown already has the money. It is an occasion for Supply; the Crown disperses the money to the various Departments. The important thing is that the Government have the money from the taxpayers at the present, and are illegally getting rid of it.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I was in error, but it does not affect the argument. I would support every Member of this House in the defence of our privileges as I have done during my 14 years in this House. One of our greatest privileges is to have an opportunity of expressing our grievances before granting Supply. I was protesting against trying to hang a complaint regarding the Prime Minister on to this Debate and was insisting that the blame lies with the right hon. Baronet and his group in the first place, and, in the second place, with those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench.

4.28 p.m.

The Debate has been confined so far to Members of political parties. I think it not inappropriate therefore that the views of an independent Member should now be heard. I wish to raise a point which has not hitherto been brought forward in the discussion and which has worried me very considerably. I should be very glad if the Deputy-Leader of the House could give me an answer. I believe that, in the national interest and in the interests of the world, it would have been better if the General Election could have been postponed until after the end of the Japanese war. Both the international and the domestic issues would have been clearer and I am convinced that till the war with Japan has been won it would be in the national interest that national unity should be maintained.

We shall not get national unity to deal with immediate post-war problems if the country is split from top to bottom by a General Election. The Prime Minister himself has said that his preference was not to have a General Election at all until after the end of the Japanese war. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to answer a question. Instead of giving the leaders of the Liberal and Labour Parties the alternative of having a General Election at the end of the Japanese war or now, why did the Prime Minister not say this to them: "I believe that the national interest demands that there should not be a General Election until the end of the Japanese war. I am going to put the national interest first. I prefer, indeed I hope, that the Coalition Government which now exists shall continue till the end of the Japanese war. But if the Labour and Liberal Parties decide that they must leave this Government now, I shall form a Government representative of men of all parties who are willing to support me"—as indeed he has done—"and so long as that Government has the confidence of the House of Commons, in which I have a big majority, I shall continue it in office until the end of the Japanese war." No constitutional point could be raised, because if it is constitutional for this Parliament to be willing to continue its life for another year, or until the end of the Japanese war, if the two Opposition parties agree, why does it become unconstitutional to do so if the majority of this House is willing to support him? Why, therefore, should the national interest be sacrificed because the two parties choose to leave the Government? Why was that alternative not put before them? I believe that the majority of the people of this country would really have preferred to have waited for the Election until the war against Japan had been won. I believe that the interests of the nation demanded this, and I regret very much that that alternative was not presented to the country.

4.32 p.m.

Many Members of the House will think that the question which has just been asked of the Government by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) is a rather remarkable question. I think it will also be felt generally that it is an especially remarkable question to be asked by an Independent Member. Independent Members have always claimed that their special function is to represent, as the party machines cannot, in their view, represent, the independent mind of the independent citizen. I think that the independent mind of the independent citizen wishes to be consulted from time to time. I also think that the question came with less grace from an Independent Member than from anyone else. Let me attempt an answer. Let me suggest to the hon. Member that there is all the difference in the world between his suggestion and prolonging the life of Parliament by general consent of the House of Commons, by a Government in which all parties are represented, by a Government in which it is done with the general good will of the whole House. It is a very dangerous thing to do at any time; it is a very dangerous thing to do repeatedly; it is a hopelessly perilous thing to do indefinitely, however you do it, but the very worst way possible to do it, and a denial, I should have thought, of the whole spirit of our representative institutions, would have been to have imposed, by a majority in the House of Commons against an official Opposition—a majority elected in quite different circumstances 10 years ago—a prolongation of the life of Parliament, in circumstances in which everybody realised that the life of Parliament ought not to be prolonged. I do not think that is a suggestion which would commend itself to many people.

I do not know whether this question of the date of the Election—whether now or in the autumn—ought really to go on cumbering the minds of the electors for long. For better or for worse, the die is cast. The Election is to take place. For my part, whoever is right or wrong about this issue—I have my own very clear view—I should be very sorry, even if the Government are as wrong as I think they are, to have the issue of this Election decided merely, or predominantly, on the question of whether it ought to be held now or three months hence. The issues at stake in this Election are far more important than that. When we have all had our say on both sides let the issues be determined according to what are the real issues between the parties, not on this single point which, however important it is, is not so important as all that.

What are the rights and wrongs of it? I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for South Bradford (Sir H. Holdsworth) has left the Chamber. He is usually very courteous in the speeches he makes in this House. He is very willing to give way to people who wish to put points to him, and he gave way several times in the course of his speech. There was a point I wished to put to him, but he thought that perhaps it might wait until he had finished, and he said that I would be able to reply to him when he had finished. Though he is not present to hear the reply, perhaps that is not my fault. He did, or attempted, a very gallant thing. Faced with the quotation from the Prime Minister's speech of 31st October last year, he endeavoured to explain it away. This was the point I wished to put to him: He was reminded that the Prime Minister said then that it would be wrong to prolong the life of this Parliament, that is to say, it would be wrong not to have a General Election, when the German war was over. Until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for South Bradford I thought I understood what that meant. I thought it meant what it said—that when there was an end of the war in Europe, when the threat from Germany had been finally done away with, when there was no longer any danger that we might be invaded or defeated, when there was no war left in Europe, that was a good time to have a General Election. He thought last October that it would be wrong to postpone it until after the Japanese war. In other words, he said last October that the invitation which he extended to his Labour colleagues a few weeks ago was an invitation which it would be wrong for them to accept. What then is his complaint?

The hon. Member for South Bradford argued that the Prime Minister had said that the Liberal and Labour Parties had already indicated that they were not prepared to go on in the Coalition after that time. First of all, so far as the Labour Party is concerned, that is not true. My recollection of the history of the matter is that the Labour Party reached the decision that it would fight as a separate Party at the General Election, at its annual Conference last December, some months after the Prime Minister's statement of 31st October. Therefore the hon. Member for South Bradford is wrong on that point. The Prime Minister's statement was not made after the Labour Party's statement. But supposing it had been, what difference does it make? The hon. Member for South Bradford suggested that it would be right to defer the General Election until after the Japanese war, provided that the Coalition continued, but if the Prime Minister had intended to make any such condition as that, he should have said so, and there is nothing of that kind to be, found in his speech. His speech is perfectly plain—that when the German war was over but not the moment it was over—wasthe time to have a General Election. When he posed the alternatives of having a General Election at the beginning of July or having it deferred until after the Japanese war, he was putting in those alternatives two propositions, one of which he had himself declared it would be wrong to accept. Therefore, there was only one thing left in the alternatives proposed—early in July.

The Prime Minister not only said last October that it would be wrong to wait until the Japanese war was over. He also said it would be wrong to have the Election too quickly. Therefore what the Prime Minister proposed last October was to have it some three months or so after the end of the German war. That is the only possible interpretation of the speech. He said that two things would be wrong, one to wait until after the Japanese war, and the other to rush the Election. What made him change his mind? Quite clearly, when these alternatives were proposed the Prime Minister had changed his mind. He had never withdrawn anything he said on 31st October, but he had changed his mind on the point of whether the Election should be rushed of whether we should wait until October.

I cannot altogether follow some of the arguments that are used from the other side. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) said it was quite clear from the broadcast speeches that it was impossible for the Coalition to continue until the autumn. He said that those speeches indicated so deep a division of opinion on important matters that it was impossible to suppose that we could continue in amity even until October or November. What I cannot understand in his speech—the hon. Member was not ready to give way but I will give way to him all the same—is this: If he is satisfied that the division of opinion between the two main component parties to the Coalition had reached a stage that made it impossible for them to continue to collaborate for three months, why does he think they could have continued to collaborate indefinitely?

I thought it was clearly put in the Prime Minister's original invitation to the Labour Party. The Prime Minister said in effect—I have not got the quotation, I do not remember the exact words—that you cannot continue simply to a certain date; you must have some overriding great objective, and then you would pull together. I accept that. I do not really doubt the ability to continue in amity. What I doubted was the ability to continue as an efficient Government in the absence of such an objective.

I am afraid that I still do not understand. All that was surely just as clear on 31st October as it is now, and yet on 31st October it did not seem so to the Prime Minister. He was then contemplating the very thing which the hon. Member for Norwich says is impossible. The hon. Member does not attempt to answer the question which I put to him: if it is not possible to continue as a workmanlike team with a definite objective or anything else for three months, why is it possible to do it indefinitely? The hon. Member shakes his head. I remember a story told in the profession about an advocate seeing his opponent shake his head, saying, "Gentlemen of the jury, you will observe that my opponent shakes his head, but when you have known him as long as I have, you will know that when he shakes his head there is probably nothing in it." I do not know why the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the position seems to me quite clear. You can continue for three months, because you have agreed that it would be wrong to part until you had a proper Register and until the immediate excitement of the end of the war had disappeared; because, for a variety of reasons, an Election in October would be fairer than an Election in July. Having decided that, you could continue for another three months, as you have done for five years. The hon. Member says that it would be impossible. I do not know then his answer to the question, how could the Government hang together for an indefinite period?

There is a better version of the head-shaking story. It concerns an hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite, who said, "I hear my hon. Friend behind me shaking his head." As to the conditions of Coalition, I thought my hon. Friend made the distinction plain enough between going on for a term of months and going on for an object agreed by both sides to be greater than any points of difference.

It cannot be dismissed as lightly as that. In June, 1940, there were, as there have always been and as I suppose there always will be, very deep differences of social, economic and political principle between the Conservative and Labour Parties. In June, 1940, there was an overriding objective which enabled them to sink those differences.

That was the case in June, 1940, but not in February, apparently.

In November, 1944, we had the Prime Minister's interpretation of what the common, overriding objective was. He said, in plain terms, that the overriding consideration which brought, the parties together and justified the prolongation year by year of a Parliament whose life should have long expired, was the German war. When the German war came to an end the common objective had disappeared. There was no longer an overriding objective of that kind in the Prime Minister's opinion, and that was the proper time to part, subject to the other consideration which he urged, and which was commonly accepted, that there ought to be a decent interval between the end of the German war and the actual date of the Election. It is that decent interval which he has abandoned—the decent interval which he himself recommended, and which, three weeks ago, he forsook.

What we are left wondering, and what the country is left wondering is, what made him change his mind? We say that there is only one thing that could possibly make him change his mind, and that was the consideration, mistaken as we believe it to have been, of party advantage. Somebody convinced, not the leader of the nation, not the leader of the Coalition, not the leader of the national war effort, but the leader of the Conservative Party, that it would suit that party better to abandon the period which he had contemplated, and which everybody had accepted in October last. I think he was mistaken in so thinking. I think that when Declaration Day comes, it will be clear that he was mistaken in so thinking. There was no difference, such as the hon. Member for Norwich thought there was, between thinking that the Conservative Party chose this date because it suited them, and thinking that it would turn out later not to suit them, at all. It is not impossible to hold that the Conservative Party chose the date because they put party advantage before the national interest, and, secondly, that they were mistaken in their assumption of where the party advantage lay.

If the hon. Member will look at my speech to-morrow, he will see that I suggested no such connection between the two propositions which I mentioned.

The hon. Member said that there was. I tried to intervene, because I thought that perhaps he was saying what he did not mean. I wanted to give him an opportunity of correcting it. The hon. Member said that the Socialist Party accused the Tories of choosing the date for their own advantage, and that the Socialist Party thought that they would win, and he said that those two propositions were inconsistent. He said that we could not believe both, and that he doubted whether we believed either. We can believe both of them, and I do believe both of them. I believe that the Conservative Party was influenced by considerations of its personal advantage. I can think of no other reason why that interval should have been abandoned, why the Prime Minister should have changed his mind. At the same time, I believe that they have calculated wrongly, and that when the Election is over they will find that the elaborate new deception which they hoped to practice on the people has misfired. I am afraid I have been too long, but a good deal of that is due to the desire of Members on the other side to hear the truth about this matter in more detail than I had intended. I apologise on their behalf for having taken so long.

4.53 p.m.

I intend to be commendably brief. We have had some very good electioneering speeches. I do not want to be led away by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), who astounded me by his effrontery in putting a totally wrong interpretation on the position as to the time of the General Election. He produced the bogy that it was the Tory Party and the Prime Minister who had forced the Election. He used the word "lie." We are going to have this thing out in the next few weeks, and however people may talk about lies, you cannot make black white. The Prime Minister almost went so far as to beg the Opposition to stop with him. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, the hon. Member can see the letters. He went even further than some of us thought he should have done. But they refused, they deserted the ship.

The main thing we are discussing is this Motion, which curtails the privileges and rights of this House of Commons. I was astounded at the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, who came out as the champion of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons. He was appalled to think that such things could happen as that our privileges should be taken away. I should have expected him to support the curtailment of those privileges, because it is the declared policy of the Socialist Party to support their curtailment. You have that laid down in their bible, the programme of the Socialist Party. It has been laid down by the right hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that their sole object, when they get power, is to do away with these safeguards. It seems to me a most extraordinary procedure for the Leader of the Opposition, who was on the air only last night, declaring his policy, to come here and declare a totally different policy. The statements he has made about safeguarding our rights are not worth anything. I wish to point out the absurdity of the Leader of the Opposition making such a case, as if his party were prepared to defend our liberties.

4.57 p.m.

We have had a number of exhilarating and entertainig exchanges, and I think I should be almost out of Order if I were to make any reference to the number of Supply Days, which is the subject of the Motion. It begins to be borne in upon one that the general principle on which the General Election is to be fought is not that no stone should be left unturned, but that no stone should be left unflung. I have risen because I want to make an observation which has not been made by anybody in this Debate so far. I am conscious that some Member may call me a prig for having raised the question at all. With reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle), we all realise in our hearts that it is a matter of great importance that the age-long traditions of the House of Commons and its constitutional control over finance should be maintained. It has been said to-day that the principle dates from the 14th century; it goes back much further than that. It will be always, I hope, a cardinal principle that the grievances of the subjects must be redressed before the Crown gets its money. It will be very important to maintain that principle in the days immediately ahead of us. Whatever Government has the responsibility of dealing with these matters after the Election will have a difficult job to see that the constitutional position of this House is maintained in the matter of finance.

The powers of the House of Commons over finance have been declining for years, and have declined a very long way. I remember when I first came here the Estimates were considered in some detail, but all that has gone and it has been profoundly interesting to see that as control over finance has diminished Parliament has devised new machinery, which has, in fact, given greater control over finance, and greater powers of investigation, than Parliament has had on the Floor of the House for a very long time, through the instrumentality of the Select Committee on National Expenditure.

This has been a very exhilarating and entertaining Debate, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will delight and entertain the House when he comes to reply. There has been a good deal of detailed discussion. I would point out, in order to have it on record, that the reply of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) to the Prime Minister's letter which initiated these proceedings, intimated that he and his friends, as everybody else knew, preferred to have the Election in the autumn, but, if the Prime Minister considered the possibility of a plan to work together for a longer period, then they would be perfectly willing to meet the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to learn more about it, but no such meeting ever took place, and it is just as well to get this matter right. My right hon. Friend may call me a prig—

Whig, or prig?

I said "prig." We are about to engage in a General Election. They have had one in the United States, and, surely, we, the oldest democracy, can have one if we want to. What I wanted to say, because it has been ever present in my mind, is that we are profoundly anxious that there should be elections at the earliest possible moment in a number of countries, which are now prostrate, overthrown and confused, but are gathering themselves together to try to find out what sort of a Government they shall have to control their destinies in future. We want them to have those elections at the earliest possible moment, and I have a very clear idea of the part our people can play in the world. It is not as great military leaders, for our numbers and resources prevent that, even if we wished it, although we can make a powerful contribution to the maintenance of the rule of order. Nor can we dominate the world in the industrial sense, for the same reason. But there is one thing we are entitled to do, on the basis of our long political experience, and that is to give political and moral leadership to the world, and I think that, at this time, with all these movements abroad, with countries prostrate and stunned which are seeking to recover, we can give a powerful influence, if we so conduct our Election in this country that it shall be a model of the way in which elections should be conducted throughout the world.

5.5 p.m.

There has been a certain amount of nervous strain observable on the Conservative Benches to-day, and I have never seen my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) have such a rough and interrupted passage as he got this afternoon. I know the right hon. Baronet does not mind. After all, he is one of the mildest of men, one of the most persuasive of speakers and one of the most courteous, and why he got all that interruption I do not know, except that hon. Members opposite are in such a mood of apprehension, or of shame, because of all the things they have done wrong, that, every time somebody brings them to the confession box, or makes them admit their wrong-doing, or puts the facts before them, they jump up and interrupt. I think they manifested a sense of guilt right through. But there we are.

This is a Motion to abolish more than half of the Supply Days of this Parliamentary Session, and it is eminently an occasion on which grievances can be aired. We have all been airing grievances throughout this Debate, and we are absolutely in Order in doing so, since our greatest grievance is that we are now to have less opportunity of airing our grievances. If we cannot have our own way, it is a good thing to have a jolly good grievance, and we think we have got a perfectly good and legitimate one. This abolition of more than half the Supply Days is, undoubtedly, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted, a very serious interference with Parliamentary rights, and, indeed, with the rights of the subject. I do not suppose that it appears to foe as serious to the breezy First Lord of the Admiralty, who will follow in due course, as to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Probably, he will talk far more breezily and cheekily than the Chancellor, who has been trained in good constitutional doctrines. But, of course, it is a serious thing when these 20 days which Parliament gives us to air our grievances are cut and more than half are taken away.

I am a bit of a Parliamentary reformer myself—quite a moderate and rational one. I want Parliament to do its work with proper speed and efficiency, as long as it retains all essentials of policy, principle, finance, and control of the Executive, and all those traditional rights. The only difference between me and some people opposite is that they want it to work slowly because less is done in that way, and I want it to work quicker and get more out of it. Indeed, as the years have gone by, the tendency has been for Parliamentary procedure to be speeded up, and I think there is room for still further improvement. But I would be very careful about interfering with Supply Days, which axe a great and historic right whereby the Parliamentary institution keeps its hand on the Executive and keeps control of it. It is by this means that they should have adequate opportunities on which the Executive can be challenged and the traditional right exercised of seeking to reduce the Minister's salary by a modest amount and thereby challenging the policy for which he stands in his Departmental administration.

I, therefore, thought that, it was very right that the Leader of the Opposition, in the reasoned case that he put forward, should protest about it. Since then, and, indeed, during my right hon. Friend's speech, the issue of the question of an Election, and how the late Government was dissolved, has been extensively debated, and I think it is right that that should be so. It is a matter of public interest. There is a good deal of misunderstanding about it in many quarters, and it is right that it should be discussed. I thought that the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) ought not to have talked about the Labour and Liberal Members leaving the Government. I forget whether he used the word "quitted," but he himself left it before we did. I have never seen the hon. Member since—I am sorry he is not in his place at the moment—without feeling that he sent that letter to the Prime Minister not expecting that his resignation would be accepted, and that, ever since, he has been surprised that it was. In so far as he resigned on a matter of principle, I respect him for it, but I always feel he was a bit surprised that it came off. He contributed to-day a very able speech in working his passage back from the back benches to the Front Bench—and who shall quarrel with him for doing so?

On the question of the coming Dissolution of Parliament consequent on the decision to hold a General Election, let us dispassionately argue it. I hope to succeed in examining it from the point of view of the public interest. There were three courses possible. One was an almost immediate Dissolution after the end of the European war—not as quick as the 1918 Dissolution, I agree, because the Prime Minister, and I give him credit for it, had, as a matter of fact, as the First Lord knows, made an agreement between us, and I had a big hand in the discussions with him about it. He did agree that he would add three weeks' notice of intent to announce the Dissolution, with the concurrence of the King, and that was a material improvement on the procedure of 1918. I think what is being done now is indecent, but the 1918 procedure was indescribably indecent. Indeed, that observation has been made in many quarters, and even by the present Prime Minister himself. Whether three weeks, on an admittedly imperfect register, becomes thoroughly decent is a matter for discussion. I do not think it does. What I complain of is that the Prime Minister has condemned the 1918 precedent but has got precious near to following it himself.

Is it not also the fact that the Prime Minister condemned 1918 after he had received all the benefits from it? He wrote his book after he had enjoyed four years of office, conferred upon him by this indecency of 1918, and it is characteristic of the Conservatives who enjoy the fruits without worrying how they accumulate them.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that point. Let us examine these various alternatives. It is true that the Labour Party—and we do not follow in the sequence of time; it was after the Liberal Party had made a certain statement—it is true that we said that, at a date which was convenient after the cessation of hostilities in Europe, we thought this Government should be brought to an end. So far as I remember, the decision, in principle, of the Liberal Party was the same. I think it was that, at a date to be convenient, the Coalition should be brought to an end after the end of the European war.

Was it this Government, or this Parliament?

Well, the Government, and, with it, of course, the Parliament, but I will come to the Parliamentary aspect in due course. That was the view. There was no decision on the part of the Labour Party, and so far as I remember, on the part of the Liberal Party, as some people seem to have got into their heads, that, immediately VE-Day came, we should all leave our offices and break up the Government, There was no such decision; it was a matter of seeking what was in the public interest as to a suitable date for ending that Government. The whole argument was, what was the most convenient time in the public interest. There cannot be any other argument. Hon. Members opposite can believe me or believe me not, but I have been concerned with the public interest in this matter, and with nothing else. I do not know who is going to do better in July than in October. I do not know. There are some people who think they know.

Who are they?

You.

I have long wanted an opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman to explain in Parliament what he has said outside about my supposed association with this Election decision.

Since the First Lord asks me, I will tell him. But it is notorious. I do not wish to produce evidence, because that would be embarrassing.

It is non-existent.

Wait a minute, I have not finished with it. Since the right hon. Gentleman has asked me, I must express an opinion, and that is, it is notorious and perfectly well known to most people in this House, to the journalists outside, and certainly to everybody on the Front Bench opposite, that the two closest political advisers of the Prime Minister on tactics, especially smart tactics—the two most intimate political advisers, sometimes humorously known as the Companions of the Bath—I do not know quite the meaning of the phrase—are the Noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. I thought that that was accepted, and that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord regarded it as one of the finest things associated with his political life that that should be so. I cannot make out why he is so modest about it. After all, he has been promoted to First Lord. He has been promoted, to my surprise—goodness knows where he will finish up—to something like the deputy Leadership of the House of Commons at the present time. I have promoted him this afternoon to the great position of joint political adviser on strategy and tactics to the Prime Minister. What is he grumbling at? I thought I was doing him a good turn. There is no secrecy about it. Everybody knows it. I was saying when the right hon. Gentleman intervened that I did not know—I said it quite honestly and I have had some experience in elections—what would be best as between an Election now, and an Election later on.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman evading the issue? He has mentioned the public interest. Was it not in the public interest that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends should have continued in the Government until the end of the Japanese war?

I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that was present in my mind as one of the subjects-I might mention. I only added that some smart people thought that they did know the difference between the advantages of an early Election and those of a later one. The First Lord asked, "Who are they?" and I said to him, "You." That has been fully explained to the complete satisfaction of the House. What are the desirable things, when we have come to the end of a totalitarian war, in fixing the date of an Election? First, it is clear that there ought to be an Election at a reasonably early time. Having settled that question, the next question is, how soon are we likely to have the official machinery of the Election of such a character that it can properly function so that the maximum number of electors can have the maximum opportunity of giving a vote? Is there anything wrong about that, or is the idea that the best way to have an Election is to restrict the number of people who could vote, particularly if you believe the people disqualified would be people who would otherwise vote against you? Is it argued that the best thing to do is to have it as quickly as you can before people have had a chance to turn round and think and reflect?

It is true, as somebody said, that the people in this country have had a pretty gruelling time in this war. They have had strain and have been ordered about in many ways, and have shown good will and co-operation. I have taken my share in it as well. They have been under a heavy strain and have had a gruelling time. We all have had a heavy strain and a gruelling time and could have done with a little break, which would not have done any harm, either to the temper of the Election and the speeches of every- body in it. Therefore, it was desirable that the people should have a little relaxation from the tension. I do not say rest, as that might not be possible; the Japanese war is still going on, and the effort must be maintained to a proper point. But they could have done with a little relaxation instead of being plunged into an Election almost directly after the Prime Minister had had his sojourns in the West End of London on Victory night—as if the Victory Parade must certainly lead to a General Election straight away. The experts can tell me whether this is so or not. Surely, the people were entitled to a little rest from the strain before going into an Election, and would have been able to give an easier, quicker and more reflective decision in casting their votes. That seems to be one aspect of the case.

The next point is that everybody knew, this House knew because I made no secret of it, every Member of the late Government knew, the Prime Minister certainly knew, that the first post-war register, hurriedly produced at the wish of the Government, was bound to be an imperfect register. I hope that no silly childish attempts will be made to assume that this was the register of the Home Secretary at the time. That register, as the First Lord knows, was the result of deliberate Cabinet policy.

With which we were all agreed.

We were doing our best. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree; and also the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he had something to do with it as chairman of an outside committee. We all agreed, and we were doing our best. We believed it was right to have ready the official machinery for an Election if circumstances made it inevitable. We had to do this hurriedly. All the steps were agreed by the Government of the day. We are all in it whether the register is perfect or not, and if there is a fault, it is the fault of all of us. Everyone struggled to get the best register possible to apply to everybody at home and overseas. I regarded it as a sacred duty at the Home Office to produce the best register I could, and to be absolutely fair about it, in the time at our disposal and in the difficult circumstances in which we were working. There was shortage of staff in registration offices. People were being directed here and there; they were being shoved all over the place. Of all the difficulties of the registration the fundamental difficulty was that we could not have a universal street to street canvass. All this was bound to produce a register which was imperfect.

We did the best we could in the circumstances. Many people have been directed to other parts of the country by the Ministry of Labour. Bomb damage repair people have come to London in great numbers from other parts of the country. I think that the Service Departments on the whole have done very well, and I am grateful to officers of the Forces for the persuasion they exercised on men to register. But in some distant theatres there will be great difficulty and imperfections in postal voting. Everybody did their best, but these things were bound to be so on the first register. Large numbers of evacuees who have only just come back to London—if they were not here on 31st January, they were registered at the place to which they were evacuated, and they are not going back—just will not be able to vote.

Finally, if I may touch on a subject about which we are not too much worried but hon. Members opposite are, I come to the registration of the business voter, who, I think, ought to be completely abolished. But he has rights under the law, and it is our duty to administer the law. The business voter has been left in a very poor way, so that the numbers registered are relatively infinitesimal compared with the number of those qualified to register. There are in Westminster Abbey about 2,000, instead of 14,000, and the numbers in the Exchange Division of Liverpool, the Exchange Division of Manchester and the Central Division of Glasgow are very small. But that is their funeral, and no doubt the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is busily scribbling notes, will make the most of the point that, despite the shocking position of the business voter, they are going to have an Election to prove how honest and upright they are. It does not prove anything at all. It only proves that in taking the "pros" and "cons," he has decided that the "pros" have it.

In these circumstances, the proper thing to do was to consider, Is an Election to be held on this register? It would have been a matter of waiting three months or so for the Election and in the meantime going on with our work as a Parliament and a Government. It was implied in the Prime Minister's letter that Parliament had become impossible. He said that there was bickering and that we could not govern by bickering. I sat on the Front Bench opposite for five years, running one of the chief offices of State, and I was subjected to repeated attacks. I did not blame the House, but I think I did not deserve it. I had plenty of criticism, but I was bound to have it., Anybody holding that office was bound to have it. I was Home Secretary for the longest period of time in this century, in time of war, and I had Civil Defence added to the office. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) was always after me about 18b, as was the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). [An Hon. Member: "And the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale."] Yes, and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), but it was all part of doing the job and earning one's salary, and in being accountable to Parliament. I had many a battle in Parliament and sometimes had narrow escapes, and it is a Parliament with a majority of which I do not approve. But I say in all sincerity that no Minister holding that tricky job, could have wanted, on the whole, a fairer tribunal to judge him than this House of Commons during that period.

Therefore, to say that this was a Parliament with which you could not live is wrong. It was not a bad Parliament, apart from its political majority. The Government got on amazingly well considering the strain we were put to at times. The idea that the Government or Parliament could not have lasted is really quite wrong. That could have been done. We could have carried through this House much legislation that has now to be sacrificed. I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on retaining his position in His Majesty's Government. Governments come and Governments go but the right hon. Gentleman goes on for ever, and I am delighted to see him there above the battle and clear of all these nasty political affairs. [An Hon. Member: "A permanent decoy duck."] The right hon. Gentleman in his speech referred to the Motion going through beautifully and speedily, and was so happy about it because nobody was examining anything. I was alarmed at the Chancellor, who ought to be sorry because of the speed with which legislation is going through. He got near to rejoicing over the Prime Minister's ignorant and innocent observation the other day that I was advocating that legislation should be passed by resolution. He has got precious near it in the last few days. He rejoices about legislation by resolution and says, "What a nice competent House of Commons." That is the sort of Parliament he likes.

No stages were cut out, I would remind my right hon. Friend.

No stages were left out. Imagine—the right hon. Gentleman is serious about that. The representative of the Scottish Universities is true to Scottish tradition; he is serious. No stages were left out; no, but it just goes like this: Mr. Speaker goes out of the Chair and the Chairman of Committees comes in; the Chairman of Committees goes out of the Chair and Mr. Speaker comes in, and away it goes—and the right hon. Gentleman says that no stage is left out. There are no noticeable stages in this process at all, and I warn the right hon. Gentleman that, if he is not careful, he will be quoted as the most dangerous case of approving legislation by resolution which was, in such comic fashion, condemned by the Prime Minister the other day.

Surely the right to object still exists under the present system?

Yes, it does. Nobody has proposed to abolish the right to object as far as I know. I was only commenting, as I had every right to comment, upon the joy with which the Chancellor saw this legislative procedure. I am bound to say it is a procedure which is inevitable in these circumstances. But let the right hon. Gentleman remember this: If the House proposes to object, what does he do? He says, "The Bill is dead." So I am afraid the Chancellor is sunk, whichever way he looks. That is what he has said about a certain Bill. [Interruption.] I am not making too much of it. I did it myself once. That is what he has done and so, when the hon. Member says that we can object, I say that we cannot object because if we do not like the Bill as it is we lose it, and if it is a Bill we want, of course we do not wish to lose it. That is the difficulty in which the House is, and so the Chancellor sits convicted of being a legislator by resolution, and instead of apologising, and saying how much he regrets it, he rejoices and publicly praises the House for carrying on its business in this way.

May I put this point to my right hon. Friend? The least he can make out is that the Chancellor is doing this in exceptional circumstances, but the right hon. Gentleman wants to make that the rule, so far as legislation is concerned.

No, I would be utterly ashamed of myself if I got anywhere near such a degradation of Parliamentary procedure and Parliamentary practice. I do not wonder the trains are slow between London and Cheltenham.

What other inconveniences are following from this rushed Election—I do not call it a snap Election. It must be highly inconvenient in regard to all the problems we are facing in Germany and the occupied territories. I venture to guarantee that dozens or even hundreds of questions are arising requiring the decision of the Government and I would not be a bit surprised if the commanders in the field, or those in charge of the occupation of Germany and of other military problems, cannot get them, but they are probably being told. "Do not worry us. There is an Election on." That ought not to be so, in this tricky phase of affairs, and the rushed Election, from that point of view, ought not to have taken place.

Therefore I say, from every conceivable point of view, the Election ought to have been in the Autumn and Parliament should have carried on to that point. If some people had made political speeches in the country—which I understand the Prime Minister is not very keen about, though sometimes they are very good speeches—the world would not have come to an end. Why should not the political education of the country proceed? I have made my contribution to the political education of the country during the war. There were questions in the House as to whether these speeches represented the policy of His Majesty's Government, and the answer given made it pretty clear what was the position in that respect. Why should not they go on? Why is there this conspiracy against political discussion in the country on the part of Members of Parliament or even Ministers of the Crown? Are we getting to a totalitarian political regime, where there has to be one political party in Parliament, and no debate and no discussion?

The right hon. Gentleman's party cannot have it on the roundabouts as well as on the swings. Is he not suggesting that the Ministers in the Coalition Government who supported the Government would no doubt be loyal to the Cabinet, leaving his hon. Friends behind him free to vote against their own colleagues and make capital out of the fact in the country and so have it both ways?

I was only talking about political speeches in the country; I was not dealing with the voting against the Government in this House and, on the balance of record of voting against the Government, it is about fifty-fifty. As a matter of fact, the Government had nothing to complain about of the treatment they received, either from the people or from the House of Commons; both the House and the people were very good to us.

That is why I say that, in my judgment, the Election ought to have come in the Autumn instead of now, and that was the view we expressed. Yet we are being accused of having quitted the Government. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] When hon. Members say that with a mischievous smile, it shows they do not believe the "Hear, hear." It is quite untrue. We did not quit the Government. On the contrary, we said that in our judgment the Government should remain together until the Autumn and, having said that, we were pushed out. The Prime Minister resigned. The Government was automatically dissolved. We did not go to His Majesty to resign; it was the Prime Minister who went. It was the Prime Minister's own action which dissolved this Government and nobody else's. I do not say that the Prime Minister has quitted office, but he it was who quitted that Government, and not the Labour or Liberal Ministers.

Now I come to the argument that it should have been at the end of the Japanese war and that then we could have had all our Supply Days this year, next year and possibly the year afterwards, because we do not know when the Japanese war will end. If it does end before the Autumn the Prime Minister will look rather foolish.

So will the right hon. Gentleman.

No, the Prime Minister will look foolish, because then he could have had the autumn Election and the end of the Japanese war as well. I will tell the House why I personally and firmly all the time have taken the view that that would have been a mistaken course. First of all, let us consider what the situation is going to be. Certainly after the Autumn two things will begin to emerge before the public mind and the Parliamentary mind. One is the thing that is going on all the time, the prosecution of the war against Japan in the Far East, on which we are all united. There is no difference of opinion, and any Government, whatever it may be, will have the support of the Labour Party in prosecuting that war, as we would expect that we would have the support of other parties, if we were called upon to form an Administration. The other thing that will emerge will be the economic problem and the social problem—economic and industrial issues on policies which will be vital to our country, whichever way they are dealt with, and vital to the men who are coming back from the Services in due course.

Let the facts be faced. The late Government got on very well in many respects, but the things we could not agree about were issues of industrial and economic policy. I am not blaming anybody. It was a difference of fundamental principle. There would be no justification for our several existence if it were not so. There was the question of controls. We have seen the result of the formation of this Government in that a certain Bill went. There was the question of the reorganisation of industry, whether it should be on the basis of public ownership over a restrictive field, or private ownership. We said public, they said private. There was the question of the control or supervision of monopolies and anti-social cartels. We could not agree about that. Indeed, when a Bill affecting land was produced there was nearly a Parliamentary crisis about it. I am not grumbling about anybody. These are real difficulties between parties and, on the whole, it is a good thing they are there, because it gives reality to party conflict and to political and economic discussion. However, those issues were going to emerge more and more, and, as the weeks went on—after the Autumn, because I do not believe anything critical would have arisen, probably, by then, there would have been a divergence of view, and incapacity to come to a decision about these things—muddle, confusion and uncertainty and, in our hearts and consciences, we should have felt that we were making an unholy mess of things for the men who were coming back from the fighting when our duty was to get things right.

It may be that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite felt the same from their point of view. If the Government is to live, it must be united about the essentials of the time. We were united about the essentials of the conduct of the war. We were sharply divided about the policy for the economic reconstruction of the peace. If we had stayed in we would either have had to acquiesce in Conservative incapacity, as we should have thought it, in those respects and we should have been betraying, as we should have thought, the men in the Fighting Services and the fighting lines abroad. In due course we would either have got involved in responsibility for policies with which we fundamentally disagreed, or the Government would have had an uncertain life and the break-up would have come even more untidily than it has come at the present time. That is a good public and Parliamentary case against the indefinite continuance of the Government through the Japanese war. In any case, the essential preparations for the Japanese war are made. I do not say that everything is done by any means, but fortunately we agreed before we left on the big and the fundamental issue.

The Prime Minister knew all this. He did not appreciate those points so much, I think, because economic and industrial policy and domestic policy are not so much in his mind, and I do not complain. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]. They are not. I am not complaining. Nobody can be expert about everything, and they are not particularly in his line. However, he did appreciate the Parliamentary point. Whatever criticism there may be of the Prime Minister, he is a keen Parliamentarian, and some days he is even keen in his democratic feelings. He recognised the Parliamentary point, and he said, "There is going to be difficulty about the continuation of the Parliament because, if there is an Election, how are you to hold it—a coupon Election or a fight?" I think everybody would agree that we did not want to repeat the rather unpleasant memory of the coupon Election of 1918, and you cannot have a fight at the polls while you are in the same Cabinet. It cannot be done. Not even that great Government could have survived that.

I am speaking within the memory of the House when I say that, year after year, I came here with the Prolongation of Parliament Bill. Year after year the House got more and more uncomfortable, and I was almost accused by hon. Members from all parts of the House who asked, "Why do you have this dreadful thing again? Parliament has no right to prolong itself; it is an infringement of the Constitution." In a way it is, but as our Constitution is unwritten, you can do all sorts of things without getting before the courts. Increasing criticism arose, and I had to be increasingly persuasive as the years went on. In 1944 the Prime Minister was so apprehensive—[Interruption.] No, I did not give it up, I was willing to try again and I believe I could have pulled it off, though I would have had to confess my sins more vigorously than before.

The Prime Minister himself thought that the pressure was considerable, that it wanted careful handling—not that he disputed that I would have handled it carefully, but he thought this was an occasion when he ought to handle the House himself. I thought he was right, and readily I agreed about it. He made that speech which has been quoted so often this afternoon, and there was no answer to it. There really is not. He laid down precisely the same arguments that I have laid down this afternoon, that at an appropriate date, after the end of hostilities, when the reason for the continuation of Parliament had gone, there ought to be an Election. He did not say "straight away"; he did not say a rushed Election; on the contrary, his words implied other considerations altogether. He merely said he would not have another Prolongation of Parliament Bill, and this time he went for a new device for surmounting this problem—he would not have another Prolongation of Parliament Bill but, he said, "Let us have a plebiscite or a referendum. Let us ask the people, 'Yes or no, do you want this Parliament to continue'?" which means, "Do you want this Government to continue; do you want this Prime Minister to continue, with a Conservative majority?" All the poor opposition outside would be able to do, even if we were agreed about it, would be to vote. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister wanted to pick up this unpleasant referendum method of doing things. It is no good talking about Australia, because they use it there for totally different purposes. But this kind of referendum, "Am I to continue to be the Prime Minister or not?" or, if you like, "Is this Parliament or Government to go on?" just smells of the devices of the Fuehrer. I not only rejected it, but I felt cross that the proposal had been made. It is offensive in British eyes and minds. I will not, for myself, have our political and constitutional institutions degraded to the point where all that is left for the British people to do is to say, "Ja," or "Nein." That is not good enough for this country. [Interruption.] The hon. Member who is retiring at the Election, and who sits for South Bradford (Sir H. Holdsworth) is—

When people vote at an Election it is, "Yes," or "No."

That is how, very naturally, it appeals to the Liberal National mind. I dislike this referendum and plebiscite proposition. I think it was a constitutional abomination, although I do not blame this on the First Lord of the Admiralty. It may well have been the Prime Minister's own invention—

Thank you very much.

There is too much of the Fuehrer principle about it for my liking. That is our case. Let me say, in conclusion, that we are not whining. We have stated our case, and we believe that we are quite right. I do not know whether an Election now or later would suit anybody best. I am not as clever as the First Lord of the Admiralty in that respect. But, as I have said, we are not whining about it. I can assure hon. Members that there will be a merry fight and a vigorous one, and that at the end of it there will come forward great decisions. I think this Election is the most important Election we have ever had. We shall fight with the greatest possible energy as, no doubt, will hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite, except, perhaps, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will have his usual quiet time, although whether he will get in or not time alone will show. He always has the best of all worlds, because he just goes on, and does not have to do the anxious work that the First Lord, and I, and others have to do.

Could not my right hon. Friend have done away with the university representation, when he was Home Secretary?

We felt it necessary to put our case before the House and the country. We have so put it, and the First Lord will no doubt reply to the Debate. We have made our protest intelligently, I think, and clearly, and when we go to the fight let the best side win.

5.50 p.m.

I came to the House to-day with a full knowledge of my lack of competence to deal with all the solemn points of Supply which were advertised to be discussed in this Debate. I am bound to say that I was relieved to find that the solemn points of Supply have been neglected, and that we have, in fact, got right into the middle of the hustings. The Leader of the Opposition began by complimenting my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his reasonableness, and we all agree with that compliment. Then he criticised the Prime Minister's speech, or radio oration, and was, perhaps, a little less charitable. If there is one thing that may be said about the right hon. Gentleman, it is that he is uninhibited by the name of his constituency. He will never descend to Lime house. The right hon. Gentleman completely forgot, in his electoral survey, the fact that, I think, unwillingly on his part, and on the part of his friends among the Members of that Government, the Socialist representatives in the late Government were pulled out at the behest of the Socialist Party, at their solemn annual conference.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Morrison) will quite rightly say, in his autiobiography, that was a thoroughly democratic de- cision, that if the Socialist Party said, "We wish to put an end to your participation in this Government, and you must come out," that there was nothing wrong or unpatriotic about that, although I think it is hard on a hard-working Minister such as he was at that time. The most animated speech we heard to-day came from the acting Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). There are, I am told, fierce beasts in the jungle, whose names are so long that no one can remember them, but I am also informed by somebody who understands animals, that the most formidable of all angry animals is a sheep run amok. Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman ran amok here to-day. He seems to have stolen the oratorical thunder of his Leader, and I think that some of his invective will bring a great deal of happiness to his constituents during the next few weeks. The right hon. Gentleman said that, the new register was stale. Well, I should have thought that that was the last of all the criticisms that could be made about it. You might say it was immature, but it certainly is not stale. I liked the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about this Parliament, because I think it is true—and the good humoured Debate we have had has emphasised it—that this is one of the greatest of all Parliaments. But he spoilt his compliment by going on to warn us that the next Parliament may be full of men of vigour, with fresh ideas. Well, surely it is to the benefit of the nation that, if there are men of greater vigour and fresher ideas outside, they should come in. The most powerful argument for a new Parliament came to-day from the right hon. Gentleman.

If there were any points of Supply mentioned in the Debate they were thoroughly dealt with in a brilliant speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss). He made one of the most amusing speeches I have ever heard in this House, and I must say that the late Home Secretary does not realise how sensible the Prime Minister was of the loss that the Government sustained when my hon. Friend decided for conscience sake, and conscience sake alone, to leave office. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) came forward and described the forthcoming Election as a rush Election. Three weeks' notice, and yet a rush Election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Certainly."] At any rate, it gave him adequate time to change his party. No one believes that he would suddenly have reached such a decision. He must have given a great deal of time and consideration to this problem, and I advise him at meetings in his constituency, in his new mantle, not to press the point about a rush Election, because never since the conversion of Balaam has there been a quicker conversion than that which the hon. Gentleman has sustained—

While fully appreciating the right hon. Gentleman's personal badinage, would he, instead, address himself to the solid argument that I advanced with reference to the Prime Minister's speech of 31st October?

I did not hear any solid argument; I heard a great "deal of clumsy invective, not solid argument. One of the strongest attacks on the Leader of the Opposition came not from these benches, but from a most peculiar quarter, from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). He ran a bulldozer over the Leader of the Opposition, and it seems that the restoration of party Government has not improved party discipline on the opposite side. We also had a most interesting speech from—

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the most interesting point which he has just reached—I might, after all, be called upon to answer in another place—am I to understand that he was alleging that there was some point of my speech, I think he rather implied the whole of it, that was at variance with the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? If there was, I am entirely unaware of it, and I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would indicate where my argument differed from that of the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. Member will have a chance of seeing it to-morrow morning.

I do not think that that will quite do. I know now what I said, without waiting until to-morrow, and if the right hon. Gentleman does not know I will tell him. So far as I know there was not a single point in my argument that was in any way at all in the slightest conflict with the argument of the Leader of the Opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there was, then it is due to me and to the House to explain what it was, or withdraw.

Not at all; I have said nothing unparliamentary. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that he is not at a party meeting upstairs.

On a point of Order. I shall be guided entirely by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I should have thought that if the right hon. Gentleman accused me of making a speech that was at variance with the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition he ought to justify his deliberate misinterpretation of my speech, or withdraw it.

I have often noticed in this House that two hon. Members put an entirely different interpretation upon one speech. In other words, the point of Order seems to relate only to a difference of opinion between the hon. Gentleman and the Minister.

With great respect to you, Sir, I submit that that is not so. It is not a question of interpretation at all. The right hon. Gentleman said, in flat terms, that I ran a bulldozer over the Leader of the Opposition, and I am saying that he ought either to justify that assertion or withdraw it.

I understood that the expression "bulldozer" was intended in rather a lighter vein. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman so intended it. I did not understand it as being any reflection on anybody. As to the question of a point of Order, in a Debate of this kind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are entitled to real differences of opinion, and I do not think anything has been said that can be regarded as having gone beyond the bounds of Order.

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Will you be good enough to make it clear that this House exists for the purpose of expressing differences of opinion, and that its liberty will not be in any way curtailed by an hon. Member raising a point which is not a point of Order in an endeavour to prevent the expression of differences of opinion?

I want also to raise a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to justify the original point of Order. The Minister said that the most devastating argument against the Leader of the Opposition came not from his side of the House but from this side. Surely it is his duty to tell us what that argument was.

Neither of those two points is a point of Order.

I do not think it would have been a good way to conduct a Debate in this House if I had interrupted the former Home Secretary during the various statements he made about what had happened between the Prime Minister and myself, and demanded that he should give chapter and verse for what he said. It is right that, if anybody on these Benches feels that a speech made by a member of the Socialist Party opposite was a devastating answer to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, he should, in replying for the Government, be allowed to state his case, and I maintain that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne having made an extremely long speech, is not entitled to make another one. We heard a speech—one of the few made in this Debate which touched even midly upon finance and Supply—from the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White). He was a ghost at our feast today, because while everybody was enjoying himself dealing with election matters, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of Supply, but he did not go very much farther than to warn us that it was an important topic. I am bound to say that the warning was not observed in any quarter of the House.

The right hon. Member for South Hackney made a coroner's inquest on the late Government. He accused me of being too breezy. There is no doubt that as a coroner he was far too breezy this afternoon; coroners are supposed to be serious. He began by calling me a political adviser to the Prime Minister. You might as well send a missionary to the Archbishop of Canterbury, or a publicity expert to the right hon. Member for South Hackney. If we are all going to give some chapters of autobiography this afternoon, I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, when he says it is notorious that I give advice to the Prime Minister about electoral matters, it may be notorious, but the statement is not accurate. I am one of the few colleagues of the Prime Minister who has never discussed elections with him. I consider that of all the boring topics in life, one entirely suited to Tapers and Tadpoles, elections are the worst of all conversational subjects between civilised human beings. I am not calling upon the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his statement. I am not so touchy or so out of contact with opinion in the House, but I beg him to allow me to say that on this occasion he was inaccurate. If he would like to hear my views on the Election—and I take it that will be quite in Order in view of the Debate this afternoon—I will tell him that my view is, "Keep the Government going till after the Japanese war is over." I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman the former Home Secretary once thoroughly agreed with me in that matter.

No.

In a few moments I will quote to show that that is so. The right hon. Gentleman made a lot of criticisms of his baby, the electoral register. The Government as a whole are entirely responsible, but we know how hard the right hon. Gentleman worked in the compilation of it. I have a little doubt myself whether he worked quite hard enough on the business vote registration. As moderation is always my limit, I hesitated in the Cabinet to make any accusation against the right hon. Gentleman. I think that out of the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech there emerged only one substantial grievance, and that was that he and his friends were not allowed to choose the date of the Election. That is all; nothing else. The right hon. Gentleman said he was not certain as to which was the best date for the Election, July or October.

As a matter of party advantage. In the public interest, I am clear that an Autumn Election would be advantageous.

That goes to show quite clearly that I was not in any way misrepresenting what my right hon. Friend said. The truth is that the grievance of the Socialist Party is that the Prime Minister exercised his constitutional prerogative to fix a date for the Election. Hon, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, of course, would have liked the edifying scene we have had to-day to be carried on until well into October. We would have had debate after debate dealing with matters of finance and would have been indulging in platform "barracking." I wish to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not resent anything he said about me. I thought it a little unfortunate that he talked about the Prime Minister's suggestion of a referendum as being worthy of the language of the Fuehrer. A referendum is part of the Constitution of many countries. Take, for instance, that eminent Australian politician, Mr. Curtin, who has recently been the father of a referendum in Australia. It is quite true that he lost. Mr. Curtin is a member of the Socialist Party in Australia. He has been selected by a Socialist caucus in Australia because that system prevails already in Australia, and I have no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman and his friends came into power it would prevail here. But no more democratic man could be found in the world than Mr. Curtin, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that the Prime Minister is talking the language of the Fuehrer merely because he recommended a referendum, it will greatly upset Mr. Curtin and many other Socialist politicians in many lands who have agreed that a referendum is a thoroughly satisfactory legislative device.

There is a very large number of Constitutions in the world in which the principle and agency of a referendum is used, but I defy the right hon. Gentleman to mention a single Constitution in which a referendum is used in substitution for an election.

If I were to go into constitutional researches, it would occupy most of the evening. What I am saying is that advocacy of a referendum is not, in fact, a reason for describing somebody as having Fuhrer-like feelings. The late Home Secretary—[Hon. Members: "Not 'late.' "]—we must not be too particular, about words. The ex-Home Secretary said that he did not share my view that the Government should carry on until the end of the Japanese war, but somebody has given me quite an interesting quotation, and I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that in a speech to the British Dominions Labour Party he said, not that advocacy of a referendum was a sign of sympathy with the Nazis, but:

"There is no basic distinction between the war with Germany and the war with Japan. After the defeat of Germany the war in the Far East will be prosecuted with vigour, energy and determination. We must go through with it. We cannot break up the Government until victory has been achieved."

I remember it perfectly well. That is a Press summary, and, as Press summaries go, it is not unfair; but my memory is clear that on the question of going on with the Government after victory, I meant what everybody has meant all along, namely, the end of the European war.

I do not think I should read out the quotation again, but there is no doubt whatsoever that when the right hon. Gentleman made that statement, as with all his statements, he was absolutely sincere; but even if the right hon. Gentleman had wanted to carry on until the end of the Japanese war, the truth is that his party would not have permitted him to stay in the Government.

I want to make it clear that I do not wish to. I think it is contrary to the public interest. I made that abundantly clear in councils among my own friends.

Unfortunately the ex-Home Secretary did not make it abundantly clear to the Dominions Labour Party when he made that eloquent address last September. The date is 13th September, 1944. [An HON. MEMBER: "From which newspaper?"] Either the "Sunday Pictorial" or the "Sunday Graphic."

Does it claim to be a direct quotation?

Yes.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is treading on thin ice.

I am not on thin ice; I am on solid ground. I think every hon. Member pays a certain amount of lip service to the energetic efforts made by the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) to increase the circulation of Hansard. Hon. Members all over the House subscribe money to it or give their benediction in glowing language, and I am inclined to agree that the reading of Hansard, particularly this day's Hansard, would be of immense consequence to the country, because it would really show the public what we are talking about now. We are not being held up by any serious business. We are indulging in long recollections of what happened in one party's discussions last year or in another's this year. It is nonsense to suggest that you can keep this House of Commons going until October. As this House has never tolerated humbug, surely it will now realise that the time has come for us to part. Let us part in good humour and in peace, with the full realisation that our work is done and that a future Editor of the Parliamentary Reports, or anyone who would like to add a chapter to Erskine May, will, I think, look upon this day as one of the most curious days of all allotted to Supply in Parliament, because all that we have been doing is supplying each other with ammunition to be used on the hustings.

6.16 p.m.

If the right hon. Gentleman says it is impossible, for whatever reason he has in mind, to keep the House going until October, why does he argue that it is desirable to keep it going until the end of the Japanese war?

Because if the Socialist Members of the last Government had stayed in office we should not now be discussing what we are going to say on the platforms. We should be getting on with the business of speeding up the war against Japan.

There was, as I understand it, a firm offer to the Prime Minister that the Coalition should be continued until the Autumn and that the party on this side would act, as they have acted since the Coalition Government was formed, with the utmost loyalty, of course within Parliamentary limits, such as we have been accustomed to in the past four years or so, and that the Government would be assisted and fortified by all parties.

I am not quite clear in my own mind whether this is a speech or a question.

I am within the bounds of Order if I desire to make a speech.

I apologise for interrupting. Of course the hon. Member is within the bounds of Order, but I was not sure. We had one or two questions before the right hon. Gentleman sat down, and I wanted to be quite sure myself.

I was observing that the mere fact that a Member is not present throughout the whole Debate does not debar him from either asking questions or participating in the Debate at a later stage. Other Members have done that sort of thing, in the past. I should not have intervened but for the peculiar argument adduced by the right hon. Gentleman. I have some knowledge; of these matters as a member of the National Executive of the Labour Party. It seems to me ludicrous to suggest that this Parliament could not have been continued, at any rate until the Autumn, with the Government assisted and fortified by the loyalty of all parties in the House. If that offer, made in good faith, had been accepted we should have avoided this acrimonious discussion and we should have avoided what is a most unfair political proceeding, namely, having an Election conducted on an imperfect register—unfair to the civilian electors and to the Forces electors. At the same time we should have had an opportunity of ascertaining whether the present Parliament could have continued until the end of the Japanese war, because the right hon. Gentleman has no more knowledge than anyone on this side as to when the Japanese war will end. That seemed to me to be a perfectly fair offer in all the circumstances. It was rejected by the Prime Minister. As to who are the political advisers of the Prime Minister I offer no opinion. It does not matter to me in the least whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite or his Noble Friend Lord Beaverbrook is always at the side of the Prime Minister holding his hand well into the middle of the night. It is of no consequence at all. The Prime Minister has a perfect right to take what action he thinks fit in the circumstances that face him. We are not concerned with that, but what we are concerned with is that the Election has been precipitated at a time when it was unnecessary in view of the offer made by this Party.

The hon. Gentleman has not been here. These arguments have been put forward for four hours from various parts of the House. My suggestion was all the time, What is the good of talking about waiting until October to carry on unconstructive Debates such as we have had? There was no acrimony, but they were utterly unconstructive.

Even if these matters have been raised in the course of the Debate, there was no answer to them at all. The right hon. Gentleman takes his stand on one issue alone. He made that issue just now in an interruption. It is that we should have had in the next few months acrimonious discussions. How does he know? He is no more a prophet than I am. We might have had very reasonable discussions. And, if we had had acrimonious discussions, does he object to acrimonious discussion in a general assembly?

I have just said that I do not.

Or would he be better pleased if every one was a yes-man? Now that the election has been precipitated we shall not make a song and dance about it. It has been precipitated for one reason only, because the Prime Minister and his friends, and the right hon. Gentleman, believe that it suits their purpose. In other words, a snap election will suit their purpose. Do they imagine that this is analogous to the snap election of 1918? The circumstances were quite different, because the late Mr. Lloyd George committed the most egregious blunder of his political career by associating himself with the Tories in the Coalition and having a "coupon election." There is no coupon election this time. We have escaped from that dilemma, and we have escaped from the dilemma of being associated with the Tories in this election. However much the right hon. Gentleman and his friends desired the Coalition to continue, we on this side recognise that, if we are to confront the great problems that menace this country and its future, they cannot be grappled with by Coalition methods. They can only be grappled with by the electors having a firm decision one way or the other, and they are now going to be provided with that opportunity.

That is an argument for an election.

You had to have an election at some time. Now you have forced it on the country. Have you not forced it on the country? [Hon. Members: "No."] The right hon. Gentleman said we could not continue this House of Commons in the circumstances because we should have had acrimonious discussions, and he was anxious to avoid that.

I did not. I said actually they were not acrimonious but utterly unconstructive.

Why should we have had unconstructive discussions in view of the many White Papers which would have come before us? Why should we have had unconstructive discussions in. view of the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister about the implementation of the proposals in the White Papers? Does he think that Members on this side could not have addressed themselves constructively and solidly to the proposals embodied in the various White papers? Of course we should, and, if there had been criticism, it might have been criticism of a constructive character to which the right hon. Gentleman might take exception but which, nevertheless, would be quite constitutional and in order in this Assembly. Let us get rid of all this pretence about the reasons for the election. Let it be put on record that the election has been precipitated because, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, and certainly in the opinion of his influential friends, this was the time to catch the Labour Party napping. You can catch the Labour Party napping, but there is much more than the Labour Party's future that is at stake. It is the future of the country. We are not afraid to face the future except for this, that if we are to grapple with serious problems we are going to get rid of the power of the Tory Party.

Why did right hon. Gentlemen want the Coalition to continue? They have been arguing for the continuance of the Coalition all along the line. This is nothing new. Why did they want it? If they believed that the Tory Party could have captured the support of the electors, they would not have needed a Coalition. They wanted the Coalition because they were afraid that, going to the country as a party, they would have been rejected by the electorate. The Tories are naive except when they are playing their tricks at election time, such as a Post Office savings scare or a red letter. We detected in the Prime Minister's broadcast all the outlines of another Post Office savings scare. If they cannot produce a scare, they will produce a scarecrow. I am not so sure that the right hon. Gentleman cannot play that role. Why do they believe that this is the time to precipitate an election? Because they think they can make capital out of the glamour that surrounds the Prime Minister.

Why must they make capital out of the Prime Minister? Because the Tory Party are bankrupt and have no capital left. That is the position, and now we have to face an Election. I do not know what my right hon. Friend may have said about it, but I have a shrewd suspicion that he made it clear that we were not afraid of facing an Election. Strange as it may seem coming from me, if we are to have this Election, let us conduct it at a reasonably high level; let us conduct it with a little dignity; let us not make it into an electioneering wrangle; let us not seek to take advantage of the glamour of one man—

Or perhaps we should study the tactics used at Seaham at the last General Election.

Nothing would delight me more than to embark on a dissertation on what transpired at Seaham at the last Election, but, briefly, what happened? An ex-Prime Minister who had committed an act of treachery against the Labour Party, who was led up the garden by the Tories, just as they want to lead us up the garden on this occasion, was responsible for a grave defection. After all, it does not matter which side you are on, there is nothing more serious and no more grave misdemeanour in the eyes of the people than that you should change your coat and throw over your principles in order to suit your own purpose. That is precisely what the late Member for Seaham did, and he was defeated by a large majority, a majority that will be increased on this occasion. If my right hon. Friend does not think that possible, let him leave North Paddington and come to Seaham, and I will give him the worst political hiding he has had in his career. [An Hon. Member: "You go to Paddington."] I do not require to go to North Paddington because there is a highly respectable lieutenant-general, a Member of the Labour Party, not a miner or an artisan or a common labourer or an intellectual, but a solid Serviceman who has rendered great service to, the country, far greater service than my right hon. Friend has ever rendered.

We are not afraid of the Election, but we are a little troubled about the tricks the Tory Party will play. However, neither their tricks, knavish as they are, nor their specious philosophy, nor their haste to rush an Election, nor their formidable capitalist Press and the power of the purse which is still in their possession, will prevail. The issues at this Election are simple. They are not so much the question whether the Election has been precipitated. They are how this country is to be organised in the future. What we do know is that, if there have been depression, poverty and unemployment, it is not due to the Labour Party or Labour policy, but it is due to the Tory Party and the absence of a constructive policy on their part.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it was that, when the Labour Party came into office in 1929, there were 1,100,000 people unemployed, and when they went out there were 2,800,000?

Is not the answer obvious? The hon. Member's friends had been in power for a very long time and they made a terrible mess of conditions in this country. Not even a Labour Government, deprived of power as it was—because it was only in office, and not in a majority—could do very much against conditions of that sort.

6.35 p.m.

I was very disappointed with the reply made by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The subject has been almost exhausted, and I would not have risen were it not for the references that the right hon. Gentleman made to the Prime Minister's offer of a referendum. I believe that the Labour Party has done a great service to the State by rejecting a proposal of mass bribery such as that was. I do not object to the Conservative Party exploiting the Prime Minister's popularity. They are entitled to make whatever use they can of him. It is all he has got, and it is a quickly diminishing asset. I have always held the view, and have not kept it from the House, that the Prime Minister's standing in the country is not as great as the newspapers and the House of Commons imagine. I believe that when the Election takes place my point of view will be confirmed.

We are now discussing constitutional issues and I say that it was a serious thing for the Prime Minister to invite the House of Commons to continue to pay salaries to itself long after it had exhausted its constitutional lifetime and when a large number of Members are retiring and not seeking re-election. Most of us have been here for 10 years, five years beyond the legal limit of Parliament. The Prime Minister invited the Members of the House to go on paying themselves £600 a year for an indefinite period. It was the most monstrous proposition ever made in the history of the British Constitution. If it had been accepted by the Labour Party it would have left no alternative to the people of the country but revolution. If it is possible for a majority in the House of Commons to perpetuate itself beyond its legal lifetime by its own act, which, in fact, we have been doing very reluctantly for five years, will hon. Members opposite tell me how the people could make their wishes felt except by a revolution? Is there any other way open? Would not hon. Members on the other side be inviting the large organisations of labour, anxious to make changes in public policy, to revert to strikes, to violence and to rebellion because a corrupt House of Commons was perpetuating itself at the invitation of an 18th century Prime Minister? Even Lord North in his worst days never suggested so corrupt a device.

Laski did.

If there is one thing that makes me welcome an early Election, it is that it will put a termination to such stupidity. I know of no constitutional authority who has ever written about the Constitution who would dare to suggest that we ourselves should misuse our power by continuing to pay ourselves salaries and enjoying powers that our constituents were not anxious to confer upon us.

Did the hon. Gentleman and his party vote against increasing the pay of Members?

Members who are addressing the House ought to be protected from such senility. I was not addressing my- self to the increase in Members' salaries, but to the fact that the Prime Minister wants to perpetuate Parliament without any warrant because a war is being fought 10,000 or 15,000 miles away. The Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself for making such an invitation and asking Members at the end of 10 years to behave in such a manner.

With regard to the Supply Days, if I had my way, I would have a Division on the Motion. We are being asked to do a serious thing. We are asked to surrender the rights of the House of Commons over the Executive. It is all very well for hon. Members to dismiss these things lightly, but the fact of the matter is that there is no effective control over the Government except Supply. A Government need not resign at all. If a majority can wipe out Supply Days, there is no Vote and no effective control over the Executive. We ought not lightly to forgo Supply Days merely because it suits the Prime Minister and his political advisers to have an Election. We ought to have given our vote against it, if only in order to establish our resentment against this extraordinary device. I know that it has been used before, but that is no reason why we should countenance it to-day without protest. My hon. Friend accused the Conservative Party of naivety. I do not think they are naive. It is we who are naive. My right hon. Friend has been quoting Labour Party conference resolutions. Two years ago we solemnly put on record at our national conference, on the recommendation of the leaders of the party, our Ministers in the Government, that when the time came for the Coalition Government to be brought to an end we should leave it with dignity and with restraint as befitted men who had been in great events together. I warned my leaders at the time that they did not know the people they were dealing with. I warned them that when the time came for the Conservative Party to dispense with us, it would be done in the dirtiest possible way they could manage it.

The Tory Party has never in the whole of its history been faithful to its allies. It is the most treacherous of all political parties. In the course of the last 25 years it has not won a decent Election. It has lied itself into power on each occasion. This Parliament was elected on a lie. If it had been left to the British Tory Party to be the custodians of democratic principles in this country, our democratic Constitution would long ago have ceased to exist. The maintenance of representative institutions and the defence of the purity of political principles has always been entrusted by history to the Liberal Party, which is now passing out, and to the Labour Party which, on this occasion, has shown the country that it is the best defender of democratic principles. Have we not proved it by rejecting the invitation which would have exposed the House of Commons to attacks from the whole country? Have we not thrown the Prime Minister's offer back in his teeth and said, "No, we wish to go to the electorate; we do not wish to prolong the Parliament Act and make the Japanese war an excuse for denying the British people the opportunity of electing Parliament"? We have by our own action shown that we realise that the embrace of the Conservative Party is deadly to anybody it embraces, that we have succeeded in disentangling ourselves from it, and that we will present to the country at the Election a clean programme and try to establish Great Britain once more as a leader among the nations of the world.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered:

"That for the purpose of concluding the Business of Supply for the present Session, Eight days shall be allotted under Standing Order No. 14 for the consideration of the annual Navy, Army, Air and Civil Estimates, including Votes on Account; and, as respects the present Session, that Standing Order shall have effect as if in paragraph (7) of that Standing Order the Eighth day were substituted for the Twentieth day so allotted."—

Orders Of The Day

Finance (No 2) Bill

Read the Third time, and passed.

Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. Charles Williams in the Chair]

Clause i.—( Power to authorise use of open space during a limited period for temporary housing accommodation.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.45 p.m.

I hoped we would have had an opportunity of raising on Clause 1 the question of Sub-section (6) to which there is an Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. Last night in dealing with this point the Minister said that he thought the provision of the Housing Act, 1944, would be sufficient. I have, in the interval, refreshed my memory of that Act, and it does appear that there is still a gap to be filled. The House is unanimous in the desire to see that on open spaces, this temporary accommodation will be removed at the end of ten years, and the Amendment to which I referred was designed to secure that if the local authority failed to remove that accommodation—

The Amendment has not been selected because of the very point which the hon. Member is just raising, among other things. It is outside the scope of the Bill, and therefore I am afraid that the point is also getting outside of the Bill.

I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams.

I should have said that it increases the chance of getting outside the scope of the Bill.

I will frame my question to the Government in my speech on this Clause on a different line. It does appear that this Clause is wrongly drafted because it leaves a loophole under Sub-section (6) of Clause 1, whereby this temporary accommodation may remain after the expiration of ten years if a local authority does not take the action to which it is directed in Sub-section (6). I would like from the Parliamentary Secretary, or from the Minister if he is going to reply, some assurance that either in this Measure or, if that is not possible, in some other Measure powers will be taken to see that what is the unanimous wish of the whole House is in fact carried out, with regard to this temporary housing on open spaces. We remember too vividly what happened after the last war, and it is our desire to see that it does not occur again. I am sure I am dealing with a very small minority of local authorities. I am sure the vast majority of local authorities will abide by the directions in Sub-section (6) and will instantly remove this temporary housing, but it seems there is a great gap in the Bill and one or two local authorities may not do so. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies will give us some assurance that this matter will receive further consideration.

I desire to support the plea that has been made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The operation of this Subsection of the Bill will be the acid test of the meaning which the Government attach to the pledges they gave yesterday. The Government must know that the House has been extremely reluctant to give them the powers conferred by this Bill. They are exceedingly nervous that at the end of ten years, even if the houses are unoccupied, some authorities will leave these places to become derelict and eyesores. Instead of having them restored as speedily as possible to places of amenity and beauty, they will be left covered with decaying sharks and other buildings that will be detrimental to the locality in which they stand. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure us that it is the intention of the Government to see that these buildings are removed, either when they become empty if it is before ten years, or at the expiration of ten years, and that there will be no opportunity afforded to any local authority to make the countryside or even the parks of towns unsightly and disreputable through the continued existence of these structures.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South' Shields (Mr. Ede) are naturally concerned that when the ten year period is expired some of these temporary houses which may by that time have become unsightly should not remain there.

No, all of them.

I apologise. I should have said all, not some. I hope I may set the minds of hon. Members at rest by a brief explanation. Perhaps I can do this simply and clearly by an imaginary example. Supposing this Bill passes to the Statute Book by June of this year, by June, 1955, the Act comes to an end. The houses which are placed on these sites belong to the Government and are rented to the local authorities. Should these houses in my imaginary example still remain there in June, 1955, the local authority in question would be liable to be sued by any one of the ratepayers in their district for the misuse of that particular site. Likewise under Section 2 of the Temporary Housing Act, 1944, the Minister himself has full powers to remove the houses, and the local authorities are likewise enabled to request the Minister to remove the houses. I hope these assurances will set at rest the fears of hon. Members.

The hon. Gentleman has given us an illustration of houses built in 1945 and subject to demolition in 1955. He ought to recall that the houses may not be commenced this year nor the year following.

I think I am right in saying that temporary houses from America will be arriving this year, and the full period of the Act is ten years, so that should the houses be erected this year they will have to be taken down in 1955 after that period of ten years when the Act expires.

Is the hon. Gentleman perfectly sure about it? He has made a statement that if they were erected in 1945, in 1955, at the end of ten years, they will be subject to demolition. But we cannot get the assurance that they are to be built in 1945. That is the point I want to make.

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the provisions of the Bill. It allows special powers to local authorities for a period of two years, and it may be possible that houses will be erected in 1946 or 1947, but from the period of erection not more than ten years must elapse before they are demolished.

In his illustration the hon. Gentleman specified 1945.

The hon. Gentleman has not met the point made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The Parliamentary Secretary referred to Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1944. He says the Minister may cause a structure to be removed. What we want is that this Bill should say that the Minister shall cause the structure to be removed. You, Mr. Williams, did not call my hon. Friend's Amendment, but I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, before this Bill is brought up in another place, to consider whether he himself will not put down this Amendment in its present form or, if he likes, that the Minister shall remove the structure at the expense of the local authority.

I do not wish to detain the Committee very long. I am bound to say that I think the Parliamentary Secretary's answer is singularly unconvincing, because those of us who serve on local authorities very rarely go in fear of an individual ratepayer bringing an action against us because we have not carried out some duty of this kind which has been placed upon us. After all, it is a serious thing to throw upon the individual ratepayer the task of fighting in the High Court a local authority with all the resources and the rates behind it. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to believe that that is a very broken reed on which to rely, and I join with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) in pressing him to see if in another place he cannot take some powers that will enable the Government by their own action and by the exercise of some default powers to remedy any wrong that a local authority may inflict on its neighbourhood.

It would be nothing unusual if, while this Bill is proceeding in another place, the Parliamentary Secretary could see whether he could make a more real approach to this problem. There is an air of unreality about it. Neither this Minister nor any other Minister nor a Parliament can pledge another Minister or Parliament ten years hence. Another Parliament might say, "It is perfectly true that these houses were to be pulled down in a few years' time," but they might revoke what the present Parliament has done. Another point is that we are assuming that the Minister will order the removal. Supposing the Minister a few years hence does not order the removal, supposing he feels it would be in the public interest that he should not indulge in revocation and that these buildings should remain, I ask the Minister to realise the nervousness we feel from the example we have had—this is no idle theory—of temporary buildings remaining not ten but 20 years. I ask whether something cannot be done to make thoroughly sure that, at the end of ten years, these buildings will be removed from our parks and open spaces.

7.0 p.m.

How can one lay down that they shall be? Circumstances might arise, as has been mentioned, where the local authority would find themselves in extreme difficulties with a lot of people wanting more houses and being compelled to pull down the existing ones. Some of these temporary structures will last, if they are left up, probably, 50, 60 or 70 years. If they uglify the neighbourhood as they are doing now in London, let them be removed as soon as possible. Do not let us lay down a drastic rule that, whatever the circumstances, the local authorities shall remove them at the end of ten years.

The last speech reinforces our argument. Have we really to contemplate that in ten years, whatever Governments may have been in power during that time, the local authorities will not yet have succeeded in providing the necessary houses, in order to enable the Minister's very definite statement to be carried out that these houses will come down as early as possible? If so, it is striking at the very root of the case which the Minister put before us. I would like to read what the Minister said:

"In the second place, the authorisation cannot be for a period of more than 10 years. There is an absolutely definite limit to the use of the space."—[Official Report, 5th June, 1945; Vol. 411, c. 733.]

The hon. Gentleman has just said that there cannot be a definite limit and that is a further justification for the Parliamentary Secretary to take action, probably by adopting the suggestion which has been made to put the matter right in another place beyond a shadow of doubt so that we shall know that the Minister's pledge will be kept, as it must be kept.

The point we are now discussing is extremely important. It is impossible for us to pledge any future House or Government. It is all very well for the Minister to say that in ten years' time these temporary houses shall be brought to an end. He can be as definite and firm about it as he likes, but at that time if there is still a shortage of houses there will be, all sorts of pressure and temptation to make the Government of the day say: "We thought so then, but things have changed now and we think we ought to keep them going for a little longer period." It will be lamentable, just as it is shocking that we now have to contemplate, even for a short period, making use of open spaces which are vital to the health and well-being of the community. Anything that can be done to strengthen the position and make the pledge of the Minister more binding certainly ought to be incorporated. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to the point.

I should like to try to bring reassurance to hon. Members by restating certain facts. In the first place these houses, we must not forget, belong to the Government. They have to be removed at the end of 10 years, because the Measure will expire definitely after 10 years. I am assured most specifically by my advisers that the Minister has ample powers in the Bill to act directly when he wishes. [Interruption.] I can only go on the assurances of my advisers, but should there be any doubt I am perfectly willing to enter into consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend. I am actually assured that the Minister has ample power to act at any stage under this Measure.

I accept, of course, the Minister's assurance, but I would point out to him that it is not a question of whether the Minister has power but of whether he would exercise it, and we want to put a safeguard into the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

On a point of Order. Is it your intention, Mr. Williams, to call the new Clause standing in my name [Royal Parks]?

No.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Supply

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. Charles Williams in the Chair]

Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimate, 1945

Class VI

Ministry Of Civil Aviation

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £3,536,010 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Civil Aviation."

7.8 p.m.

It is my privilege to introduce the first Estimate that has ever been presented to this House for civil aviation. That has arisen because of the Civil Aviation Act which tins House passed in April of this year and which took away civil aviation from under the Air Ministry roof and put it under its own roof. This Estimate dates from 25th April this year, and, I hope, will carry us on until 31st March next year. I want to make the position quite plain: this is not new expenditure. If the Act had not been passed this money would have fallen on the Treasury or on the Air Ministry Vote, but because it has now been taken away from the Air Ministry we have to paddle our own canoe. Consequently, we understand that there will be a saving equivalent to this sum of money on the Treasury and Air Ministry Votes.

Perhaps I might take this opportunity to try to calm down some of the many fears which have arisen as a result of the announcement of the publication of the Government's White Paper. There are all kinds of apprehensions as to what this document really means. Hon. Members on all sides of the House have imagined that in every corner there is a hidden hand with a blood-stained dagger ready to stab some one in the back. Pre-war operators are extremely worried because they do not understand what their position will be. Operators of the future do not understand whether they can come in or whether they cannot. I understand that Scotland considers that they have had the wrong end of the stick and that they are very unhappy. In fact, there has been very strong pressure from all sides of the House on the shoulders of my Noble Friend and myself, with the idea that we ought to do something more for Scotland.

In deference to the wishes of the House, which have been expressed from all sides, we have made an attempt to meet this feeling to the best of our ability without in any way interfering with the main structure of the Government's scheme, as it is expounded in the White Paper. My Noble Friend has asked me whether I would make a statement in the House today in order to explain what this new suggestion is. I hope the House will forgive me if I read it out. It is a very complicated statement and it must be correct. I do not want to mislead any hon. Member or to give any false impression, so I hope the House will forgive me if I read this out.

May I intervene? According to what the Minister says, this is an alteration of the terms of the White Paper in respect of Scotland. Do I understand that to be the case?

There is a slight alteration.

Whether it is slight or not, may I point this out to him? This is sprung upon the Committee. It affects Scotland without the Scottish Members being able to discuss the matter or to understand that the matter was coming up. The whole question seems to be likely to go by default because of the same kind of policy that has been adopted throughout in regard to civil aviation and the White Paper, namely, to settle broad questions of policy without consulting this House at all. I put that point to the Minister, that a change in the White Paper proposals affecting one of the countries of the United Kingdom ought not to be sprung upon the Committee in that way and that Scottish Members, at any rate, ought to have been given an opportunity of knowing that it was coming forward.

I think my hon. Friend is under a slight misapprehension. There is no question of trying to rush this through the Committee. Everyone has known that there was to be an opportunity of a Debate on civil aviation. The Estimates have been published for a considerable time and the fact that a Debate was to take place has been, and is, well known; but if he is in any nervous mood about it, may I remind him that the matter will come up again on Friday and that he will have lots of opportunity to read the statement in the meantime and will be able to raise it again? This is what my Noble Friend wants me to read:

Air services within and from the United Kingdom fall into three main divisions: (a) Commonwealth and Empire services; (b) services connecting the United Kingdom with foreign countries; (c) internal services within the United Kingdom. Commonwealth and Empire services and foreign services will be governed by agreements made by His Majesty's Government with Commonwealth and foreign Governments. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government that these agreements shall be in accordance with the policy laid down in the White Paper on International Air Transport of October, 1944, and elaborated by the United Kingdom representatives at the Chicago Conference and in the Commonwealth conversations and the South African Air Conference. In accordance with this policy such agreements will provide for the determination of capacity and its distribution as between the contracting countries.

As stated in the White Paper on British Air Transport of March, 1945, air services within the Commonwealth and Empire will be operated by British Overseas Airways Corporation, shipping lines being associated with them on' particular routes, and the British services will operate in parallel with Commonwealth operators. It is intended that this parallel partnership shall cover all Commonwealth and Empire services, including the Trans-Atlantic Service to Canada. It is also intended that the Trans-Atlantic service to the United States shall be entrusted to the same Corporation.

As regards foreign overseas services, as stated in the White Paper the Government propose to assign the South American service to the British Latin American Airways, and to assign those European services which it is intended to start as soon as war conditions permit and aircraft are available, to the British European Corporation, in which the participants will be railway companies, short sea shipping lines, the British Overseas Airways Corporation, travel agencies and such other pre-war operators as desire to participate.

Internal services: As stated in the White Paper, the Government propose to assign a number of internal services to the same Corporation. An umber of these services have, in fact, been operated in the past by existing air line companies, who will participate in the Corporation. The Government also propose that any pre-war operator who was licenced to run an internal air line service at the outbreak of war shall be entitled to resume the services he was previously licensed to operate, provided such operator satisfies the licensing tribunal referred to hereafter that he can comply with the conditions which will be laid down for all operators, present or future, that is to say, that he is financially capable of operating the service; that he will comply with the welfare conditions applicable to pilots and aircrews; that he will use British aircraft unless the tribunal is satisfied that suitable British aircraft are not available.

Designation of airports: Under the Chicago Agreements it will be the duty of His Majesty's Government to designate airports in the United Kingdom; (a) for non-traffic stops under the International Air Services Transit Agreement; (b) for traffic stops, i.e., the embarkation and dis-embarkation of passengers, freight and mail under Inter-Governmental Agreements. It is the intention of the Government for both traffic and non-traffic stops to designate airports in England, Scotland and in Northern Ireland, and they intend to designate Prestwick as an airport for all such purposes. Pending the completion of Heathrow and its use as the main international terminal in the United Kingdom, the Government will arrange that British land-based aircraft on passage to and from Canada and the United States shall stop to pick up and set down at Prestwick. Even when Heathrow is in operation, Prestwick will continue to be designated, which will enable air lines of any nationality to pick up and set down passengers and freight at Prestwick.

It was stated in the White Paper on British Air Transport that a tribunal would be established to deal with any complaints by the public on such matters as the absence of reasonable facilities, the reasonableness of rates and charges and the granting of undue preference on United Kingdom air lines. It was also stated that while certain routes would be assigned to the main corporation, no commitment would be made with regard to unassigned routes or new routes, but that these should be left open to whatever operator can best establish he is fitted to run them. It is the intention of the Government that a single tribunal should discharge the dual function of ensuring reasonable facilities and granting licences for unassigned routes, and it is proposed to establish this tribunal and give it its powers by legislation.

The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Civil Aviation have been in recent and close consultation as to how to establish a comprehensive network of air services serving the mainland of Scotland and its Islands, and connecting Scotland with other parts of the United Kingdom. A number of services have been operated within Scotland by Scottish Airways Limited and some by Allied Airways (Gandar Dower) Limited. In addition to the existing services, it is proposed that there should be a very considerable extension of internal services to be operated by Scottish Airways. The network so envisaged will include services from Glasgow (Renfrew Airport) to Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen, Inverness, Thurso, Oban, and Forth William, Kyle of Lochalsh and Ullapool. There will be an air service between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and both Edinburgh and Glasgow will be linked by air with the Western Isles, the Hebrides, the Orkneys and the Shetlands, and inter-island services will be operated as well. In addition to the internal services it is intended that the corporation shall run services linking Glasgow with Belfast, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and London, and linking Edinburgh with Newcastle, the West Riding of Yorkshire and London.

It will be observed that the services set out above do not include services emanating from Prestwick. The reason for not assigning services based on Prestwick is to leave it open to the licensing authority to entertain applications to run services from Prestwick to any part of the United Kingdom. It is an essential feature of the Government's plan for overseas services that, in order to avoid uneconomic competition and the need of subsidies, the approved British operator shall have the exclusive right to operate on the route or routes assigned to him up to the extent of the capacity authorised by inter-Governmental agreements. But it will be within the power of His Majesty's Government to assign routes to particular operators.

As stated in the White Paper, it is the intention of the Government to assign to the British European Corporation those routes and services between the United Kingdom and the Continent of Europe which it is intended to operate as soon as war conditions permit. But the Government consider that services which will be developed from Scotland to Northern Europe should be available to Scottish companies. The Government, therefore, propose to withhold from the British European Corporation services from Scotland to the Scandinavian countries, in which I include Denmark. This will afford to Scottish enterprise an option and opportunity of operating those routes which are geographically most convenient, and will preserve the essential element of avoiding uneconomic competition between the United Kingdom operators on the same route. His Majesty's Government sincerely trust that Scotland will take full advantage of these proposals.

I have no doubt whatever that this complicated statement will have muddled some hon. Members, and if any hon. Member wishes to put specific points I will do my best to answer them. Personally, I consider that what we have done here does not in any way break up the main structure of the Government's proposals in the White Paper. I believe it will help Scotland, I believe it is operationally possible to do this, and I believe that the scheme will work.

7.20 p.m.

May I thank my hon. Friend for that very long, very carefully prepared statement, which I agree with him is somewhat difficult fully to absorb just by listening to it? Therefore, I do not suppose he will expect any hon. Members here to make any very detailed comment. I would ask him to give us this one assurance, that the prohibition has been entirely removed which prevented aircraft companies or aeroplane operators having to possess pre-war operational experience. If that prohibition has been entirely and definitely taken out of the White Paper, I can see a vast future for these companies which did not run air lines before the war, but which have all the skill and capacity and knowledge to enable them to do so. I refer particularly, of course, to Scottish Aviation, Limited, which has been waiting for the past few years to get busy with the job.

Will it be left to the licensing tribunal to enforce the use of British machines, or is it possible for those companies which cannot get British aircraft for some months or a year to function with adapted American machines, so that they can get straight off the mark and not be forced to hang fire and let those companies which may be able quickly and rapidly to secure British aircraft to get ahead of them?

7.23 pm.

The Parliamentary Secretary said if we had not the ability to understand what he had read out we would have another opportunity on Friday. I wish first to raise a point of Order. Surely, if this Committee stage is dealt with and finished to-night this Business will not come up on Friday?

There will be a Report stage on Friday.

Then I was wrongly informed. I thought the Committee stage had been put down for Friday.

At all events there will be a Report stage at some time.

It was not, I think, contained in the Business as announced last Thursday. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentlemen who represent Scotland are very pleased with their achievement. They concerted their forces, and I was present on various occasions when they pressed the claims of Scotland. I am not for one second anti-Scottish in my outlook, but hon. Members know that I have always, in this Chamber and in the country, adopted the point of view, so far as civil aviation is concerned, that it must not be a matter for one country, or two or three countries, to struggle for. It is bad enough when we get a lot of different aviation companies or other companies, such as shipping and railway companies, running services in various countries in the world, all trying to put in a claim to have some share in the business which, undoubtedly, will be a profitable business after the war. Therefore, I find the statement that the Parliamentary Secretary has read out quite appalling in the sense that it departs from what I believe should be the proper basis for the future organisation of civil aviation. I have maintained that it must, of necessity, be a world service.

I saw in "The Times" this morning that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale (Sir R. Cross), who is High Commissioner for Australia, returned from Sydney to this country, leaving Sydney on Saturday and arriving in this country yesterday. In other words he was able to fly from Sydney to this country in two and a half days, or three days at the outside. I also saw in the paper this morning that two British airmen had flown 4,600 miles in 12 hours, 25 minutes, with a 40 minutes stop in Egypt for refuelling. I put it to the Committee and to the country that if it is possible—I have asserted this before, and it is true—to fly from any one place in the world to any other place within three days, and with the development of jet propulsion, I am sure, particularly having the authority of the hon. and gallant Member for Watford (Air-Commodore Helmore), that the speed of air transport will be increased considerably, I do not think it is beyond probability that in the course of the next five or ten years aircraft will be able to fly from any one place in the world to any other in two and a half days. If that is an aspect of the subject under discussion it is surely quite foolish, quite short-sighted and very hindering to the proper development of aviation that development should be left to a lot of little companies.

I do not know how many companies to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred are to have some little part to play in the development of air services in this country, but I should think he mentioned something like six or eight, to say nothing of those operators who operated before the war and who are going back to their old air line routes, who are to be allowed to satisfy this tribunal that they have the aircraft and the financial ability to carry on. In this little Island it is quite ridiculous to think that these services will be properly developed by a multitudinous body of air line operators such as the hon. Gentleman referred to. I have persistently argued that here we have essentially a world problem. How are the best services to be provided for the users of aircraft, so far as civil aviation is concerned, and I have always argued that the interests of the user must be put before the interests of the operator? All the pressure on this Government, not only here but in another place, has been from the point of view of the operator—"Can we shipping companies have a chance of getting something out of it?" "Can the railway companies, the travel agencies, and the pre-war air line operators—Jersey Airways—run their services?" That service was an excellent one. I had the benefit of flying on it on many occasions. I wish I could convince the Committee that the future of civil aviation and all that it entails must be dealt with on a world basis, on an international basis, and that a national basis is not good enough.

We know the kind of tussle that went on at the Chicago Conference on the political level. On the technical level there was no difficulty. I have not read the whole of the Chicago Agreements, but I have had a good look at them. The experts were able to come to agreement on their own level; but, when it came to the political level, we had this country putting forward a certain policy, as contained in the White Paper, Australia and New Zealand putting forward a policy of complete nationalisation—which I have myself put forward on many occasions in this House—America putting forward another policy, France putting forward another policy. With 54 nations putting forward different policies, agreement was impossible. This is one of my pet subjects, and I am looking forward to the General Election, because this is one of the issues which will have to be fought out. It is a matter in which a great number of ordinary laymen and women take a considerable interest, although that may surprise some Members. They know that civil aviation may be international dynamite, leading to another world war. Men and women want to travel on business, to travel on holidays, to send goods and mails, as safely and cheaply as possible. I suppose it is hopeless to try to persuade this House of Commons, but it is not impossible to persuade any reasonable audience in the country that the only way to solve this problem is to take it right out of politics, out of international politics, too.

The first thing to do is to have regard to the best interests of the user, and to find out how to serve him best. I am sure that the best way is to do it on the basis that I have advocated before. That is, to form an international corporation—World Airways Ltd., or whatever you like to call it—which will be directed by men and women appointed on grounds of appropriate ability. They will be selected from all over the world. They will be people who, in the opinion of those who appoint them, have a real international outlook, and whose dominant object will be to provide the best air services for the world. This corporation or company would, in the pursuit of that duty, be obliged to buy the best aircraft, in whatever part of the world they were made. If British aircraft manufacturers were the best, they would naturally be able to sell their aircraft to this corporation. I do not want the big aircraft manufacturers pulling the coal tails of the Government, in this country or in any other country. I do not want the big manufacturers, in this country or in the United States, to bring political pressure to bear on their Governments. I want the Governments kept out altogether.

Surely the manufacturers might pull the coat tails of this great corporation?

I do not believe so. I believe it is possible to find 10 or 20 men and women who will fulfil the qualifications I have laid down, who will be internationally-minded, whose dominant object will be to give the best service to the world, who will be above having their coat tails pulled, above any amount of temptation, bribery, or any other kind of seduction. I believe that we can find hundreds and thousands of men and women who will not be so susceptible to this kind of seduction as the hon. and gallant Member seems to suspect. I realise that it may be difficult to appoint the right people—appointments are always difficult to make. With Ministers you have a very small number of people to select from. When you have to appoint somebody to run, say, the railway services of this country you have tremendous difficulty in finding the best man. I am not fool enough not to know that. But I believe that it is possible to find 10 or 20 men or women who will be internationally-minded. I had to go to Geneva many times before the war, and I saw many men and women there who were completely devoted to the offices in which they were working, for the League of Nations or the I.L.O. They were above any pressure, even from the Governments of the countries of which they were nationals. These things can be done.

You can find 10 or 20 men or women able to do the job, who will be actuated only by honest motives. They will be prepared to appoint the best men as aerodrome managers, traffic managers, and so on, to appoint the best pilots, and the best ground personnel, to select the best aerodromes, and not to be influenced by pressure such as we have seen applied in this House by Members from the Northern part of this country. I do not know whether Prestwick is a good aerodrome or not, but I have been told by people who have operated on it that it is not so wonderful as those who have listened to speeches in this House might be led to believe. I remember the late Minister of Aircraft Production really turning down the plea of hon. Members from Scotland to make Prestwick the main airport of this country.

Does the hon. Member, who is talking about political pressure, realise that on this issue all Members from Scotland, irrespective of party, are completely united?

Yes, I have heard these Debates, almost completely devoted to speeches from Scottish Members. That does not alter my argument. They have made the Government change their mind. I do not object to Governments being made to change their minds, but the political pressure was there.

Not political pressure, national pressure.

I admit that. I was trying to avoid bringing in the national issue, particularly in relation to Scotland, and more so when we have here the hon. Member for Mother well (Mr. McIntyre), who stands for a political theory which I think is a particularly dangerous one. Surely we can abandon the national attitude, and get on to the international one. One of the touchstones of the world's ability to get rid of nationalism and on to internationalism is this question of civil aviation.

Is it part of the hon. Member's case that you require an international body to run aircraft from Glasgow to Aberdeen?

Perhaps there was not much point in my giving way to the hon. Member, but I thought he was going to ask me something more serious. I am sure that the people of Scotland are able enough to run an air service under the general supervision of this international body. I believe in delegation of authority. I believe you should have somewhere, at Geneva or at some other properly-chosen place, the head office of this International Aviation Ltd., and then, even in Scotland, you could have branch offices; but they should be responsible to the international body, which would be in supreme control of the organisation. I will not occupy the time of the Committee any more, except to plead this in conclusion. Here is a touchstone of man's ability, at the end of this terrible war, to see whether it is not possible to organise this service, which should be a boon to mankind, but which if left to be developed, in the way the Government propose, by the small private companies or by the bigger railway companies and shipping companies or by chosen instruments, will have inherent in it the seeds of another world war. That is why I described the statement as an appalling one from the point of view of maintaining and developing the peace of the world on proper, sensible, international lines.

7.41 p.m.

The statement which we have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary, coming at the end of the day, and no doubt compressed, is a little difficult to grasp, but it is clear that a statement of great importance, great interest, and great hope has been made. I do not at all appreciate the argument of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). He seems to believe that it is possible to take out of politics subjects in which people are passionately interested. Has he ever seen any evidence of that in this House? As soon as people are passionately interested in anything it comes down to this House. Does he not agree?

I do. I have seen examples on many occasions. One, before I came into the House, was the setting up of the Unemployment Insurance Board. An attempt was made to get that out of politics. We have had the attempt, in connection with San Francisco, to get foreign affairs out of, or at any rate above party politics. I think it is impossible. The only way to do it is to get right out into the international field of organisation.

That seems a characteristic example of arguing in a circle. Who is going to raise the matter above party politics? The very people who, from those Opposition benches, have, denied the possibility of other things being taken out of party politics. It is ridiculous to suppose that Russia, for instance, will accept the nomination to this international body of somebody who will be entirely independent of the Soviet Union and of the great political power exercised by that great country.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the International Postal Union is out of all national and international party politics?

I certainly would not agree that any representative of any great Government of the world in any organisation is not capable of being criticised by that Government. Russia provides one example of that, America another example, and this country another example. I do not see hon. Members opposite agreeing to take finance out of party politics, and saying that the Bank of England should be out of party politics. Politics are those things which interest the citizen, and this is the place where those things are discussed. Flying is certainly one of those things which interest the citizen, and so is air transport. They will be discussed here. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh(Mr. Watt) said, the suggestion that you must have an international body, with representatives from all over the world on it, before you can decide whether you will be ready to fly from Glasgow to Aberdeen, is absurd.

That is not suggested.

That is the suggestion. Without any doubt, the suggestion is that the whole of aviation shall be run by a world international board.

I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should say by whom such a suggestion was made. It is quite contrary to the published policy of the Labour Party, which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can examine.

I am not interested at the moment in the published policy of the Labour Party; I am in the House of Commons, debating matters with hon. Members across the Floor, and talking of the speech which has been delivered by the hon. Member for Nuneaton, who suggested that we should sweep away all the small companies, and of this suggestion that no private or national body should be allowed to run aeroplanes, but that they should be put entirely under a great international body. The hon. Member said that; we heard him say so, and the hon. Member for Islington, West (Mr. Montague) may refer as much as he likes to the published statements of the Labour Party. We are not reading statements of the Labour Party; we are Members of the House of Commons threslling out this question and dealing with the suggestion just made with great force by the hon. Member for Nuneaton. We take a diametrically opposite view, and say that the user has a right to be considered as well as those who are organising these great schemes. The hon. Member said quite rightly that the user ought to be considered, and then he went on to say that the organisers should buy the best aeroplanes, wherever they are produced. I could not help remembering that he sits for an area very closely connected with the highest developments of modern engineering, and, unconsciously, that was no doubt weighing in his mind.

By user I mean passenger.

Yes, I am speaking of the passenger too. Where does the passenger in Scotland get his passages from? Exactly from these small companies upon which the hon. Member for Nuneaton pours such scorn. The question of aviation in Scotland is too vital for Scotland to disinterest herself in it. It is nonsense to say that all these things should be simply trusted to the discretion of some international board, which should have a branch office in Scotland. Why a branch office in Scotland? Why this suggestion that, for all these things, a central office should be in Nuneaton, or London, or Glasgow or New York? These matters of transport are of far greater interest to a country such as ours, intersected and cut up as it is by waterways of greater or lesser space, than to the hon. Member who lives in the centre of England. People there can travel around in motor-cars and on the railways from Nuneaton for many miles in every direction. To the dweller in the Shetlands this matter is of very great importance, and he does not believe that he will get the same opportunities from some international board with offices in New York or London as from somebody whom he knows, a development which he can control, either through his passages or through that political pressure to which the hon. Member has just taken such exception.

The hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence) talked of this development in connection with his political campaign, and said that, instead of a six-hour journey by steamer to the islands, where he would have to spend a whole day, returning next day by the same six-hour journey, a ten-minutes' flight there and a ten-minutes' flight back would enable him to carry out exactly the same duties. These are things in which people are intimately interested, just as people are interested in the trams which, in great cities, run past their doors. Development in these areas is part of the life-line of the development of our country. Believe me, it is not enough to say that it will be adequately developed by some great international board.

I welcome the Government's statement that it will be possible to have several avenues of approach towards the development of these services, because we firmly believe that, without several avenues of approach, it will be organised in great Transatlantic runs in which the millionaires of one city will pour across to meet the millionaires of another city, have a cocktail party, and pour back again. If great movements of transport are developed on those lines, they will attract the attention of such people, but the little lines and the ordinary ways of getting about our islands, and from the mainland to the islands, will have no place, and we believe that the great company will not benefit the user in anything like the same way as a small company working for the benefit of its neighbours. We are grateful to the Government for having changed its mind in response to representations made from the constituencies. Is not that the way in which we are supposed to work things in this country? We press things upon the attention of the Government. That is what we are here for, but the hon. Member says, "Oh, political pressure, or even national pressure, caused the Government to change its mind." If pressure of this kind would not cause the Government to change its mind, what is the use of this House? We are proud that, by such methods, and not by revolution or shooting in the streets, we have induced the Government to change its mind. The Government has listened to argument. It is an example of the Government changing its mind and making an announcement in Parliament, and we are grateful for it. It is the operation of the Parliamentary system, and we are proud to see it taking place.

I will go further and say that we are interested in the general question which the Government very rightly mentioned in the statement just made. We desire a window, and more than one window, in this country by which we can look into the world with this new line of travel, as well as the old lines of travel; and the Clyde, which has been so prominent in so many forms of travel, and been such a centre of world engineering, looks forward with legitimate ambition to having a share in this new development also and in its international development. We think that the port of Prestwick should be an airport through which people can travel and reach the Scandinavian countries and that it should be an airport of first-rate importance. We are proud of that. We fear the danger of having oil these things concentrated in the Thames Valley and we are most anxious to see that these developments are pushed ahead rapidly.

We beg the Parliamentary Secretary to use the greatest expedition in this development. We have heard to-day the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport say that he can hold out no hope of even such a small alleviation as the provision of a restaurant car for the tedious journey between this capital and Aberdeen. Aberdeen is a great city, and, even though the man cannot get his cup of coffee or the woman her cup of tea, they may realise that, per ardua ad astra, the journey has been worth while when they get there. We hope these things will not be too long delayed, but these developments can be made almost forthwith. Within six months or a year it ought to be possible to get this great tracehorse on to the load of internal trans- port in this country. It is greatly needed. The congestion on our railways will go on for many months, and, it may be, for years to come, and after that the repairs to the permanent way and other improvements will have to be made. Here is a system of transport which can be embarked upon at once. The air has not been worn away, and there is no injury to the sky. There is no need to have a new track laid. It is easy to travel across it, and this new method of transport should certainly be pressed forward with the utmost speed, because people are getting a little tired of the troubles, difficulties, and congestion of railway travel and would welcome some means by which they can move more expeditiously from one part of the country to another.

We are glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has been able to make this statement to-day, and we hope he will turn all has great energy to the further development of this scheme, and we in Scotland will do our utmost to bring forward our particular claims and press the arguments for intensive development of this new method of travel both externally and internally, and both as regards our country and the rest of these islands. We will do our utmost to press it forward, and we hope we will have the same good fortune as we have enjoyed in the past.

7.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary has presented a statement in which he said there was a muddle. Between the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), I should imagine that the Committee is pretty well muddled by this time. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a rambling speech about aviation and its development, but has not told us anything new or pertinent to the subject before the Committee. He did make the remark that the best results can be got by making use of the small man. That strikes me as being a petty sort of statement to make in dealing with a subject of such magnitude as civil aviation, because if there is anything which is not capable of development by the small man surely it is aviation. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that we should go back to the small man and his stage coaches, instead of the railways and the railway combinations that exist today?

If the hon. Member had listened to my speech, he would have heard that I advocated buses.

What happened to the buses in London? When it was left to the small man, London transport was in a state of chaos.

The hon. Member interrupted me several times, and he must allow me to say that I criticised this concentration on London. If he would get away from London, we might have something worth listening to.

If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to get on with my speech, I may be able to get away from London, but I am entitled, as an hon. Member for a London constituency, to begin there, and, as one connected with transport, to say that I think the example of London is very much to the point. But it has happened all over the country. The chaos in transport has been the chaos arising from leaving it to small private enterprise operators instead of organising it upon a scientific plan for the development of all transport throughout the country. I see no point at all in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, in view of the fact that it is admittedly necessary, and admitted by this Government and the whole nation, that there shall be a large scale development of civil aviation in the future.

The point we have to put is that aviation is of so important and unique a character that the idea of leaving its world development, its imperial development or even its internal development, to the go-as-you-please ownership, control and development of people who are just investors in a new enterprise for their own profit is very undesirable indeed. The hon. Gentleman surely must know that the Labour Party stands for a policy of internationalism upon lines which will allow all the decentralised development that may be required, and if the programme of the party is examined it will be found that it makes allowance even for national considerations. All the organisation that is required will be carried out in the interests of the whole community of this nation, and in the Commonwealth of Nations as far as the old Imperial Air Lines are concerned.

Finally, there is the question of world organisation. I do not want to go into that beyond making a passing reference. We stand where we did in past Debates upon that question, but this is hardly an opportunity for an expanded academic discussion about internationalism. I realise the difficulties of the international position if we do not have America, Russia and other countries with us upon that matter. But we have at least the Dominions with us as far as the Dominions Air Board is concerned. It is no use pressing a question of this character on this Government now, but we shall certainly press on the nation the vital necessity of an Imperial or Commonwealth air board in conjunction with the nationalisation of the internal air services of this country. I was very much surprised at the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary. He tells us that he cannot understand the highly complicated statement of that character, which took about 10 minutes to read, and he says that the House of Commons will have an opportunity of thinking about it and discussing it on Friday on the Report stage. Is that satisfactory? It is essentially the White Paper, with a slight alteration, perhaps from some points of view an extension. The Members of the Committee will have no opportunity, and certainly not upon the Report stage, of making an adequate examination and having a proper discussion on the question of the Scottish and Scandinavian organisation of air travel. What surprises me more about the Parliamentary Secretary's statement is the fact that it was confined to the new White Paper representing Government policy. This is the first Estimate of a new Ministry, and we have not a word of explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary, who is responsible for presenting the Supplementary Estimate, and we are not told anything at all about the way the Ministry is to be organised and run.

I have a number of questions that I would like to ask. We have taken civil aviation away from the Air Ministry. For what purpose? In order that we may take advantage of modern science and develop civil aviation in the post-war years upon an adequate plan. Surely we are entitled to know how the Ministry is to be run, who are to be responsible, what principles are to be adopted with respect, for instance, to the advice that is obtained by the Minister himself and the Parliamentary Secretary from people who are qualified to give advice.

I have had some experience of civil aviation, because I was in charge of it when I was at the Air Ministry, and I know just how far the political organisation of a Ministry of that kind goes, and how far the Civil Service "set-up" exists and just where, as civil aviation existed at that time, the professional and "technical man comes in. It would be very desirable if the new Ministry had closer contact with the scientific and professional advisers upon the subject. It may have closer contact or it may be contemplated that it shall have, but the Committee should be told whether people with aeronautical experience are within the Ministry and advising the Minister on his plan of campaign with regard to civil aviation in the future. Who is the chief technical adviser and what are his qualifications? This is a reasonable question to ask and this is the time to ask it. The Parliamentary Secretary should tell the Committee just what his Ministry is. It is a new Ministry and this is the first chance of debating its organisation under this Supplementary Estimate.

Another question with which I would like him to deal is the terms of service for the professional staff. Are they good enough to attract the best type of men to civil aviation? I am not sure whether we have always attracted the best types. I know something of the difficulties in the days of the formation of the Air Pilots' Union, as I had something to do with its formation. They were very dissatisfied at that time and even in recent years—I do not know what has happened during the war, because things have been clouded over by war conditions—just before the war, I know that the pilots in this country, in the old Imperial Airways, at any rate were very dissatisfied with their conditions and there was not the attraction there ought to be for the best professional technical assistance. We are entiled to ask for some information about that.

There is also the question of civil aviation training. All these things the Parliamentary Secretary ought to have expanded in his speech. He initiates a Debate and beyond presenting a new paper, which modifies certain aspects of the original White Paper, he tells us nothing at all about his policy or about the policy of his chief. Is there a civil aviation training policy and what steps are being taken to make a career in civil aviation worth while for the keen young men we require for its development? We do not agree with the plan of the Government for civil aviation, but there it is. We have accepted the new Ministry, and as far as the White Paper is concerned, there has been a sort of compromise policy which the House has accepted. Therefore, it is rather unnecessary and beside the mark for me to go further into the question of general principles.

Would my hon. Friend allow me to interrupt? He said that the policy in the White Paper published in March of this year had been accepted by the House. May I put this to him? It was debated on an Estimate, and I remember quite well that the right hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham (Sir F. Sykes) said that as it was not being accepted that day there would not be any vote, but we made it clear that we were not accepting the policy although there was no vote.

I made that point clear at the time. We were not satisfied at all with the way it was presented to the House, but I think we must accept the position that the House—and the Government, after all is in the majority in the House—accepted that policy, which was a compromise policy. However, the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove talked about aviation experience. I think we are entitled to ask what kind of aviation experience there is in respect of the set-up at the present moment. Take the B.O.A.C., for instance, which is to have some basis of structure in the new tripartite organisation. What qualifications have the directors of the B.O.A.C. to-day for the profession of aviation, for running the vital Imperial services that are submitted to their charge? I think we are entitled to know that, and really we ought to have a more up-to-date and progressive policy under the new Ministry than we have had in the past. Would the Parliamentary Secretary say to the House that people whose great interests are dog-racing tracks or chain stores are the best people to run civil aviation in this country and throughout the Empire? On the Board of B.O.A.C. there is only one person who can be called at all technical so far as flying is concerned—I refer, of course, to the lady member of that Board. All the rest are just people who are out, as investors, to make money and nothing else—with certain experience as members of boards of directors in the ordinary financial and business sense of the word, granted, but what business experience have they had in civil flying? Surely we are entitled to be told, when the new corporations are set up, what policy the Government have to secure efficient and trained experience in every part of the tri-partite arrangements for this development of civil aviation?

The same, of course, applies to the railway companies and the shipping companies. They have had experience in plying, but as I said in one of the Debates, one might just as well have argued, as did the boatmen of the Thames in Pepys' day, that they were the best people to run the new-fangled family coaches because they had been concerned with transport. We want to know whether the people who are connected with shipping and railway companies upon the boards of these corporations are people capable of developing civil aviation, and what kind of people they are. It is reasonable, I suggest, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to develop that.

There is one other point I wish to raise, the question of the craft themselves. What is being done by the new Ministry to speed up the work of the Brabazon Committee, for instance? My information may not be as up to date as it should be, and that is another reason why the Parliamentary Secretary should give us more information. I understand that all the flying craft available for civil aviation in this country are, even to-day, merely converted military craft of a small character. We have had pictures in the Press of seven prototypes which include a jet plane and the pressure cabin plane. These have been boosted in the Press, but not a single order has been given. When are the orders going to be given? The prototypes are accepted; is anything being done at all? No, we either have American planes or else small converted military craft. You cannot develop the British side of civil aviation under the system of private enterprise or quasi-public enterprise—whatever you may call it—for which the Government stand; you cannot have development unless you have the best brains possible engaged in the supply of craft, in the development of craft, people who understand every detail of aeronautical affairs and aeronautical science.

We say that those people should be nearer the heads of Departments, nearer the politicians than they have been in the past—and I know exactly the circumstances of where they were. We have to have political control of course, in a democratic community like this, and the House of Commons has to control these affairs, but there is no indication that there is the slightest change of heart or policy on the part of the new Ministry as compared with the people who have had charge of civil aviation in the past. I complain sincerely on behalf of my party that the first Estimate—a Supplementary Estimate, I admit—brought to this Committee by a new Ministry passes without a single word from the Minister concerned about the future policy of that Ministry in civil aviation. It seems to me that is a slight to the Committee, and the Parliamentary Secretary ought not to have confined himself merely to a Paper which he admits is likely to muddle the Committee. It ought, at any rate, to have been presented as a codicil or addendum to the White Paper for hon. Members to consider. It has been sprung upon the Committee and there has been no opportunity to look at it. To say that an opportunity is given by a short Report stage Debate on Friday is simply playing with the question, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to answer the points I have raised, especially with regard to the position of aircraft, because it is upon aircraft, upon their efficiency, upon their speed, upon the character of the people behind the aircraft, and operating them, that the future of civil aviation depends in respect of this country in relation to the rest of the world.

8.18 p.m.

On the last occasion when we had a Debate on the subject of civil aviation, I remember that the ex-Minister of Aircraft Production stated that the future of civil aviation, according to the White Paper policy, could not be settled then but would have to await the result of the General Election. Is that still the case? It rather looks to me as if the Government were taking definite binding decisions now which would not be capable of being altered in the event of a different Government coming into power. I am asking for the sake of information, because I think we ought to know precisely where we are in this matter.

It has always seemed to me that there are two main objections to the White Paper policy of the Government; firstly that it represents a definite reaction, a moving backwards from the policy that was adopted by the Conservative Government which was in power before the war. When you once arrive at a state of affairs when a particular industry is thought to be fit for a public utility company, and when that is proposed by a Conservative Government, I should have thought the general view might be held that such a step should not be retraced after a period of ten years and the experience of war. It is astonishing to me to find that, whereas in 1939 that admirable Conservative, the late Sir Kingsley Wood, came forward with the policy of B.O.A.C., and all the proposals that go with it which we have never had an opportunity of putting into operation and trying out in practice in any way, the Government should come along now and say that the matter should revert, to a very large extent indeed, to private enterprise. I do not understand it; it seems inconsistent with the way things were marching in this country. We go in the direction of what is regarded as progress; we do not, as a rule, step backwards. Here, there is a definite step backwards from the high water mark of Conservative policy just before the war.

The other point that worries me is the introduction of the railway and shipping companies. I should have thought that these were the people who ought to be kept out of it. Civil aviation is a great new world service with opportunities and functions of its own, with problems which do not arise in other spheres, and is really not comparable to transport by shipping and railways. The excellent people who have pioneered with such success in the shipping and railway industries will be bound to have regard, to a considerable extent—human nature being what it is—to what effect civil aviation policy will have on shipping and railways. They are bound to have in mind the importance of keeping a considerable place open in any plans they may make for shipping and railway transport. They cannot look at it as people interested solely in flying would look at it. I say, therefore, that the step which has been taken seems to be entirely wrong. It is not a step which has been taken in the United States, where there is every opportunity for flying, and I hope that before a final decision is taken on this matter it will be carefully looked at again, because it does not seem to be sound.

Further, the two points I have mentioned are not consistent with the policy of our Dominions. We ought to try to be Imperialistic, and keep in line with the Dominions. They are keen on the policy of the chosen instrument. They want a national board under public control, and it would be regrettable if we, being in step at the moment, found ourselves out of step with them. I should be sorry to see such a Little England policy of that kind pursued here. I think the right policy, looked at in the broadest sense, is the maximum degree of inter-nationalisation. That was the policy of the late Government, and it was right. The maximum in the present state of affairs is comparatively small, because we cannot obtain the co-operation of various large States, such as the United States and Russia, and we are driven back to finding the best practicable method that is available to us. My feeling is that the policy of the chosen instrument is right. It need not necessarily be one chosen instrument; you may have several directed to different routes, as the Government contemplated in the White Paper. I feel that ultimate control of any civil aviation scheme ought to be vested in the State, working through a public utility company, however much freedom of experiment within they care to give. There is no reason why there should not be all sorts of experiments, different methods, and different companies, but you should have, at the top, the ideal of public service and State watchfulness.

Now I turn to another subject. We have heard a good deal from the Minister and other speakers about what is to be done in civil aviation for Scotland, the wonderful opportunities that are to be granted, how it will be possible to go from island to island with the greatest ease, and how the magnificent facilities of Prestwick are to be used. Well, I personally have heard enough about Scotland for the time being, and I turn to Wolverhampton and the facilities that are to be offered to the citizens of that important town. How are they to be transported, and what facilities are they to have to go to Scotland? Supposing they want to go across country to Hull, to reach which the railway journey is extremely difficult and lengthy, and supposing they want to go to London, Cornwall or the Channel Islands, what opportuities are they to have? They would never be content to rely upon a Birmingham aerodrome. That would mean motoring some 20 miles. There are excellent aerodromes available in the neighbourhood, and I have one in mind in particular, Perton, which I think would suit the town very well for civil aviation after the war. I would like my hon. Friend to say whether his Department contemplate direct or feeder services, or some other method, by which the citizens of Wolverhampton will have as good facilities as those in the islands of Scotland, or any other remote part of the Kingdom, have to go about their business on the pathways of the air. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to say something about this, because it is important from a local point of view.

8.27 p.m.

The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Sir G. Mander) said that he had heard just about enough of Scotland, but, as he will guess, he will now hear a little more about it from me. I will never tire of pointing out to Members of this House that if they do not want to hear more about Scotland they have the solution in their own hands. I do not want to be here any more than they want to listen tome here; I want to be elsewhere, in an Assembly directly responsible to the Scottish people. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) who, I am sorry to say has had to leave, seemed to think that if you highly centralise such a thing as civil aviation or anything else then you inevitably work towards world amity. That is evidence of the confusion of mind which we so often get from our doctrinaire friends on the Labour benches. In his argument he put forward a plea of a narrow and parochial character under the cloak of international good will and objected to small countries developing their own resources in co-operation with other countries. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) appeared to think that large corporations are always better than small ones, and as this is a matter of transport I would like to remind him and others that if he had lived in Scotland during the last 20 years he would have realised that one transport concern, by virtue of its size, had not served Scotland well. I refer to the railway companies which, since amalgamation, have not served Scotland to a degree that would have been possible if they had been operating entirely in the Scottish public interest.

We have heard from the Minister this evening a very interesting statement. It would appear to be somewhat of a climb down by the British Government in certain Scottish matters. I may be forgiven if I detect in this last-minute lamentation of the British Government on a Scottish matter a little pre-election sensitivity to Scottish affairs. I think that would possibly explain to the hon. Member who sits for West Islington why this particular matter, which he objected to being brought up to-day, was in fact brought up. I rather suspect the Government are becoming a little afraid of opinion in Scotland asserting itself. I am very glad the Government have climbed down, however little it may be; I am very glad they have shown a little evidence of that sensitivity. Surely, it is rather criminal that the whole of Scotland should have to get up on its toes to attempt to solve a matter which ought never to have arisen, such as the injustice to Scotland in the matter of civil aviation; surely, it is wrong that a whole country should have to bother about such a comparatively small thing before it can get a little bit of justice from the British Government. Surely, it is a denial of every principle of decent government.

I find that the general opinion in Scotland—with which I am in agreement—on the White Paper on Civil Aviation is that here there is a case—I am talking now with reference to Scottish affairs—where the British Government are backing three monopolies against the interests of the Scottish people; where they have prevented, with the exception of the little climb-down to-day, Scottish development in the interests of large London monopolies, one of them sometimes confused in the public mind with the Greyhound Racing Association. I would like to hear from the Minister whether the let-up of which he has given evidence to-day means that any company operating from Scotland to Scandinavia will not necessarily be a subsidiary of a railway company, whether it will be possible for a new company to operate that route, such as Scottish Aviation, Limited. I would like also to know whether the licences will be given to companies which before the war did not operate air lines, or whether they will be confined to companies which before the war did operate air lines, I ask the question about the Scandinavian routes because there you have the railway company, or a subsidiary of the railway company, as I understand it—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—being allowed to run services from Scotland to Scandinavia. I do not expect from the railway company or a subsidiary of the railway company any better treatment for Scotland in civil aviation than we have had in the operation of the railways themselves, for we cannot expect any longer in Scotland to receive any decent dealing or justice from a highly centralised London company.

When the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton suggests that in this matter there should be a public utility company, I do not dissent from him, but I do dissent from the view that, so far as Scotland is concerned, there should be a London public utility company. I do not think we will gain in Scotland from a civil aviation public utility company if it is under the denomination of the British State. A certain Scottish company recently made it quite clear that they were perfectly prepared in Scotland to go into an enterprise of a national type, and that, I think, would probably be the best thing, but I find that the Government appear to be adopting a dog-in-the-manger attitude. They will neither allow Scottish enterprise fully to develop nor will they allow a public utility to run affairs in Scotland. The result was that when the former Minister of Aircraft Production toured Scotland and suggested that there was not any enterprise in Scotland in such matters, he was accusing the British Government of preventing that enterprise from developing by their dog-in-the-manger policy. In this matter, as in so many other matters, if the Government would leave Scotland alone there would be no trouble at all. The Minister said they were doing something for Scotland. We do not come here asking for the assistance of the British Government. If the British Government would only stop interfering and preventing Scotland from helping herself, we would get along perfectly well. I ask the Minister further to inform me whether the ban on the use by companies of any but English aeroplanes in Scotland will be maintained, or whether a Scottish company may make the best use of any aeroplanes which come to hand within the next two years.

8.38 p.m.

I want to put two definite question's to my hon. and gallant Friend. They arise on Item F—Works, Buildings and Lands—and I am rather nervous about the answer I may get to the first question, because the expenditure to which I refer is for "New Works, Additions and Alterations." Under that heading there comes, first of all, Beaulieu, a training base, and £10,000 is to be voted. Nobody knows better than my hon. and gallant Friend the area between Lady cross and Beaulieu, over which his father, when he was Member for the New Forest, always kept such a watchful eye. I am a little nervous about what the £10,000 is to be spent on. I do not think there will be very considerable new works or additions as a result of that sum of money, but when it comes to alterations, I wonder whether I dare hope that the alteration means that the training base is to be taken away. When the aerodromes were started in the New Forest we were all most anxious that they should disappear in due course. We quite realised at the time that they were very necessary, and we knew that sentiment about the New Forest could not be allowed to prevail at that time, but we looked forward to the day when the countryside there would be restored to its original state.

The second point arises about Hum, where additional accommodation is to be found. The total estimate is £1,250,000, of which £200,000 is to be voted this year and the balance later on. I know perfectly well that it is a very large and important aerodrome and it is probably right that it should be handed over for Civil Aviation, but this additional accommodation makes me nervous. Is the extension going to be made towards the East and, if so, is the Town and Country Planning Committee to be consulted, because up to a little while ago they had not been, and has the Hampshire County Council been consulted? All that area has been planned by the Town and Country Planning Committee for open space or residential property, or not for intensive development, and if the aerodrome is going to come down in that direction it makes me nervous as to what will be built there. More than that, the County Council is planning a new road to Bournemouth and a new bridge across the Stour and it may well be that, unless the Town and Country Planning Committee and the County Council have been consulted, there may be confusion between the plans for the extension of the aerodrome and the plans that they have made, and that would be a great pity because so often conference early on avoids difficulty. It is an important point, because that neighbourhood is planned to make, and will make, a very picturesque entrance to Bournemouth from the Forest and it would be a pity to spoil that for want of a little thought in time. I hope the Minister may be able to give me some comfort in that way from his consultation with the local public bodies.

8.45 p.m.

The country from which I come has had its name mentioned a number of times, and I want to return to the question of Scotland and to express my gratification for the fact that in the Minister's statement there was an indication that recently some special attention has been paid to the Scottish position. I am glad of that because I am one of 23 Scottish Labour Members who have been here for many years and who have tried on many occasions to have attention paid to matters such as air service development. Recently we have had the spectacle of Scottish Members acting together and, when we come to deal with matters which affect Scotland as a whole, Scottish Members drop their party differences and act together as an all-party team in order to bring upon the Government, if they consider it necessary, pressure which may cause them to deal with those matters in the way we should desire. The references in the Minister's statement to the Secretary of State and the Minister of Civil Aviation having recently got together in connection with the services that he mentioned as applying to Scotland left one a little obscure as to whether the Secretary of State referred to was the Noble Lord who has so very recently been appointed or my right hon. Friend the ex-Secretary.

Surely the statement was perfectly clear. It was the present Secretary of State who holds the responsibility for these concessions.

I missed that particular part of the statement. That was not clear to me, but I know how very earnestly and enthusiastically my right hon. Friend the ex-Secretary of State worked with all the Scottish Members to draw attention to Scotland's needs in respect of civil aviation. I hope that the action that has already been taken by the new Secretary of State—I congratulate him upon it—to some extent had its genesis in what had previously been done by my right hon. Friend. But what has been indicated is a very small modicum, although we rejoice at it, of course, and we look forward with interest to further developments. If so much can be done in such a very short space of time, we must have some confidence in looking forward to further developments as the result of the activity which has already been started. Our view on these benches is that civil aviation is only part of the internal transport of the country and that the transport should be linked up—rail, road, coastwise steamers, canals, and air traffic—and, looking forward as I do to the early nationalisation of the railway services in one comprehensive unit, the fact that some of these air services are going, as it appears, immediately to be in the hands of the railway companies does not greatly concern me. I do not feel the apprehension about that particular development which some Members appear to have. I am certain that, given the power, we shall proceed along the line of bringing together all these services. The statement did not give an indication of how Scotland is to be served in respect of coming to the Southern part of Britain. I wonder if the Minister could say anything about what is contemplated in that regard. We have advertisements of services which are to be run when the reconstruction period has enabled them to be developed. I look forward to the day when Scottish Members of Parliament will not require to spend the night in a train.

They should stop in Scotland.

We regret the inconvenience that is caused and the time that is taken by travelling during the day, and most of us make the journey during the night and have provision made for it out of public funds. Whatever may be done in respect of devolution of functions to Scotland, there will still be Members in this House acting as Members of the British Parliament, and provision should be made for them to be able to travel by air to do the job that is so necessary here if Scotland is to have her proper place in the affairs of the Empire. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. McIntyre) indicated that there would come a day when Scottish Members of Parliament would not come to London at all. I think that day is far off—

It is much to far off for this Debate.

I would have liked to answer my hon. Friend's point, but I will not transgress your Ruling. There was an indication of the way in which Scotland is treated in respect of civil aviation in the speech of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Sir G. Mander). He made some passing reference to Scotland, and. then said, "That is enough of Scotland; what about Wolverhampton, that important town?" Thus a town in the Black Country is looked upon by one Member of Parliament as of more importance than the country of Scotland.

My hon. Friend has slightly misunderstood me. There had been considerable discussion about Scotland, and I say "Good luck to it," but I wanted to point out that there are other places in England and Wales.

I accept that, but when the hon. Member makes reference to the islands and other remote parts of the Kingdom being served with air services and makes them of less importance than Wolverhampton, although I give him credit for thinking of his own constituency, I claim the desirability against that kind of background of putting in a word for Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell referred to the doctrinaire friends of the Labour Party. I would be out of Order if I answered that in a proper way, and I am not here to indulge in a Scottish Nationalist Debate.

I am trying to link up what I have to say with civil aviation, and I want to point out that we have had nothing from the Minister about the development of Prestwick. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) was doubtful of the merits of Prestwick airport. The merits have been definitely established by hundreds, if not thousands, of the most skilled airmen, who look upon it as the best landing place on this side of the Atlantic. It has proved its usefulness and merits during the war. We are anxious to hear something more from the Minister about its development and about making it into a Transatlantic airport of the first magnitude. There is something to be pleased about in the mention that has been made about Scotland in regard to some contemplated developments, but Scotland is expecting much more than has been indicated. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell suggested, this is thought to be sufficient for the Scottish people to be going on with in order to prevent any reference to further needs in respect to civil aviation in Scotland during the General Election, any such idea can be set aside. The treatment of the Scottish claim for Prestwick will be pressed by the electors in Scotland, and will continue to be pressed by Scottish Members of all parties. It will not do to think that Scotland can be completely satisfied with the statement that has been made, and we look forward to further developments in the near future, which we will make it our business to press upon the Government.

8.58 p.m.

I want to raise two points for the consideration of the Minister of Civil Aviation. We all have great love for Scotland, but I have a deeper love for Lancashire. I regard Lancashire as one of the most important counties in the country. For years it has supplied the revenue that has sustained the Army, the Navy and the social services. I fear that there is a danger that we are being a little side-tracked. Lancashire holds one-tenth of the entire population of the United Kingdom. It is the industrial centre that has energised and fructified the commerce of this country, and it has helped to make the influence of England felt in every part of the world.

Hitherto we have done this by communications on land and sea. To-day we have a new means of transport, namely the aeroplane. These aeroplanes are becoming an increasingly safer method of transport. We know in the early days the aeroplane could drop its passengers any where. To-day, owing to needs for safe transportation, safe airfields and methods of landing, aeroplanes drop their passengers when the pilot and passengers desire to be dropped and not before. I do not wish the new Minister of Civil Aviation in this Conservative caretaker Government to make the mistakes that were made by the Ministry of Labour on the one hand and the Ministry of Aircraft Production on the other—otherwise redundant aircraft workers would not have been discharged so suddenly—

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I must warn him that he must not discuss matters concerning the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Aircraft Production.

I will strictly observe your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but I am sure you would be the last to prevent a humble Conservative from warning his own side against certain dangers. We have in my division a splendid airport called Salmsbury. It is conveniently near to some of the great industrial centres of Lancashire, and not amongst the least important is my own division, the town of Accrington. Salmsbury is like a picture surrounded by a frame, but in that frame are included such towns as Preston, Burnley, Darwen, Blackburn, Clayton le Moors, Oswaldtwistle, Rishton and a lot of other industrial places. I fear that airport may be deemed redundant just as a splendid aircraft factory in my division which made engines for the machines to fly from those airports, has been made redundant. I am asking, therefore, that the new Minister will see that this very efficient and wonderfully constituted airport is retained by his Ministry in order that it can serve the whole district, so that from my division and the towns just mentioned there may go forth ambassadors of trade—

Might I ask my hon. and gallant Friend if he is sure he knows his stuff on this matter? This aerodrome is the joint property of Preston and Blackburn, and my impression is that neither Preston nor Blackburn want the Ministry to take it over. They want to have it for use as a municipal civil airport.

I do not care who owns it. It must not disappear as our aircraft factories have done. I want it to remain. Accrington is willing to co-operate with any other municipality in order that Salmsbury airport may be retained. That is the point, and it is the main point I want to make.

Lancashire wants to send her travellers with cotton goods and other products, upon which depends the prosperity of this hardly-hit county, all over the world. I want our business men to start from Salmsbury. They will come from Accrington, Preston, Blackburn and Burnley and other towns, and take a plane at Salmsbury without having to go to Speke or Liverpool. I want this airport to be one of the great airports from which the emissaries of Lancashire trade will go forth to find new markets, and to transport, if necessary, their goods by air, so that they will get back some of the prosperity which, because of difficulties in the past, we have lost.

It may be considered that this proposal is impossible, on grounds of cost, but I tell the Minister that this is an opportunity for him to collaborate, in the interests of civil aviation, with the Minister of Aircraft Production. The overhead charges on an airport are extremely high but I am certain that with collaboration between the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Ministry of Aircraft Production, engines can be made by the Bristol aircraft factory and transported to Salmsbury airport and assembled right on the spot. This would enable us to achieve several things. We should form a good nucleus of aircraft manufacture in the area and we should reduce the overhead charges on the airport. I, therefore, ask for greater collaboration. I am certain that it would help solve the problem of costs of this airport. It would help to preserve and retain the men of great skill and the Lancashire women who have brains in their fingers, by this combination of aircraft production and civil aviation at Salmsbury airport. Such collaboration would enable Salmsbury airport to help Lancashire, which truly deserves to be helped.

9.8 p.m.

As I expected, we have had a very large number of questions on all kinds of subjects connected with this Vote. I welcome them and I will do what I can to clarify the position by answering them all, one by one, although that may take some time. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) asked me what operational experience would be necessary in order to enable future air line operations to obtain a contract. The position is that we propose to set up this tribunal. I hope that it will be presided over by a judge. It will be absolutely free of my Department, and once it is set up we shall have no control or influence whatever over it. It will be entirely free, but we shall give general directions along these lines: First, we shall insist, or shall ask them to insist, that British aircraft must be used if British aircraft are available; We shall insist that adequate provision is made by any new operator for the welfare of the pilots and the air crews, and we shall insist that any new operator is financially capable of carrying out the job. Apart from these three things we shall lay down no conditions whatever; we shall leave the matter entirely to this tribunal.

The hon. Member asked me whether British aircraft will be available. I think they will. I will tell the Committee the present position with regard to four machines which will probably be used in this country. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) also asked me a question on this matter. The prototype of the Tudor I will fly within one week. I hope that unless there are further industrial troubles in the factory deliveries of this machine will start in August of this year.

Is it not a fact that not a single order has been given for that machine? No one is saying that the prototype cannot fly, but an order has not been given. When is it to be given?

I am surprised that the hon. Member should say that. An order has been given for 20 of these machines. That order has been placed for a considerable time. This particular machine is the one which we hope will fly the Atlantic. That is why we only want a comparatively small number. The prototype of the Tudor II is due to ply next November, and deliveries should start in January next year. A considerable order has been placed for that particular aircraft. Then there is the Viking, which is the one which will run these internal air lines in this country. The prototype is expected to fly this month. A large order has been placed. This order can easily be increased, and deliveries, we hope and believe, will start in December this year. Lastly, there is the Hermes. No order has so far been placed for this aircraft because we are using Tudor I and Tudor II. I understand that the prototyped this particular machine is likely to fly in September this year.

My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-colonel Elliot) asked me a lot of questions, but the main one was whether I could condense what the Government proposed to do to help Prestwick. The position, as I said before, is that under the Chicago Agreements we have to designate certain airports for international air traffic. We shall designate airports in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We intend to designate Prestwick as one of those airports. When Heathrow, which is the main terminal airport for London in the future, comes into operation at some distant date, we shall continue to designate Prestwick, so that any air line of any nationality can come to Prestwick at will. Then there was the question of whether a new air line could operate from Prestwick. The answer is "Yes." We have deliberately excluded Prestwick from any of the assigned routes. Consequently, any operator who can justify his case before the tribunal can run an air line from Prestwick to any part of the British Isles.

Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. I was asking whether any company would be permitted to operate also from airports other than Prestwick to the Scandinavian countries, or whether it would be only from that one airport.

I am taking the points as hon. Members spoke. I will endeavour to answer that point in a moment; and if I do not, I hope that my hon. Friend will pull me up. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove asked for more information about the position in regard to Scandinavia. We propose to shield from the main scheme air lines going from Scotland to Scandinavia. Consequently, any operator, whoever he may be, provided that he can satisfy the tribunal and that we can come to some arrangement with the Scandinavian countries, is free to run to Scandinavia. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) raised several interesting points. I think he is under a slight misapprehension. He has certainly got the impression that there are a very large number of pre-war operators who are to come in. I do not know the exact number—I rather think it is two; it might be three; but it is very small, and will have little effect. The main one is an organisation called Allied Airways, in the North of Scotland.

How many companies' names did the hon. Member mention for internal airlines, in the statement he read out?

I cannot remember reading out any, except British European Airways.

For internal airways?

Internal airways are going to be run, on the assigned routes, by British European Airways, with their subsidiary company in Scotland. On non-assigned routes any company can apply to the tribunal to run. As far as England is concerned, I am very sorry to have to say that I have not got the facts yet. We have not settled what routes are to be assigned.

Is that only for chartered companies?

That is for any company. If they can satisfy the tribunal they will get the contract.

Why is Scotland put first, England mentioned second, and no word said about Wales?

I am sorry, but I was answering the speeches which have been made here, and I do not think that anyone from Wales has spoken—otherwise, I should have been delighted to refer to Wales. The hon. Member spoke about the Australian service, and said that a friend of his had come through quickly. I welcome this. We have just started this new service, which will take about three days. I believe that it is the fastest service in the world, and that it will be of benefit not only to Australia, but to this country. Then my hon. Friend made a speech, which I believe I have heard him make before, about some form of international set-up. We have crossed swords on this matter many times before. He has my sympathy. I believe that in the dim, distant future, it may be in 20 years, it may be in 50 years, it may be in 100 years, when the world is a better place, we shall see something on those lines. I do not believe that it is possible at this moment, and I am reinforced in that by the great pamphlet which I read one day while flying over the Tasman Ocean, a very interesting pamphlet, published by the Socialist Party, with a great deal of which I am in agreement. There was one short paragraph in it to the effect that if this bold scheme of an international organisation was impossible they would prefer to see the Empire services run by the Empire Governments as a whole. That is the position at the moment.

The pamphlet did not say in 100 years' time.

I did not say that it did. I am expressing my own view. The hon. Member for West Islington asked me about the pilots. I remember that in the early days of the British Airways Pilots' Association he was extremely helpful. I think I was the founder of that Association; I was the first vice-president; and he was kindness itself, and helped me in every way possible.

I am sure that he will welcome the provisions on the White Paper for pilots. As he knows, in the White Paper, there is a paragraph for the welfare of the staff by which all these new corporations—and we shall insist upon it—will have to become model employers, and, so far as I can see, the pilots and air crews of the future should be happy. The hon. Member also asked about machines for the future. I am afraid we have only been in existence for five weeks, and we must not expect to run before we can walk. The hon. Member also asked about the question of jet propulsion. We are very interested in jet propulsion—exceptionally interested—and I fully anticipate that, in seven or eight years' time, we shall see some civil air liners propelled by means of the jet.

The Brabazon IV is a jet-propelled plane. Is it on order now or just a prototype?

I should not like to say what is the exact position of the Brabazon IV without going to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, because it is their pigeon and they act as our agents, but I will tell the hon. Member one thing about jet propulsion aircraft. They want a pressure cabin, and, while we are pushing on with jet propelled aircraft, we have a lot of work to do on pressure cabins. The hon. Member asked me who were our technical advisers. We have the Brabazon Committee, the Air Registration Board, the facilities at Farnborough and tele-communication advisory bodies—in fact we have got all the advice available to us that is available to the R.A.F. We have got the best possible advice, but, if the hon. Member thinks there is any other information available and will let us know, we will make use of it.

The hon. Member asked if we had a training scheme. Yes, Sir, but it is not big enough and we are taking steps to increase it. It is run by British Overseas Airways. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Sir G. Mander) asked me about the position of Wolverhampton. I am very sorry, and I have already said this, that I cannot tell any hon. Member about the future of his own local aerodrome. It has not yet been decided. Until we have got agreement with British European airways on these assigned routes, it is quite impossible for my Department to say which aerodromes we shall need, but I can give the House the assurance that we are hard at it and that, as soon as ever we get this agreement on these assigned routes, then I shall tell the House. How long it will be, I know not, but I think it will be several months before we finally get that matter cleared up.

Why this preference for Scotland?

I have not yet given all the details of all the places where we are going to land in Scotland. I have merely drawn a broad picture, but I can assure the hon. Member that the picture for England, when it is drawn, will bear comparison with that of Scotland. Neither Scotland nor England will be better off; both will be very well served.

The hon. Member for Motherwell (Dr. McIntyre) asked me two questions. First, he asked whether the railway companies, the British European Corporation, or their subsidiary, Scottish Airways, will be able to apply to the tribunal to run to Scandinavia. The answer is, No, Sir. As this route is not an assigned route, they are automatically barred—both the main operating company and the subsidiary. The second question was—Can some completely new company go to Scandinavia? The answer is Yes, provided that the Government can make arrangements under Chicago with the Scandinavian countries, and I have no doubt whatever that we can do that, provided that the new company satisfies the tribunal that it is confident that it will use British machines and treat the pilots properly.

The Minister said "provided they use British machines." Does that mean that they are not allowed to use any tout English machines, in the next two years, and cannot use the best machines available.

I apologise for repeating myself. I told the Committee just now the Government policy with regard to British machines. We believe that British machines will be ready as quickly as any other machines are available in this country, and I gave the dates when I hope and believe they will be there. We made it quite plain that it is the policy of the Government that these British machines should be used by those air lines, and British machines will be there as quickly as the lines are ready to start.

Does my hon. Friend understand that everybody in Scotland except the extreme Scottish Nationalists will be highly delighted with the concessions announced to-day?

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend very much. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Major Mills) asked about two aerodromes in the New Forest. He asked about Hurn and whether we were in contact with the Town Planning Committee of the county council? I do not know whether we are or not but I can assure him that we shall be, and will make contact at once. He then asked whether this extra money to be expended on Hurn was going to mean a big extension of the aerodrome. I understand that the whole of the money will be spent on the present limits of the aerodrome. He asked me about Beaulieu. Beaulieu is on common land and my father, 25 years ago, when the Member for the New Forest, took some part in keeping the aerodrome off that common land at that time. We had a look at Beaulieu and thought it might do as a kind of temporary aerodrome for a short time, but the facilities we wanted are not there so we have moved off. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that as far as my Department is concerned we are going elsewhere, but I cannot tell him where. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) wanted to know about connections between Scotland and the South. As I said, Glasgow is connected with Belfast, Liverpool, Manchester and London, and on the East Coast, Edinburgh will be connected with Newcastle, the West Riding of Yorkshire and London. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington (Major Procter) wanted to know about Lancashire. I will certainly bear the claims of Lancashire in mind but I can only repeat what I told the Committee just now, that we are not in a position to announce what aerodromes will be needed in this country, but as soon as ever we know we shall make an announcement.

Will my hon. Friend see to it that these airports are not allowed to go out of existence before his Ministry has made up its mind what is to be done?

I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend need worry about that. We are not going to be as slow as all that. We are hard at it now on rather broad principles. I have endeavoured to answer all the many points which have come up. I personally can commend this scheme to the Committee. I believe that it will work. The slight modifications which we have made as a result of the approach of hon. Members, political pressure and drive and general public opinion do not, in any way, affect the main structure of the Bill which sets up three corporations. I believe that we are laying foundations which may well last for 20, 30 or 40 years. I ask the Committee now to give me my salary.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:

"That a sum, not exceeding £3,536,010, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Civil Aviation."

Resolution to foe reported upon Friday next [ Commander Agnew.]

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Infantry (Pay And Precedence)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Commander Agnew.]

9.30 p.m.

We now descend from the air to more pedestrian matters, and I make no apology for raising the question of the precedence and pay of the Infantry, the pay of the Fighting Services. I would like to thank the Secretary of State for War for having come down to-night. I take his presence here as a tribute to the great part the Infantry has played in the war. May I, on our side, say that we appreciate very much the great part he has played, for it is under his administration that the British Army has grown to the greatest and finest Army we have ever had?

At the beginning of the war, many people seemed to imagine that the role of the Infantry was over, but the war has proved quite differently. The war has proved that the Infantry is even more important than ever it was. However, I have been rather impressed by the lack of appreciation of the Infantry shown by the man in the street. Many women in my constituency have said, "My poor son has had to go into the Infantry," when, of course, it is a great honour. I am not alone in my idea, and I do not think it is a false one. Perhaps I might quote the few words written by Field-Marshal Lord Wavell in "The Times" of 19th April last. He said:

"…I do feel strongly that the Infantry…does not receive either the respect or the treatment to which its importance and its exploits entitle it. This may possibly be understandable, though misguided, in peace; it is intolerable in war."

He went on to point out that in the end all battles and all wars are won by the Infantry and that it is the Infantry which suffers the greatest casualties, it is the Infantry which bears the brunt, it is the Infantry which has to suffer the greatest fatigue and hardship, and it is the Infantry which wins the battles.

We all know that expression "the P.B.I."—a rather condescending expression which I think must have been invented by a cavalry staff officer in the last war. However, the P.B.I, in this war have had the most difficult rôle of all and, as Field Marshal Wavell points out, theirs is the hardest job. The Secretary of Stale for War has produced most marvellous new weapons which the Infantry have had to master and have had to use with great skill in battle. I think everybody will agree that the most skilled soldier of all to-day is the Infantry. We all admire the commandos and the airborne troops, who are, after all, highly skilled Infantry. To my mind, one of the greatest mistakes the War Office made was to have formed the commandos, for I think it would be quite possible, if the War Office had appreciated them, for any infantry battalion to have been converted into airborne troops or commandos, and thereby have kept their esprit de corps.

We all know how well the rank and file do, but the infantry generals have not done too badly. They are rather a good team—Field Marshal the late Sir John Dill, Field Marshal Wavell, Field Marshal Alexander, Field Marshal Montgomery and Generals Auchinleck, O'Connor, Platt, Leese and Dempsey—all infantrymen. I doubt if this country has even been represented by a finer set of commanders. The Infantry generals of this war have moved faster than the cavalry generals of the last. The Infantry has established itself, but I am not sure if it is appreciated as it ought to be by the country.

I was talking only this afternoon to the Minister of Town and Country Planning, who told me that he had met an American general who had said, with great pride, that his son was in the Infantry. The whole spirit of the Infantry is one of pride, and we want to raise their status in the eyes of the public. Some suggestions have been made that the Infantry should be made the right of the line. If they are first in battle they are entitled to be at the head of the Army List. But I am not emphasising the importance of that. I hope the Secretary of State will consider some means by which the status of the Infantry can be raised.

I want to refer to pay, although I do not want to raise the whole question tonight. I am referring to pay of all the fighting troops, the Infantry, Cavalry, R.A.C. and the Gunners, which, I hope, will please my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Sir A. Heneage). I am not suggesting that you should raise the pay of the Forces, because we did that not long ago, but I think that in considering the pay of the Army we might consider the question of looking upon the work of the Infantry, the Cavalry, the R.A.C. and the Gunners as a skilled trade. In every infantry battalion there are tradesmen. There are more tradesmen in a mechanised unit, and the further back you go there are more tradesmen still. In fact, one might say that the higher the pay the further one is away from the line. I suggest that you should look upon the skilled infantryman, cavalryman, or whatever it might be, as a tradesman, if he is really trained to his job. After all, fighting is his trade, and if a man can use and look after his weapons and train others to look after, them then surely he is entitled to the same pay as the armourer behind the lines who repairs the weapons.

I have been looking into the figures, and I find that a private, after three years' service, if he is highly efficient, can get 5s. a day. If he is a tradesman in Group B he can get 6s. 6d. a day after three years' service, and in Group A 6s. 9d. A corporal in a fighting unit—and I use the words "fighting unit" to cover them all—can get 6s. a day. As a tradesman he can get from 6s. up to 7s. 9d. a day. A sergeant can get 7s. a day, and as a tradesman can get up to 9s. 3d. Here, I think, is a possible solution of the difficulties. We all want in the Army the best people that we can get, those with the best brains. Would the Secretary of State consider that if a man is skilled he should be treated as a tradesman? I would make it possible for a man in the Infantry, Cavalry, R.A.C. or the gunners to be able to qualify for rates of pay as a tradesman. I would make it hard to get the highest rate. He would have to know tactics, machine guns and everything, but if that was done it would encourage some of the best men in the Army, and get over the feeling of unfairness. I do not in any way criticise the tradesman or suggest that his pay ought to be reduced. I suggest that the fighting man should have his training looked upon as a trade and should be paid the same rate as the tradesman. I hope the Secretary of State for War will crown his great achievements by considering some such idea as I have put forward.

9.40 p.m.

Those of us who are interested in the welfare of the Forces owe a great debt of gratitude to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) for raising this very important question. I know from my own contact with the Forces that there is very serious feeling throughout the whole Army because this question has not been tackled before, and that feeling is reflected among the wives and dependants of the men affected. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the feeling of the Cavalry. As the daughter of a Cavalry soldier, the wife of another and the mother of another, I can assure my right hon. Friend that anything he can do to raise the status of the fighting man in the Infantry would be greatly appreciated by all those who have the honour to serve in Cavalry regiments, whose role to-day is very little different from that of the fighting infantrymen. I hope very much that this matter will receive the attention which it merits. I believe that in the Mercantile Marine there is a sum of money called "danger money" given to every sailor in dangerous waters. It seems to me there might be something of that kind awarded to the infantryman after he is fully trained and when he is in the front line. Unfortunately, there is among the public a definite feeling that the better man is paid the most, and for that reason it is very necessary to raise what is called the status of the fighting man in the minds of the general public.

The second point I want to mention is this. I believe that when Field-Marshal Montgomery is planning a battle, there are three things upon which he insists: first, that everybody knows his job and is fully trained; secondly, that everybody knows what is the intention; and thirdly, that everybody feels, both during the battle and after, that he will have a square deal. The suggestion which my hon. and gallant Friend has made on behalf of the fighting infantryman would be a very great step in that direction. Lastly, I want to remind the House that there is a memorial set up on the road to Manadalay to the fallen of the 14th Army, which reads:

"When you go home tell them of us, and say,

For your to-morrows we gave our to-day."

That is a thing which should be written in all Government Departments, and particularly at the War Office. I have great pleasure in supporting my hon. and gallant Friend.

9.44 p.m.

I would like briefly to support the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston). I have had the somewhat singular experience in the war, as a Cavalry man, of commanding an Infantry battalion, a motorised battalion and an armoured regiment, and I can, with some experience and degree of humility, pay my tribute to the status of the Infantry. I should like also to support the case put forward for the raising of the pay of the trained fighting soldier. I agree that the qualification should undoubtedly be a high one. A number of tests can be applied to bring that man into a reasonable comparison with a tradesman in a fighting unit or in a Service formation. I should like to support that point and to express the hope that the Secretary of State will give this his very sympathetic consideration.

9.46 p.m.

I am very largely in sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend with the exception of what he said about gunners. The last war was a gunners' war but this war is the greatest combination of all arms that we have ever seen in this country, and it is the co-operation of all arms that makes for success.

9.47 p.m.

I have pleasure in supporting the view which has been put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston). I think, with great respect to my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last, that it is the co-operation of all arms and services which really makes for success in war when battle is actually joined, but it is most definitely the Infantry which bears the brunt of the fighting, faces the greatest danger and either holds the position or captures the position of the enemy. The qualifications of the trained infantryman of to-day are very high indeed. It has been proved in war that it is in the Infantry that the highest grade of man is required, and yet it is a fact that in very many cases the highest grade of man does not go to the Infantry but very often goes to other arms. I do not hesitate to say-that No. 2 on a 25-pounder, the loader of any gun. or any of the ammunition numbers, does not require anything like the qualities which are necessary in a well-trained infantryman. In this war, moreover, Infantry battalions have become searchlight units and all kinds of things. There have been the Guards Armoured Divisions, admittedly an exceptionally high class Infantry, with a high class of men in them, and others as well.

The matter of pay is of real importance. The infantryman, who in the end wins or loses a battle and has most of the dangers, hardships and discomforts of war, is rated lower financially than a clerk at the base, who may be physically graded B or C, who runs no risks, lives a comparatively comfortable life, and is rated as a specialist. Precedence is a less important thing. It dates from 1660, and when the Royal Regiment of Artillery had not been raised, or the Royal Engineers, precedence hardly counted at all. It is not necessary to raise the question of precedence, but it is necessary to pay the Infantry tradesman's rates of pay, and possibly danger money, in order to raise their status.

9.52 p.m.

I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) has raised this question. Apart from the kind remarks he made about me personally, it gives me an opportunity once more of paying tribute to the Infantry. Although I myself, in my brief but not very glorious military career in the last war, was not an infantryman, I yield to no man in my admiration of and gratitude to them. There is no doubt, as has been said already, that many services and arms have helped to win the war, but the war against Germany was actually won, and could only have been won, by the blood and toil of the Infantry. I agree with Lord Wavell and with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys). Lord Wavell, in the passage which my hon. and gallant Friend quoted, referred to the Infantry as having the greatest casualties.

There happens to stick in my memory the comparative level of casualties of the various arms at one period covering the Battle of Normandy, and, as far as my recollection goes, the Infantry had four times the casualties of the next highest Service, which was the R.A.C.

Even so, though the Infantry had casualties much higher than any other arm or service, they are not nearly as catastrophically high or disproportionately high as they were in the last war. There are two reasons for this. One is the great development of Infantry weapons available in the actual Infantry battalions. The other is the great development of support from other arms and services, such as artillery, tanks and the air. I take the second point first. As regards artillery, I have seen extracts from some of the German training manuals, and there is a great testimony in them to the efficacy of artillery fire. I was talking to a young soldier who returned from a prisoner of war camp a few weeks ago. He was in the hands of the Germans at Anzio when a 25-pounder counter-barrage came down from our artillery, and he said that until you had been on the wrong side of our 25-pounders it was almost impossible to realise the terrifying effect of them. Then we come to all the various kinds of tanks—mine clearing tanks, flame-throwers, the special Royal Engineer tanks, the cruiser tanks, and then the much-belaboured Churchill Infantry tank. This has been of great assistance to the Infantry and is greatly valued by them. Even the cruiser tank is of help to the Infantry, because it exploits the break-through made by the Infantry and prevents the opposing forces stiffening up again. Of course, probably the last word said on Infantry co-operation, or at any rate the best word, has been said by Field Marshal Montgomery—I noticed the other day some high-ranking airmail referred to it with great pride, as one of the greatest of the achievements of the Royal Air Force—and that was the reduction in Infantry casualties which it had achieved in this war, with which I entirely agree.

Let me go back to the weapons in the actual Infantry battalions. We developed a good many of these weapons during the war, and the infantryman has added to the range of his equipment enormously. The late Deputy Chief of the Imperial General Staff, General Weeks, whom I am very grieved to lose but Very glad to give up to Field Marshal Montgomery, had a great deal to do with the development of the new weapons, and he has received great gratitude from the Infantry. I myself have seen letters from the commanders of Infantry divisions just after the battle of Normandy saying how extremely well found the Infantry were in the weapons which tended to promote their effectiveness and to reduce their casualties. But this variety of weapons means, as several hon. Members have pointed out, that an infantryman must have a much wider range of knowledge and skill than he has had before. The point which several hon. Members have made is a good one, namely that infantrymen should be graded in skill, and each grade of infantryman should correspond in pay to the corresponding grade of tradesmen, but it should be by tests as equally exacting as those which apply to the corresponding degrees of skill in tradesmen. That is my view, at any rate. The post-war scales of pay for the Army and the other Services remain to be determined, but that is a view which I intend to maintain for as long as I can.

I must say I did not at all like the alternative idea championed by hon. Members, of paying danger money, which has sometimes been called blood money. I do not think you can reward people for incurring danger. You must reward them for skill. The danger they run and the sacrifices they make are made from a sense of sacrifice, and no amount of monetary reward can compensate for that. The other thing which is required for the infantryman is constant research to develop weapons and methods to support him. I would like to elaborate that, but I have not time.

I do not attach much importance to the capital "I" in Infantry and badges and so on. They can be considered in their proper place. Nor do I much like the idea of altering the order of precedence. I am sorry to differ here from the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield, but I date the precedence of horse over foot much earlier than he does. It goes back beyond 1660 to the time of Elizabeth.

In all this special singling out of the Infantry we must be very careful not to move towards ideas which are prevalent that the Infantry should be a Corps of Infantry and not a collection of individual regiments. The glory of the Infantry is the regimental system. The War Office has been attacked over and over again during the last three years for letting them down. It is true we have had to post people to regiments with which they had no territorial connection. For example, the number of Englishmen in the 51st Division would surprise a great many Scotsmen in this House.

My final point is that we must so devise our post-war Army that the regimental system is preserved, and there will be nothing in the nature of a Corps of Infantry. I could elaborate all these things—

It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order ( Sittings of the House), Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, purusuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order of the House of 30th November.

Adjourned at One Minute to Ten o'Clock.

Volume 411: debated on Wednesday 6 June 1945

House Of Commons

Private Business

Oral Answers To Questions

Austria (Provisional Government)

European Relief Policy (Co-Ordination)

Persia (Allied Forces)

Spain

Laval (French Representations)

Concentration Camps

General Bor (Newspaper Article)

World Security Organisation (Secretariat)

United States (International Trading Arrangements)

Syria And Lebanon

Member Of Parliament (Visit To United States)

Royal Air Force

Aero-Engine Mechanics (Badge)

Aerodromes (Agricultural Land)

Night Flying, Peterborough

Low Flying Aircraft

Overseas Postings (Demobilisation Priority)

Royal Observer Corps

Marshal Stalin's Message

Personnel (Re-Engagement)

Medical Staffs (Release)

Clerks And Cooks (Release)

General Election

Civil Aviation

Service, Orkney And Shetland

Railway Companies (Air Lines)

Aircraft Works, Clayton-Le-Moors (Black-Out)

Nigeria (Constitution)

Merchant Navy (Releases)

Railways

London-Aberdeen Service (Restaurant Cars)

Cheltenham-London Service

Holiday Transport

Organised Parties (Travel Permits)

Jarrow Tunnel Project

Wartime Ministries (Continuance)

Three-Power Meeting (Venue)

Food Supplies

Fish

Potatoes

Returning Foreign Visitors (Food Parcels)

Fruit

Tomatoes

Food Lists

Shop Queues

Wheat

Meat Ration (Offal)

Home-Killed Meat

Ration Reduction (Petition)

Soap Supplies, London Area

Questions To Ministers

Members Of Parliament (Overseas Travel)

Message From The Lords

Library (House Of Commons)

Business Of The House

Business Of The House (Supply)

Orders Of The Day

Finance (No 2) Bill

Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill

Supply

Ministry Of Civil Aviation

Infantry (Pay And Precedence)