Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 424: debated on Wednesday 26 June 1946

House of Commons

Wednesday, June 26, 1946

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]

Oral Answers to Questions

Civil Aviation

Atlantic Service (Operational Costs)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what will be the cost per passenger of operating the Tudor I across the Atlantic.

The forecasting of operational costs depends on the assumptions made and is necessarily uncertain. In view of possible detriment to the operators by the publication of such forecasts, it would not be right to make public me details involved.

Are we to assume that the service will be operated at the agreed cost and that the public will be involved in a substantial loss?

The rates on this service will be fixed with the other operators in the rates conferences of the International Air Transport Association.

Is there any probability of rates for the trans-Atlantic passage being reduced by spreading the costs over feeder lines as well as over the Atlantic service itself? The great advantage of the crossing is lost if it is too expensive.

The costs will be reduced, and a recommendation to that effect has recently been made to the Governments concerned. I do not think it would be possible to adopt altogether the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman because the rates must be agreed by the operators on that particular route.

Scotland—France

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, when it is intended to inaugurate a British service between Scotland and France.

It is planned to divert the present Glasgow—Croydon service to Northolt in the early autumn and to afford rapid connection at Northolt with the services to Paris. Direct services between Glasgow and Paris, and Edinburgh and Paris are planned to start as soon as aircraft are available, which it is hoped, will be early in the New Year.

Is it not a fact that a French line is already providing this service, and cannot we hope to provide a service as quickly as the French?

We are providing it in a different way, via London. It would be quite easy to pick out any part of the world and say that a particular country has an advantage.

When the direct service comes into operation, the type used will, in all probability, be the Viking.

New York Terminal

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he has now succeeded in finding a terminal airfield near New York for the B.O.A.C. service; and, if so, which is that airfield.

At the outset, La Guardia airport will be the New York terminal for the British Overseas Airways Corporation trans-Atlantic services. But La Guardia is very congested, and the use of Islip airport is being considered.

According to present information, it will be six to 12 months before Idlewild is in operation.

New York—London (Fares)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what fares have now been agreed by the North Atlantic Traffic Conference for the single journey, New York to London.

The recent North Atlantic Traffic Conference of the International Air Transport Association recommended that the fare for the single journey by air from New York to London should be 325 dollars, equivalent to £80 15s. This recommendation is now being considered by the Governments concerned.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that is subsequent to the fixing of the figure of £90, which was objected to, and that we have now arrived at 325 dollars?

There is competition between British airlines and those of other countries.

Agreements (Negotiations and Consultations)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is solely responsible for all negotiations in connection with the establishment of air services with foreign countries; and, if not, with what other Government Departments is this responsibility shared.

My noble Friend is responsible to Parliament for the substance of all agreements with foreign Governments relating to civil air services. These agreements are always negotiated in conjunction with the Foreign Office, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is responsible for their form and all the diplomatic formalities involved; he is also responsible for laying before the House the texts of the agreements and any other documents. Moreover, if points are likely to arise which affect other Departments, for example, Commonwealth considerations or the grant of rights in colonial territories, consultations with the Department or Departments concerned takes place before the negotiations start.

Will it be in order to lay the blame at the doors of the Foreign Office in respect of any failure to provide an air service to any foreign country?

Will the Minister share his responsibility with the Scottish Office, so that that office could decide when and where flying should take place?

The Scottish Office and all other Government Departments are brought into full consultation.

Dyce Aerodrome (Flying Club Activities)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is aware that the premises of the Aberdeen Flying Club, at Dyce Airport, consisting of a clubhouse and a bedroom block, were requisitioned on 13th October, 1939, on the plea of national necessity; that from that date all civilian social activities ceased, that the clubhouse has been unoccupied for more than three years and 80 per cent. of the bedroom block for more than two years; that both buildings have been left in a deplorable condition; that there are approximately 30 rooms unoccupied; and whether he will now derequisition the property and give permission for Aberdeen Flying Club to resume, or indicate a date when it may do so.

As I informed the hon. Member on 19th June last, flying club activities could not, until recently, be permitted by the Air Ministry for operational reasons. The administration of Dyce Aerodrome was transferred to my Department at the end of May, and permission has been given for the activities of the club to be resumed. I am aware that the premises of the Aberdeen Flying Club has been damaged during heir occupation for war purposes, and I am arranging for the dilapidations to be agreed with the owners of the property, and for the lease of the premises to be examined with a view to considering whether the property can at this stage be derequisitioned.

May I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary has no desire to interfere with existing leases?

I should like to consider all the implications of that question, for reasons which the hon. Gentleman will understand.

Questions

Nigeria (Closed Schools)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why a number of schools in the Ikorofoing and Ikot Iryang districts of the Calabar Province of Nigeria have been closed down; and why financial assistance was not forthcoming to keep them open.

These mission schools were closed owing to the failure of the local churches to pay their usual quarterly contributions, although adequate funds were available and they had been warned by the mission authorities of the consequences of non-payment. All the schools except two have reopened.

Sarawak (Cession)

Modified Financial Arrangements

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements have been agreed with the ex-Rajah of Sarawak regarding the trust fund of £1,000,000 or any other moneys which he will receive as a result of cession.

I apologise to the House for the length of this reply. There has been some modification in the financial arrangements in connection with the cession of Sarawak to His Majesty since my original statement in this House on 6th February.

As the House will recall, the original proposal was for the creation of a trust fund of £1,000,000 out of Sarawak reserve funds, the income from which was to provide for the Rajah and his dependants, and certain local functionaries, for the remainder of their lifetimes. The balance of the income from the trust was to be devoted to social and other measures designed for the progress and benefit of the territory. It was the Rajah's intention to contribute towards the capital of this trust fund the proceeds of a trust fund established by the second Rajah in 1912, amounting to approxi- mately £150,000. Under the terms of the trust deed this sum becomes payable to the Rajah on the cession of the territory to His Majesty.

The Rajah subsequently decided not to proceed with the proposal for the creation of a £1,000,000 trust fund. He also decided not to make any claim on Sarawak revenues for himself and his immediate dependants. His Highness has, however, generously decided to make available approximately one-third of the capital of the 1912 fund for the purpose of providing for the further education of the inhabitants of Sarawak. He will, in fact, make available for this purpose the balance of the fund over and above £100,000. The latter sum will, therefore, represent the only provision for the Rajah and his immediate dependants on the cession of the territory.

As regards the other beneficiaries, the Council Negri of Sarawak passed a Bill on 17th May making annual provision from Sarawak revenues for them during their lifetime only. The beneficiaries include the Rajah's brother and the Rajah's nephew, Mr. Anthony Brooke, who are to receive annually from Sarawak revenues sums of £5,000 and £2,800 respectively. The payments to the other beneficiaries mentioned in the Council Negri Order are those which have been paid hitherto out of Sarawak revenues. They do not constitute any additional charge.

The whole of the Sarawak Reserve Funds of £2¾ million remain, of course, under the control of the Government of the territory. This statement will, I hope, make it quite plain that there is no question of Sarawak having been sold to His Majesty's Government.

Is it not true that feeling in Sarawak is so strong that the ex-Rajah has sold Sarawak to the British Government for £1 million and that is the real reason why he had to give up this sum; and, any way, is he not left with £100,000 out of the £150,000 Fund? It is entirely his, and is he not really in a better position?

That is not entirely true. The Rajah gave up the idea of the £1 million trust fund before he went to Sarawak.

Now that the Rajah has ceased to be the ruler of Sarawak, does he become liable to British Income Tax?

That is a question which I think should be put to the Chancellor, but I assume that he will be liable to Income Tax.

Council Negri Proceedings

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is satisfied that at the proceedings of the Council Negri of Sarawak on 15th May when the Cession Bill was debated, all the native members fully understood the issue, in view of the fact that the speeches in English were not translated into either the Malay or Dyak languages.

I am informed that the question of cession was fully and freely debated in the Council Negri on 16th and 17th May, in English, Malay and Dyak, and that the issue was well understood.

In view of the fact that, as far as we in this House understand, it was not discussed in anything but English and the whole speeches of the British spokesmen was made in English, while many of the members do not necessarily understand English—surely in view of that and the fact that the Colonial Office must by now have received a full report of what was said, it would be possible for us to have a definite copy of what was told to them, what was argued, and what was promised?

We have had a full report, not only from the Colonial official who was present, but also from the Members of Parliament who were sent from this House to Sarawak, to show that the thing was done quite above board. They reported quite fully and frankly and said, "In our view the decision represents the fair view of the Council as constituted."

Is there any reason why this House should not have an exact statement of what was said, for Members to read? Everybody knows there is a strong feeling that it was a most sordid arrangement, and we want to see what actually was said. If it is all right, there will be no further trouble.

Only in the minds of a very few people. I am quite prepared to trust the opinions of the two hon. Members who went out to Sarawak and said that it is in the interests of Sarawak that cession should take place.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are a number of hon. Members on this side of the House who feel somewhat disturbed by what has happened in Sarawak?

Quite apart from the merits of the case, if the right hon. Gentleman has received a transcript of the proceedings in the Council Negri, will he be prepared to put it in the Library of the House?

Yes, I would be prepared to put the report in the Library of the House; I am sure it will bear out what has been stated.

Cyprus

Political and Economic Conditions

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider appointing a delegation of Members of Parliament to visit Cyprus, with a view to reporting on the prospects of setting up a legislative assembly and examining the position of trade union organisation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will immediately hold an inquiry into the administration of Cyprus and the political condition of the colony, as a preliminary step to taking measures to end the alienation of the people from the Government.

The difficulties of the postwar period have added to the complexity of the political and economic problems which face the Cyprus Government and, as those familiar with the historical and racial background are aware, they do not admit of any easy solution. For some time past I have been considering general plans for dealing with the situation which cover the points mentioned in the Questions, and I shall hope soon to make a general statement.

As regards the suggestion of the appointment of a delegation of Members of Parliament, although I cannot commit myself to arranging a visit with the specific objects referred to in the Question, I favour visits of groups of Members of Parliament to the Colonies, and I should hope that it might be possible to include Cyprus among areas to be visited.

Land Utilisation

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a land utilisation survey has yet been carried out in Cyprus; and whether development plans for the island include provision for this.

There have been a number of investigations into specific aspects of land utilisation in Cyprus. For agricultural purposes alone grants of up to £750,000 have been made during the war years under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act and large sums have been granted for ancillary projects. In addition there has been a considerable annual budgetary expenditure. This subject has been comprehensively dealt with in proposals for development prepared by Sir Douglas Harris, which are now under discussion with the Governor.

Deportees

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now allow the return to Cyprus of persons exiled for political offences since 1931, and declare an amnesty for Cypriot troops convicted for their part in disturbances caused by delays in demobilisation.

I am not at present in a position to make any statement about the future of those persons who were deported from Cyprus after the disturbances of 1931. The second part of the Question is not a matter for my Department.

Would the Minister agree that anything which can wipe out the follies of 1931 is highly desirable?

Would the Minister make it quite clear that a condition precedent of self-government in Cyprus is the maintenance of law and order, and will he therefore see that no permits for entry into Cyprus are given to those likely to promote disaffection?

Town Planning

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether town planning legislation for Cyprus will include provision for the creation of adequate machinery to ensure that local schemes will be coordinated into one central island scheme.

I have been impressed with the desirability of a general scheme to coordinate town planning in Cyprus on these lines, and I am in consultation with the Governor on the subject.

British Officials

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will cause the Government of Cyprus immediately to remove all British officials who were in Government service at the time of the crisis of 1931, and are, there for, unacceptable to the people.

No, Sir. I do not accept the implication in the hon. Member's Question.

Local Budgetary Schemes

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inquire into the causes of delay in the sanctioning of local budgetary schemes by the central Government of Cyprus.

If my hon. Friend will give me specific instances of the delays alleged I will make inquiries of the Governor.

Malaya

Advisory Council

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the composition of the present Malayan Advsiory Council; and how many of its members represent organised political bodies or trades unions.

The Malayan Union Advisory Council is composed of four officials and seventeen non-officials, the latter comprising seven Malays, five Chinese, two Indians, two Europeans and one Eurasian. Membership is broadly representative of the principal interests and communities in Malaya. As yet none of the Malay members has attended any council meetings. A leading member of one of the principal trade unions has recently become a member of the council. The Singapore Advisory Council consists of five officials and six non-officials, the latter comprising two Chinese, one Malay, one European, one Indian and one Eurasian. None of the members represents political bodies or trades unions as such.

Lands Reservation Policy

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give an assurance that the objectives of the Malay Reservations Enactment of 1913 are to be pursued in the Malay Union by maintaining and extending the reservation of land for Malays; and if the ownership of such reservations is to be vested in the Crown, while occupiers are given tenancy rights subject to proper use of the land.

As stated in paragraph 7 of Cmd. 6724 the Malay Lands Reservation policy will be maintained, and assurances to this effect were given to the Sultans by Sir Harold MacMichael in the course of his mission. The question of extending the areas already gazetted and the matters raised in the second part of the question are primarily for consideration by the Governor of the Malayan Union to whom I am sending a copy of my hon. Friend's question.

In view of the fact that the vesting of this State land in the Crown as opposed to the rulers in council is one of the major grievances in the Malays at the present time, will the right hon. Gentleman make it perfectly clear that land is vested in the rule of the State Council, and thus carry out not only the letter but the spirit of the original Malay Reservations Enactment?

As I explained to my hon. Friend, that is a matter which is now under consideration.

Taxation Adjustment

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the fact that the Island of Penang is to be a free port and exempt from Custom duties paid by other parts of the Malayan Union, any additional taxation is to be levied in order to equate the general burden of taxation for the whole Union.

The Governor of the Malayan Union recognises that some such adjustment is necessary and has the matter under consideration.

Disturbances, Singapore

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the recent disturbances in Singapore between Indians.

Yes, Sir. Trouble between Moslem and Hindu Indians is Singapore, originating over differences between political parties in India, came to a head in April. After a few clashes, an amicable settlement was arranged by responsible leaders from both sides. Later there was a resurgence of trouble arising from the actions of two small rival gangs but in the opinion of the Governor these further clashes were not communal in origin. Police action has resulted in 44 arrests and the seizure of a number of weapons. At present the Governor does not consider that there is cause for undue alarm but the position is being carefully watched.

Will the Minister say if this is a local trouble or really a reflection of the wider disunity in India itself?

Well, as stated in the reply, the Governor is of the opinion that it is not connected with disunity in India.

Negotiations (Governors and Rulers)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to make a statement on the negotiations being carried out between the Malay rulers and the Governor-General of Malaya and the Governor of the Malayan Union.

I appreciate the importance of an early statement on this subject, but regret that I am not at present in a position to make one.

Will the Minister say if it is not a fact that negotiations have broken down between the Government and the Malay rulers, and will he also say if these negotiations are not only between the Government and the Malay rulers, but also between the Government and representatives of United Malay National Organisation?

No, Sir. I do not regard it that the negotiations have broken down. As a matter of fact, there is a meeting today between the Governor-General, the Governor and Dato On, representing the Malay Union.

Colonial Service (Pay)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the new rates of pay for personnel now being recruited into the Colonial Service in Malaya; and how they differ from those being paid to those recruited before the war.

Recruitment is still on the scales in force before the war, but credit is given, in the form of increments on those scales, for war service and experience.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain cases, officers who were recruited before the war have had posted to them cadet officers on higher rates of pay?

I do not think that is so, but if the hon. Gentleman can let me have any instances of this kind I will certainly look into them.

Palestine

Property Requisitioning

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what powers exist in Palestine for the requisitioning of buildings; whether these have also been kept in force for a further period of five years as in the case of land; and, as the retention of powers to requisition land for five years ahead in peacetime are likely to lead to hardships for the ordinary citizens of the country, if he will reconsider the position.

The powers for requisitioning buildings in Palestine are the same as those for requisitioning land to which I referred in my reply to my hon. Friend on 5th June, as the term "land" in that legislation includes any building or other fixture on that land. These powers will be retained in force only so long as circumstances require and the situation is continually kept under review.

Brigadier Glubb (Interview)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the interview given to the "Daily Mail" on or about 27th May, by Brigadier Glubb, Commandant of the Transjordan Frontier Force, in which he attacked the report of the Anglo-American Commission on Palestine and stated that if its recommendations were implemented there would be an immediate Arab uprising throughout the Middle East, was authorised by His Majesty's Government; whether he will take steps to prevent British officers giving unauthorised newspaper interviews; and what action has been taken in this case.

Brigadier Glubb, I am assured, gave no interview. A statement by Brigadier Glubb that the opinions attributed to him were totally unauthorised has since been published in the Middle Eastern Press. Brigadier Glubb is not commandant of the Transjordan Frontier Force. He is not a serving officer of the British Army. He is employed by the Transjordan Government as Commandant of the Arab Legion. In the circumstances, the second half of the Question does not appear to arise.

Assuming that some such report had been correct, would this officer's action have been any worse than that of the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) who, although a member of the Commission, publicly criticised—

Malta

Dockyard Discharges

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many men have been discharged from the dockyards in Malta during the last six months; and what plans have been made for finding employment for any dockyard employees who may in future be discharged.

There was a reduction of 466 Maltese industrial employees of the dockyard, exclusive of the superintending civil engineer's department, during the six months ended on 31st May last. This was more than offset by an increase in the same period of 490 on the number employed by the civil engineer's department and other Service employment. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinching-brooke) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. G. Jeger) on the 6th of February and the 6th of June last, to which I have at present nothing to add.

Emigration

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to facilitate emigration from Malta; whether a register of prospective emigrants is kept, and if so, how many have registered.

I attach the greatest importance to the resumption of emigration from Malta, but difficulties of transport present a serious obstacle at the present time. The subject is under urgent consideration by the departments concerned in this country and is also being taken up with the receiving countries. With regard to the second part of the Question, the answer is in the affirmative; over 8,000 persons, not counting their dependants, have registered as prospective emigrants.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider consulting the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and ascertaining if it is possible to facilitate (emigration into Tripolitania?

We are fully aware of the importance of emigration, and we are dealing with every aspect of it.

Questions

Colonial Armed Forces

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the policy of His Majesty's Government regarding the employment of His Majesty's colonial subjects in the armed forces of the Crown.

The question of future arrangements for raising and maintaining Colonial Forces is under discussion with the Service Departments, and I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Is the responsibility for the administration and training of Colonial troops still to remain with the War Office?

That is so, as far as the existing troops are concerned. Of course, it is realised that demobilisation has not yet been completed. There has been no new recruitment.

East African Sisal Estates (Welfare)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the recent increase in the price of sisal, any measures will be taken to ensure that improvements in the housing and condition of labourers on sisal estates are made; and whether any such measures will be taken to ensure improvements on sisal estates in East Africa now under the management of the Custodian of Enemy Property.

I have approved a scheme under which the Governments of Kenya and Tanganyika will arrange for £2 10s. per ton out of the recent increase in the price of sisal to be retained to the credit of the producing estate and paid out on certificate from the Labour Department that sums equivalent to this credit have been expended on improved housing and other welfare amenities. This will be applicable to estates under the control of the Custodian of Enemy Property. Total expenditure under this scheme will be of the order of £350,000 a year, in addition to a substantial contribution from the industry's other resources.

In view of the reluctance of the Custodian after the last war to expend any capital to this purpose, as he regarded himself merely as a temporary administrator, can we have an assurance that there will be no delay or repetition of that experience now?

I think this is a very good start. It will produce a substantial sum of money.

General Mihailovitch

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has considered the further information sent to him about General Mihailovitch; and, in view of the services rendered by him to the Allied cause, if he will forward this information to the Yugoslav Government.

I am not clear to what further information the hon. Member is referring. My right hon. Friend has received a number of communications on the subject of General Mihailovitch. They add nothing to the evidence prepared by former British liaison officers with General Mihailovitch, and communicated to the Yugoslav Government by His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires on 18th May.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that His Majesty's Government are doing all in their power to secure a fair trial for General Mihailovitch?

His Majesty's Government have already submitted all the evidence which we thought was relevant and proper.

Is my hon. Friend doing anything to discover whether the allegations made by General Mihailovitch at the trial, that he was instigated by British officials to liquidate the partisans, are correct or not?

My hon. Friend may be assured that all relevant material is being carefully considered by us, but there is a good deal of conflict in the evidence submitted.

Is there not further proof of the real necessity to issue a White Paper very soon on everything that has been going on in this connection?

Is there any evidence that General Mihailovitch is being tortured?

I think we had better not go on with this as the trial is still proceeding.

Polish Armed Forces (Resettlement)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the resolution of protest from the West Ham Trades Council, a copy of which has been forwarded to him, over the settlement of the Polish army in this country; and what answer he has made to this resolution.

My right hon. Friend has received the text of this resolution from the hon. Member, and has made due note of the contents.

Will the Minister assure the House that there will be no departure from the pledge given to our gallant Polish Allies, in spite of any inspired pressure of this kind?

I do not wish to be unfair or evasive, but I am not sure to which pledge the hon. Gentleman is referring.

The pledge that they can come over to this country if they do not wish to go back to Poland.

China (Escape Assistance)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has considered the material submitted to his department showing the valuable assistance rendered to escaping British and United States servicemen from Hong Kong and Kowloon by the East River Column, Anti-Japanese Corps; and if he will extend some form of recognition for their services during the Japanese war.

The question of the recognition of the East River Column, Anti-Japanese Corps, is under consideration with the other departments immediately interested. His Majesty's Government desire, however, to take this opportunity of expressing their appreciation of the services rendered by the East River Column as well as other Chinese organisations in assisting persons escaping from Hong Kong.

Will the Minister make certain that all other organisations get equal recognition so that there is no unfair discrimination in the matter?

The hon. Member will note that I have referred to the other organisations.

Poland (Referendum)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a referendum is being held in Poland before the general election; whether this was provided for in the Potsdam or any other agreement; and whether His Majesty's Government and the Government of the U.S.A. have inquired into the objects and terms of this referendum and have signified their approval of such a measure.

A referendum is to be held in Poland on 30th June. It is not required by the Potsdam or Yalta agreements, which, as the House is aware, provided for the holding of free and unfettered elections. In the circumstances, the last part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Does it not appear to the Minister that this referendum is merely a device to put off holding a free and fair election until Mr. Mikolajczyk's party has been liquidated by the Communists?

I could not accept the implication, but it is fair to say that quite clearly, in the view of His Majesty's Government, this referendum is no substitute for a free and unfettered election.

Can the hon. Gentleman ascertain whether this referendum, should it take place, will be applied to Polish nationals resident in other parts of the world as well as in Poland?

If the hon. Gentleman will put down the question, if he thinks it is really necessary, I will answer it.

Has the hon. Gentleman any information regarding what this referendum is about?

Yes, I have some information. It refers primarily to the proposed constitution of a single Chamber, and also asks for an endorsement of the nationalisation measures which the present Warsaw Government are carrying out.

Travel Identity Cards (Northern Ireland)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Ulster Tourist Development Association, Limited, is greatly concerned at the number of complaints coming to hand regarding the delay which is taking place in the issue of travel permits for journeys to Northern Ireland from Great Britain; and if he will improve the present arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the continuing delay in obtaining the necessary travel identity cards for Northern Ireland; and whether he will take further steps to accelerate the delivery of these cards.

I would refer the hon. Members to the statement which I made in the House on 23rd May in reply to a question on this matter by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison). The delay in the issue of travel identity cards is a matter of anxious concern to His Majesty's Government. As the result of the measures taken at the Branch Passport Office at Glasgow, the situation there has improved. The position at the Branch Passport Office at Liverpool and at the Passport Office in London is still acute. Additional staff up to the limit of the accommodation available has been engaged. It has not yet been possible, however, to adopt the remedy successfully employed at Glasgow of obtaining separate premises for the issue of travel identity cards for Ireland, owing to the lack of suitable office accommodation.

Would it be possible to issue a travel permit within 10 days of the application being received at the transport office?

In questions of urgency, commercial or compassionate, it is always possible to issue the travel identity document quickly, sometimes within a matter of hours, but I regret that in those two other offices to which I have referred the ordinary issue is taking some days longer.

Is the Minister aware that in Glasgow many people have made applications and have had to cancel their holidays because it has taken a month to get these permits? Is he also aware that the premises in Glasgow, where people have to wait in the streets in inclement weather when applying for these cards, are a disgrace to any Government?

I am not aware that it has taken as long as a month, but following a visit which I myself made almost by accident, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say that the position in Glasgow has improved, and we have separate offices for identity cards and passports.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in London, according to information which I have received, it very often takes a month to obtain these travel identity cards?

I would not rule out the possibility that in some cases it is taking nearly as much as a month, but we are on top of the job, and if we could get additional premises it would be of great assistance to us.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the average time taken by the Permit Office to grant a permit to an applicant who desires to travel to Ireland.

At the present moment the average time taken to issue a travel identity card is three to four weeks. Travel identity cards for business or urgent compassionate journeys are granted in three or four days, or in cases of compelling urgency within a few hours.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that very often six weeks elapse before such a permit is granted, and could he give the widest publicity to the delay in order that many people who have decided to take a holiday in Ireland should not be disappointed?

I hope that as a result of this publicity, those with such intentions will apply timeously.

Royal Navy

Warrant Officers

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the names and ranks of the members of the Noble Committee and Sub-committee appointed to inquire into the future status and conditions of service of naval warrant officers, their terms of reference and the procedure for selecting witnesses; and what progress have they made in their inquiries.

The committee under the chairmanship of Admiral Sir Percy Noble, on the conditions of promotion from the lower deck in the Royal Navy mentioned in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 6th March, is continuing its investigations with an inquiry into the future of warrant officers in the several branches of the naval service. The committee is now composed as follows: Admiral Sir Percy Noble, G.B.E., K.C.B., C.V.O. (Chairman), Sir J. S. Barnes, K.B.E., C.B., Captain P. K. Enright, C.B.E., R.N., Commander R. S. Foster Brown, R.N., Mr. J. F. Mountain, and Mr. K. W. Matthews (Secretary). The committee has complete discretion in the selection of witnesses. I am not in a position at present to give any information about the progress of its investigation.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of a certain amount of dissatisfaction amongst warrant officers about the undue age of some of the witnesses who have been called, because they represent a past generation and are not putting forward the views of the present generation of warrant officers?

Quite the contrary. I have given this matter my personal consideration, and I am satisfied that the ages of the officers are by no means old ages for the rank they hold, for warrant officer rank. In fact, men junior to warrant officers have been called before this Committee, men who might in future be promoted to that rank.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether any representatives of the lower deck are sitting on this Committee?

If I send my hon. Friend the names of some warrant officers who would like to give evidence before this Committee will he consider them?

Electrical Duties Branch (Promotions)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of warrant electricians and commissioned warrant electricians, respectively, recently awarded accelerated promotion, and the amount of acceleration granted; the number of electrical lieutenants whose seniority has been antedated and the amounts; and the number of officers in this branch all of whose seniority in warrant rank is now to count as commissioned service, respectively.

Thirty-five commissioned and three warrant electricians have recently received promotion to lieutenant. These were exceptional promotions, made as part of a reorganisation of the electrical duties in the Royal Navy which is now in progress. The seniority awarded to these officers as lieutenants has been based on the revised needs of the service, and on the age and merits of the officers themselves. Their original seniority has been taken into account as an important factor, but their seniority as lieutenants has been determined by their fitness for service under the reorganisation and cannot, therefore, be regarded as an acceleration of original seniority. Seniority in warrant rank, as such, accordingly does not count as commissioned service under this scheme. In the same way, ten of the existing electrical lieutenants had their seniorities recast. Their new seniorities have in practice been more favourable to these officers by an average of 26 months.

Will the Admiralty consider applying the same principle of accelerated promotion to other branches of warrant officers in the Navy who are equally deserving of such recognition?

I will bring that to the notice of the Committee which is now sitting in regard to that subject.

In view of the rather widespread allegation that some of the outside officers who have been recruited to this branch are not very efficient, is my hon. Friend certain he has combed out the lower deck in order to provide the maximum number of promotions from that source?

Special Entry Cadets (Expenses)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make on the cost of entering the R.N. as a Special Entry Cadet.

Yes, Sir. The present system of selection of officers through the Special Entry Examination at the age of 17 to 18 involves parents of candidates in some considerable expense. The main items fall in the first year of a boy's service, when he is in the cadet stage, and amount to about £150. Arrangements have now been made for a system of grants to be available from public funds up to a maximum of the full £150 in the case of parents in the low income categories. In future, therefore, no candidate should be prevented by lack of means from joining the Navy as a Special Entry Cadet.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether this is a first instalment of the programme of what, for want of a less ugly word, I would call the democratisation of the Navy, at which he hinted in the last Navy Estimates Debate?

I can say it is a process of democratisation. There is a committee now sitting, as I have said before, inquiring into the whole system of entry at Dartmouth. That committee will report in due course to the First Lord. I might add that the number of people affected by this particular concession, the number of people who go in for this examination, form approximately 40 per cent. of the officer entry into the Navy.

No doubt for the same reason that it has been applied in the case of Dartmouth.

Questions

Level of Production

asked the Prime Minister if he will state the present level of production as compared with 1939, expressed in terms of volume.

I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the May issue of the Monthly Digest of Statistics, where figures are given showing the present level of production of the principal industries compared with 1939.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that that is no answer to the Question? Can he give me some comparable figures?

It really is no good the Government going to the trouble of publishing returns of this kind if the hon. Gentleman will not take the pains to read them.

Germany (Livestock and Poultry)

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the totals of livestock and poultry in the British zone in Germany on 1st December, 1st March and 1st June, respectively.

So far as my information goes, the livestock population remained practically constant over this period at approximately 9,000,000; this figure excludes horses. The poultry figure in December last was some 10,000,000; I have not been able to obtain later figures but it was intended to reduce them to approximately 5,000,000 by 1st June.

Could the hon. Gentleman say on what his figures are based? Is he not aware that the population of livestock and poultry is very seriously increasing because the Germans are feeding their grain to animals and to poultry?

On the contrary, there has been a considerable reduction in the livestock, and it is our policy to continue to reduce the livestock in order to save grain. It is true that at the moment that process has slowed down because of the fact that animals are being turned out to grass and are not feeding on grain. It would be folly to destroy them at this time of the year when they represent a potential supply of food.

Displaced Persons (Germany and Austria)

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements are being made to close camps for displaced persons in Germany and Austria; and if he has any statement to make as to the arrangements to be made for the further relief and rehabilitation of the men, women and children still in those camps.

We have, as yet, made no arrangements to close down assembly centres generally. Some have been closed because the number of displaced persons has declined with the progress of repatriation. When a centre is closed, any displaced persons remaining are transferred to other centres.

Would the hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the Question, with regard to rehabilitation?

The second part of the Question asks in regard to the arrangements to be made for the further relief and rehabilitation of the men, women and children still in those camps which are, presumably, to be closed down. The answer to the Question has already been given.

Could the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether there are still considerable numbers of displaced persons crossing the Eastern frontier into the British zone in Germany; and if so, what steps are being taken to avoid this happening?

The Question referred to displaced persons. I think the hon. Lady's supplementary question refers to refugees and not to displaced persons. Refugees are coming into the British zone in accordance with the quadripartite agreement for the transfer of displaced populations in Eastern Europe. They do not come into the category of displaced persons, nor are they accommodated in these camps, nor given the same status.

Food Supplies

Inshore Fishing Industry (Levy)

asked the Minister of Food if he now has any statement to make with regard to the discussions which have been taking place between his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture on the subject of levy adjustment to sustain the inshore fishing industry.

My right hon. Friend has discussed with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries the question of sustaining the in- shore fishing industry by an adjustment of the transport levy or by other means. Any scheme of this kind would be extremely difficult to carry out, and my right hon. Friend has come to the conclusion that no special steps are necessary at the present time. In any further revision of maximum prices he will bear in mind the position of the inshore fisherman.

Danish Food Parcels

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that individual food parcels are being sent from Denmark to persons in Britain and various European countries, such parcels being purchaseable with dollars in New York or in Paris, and containing butter, cream, ham and steak; approximately, what percentage of the total food exports of Denmark is represented by this traffic; and what steps are being taken to secure all available food from Denmark for the world's common stock.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the arrangements referred to. I understand that the Danish Government have limited the total amounts of butter, bacon, canned meat, canned milk and cheese which may be used in such parcels to quantities which in no case would exceed one half of one per cent. of the probable Danish exportable surpluses, and in most cases would be a much smaller percentage. His Majesty's Government is doing all that they can to enable Denmark to increase her food exports. The allocations of the Combined Food Board took full account of these exports.

However small the percentage may be, is not this a rather undesirable traffic, in so far as these parcels are not going to really hungry people but to prosperous people in countries where there are adequate rations?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we have made representations. However, he must remember that Denmark is a sovereign country.

Can the hon. Lady say why there should be any restrictions placed upon people who want to send parcels of food to this country?

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Combined Food Board is allocating food today.

In regard to the second part of the Question, is the trouble about buying food from Denmark that they want coal in exchange?

They probably want a lot of things in exchange. We are doing everything possible. We have a commission over there now, and at the moment we are considering long term contracts for bacon, butter and cheese.

Olive Oil

asked the Minister of Food why no salad oil is being imported from Italy; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure a plentiful supply in future.

At the present time Italy could supply this country with olive oil only in exchange for other vegetable oils which cannot be spared. We shall continue to seek supplies from the Mediterranean countries, but there is little prospect of obtaining olive oil without sacrificing other necessary oils.

Is it not correct that the Department of the hon. Lady ordered from Italy £2 million worth of oil and were prevented from shipping it by the Treasury?

I would remind the hon. Member that we must be practical in these matters. If Italy asks a price which we cannot afford, and at the same time asks us in return to send cheap edible oils, it would surely not be economic. The hon. Member is a business man and he would not enter into such a contract.

The hon. Lady has not answered my question. I asked whether it is a fact that her Department ordered £2 million worth of oil and were prevented from shipping it?

We may enter into negotiations, but that does not mean there is a firm order.

Will the hon. Lady bear in mind that Greece also produces fine salad oils, and that there are indications of a surplus of oil in that country?

Is the hon. Lady aware that the housewife is not concerned with the large financial dealings of the Ministry of Food with other countries, but feels that this country has contributed a certain amount towards winning the war?

Special Rations (Agricultural Workers)

54 and 55.

asked the Minister of Food (1) whether he will make provisions to enable self-employed agricultural smallholders, who do manual work on holdings not exceeding 100 acres, to draw the same additional rations as are allowed to agricultural workers employed by farmers;

(2) whether he will arrange that agricultural workers or their wives shall themselves draw the extra rations allowed to them instead of such rations being drawn by farmers and handed over to them as at present.

Self-employed agricultural smallholders are able to draw the special allowances of food for seasonal occupations such as harvesting, which all farmers may obtain for themselves and their employees. They cannot, however, obtain the special cheese ration since this was arranged primarily for packed midday meals when the employees are unable to return from their work. Smallholders can normally return to their homes at mid-day. My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot allow workers themselves to draw the extra allowances since these take the place of canteen facilities; they are not a differential ration for the individual.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the work of dividing the extra ration, especially the cheese ration, causes a good deal of inconvenience to farmers' wives, and that it is unpopular with a great many farmers and most of their employees? Bearing these considerations in mind, would she persuade her right hon. Friend to change the present regulations?

I cannot agree with that, because I understand from farmers' wives that these special allocations of cheese are very popular.

Retailers' Fruit Allocation (Disposal)

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the practice of retailers selling their total allocation of fruit after purchase at Covent Garden to hotel or other purchasers, thus depriving the consumer of his fair share; and what steps he proposes to take to curb this practice.

Although I am told that such instances have occurred, I have been unable to obtain sufficient evidence to enable action to be taken. If my hon. Friend can assist me by supplying particulars of any instances of the kind which may have been brought to his notice, I will gladly look into them.

Would the hon. Lady suggest to her enforcement officers a visit to public houses in the Covent Garden neighbourhood during market time?

Imported Fruit (Conditional Sales)

asked the Minister of Food (1) if he is aware that wholesalers compel retailers to purchase unwanted supplies when allocating to them imported fruit and tomatoes; and what steps he proposes to take to stop this practice; (2) if he is aware that retailers compel consumers to purchase unwanted supplies when purchasing imported fruit and tomatoes; and what steps he proposes to take to stop this practice

Retailers' allocations of imported fruit and tomatoes are fixed by a retail grading committee composed of representatives of all sections of the fresh fruit and vegetables distributive trade. Retailers can obtain their allocated quantities of such produce from any wholesaler holding stocks. Conditional sales, whether imposed by wholesalers or retailers, are illegal, and any attempt to impose a condition of sale should be reported to the Ministry of Food.

Is the hon. Lady satisfied that there are sufficient enforcement officers employed by the Ministry of Food to see that these infringements of the regulations do not take place?

I should like to have many more enforcement officers, but it would mean having an enforcement officer behind every hedge in the country if we are to catch every offender.

Restaurant Meals (Coupons)

asked the Minister of Food whether he will now amend the rationing system so that coupons may be surrendered for main meals taken in hotels and catering establishments.

About two-thirds of all rationed foods consumed in catering establishments are eaten in industrial canteens and in school canteens, and similar establishments for young people and service personnel. I would not be justified in requiring the surrender of coupons by these people. The balance of rationed foodstuffs consumed in all other catering establishments is so small as to have no appreciable effect on the total stocks: this balance would not justify the hardship and considerable inconvenience which the surrender of coupons would involve to the many classes of people, including manual and office workers, who have to use these establishments.

Fat (Colonial Raw Materials)

asked the Minister of Food what proportion of ground nuts, oil seeds and other fat-producing raw materials from British colonies are being shipped to this country; and what proportion to European countries, including Belgium.

The Combined Food Board allocations of oils, fats and oilseeds from British Colonies amount to 481,500 tons in terms of oil. Of this total 86 per cent. is allocated to this country and 3 per cent. to European countries, including 1,000 tons to Belgium.

Fat and Butter Rations

asked the Minister of Food if he will impress on the Combined Food Board in Washington the need for a re-allocation of oils and fats to insure against possible decreases of fat and butter rations in this country while increases are being made in other European countries.

My right hon. Friend will do his best to secure for this country a fair share of the oils and fats available for allocation by the Combined Food Board. I am not aware that increases have been made in the fat rations of other European countries.

Is the hon. Lady aware that in Belgium the fat and butter ration has recently been increased? Will the Minister make certain that there is not an allocation made which sacrifices the interests of the individual in this country to those in Europe, which is the impression gaining ground in every part of the country?

The hon. Member is misinformed. There has been no increase in the overall fat ration. There was an increase in the butter ration, but that was accompanied by a suspension of the vegetable oil ration.

Will the hon. Lady consider preparing a statement informing us what in fact is the position in these countries?

Butter Allocation (U.S. Forces)

asked the Minister of Food what amount of butter has recently been allocated from Australia or New Zealand by the Combined Food Board to U.S. Forces in the Pacific; and have His Majesty's Government agreed to the allocation.

Tentative arrangements which have not yet come before the new allocating body—International Emergency Food Council—have been made under which New Zealand will supply the American Forces in the Pacific with 10 million pounds of butter over the next six months. His Majesty's Government have agreed on the understanding that the U.S. authorities would make available to the United Kingdom equivalent quantities of fat

Departmental Staff

asked the Minister of Food if he will state the number of employees in his Department on 31st May, 1945, and on 31st May, 1946, respectively.

The total number of civil servants employed in my Department on 1st June, 1945, was 49,377. The number employed on 1st June, 1946, was 52,938.

Can the hon. Lady say how many of this vast army are employed in planning our future food supplies?

Slaughtering Policy

asked the Minister of Food when the policy concerning the slaughtering of animals for human consumption will be denned; and when a decision will be taken with regard to slaughterhouses closed during the war.

My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not yet able to make any statement with regard to long-term slaughtering policy.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the reason given for declining to reopen slaughterhouses is shortage of manpower? Is not that reason now inadequate, and will she give an assurance that there is no intention permanently to prevent the slaughterhouses being reopened?

There are other factors which enter into this. Some of these slaughterhouses are quite unfit for the slaughter of animals.

Bread

asked the Minister of Food if he will now consider the advisability of prohibiting the sale of freshly-baked bread.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) on 3rd April of which I am sending him a copy. There is nothing which I can usefully add to that reply.

Questions

B.B.C. Charter (White Paper)

In view of the Debate in another place today, I think that it may be of interest to the House to know that the Government hope in the near future to publish a White Paper on broadcasting policy in relation to the renewal of the Charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Miners' Charter (Government Policy)

The Government have reached the conclusion that to get the coal needed for our expanding industrial production and domestic consumption over the next few years, it is essential that more boys and men should voluntarily enter the coal-mining industry than has been the case in recent years. I have accordingly been considering what steps can be taken to attract additional recruits, and, in particular, the proposals made to that end by the National Union of Mineworkers in the Miners' Charter.

Certain items in the Charter cover the reorganisation of the industry together with better provision for training, health and safety, and action upon many of these is already being taken. There are also other proposals of which the most important is that for a five day week. This has always been regarded as a specially desirable reform for the coalmining industry in view of the conditions under which miners work. An organised five day week is also widely regarded by mining engineers as desirable for the efficient working of modern mechanised mining. Normally, this would have been for consideration by the industry through the established conciliation machinery.

It is clear that the present owners could not be expected to undertake the responsibility for negotiations with the union on a major issue of this kind on which any agreement reached must have far reaching effects on the future working of the industry for which they will bear no direct responsibility. Nor are the members designate of the National Coal Board, which has not been and cannot yet be legally constituted as such and has not yet the necessary staff, in a position to embark on such negotiations On the other hand, in the Government's view an early announcement on this issue is essential.

Accordingly, I take this opportunity of announcing that the Government offer no objection in principle, provided that arrangements and conditions can be established with the full cooperation of the miners, to an organised five day week of a kind which will secure the output of coal which is necessary to meet the country's needs. It is vital to attract more recruits to the industry to secure the coal supplies which we shall need over the next few years. It is equally vital to produce as much coal as possible for the country's immediate requirements. While the Government offer no objection to the proposal in principle provided there is acceptance of the conditions which will secure the necessary output, the working out of the scheme in detail, including the date of application, is a matter to be undertaken within the industry itself, and will proceed as soon as the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill becomes law and the National Coal Board is constituted.

The Miners' Charter also contained proposals for an additional week's holiday with pay and payment for the six statutory and customary holidays. The Government cannot support the proposal for an additional week's holiday in addition to that for a five day week, which, when it became operative, would generally represent one day off each week. The suggestion that payment should be made for the six statutory and customary holidays is on a different footing, provided payment for the holiday is made conditional on full attendance during the week in which it falls. As, however, it would involve payment being made before the constitution of the National Coal Board, I have been in touch with the Mining Association, and, at my request, they have agreed to enter into discussions with representatives of the National Union through the established conciliation machinery of the industry with a view to agreement being reached in regard to the method and amount of such holiday payments in time for the first payment to be made in respect of the Bank Holiday falling on 5th August.

May I ask my right hon. Friend, in relation to the training and other inducements which are to be provided, whether there is to be any announcement from the Government as to the necessity of training and the provision of work for the thousands of victims who come out of the mining industry each year, as there is no evidence that the Government are doing anything for them?

If my hon. Friend is referring to the maladies of pneumoconiosis and silicosis, I can assure him that he is misinformed. We recognise the dreadful nature of these maladies and their consequences, and particularly their effect on the number of men employed and on recruitment, but every possible step is being taken—curative steps, preventive measures and research arrangements—in order to deal effectively with these diseases, and in no place is more effective work being undertaken than in South Wales.

What I had particularly in mind was the provision of alternative work for these thousands of victims for whom there is no evidence yet of anything decisive being done.

Well then, all I can say is if my hon. Friend feels that he is not mistaken—

If my hon. Friend feels that he is not mistaken, or even if he is certain that he is not mistaken, he has not been watching the negotiations between the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the South Wales Miners' Federation. We have had several conferences on this subject. We have arranged for research work in South Wales and curative measures are in operation, and, what is more important, alternative work is now being arranged through the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Works.

In view of the probability that nationalisation will lead to an increase of boards of control and management, will the Minister assure us that it is not the intention of the Government to arrange economic policy in advance of their coming into action, and without regard to the economic consequences?

I do not know anything about an increase in the number of boards associated with the mining industry. There is to be one board and one alone. As regards planning in advance, that is certainly the Government's intention. They have no intention of planning when it is too late.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very deep feeling in the mining industry that there will never be any increase in the production of coal until the five day week is established?

I am well aware of the desire of the mineworkers to have a five day week introduced, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are as anxious to promote the five day week as are the mineworkers themselves. It is merely a question of negotiations and the time.

Where production can be shown to be increased by a five day week will the Minister consider allowing those particular collieries to undertake this provision as soon as possible?

The five day week is to operate universally. To embark on a piecemeal scheme would, I think, be disadvantageous. At any rate, these are matters for negotiation on the detailed working of the scheme as between the interests in the industry.

May I ask my right hon. Friend if, in addition to the arrangements he contemplates, he is making endeavours to obtain additional food rations for the miners?

We are anxious to supply additional food rations for everybody, but there are certain circumstances outside our control as the hon. Member is aware. As regards the mineworkers, this matter has been represented to the appropriate Government Department, and we are doing everything we can to step up the amount of food and the arrangements in the canteens.

I think this is an important matter which should be the subject of a Debate. Could not the right hon. Gentleman arrange with the Leader of the House for a day within the next month before the House rises for the Summer Recess to have a full Debate on this matter?

My hon. Friend is well aware that this matter is not one for me. It is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I have no objection to a Debate at any time.

New Member Sworn

Lieutenant Charles Heron Mullan, M.A., R.N.V.R., for the County of Down.

Orders of the Day

Supply

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Civil Estimates, 1946

Class VI

Ministry of Civil Aviation

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £13,000,000, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Civil Aviation."—[Note, £9,000,000 has been voted on account.]—[ Mr. Glenvil Holl. ]

Civil Aviation

3.45 p.m.

A Standing Committee of this House is at the present moment—at all sorts of odd hours occasioned by the action of the Government in over-loading their legislative programme—considering a Bill to nationalise civil aviation. To many of us on that Committee it appears that we are engaged in doing the best week's work we have ever done for American aviation. Today we are considering other activities of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, activities which would have been enormously helped had a small proportion of the labour and devotion given by the Government to devising new means of preventing and punishing initiative and enterprise been turned on to getting aeroplanes produced and into the air, and our airlines started. I think nobody on either side of the Committee would deny that the most important move of the present moment in the field of civil aviation, is to be able to fly British and sell British aeroplanes in the Empire and to our foreign customers. Nobody, I think, will deny that the task of the Government in trying to accelerate the speed with which civil aircraft are produced, is very much easier than that of their predecessors, who found, at every turn when trying to produce a modest programme of civil aviation even a year ago, operational interests of the first importance and Lend Lease difficulties with the United States preventing a start being made on our development of civil aviation. Neither of these difficulties now applies, and it is extremely difficult for a layman and many others who know something about it to understand the reasons which still hold up the supply of planes on which British airlines and those of friendly nations are alike depending.

A number of my hon. Friends will ask specific questions about various types in which they are interested. I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply is here, and I hope he will be able during the Debate to deal in detail with these various types. I want to make only a brief reference. There are three Government Departments engaged in ordering aircraft—the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Ministry of Supply, and the Treasury. It certainly seems to many of us that some part of the delay, indeed, a considerable part of the delay in getting civil aeroplanes produced is the multiplicity of Government organisations which in some cases, altogether supplant the operators themselves, and always intervene between the operators and the manufacturers. I should like to ask whether the Government have failed to realise the significance of the fact that one of the most successful light civil aircraft produced in this country is the de Havilland Dove, which, produced as a private venture without any Government subsidy, has succeeded already in securing for itself, through the activities of that private company orders to the total value of no less than £2 million. It is an unsubsidised private venture, left to the enthusiasm of a firm to promote, and to sell.

On the other side of the picture, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether any order has yet been given for the very important Miles Marathon aircraft, an aircraft, which is necessary in the middle scale of aircraft, an aeroplane on which the firm have been working for a long time and which is now in the air but not I believe in full production. If an order has been given, when was that order given, and what was the size of that order? We on this side of the Committee have the utmost confidence in the ability of the British aircraft industry to produce the goods in peace, as they did so triumphantly in war. It is I suppose about 98 per cent. a private industry and I am told that it has been informed in private conversation, by various Ministers that it is likely to remain so for a long time. No sword of Damocles hangs over its head. No doubt, having regard to the susceptibilities of their supporters. Ministers have confined this statement to the firms and have never given it to the public or to the House of Commons. Private firms can take a certain ironic solace in the fact, based on certain happenings now going on in the Rochester area in the county of Kent, that Government ownership of an aircraft company does not guarantee a monopoly of happiness and smooth harmony to the workers. It is an interesting commentary on what is going to happen alike in production and the location of industry, when all our workers and ourselves have been turned into State slaves.

So much for types—though we reserve the right, as this Debate continues, to ask a series of detailed questions about various other types on the manufacture of which we have been engaged for a very long time. In regard to production in general, I would like to welcome, on behalf of the Opposition, the agreement made with the French Government to re-equip the French Air Force with British aircraft. I myself was associated a little with the early talks that went on, in Coalition Government days, and in very much more difficult circumstances. I am delighted that those talks have come to a successful conclusion. I am happy to know that the comradeship that the Free French Air Force established with our Royal Air Force in the war is to be continued into the days of peace. It is a happy augury for the future cooperation of our two countries.

What is the use to which we are to put those aircraft when we have them? That is the main purpose of this Debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation used words which I think were singularly inappropriate coming from one reared and steeped in an exact classical tradition, when he described the three Corporations as merchant adventurers of the air. I am amused when I think of what Drake, Raleigh and other Elizabethans would have thought, if they had been tendered tens of millions, of pounds of public money and given a tight monopoly in all their operations and if there had been no competition from home, and not even the ultimate sanction which fell upon one of them when he proved to be unpopular in high places. I think they would have remained at home. Any competitor to those three Corporations will be liable to a fine of £5,000, with the option of two years in gaol, if he attempts to show the Corporations how much better he could conduct their business. Those private competitors are to be penalised if they show activity and enterprise of that sort.

Since the Bermuda Agreement, there is to be apparently very little restriction on foreign competition. The Government are finding that it still remains a very wicked world, in spite of the advent of the British Socialist Government since the last General Election. Although we can threaten to fine our own people £5,000 if they should take to the air and try to emulate the merchant adventurers of past centuries, we cannot apply the same sanctions to our foreign competitors. It is important that the Committee should be made aware of this feature of the situation brought about by the Bermuda Agreement, because it is one that has passed with comparatively little notice, even among those Socialist cohorts who believed that the coming of a Labour Government in England would mean that we should have international civil aviation all over the world. At a later stage, I hope to deal in more detail with the Bermuda Agreement and to put one or two questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. At this point I content myself with saying that however many safeguards have been introduced, there will be no security of any real value as to regulation of the number of frequencies of the service between the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. We have also, subject to some safeguards, surrendered that fifth freedom which, with the consent of all parties, the Coalition Government fought so vigorously to maintain.

Once we have got aeroplanes and once we are able to "fly British" and sell aircraft to other people, what use do we intend to make of them? I must be careful not to transgress the rules of Order by dealing with the Bill which is now being considered in Committee, but I think it would be in order to say that the Opposition have always regarded that Bill as the first stage in illegalising any outside activities by anyone other than the corporations. If the Government are forced by public clamour to allow certain activities, they will try first to hamper them all along the line, and to make them as unremunerative as possible. If, even then, the private individual, through his resilience and enterprise, succeeds in making a profit, it will be the policy of the Government to collar that profit and the trade, and turn the enterprising operator out of business. There are many ways in which the Government can make it difficult for private aviators to get into the air. The Committee might be interested to hear what happened about three weeks ago to one of the most enterprising of our new companies which is attempting, by its charter work, to link up the United Kingdom with different parts of the British Empire, and with countries in the Near East and elsewhere, where there are strong British interests. That company is called Skyways, and is operating a service between London and Basra. As a result of a contract made between Skyways and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the company will fly back men and women living in Abadan in Persia and working for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, whether they are on leave or on business. That will enable the company's personnel to keep in close touch with the mother country. That is surely a desirable objective, and one which the Government should be glad to encourage.

The Skyways air company took the precaution of getting very respectable backing. They asked the B.O.A.C. to be their traffic-handling agents throughout the world. Their first flight was planned to take place recently and, since the B.O.A.C. were their agents, they thought they would be allowed to start off from Northolt. They were told that they could not start from Northolt, although their passengers had already been told that they would. The reason given was that if Skyways were allowed to do so, permission would have to be given to everybody else. The Skyways company are flying Yorks. The number of Charter companies that will be flying Yorks will be very limited. It seems rather silly to penalise a firm flying that type of aircraft, which is a very big one, on the ground that other companies would also want to clutter up Northolt. The company then asked if they could start from Hum where there was plenty of room. They were told no. At the last minute the Skyways Company turned to the pri- vate firm. Hawkers, and asked them for permission to use the Langley landing ground for the take-off for their flight to Basra. Hawkers are more lucky than Faireys who had an excellent flying ground at Heathrow which has been confiscated. They have their own aerodrome still. They agreed to allow the plane to take off from Langley. It meant driving the various officials and a lot of luggage from Northolt to Langley, but that was done. No sooner were the passengers settled down in the aircraft on what they thought was to be an uninterrupted virgin flight to Basra than they were told that as there were no Customs facilities at Langley they would have to come down at Manston, a Customs port, and there clear the Customs. All this took nearly as long as a three-days round trip between London, Cairo and Basra was to take. I ask the Committee to realise that this sort of thing is happening. If it happens on what should have been a highly advertised, and advertising, ambassadorial service, what is to happen when we get into what is called running order? I ask that question, not only from the point of view of operators who are anxious to get on with their business for the good name of Great Britain, but also from the point of view of their customers

What is happening now to customers? Those of us who travel a great deal over the world, and are glad to do so, have received nothing but courtesy and friendliness from the staff of B.O.A.C, all over the world. We are put in a very difficult position, having been given every facility and personal kindness, in having to criticise the services. It is a fact that many of them are not very happy at the growth of red tape that is beginning to surround their activities. They are beginning to see in their large and growing organisation, all those signs of State control which have characterised the Post Office and which seem inseparable from Government organisation. I came back lately from the Middle East, and last week from Paris, and I will give the Committee one or two of my personal experiences and feelings. In Cairo, I was one of a very few passengers going to Bagdad. My address was known. Was it really necessary to get me up at five o'clock in the morning, take me out to an aerodrome and keep me waiting there for three hours and then to say that there would be no flight and would I return next day, when the same uncertainty would prevail? I was going to "fly British" but, if I had had no patriotic obligations, I would have gone straight round to some other service to see if they were able to help me.

No, it was not due to the weather. It was due to the grounding of another aircraft, and the need to get a ground engineer to that aircraft at the expense of the passengers on the other flight. What happened? Some days ago another hon. Member and myself went to Paris, and, for the return journey, tried to book for the first aeroplane from Paris. We were given quickly tickets at the booking office which were marked in the old secret code—J.Z., or J. some-thing-or-other—with no indication of the time at which we were likely to leave. We were told to be at Le Bourget at 11.30 a.m., and to be more certain we went to the office in the Place Vendôme, where we were told that "J.Z." was the code designation for three different flights and that they would have to contact headquarters to find out to which flight we belonged. We found out that it was Flight 1. Next day we were told that we should have to go miles out to the Rue Lafayette for weighing and checking up on luggage. We went there, were weighed, our luggage was seen to and labelled with Air France labels, although we were travelling on a B.O.A.C. service. We were dealt with from a grubby little table in a far corner of the room which was apparently the only place B.O.A.C. had in the Air France headquarters. We asked why we could not have been driven straight to Le Bourget, and were told that there were no facilities at Le Bourget for weighing passengers and we had to go to the Place Vendôme. No wonder the old servants on the "Golden Arrow," when we asked them if they were afraid of air competition gave us an amused smile and said, "We have not lost any of the old customers yet, but we are getting a lot of new ones as well."

There is another recollection which I would like to bring to the notice of the Committee. It concerns someone known to me who flew last week from Dublin to London. The Dublin—London service is one of the last flights on which the Union Jack will be seen in Eire. In the normal way, it would have come down at Speke and passengers would take a train from Liverpool, but, owing to the weather, they could not do that and the plane came down at the R.A F. Station at Hawarden. Someone rang up Speke and said there were a lot of passengers there and asked whether they could have a car to get them to the train. The reply was that they could not do that, because there were not facilities at Hawarden for clearing the passengers for Customs. The officer in charge said he was prepared to arrange for an armed guard to go with them to make sure that they do not leave any bottles of scent or pounds of butter which they may have obtained in Dublin and get away without being detected. Even this offer was turned down; the passengers were kept there for hours, eventually taken on too late, lost the train to London, and had to spend the night in a Liverpool hotel.

Many of us feel that this sort of difficulty will be multiplied every day when the service is not subjected to competition and the incentives to personal reward which are inseparable from efficient service. I would give one further illustration of the way in which uncertainty about Government intentions and control is preventing our getting going. It concerns an aerodrome in a remote part of the United Kingdom, about which a Question was asked, though the answer passed almost unnoticed in the House recently. The Parliamentary Secretary was asked why the aerodrome was not in running order. Nobody knows which aerodromes the Government will take over. The answer of the Parliamentary Secretary was that the difficulty at Sollas has been that the responsibility is either with the landowner or with Scottish Airways, and they are not willing, in view of the possible acquisition of this aerodrome by the State, to undertake the work. That does show the way in which uncertainty of Government intentions is preventing the speeding-up of our home services. We shall never get going on our international services on that basis. It is, to borrow a parallel from the activities of trading, necessary to get going on our home market in order to get the experience for exports overseas.

All these activities ought to be properly housed. There ought to be in London a central office for visitors which will give them the feeling that Great Britain is on top of the world in civil aviation. I have no quarrel with the Government's determination to go ahead with Heathrow as London's main airport. I deplore the controversy, which is starting again, whether it was a good decision or not. It was taken a long time ago, during the war, and at a time when we were beginning to view that problem largely from the transport point of view, and not from the fighter or bomber point of view. Heathrow was chosen as a good aerodrome for long-distance transport, for people going to the Far East, and, obviously, at the back of the mind of our people in those days was the idea that it would really be a fine airport for civilian use. I hope the Government will press on with it. Though, at the moment it looks like Hampstead Heath, I hope that one day it will turn out to be the finest aerodrome in the world, to which visitors will come and where they will be given a proper welcome, since the bulk of them will come quite without sentiment and only desiring to go where business is good. At the moment the arrangements at Northolt for dealing with passengers and luggage seem very good. But we want something bigger and better as a centre in the heart of London. I have never heard anyone give a good reason against it, and I know that many informed people regard Earls Court as an ideal centre for an air transport centre. I believe the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary so regard it. I know many people in the Department do and many people in B.O.A.C. who agree, and I am sure that we are knocking at an open door in pressing that this matter ought to be once more reviewed. It has been turned down before because of the needs of the British Industries Fair and other exhibitions of that kind, but, however important it is to get a good place for the buying and selling of British goods to overseas buyers, what is more important is that visitors when they arrive here should be impressed with their first sight of London, and I think they would be impressed with the service which could be offered them at Earls Court.

What are the alternatives? To stay as we are is impossible. The present service is inadequate and it only deals with 800 arrivals and departures a day. Next year, the present Minister of Civil Aviation says, there will be 3,000 departures and arrivals every day, which will increase every day until, by 1951, it will reach about 8,000. I hope the Government will look into this matter. The Board of Trade seems to have stifled it, and we cannot help thinking that it may be due to the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in India, and that some encyclical has been sent from Delhi that the Earls Court site must not be given up. The Government may be assured that they will have the full cooperation of the Opposition in this matter.

I am not certain of the ownership, but I am sure that arrangements could be made. I am glad to see this solicitude for private property. While we are worrying about all sorts of details that do not really matter, and indulging in penal laws to prevent enterprise and restrictive covenants of every kind, and not really getting on as we should be in London either at Heathrow or at Earls Court, what are our friendly competitors doing? They are spanning the world. The American story is known to everybody Scarcely less remarkable are the achievements of the Dutch who were overrun completely by the Germans, who had their aerodromes destroyed, their plants ransacked, and who, one would have thought, would have been reduced to such a state for years after the war that they would have lacked all those qualities of initiative and drive that first made them a great imperial force. Not a bit of it. They have got going completely and they too are now beginning to span the world through their Atlantic service They have revived their services to the Far East where we can count on sympathetic consideration between our two countries, and where our problems are similar. Those have been got going in a good way. Surely our Government do not want to be behind?

When the present Government succeeded to the responsibility for civil aviation they found a fairly well worked out scheme for Imperial and international agreements. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, will give credit where credit is due, and when some of the agreements in which he is now taking proper pride—though not all—are published, perhaps he will say how the spade work for those agreements was done by his predecessors at a time when they also had to tight the Germans and the Japanese. First we made Imperial agreements. Lord Swinton at Montreal, prior to the International Conference at Chicago, reached almost completely working arrangements with all the Dominions except Canada, who has a separate agreement of a slightly different kind. An Imperial Corporation was set up and it was agreed with all the Dominions—Canada again having a different approach—that there should be parallel partnerships, each partner in the Empire nominating the company that it wished to operate on its behalf. For example, in South Africa, South African Airways and B.O.A.C. went into agreement on services between South Africa and the United Kingdom, undertaking to use the same aeroplanes and agreeing also to limit and fix the number of services. We offered all the Dominions joint operating companies but they preferred to see how the other plan worked out.

Are those parallel partnerships still in existence? Lately we have had an announcement, to which I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman will give more prominence, that the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand on the one hand—and Canada on the other—have now formed another company to operate a trans-Pacific service. We would like more information about that. Does it mean that the Canadian Government have altered their view? Is this a joint company or is it a company in parallel partnership? It is a matter of the greatest importance, not least because if you consult a globe, you will see curiously enough that Aberdeen—to take one port in the United Kingdom—appears almost to be a Pacific port from the point of view of the Great Circle and the swiftest of air transport.

So much for Imperial arrangements. At Chicago we agreed on a series of standard Clauses which appear almost in extenso and unaltered in the various agreements, made by the present Government. Those standard Clauses were drawn up by Great Britain and are largely our achievement, and they represent an introduction of the rule of law and order into the air. The conference broke down, unhappily, because the Americans regarded our desire to regulate traffic as being restrictive and said that, as we wanted to control frequencies, we were attempting to put the brake on what must be an expanding and elastic service. Also we did not like the American fifth freedom, which would give the operators on trunk routes the right to come down in this country—and reciprocal rights as well—and pick up passengers and take them a further stage on their trunk route, possibly depriving the local and regional service of the cream of their traffic. The Chicago Conference broke down because, in short, we insisted on frequencies being controlled, and disliked the fifth freedom.

A few weeks ago we signed a very remarkable agreement at Bermuda which has not yet been discussed in the House of Commons, though there were one or two questions asked about it when the Parliamentary Secretary announced it at Question time some months ago. There has been a Debate in another place but, owing to the absence abroad of the Minister of Civil Aviation, the Secretary of State for the Dominions, who answered that Debate, did not attempt to deal in any detail with the very important questions put to him from the Conservative benches. I would be grateful, therefore, if the Parliamentary Secretary would answer carefully these various points, because the Bermuda Agreement is probably the most important agreement in the air that the United Kingdom is ever likely to make, apart from our Imperial solidarity agreement, and is one from which all future agreements will largely take their form. As I understand it, the United States have agreed for one year only—after that they are free to do what they like—to accept the rates of the International Air Transport Association, and this brings to an end for a few months more the fear of price cutting in the Atlantic service. In return, we have given up our rigid insistence on the control of frequencies and any attempt to relate in a fixed form services and capacity to orders. We have also given up our insistence on the fifth freedom, and have allowed it with certain safeguards. The safeguards were rather difficult to understand, so I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could give some explanation. Anyhow, the "New York Times," commenting on this agreement, said that there had been an unexpectedly liberal application of the so-called fifth freedom. Now the sort of problems that worry us are these if, say, one thousand people want to cross the Atlantic in any one week. As a result of the Bermuda Agreement, is it the intention that the United Kingdom and the United States should agree on a load factor that will be sufficient to meet that need of one thousand a week and not more than sufficient for it; and then agree on the capacity required; and then agree how to divide that capacity? And is it then agreed that that capacity should be divided up on a fifty-fifty basis? I might point out, as most hon. Members know who follow these things carefully, that if you agree on a load factor of about 60 per cent. as it is often increased in practice, you allow a quite substantial traffic which the more enterprising company can pick up, and so get advantages that way.

That is the first set of questions, and they are absolutely vital to a proper understanding of what is happening. The Dominions Secretary contented himself by saying that all would be well because, in effect, we were both reasonable countries, this was a gentleman's agreement, and we would all act like gentlemen. We want something more definite than that and I think we are entitled to an assurance today. There is another point which is very important. Before the war we had, unfortunately, very few trans-Atlantic airliners and it is not impossible at this moment that the proportions are much more likely to be 75 per cent. American and 25 per cent. British, based on the fact that we have so few airliners, and many of the ones we have are, in fact, American Constellations. If the Americans agree to the first part of my question, will they, once we have the aircraft, take aircraft off that route in order to bring our services up? That might be read into I think the third paragraph of the Bermuda Agreement when it talks about a fair division, but we want a definite assurance on that point.

Then again in regard to the fifth freedom, does this include cabotage in the Colonial Empire? Cabotage is the carrying trade in the home market. Obviously no foreigner will come and go from London to Glasgow except, possibly, as part of the fifth freedom on the final hop of a journey to Glasgow or an interim hop on a journey to the United States. We want to know if the whole Colonial Empire is, as was agreed at the Imperial Conference at Montreal to rank for cabotage just as the Americans insisted that it should rank when they were dealing with their own dependencies near the United States itself. We are anxious about this because there will be a big carrying trade between the United Kingdom and say West Africa. Incidentally, we hope the cancellation of those services to West Africa, on the grounds that we have no meteorological officers available is only a temporary and brief phenomenon.

We are alarmed by all this, not so much by what we have been told in this country but because of what we have read in the United States. The chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board has made a statement lately which I think ought to be announced to the Committee. No doubt that statement represents what he thinks has happened. He said: wards we made an agreement with France of a very different kind. In that agreement there is an undertaking to regulate frequencies. We do not quite know what represents the Government's policy in this matter. Under the French agreement we share the traffic equally with France. As far as possible we are going to try to regulate in advance the capacity on the Anglo-French services relating it to orders. It is more difficult to do that for the French Colonial Empire than for metropolitan France, but there is to be a definite attempt to try to do it.

There is an agreement with Turkey which provides for air services between Ankara and London and back again. We would like to know whether a joint company is proposed here as well, and are we negotiating some such arrangement with Turkey? I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us a little about the American arrangement with Turkey. There are all sorts of rumours that a contract has been signed whereby America will run Turkish civil aviation for a lengthy period and give all instruction to air pilots in that country. There are rumours of a joint operating company. I would like to know whether we are doing the same sort of thing. As to the agreement with Portugal, I agree what was said in another place. This excellent agreement will unite Portugal in Europe and Portugal in Africa even more closely to the British people. There is another equally good agreement with the Argentine, which will be even better if the rumours which we hear are true, that the Argentine airlines are likely to buy British aircraft.

There is also an agreement with Egpyt, although this has not yet been published, or at any rate, there has been no White Paper published about it. I shall welcome that White Paper and I hope that it will come soon, although no doubt the discussions now taking place in Cairo also have a bearing on the publication of any formal agreement. The rumours that have reached hon. Members about that agreement are as follows. A joint company is being set up, composed of the Misra Air Company, which is the Egyptian company, and the B.O.A.C., to function as Egyptian Airways, in which British Overseas Airways and the Misra Company will each have a fifty-fifty capital interest. This company will have exclusive rights from Cairo to the United Kingdom and non-exclusive rights from Cairo elsewhere. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with that matter and to tell us what arrangements the United States have made with the Cairo Government, both in regard to air services and the future of the airfield near Cairo. I am concerned to know what is to happen to Payne Field. When dealing with this matter, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will scotch rumours that King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia has signed a 30 years' monopoly agreement with the United States, giving the United States exclusive rights throughout the whole territory in which, in the past, British arms have played a large part in Arab liberation. I would like to have further information about the arrangement with Greece, and I would like to know whether it is proposed to have a joint operating company between England and Greece.

I have dealt with a large number of agreements which have been spread in signature over a good many weeks, but two agreements have roused much more criticism than all the others. I think the criticism of the Italian agreement is based on a misunderstanding, and, unless the Parliamentary Secretary says something that disturbs me, I have very little doubt that it is a very good agreement. The same cannot be said about the Irish Agreement, which I shall come to last. With regard to the Italian agreement, I think I am right in saying that, although we have a minority status, a 40 per cent. share, in the Anglo-Italian Company, it is exactly the same as the arrangements they have made with America. America has a 40 per cent. interest in a joint company operating Italian internal airlines. We have a 40 per cent. share in a company operating external airlines. We have also, I suppose, rights for services between London and Rome and elsewhere which will be on a 50 per cent. basis, 50 per cent. being held by the United Kingdom and 50 per cent. by the Anglo-Italian company, in which we have a 40 per cent. share. Is this so? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will clear up that matter. Will he tell us whether there are any limitations on the use of Italian airfields, and has Italian sovereignty in airfields been in any way whittled away or given up?

Lastly, I should like to deal with the Irish agreement. Nothing of what one can say about the other treaties can be said in regard to the agreement with Ireland. There is the very gravest disquiet on these Benches, and, I think, on the Benches opposite, about some of the terms and implications of this agreement. Certainly, in the country as a whole there is very widespread ignorance of exactly what we have undertaken to do. We have formed with the Government of Southern Ireland an Anglo-Irish Company—actually it is an Irish-English company. They have 60 per cent. of the shares of the company, and we have 40 per cent. We are in a minority permanently. They have an absolute monopoly of all air services between London and Dublin, and Dublin—London and Dublin—Belfast to Liverpool, and Dublin—Belfast to Crewe. In addition to that, they have a non-monopoly right, I gather, to various towns in Europe, such as Paris and Rome. The sharing of profits seems to be a little strange. We share the profits and losses on the Anglo-Irish trade; we share the losses on the European trade, and only get 40 per cent. of the profits. However, I do not want to argue this precisely on grounds of profit and loss. There is a complete misunderstanding in some parts of Scotland as to what the agreement means. Some weeks ago, the "Irish Post" wrote:

London—Crewe and Liverpool via Belfast—Dublin, and London direct to Dublin.

The point I want to clear up is how this applies to Scotland—from Scotland, either Renfrew or Prestwick, to Dublin?

That is what I would like to know. I am going to quote something which makes me feel that any other company would not be able to fly from Scotland to Dublin, although if the Parliamentary Secretary says that I am wrong, I shall be delighted. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. A very important part of our national flag comes from the Scottish cross. Mr. Lemass, the Minister of Commerce in Dublin, said a few weeks ago:

"An important consequence of this agreement is that no airliner under the British flag will be able to operate between Britain and Eire."

That is pretty specific. Scottish airliners fly the British flag. He added—this was rubbing it in—

"Aircraft bearing the Irish flag will in future be operating regular services between Belfast and Liverpool and Belfast and Crewe."

This means—and I think it is absolutely monstrous—that the Union Jack, to which, far more than her neutrality, Southern Ireland owes her survival in the war, is now absolutely banned on all Anglo-Southern Irish air services. If I am wrong—I hope I am—I shall be glad to hear it from the Parliamentary Secretary. Some of my hon Friends, and, in particular, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) will deal with Rhineanna and the effect on Prestwick and elsewhere of the possible diversion of the Atlantic route. There are all sort of other doubts with which I will not detain the House. We are very unhappy about this agreement, and it was mostly in order that fresh light, or, rather, first light, could be thrown upon it that we asked the Government to give us a Supply Day on which to discuss the Vote of the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

4.31 p.m.

The opening remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) have passed over my head to my colleagues. I shall convey to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air his generous remarks about cooperation with the French Air Force and I hope that, at a later stage in the Debate, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply will succeed in catching your eye, Major Milner, in order to reply to points which could more appropriately be answered by him than by me. If it should then be the case that certain other points are raised in the Debate which it would be useful for me to clear up, I trust that I may succeed in catching your eye for a very brief space indeed at the end of the Debate for that specific purpose. At the outset of his speech the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford quoted my remarks about merchant adventurers. I was more careful than he realised in making those remarks for, at the same time, I pointed out that Drake's ships were publicly owned and furnished. I do not think that public enterprise is incompatible with adventure, and, if I may repeat some words of the Lord President of the Council, with which, I am sure, the hon. Member will agree., the important thing is that enterprise, whether public or private, should be enterprising.

The hon. Gentleman made our air agreements and the policy of participating in the air lines of other countries the main burden of his remarks, and I shall make them the main burden of mine also. He prefaced his remarks with one or two observations, and I should like to clear them out of the way before I turn to the main part of what I have to say. He emphasised the importance of having a good collecting centre for traffic in London, and advanced arguments in favour of Earls Court as that centre. I am in entire agreement with him on this matter. It is most desirable that there should be a centre in the middle of London where passengers can collect and be transported to the airport by the Corporation's transport, or by other arrangements, and Earls Court answers that purpose admirably. It has several good rail connections, it is sufficiently large for the purpose and it is near to the Cromwell Road which will, in due course, be extended so as to give first-class road connection with the London Airport and Northolt. Therefore, I very much agree with him in emphasising the virtues of Earls Court as such a centre. These facts are admitted by all my colleagues in the Government, but this is one of those many cases where there is a conflict of interest. In this particular case, the conflict of interest is with the British Industries Fair. In the interests of the export trade, it is most important that this fair should be held next year as planned and, after an exhaustive search, the Government could find no other suitable place except Earls Court in which to hold it. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Olympia?"] The possibility of using Olympia was fully examined, but we came to the conclusion that it would not be satisfactory. Some of the reasons which make it unsatisfactory as a collecting centre for air passengers apply also to its use in connection with the British Industries Fair. The possibility remains that when the British Industries Fair has been held Earls Court may be made available for the purpose of a collecting centre. I cannot say; it is looking too far ahead.

I think the hon. Gentleman is misinformed with regard to Olympia. I was on the committee dealing with the question, and Olympia as well as Earls Court is required.

That is the case. What I should perhaps have said, more exactly, is that Olympia will not by itself answer the needs of the British Industries Fair.

The British Industries Fair is a recurring proposition and, therefore, the same thing will happen next year, or the year after. That being so, it is no solution.

By 1947 it would not be possible to find another suitable site. If we are looking farther ahead, then we have more time to search for, or even to build, a suitable place. The hon. Gentleman then turned to the question of the London Airport. I was very glad to hear that he does not indulge in many of the criticisms that have been made about it. He agrees that it is a very good airport, and that is my own opinion. I was hoping that he would endorse some of the criticisms that have been made, because I should like to reply to them. I cannot refrain from mentioning one criticism which has been made, about the lay-out of the runways, because I think there has been a good deal of ill-informed criticism on this subject.

The decision to make Idlewild, the New York airport, on the tangential pattern was taken after much Debate and it was only by a narrow margin that a decision in favour of a tangential system, as opposed to a parallel system, was taken. The argument is, roughly, that there is greater need for navigational aids in the use of a tangential system because there are converging runways on which aircraft may be landing simultaneously, and if two aircraft are forced to overshoot simultaneously there may be danger of a collision. On the other hand rather more aircraft can be handled in the tangential system than in the parallel. The upshot is that in countries where the weather is good there may be an advantage in the tangential system. We cannot claim to have continuously good weather in this country; indeed, we must be prepared for a number of days when the weather is very bad.

Might I interrupt the hon. Gentleman and mention Prestwick?

It is this argument which has made the Government come to the conclusion that the view of their predecessors was right, and that the London Airport should be built on the parallel system.

I will now turn to the air agreements which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. He has endorsed the joint company which is to be formed with Italy, but has offered certain criticisms of the proposed Anglo-Eire Company. Both these companies are examples of the policy of participation in the airlines of other countries and it may set the Debate in its proper perspective if I first give an outline of this joint policy. Agreements made under this policy may range from arrangements for giving managerial and technical advice on a commercial basis to joint companies in which one of the British Corporations has a substantial capital holding and is proportionately represented on the Board. In Iraq, a national company, Iraqi Airways, has been formed with B.O.A.C. as technical advisers. Similar arrangements were made last year in the Lebanon where a national company, Middle East Airlines, is operating with technical advice and help from B.O.A.C. There is a growing demand from all Middle Eastern countries who are entering civil aviation for the first time, to seek the help of the British Corporation. In the Sudan, a national company, Sudan Airways, is being formed for services radiating from Khartoum, and, in this case, a British firm, Airwork, Ltd., is to be responsible for the flying and technical services on a management basis.

The Egyptian Council of Ministers—the hon. Gentleman asked a question about this—recently approved the heads of an agreement for the formation, for an initial period of 15 years, of an Anglo-Egyptian company to be known as Egyptian Airways. I think there was a misunderstanding in the hon. Gentleman's mind; we have not yet signed a bilateral agreement with the Egyptian Government, and when that is negotiated it will, of course, be published as a White Paper. Arrangements have been made for this Anglo-Egyptian company and such arrangements would not normally be published because they are commercial transactions entered into by the British Corporation.

I was just coming to that. The capital is to be ££250,000, and is to be found in equal shares by B.O.A.C. and Misr Airwork, the Egyptian national company. This company will have exclusive rights for the operation of air services between Egypt and the United Kingdom, and will be granted nonexclusive rights to operate such other services originating in Egypt as the national company, Misr Airwork, are unable or unwilling to undertake.

When the hon. Gentleman speaks of national companies, does he mean that they are owned by the Government in question, or are merely under the auspices of that Government? Are they owned by private individuals or by Governments?

They are not necessarily State-owned, but are substantially owned by nationals of the country concerned, or by their Government.

It is important, in considering this question, to know what those companies are doing. Are they State-owned or only private companies?

We are not concerned with that matter this afternoon. In this case, the Misr Bank is the principal shareholder in Misr Airwork.

On the other side of the world, Tasman Empire Airways is a tripartite company with capital provided by B.O.A.C., Australia and New Zealand. When my Noble Friend was in New Zealand recently, he made arrangements for a joint company, British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines, to be formed by the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand for operating trans-Pacific trunk services. Finally, there are the Anglo-Egyptian and Anglo-Eireann companies to which I shall refer in a few moments. Perhaps I ought to say before passing on, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the subject, that there have been discussions about an Anglo-Greek company, but they have not yet reached any definite stage.

The advantages of this policy are manifold. It enables the British Corporation to coordinate its services with those of other countries. Such participation has only been sought in cases where there is a fair chance of a return on the investment, but there are other considerations besides direct monetary return. Such arrangements are mutually advantageous. They provide feeder traffic for the Corporation's trunk lines, and establish main trunk connections for local communities. They provide opportunities to demonstrate the excellence of British aircraft and equipment and so to stimulate our export markets, especially for medium and light aircraft. They provide openings for British technicians and managers, and they help to ensure that British aircraft will receive proper service on the trunk routes. The advantages of this are not, of course, entirely one-sided. British participation gives to the oversea companies the benefit of vast experience and saves them from many costly errors. Some of these arrangements have been criticised on the ground that the British holding is a minority holding. From the description I have given, it will be seen that the British holding could not properly be a majority. These are overseas companies, generally foreign companies in which a majority British holding would be strongly and rightly resented—just as strongly as we should resent it if a foreign country obtained control of B.O.A.C.

Is not that exactly the position we are accepting vis-à-vis Ireland?

I shall be dealing with that in a short while. These companies would fail in their purpose if they did not have the goodwill of the countries concerned. There would also be international complications. The hon. Gentleman has asked me to pay tribute to the work of our predecessors in office, which I gladly do, but one of the things to which Lord Swinton committed the United Kingdom at the Chicago Conference was Resolution VIII of the Final Act, which lays down in Number 7 of the Standard Clauses that a country may refuse rights to the air lines of another country if it is not substantially owned and effectively controlled by the latter's own nationals.

I have our copy of No. 7, which says:

"Each contracting company reserves the right to withhold or revoke a certificate or permit of an airline to another State in any case where it is not satisfied that substantial ownership and effective control are vested in nationals of a party to this agreement, or in case of failure of an airline as described in Article (6) hereof, or to perform its obligations under this agreement."

We are permitted to have 100 per cent. in an Italian company. I did not argue that point myself.

I think the hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted that article. It is contrary to the interpretation as I have understood it. I think the hon. Gentleman has read it properly:

"Each contracting party reserves the right to withhold or revoke the certificate or permit of an airline to another State in any case where it is not satisfied that substantial ownership and effective control are vested in nationals of a party to this agreement or in case of failure of an airline, as described in article (6) hereof or to perform its obligations under this agreement."

Does not that mean any country which is a party to this agreement? It is any country which is a party to this agreement and some other person who does not come in.

No, I can see the source of the misunderstanding. These are Standing Clauses for bilateral agreements. Suppose the United States were to make a bilateral agreement with Italy—the hon. Gentleman suggested it had done so but I do not think that is the case—in that case substantial ownership and effective control of the company would have to be vested either in Italian nationals or American nationals. If that were vested in British nationals it would be open to the United States Government to refuse rights.

The purpose of this Clause was to prevent camouflage companies and to make sure that when one was supposed to be dealing with "X" one was in fact dealing with "X." There is nothing to stop Great Britain holding all the shares in the Anglo-Italian Company providing that if the United States come along and want an agreement and say this is a camouflage company, and that Great Britain owns that company, then another company must be set up to deal with the United States.

That would not be a course on which I imagine any country would wish to embark. I think the interpretation I have given is correct and makes it decisive that we could not have a majority holding in such joint companies with foreign nations.

Regarding the Anglo-Egyptian Company, who is the negotiating party there? Is it the Egyptians?

That would not be an infringement of this Clause because substantial ownership is vested in Egypt.

If we are prevented from having a majority shareholding under this Clause, how comes it about that Eire cannot have it? It is offending against the Clause.

If the hon. Member will give me time I will come to the Irish Agreement. In passing from this general policy let me say that British foreign policy works sub specie aeternitatis and it would be folly to seek a short-term advantage, which would do us long-term harm. We seek in civil aviation to cooperate with the countries through which, our trunk lines pass and it is against that background that we have to study the Anglo-Italian and Anglo-Eire agreements. Let me take first the agreement for the establishment of an Italian air transport company to be known as Aerolinee Italiane Internazionali. I should like first to refer to the circumstances which led up to its negotiation

The conclusion of this agreement, which is between the Government of Italy and the British Overseas Airways Corporation operating through its British European Airways Division, is a sequel to an inquiry made by the United States representatives in the course of the negotiations at Bermuda in January last. The U.S Delegation told us that an advanced stage had been reached in negotiations between the American Company, Trans World Airlines, and the Italian Government for the formation of a company in which T.W.A. was to hold 40 per cent. of the capital for the re-establishment of internal airlines in Italy and they asked us if we would like to participate in the scheme. We replied that this would be our desire and suggested that the arrangement should be revised to provide for our participation and to exclude monopolistic features of the Agreement which were contrary to the Chicago Agreements. The State Department took steps to ensure that the monopoly features of the projected Agreement between the Italian Government and T.W.A. were deleted, but supported the view of the company that a tripartite agreement, comprising the interests of the Italian Government, T.W.A., and a British airline would not be the most satisfactory method of arranging British participation. They accordingly suggested that we should consider a second company to be formed by agreement between the Italian Government and a British airline. Accordingly we proposed to the Italian Government the formation of another company on similar lines to that formed by the Italian Government and T.W.A., but for the purpose primarily of operating external services based on Italy, if and when the Italian Government were allowed to operate such services under the Peace Treaty. Both the American and British Agreements recognise that Italian interests are entitled to the majority share. In both cases the Italian share is the same, namely, 60 per cent.

The provisions of the agreement are broadly as follow: The capital of the company is to be 900 million lire which at the present rate of exchange is £1,000,000. Sixty per cent. of the capital is to be subscribed by the Italian Government, but if the Italian Government do not wish to take up their full share of the capital, not less than one-third of the remainder is to be offered in the first place for subscription by an existing company, Aviolinee Italiane, which operated services before the war, and thereafter by such other companies as may be agreed to by the contracting parties. Forty per cent. is to be subscribed by B.O.A.C. or any corporation designated by B.O.A.C. and acceptable to the Italian Government. British capital is to be paid by B.O.A.C. in sterling to the credit of the company's bankers in London, funds thus provided to be utilised by the company to acquire aircraft spare parts and other equipment in the United Kingdom, and secondly to meet any other expenditure in the United Kingdom or elsewhere which is approved by the Board and for which the capital of the company is required. The agreement also provides that in so far as aircraft spares and equipment may not be available from Italian sources, they will be procured, wherever suitable equipment is available, in the United Kingdom.

The primary object of the company as I have said is to operate services between Italy and other European countries as well as other external services which are of interest to Italy. There is also provision that a minimum number of internal services is essential to the commercial balance of the company's operations. A number of routes have been definitely assigned to the company. These include routes between Italian territory and points in the British Commonwealth, and the routes between Italy and Greece, Italy and North Africa, Italy and South America, and Italy and France, unless some alternative arrangement is desired by the French Government. The route Rome to Amsterdam is also allotted to the company. Further, a number of important routes from Italy to European centres is scheduled in two categories, and the company is assured of three routes in each category. The company will also be granted a number of other routes previously operated by Aviolinee except in so far as any of them may be reserved by agreement to Aviolinee for independent operation. Finally, the company is granted a number of internal routes in Italy.

There have been suggestions that in return for a-capital contribution of £400,000, the United Kingdom ought to have had more than a 40 per cent. share in this organisation. The hon. Gentleman did not endorse that suggestion I was glad to see, but it has been made. I think there has been some misunderstanding.

This is different from the Egyptian Agreement, as I understand one cannot fly from London to Cairo except through this new company, and from London to Rome through other companies.

That is the case. The Anglo-Egyptian Company is to have exclusive rights on the route United King- dom to Egypt. The Anglo-Italian Company is not to have such exclusive rights.

It is quite different, they are not the same companies at all. Supposing a company is flying from London to India one cannot get out at Cairo unless one goes on the Egyptian route?

No, B.O.A.C. will still be able to call at Cairo on its trunk service via Cairo to India and the Far East.

Could they drop a passenger at Cairo, if he does not mean to go further?

That will be covered by the terms of the bilateral agreement, and such agreements will normally provide that the capacity on trunk services is to be governed by the traffic offering between the terminal points. It would therefore be in exceptional cases that a passenger could get off at Cairo from an aircraft going to Australia. I think I have cleared away the misunderstanding about operating between Italy and the United Kingdom and also shown that the United Kingdom is getting a very substantial return for the capital investment, because we are getting a share in the operations of a large number of important European routes as well as overseas routes from Italy and certain internal routes in Italy with which but for this agreement we should not be associated at all.

Nothing in this agreement prevents the United Kingdom from operating services between the United Kingdom and Italy through the medium of a United Kingdom Corporation, subject always to the terms of the bilateral agreement that in due course will have to be negotiated with Italy.

How will it be possible to deal with the Armistice terms in advance of the Peace Treaty?

Internal aviation is governed by the Armistice terms and the Supreme Allied Commander has given permission for it to begin. As for the external routes, I have already said that their operation would be subject to the Peace Treaty. I am sure that the House will agree that we have obtained substantial advantages in return for our capital investment in this company.

I should like finally to mention that we have kept the French Government in- formed of the course of these negotiations. They indicated shortly before their conclusion that they would like to participate and provision has now been left in the Agreement for French participation at a later stage when further capital is required.

I come now to the agreements concluded on 5th April, 1946, between the United Kingdom and Eire relating to air services to, in and through their respective territories. The hon. Gentleman was not so kind about this agreement but I think I shall be able to convince him that this also is a very reasonable agreement. I hesitate to claim too much. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) who has held high office will realise what I mean. It would be a great mistake to try to claim too much for an agreement and I am inclined to think that a great deal of the trouble in this case is that certain Eire newspapers very pardonably claimed too much for it. The first part of the agreement follows fairly closely the standard form of agreement drawn up at Chicago and it is not exceptional. The annex provides broadly for three things. First, it accords to the B.O.A.C. rights in Eire on trans-Atlantic services to Canada or the United States of America. This answers one question which was put by the hon. Gentleman. He will be able to fly under the British flag on that particular service. The Union Jack obviously will be seen in Eire on that service to America.

I think too much was made of the question of the flag. I should be the last person to underrate the importance of symbolism, but the essential thing here is that there is a substantial participation in this company by the British Corporation. The question of the flag is not so important. I said the agreement accords those rights in Eire to the B.O.A.C. Secondly, it accords to the designated air carrier of the Government of Eire—that is Aer Rianta Teoranta—rights in United Kingdom territory for a service to North America on the route Eire via Newfoundland to Canada or the U.S.A. in both directions. Thirdly—and this is the bone of contention—it refers to the heads of agreement between B.O.A.C. and Aer Rianta Teoranta, and specifies the routes which will be allocated to the company Aer Lingus, in which both are to participate, and the rights to be accorded to the company an these routes.

The first two provisions are in line with the general arrangements which have been made or are being made all over the world and I need not labour them. There is only one point on which I think I need comment and that is the provision in Article 11 of the annex that all United Kingdom aircraft operating on the routes specified in Schedule 1 to the annex shall make a compulsory stop at the Shannon Airport. The United States has accepted a similar obligation to stop at the Shannon Airport. In the present state of aeronautical development it is essential that aircraft flying over Eire should stop at the Shannon Airport. It is therefore no hardship to us to accept this particular obligation. In Portugal I accepted a similar obligation in the case of Lisbon and the hon. Gentleman has raised no objections to that Agreement.

Would the hon. Gentleman explain why it is essential to overfly, and why it is essential to land at the Shannon?

It is because we must reduce the Atlantic hop to the shortest possible distance at the present time. My hon. Friend is building an aircraft which in a few years' time will fly non-stop from London to New York but that does not yet exist.

If the weather conditions are such that when the plane arrives over the Shannon it has a much larger margin of petrol than was expected it could very well carry on, but instead it is forced to land at the Shannon.

We must make our plans in order to deal with the worst conditions, not the best.

We took it to mean that this was something which the Irish Government asked of the hon. Gentleman as regards the agreement. Now it appears he is suggesting it is something he suggested for safety. May I remind him of the Argentine agreement where it is possible to overfly the Argentine to go to San Diego or Chile?

The Argentine case is not really comparable. There was a request from the Eire authorities that we should make this compulsory stop at the Shannon airport. I said that it was no hardship for us to accept this because, in the present state of aeronautical development, we must come down at the Shannon, or rather, we must normally make provision to come down at the Shannon.

What is going to happen when aviation has developed and there is no need to stop in Ireland? I would remind the Minister that for many years owing to a similar type of agreement railway trains had to stop at Swindon. It was only with difficulty that that handicap was removed. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was private enterprise."] We do not want the same thing to happen in this case.

We are under no obligation to fly over Eire. This enables me to answer at once my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies. There is no reason why we should fly over Eire. We could land at Prestwick if we wished or, if we could fly non-stop from London to New York, we could make a slight detour round the South and not go over Eire at all. Further. I would like to draw attention—

Does this mean that the Irish Government have renounced the two freedoms agreement and the right of innocent passage over their country. Are we getting back to the old class of prewar arrangement under which we have to make circular tours to avoid certain countries?

The Eire Government have not ratified the two freedoms agreement. I should like to refer also to some remarks, which I was very glad to see, made by Mr. Lemass recently, when he expressed the view in the Dail that the Shannon Airport had now established itself and would probably need no artificial stimulus in the future. I anticipate no difficulty in that clause, which is the only unusual one in that part of the annex. I come now to the provisions in the agreement about Aer Lingus Teoranta.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think it is satisfactory to leave that point there. There is grave disquiet in Scotland about the agreement. Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear exactly what part Prestwick Aerodrome plays in the new trans-Atlantic services?

I was warned that this point might be raised later in the evening by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison). If that is the case, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who intended to raise it, need not occupy more than half a minute of the time of the Committee because this Agreement has absolutely no bearing on services through Scotland. We are free to route our services through Eire or through Scotland as we please, and it is the case, as I have said repeatedly, that a number of trans-Atlantic services will be routed through Prestwick.

Could a direct Glasgow-Dublin service be run without any regard to this new company?

Not Glasgow-Dublin, because that is Route 4 in Schedule 3, and is assigned to the joint company.

If the hon. Gentleman's statement is correct, why was it necessary to make an agreement with the Southern Irish company when he could have made it with Scottish Aviation, Limited, in Scotland?

I think it would be best if I were allowed to go on with the heads of the Agreement. That will answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The policy that two countries, especially when they are adjacent, should pool their resources has much to commend it on grounds of common sense and economy. The arrangement made could be abundantly justified on this ground alone. But the arrangement goes beyond the mere integration of services connecting the two countries and extends to services—this is the point to which I wish to invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention—radiating from the Shannon to various European capitals. These are services in which the United Kingdom or its airlines could claim no independent interest and on which obviously we could not claim that the United Kingdom flag should operate. The Eire Government was under no obligation to accept our participation in these continental services, and might equally well have invited a foreign operator to participate.

I should like at this stage to say a few words about the position of Northern Ireland. I need hardly say that we have throughout had her interests very much in mind, and my Noble Friend has recently visited Northern Ireland in order to discuss the whole question with representatives of that Government. My Noble Friend has explained to Sir Roland Nugent, the Minister of Commerce in Northern Ireland, the effect of the arrangement, and has assured him that it is the firm intention of His Majesty's Government to maintain through British European Airways all the existing services linking Northern Ireland with Great Britain, and indeed that it is intended that these services should be further developed in the near future. The Minister of Commerce was glad to have these assurances, which he readily accepted. Further, as already announced, it is the intention to set up, when the Civil Aviation Bill becomes law, a Northern Ireland Advisory Committee which will cater for the needs of Northern Ireland for civil air services; and the Chairman of this Committee is to be a member of the British European Airways Corporation. This will ensure that the needs of Northern Ireland receive careful and continuous—I emphasise the word "continuous"—consideration.

It has been suggested, if I may turn to some of the points of detail, that under the agreement an airline under the Eire flag has been granted access to Belfast, that it has also been granted cabotage rights between Belfast and Crewe and Belfast and Liverpool, and that these features are objectionable. I should like to take these points in turn. As regards the first, someone might argue that had there been no arrangement for a joint company, the United Kingdom would have been free to deny access to Belfast to an airline under the Eire flag. The effect of such a step would, of course, have been that the Government of Eire would similarly have denied permission for a United Kingdom airline to operate from Northern Ireland to Dublin. I know of no case since Chicago in which two countries have in this way completely stopped the development of air services between their respective territories, and I am sure that no hon. Member would advocate such a course.

I would like to clear up this question. In view of the fact that a treaty has been made with the Government of Eire—"Eire" being the Gaelic word for "Ireland"—how is there anything separate necessary for any part of Ireland? The Government of Ireland have been recognised.

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that "Ireland" is the translation of "Eire". That is a very subtle point which I fully appreciate. It is not, I think, a point of civil aviation. As for cabotage, I should like first to mention that the joint company will have a monopoly of cabotage rights between the Shannon and Dublin in which a United Kingdom carrier by itself would have no title to cabotage rights, and it is only equitable that the United Kingdom should grant some cabotage rights in return. Finally, why have we agreed that Eire should hold 60 per cent. of the capital and why have we accepted the provision that on the services to continental centres referred to in paragraph 10 of the heads of agreement the profits are to be divided 60–40 but the losses are shared equally? I think the answer should by now be clear, for it is the same as I have given in the case of Italy. The joint company is to operate services from Eire to a number of European countries, and under the Chicago agreement any of them would have been entitled to refuse rights to the joint company if substantial ownership and effective control had been in other than Eire hands. The answer to the second question is equally clear. On routes between Eire and the United Kingdom profits and losses will be shared equally. As regards the other routes, the Eire authorities pointed out, with justice, that but for these arrangements we should have no claim to be associated with operations on these routes, that we are benefiting in many ways, direct and indirect, from the partnership and that it was equitable that in return for these benefits we should bear 50 per cent. of the losses during such period as losses will be incurred. An hon. Gentleman laughs, but there are very few private businesses which do not incur losses in their early operations. One must take a long view in these matters—

I feel confident that the Committee will agree that, judged against the general background of the agreement, this small concession was worth while. I ask hon. Gentlemen not to take one point in isolation because it is easy to criticise any one point. The benefits of the whole agreement must be considered.

Is there anything in the agreement about the use of British aircraft and equipment by the joint company?

As tar as my recollection goes, not at this moment; but this is not the full agreement, only the heads of an agreement. The agreement itself is to be worked out in detail. Clearly, it does hold out more hope for the use of British equipment in Eire than would otherwise be the case.

Would the hon. Gentleman make clear what he meant when he said that the rights of Northern Ireland would be safeguarded? What rights or interests has he in mind?

My noble Friend was at pains to convince the Minister of Commerce that there was nothing in this agreement which was disadvantageous to Northern Ireland, and also that in other matters the interests of Northern Ireland would be preserved.

Is it not an established fact that Northern Ireland is not in a position to initiate an air service?

No. The responsibility falls upon His Majesty's Government, and I have to answer in this House for it. We do intend to see that Northern Ireland gets a fair share of the benefits of air travel. I apologise to the House for being so long, but I have still one important subject to discuss. The question of the Bermuda Agreement, in particular, and other bilateral agreements in general, has been raised, and I will now deal with that important subject. When my noble Friend took office he found an acute difference of opinion between the United States and the United Kingdom on commercial rights in civil aviation. The difference was especially acute with regard to the regulation of aircraft capacity to be provided on routes, the extent to which traffic might be picked up or set down at intermediate points on the route—the so-called "fifth freedom"—and the approval of fares to be charged. The United States held the view that there should be unrestricted freedom for an international operator to put on a route as much capacity as he pleased, to pick up any traffic that he could attract and to charge whatever fares he could maintain. The United Kingdom took the view that the capacity between terminal points should be kept in equilibrium with the traffic presenting itself for carriage between those points, and should be shared equally between the two countries; that the rights of picking up and setting down traffic at intermediate points should be limited to filling vacant seats in aircraft whose total capacity was governed by the traffic between the terminal points—in other words, that fifth freedom rights should be incidental to third and fourth freedom rights; and that tariffs should be agreed between the operators and should be subject to the approval of Governments.

I think the hon. Gentleman was in error in saying that our predecessors were opposed à l' outrance to the grant of fifth freedom rights. What they wished to secure was that the grant of fifth freedom rights should be regulated. This acute difference was a conflict between the philosophy of laissez-faire advocated by the United States, and the principle of planning, or "order in the air," advocated by Lord Swinton on behalf of the United Kingdom and now by the hon. Gentleman. I am bound to say that just as there is no total abstainer so rabid as the reformed drunkard, so I have never known a more persistent advocate of planning in this particular sphere than Lord Swinton. There was an acute difference of opinion, and it reached its climax at the Chicago Conference at the end of 1944. The Conference achieved much that is of permanent value; this part of its labours was little publicised, but, nevertheless, it was of great value. But after weeks of fruitless endeavours to find a compromise it dissolved on the issue of fifth freedom rights without being able to conclude a multilateral convention. Accordingly, it became necessary for each country to make bilateral agreements with all other countries with which it desired air services. In the overtures the United States and the United Kingdom naturally tried to win acceptance for their own points of view. This was the position when my Noble Friend took office in August, 1945, and he found that Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand supported the United Kingdom's thesis, as also did India. Agreements with South Africa and Canada embodying these principles were signed on 26th October and 21st December, 1945. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's request, I gladly state that those agreements were substantially the agreements negotiated by our predecessors in office. Agreements embodying these principles were also signed with Greece on 26th November, 1945, and with Portugal on 6th December, 1945. The agreements with foreign countries are published as White Papers, and if hon. Members will turn to paragraphs 5 to 8 in the annex in each case, and the second paragraphs in each case of the Schedules of either the Greek or Portuguese agreements, they will see the heart of the arrangements for this very careful planning of air services.

By the end of 1945, the United Kingdom, as I have said, had made agreements embodying these principles with Canada, South Africa, Greece and Portugal. In the meantime, the United States had made similar agreements with several countries embodying the principle of unrestricted commercial rights. A much larger number of countries were acutely embarrassed by the need to choose between the British and American philosophies. The difference of opinion which had manifested itself so acutely at Chicago now showed itself all over the world. It threatened to embarrass not only the aeronautical relations of the two countries, but to affect wider issues in Anglo-American relations. It was felt on one side that the American operators were taking advantage of their wartime lead in the development of transport aircraft to secure a permanent advantage, and, on the other, that American efforts to give the benefits of air travel to the world were being frustrated by a "dog in the manger" attitude on the part of this country. A crisis arose when one trans-Atlantic operator tried to operate at a fare not accepted by other operators or approved by their Governments. Wise men on both sides of the Atlantic realised the urgent need of reaching some compromise. On the American side operators began to show a preference to get into the air quickly rather than to try to extract the full doctrine of laissez-faire . An opportunity to end the deadlock had been sought by my noble Friend since he took office, and one presented itself in January when high officials of both countries found it possible to meet at Bermuda in an atmosphere more conducive to quiet reflection than publicity-conscious Chicago, and they made good progress. At first the talks were intended to be only informal and exploratory, but it became manifest that an agreement could be reached and signed. Full powers were sent out and the agreement was signed; it is that very important agreement which has been published in the Treaties Series as Command Paper 6747.

I have described this agreement as a compromise, but it would be more accurately described as a synthesis of the opposing points of view put forward at Chicago. The points of controversy were capacity, fifth freedom rights, and fares. The problem of capacity is dealt with in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the final act. It will be seen that the United States accepts the British thesis that capacity must be kept in close relationship with the requirements of the public for such transport. Instead of insisting that this capacity shall be divided equally between the two nations, we have agreed to "a fair and equal opportunity for the carriers of the two nations." It is further laid down that the services of one country are not to affect unduly the services which the other country provides on a given route. I think that answers one point which has been made. Fifth freedom traffic is dealt with in the important paragraph 6 of the Final Act, to which I specially invite the attention of hon. Members. The United States accepts the British thesis that trunk services shall retain as their primary objective the provision of capacity adequate to the traffic demands between the country of origin and the country of ultimate destination. Fifth freedom rights may be granted within that framework, but they are to be subject to three requirements which are laid down there. They are a rewritten version of four requirements which appeared in our previous agreements. They are that the right of picking up fifth freedom traffic shall be related to traffic requirements between the country of origin and the country of destination, to the requirements of through airline operations, and to the traffic requirements of the area through which the airline passes after taking account of local and regional ser vices. That safeguards the British point of view about fifth freedom rights. Let me explain by an illustration what it means. The capacity provided by an American service from New York to Calcutta via London should be governed primarily by the traffic from New York to Calcutta, and it would not be in accordance with the agreement for an aircraft on such a service to discharge all its New York passengers at London, and take on at London an entirely new set of passengers for conveyance to Calcutta.

If an aircraft left New York for Calcutta with a full complement of passengers and five of them wanted to get off the aircraft at London, would the aircraft be able to pick up five passengers at Calcutta to replace them?

Yes, it would be able to pick up five passengers. That would be compatible with the principle which has been accepted, and, as I understand it, it would also be compatible with the philosophy of our predecessors.

Yes. Tariffs are dealt with in Section II of the Annex. The United States accepts the British point of view that tariffs are to be agreed between operators, as represented in the rate conferences of the International Air Transport Association, and approved by Governments. Here I think there is a misunderstanding in the hon. Gentleman's mind. The position is that the Civil Aeronautics Board does not have power at present to fix rates on international routes. It requires a certain amount of time in order to acquire that power, and the Administration propose to seek such powers for the C.A.B. It might appear from what I have said that at Bermuda the United States accepted the major part of the United Kingdom thesis, and it may be asked what the United Kingdom has given in this process of "give and take." In the British pre-Bermuda agreements it is laid down that the capacity, load factor, frequency and fares are to be determined before the services are opened. The hon. Gentleman will find that in the agreements with Greece, Portugal and Turkey. For this system of prior regulation, the Bermuda Conference substitutes a system of ex post facto review. Certain principles are laid down and it is for the operators to conduct their operations in accordance with those principles. If they should not do so, the other country can make complaint and ask for the observance of the agreement. If this does not result in satisfaction, amendment of the agreement can be sought on lines provided in the agreement itself. There is also provision for such matters to be referred for an advisory report to the Interim Council of the Provisional International Civil Aviation Organisation. In the last resort the agreement can be denounced.

There is provision for 12 months' notice. There is no likelihood that this ultimate sanction will need to be invoked. The agreement has, so far, worked very well. It has been attacked equally on both sides of the Atlantic as being a sacrifice of national interests, which is corroborative evidence that it is a good agreement. Both the United States and ourselves have made it the basis for agreements with other countries. I do not think the hon. Gentleman's information about American agreements with Egypt and Saudi Arabia is well-founded, but I could not answer that point on the spur of the moment. As far as we are concerned, the Turkish Agreement signed the day after the American Agreement, is naturally in the pre-Bermuda form. An agreement with France was signed on 28th February. The hon. Gentleman has noticed that so far as routes between Metropolitan France and the United Kingdom are concerned, it is cast in the pre-Bermuda form. As far as other routes are concerned, it incorporates the more flexible Bermuda provisions. Before leaving the French Agreement I draw attention to one novel and far-reaching feature, a standing joint committee to consider all questions of common interest. This is already proving of great utility.

The form of a bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and Australia was signed by my Noble Friend and Mr. Drakeford in Canberra last March. It incorporates the Bermuda paragraph, paragraph 6, which I have emphasised. There is no present necessity for an agreement with New Zealand, as Tasman Empire Airways will adequately take care of traffic across the Tasman Sea. In March my Noble Friend discussed the question of a bilateral agreement with India, but here again there is no urgency for a formal agreement as existing permits are sufficient. I have already mentioned in sufficient detail the agreement with Eire which was signed on 5th April, 1945. An agreement was signed with Argentina in May, and will be published shortly as a White Paper; it is now being printed. It reflects the Bermuda Agreement, but provides for the fixation of frequencies. The same mission had negotiations with Uruguay, Chile and Brazil, and draft agreements with those countries are now being studied by the Governments concerned. Agreements of a post-Bermuda type have been generally settled with the Netherlands and the three Scandinavian countries. In the case of Belgium we had virtually reached an agreement, but we have now suggested it should be modified to bring it into line with the Netherlands agreement.

It will be seen that the pattern of our air agreements is now practically complete, but it will not be complete until we have an agreement with the Soviet Union. This great country, covering one-sixth of the earth's surface, is bound to play a big part in any pattern of trunk routes. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has himself proposed to M. Molotov that negotiations should be opened for air services on a reciprocal basis between London and Moscow. M. Molotov did not, at the time, feel able to agree. As far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, we shall be ready at any time to enter into any such negotiations, and it is our earnest hope that arrangements can be made at an early date for air services between the two countries.

The accord which my Noble Friend has succeeded in reaching with the United States is far reaching. All our agreements may be divided into pre-Bermuda and post-Bermuda. The agreement with the United States removes the chief obstacle to a multilateral agreement, such as Chicago failed to produce. Such an agreement has been under study by P.I.C.A.O. ever since Chicago, and at the recent Assembly in Montreal a draft prepared by an ad hoc committee of the Council was considered. The delegates felt that the time was not then ripe for reach- ing a final agreement, but at the same time a commission was authorised to proceed immediately with "a frank and open discussion of all the problems involved," with a view to the submission of a draft to the next annual Assembly. In the meantime, there will be an opportunity to see how the Bermuda theme and variations commend themselves in practice. The task which seemed so hopeless at Chicago is now definitely within sight of accomplishment.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has approached this Debate. I know we disagree fundamentally on the organisation of air transport. However, I know equally, from the close association I am having with him now in the Committee and in other places, that he is just as zealous as I am to see British air transport taking a leading part in the world. He has approached the Debate this afternoon in that spirit, and I feel sure he will rejoice equally with me that my Noble Friend has, since last August, been able to settle this acute difference of opinion with the United States, and that the prospect of reaching a multilateral agreement is now much brighter than it was before.

5.35 p.m.

I understand I shall be out of Order, Mr. Beaumont, in referring to the Bill now being considered upstairs, and I trust you will guide me if I transgress upon this point. I propose to confine what I have to say this afternoon to the broad principles of civil aviation. I think it would be reasonable on any discussion which involves civil aviation to take into account and bear in mind the international security aspects. First, there is the purely military question of how far the development of civil aviation is in itself a war potential. Second—and I think more important—as civil aviation is a means of communication between States, it will become a great power for good or evil, and will have a political effect upon the whole world. Should civil aviation at any time be heavily subsidised by any State, what, in fact, will this lead to? It may, indeed, generate friction to such an extent as to jeopardise the peace of the world. National rivalries will begin to develop and instead of civil aviation becoming a super-national instrument for the peace of the world it might well become a national instrument of great power, and prove an irresistible temptation to dictatorship Governments. The moment there is national rivalry, I think all hon. Members will agree the next stage is that national prestige very soon becomes involved, and monopolistic Governments may well be tempted to use civil aviation as a method of offence in their foreign policy.

It may lbe that some may argue that shipping did not, in fact, develop in that way. I think there is no analogy to be drawn in that respect. Shipping grew up in the days when the individual was an important being, and monopolistic Governments had not tried their hands in the use of forces other than those of the Armed Forces. Chancellors prior to the last war were not in the habit of causing deflationary and inflationary periods, and moderation and a long view are not to be expected in some of the forms of government today. Today, I think all hon. Members will agree they are more used to hearing the cry that only majorities matter, "We have a mandate," and the like. That leads me to the point of aircraft production. I sincerely trust that in these matters the Government will not suddenly come to the Floor of the House of Commons saying such things as: "Snoops aircraft are the best. Let us direct labour to Snoops aircraft. Give supplies to Snoops aircraft. This aircraft must be the best because we, the Government, say so." I sometimes wonder whether certain individuals may think they have the power of perpetual life. One cannot help feeling that. Then one remembers the great enjoyment derived from reading Rider Haggard and the tales of "She" and "Ayesha" and what eventually happened to that gorgeous creature.

I believe that inter-State civil aviation might, in future, be a dangerous instrument, and might well sow discord between nations. The proper answer to all these fears would, I think most hon. Members agree, be a world wide organisation. However, I think we know full well in this Committee that such an agreement at this stage would be very unlikely. On the other hand—and this is a point I wish to make to the Minister—an international organisation might well be more dangerous than a national organisation. So many people appear to me to be confused, or to get confused, over the word "international." There are some who appear to think that because certain nations have agreed between each other that such an agreement will meet with the approval of the rest. Generally, the reverse is brought about. Other nations have a habit of frowning upon different power groups, or groups which they think may lead to power groups. At the moment, we are faced with the freedom of the air which, I think, is likely to develop into the freedom of the strongest. I am sorry to have to say that, but it is my view. I have certain alternatives in mind, but this afternoon I find myself in a very difficult position to express them without mentioning the Bill upstairs, and without mentioning Command Paper 6709, both of which are matters of legislation. It is very difficult to proceed upon that point.

I think it would be in Order to say this. Let the Government be mindful of great matters and not bury their heads like ostriches into nationalisation. Remember that this vast new force of civil aviation will grow. Great passenger liners will continually be in the air; freight liners will make themselves felt; tramps will be diverting themselves, I hope, about the skies. Let agreement be reached not only on fares but having a bearing on economic costs. Here, I would like the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary for a moment, if he could spare it. Let agreement only be reached where freight charges are based on and related to cost. I consider that is a very important point. Private concerns are not, perhaps, so dangerous, as they are unable to continually subsidise their efforts at the shareholders' expense. State enterprise is of a different nature. That is why I particularly made that previous point. Let us not forget the inherent danger that lay behind the subsidisation of Mussolini's merchant navy. Let us be mindful of that fact, and of what it led to in a similar way with the "Bremen" and the "Europa," and what came about by that particular commercial and State development, and how it grew to be a danger to world peace. Therefore, let world wide agreement be sought now to further the interest of freight carrying planes of the future by a fixation of charge to cost. If this is not done I warn hon. Members that, in my view, national rivalries will develop which would have far more consequence to all hon. Members and to the whole of the country than any ideological views. Those national rivalries can grow. At the present moment we are dealing mainly with passenger planes. If we look to the future great liners will come, and great freight liners; then we will see the development of national rivalries. That would be a very sad day. I think all hon. Members will agree that our main duty is to guard the interests of peace and the development of civil aviation upon those lines.

5.43 p.m.

As was to be expected, the Opposition are making party capital out of the difficulties facing this country after the war.

We cannot allow that to go. The Parliamentary Secretary congratulated the Opposition on the spirit in which we had initiated this Debate, since when the only speech we have heard from this side of the Committee dealt with matters in terms which I thought commended the support of everybody on the Government Benches.

I particularly did not refer to the two-speeches which have just been made, but to a great deal that has been said both inside and outside this House on occasions. I will give examples of what I mean in a minute. Everybody knew perfectly well that whatever arrangements were made in regard to civil aviation after the war, it was bound to have a very difficult time indeed for some years. It had to live a sort of hand to mouth existence, adapting machines and so on. Whenever any hon. Member opposite goes near an aerodrome he carefully watches for anything which is not quite up to scratch and then, in some way or another, insinuates that it is the fault of the Government. It will be found throughout this Debate, and previous Debates on this subject, that that is the line generally taken. I would draw attention to one example of that patriotic policy, about which I read in the papers the other day. There was an account of some statements alleged to have been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Enroll), who is not in his place, although I warned him I was going to speak about this.

He is alleged to have said that he understood all the Members of the Board of Directors of B.O.A.C. were on the point of resigning. No doubt this statement has had the effect which the hon. Member wished it to have. It has sown doubt and anxiety in the minds of the people serving in B.O.A.C. In the same newspaper there was, of course, an official denial, but official denials are often thought to be something which is automatic. I cannot think of any statement which could have a worse effect on an industry which is trying to recover and build itself up after the war, than the statement which was made by the hon. Member, speaking with the authority of a Member of Parliament, which insinuated that the Board which had been elected for this great national service was on the point of resigning. One would have thought that a Member with a sense of responsibility which the hon. Member has previously shown, would have taken some steps to verify a piece of gossip of that kind. I have taken the trouble to verify that statement, and I can assure the Committee that there is not a single word of truth in it. It is simple for Members to go about and meet people and ask for authoritative replies when they hear gossip of that kind. In addition to the official denial, it should be stated in this House that it was a malicious and entirely inaccurate piece of gossip.

I have asked people connected with B.O.A.C. who are an unimpeachable authority. Naturally I should not give away or even hint at who gave me my information. I suggest that if the hon. Member for Altrincham asks the opinion of members of the Board, far from being welcomed he will get a very chilly reception.

Is it not a fact that the hon. Member can make a reply only if he has asked the direct and straight question to each director, otherwise all his observations are meaningless?

Is it not a fact that if an Amendment which was moved by hon. Members opposite had been carried, the Board would have been substantially cut down?

The hon. Member knows that he cannot refer to proceedings upstairs and his remarks were out of Order.

I now wish to turn to the subject in hand, although I emphasise what I have just said as being really important. Although most of the remarks which have been made today dealt with immediate problems and immediate difficulties, the great problem and the great test for civil aviation is yet to come. The Minister of Civil Aviation and the Minister of Supply have rightly made some optimistic statements. We have very good reason to be optimistic. If hon. Members opposite are interested in gossip, as they often appear to be, I would point out that a head of one of the great American airlines, who has recently arrived in this country, has changed his tune very much since he was quoted as saying that by nationalising our civil aviation we were handing it on a plate to the United States. He is now going about the country saying that he fears a great deal the economies which we shall be able to make with a single organisation, and that those in charge of aviation in America are considering what measures of coordination they can take to meet our competition. Members may take that gossip for what it is worth. Besides economies of administration the gas turbine engine is the reason for optimism. I would emphasise that the success we are to achieve in civil aviation does not depend on the interim arrangements which we can now make to get some aviation going under the British flag. As a result of the war we have to do everything we can to adapt our aircraft and get airlines going with what can only be antiquated aircraft.

Everything depends on the aircraft we can produce with gas turbine engines. Since we all know something of the potentialities of these engines, I would point out to the Minister that the world expects us to take a lead in civil aviation as soon as aircraft with these engines are produced. If we are to take the lead and have the success we deserve, it is frightfully important that we should not lead people to expect more than we can achieve both in our time tables and performances. In all our programmes our publicity needs to be very cautious. For instance, in the statement made on 8th May some particulars are given about the Brabazon. It is stated that it is to be equipped with Proteus engines capable of 350 miles per hour. I think that the Minister of Supply, after that statement was published, said that the Brabazon would be in production in 1947. When we say a thing like that it leads people to expect that within two years our aviation lines are to be equipped with aircraft with a certain performance. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply whether he is still satisfied that by 1950 we shall really have Brabazon aircraft with Proteus engines in sufficient quantity. If, as I believe, through no fault of the Minister, we are not to have the Brabazon until 1951, I think it is most important that that fact should be made plain now, and that the people who expect us to take a lead in world aviation should not be unduly optimistic, otherwise the Minister will be discredited.

There are other aircraft, such as the Tudor III and the Viking II, about which some facts have been given. They are to take gas turbine engines. It is important that people should not be led to expect these aircraft, with which we are to take a lead, sooner than they can be produced. Obviously, everything depends on the use of the gas turbine engine. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply can give us any information, but according to my information there are not many engines available, and we cannot expect production of gas turbine engines in any quantity for a few years. In this connection I would emphasise the need of quantity as well as design.

Then there is the question of air frames. We know that we have on the drawing board flying boats and air liners which will be revolutionary, but again I am told that the question of fitting air frames to gas turbines is far more difficult than the general public believe. Once again I emphasise that we should not be too optimistic, and that some of the difficulties of gas turbines and their potentialities should be made plain. Conservative announcements about the possibility of building air frames should also be given out. There is also the question of pressurised cabins. Once again statistics have been given which suggest flying at a certain speed at 40,000 ft. You cannot fly at that height without a pressure cabin, and I am told that there are no pressure cabins which we can produce to allow us to fly at that height. I am not blaming the Minister. The point is that the public are very vague about these matters and read into figures and prototypes far more than is there. It would be a good thing if the Minister makes the picture absolutely plain.

Lastly, there is the question of the meteorological service. This is in the hands of the R.A.F. at the present time. I am told that demobilisation in the R.A.F. is having an adverse affect on the meteorological service, and already two air line services to Africa have had to be cut. There is a danger that there may be other cuts unless this service can be kept up to strength. As soon as possible we want a meteorological service to be an international service, but if the British service is to be handed over it must be at its best. I emphasise the need for keeping our meteorological service up to strength, even if at the moment there is no immediate urgency or full use to be made of it. It is a great scientific service in which improvements can be made all the time.

The arguments against nationalising British civil aviation are based on the phantasy that before the war, under semi-private enterprise or private enterprise, British aviation was a success. Between 1930 and 1940 I travelled on all the major civil air lines of the world, and I would say without hesitation that, of the air lines of the major countries, the British air lines were the worst. They were slow, more subject to interruption by bad weather due to bad equipment on the ground, and they took less trouble in providing comfort for passengers. The only thing which you could say in their favour was that they had a high safety factor. That is very important, but it must be weighed against those other things. When people fly they do not look up the accident figures. All they want to know is that the normal safety precautions are being taken. It is utterly untrue to suggest that civil aviation was waiting to be taken over by private enterprise after the war so that it could carry on the great success it had already achieved. It was the worst in the world of the major Powers, and for that reason I welcome the fact that it is to be nationalised. I look forward to an international air service to take a leaf from the Foreign Secretary's book, and I look forward in my lifetime to the time when I can go to any airfield and buy a ticket to anywhere without worrying about the nationality of the aircraft, knowing that I am in the best aircraft in the world for the particular job. I am sure that most hon. Members have the same wish, but if we are to get that I believe that we still have to take a lead both morally and technically. We shall not take the lead, if we lead the public to expect more from us than we can perform, and unless we keep technically up to date.

6.0 p.m.

I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Flight-Lieutenant Crawley) in the technical matters which he has raised. I will address myself almost entirely to the Eire Agreement—a very strange document with a very curious result. The first question which would naturally strike one, and one which has already been raised by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), is the status of the party with whom we have made this Agreement. We know that agreements are divided roughly into agreements made with countries within the British Empire and agreements made with foreign countries. Is this Agreement with Eire, an agreement with a Dominion or is it an agreement with a foreign country? I think that is a matter on which the Committee is entitled to be informed. Up to the present, there appears to have been no alteration in the status of Eire as a British Dominion. Certainly, all the conditions of Dominion citizenship seem to have been given to Eire citizens, although the contention in Eire is that it is not a British Dominion—and, therefore, should not have these advantages. This was an agreement which, I think I shall be able to show, was somewhat favourable to Eire, largely because it was made with a British Dominion. In this matter we all want agreements that are favourable to civil aviation from a British point of view. The question, which is rather domestic, whether it should be a nationalised service or a private enterprise service, does not arise. We can present a common front as regards an agreement with outside parties, whether they be other nations or British Dominions. Certainly, we all wish the Minister of Civil Aviation very well in any agreement which he is trying to make. I do not think that I am being unduly critical of the noble Lord, when I say that he is not a very experienced negotiator, and when one comes to negotiate with Eire it is a very formidable proposition. Some countries pride themselves upon having never lost a war. Eire can pride itself upon having never lost a conference, at least a conference conducted with British Ministers. Therefore, the noble Lord should have had every advantage which it was possible to give him. I suggest that one of these advantages would have been consultation with the Government of Northern Ireland, which is on the side of the United Kingdom, and that then he would have been in a far better position to negotiate this agreement with Eire.

I agree, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that the noble Lord has since been in consultation with the Government of Northern Ireland—and I think that it has been a very fruitful consultation. We are all very grateful to him, and I am sure that nothing but good was done by that consultation, but it was unfortunate that it did not take place until the agreement was made with Eire. Of course, it effects us very vitally because not only are air services to go from Northern Ireland to Eire, but there are also air services in this agreement which fly to Belfast and then on to the United Kingdom and vice versa. There are in this agreement services internally in the United Kingdom and affecting Northern Ireland which have been agreed. In the old days, it used to be considered unpatriotic not to sail in British vessels and under the British flag. I suggest that the Minister of Civil Aviation, in building up civil aviation, might do much worse than follow the practice which gave this country the greatest Mercantile Marine in the world's history. Now it is impossible to go to Eire under the British flag or under the familiar British national colours. At the same time, we are told by the Parliamentary Secretary that there are many advantages in collaboration, but there is nothing to suggest that in this agreement, and the Parliamentary Secretary has not suggested that there is any verbal agreement that British aircraft are to be used by this Eire company. It is not proposed—and it is an even more important consideration, which was recognised in Clause 5 of the Civil Aviation Bill—that pilots who are ex-members of the R.A.F. should be given preference of employment. Is there any probability that this Eire company is likely to employ R.A.F. pilots in preference to others, because certainly if there is, it will be a very different policy from that normally accorded to these gallant people from Southern Ireland who fought with the British Forces?

It was said that the situation had been made worse by statements in the newspapers. I think that it was made worse not only by statements in the newspapers, but by a statement made by Mr. Lemass, who signed this document, because he bragged—I think one can use that word—that no airliner under the British flag will operate between Great Britain and Eire, and also that airliners carrying the Eire flag will operate regular services between Belfast and Liverpool and Belfast and Crewe. The Parliamentary Secretary will note that there has been picked out from some nine services two which will naturally offend our susceptibilities most. It is a curious and very fortunate English state of mind that no Englishman's susceptibilities seem to be offended at all, in any circumstances. He is immune from that particular type of irritation and strain, but I think it was otherwise with those who came originally from the Principality and I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would have had some sympathy with us in having an airline foisted upon us which comes from Eire, the head of whose Government has cheerfully said that he would attack us with armed forces if he had them. That does rather lead to a certain disinclination to have our people in their planes.

One question which arises about the air services in the Third Schedule to the Annex is: Why were the services from Shannon or Dublin and the services which go to Crewe and Liverpool via Belfast, and come back that way, included at all? I understand from what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said that we are by no means confined to having to use these services in flying from Belfast to Crewe or Liverpool; that there will be British services. I hope that such passengers as may be picked up for internal traffic inside the United Kingdom will be rather incidental, and that there will not be aircraft put on for the purpose of catering for this traffic, because that would be a very unfortunate thing. It is a curious thing that these particular services should have been set up between Shannon and Dublin, and one can only assume that they were slipped in by the clever negotiators of the Eire Government over a rather unsuspecting British Minister.

There is another point. The Agreement is described as between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Govern-of Ireland (Eire). That is untrue, and it also happens to be contrary to law. Eire is a geographical and not a political expression, and there is no Government of Ireland. There is a Government of Eire, and there is a Government of Northern Ireland. We hear much about the question of partition, and I am glad to see present today two hon. Members from Eire who are anti-partitionists. If Ireland were one political whole their occupation would be gone. It is not even a description as embodied in an Act of Parliament, but it so happens that it has been laid down by the Eire Confirmation Act of 1938 that this community is to be known as Eire, and, therefore, when you see an official document which does not obey the law which has been laid down by the Eire Confirmation Act 1938, it can only be assumed that a rather serious slip has been made. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell the Committee if there is any other country with which we have made an agreement where it is now impossible for British aircraft under British colours to fly. Except for the, no doubt, very high flying trans-Atlantic aircraft which will pass over Eire territory—and I do not think that people will be able to see the roundels at 10,000 feet and upwards—is there any other country where we have an incentive to forbid the British flag from being shown in the sky? I think this is a very unfortunate step and one which this country will regret.

I want to make a few remarks about the long range services. I cannot understand why no quid pro quo had to be given by the Eire Government. Was Rineanna the only airport which we proposed should be a free airport? I suppose we could not have got what we have without making sacrifices in return. I do not think that the participation in the profits, or even the larger participation in the losses on traffic from the Shannon to places like Oslo and Stockholm, is going to matter very much one way or another. I think it is going to be very small traffic with, possibly, a substantial loss. The thing that is puzzling ordinary people who read this agreement and see what is in it, is why we have to go to the Shannon at all. If the Government wanted to set down in Ireland, the whole of Northern Ireland is covered with aerodromes, some of which are good aerodromes for the purpose such as that at Toomebridge which has long runways in closest proximity to the largest inland lake in the British Isles should the thing grow to such an extent that flying boats have to be used. If the Government wanted to set down in Ireland, why did they not go to their own territory where they had their own facilities and where their own flag flew? In the case of a Government that is so anxious for Government ownership, it seems to me that it is more than ever vexatious for them to pass over their own territory where their own flag flies and where their own facilities are and land in some other Government's territory.

We were told that it was essential to touch down near places which have rail communications to the great centres of population in England and Scotland. As we all know, if a plane happens to land in Connaught one could not get out of it in a period of two days even on the fastest trains. Then a passenger has to cross the Channel. What we do expect and what one would assume if that argument were of such importance, is that the British services would run from Prestwick and from Scotland, which I assure the Committee would be a much more agreeable position to us. I think from the point of view of the nation it would be a very much wiser position than the one which has been adopted by this agreement. The agreement has, I think, very faulty language in many respects. I do not criticise unduly or very much the noble Lord the Minister of Civil Aviation, because he was up against a very formidable task, but as far as one can see, he gave away the rights to use British aircraft to and from Eire, which included a certain amount of internal United Kingdom traffic, and he has got for it the doubtful advantage of 40 per cent. on the profits on certain long distance air lines, and the more reasonable chance of paying 50 per cent. of the losses. I do not think it was a very wise agreement, and I submit that unless there is some paramount technical consideration, which makes it essential to touch down in somebody else's territory not inside the United Kingdom, we should consider that our first point of landing in trans-Atlantic flights should be in the United Kingdom. If an early landing is wanted, let us have it in Northern Ireland, but if the planes can go further east then it should be at Prestwick.

I conclude by saying that I do not think that we in Northern Ireland have been specially badly treated, except in one or two matters which I think were due very much to inadvertence. The noble Lord has certainly shown that he has got the interests of Northern Ireland at heart, as well as those of the rest of the United Kingdom. However, I do think it was most unfortunate for any Minister to get involved in negotiations with Eire without having had talks and discussions with those who I think proved in the last war that they were the friends of our brethren in Great Britain.

6.20 p.m.

I am going to be very brief on this matter. I did not intend to intervene at all, and I only do so because of the remarks made and the attitude adopted by the hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who come from Northern Ireland. It is undoubtedly strange that these same Members who have subscribed to the instrument of the Charter of the United Nations, which aims at creating peace and concord between the nations, should have taken the first opportunity when there were signs of peace—as undoubtedly there are signs of peace—between England and Ireland to try to throw a spanner into the works of this aerial agreement. The Parliamentary Secretary has stated the matter very clearly, and it is not my intention to introduce anything in connection with the articles of agreement on this matter. I gather from the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) that his chief concern is that the flag of Ireland is to be shown on these planes. I can say as one resident and living in Northern Ireland that the masses of the people of Northern Ireland are not concerned over the display of the Irish flag on aeroplanes coming from Dublin to Belfast or going on from Belfast to Glasgow or Crewe. I repeat what one hon. Member on this side of the House said, that the hon. Member for Londonderry has introduced this matter purely for political purposes, and to try to extend the strife, which unfortunately has been carried on between Great Britain and Ireland for so many centuries. If it were not for the fact that my country was partitioned this Committee would not be troubled, or have its time wasted on this question of the Eire agreement.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is that the Union Jack is not to be shown in Dublin?

It is not in Order to interrupt a maiden speech.

Yes, I have spoken previously. It is not my purpose to go into these matters now.

I am sorry, but I thought the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) was making his maiden speech. I apologise to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross), who was quite in Order in making his interruption.

But for the partition of our country, this House would not have been troubled today with this question of the Agreement with Eire. It is an Agreement which has advantages for both sides. There is absolutely no doubt about that no matter what may be the contentions of the hon. Member for Londonderry. Let us hope that it is the forerunner of further agreements that will make for peace and concord, which should exist between our two countries. The hon. Member for Londonderry talked very exhaustively in regard to his being a loyalist. I think at the same time that to be a loyalist he must not be antagonistic to a part of his own country. If he wants to show true loyalty let him endeavour to promote that peace and that cooperation which should exist between our two countries. I say that this Agreement is advantageous to both countries, and I hope that it will be the forerunner of other agreements which will assist in bringing peace and contentment to our peoples.

6.26 p.m.

The words which I will address to the Committee will be on the lowest level. I know nothing at all about the technicalities of aeroplanes, but I happen to have been forced to fly constantly for the last 20 years. I feel that I represent about 90 per cent. of the general public who fly because they wish for speed and simplicity. We know we cannot ask for comfort in the air, and I think we have given up hoping for that. I should like to supplement the criticism my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) made this afternoon on the Paris-London service. Like my hon. Friend, some weeks ago I went over by the Southern Railway in peace and comfort and punctuality. I was forced to fly back because I wished to be here for the opening of the House last week. I took my ticket in London and I looked at it when I got to Paris, and it said: "Your flight is 6X." It did not say where I was to report to or whether I would eventually arrive or anything at all.

Having experienced great kindness from Transport Command in the old days I naturally went to the Place Vendome, where I found "B.O.A.C." written up. Inside there were some charming French girls sitting at the desk with all the politeness of the French people, but, unfortunately, they could not tell me when I would arrive in England, and whether I was to be taken from the centre of Paris or go down to Le Bourget myself. They had not my name on the list, and eventually after telephoning and misspelling my name it was agreed that I would have to go to the Rue Lafayette the next day.

I think it is imposing on one too much to ask one to leave the centre of Paris for the air port, because there is much more centre in Paris than in London Then there are all the forms to fill in and all the paraphernalia to be gone through before one gets back. Even in the office at which I called the following day there was no B.O.A.C. notice or advertisement. There was a tiny desk with a very pleasant Frenchman who was filling in the papers, and once again my name was misspelled. I had to fill in a form which wanted to know if I had a typist and which set out a lot of horrible diseases which one was not likely to catch in Paris. I found a label on my bag and it was not "B.O.A.C." but "Air France." There was no advertisement for B.O.A.C.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that France is improving her position every day from the tourist point of view. Paris is altering her whole character and her outlook every day, and, unlike this country, she is welcoming visitors. She has good food to offer them, and not from a black market, as well as many other things which she had not a few months ago. I think that we should make Paris a real centre for the B.O.A.C. I am not saying a word against Air France because I always have had civility and comfort from them. I do feel, however, that we should have adequate representation in Paris. Everything should be made as simple as possible for people like myself who only travel by air because we have to. We want to have the journey simplified and to know where to report.

We would like to be able to hire a taxi in Paris and go out to Le Bourget. I was offered a free lift in a car to go there. I was told I should not do it because I could not be weighed or fill up any forms there. Other people on the plane told me that they had had the same experience. When I got to Le Bourget we were huddled up by the Air France people and there were more forms and more declarations. We flopped across the Channel in a Dakota. At Northholt, however, it was absolutely first-class. Everything was quick and efficient, and there were all the things one wants when one has just avoided air sickness and has arrived on the ground.

Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the question of B.O.A.C. in Paris. We shall have much tourist traffic arriving there soon. We would like it to fly over with the B.O.A.C, when we have the food, heat, and a little amusement to give them. It may not be realised in this Committee how France is picking up, every single day. I would like to take a conducted party of Members of the Front Bench around France and Paris at the moment, and show them how to use a little imagination and a little vision in advertising our service and our own country. I once more urge the hon. Gentleman to look into every detail of the B.O.A.C. in Paris. I am sure he will find it is extremely inefficient and inadequate for the traffic that we are hoping to have going there in the coming year.

6.30 p.m.

I would first say a word of appreciation of the speech made by the hon. Member for Mid Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) in opening the Debate. He covered a great deal of ground in a useful and interesting way. The only fault I have to find with his speech is that he slipped back into the convention of raising the antagonism between private enterprise and Government concerns. Although that is very interesting, and may be specially amusing during an all-night Sitting by way of comic relief, it does not apply to the problem of civil aviation in anything like the form in which it is customarily used. Civil aviation, owing to the size of its operations in the world, needs a large organisation. Large sums of Government money have to be spent upon organisation and research in the centre. Private enterprise, in the old sense, hardly exists at all. Even on the outskirts, the fringes, and the remote places, air lines are to some extent under private enterprise, but they depend for their services upon hidden subsidies in one form or another. The battle is not between private enterprise and public ownership, but between highly centralised control and less centralised control of air operations.

I have said that private enterprise and free competition hardly apply to aircraft operation and design. I should explain that it is the commercial competition which is largely disappearing. There is no reason why technical competition should not persist. We know that architects are invited to put up rival designs for particular buildings. In the same way competitive designs can be invited for aircraft and can be produced. In the past, the prize has been enormous financial profit to the successful designer, and something near bankruptcy for the failures. We do not need the prizes to be so great or the punishment so drastic as that. The benefits of competition can be made available and can be achieved without the crude test of commercial failure.

If centralisation is necessary in the organisation of airlines it is even more necessary in the organisation of research. Between the two wars, private firms in Britain have tried to set up research establishments but they have had very little success. One reason is that the work given is naturally intermittent, and the firms could not retain expensive staffs over periods when there was not much work to do. The size and expense of buildings and apparatus were so great that it was not reasonable to concentrate that amount of capital equipment for work in isolated places. The centralisation of research is absolutely necessary. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Flight-Lieutenant Crawley) mentioned some of the problems involved. They all necessitate a great deal of expensive research. During wartime, day-to-day problems received first attention. They had to. The more long-term research problems had to be put into the background.

At present, we are entering on a new field and the whole picture has changed. The gas turbine has made a tremendous difference to the problems of aeronautics and engine design and has taken us into a new sphere with new, difficult and complicated problems. If we are to make a success of them, the research has to be very thorough, complete and coordinated, and supplied with sufficient money and staff. It is just here that we are falling down badly at the present time. The Ministry of Supply does the research work, or coordinates it. If we leave out the purely military research on the armaments side we are left with aeronautical problems and engine design. The problems which have accumulated and which are at present waiting to be tackled require just as much research and staffs as big as at the peak period during the war. What has happened to the staffs? They seem to have been broken up and cut drastically. I cannot give the Committee the exact figure, but I believe that about 50 per cent. of the staffs have gone. This is the time when we are faced with extremely difficult and complicated problems, that we need the staffs. The blame for their dispersal is put upon the Treasury for its parsimony in this direction. The manpower report stated that we should be short of scientists in a few years' time. We need twice as many scientists now as we have got. It is not right that 50 per cent. of them should have been declared redundant and allowed to go into other jobs.

Let me sum up. My main contention is that if we are to spend £60 million upon the production of aircraft we might spend a small fraction of that amount upon research in the early stages. I believe it would pay us many times over. During the period between the two wars I saw experimental work done full scale with extreme waste and loss of time. The work should have been done in models in the earlier stages.

6.40 p.m.

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions. To begin with, I hope he will be able to tell us how soon B.O.A.C. will be in a position to take over the services which are now operated on the Mediterranean routes by Transport Command. I quite appreciate that some degree of dual control between B.O.A.C. and Transport Command is inevitable in the early stages of postwar civil aviation, but the result is a number of anomalies. Two aircraft, one B.O.A.C, and one Transport Command take off from the same aerodrome for the same destination. The passengers on each aircraft pay exactly the same fare. Whereas B.O.A.C. are booked up months ahead it is comparatively easy to buy a seat in one of the Transport Command planes. That fact might not be altogether unconnected with the degree of comfort in the B.O.A.C. planes, in marked contrast to the hard aluminium seats in the Transport Command Dakotas.

I should probably be out of order if I were to refer to the degree of improvisation which Transport Command have to exert in their commendable but not always highly successful efforts to make their passengers comfortable, or to the great difficulty which some of their officials in St. James Street seem to experience in differentiating between Greenwich Mean time and local time. The sooner that B.O.A.C. take over from Transport Command on those routes the better. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will remember the future volume of tourist traffic which will be coming to England as soon as tourist facilities improve.

My second question is: What types of civil aircraft, if any, are we in a position to supply to countries, particularly in the Middle East, in whose territories civil aviation is beginning to develop very fast as a result of the war? If we possess at the moment any types of civil aircraft for export is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that adequate facilities exist for giving those countries a fair chance to buy British aircraft rather than to accept the usual alternative of taking American aircraft because the latter are available, usually at preferential rates?

My third and last question is to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us information about the negotiations which were, and perhaps still are, in progress between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government about the participation of British air lines on air routes in Italy. Will he assure the Committee that, whatever agreement is finally made, we shall receive treatment as favourable as that given to the Americans?

6.44 p.m.

I listened with very great interest to the opening speeches in the Debate. I do not profess to know anything about the technicalities of the industry of aviation, but I do know something about the principle of public ownership. Until the road system in this country came under some degree of public ownership, it was in a state of chaos and was unable to meet requirements. Very much the same thing has happened with the railways. The Government are doing the right thing in taking hold immediately of the new means of transport, at the very commencement, in order to organise it in such a way that the public will get really good service.

Now I come to my main point. During the Debate, I have heard references made to England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and even Eire, but not a word has been said about Wales. I am rather perturbed about that. I hope that some attention will be paid to Wales in the development of air transport. It will not be good enough merely to have a link between London and Cardiff. I would like to see links between Western Wales and North Wales, as well as the country being linked up, both central and South Wales, with Liverpool and other parts of the country. There are special reasons why I think that Wales should be considered in this matter. In South Wales, the area which I know best, we have many excellent sites for aerodromes, and as I believe most people know very well, the Vale of Glamorgan presents a grand opportunity for the development of air sites. The same thing applies to certain parts of North Wales.

One of our big problems in South Wales at the moment is that we have pockets of unemployment. In regard to one valley particularly, I hope that, in developing this new industry, we shall be able to absorb some of that unemployment in the early stages before we come to the actual development of the means of air transport right throughout the country. These are some of my reasons for intervening in this Debate. There is one other point. Reading HANSARD, I saw that the Minister of Transport made a reply the other day to a question concerning the construction of a road between North and South Wales. The Minister said that the construction of that road should not be part of the first five-year plan, because of the mountainous character of mid-Wales, and North Wales, too. He said that the cost of such a road would be prohibitive at the moment. That appears to me to be a very good reason for saying that, if we cannot have road transport between North and South Wales now, why not get aerial links between the two extremes of that little country? I hope that Wales is not to be forgotten during the development of these schemes for air transport. We have suffered much during the interwar years, and many thousands of our people have had to migrate to other parts of the country. Now when industry is being developed in our own valleys, wherever we have the opportunity, we want to help to get the people back into the country, and the development of air transport should bring us more into the picture. I hope that Wales will have a square deal, and will not be treated just as a place on an aeronautical map.

6.50 p.m.

I am sure I express the views of all hon. Members of the Committee when I say how delighted we are with the first speech of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. J. Evans) If I may say so, I am specially delighted, because the hon. Member represents a Welsh division, and one with which I have had very close associations. The hon. Member is a welcome addition to our ranks and to our counsels. The hon. Member has really dealt with the point which I wanted to make. When one looks at the map which has been published showing the internal lines and the contemplated developments in civil aviation, one finds that it is a very striking map The lines are shown between England, Scotland and Ireland. We have had, in the course of this Debate, from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) speeches on the Irish dispute. We have had references to Scotland and a variety of points with regard to England. But the whole of Wales has been left completely blank, as though it did not exist. The decision, by which Wales is ignored on this map, can only be a purely bureaucratic decision, possibly due to someone who has not bothered about it at all.

I want to refer to transport facilities between North and South Wales. If one wants to go from South Wales to North Wales, and one takes the fastest train one can get from Cardiff to Bangor, which are two of the most important towns in the country, it is a day's journey. One has to take the whole day, and, if one has any business to do, it takes three days—one to travel there, one day for the business and the third day to travel back. That is an absurd position, and, with the modern development of aviation, completely wrong. What possible justification can any Government Department have for leaving out of its future plans the whole Principality? These are plans which immediately concern the development of the whole of these islands. Not only are we concerned from the point of view of the internal routes, but I maintain that we are concerned about the trans-Atlantic crossing. Simply because somebody in Whitehall, sitting in an office, has not taken the trouble to see what the real position is, we get this map, according to which Wales might have been sunk in the Atlantic Ocean. The position is one which cannot be justified, and, because of that, I am all the more glad to congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore, from the point of view of the Principality. I express the hope that, when the reply to this Debate is made, the Minister will give an assurance that this unsatisfactory position will be remedied and Wales will be properly linked with the rest of the country.

6.53 p.m.

I regard this question of civil aviation as one of the most important matters that has ever come before us, and I was delighted to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), which, in certain respects, I thought, was a great contribution to this Debate. I felt, however, that the hon. Member rather spoiled it in the criticism which ran right through his speech. He started off by talking of the way in which that admirable company Skyways was treated. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to give the reasons, which, I am sure, are innocent, but one of them is that Northolt is not an ideal aerodrome for Yorks when they are fully loaded, and I cannot imagine that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford does not know that.

It is not a good aerodrome with the present runways under repair and it is not the ideal place to land Yorks. Secondly, I think I am right in saying that the hon. Member pointed out that there was delay in this company being fixed up elsewhere. I am sure he is right in that, but I do think that we must keep a reasonable outlook on these matters. It is not easy, with the increasing numbers of aircraft we are operating, to find aerodromes where proper arrangements can be made to handle these big four-engined machines. There has been criticism of the way they have been treated and because of the fact that passengers have had to wait, and one would really think that, sometimes, an aerodrome manager comes out in the morning, sees that it is a fine day and says, "Let's stop some aircraft flying." When aircraft do not fly, there are good reasons for it. We do not hear so much in this Chamber, of the delays of aircraft of other countries, particularly American, but I have waited 18 hours for an American air liner which had been delayed, though one does not hear so much about delays in that case.

While on the subject of complaints being made, I would like to refer to the complaints that Transport Command have received in the past. Perhaps it will do no harm if I say that complaints against Transport Command and B.O.A.C. in the past have, whenever carefully investigated, been found, in general, to be untrue though of course this does not apply to every one. I think that should be stated because there is a certain amount of publicity given to these complaints, and it is most disheartening to those people on the staff of the airfields, and, particularly, to those away out East and on the Persian Gulf who pick up a newspaper and read of these complaints mentioned in Parliament that a passenger's luggage was lost or that he had to wait half an hour. I can assure the Committee that this sort of thing is not very encouraging to our officials.

So far as the question of the agreement with Eire is concerned, I am personally a little concerned. I am concerned from the angle of exactly why we are going there, and not so much from the Union Jack angle, and I cannot understand why it has been necessary that this route to America or Canada should have been selected. Whenever Prestwick is mentioned, my hair goes up at the back, because I never considered it an ideal aerodrome for this purpose, as it is a long way from Edinburgh, from Glasgow and a very long way from London. It is an airport, that is all. But I certainly do consider that Prestwick is better than Ireland. I cannot see why this should be done. We have had experience for five years in bringing aircraft from America, and we are pioneers in oceanic flying. We have created that trans-Atlantic route and the Southern Atlantic route, too, and we have, therefore, unrivalled experience, and Prestwick has played its part in all this. If we cannot bring aircraft direct to London, and we cannot yet, why not let them come where they have been going in the past? Is there any particular advantage in putting them into Southern Ireland? With regard to the remarks of my hon. Friend, who seemed rather to favour the Eire decision, I say that Scotland did more for us during the war than Southern Ireland and we ought to recognise that fact.

The hon. and gallant Member will agree that Southern Ireland has done its part in the war?

The next point I want to make is one which has been referred to by hon. Members on this side, hon. Members opposite and by the Parliamentary Secretary himself—the question of a centre for civil aviation in London. The Government do not appear to find it possible to give us Earl's Court because of the Board of Trade. I suggest that to have such a centre is of great interest to our trade and that if it is just a question of one way or the other and the Board of Trade in this case have weighted the scales, I would ask the Government to reconsider the decision. It would be more sensible if we put our trade exhibition in aircraft and sent it round the world for our goods to be displayed in every country. It seems to be rather illogical to bring people to this country for a great exhibition and not have an air traffic centre in our capital city.

My final point is about aircraft. I am rather tired of repeating, and I am certain hon. Members would not wish me to go right through the story, that we have the best pilots and air crews, etc., although it bears repetition as it is so—but we have not the aircraft. Air lines can be operated by anyone without difficulty providing there is aircraft, there is no black magic in it at all, but they cannot be operated unless the aircraft are there. In the past—I am afraid hon. Members opposite are responsible for this—B.O.A.C. have had the handicap of unsatisfactory aircraft for the job they have had to do. The Minister of Supply is here and I hope he will tell us something about the aircraft position, because that is what we could fail in. We shall not fail on our operating or on our personnel, and I feel certain we shall not fail in our State corporations as we have experience in B.O.A.C. which is unrivalled in the world. I hope the Minister of Supply can assure us that, in the future, British aircraft will be ordered in sufficient numbers, and that there will be a little risk taken in this. I think we are justified in taking risks in civil aviation, for we had to take great risks in the air during the war. If, however, the Minister does not take risks, he will lose the men in the factories who are specialists in the production of aircraft and that will be tragic.

7.4 p.m.

I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the facility with which he allows me and others, here and upstairs, to interrupt him, and for the geniality with which he receives those interruptions. It certainly makes for information coming easily and at the appropriate time, rather than storing it all up until the end. Having congratulated him upon his geniality in this matter, I am afraid that is as far as my congratulation can go, because this evening it is upon the Anglo-Eire treaty—or to put the senior partner first, perhaps I should say the Eire-Anglo treaty—that I would like to focus the attention of the Committee. This is only a little surrender. It is not surrender on the grand scale, such as we look like witnessing in India and Egypt, but it is symptomatic of an attitude of mind in negotiating commercial agreements which, if it is pursued further, will be very dangerous and detrimental to our country. Therefore, I want to go through the details of this Anglo-Eire treaty in considerable detail.

First, we have to consider the background against which this treaty has been drawn up. The Parliamentary Secretary told us a certain amount about that this afternoon, but what was the history of this agreement? It was really the result of what happened at Chicago in 1944 when we failed to find general agreement on the fifth freedom. Thereafter, of course, the countries present at that Conference were free to make their own bilateral arrangements and Eire was not slow in taking advantage of this situation. She fixed up with the United States of America, had a literally "flying start," and developed the Shannon airport. When we realised just what was happening we, in turn, opened negotiations with Eire. We were by this time in a thoroughly bad negotiating situation and so we came to this arrangement with Eire with considerable disadvantages, because of our belated negotiating, which otherwise could have been avoided. It is that background which has put the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister into the difficult position in which they now are for, as I hope to show, this agreement is, as I described it earlier, a most deplorable document.

I want first to consider the agreement itself, because hand in hand with the agreement goes the commercial treaty, and, like the postcript to a lady's letter where you often find the meat, in fact much of the meat is in the commercial treaty. The main articles in the agreement are not particularly sensational, but it is worth while noting that one of the last clauses allows for 12 months' notice being given by either of the con- tracting parties to this agreement, and, further, that if any features of it are found to be unsatisfactory, both contracting parties can open consultations in order to get those unsatisfactory features considered and probably removed.

It is when we come to the annex to the agreement that we come to what is really important, because that makes the provisions to which so many of us object. That annex lays down at the end the routes which will be flown under this treaty, and those routes divide themselves into four different categories. First, there are the routes to Canada and the United States of America; second, there are the routes direct to the United Kingdom; third, there are routes direct to the Continent; and fourth, there are routes to the United Kingdom and thence to some other point abroad. So far as the first series of routes of flying services are concerned—namely, to the United States of America, Newfoundland and Canada—I do not think there is a great deal to which to take exception. It is curious, however, that we should have bound ourselves, whenever we fly over Irish territory, to descend and refuel at Rineanna, but it is perfectly clear from the agreement that we are not forced to fly over Irish territory and that, in any case, pilots will take advantage of natural weather conditions and will tend to fly north of Ireland in any case. So I am not very alarmed that we should have agreed always to land at this airport on the Shannon. Incidentally, the company which will carry out these services on behalf of Ireland is called Aer Rianta Teoranta and, on our part, B.O.A.C.

Let us consider the next series of routes provided for under this agreement. I would like to treat, secondly, the lines in which we have no interest and which, in my view, should not have been brought into the commercial agreement at all, namely, lines which fly direct from Ireland to places on the Continent. Those lines will be supplied by another Irish company, Aer Lingus, and in addition to supplying those services—and the only one mentioned in the agreement is from Dublin to Paris, whereas in the commercial agreement we see also Dublin to Rome—Aer Lingus will also supply all the services which fly from Ireland to Britain—to London, Glasgow, Liverpool and elsewhere. Thirdly, Aer Lingus will also supply all the aircraft which will fly over from Ireland to a point unspecified in the United Kingdom and thence to Oslo, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Brussels. That is a wide area. This monopoly given to Aer Lingus—which I think is extremely unfortunate so far as we are concerned—is a company in which the capital is £1 million, into which the Irish have paid £600,000 and we have paid £400,000. So you have the situation of Great Britain being the junior partner over this wide extent of territory. Why was it necessary for us to accept this junior partnership position? Why should every second machine not have been a British machine? It goes further than that, because the board of directors of this company who will control the policy, who will have power to decide which aircraft are to be flown, how often, and what their capacity is to be, is predominantly Irish. So there we have a situation in which we are junior partners, minority shareholders, and in which we can be consistently and perpetually outvoted.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that it would offend the susceptibilities of the nationals of other countries if we were to ask for a majority interest. We have never asked for that. All we have asked for is parity, and if it offends their susceptibilities, have we no susceptibilities in this country? Are the only States which are to be allowed an amour proprz those who are ex-enemies or were neutral? I know of no more specious argument for justifying a quite intolerable situation. The Parliamentary Secretary went further than that. He spent a good deal of the afternoon dexterously avoiding a number of pitfalls, but he failed to avoid an extremely deep and important one because he said that we must accept a minority interest on account of Section 7 of Article 8 of the final agreement at Chicago It has been read out already to the Committee, but I want the Committee to judge in this matter because, if the Parliamentary Secretary is under a misapprehension, and if he thinks that the Treaty we have negotiated with Italy and the treaties we are to negotiate with a variety of other States are dominated by this clause, it is to the greatest degree in the national interest that this should be cleared up. This clause says that each of the contracting parties—that is, the parties who will use this formula for the drawing up of an agreement between two states—

This is a point of great importance, because if the Parliamentary Secretary has allowed all these subsequent agreements to be dominated by that clause, I suggest he has been dominated by something which is very ill understood. I have shown that the Aer Lingus line is to carry out certain services direct to continental countries. The Parliamentary Secretary said that that was another reason why we accepted a minority shareholding. Any commercial man would at once have said that these lines, in which we have no conceivable interest, should not have been brought into the same commercial agreement as the lines in which we have an interest. It muddles the thing up inextricably. If it was necessary that Aer Lingus should carry out both services, there should have been two companies, or a subsidiary in which we had no interest to carry the services direct from Ireland to the continent.

I do not claim that we should have asked for majority interests, although at first blush the country which contributes London, Liverpool and Glasgow, contributes more than the country which contributes Dublin and Shannon; but it is a principle which has always been observed in shipping, in which I have drawn up a number of contracts with other countries, that men and goods have as much interest in leaving a country as in arriving at their destination. We would at once drop that, and all we would say is that we are entitled to have parity. And then, as if piling Pelion on Ossa, although we accept a 40 per cent. interest of the profits of some of these lines, we accept half of the losses. It does not need very great business acumen to show in what a difficult and dangerous situation a lopsided agreement of that kind may land us.

I come to the last type of service provided under the agreement, and it is the most complicated of them all. It is the service which is to fly from Ireland to a point not designated in Britain, and then on to Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam and Brussels. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who has the right to designate the point, and has any point in Britain been designated? If the Irish have their heads screwed on the right way, as they appear to have, they will ask for London, or some nearby airport, and if we have our heads screwed on the wrong way, as we appear to have, we will accept that. If we do so, what will happen? As has been said already, this agreement provides that the aircraft to be put at the disposal of Aer Lingus shall be consonant with and approximate to the demand by the travelling public, cargo and passengers. Therefore, the Irish are to have a monopoly of flying from Ireland to this point in Britain—say, London—and thence to Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Brussels and Amsterdam. This means that the Irish can fill the plane from Ireland with passengers and traffic to London, and then can load all the balance of space in the aircraft and fly on to the continental countries I have mentioned. That may, although I think that would be exaggerating the position, leave nothing further to be carried, but in any case they will have a priority and will skim the cream off the traffic.

Is the hon. and gallant Member speaking of some Irish company, apart from the joint company?

I am speaking of Aer Lingus, the joint company. There will then be the Irish company, in which we hold a 40 per cent. share, carrying traffic to London, on-carrying traffic to Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm Amsterdam and Brussels, and the purely British company, if we want to have a purely British company, flying from London to Copenhagen, Brussels and Amsterdam, will be in the difficult position of seeing that company, first established and with the right to have as many aircraft as necessary to meet the demand, take the cream of the traffic, and the purely British company will come in afterwards and compete with a company in which we have a 40 per cent. shareholding. The situation is extremely complicated, but it goes further yet. What will the people in Brussels say? If a country has a claim upon a service which is carrying its own nationals, will the Belgians see this Irish company—this joint company, if hon. Members prefer so to describe it, but a company predominantly Irish—carrying passengers from Brussels to London? Will they see that happen without protest? Will not they say that they have an interest in this traffic? And so confusion will become more confounded. The trade agreement ends with the words:

"And it is agreed that any question in dispute shall be dealt with on a fair and square basis as that term is interpreted by reasonable-minded men."

If this is the evidence of reasonable-mindedness and a fair and square basis, I think the sooner we get some reasonable-minded men on our side of the fence the better. In its palmiest days appeasement would have hung its head before putting its signature to a document of this kind.

On a point of Order. For the convenience in the Debate, may I ask whether it is the intention of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply to reply to the Debate? I had understood that he would reply to the Debate on the purely Supply questions and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation would wind up on the larger questions. I am getting a little anxious about the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. He left the Chamber three hours ago and he has not been seen since.

Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to reply to the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan). First, I think it is a little unfair to say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation has been away for three hours. Certainly, it is not correct to say that. Second, I thought it might be useful if, at about 8 o'clock, I replied to points dealing with Supply and Aircraft Production and if later the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation dealt with the points which have been raised concerning the agreements, which could clearly be better dealt by him directly than by me indirectly.

It is for that reason that I am getting anxious about the Parliamentary Secretary's absence from the Chamber. I hope that those who are taking notes for him, and who, I am sure, are doing it very accurately, will be able to give him the arguments that have been made.

The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) said that the planes would not necessarily land at Rineanna, and that if weather conditions were all right the pilot could come through without crossing Irish territory. May I point out that the Parliamentary Secretary said that the timetable was worked out so that in every case the plane would have to land at Rineanna?

What I meant to say was that if a pilot were left to his own devices and considerations, he would in fact fly North of Irish territory. Therefore, this agreement that all aircraft flying over Irish territory should land at Rineanna does not worry me too much, although I think it is an undesirable point. I wish to conclude by reminding the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a clause in the agreement with Ireland which allows this agreement to be denounced on 12 months' notice. I call upon the Government to denounce this agreement at the earliest possible opportunity, and tomorrow would not be one day too soon.

May I correct one thing which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) said? It must be remembered that the pilots are routed, and according to the information given by the Parliamentary Secretary, they are routed via Ireland and normally they were scheduled to come down in Eire.

If the pilots were routed in the most sensible way, instead of being forced to land at Rineanna, they would fly North.

7.25 p.m.

Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), who has made such an ad- mirable speech, I have constantly marvelled at the genuine good temper and persistent optimism of the Parliamentary Secretary, especially considering some of his associates, but in his speech today, which was a good speech, he used exactly the same technique as he has used in the Standing Committee discussing the Civil Aviation Bill. He has given his explanation of the various Clauses of the Bill just as, today, he has given his explanation of the various agreements. Guarantees, assurances and explanations are really no good unless they are incorporated in an Act of Parliament or in an official agreement. We have had the same sort of thing throughout this week. The other day the Solicitor-General gave his description and his meaning of certain most intricate and involved Clauses in the Finance Bill. As I pointed out at the time, if only the Clauses had been drafted according to the Solicitor-General's explanation, they would have made sense, but certainly his explanations were different from what the Clauses said.

The same thing applies to these agreements. The trouble is that there are so many of them that it has been impossible to study and analyse them as they should have been, especially in view of the fact that the Parliamentary printing press is working at full speed and overtime depositing Bills on our doorsteps every day—Bills which are ill-considered and ill-conceived, which the Government cannot explain and we cannot understand. These things descend upon us with such rapidity that it is not fair to civil aviation as a whole, and as we hope to see it in this country one day, that we should, at a moment's notice almost, have to form our judgments and opinions on these various agreements which are now presented to us after having been conducted behind our backs; but like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow, I shall refer briefly to the Anglo-Eire Agreement. He analysed it with considerable precision and gave the conclusions that we might draw from a study of the various Clauses of the agreement.

I want to put the matter to the Committee more simply. I have two main objections to this agreement. First of all, it completely ignores Scotland's birthright to the air. That is a fact, no matter what colour or complexion the Parliamentary Secretary may place on the agreement. My second point is this. Apparently, in the Cabinet today, Scotland has no one to defend or represent her interests. The present Secretary of State is a good man; there is no doubt about that; but he is so overwhelmed with Departmental duties and routine that he has no time to study or appreciate the tremendous potentialities of the air to Scotland. Therefore, the very unfortunate and unhappy conclusion is that, as far as the Cabinet is concerned, Scotland is disfranchised. This outrageous agreement between our unhappy, unfortunate and misconceived Government and the Government of Eire gives a virtual monopoly of all air services connecting Ireland with the British mainland, and it gives it to Aer Lingus, the Southern Irish Company. I am referring to the actual results of the agreement, and more or less putting into simpler language what "we shall suffer as a result of it. It has been pointed out, of course, that it is a company with a capital of £1 million in which we are a subordinate partner as regards profits, but an equal partner as regards losses. The Parliamentary Secretary has done his best to justify that strange financial transaction. He may be satisfied about it, but nobody else is.

What puzzles most of us is why Scotland, loyal, true and faithful in war and in peace should have been treated like this, and why Eire, faithless to her obligations to humanity, should be treated with a tenderness, and almost a deference, which the Government might well have retained for its tried and trusted friends. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has come back because he will appreciate that underneath these clauses lies a definite meaning, and I am analysing that meaning. Under this agreement, Rineanna is to be the Atlantic port for traffic bound for the North Americas while Prestwick, proved for 10 years, six of them during the war and four before, and incomparably the best and most reliable airport in Great Britain, is bypassed. The Parliamentary Secretary tried to reassure us by that persuasive and genial tongue of his. He may try to persuade us that all these things are figments of our imagination, but these are the only deductions which can truly and faithfully be come to after reading the clauses of this agreement.

Again, under this agreement, Rineanna is made the stopping place for all inward and outward traffic across the North Atlantic and, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow has pointed out, to the Scandinavian countries as well. As far as I can see, no Scottish airline service will be permitted to operate except under charter terms and the savage penalties of a £5,000 fine and two years' imprisonment will make sure that no element from Scotland participates either in the charter services or in the scheduled services designed by the Government. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that there are many Scots in Scotland still and that there are a considerable number of Scots in America and Canada who will be affected by this agreement. I do not think that this has been designed by the Parliamentary Secretary; I think he has been pushed into it and that, had he been responsible, his better nature would have resulted in his drawing up an entirely different agreement. But there it is; he is in the hands of a stronger power than himself.

The Scots overseas who will be intimately concerned with this agreement, will not be silent at this betrayal, as we regard it, of Scottish interests. What is the Secretary of State going to do about it, and why is he not present? We are discussing something of vital importance to Scotland and yet there is not a single Scottish representative present on the Front Bench opposite. There he is; he has just appeared, but until a moment ago there was not a single Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench. What answer have the Government to this deliberate betrayal of Scottish interests? I will give way if the hon. and learned Solicitor-General will get up and tell us.

Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman taken out a Scottish national registration form?

Twenty-three thousand worthy people in Scotland thought fit to elect me to, and keep me in, Parliament for 21 years, and I rely on their judgment more than on the implication of the hon. Gentleman.

If 2,000 Scottish workers had not been on holiday at the time the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not have been elected.

I want to know what the Lord Advocate and the hon. and learned Solicitor-General are going to do. Are they going, deliberately, to forfeit the good will and respect of the people of Scotland by their failure to stand up for Scottish interests while this monstrous agreement was being negotiated? In the late Government, Scotland won certain advantages in the air which they lost when this Government came into power. I would assure the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary that Scotland will fight on until she wins what she believes is her just place in the future of civil aviation.

Looking through these agreements in the casual way which I have only had time to do, it seems to me that we are really selling out for dollars and foreign currency. It is this Government who will, in truth, have set up a golden calf and its worship. It is not a good outlook for civil aviation in Scotland; it is a very grim one. This Government had great opportunities for fulfilling the promises made to Scotland at the General Election. Every one of its supporters outdid each other in saying what was going to happen in the way of benefits if their Party was returned. They have "ratted" on those promises and have not stood up to the undertakings given at the election. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, this Treaty can be denounced if only the Scottish Members of Parliament who are supporting the Government will be faithful to their pledges, which will ensure that the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General and all those who take the slightest interest in civil aviation in our country shall be forced to do their job honestly and patriotically, and serve Scotland as she deserves to be served.

7.38 p.m.

I am glad that I was fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Chairman, at this particular moment. I have listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) with very great interest. No doubt it will look very well in the Press tomorrow—probably that is why it was delivered—but it certainly has very little connection with the arguments concerning the Anglo-Irish agreement. I want to say, in the first place, rebutting the final accusations of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs, that this agreement was first raised in this House by hon. Members on this side.

Nonsense. I must protest against that. The first time the matter was raised in this House was by myself in a Parliamentary Question and I had a copy of the agreement which had only been issued that morning. The matter was not referred to again for over seven weeks after that.

When this agreement was being negotiated, I asked the Prime Minister questions concerning the implications of its terms.

I asked several questions on this agreement and Labour Members had the agreement under observation all the time. It was not until it had been published in "The Times" that the hon. and gallant Member referred to it.

The facts are recorded in HANSARD, but the truth is that the Labour Members in this House were the first to raise the matter on the Floor of the House.

That is not nonsense, that is true Since then we have had it constantly under consideration. I thought the argument adduced by Scottish hon. Members opposite that this was a betrayal of Scotland's birthright had been fairly well answered. I listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) and noticed that he no longer took up the attitude that this was a betrayal of Scotland's birthright, but shifted his argument to something else. The arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs are, first, that Scotland is bypassed. That is not true. Repeatedly the information has been given in this House that trans-Atlantic air services are to use Prestwick.

They will be using it after 1st July. Information has also been given repeatedly in this House—and it is rather surprising, unless this is for purely publicity purposes, to find that this matter is being raised again—that there is nothing in this agreement, which we have examined very thoroughly, to prevent the whole of the services from London using Prestwick, if it is in the interests of the United Kingdom to do so. The first argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs simply does not hold water. The second argument he put forward—and these are the only two arguments he has attempted to adduce—was that we could not have a service from Scotland to Northern Europe. Once again, that is not true.

It has been stated time and again that there is nothing in this agreement to prevent the B.E.A.C. running a service from Glasgow to Oslo, or from Edinburgh to Oslo, or to any other European country.

I thought these criticisms had been finally withdrawn, leaving only one substantial argument against the agreement. That argument was that we are allowing, or at least cooperating with Southern Ireland in the formation of, a company to run services from Ireland to this country. The sharing of the capital is, I understand, 60 per cent. held by Ireland and 40 per cent. held by us. But this company is based on Ireland. I agree with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that it would be an offence to national feeling if the air services based on a country were mainly held by other nationals. I think the Government are justified, by virtue of Section 7 of the Chicago Agreement. If Aer Lingus had been formed on the basis of 60 per cent. held by us and 40 per cent. held by Ireland, that country could not make an agreement with America whereby that company could be used as the instrument of the Agreement. Similarly, in the case of Italy. The principle which is being advocated by hon. Members opposite would result in this, that in negotiating a bilateral agreement, whatever arrangements for services were made, a new company would have to be formed to run them. That does not seem to me to make for efficiency, neither does it make for what we on this side of the House want to see developed, namely, greater international coordination. For these reasons we on this side, and I think I speak for my Scottish colleagues, reject the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite.

7.45 p.m.

The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) has given an indication that some Scottish Members of the Labour Party were consulted about this agreement before it was made. If that is so, I think it is not very much credit to the Labour Party.

The terms of this agreement were indicated in "The Scotsman" three or four weeks before the agreement was actually signed. That is not a Labour newspaper.

What the hon. Member has said merely indicates that the information was available to the public, but he has not contradicted what he has already said, namely, that Labour Members were in consultation.

He did not say that.

What I said was that Labour Members raised this question on the Floor of the House before any other hon. Members. I did not suggest for one moment that we had been in consultation with the Minister until after the agreement.

Let that pass. The next point made by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh was that there was nothing to prevent trans-Atlantic services using Prestwick. Why should they not use it? Prestwick is a better port and was ready for use, whereas Rineanna was not. Why should they not want to use Prestwick to the exclusion of Rineanna? The hon. Member says that no one objects to services being run based on Ireland. That is quite true; if they are based on Ireland let them be run from Ireland. But why should it not be possible for British services to run as well? The justification for a minority holding in national companies such as this must be based on the idea that they are going to run a number of services to different parts of the world. The particular justification seems to be that if this country, for example, takes the minority, or even an equal share, the main bulk of the traffic done by that company will not be with this country. Where it is with this country, surely there can be no possible justification for this country having a minority holding. The population ratio is something like 20 to one. If it is based on the population ratio, why should we not have shares on that basis? As it is, we are entering a partnership on a basis of two to three. In addition, we are surrendering control over our own affairs. In that connection, I take it that all the pilots and all the crews will be Irish, and not British.

From that point I go on to all the other agreements which are being made, similar agreements, better agreements perhaps, with other countries where we are participating in the capital but it is remaining a foreign company. We are tying ourselves down, in many cases, at any rate, not to compete and at the same time we are not to have our pilots and crews running these services. Purely from the point of view of defence, and remembering the necessity for training pilots and crews, surely it would be advisable for the Ministry to reconsider their attitude in this matter. There was a time when foreign companies were proud to fly the British flag on their shipping lines. Now we are adopting a similar policy. We are flying foreign flags on our air services. As has been so ably pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), the agreement itself leaves many things obscure. For example in paragraph 4 the phrase "places specified" is used. I would like to ask if this means "places not specified" because if the Minister will look at Schedule III, Series 1 and 2, the places at which the air services are to touch in this country are not specified. Are those places included in the provisions of paragraph 7?

On my next point I am not quite certain that I am in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow. It is clear that the intention is that the capacity should be determined with regard to the traffic to be carried between the termini. I think it is a pity that the word "termini" was not used instead of "places served." In Schedule III, however, I notice that there are one or two round trips, but I feel that could have been remedied in the agreement which would have been much more clear because of that change. Bearing that in mind, as the capacity has to be related to the traffic passing between the termini, I do not feel altogether the same anxiety as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow that Aer Lingus could more or less fill a plane with passengers from Dublin to London, say, and then get a fresh load in London and carry it on to Amsterdam. I hope the hon. Gentleman will refer to that point when he replies.

I hope he will also clear up another point. There is a danger that this agreement might be abused very badly. I would like to ask whether any gentleman's or other agreement has been reached. It would be quite possible for Aer Lingus to use its services as feeder services for Aer Rianta. In other words, they could take away a great deal of the trans-Atlantic trade that might be done either through London or possibly by a British company, or any company, direct from, say, Scandinavia to America. In any case, I ask to what extent is it permissible under the agreement for passengers to be carried from Scandinavia, Holland or Belgium to Shannon and there "change gauge," which I believe is the expression, and get on to a service in which we have no interest whatever, which is Aer Rianta. If that is done we are rather cutting off our nose to spite our face. We are allowing a service in which we have a limited interest to be used in order to act as a feeder service for one in which we have no interest whatever.

I feel sure that Scottish Members on this side of the Committee and, no doubt, Scottish Members opposite have received a great number of resolutions from burghs in their constituencies regarding the choice of Rineanna instead of Prestwick. I ask the hon. Gentleman if for the use of our air services, say to Egypt or the Far East, there was a choice of Brindisi or Malta, should we hesitate if the conditions were entirely equal? In this case the conditions are not equal. The conditions are in favour of Prestwick, nevertheless we are going to Rineanna. Not only the feelings of Scotsmen in this matter but the intelligence of the nation has been affronted. Before I leave the question of the Eire Agreement, I ask that consideration should be given to the suggestion that Prestwick should be used at least doubly as much as Rineanna. After all, that is the population ratio and I think it is the very least that the Ministry could do in this matter. Considering the agreement, the last clause and the first schedule seem to me to mean exactly the same thing. The first schedule says that all services which run via Shannon will put down at Shannon. That seems to me to be complete tautology. The point is that the minimum service should be run via Shannon and the maximum via points in the United Kingdom, if we have to touch Shannon at all.

There are two further matters to which I wish to refer. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) said that it was largely on our experience in internal services that our success in external services would depend, the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary made practically no reference whatever to internal airways. It was left to Welsh and Irish Members to raise the matter. It is a truism that air services enable communications to be established between places which are otherwise remote and difficult of access. We have had innumerable reports pointing to the danger of the perpetual increase of industry and population in the large towns, particularly in London. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider very carefully the organisation of the internal services. The essence of good internal services is not that they should radiate from one point but that they should be a network. The tendency for firms to come to London and for the population of London to increase will be reduced very much if adequate services are established enabling businessmen to get quickly between two points, say, Newcastle and Cardiff or, to take my own constituency, Dumfries and Edinburgh, which are difficult of access and badly connected by rail and often by road as well.

My last point is that many of the places which are to be linked up by air services have not at present airfields of their own. Very often they are dependent upon M.A.P. or R.A.F. airfields, which have no private facilities either for civil flying clubs or for charter services. What the intention is regarding scheduled services, I do not know; but it seems to me that the Ministry of Civil Aviation finds greater difficulty in making agreements with the Secretary of State for Air than with foreign countries. I ask that the greatest attention should be paid to this question of getting M.A.P. and R.A.F. airfields in peacetime in order to provide the fullest facilities in the way of refuelling, in giving authority to construct offices, hangars and workshops, subject, of course, to the approval of the Air Ministry as to location, and the earmarking of rights of way with free access to passengers and employees and the like in peacetime. Of course, it would have to be understood that in the event of war these would become protected areas. Finally, I urge the Ministry to make the maximum disposal of surplus aeroplanes for charter services and to give the maximum encouragement to those services, because I feel certain that such services will do a great deal to enhance the industrial prosperity of this country.

8.01 p.m.

There is one point which the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Major Macpherson) made which I would like to correct, if there is any doubt still left in his mind. The Scottish Labour group did not attempt to make any approach to the Minister before the agreement was drawn up.

In accepting the assurance of the hon. Gentleman, I have pleasure in withdrawing the remark. It was based on my misunderstanding of what the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) said.

I gladly accept the withdrawal. Scottish Members on this side of the House were equally struck by the bizarre defence of Caledonia made by an Irishman, the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). We do not altogether recognise him as a fully-fledged Scot. Whether he is a Scottish Member or not, of course, is another question. When we find the hon. Member "who once in Tara's halls" singing "Scots wha hae," we know that the "Scots wha hae" to whom he refers are the Scottish private enterprisers who wished to "hae" a little bit out of the private services which they cannot now otherwise make out of civil aviation in Scotland.

Can the hon. Gentleman say that any Scottish service has lately been running at a loss?

I am not sure that the figures would be made available to me. There are, no doubt, many reasons why they should not.

After some nine years of loss I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my experience of Scottish air services shows a good profit in the last three years.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance that private enterprise is not doing really well on the whole in Scotland. I think that is what his statement amounts to. I sympathise with him for the many years of loss that he has had. We on this side of the House spurn this sort of pseudo-Scottish nationalism we have had from the Tories. It is not a sincere Scottish nationalism, and I challenge any Scottish Member on the opposite side of the House to say openly that he has a Scottish nationalist desire for Scottish home rule in its full implication. I know they will not do it. The speeches of the Scottish Conservative Members in these Debates and outside this House are full of the implications that the Labour Government do not intend to give Scotland a square deal; whereas the Tories, they claim, had they still been in office which they have held in futility for so many years, would today have been giving Scotland self-government in matters of civil aviation and so on. Those men are the men who were guilty of the "drift south" of industry from Scotland. The policy which the Government are pursuing in relation to civil aviation, if it departs from private enterprise, they are pursuing because that other system has failed and must fail in civil aviation, in the same way as it has failed in respect of Scottish heavy industries. We spurn this pretence by the party opposite to be the defenders of the Scottish people against the Government elected jointly by the Scottish and the English—and, I would add, by the Northern Irish people, for the benefit of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs. We have heard flung across this Floor highly coloured epithets and expletives in this and previous Debates. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs spoke about the Scottish Labour Members "ratting" on the Scottish people.

That, again, is of very spurious coinage. He was obviously quoting from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd), who, in the previous Debate, spoke of Scotland having been "sold for a mess of pottage." He explained that "pottage" meant " potage " in French, and that, therefore, Scotland was "in the soup." By this process of etymological reasoning, the Tories reached the odd conclusion that they have become the champions of Scottish civil aviation development. It is a curious process of logic by which to arrive at this last resort of using a spurious patriotism against the Government's civil aviation policy today. We are too conscious of what it means to leave in private hands Scottish civil aviation and the Scottish aircraft manufacturing industry. We have seen too much of the depression of the heavy industries in Scotland and the failure to develop light industries in Scotland. We have seen hundreds of thousands of unemployed in Scotland, and we have seen the endless dole queues and assistance rolls. We do not want to see Scottish aviation, under Toryism, in the words of the wartime song: vast and expensive meteorological services, nor do they want to pay for Radar. They say that Scotland will not get a square deal in civil aviation from the Socialists. To that, Scotland, which, for generations, got from them the worst possible treatment, whether they were in coalition with Liberal friends, or on their own, they now exclaim: "We are the Scottish people fighting against the Socialists." That is the claim of the minority opposite who were returned by a minority of the Scottish people to this House. I can only say to them: "Tell that," for example, "to Clydebank and Port Glasgow; to the skilled men who were unemployed for 20 years before the war, and were reduced to despair; who lost their skill waiting for something to turn up, which never arrived in Tory times." The issue of civil aviation has been shamelessly abused and confused, and deliberately so, to allow the Tories to qualify for Dr. Johnson's aphorism that "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels." I would like to quote from one of the Glasgow Conservative papers, "The Bulletin," in which an article appeared only the other day in respect of these things, on the question of decentralisation, of which we had never heard until the Labour Government came into office. The article said:

I now wish to make one or two points for the benefit of the hon. Member who replies, with regard to another issue, relating to my constituency. The hon. Member has pledged his word to the Committee a number of times, and repeated it elsewhere, that services will be carried by the Ministry, even if they are not, in themselves, paying or economic services, provided they are run for the benefit of the people in the Western Isles. We are grateful to him for that assurance. I am confident that when the services get under weigh under the Ministry on a nationalised basis they will be well able to afford to run these services. Certain it is that, as at present in North Uist Island when it is left to a private landowner to maintain the ground and to a private company to run this service, to develop it and partly pay to keep it in good running condition, they calculate only the cost and the people are left for months without any proper service at all, because the landlord and the company will not put enough money into it. A private company cannot see its way to spending much—

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an aswer was given in this House only a week or two ago in which it was stated that the reason the Scottish Aviation Company were not prepared to spend money was because of their uncertainty whether or not the Government were about to confiscate the aerodrome?

The fact remains the services out there have been abandoned long ago by a private company because they were not paying. That is the only motive for which they will run a service.

Other parts of the Western Isles will be abandoned too, if the profit motive is not satisfied. We know that the State, acting as the agent of the people of the country as a whole, will have the sense not to run a service purely for the profit motive and for the exploitation of the public. I can always get a chartered plane to take a patient even from North Uist in the Western Isles to a hospital in the South. Why? Because they are paid a special charter fee, and because the pilot is paid an additional fee. We must get away from the idea of running these services purely for profit. They have to be run from the point of view of giving service to the people as well as from the economic point of view of the industry.

If they are not to be run at a profit, will the hon. Gentleman say who is to pay for the losses?

I am not talking in terms of losses. I do not assume there will be any losses. It is established commercial practice to average costs to cover certain items. [ Interruption. ] I am afraid I cannot compete with hon. Members opposite in raucosity. If they intend to be noisy, I cannot compete with them on that basis. If this is carried out with the service of the people in view, it seems to me certain that will be on a sound economic and a better and ethical basis. Another matter. Will the Minister get into touch with the Post Office in regard to the question of the carriage of airmail to the Southern Islands especially? They have only a thrice-weekly service, and a very irregular one at that. That is one way in which we can begin to show an excellent example to private enterprise. I do not want to see a civil aviation flying service developed and left merely at that. I want it made possible for the people to use this service at reasonable rates, which they cannot get now. I want the people to be able to enjoy a certain amount of comfort at the termini. I want to see hotels and catering establishments built which will accommodate the people going to the Western Isles as tourists and visitors, and I want the local people to be met and taken by road, and able to reach their homes the same night. I hope it will not be left, as it has been in the past, to such agencies as that State-subsidised private enterprise known as McBain's Steamship Co. Ltd.

8.16 p.m.

On this side of the Committee we have been delighted to witness the return of a prodigal to the fold of London Socialism. We imagine there will be a killing of the fatted calf in Transport House tonight, if, indeed, it is legal to kill fatted calves in these days. The enfant terrible is now the spoilt darling of the party because of his remarkable change of viewpoint. However, I rise tonight to discuss many points besides the difficulties with which hon. Members opposite are so often faced.

I understand that in previous Parliaments, of which I was not, unfortunately, a Member, it was customary to start off where the previous speaker had finished. Therefore, I was undoubtedly referring to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan).

I can appreciate the hon. Gentleman's reference to the fatted calf, physically, at any rate. However, I cannot exactly follow his reference to my having changed my mind. I have said these things consistently for almost 2 years.

I trust I will be forgiven it I do not pursue the matter further. I will gladly explain it outside afterwards if that is desired.

I shall not withdraw it, because I could add a great deal more. I believe that earlier this afternoon the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Flight-Lieutenant Crawley) credited me with uttering idle gossip, amongst other things. I regret that I was not present to hear it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman did me the courtesy, to which I was entitled, of informing me in advance, and it was entirely through inadvertence that I was not present at the time. I do not wish to enlarge a small matter of detail, nor do I wish any more Parliamentary publicity to be given to a matter which cannot be regarded as definite until it has actually happened. However, I think it is only fair in self defence to point out that as recently as last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to congratulate me, not on one well-informed speech but on several. Thus, I think it is fair to say I am building up a reputation for informed accuracy. I prefer the statement of the Chancellor to that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Buckingham.

I did express surprise that the hon. Gentleman should have given way to such gossip.

I am indebted to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for making himself clear. The fact remains that this was not gossip. I do not want to deal with the amusing side of it, fascinating though it would be to pursue it.

I wish to direct myself more to the future and the principle involved than to particular things I may or may not have said in Committee. We are going to be in a difficult position in the House of Commons when we have good reason to believe that something is not right with a group of State managers, whether it be the Coal Board or, in this case, the board of one of the State air transport corporations, if we cannot ventilate the matter in the House or in a Standing Committee. If it is said that it is unfortunate to ventilate such matters because of the publicity and uncertainty—the idle gossip—to which it will give rise, it means that we are to indulge in only laudatory statements about State corporations and, in particular, about the managers of air lines. I suggest that that is wholly bad for the board, for Parliament and for the public.

This situation is likely to arise more often in the future, when we are faced with well-informed defects and well-informed knowledge of dissensions and perhaps rifts between members of State boards. Are we to be accused every time of causing alarm and despondency among the members of a large corporation or among certain sections of the population? I suggest that these matters will want ventilating in the future, and that we shall have occasion to refer to practical and personal difficulties which will face these boards. I hope that some good will come out of this trivial incident in that it has given us an opportunity to realise the difficulties which we shall face when we come to criticise, as we must, the personnel, the policy, the feelings and the moods of members of these State boards.

I am delighted that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply is to give us the benefit of his views, because some of us do not feel at all happy about the position of the Ministry. In the case of the Ministry of Civil Aviation we are witnessing all the symptoms of a growing Department. It is suffering from growing pains just as some Departments suffer from the pains of old age. I notice that the officials have been careful to get themselves bumped up in rank, which is a precursor in the Army, at any rate, of an increase in establishment. In reply to a Question the Parliamentary Secretary told me that the number of temporary civil servants in his Ministry had exactly doubled itself in the last six months, and that the number of permanent and established civil servants showed a 50 per cent. increase above the number employed six months ago. Why is this Ministry building itself up so much? It is because it is playing ball with other Ministries that are in great danger of being cut down. The Ministry of Supply have resisted that process. They still employ over 40,000 temporary and permanent civil servants of all grades. Why is that necessary? It is because the Minister of Civil Aviation goes to the Minister of Supply and says, "I will do you a good turn. I will arrange for my corporations to buy all their aircraft through the Ministry." Naturally he is delighted because it enables him to keep another 10,000, or 100 civil servants for each aircraft to be produced.

I detected an arrogant note in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply was building aeroplanes. He is not building aeroplanes. It is private enterprise which is building them, and I have seen them being built. What the Minister of Supply is doing is to restrict the building of these aeroplanes by every device which six years of war time control has invented. It was only quite recently that they decided in the case of one large new aeroplane that they would allow the private company to build a hangar big enough to build the aeroplane in. There is danger even now of having the aeroplane ready before the hangar is built. He is also giving the Foreign Office a good deal of work. He stated in a reply to a Question that he gets the Foreign Office to be responsible for the form and diplomatic formalities in connection with the air agreements. He should be warned. Hon. Members behind him do not like the Foreign Office—

I was listening to the hon. Member. Had it been necessary I would have called him to Order

It is a great temptation for hon. Members opposite to rule one out of Order—

The hon. Member has now put himself out of Order. Hon. Members may invite a Ruling, but they cannot give a Ruling.

I will now turn to foreign aircraft. It would be very interesting if we could have an assurance regarding the recent alarming accident which took place to one of the Constellation aircraft of another country. May be it is one of those matters which should not have occurred and will never occur again. We are anxious to know that the accident which took place to this American aircraft cannot be repeated in the case of the five British Constellation aircraft. I confess that I do not know whether they belong to the Minister of Civil Aviation or the Minister of Supply. There is so much juggling going on between the two Departments that it is difficult to know exactly what belongs to what. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply will be able to make it clear.

There are really two functions to be performed in providing a State air service. The first is that of policy forming, and the second the executive functions of management. There are two functions, one above the other. But we have in fact a three-tiered organisation to deal with these two functions. We have the managers of the various boards, then the boards themselves, and on top of them the Ministry of Civil Aviation. How are we to allocate the two functions between the three contesting parties? We are always being told that we are to have keen young men brought in at all levels. All will be fighting and competing for authority. There will be a lot of people treading on each other's corns. Civil servants have very tender corns, and are hedged about by rules and regulations. The Committee upstairs has not been able to shed much light on the matter. We think that a lot of things are in that muddle which only Englishmen know when they are muddling through.

8.29 p.m.

I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Erroll) in the maze of paradoxes which he has introduced into his speech. I must say that I found it difficult to decide which part of his speech was meant for entertainment and which part was meant as a serious contribution to the discussion. Perhaps he will excuse me, therefore, if I deal with that part of his speech which I am better able to understand. I began to think that there was a danger of his losing his reputation for accuracy as he went on, because I could not see much sign of it in many of the statements that he made. He may have some secret knowledge of these mysterious "goings on" between the two Ministries, but, so far as I know, they do not exist in fact. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. J. Evans) on his contribution to the Debate in a maiden speech. He struck a Welsh note, and he seemed to be rather perturbed in case Wales was not going to have its full say in civil aviation. It is true, perhaps, that geographically the contours of Wales are not suitable for a multitude of airfields, but the Welsh are certainly contributing to aeronautical science, more than a proportionate share. We have Sir Melville Jones, Professor Lennard Jones and many others of the Jones family. Certainly Wales is holding more than its own in civil aviation. I could only wish as a Scotsman that the Scots had as much opportunity of contributing to aeronautical science as the Welsh have at this moment.

I would like to deal in detail with one or two points raised by hon. Members. The hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) asked what types of aircraft we were now able to supply overseas. I would point out that we must first supply the desperate needs of our own civil aviation, but that includes, to some extent, the furnishing of aircraft to feeder lines overseas. That will be extended as and when production becomes available. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who opened this Debate, indulged in some polemics in order, I take it, to keep the party spirit alive, but they did not seem to bear much relation to the serious part of the Debate, and since the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacMillan) has replied from this side, no doubt the score can be considered even.

We all regret that we cannot do all we want in regard to civil aviation, and the difficulty is at present very largely that of getting the aircraft. If we had the aircraft many of the complaints about our civil aviation would disappear overnight. It does, however, seem a little unfair that the handicaps imposed by the war should be used as a stick with which to beat civil aviation. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, whose knowledge ought to make him capable of seeing the matter in a clearer light, adds an overdose of pessimism to the common British diet of self-depreciation, it is time for some one to give a jolt and try to get people to look at things frankly and face the facts. There are too many people today who put on black spectacles whenever they look at British aircraft, and take them off and put on rosy spectacles whenever they look at American aircraft or those from any other country but our own. There is no justification for that and we can be proud of what we are doing. It takes roughly six years from the conception of a large transport plane to its coming into service. This is a period of gestation in aeronautical engineering which cannot be avoided.

Will the hon. Gentleman remember that in future, when he hears the late Mr. Chamberlain's Government slandered for not preparing for the air war?

If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Debates in HANSARD he will find that I made that clear in regard to armaments when the Government of the day had been attacked for lack of armaments in North Africa. That applies equally to armaments as it does to civil aeroplanes. The Constellation, which we hear so much about, was first conceived in 1939 and has taken almost exactly six years to get into service. If I may refer to the Constellation accident in this regard I hope that it will be realised that even with six years' development no one can say when a machine goes into service that it is perfect. Defects often arise after an aeroplane goes into actual use.

When we come to examine our own record in this matter, we find that the Tudor, which is now about to go into service, has been developed in something like three and a half years. It is true that we had as a basis the Lincoln and the Lancaster, but nevertheless, three and a half years is a remarkable record from the initial design to the production of a new type of aircraft. Therefore, we have a right to be proud of our production of this aircraft, and there is no justification for the pessimism and grumbling that goes on. Comparisons are made between the Tudor and the Constellation. I think that is a great mistake. The two are put to different purposes.

Since an hon. Member has referred to the Government as being responsible for the delay in aircraft, he himself must know that all the aircraft being produced today were planned long before this Government came into existence, and there is no physical possibility of any new aeroplane being designed and in production in the time during which this Government has been in existence. Therefore, we are not discussing planes conceived by this Government but planes conceived by previous Governments and I would like to pay tribute to the Brabazon Committee and the Government during the war which had the foresight to make plans, so that at the earliest opportunity Great Britain could re-enter the field of manufacturing civil aircraft. The design of the Tudor is that of a luxury plane. It carries 12 sleeping passengers across the Atlantic. The Constellation is made to carry about 24 people in a different posture, and, therefore, the two are not competitive in that sense. But our technical information is that if the Tudor had been designed for seating in the same way as the Constellation the Tudor could have been competitive on the Atlantic route with the Constellation in the running of services and in the question of fares.

To the Tudor I. The recent experience with a Constellation showed the need to be rather cautious in our optimism as to what is going to happen immediately we start to fly a plane of that type. Therefore, at this moment the Tudor is going through the very severe tests imposed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation in order to ensure safety and reliability as well as comfort. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Flight-Lieut. Crawley) pointed out that you had to weigh in the balance whether you wanted to be quite safe or take a little risk and be quick. Some people are willing to take a risk but if civil aviation is going to develop and meet the needs of the mass of the people there is no doubt that the Minister of Civil Aviation is right in trying to ensure the maximum of safety and in insisting that a plane is thoroughly tested before it is put into service. We expect that the Tudor will be in service at the beginning of next year and when it goes into service we have not the slightest fear that it will not bear comparison with any other aeroplane in the world at present flying. I have travelled in the Tudor I at over 20,000 feet and the pressure of the cabin was equal to 3,750 feet. When it flew at 25,000 feet the pressure was equal to 7,500 feet. The Constellation, I understand, flying at 20,000 feet, has a pressure of 7,500 feet, which is to be compared with our 3,750 feet. We have great confidence that as a result of our experience with the Tudor we have got to the position where we can claim we have made a success of pressurisation. There is no plane to my knowledge which can reach 40,000 feet under pressurisation conditions, and, therefore, that is a matter that still lies in the future.

Between 1939 and 1943 it was not possible for British aircraft manufacturers even to think of civil planes, and it is only since the war came to an end that we have been able to tackle this job. This gap means that inevitably six years afterwards, say, between 1948–50 we are going to be definitely handicapped in comparison with America who were able during the war to go on with their designs and develop their planes. However, in less than a year from the end of the war we have at least seven new civil planes in the skies, and a number of these will soon be in quantity production. In their own class the Viking and the Bristol Freighter seem likely to be superior to any foreign competitors and are not likely to be surpassed until at least 1948.

Someone asked how many aircraft were likely to be produced. We have already got 350 aircraft on order ranging in weight from 2 to 120 tons and in cruising speed from 120 to 360 m.p.h. The vast majority of these planes will be delivered before 1947. A great deal of confusion arises from the fact that everyone wants to see as far as the eye can reach in regard to aeroplanes, and people want to hear about 360 m.p.h. this week and 560 m.p.h. the next week, which goes up in geometrical progression with the hunger for sensation. I think it ought to be made clear that there are a great many aerodynamic problems to be solved before we can rely on aircraft which are going to fly at these extraordinary speeds. But we are making progress. At the moment we are building three types of aeroengines. We are building aircraft with the ordinary reciprocating engines; we are building aircraft with turbine propeller engines and we are also building pure jet engines. The jet engine has not reached the point of fitting into civil aircraft with any immediate prospect of going into service. That prospect lies about 1950. It will not be until then, as far as we can see, that jet engines of that kind will be flying in passenger planes.

On the other hand, we have made very great advances with the immediate stages in regard to turbine propellors in the Brabazon I, which will first of all fly with the normal engine but will then in the next prototype have the turbine propellor engine. Our hopes are very high, and we think they will prove justified, that in 1948 the turbine propellor Brabazon I will take the sky and begin the serious work of development. It is only then, when the plane goes into the sky that the problems arising out of actual flying have to be faced. There will not be passengers in it for the first time. There is a long period of development and testing before it can cross the Atlantic, and we think it will be 1950 before the Brabazon I will be flying from London direct to New York. In the meantime progress is being made with other planes and in regard to the higher speeds the arrow shaped aeroplane developed by de Havilland with a swept-back wing and pure jet engine has flown with greater success than anyone anticipated from such a revolutionary experiment. There is hope that that plane, which is going to be an express plane to America, will be developed at a greater speed than at first we hoped for. However, I do recommend everyone to keep in his or her mind the period of five or six years necessary for the development of such planes in order to achieve any kind of reliability and speed in the air.

For the Atlantic route we are not confined to the Brabazon and we are now developing a flying boat—the Saunders Roe Saro 45. There is the possibility that flying boats may come back into their own both from the point of view of general comfort and from the point of view of general traffic. There is a great fascination about speed, but the convenience of the traveller is more attractive than speed. If a person can leave this country, sleep on the plane, and arrive in America over night I believe that nothing could excel that as a means of transport. People want to arrive at a convenient time, and there is no doubt that the idea of sleeping the journey to America is the ideal at which to aim. Another point is that a great deal of pressure is put on to cut half an hour off a journey. That half hour raises technical problems immensely difficult and sometimes terribly costly to solve, and it would be much better if arrangements were made on the ground to cut half an hour off the time wasted getting on and off the plane rather than talk so much about cutting half an hour off the journey. I was glad to hear the tributes that were paid to the courtesy and efficiency shown by our staffs at the Northolt aerodrome, and I am sure that the Minister of Civil Aviation will be encouraged to press on for a ground organisation which is absolutely efficient.

The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham raised the point as to whether we have the airframes to take a turbine engine. I think it would be over-optimistic to say we have the airframes ready for each type of plane of that type, and I think all we can claim at the moment is that we are satisfied the airframes will be ready for the turbine propellor engine as soon as that is ready for flying. It will be time enough to pass that stage when we come to it. I may also say that arrangements for the production of turbines of all kinds to meet all demands will be made when it becomes practicably possible. I can also say that, as far as our information goes, we are at least a year ahead of any other country in the world in regard to the development of the jet or the jet turbine engine. That means in practice much more than appears in the statement, because if another country had all that we have it would take a year or perhaps more to catch up with us, and, therefore, after 1950 we can see both in regard to aircraft and engines that this country will be second to none in the world. Instead of being pessimistic in regard to this we ought to be proud of the cause of the delay in aircraft production. It is because we were fighting to maintain the liberty of the world, and if the end of the war had been postponed for one day longer in order to satisfy the desire to be in the front rank of civil aviation it would be unforgivable in the pages of history. To bring the war to a successful end was the most important duty we had in those years and we ought to be proud that we sacrificed everything for that purpose. The next thing we can all be proud of is that, having finished the war, we have been able to go right forward and, in three and a half years, take ourselves right into the front, so far as modern aircraft are concerned, and fly them, as we shall be flying them, in 1948.

Several points to which I want to reply have been raised in the course of the Debate. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Erroll) spoke about the relationship of the different Ministries. It is always a good field of sport to have a sort of circumlocution chase, running round the different Departments. This went on all during the war. I have heard the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), when he was Prime Minister, continually facing Debates urging him to cut out the committees, get somebody on to the job and have no discussion—what ought to be done was to bring a group of people together to discuss the matter, but that was not called a committee. When anybody tries to solve a problem, and when there is a complex organisation, there must be some method of coordinating the work. That eventually leads to a group meeting to discuss the problem whatever name you care to give it.

The policy of the Government is settled by the Government and not by the manipulative workers who are running lathes and doing other work, nor by temporary civil servants, who are there to carry out certain specific jobs. I do not think the hon. Gentleman ought to try to be funny about it.

There are three users of aircraft, the Admiralty, the Royal Air Force and the Ministry of Civil Aviation. All the Ministries might go to the aircraft producers, competing against each other in order to get capacity, and so confusing the aircraft manufacturers in regard to production. The only way to avoid that position is to have a method by which the demands of the whole country are canalised and unified and put upon a planned basis. The Ministry of Supply is now not a wartime, but a peacetime, Ministry. It has ceased to be a wartime Ministry. It is an organisation set up by the Government to receive the aircraft requirements of the three Departments.

The Ministry of Supply have built up a great organisation, it is true. I believe it is the greatest organisation in the world for research and development in aero- nautical development. So far as I can see, there is nothing in the world that can surpass us in our knowledge and ability today. We have not built up the organisation unnecessarily. On the aircraft side of this Ministry we utilise the private manufacturer to produce the planes. Hon. Members are wrong in suggesting that the Bristol Aircraft Company are wholly responsible for the Brabazon I. They may be doing the production of it, but that is only one stage in the birth of a plane of that kind. The Brabazon I could not fly unless the Royal Aeronautical establishment at Farnborough and scientists of the Ministry of Supply had been there to assist and advise on the problems that arise. It is not right for the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford to be conjuring up a sort of antagonism between private enterprise and public enterprise, in regard to aviation.

You were. The policy of the Government in this regard is that these things are complementary and not in opposition or in conflict at all. The aircraft industry of this country and the science of aviation, as was pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon), have reached such a stage that no private manufacturer could possibly maintain the research and development equipment necessary to keep himself scientifically in the forefront in regard to the production of aircraft.

More than that, the universities themselves are now coming up against the problem that they cannot teach aeronautical science without access to aerodromes and aeroplanes. There was an old saying that the only real way to learn to ride a horse is to get on its back. The only real way to learn aeronautical science is to get into the sky in an aeroplane and to study the matter in practice as well as in theory.

I wish to draw a distinction. On this side of the House we appreciate the value of the scientific cooperation of the Ministry. We say that their interference in production causes resentment among producing firms

That is purely imaginary. I have visited most of the aeroplane firms in this country and I have never heard the slightest suggestion that our help and assistance is in any way interference. If the firms have any complaint of that kind the sensible thing would be to mention it to the representative of the Ministry when they visit the firm. Anything that is done now was done when the hon. Gentleman opposite held my position. I am sure that there was no complaint then.

There were complaints at the time. As the hon. Gentleman is engaged with the question of the Government's attitude towards private firms, perhaps he will answer a specific question. Has an order been given for the Miles Marathon? If so, when? If so, for how many planes? That is the only question I ask.

At the moment no order has been given, but an order is under consideration.

That is precisely the complaint we make. We appreciate to the full the value of the establishments at Farnborough and elsewhere. What we deplore is the failure of the Government to give an order. How does the hon. Gentleman, think that any firm could put their heart into production of planes if they are not sure that it is going to be ordered in the end?

The hon. Gentleman must not forget that the Government have many responsibilities other than merely to hand out orders. I do not want to discuss a particular order, but there are good reasons why the order has been delayed. There has been no sort of delay in respect of civil aviation. The Government must look after the taxpapers' interests as well as the interests of civil aviation firms. They must take into account numerous other matters. It is a false issue to suggest that there is some antagonism between us and the Air Ministry. The three Departments state their requirements to us and it is our duty as a Ministry to see that everyone gets fair play. The Ministry of Civil Aviation might have a very poor chance if the Admiralty and the Royal Air Force, as bigger users, exercised their influence with the manufacturing firms to get planes first. We have to coordinate demands. We have been able to effect vast economies by ensuring that the common interest in development leads to the best result for all concerned.

Take the case of the Hermes and the Hastings. Civil aviation has benefited from the prototype of the military aircraft. The Hastings has now flown and has proved a case for the Hermes, although the accident to the Hermes might have cast doubt on the ability of the Hermes to fly. If it had not been for the coordination this kind of development might not have been possible. On the question of orders from abroad, my hon. Friend opposite commented on the fact that orders to a value of £2 million had been obtained by the firm itself in respect of the Dove. There is no difficulty for the Miles aircraft people to go and get £2 million worth of orders for the Marathon in the same way as for the Dove. The hon. Member praises one firm for getting orders on its own and he blames the Government for not giving orders right away to the other firm. The two things are not parallel.

There is an answer to that point. The Dove is a much easier plane to produce in large quantities and to market than is the other. De Havilland are not subject to the domiciliary visits of representatives of the hon. Gentleman's Department to see how it is getting on, as in the case of the Miles Marathon, which is Government sponsored.

The point is that all these things have been backed by the Government. The Dove was chosen as a result of a Government Committee recommending such a type of plane, but, obviously, these things are a matter for co-operation between the Government and industry, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is creating a false issue.

There is some confusion in the public mind and it is often expressed in the House, whether these prototypes are paid for by the private firms or by the Government.

In practically all these cases—the Brabazon and others—the Government order and pay for the prototype and all development is at the expense of the Government. It is Government enterprise in cooperation with private enterprise, and, in bringing about these results and framing these designs, the Brabazon Committee performed a signal service for civil aviation, and in this connection, in the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Admiralty, we now have an Aircraft Research and Development Programme Committee, over which Air Marshal Sir Alec Coryton, Controller of Air Supplies, presides, and that Committee brings in all the users—the three Corporations, the Admiralty and the Royal Air Force. They look ahead with a view to planning research and development to serve all these Ministries. I would also like to welcome the contribution of my noble Friend the Minister of Civil Aviation in setting up a Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Self, Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, on which there are representatives of the Ministry of Supply and the three Corporations. The business of that Committee is, to read terms of reference: to maintain a Navy and an Army of a size never maintained before the war, and it also has to maintain a Royal Air Force of a size which was never maintained before the war, and, in addition to that, it now has to build up a great organisation of civil aviation. Further, we have undertaken many other responsibilities, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must inevitably say to all Departments that the amount of money this country is going to spend must be related to the amount of money we can afford to spend. Therefore, in regard to the cutting down of research and development if we set aside any sum for the Armed Forces, only part of it can be devoted to research and development, but I can say this, and I am speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, that the Government is deeply interested in research and development. We have got jet and atomic research and many other fields of development to cover, costing a great amount of money, but the Government are concerned and are determined that, as far as possible, the maximum proportion of the money spent on armaments and the Forces will go to research and development and the minimum proportion to production of existing types. I gave the scientists who deal with Radar my own personal advice, when I said to them, "Do not expect, when you make an invention, that every new aircraft will be fitted with it. If you do that, we shall only be able to afford a limited number of different equipments."

Civil aviation depends largely on the production of aircraft, and while we must all regret that the aircraft are not yet there, I am satisfied, and I understand that the Americans have also been convinced, that there is no aircraft industry in the world which can produce better ideas than ours and that there are no aircraft workers in the world who can do better work than ours. In regard to mass production, it has been admitted by one American who came to this country that, in the production of Lancaster bombers we even excelled anything done in America. Given the conditions to produce aircraft and use them, this country has no fear of the future. There is one point which is sometimes overlooked in regard to the British-American position. The building of a large aircraft like the Brabazon is not going to be a mass pro- duction job. It is going to be a job more comparable with the building of the "Queen Mary" and the other big ships we have put on the seas, and when we come to the skill and craftsmanship required on that job, this country can stand with any country in the world, and I am not afraid of our future in that direction.

9.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, during his speech this afternoon, apologised for the length of it. He need not have made any apology for what he said. He gave us a lot of valuable information about the activities of his Department, about agreements entered into and about the general work of this new Ministry of Civil Aviation. After all, that is what we are here for today—to hear what he is doing—and I repeat that the hon. Gentleman need not have apologised for taking up the time of the Committee. We are grateful to him for what he said. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply has given us much food for thought, and his speech, to which we listened with great interest, certainly gives great encouragement. I only wish that all he said could be taken at its face value. If that were so then some of the fears and the anxieties which we have on this side of the Committee would be swept aside.

But we, on this side, are desperately anxious for cur civil aviation to progress and develop more rapidly than that of other nations. To judge by words used by hon. Members opposite, one would think that was not the case. It is the case. We are just as anxious as they that in this new era, this new air age that is now with us, we should lead the world, as we led in the great sea age and the great railway age in past centuries. Our criticism is devoted to that end, it is made because of our burning desire to see us supreme in civil air transportation as we have been in the past in the various other fields of transportation. If the remarks which I and other hon. Members on this side make this evening can be taken in that light, then we feel confident that in whatever quarter of the Committee speeches are made, the Parliamentary Secretary has behind him the goodwill of this Committee.

The Ministry of Civil Aviation is responsible for the development of our air transportation. It is a great responsibility. We are anxious about our present position, there can be no denying it. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply said, and rightly so, that during the war we put aside any thought of civil air needs for the supreme task of winning the war in the air. We need have no shame about that, indeed we can be proud we did it; but there is another side to the picture. At the end of the war we were second only to America. She was obviously ahead of us because of her greater population and greater resources. We were second only to America in our air crews, in our ground organisation, in the aircraft and all the equipment that goes with air transportation, and although they were fighting and bombing aircraft which mainly filled the skies in those days, it was all a question of air transportation. We were supreme, but look at what is happening today. Countries like Denmark, Holland and France are very rapidly catching us up, countries that a year ago were occupied by the enemy; countries that a year ago had no great air and ground organisation such as we had are rapidly overtaking us in that field of air transportation. We had a great start; we are not keeping that lead. Passengers wishing to travel to Denmark, if they have a priority passage, can get there by British aircraft, but it is quite positive that if they wish to come back quickly they have to come by Danish air lines. They have no difficulty at all in doing that, and those Danish air lines are very good and comparable with our own. The same can be said of the Dutch lines, K.L.M. You can go to many parts of the world more easily by K.L.M. than you can by our air lines unless you are a passenger of high priority. Again, our air lines cannot always carry us but Air France can, and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that our progress, comparing our position with a year ago, is not as it should be. Why is that so? I think it is because our system is inelastic and inflexible and too slow in operation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply has told us of the new Committee set up to coordinate aircraft and to the organisation for the production of aircraft, but the fact is that if B.O.A.C. wants a new aircraft, they cannot go direct to the manufacturer and say what they want and get it. What happens? First of all the Ministry of Civil Aviation draws up a specification. The Ministry does not go to the manufacturer with that specification. It cannot do that. It has to go to the Ministry of Supply and say, "Will you please place an order?" Does the Ministry of Supply go to the manufacturer and place that order? No, it has to go to the Treasury to get permission to spend the money to place an order for a prototype. So it goes on. There is all this delay in the present system and, faced as we are with foreign competition, unless some of that delay is cut out we shall fall behind. What happens to this prototype? The specification is drawn up by the Ministry of Civil Aviation in consultation with one of the Corporations concerned, or all three Corporations for their particular needs, but the Ministry of Supply decides presumably where it is to be made and gives directions. Again the Treasury must come in, and may say, "That is too costly; so much must not be spent on that." Hon. Members opposite know what goes on, and because of the delay there is not that drive and progress which there should be and which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply indicated exists. It does not exist, it cannot exist, it is utterly impossible because of the system. Another complaint is the tortuous way from user to maker that is handicapping the Minister of Civil Aviation in the great and responsible task before him. It is these delays, due to the system, which will handicap us in the years to come.

I have described what happens to the prototype. Having, with delays, got out the protoytpe, what happens then? A decision has to be made as to whether it is to be put into multiple production but, probably because of the delay, the prototype is out of date. Nevertheless, something has to be done, orders are placed, and the same procedure has to be gone through again—needs have to be proved; shall the order be placed for multiple production or shall it not; how is it to be used; where is it to be used—and back we go again, not from the B.O.A.C. direct to maker but right through the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Ministry of Supply, the Treasury, all gathering round the table, 40 men or more, making a decision as to whether a lavatory seat should be in pink or green or a new type of plastic—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no use hon. Members denying it, these things happen. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They do. I have talked to manufacturers and others who despair.

Does the hon. Member suggest an infinite number of prototypes?

The hon. Gentleman says, first, that needs have to be proved. Would he suggest that we go on making prototypes and then manufacturing aircraft from them without proving needs? In regard to his second point, I have not only talked to manufacturers but I have worked in aircraft factories, and the picture he paints sounds like "Alice in Wonderland" to anybody who has been inside a factory.

I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman has worked in factories, for that is where the production comes from, and not from these committees. Obviously he has not sat in Government Departments. He asks whether I suggest that needs should not be proved. Of course not, but the person who has to prove needs is the user. He knows what his needs are and he goes to the manufacturer and says, "I want this," and he wants to operate it, and ought to operate it, at a profit. With this organisation, however, millions of public money are to be given to bolster up these things because of this vast organisation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. I would be very pleased if it were rubbish, because it would mean that we were going to progress in a way in which I fear we may not progress in the development of civil aviation. I suggest that the whole system which the Socialist Government are developing is economic and commercial lunacy. Cut out the Departments and let the Corporations deal directly, and then we shall get a move on. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply said that it takes six years, after an aircraft is conceived, before it is born. The "Mosquito" did not take that amount of time. The war would have been finished before the "Mosquito" was produced if it had taken that time. Private enterprise got on with the job; they could not wait for Government Departments. What happened with the "Hurricane"? Private enterprise put the "Hurricane" into production before Government orders were received.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it takes four years from the time the plane is on the drawing board to the time the prototype is introduced?

I agree that it is four years from the time the prototype is conceived on the drawing board before it goes into production. The extra two years which the Parliamentary Secretary talked about is precisely the delay caused by the organisation I have described. The hon. and gallant Member has proved my case completely. My complaint is that we shall be two years behind other people.

From the time the prototype is produced to the time it is in full production.

I am sorry I could not hear the hon. and gallant Member. I regret that there is not a simpler and quicker way for our aircraft to get into the sky after they have been conceived. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Flight-Lieutenant Crawley) accused us of making party capital out of these matters. I do not see how anybody can avoid doing that, because the essence of the matter is that hon. Members opposite want to develop the kind of system which I have described, and it is because of that system that one gets the difficulty to which he referred of dissatisfaction among directors in high places. It would be surprising if there were not dissatisfaction. The more responsible a person is, the greater initiative that he has, the more, in view of the sort of organisation with which he is faced, is he likely to resign from any of these Corporations. We will see what the position is in due course.

I want to pass from the organisation at home to the situation overseas. We have seen another baby bureaucrat born in the air authority for the West African territories. I think it is true that the Colonial Office is the mother, but we would like to know who is the father. Is it the Ministry of Civil Aviation? Is it the Ministry of Supply? Is it the Treasury? Whoever may be its father, it is stillborn, because it cannot operate now. Our air services in those territories are still on the ground. I wish to put a few points to the Parliamentary Secretary. I see that his Ministry has no direct representation on the authority which has been set up in those West African territories. Will he say what authority he has, if any, in those territories, and whether the authority set up for those territories is to be the same in the other territories? Has he any responsibility for the training of personnel? Has his Department responsibility for through routes to these territories, or does it act in an advisory capacity, and when money has to be contributed, either for local use or for through routes, does his Department make the contribution, or where the through routes are used by other foreign countries, is it intended that P.I.C.A.O. will make some contribution for aerodromes and equipment in those territories? If he could throw some light on what is happening, it would be very helpful to the Committee. Under Order 682 of 1946, which was laid on the Table on 15th May of this year, this authority was set up to establish these corporations. I would like to know what part the Ministry of Civil Aviation played in the setting up of this authority, and what part it plays in any operations established hereafter under that authority? Will the hon. Gentleman also tell us whether this is a model for others?

I pass from the position abroad to the position at home. It is of the utmost importance that here in London we should have a proper air traffic centre, and I was bitterly disappointed to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that apparently a firm decision has been made not to use Earls Court for such a traffic centre. Whatever differences of opinion there may be in various parts of the Committee about what I have said, I hope that I shall now have the support of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee in bringing pressure to bear upon the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that it was impracticable to have Earls Court now for a traffic centre because of the needs of the Federation of British Industries for the British Industries Fair. Surely, Olympia and the White City could be used for the Fair. Surely they would satisfy the needs of British industry. Earls Court could then be used and make London pre-eminent of all cities in the world, with such a great place as an air centre. There is no other place that comes within miles of Earls Court in suitability. It is on the railways. There could be a quick service from Heathrow into the centre of London. After all, it is speed that matters. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply that it is not much use, at great cost and effort, saving half an hour in the air if one loses an hour on the ground at the other end. We must have a great air centre of this sort. This is necessary not only for passengers, but for the carriage of freight and goods, for which I believe there is a great future in the air. If there were quick trains from Heathrow to such an air centre, the goods could be quickly distributed by road or by underground. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will put all pressure on his colleagues to get this question reopened, because once the opportunity has gone, it will have gone for ever.

Could the hon. Gentleman also give us some information as to what is happening about the Eastern end of London? I was very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply referred to the development of flying boats. There is a marvellous site for a flying boat base on Port of London Authority ground where aircraft could land alongside. Heathrow will not be adequate for our needs in the years to come. I would like to hear what steps are being taken to secure that place, and what plans are being made to have roads from it to the eastern end of London so that, the flying boats will be enabled to land there instead of passing over the City of London. I hope steps are being taken to reconsider that situation, particularly in the light of what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply said.

I will conclude by wishing the Parliamentary Secretary well in his work. He has this awful octopus round his head—the other Government Departments with which he has to compete. If only he can cut them all out and get the corporations to deal with the manufacturers direct and thus free those who have got to do the job of flying, then we need have no fear of the future and we can be sure that our country and our airmen will be in the forefront and that our goods and our passengers will be carried with safety and speed comparable with nobody else.

9.32 p.m.

At this somewhat late hour in the proceedings, I do not propose to develop the subjects which I had intended to touch upon, and will content myself by putting one or two questions which I had proposed to put to my hon. Friend in the course of my speech. They have, of course, particular reference to the City of Glasgow and the airport of Renfrew. The first is the question of priority in air travel and, with that, I would link my second question which concerns the restoration, at the earliest possible opportunity, of a direct service from Renfrew to London. I have seen that service grow from the little Rapids, which carried four passengers, to the relative comfort of the Avro, which carried seven, and thence to the luxury and dignity of the Dakota, which carries 20. Unfortunately, we have now to call at Prestwick on our journey, with the result that, instead of having 20 seats available for the Renfrew-London traffic, we have only 10, the other 10 being held in reserve for trans-Continental passengers. In addition to that, I understand that out of the 10 reserved for the London-Renfrew journey, five are held as priority seats so that the net result is that, having progressed from four to seven and then to 20, we have, in effect, 10 less five so far as ordinary travel is concerned. I should like to hear what my hon. Friend has to say with regard to that point.

My third point is that I would like to have some assurance, in view of promises already made in regard to the development of Renfrew as an international air link, that the Parliamentary Secretary will use all necessary speed in creating accommodation for the health, emigration and Customs authorities.

I should like my hon. Friend to say a word about intentions, and to give greater detail than has yet been given, as to proposed developments at Renfrew Airport. It would be interesting if we could have an idea of what those developments would encompass in the possible global figure. Has he any idea as to the magnitude of the development which is visualised? All the answers so far have been exceedingly comforting, but if we could get a little more precise detail as to the future development, it would be much appreciated. I also wonder if he would say how developments at Renfrew are likely to affect, or be affected by, the proposed steel mills at Abbotsinch. The other points in which I am interested have been covered by the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Major N. Macpherson) concerning charter services and extension of facilities for flying clubs.

9.37 p.m.

This Committee has now been in action for many hours and I know the Parliamentary Secretary has much of interest to say to us all, so, like the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), I will endeavour to be brief. I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply. He told a better story than I expected. He did not shirk details, but gave a considerable number of facts and hopes for the next two or three years. But I warned him that all this has gone down in evidence against him, and we shall watch to see whether performance follows promise. I do not agree that the Ministry of Supply is so vitally necessary as he would have us believe. I believe that an independent manufacturer who can get at his client, the operator, without masses of Government Departments in between, has great advantages. Earlier on we heard about the British-Irish agreement. I cannot bless an arrangement by which we have only a 40 per cent. holding in Aer Lingus, and yet 50 per cent. of losses, if any. Scotland has been dealt with fully, but we shall watch to see whether Prestwick is sacrificed to Rineanna. We will not be content if Scotland cannot run to Southern Ireland except through Aer Lingus. I disagree with the Italian agreement because of the inequality of holding. In 1937, as a free enterprise company, I was able to run under an agreement with Norway on a fifty-fifty basis to serve Aberdeen—Stavanger—Oslo, Newcastle—Stavanger—Oslo, and Stavanger—Bergen. I am sure the Government, with all their resources, should be able to do better than that.

I wish to support the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) in his plea for action with regard to Earls Court. I would also stress that as years go by I hope to see terminal aerodromes being fed by helicopter. I have said before that I hope to see Members of Parliament leaving this House by helicopter from the Thames and joining their aeroplanes at modern aerodromes.

I was delighted to hear of the good pressurisation figures of the Tudor. I flew the Constellation at Burbank in April, 1945, on an 8,000 ft. pressure at 20,000 feet. According to the Minister of Supply I see that it has reduced the 8,000 ft. to 7,500 ft. I think that by comparison the figure for our Tudor aircraft is very promising. Unfortunately I must devote a short time to replying to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) regarding his remarks concerning the Scottish Airline companies on internal services. I had hoped that nothing contentious would arise in this Debate, which surely has been dealing with wider issues than the internal airlines of Scotland, but, as he made reference to their failure to develop aerodromes, I feel I must say something in defence of a company in which I have no interest whatever—Scottish Airways. They have developed aerodromes at Wick—before it was an R.A.F. aerodrome—at Kirkwall and on five independent Orkney Islands as well as on the Shetlands. That is a gallant record for a small company fighting the development losses of a new form of transport and also building landing grounds as they went along. My own company have built Thurso, Stromness and South Ronaldsway and another aerodrome at Kirkwall. I do not wish to carry on this discussion for too long and therefore I beg leave to wish the Parliamentary Secretary good luck in his reply.

9.43 p.m.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind wishes. The House has indeed been very good to me today. I must apologise for my apparent discourtesy in failing to be present to hear several speeches that were made. I think hon. Gentlemen will realise that nothing but urgent business would have taken me away. I am sorry in particular that I missed the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. J. Evans). A full note has been given to me and I can assure him that as a fellow Welshman, or at any rate a "Sudeten" Welshman, I shall do my best to see that Wales is adequately served. The mountains which are such a barrier to road and rail traffic—I know the story of the Manchester-Milford railway as well as he does—are still an obstacle to the small aircraft which would be needed for this service. We are doing very well by Wales on the fringe, but the centre at the moment is rather a gap. A large number of points have been raised and I will try to run through them briefly if hon. Members will excuse me for hot dwelling too long on any one. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Flight - Lieutenant Crawley) raised the question of the withdrawal of the West African services owing to the lack of meteorological officers. These officers are now on their way and the service will be resumed within a few weeks.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Waterloo (Captain Bullock) asked me about facilities in Paris. There is an obviously convenient arrangement that Air France and B.O.A.C. should act as each others' agents in their respective countries. I am not familiar with the details to which he refers, but I will see they are brought to the notice of B.O.A.C. in case anything should be lacking. I quite agree one ought not to have a cryptic message given to one telling one where to go and on what service. It should be expressed in clear English or, on the other side of the Channel, in clear French.

Several hon. Members have raised the question of priority. It is the desire of the Air Priorities Board to sweep away priorities as rapidly as possible. I am not sure that the Committee appreciates what we have done already. We have abolished priorities on internal services in this country. That is an inconvenience to some hon. Members, I know, and I ask hon. Members to book their seats as well in advance as possible, because I am sure that they would not wish us to reserve priorities for hon. Members while abolishing them for the rest of the population. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] On the European services we have, in some cases, practically abolished priorities. We are reducing the number of seats held for priority passengers as rapidly as we possibly can, and I hope it will not be long before they go altogether.

Services to the Middle East are extremely congested at present, though between now and the end of the year there will be a great increase in frequencies. Here we are bound to retain the priority system for some time. As there have been many complaints, I should like to say that so long as I have anything to do with this business, I intend to see that the soldier gets a square deal. There have been complaints that this system is working badly because private soldiers have been seen travelling in aircraft, and so on. Actually, there is always a very good reason for these soldiers travelling by air. They are nearly all compassionate cases. In the case of traffic through Cairo, according to a recent analysis, 40 per cent. of the priority seats were taken for military travel, and of those, 95 per cent. were compassionate cases. I regard it as in the national interest at this time that there should be air travel for urgent compassionate cases abroad. It is in the interest of morale, and in the Middle East we must keep the priority system at the present time, but it is our wish to relax the priority control as rapidly as we can.

The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) raised many interesting questions, and among them was that of a flying-boat base. I cannot make any statement on that point this evening, because the question has been remitted to a committee under the chairmanship of my Noble Friend Lord Pakenham, and I hope we shall have its report very soon. But this I will say, that when my Noble Friend came into office he found the flying-boat very much at a discount, and he has used every effort he could to see it come back into favour. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Enroll) asked about the increased staff of my Ministry. I think this is a little hard on us. We were very much handicapped when I first took office by the lack of staff in this Ministry. It was inevitable that in a Ministry which had relatively little to do in the war, in the days when it was a department of the Air Ministry and not a separate Ministry, the staff should be reduced, and it was a great problem to recruit more staff to meet the needs of the present day. I am happy to say that the staff has now been considerably increased. We have obtained some officials of very high standing who have the respect of everyone in the aeronautical world, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman can seriously attack us on that score.

He also raised the question of our relations with the staffs of the corporations. There is no difficulty in practice in this matter. The line of demarcation between the duties of the Government and the operational duties of the corporations, including operational policy, is really quite clear in practice. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman said that he had been congratulated by the Chancellor on making three accurate speeches. I am only wondering, in view of the hour at which the House sat last night, whether it was out of a desire not to hear the hon. Gentleman make a fourth speech that the Chancellor congratulated him.

I should point out that those speeches were made quite early before the House got into its slow-motion movement.

I am glad to have that assurance from the hon. Gentleman. I have also been asked for details about the transfer of Transport Command services, especially in the Middle East, to B.O.A.C. For some time there has been a planned programme for the reduction of Transport Command services and their assumption by the civilian airlines. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air and myself are working very closely together in this matter. The transfer has been proceeding, and has already gone a long way. When the war ended Transport Command was a large organisation running regular scheduled services to a large number of places. It obviously had to be reduced, and reduced rapidly, owing to the demobilisation programme. Our problem has therefore been, not simply to build up civilian services, but to cope with the reduction in Transport Command services. We have now passed the worst, and, according to the plans which come before us, by the end of the year there will be a very large increase in the regular scheduled services throughout the world. Several hon. Gentlemen referred to internal services in this country. We have not forgotten the internal services. Although I understand it has not come to the notice of several hon. Members, a list of the proposed internal services has been placed in the Library, and has been published in some newspapers. That list has won general approval from whose who have studied the schedule.

In my opening remarks I referred to that problem. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman was not here. I said we had dealt with the fringes, but that the central part of Wales does present a problem. There is not a large population to be served, and the sites for aerodromes are not very good.

Does the hon. Gentleman contemplate using any aerodromes in Wales, other than Cardiff, for internal services? Is that part of the present plan?

I have not made a statement on aerodromes because I have undertaken not to give such information piecemeal. A comprehensive statement will be made before long. The list of stopping places in this schedule is certainly not intended to be exhaustive. I now turn to several points of interpretation in the Anglo-Eire Agreement, raised particularly in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), although I am sorry to say I was not present when he spoke. He asked, in particular, about Schedule III of that agreement, which refers to points in the United Kingdom in the schedule of routes. He wanted to know what those points will be. They are not yet settled. They will be settled in consultation between the operators and the two Governments concerned. In that regard full attention will be paid to the susceptibilities of Scotland and Northern Ireland. I do not anticipate difficulty arising on that score. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also asked for a definition of the fifth freedom rights under this agreement. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Major N. Macpherson) raised a similar point. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dumfries pointed out that under paragraph 5 of the annex the capacity is to be maintained in close relationship with the traffic offering between the places served. He thought that that would contradict what I elsewhere said about capacity being fixed by the traffic operating between terminal points. On most of the routes it does not matter, because they are services between one point and another point with no intermediate points. I refer him to paragraph 7 of the same Annex which must be read together with paragraph 4. It refers to fifth freedom traffic and he will see that the capacity has to be fixed by reference to the traffic between terminals, and fifth freedom traffic can only be incidental to that traffic.

A certain point of interpretation was also sought by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross). He asked if cabotage would be incidental to the traffic carried between the terminal points. The answer is that that is the case. Cabotage will be fixed by the traffic between terminal points, but in any case it would not be much. He asked whether British aircraft would be operating between Belfast and Liverpool, and between Belfast and Crewe. It is the case that the British European Airways Corporation will operate between Liverpool and Belfast in addition to the joint company. It could operate between Crewe and Belfast. That right has been reserved, although it is doubtful whether it would wish to do so for operational reasons. The right is there for a purely British company to operate if it so desires.

I think it is very important that we should know whether this agreement was made with a Dominion or a foreign country.

I cannot be drawn into a question of Dominion policy. The hon. Member asked why we did not use an airport in Northern Ireland rather than Rineanna. That has been fully discussed with the Northern Ireland authorities, and they were satisfied with the explanation. As has been pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby (Group Captain Wilcock), the Shannon Airport lies close to the Great Circle route to North America. It adds only eight miles, whereas Northern Ireland would add a longer distance. When Scotland and Eire were being discussed I felt that I was present at a private quarrel among hon. Members, but I believe that most hon. Members will be satisfied with the explanation I have given. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone asked me about West African Airways, and about our policy in the Colonies generally. It is the primary responsibility of the Colonies themselves to provide ground organisation and staff. The Colonial Office consults my Ministry on matters connected with the type of organisation required; and on matters of recruitment and training the Ministry of Civil Aviation act as advisers and, on occasions, as agents.

A recent Order in Council provided for the constitution of an air transport authority for the four West African territories, Nigeria, Gold Coast, Sierra Leone and Gambia. The authority has power to set up a Corporation to operate all air services within the four territories, and negotiations have already been opened with B.O.A.C. for the latter to act as agents for the company in the same way as in the case of East African Airways. It should be operating by 1st July. There has been a note of pessimism in some of the speeches which I cannot share. We must not compare our services with those set up by France and Holland, good as they are. We have air services to every part of the world, and if only I could show the hon. Gentleman the schedule of our services, he would be as impressed as I am by the vast extent of British airline operations at the present time.

It being Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Estimates

Select Committee to have power to appoint a sub-committee to visit Germany for the purpose of examining the Estimate for the Control Office for Germany and Austria, and to hold sittings for that purpose in Berlin and in the British zone of occupation.—[ Mr Kirby. ]

Transport Charges (Increases)

10.3 p.m.

I beg to move,

"That the Railway-owned Harbours, Docks and Piers (Increase of Charges) Order, 1946 (S.R. & O, 1946, No. 846), dated 15th June, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 19th June, be annulled."

The subject matter of this Motion, as you may have observed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is somewhat similar to that of the four other Motions which stand on the Paper in the names of my hon. Friends, and subject to your approval, it may be convenient if the whole matter could be discussed on the first of these Motions, and, if necessary, decision taken separately on the others.

I think that would meet with the convenience of the House.

The first of these Orders is not perhaps one of the greatest importance, but in order to save time—and I appreciate that after the last two nights, important though this subject is, the House will not wish to discuss it at undue length—it would be as well if I were to tell the House what are these five Orders. No. 842, increases the amounts chargeable for passengers and freight on the main line railways, with effect from 1st July. No. 843, provides for similar increases in respect of the smaller railways. No. 844 provides for similar increases in respect of passenger fares by the London Passenger Transport Board. No. 845 provides for increases in canal charges, and No. 846 for increases in port and harbour charges. I need not trouble the House with the mechanics of the matter, but it is perhaps some illustration of the importance of this matter to the country as a whole for the House to be reminded of the substantial nature of the increase in charges which is provided by these five Orders. The increase in ordinary passenger fares is to the extent of one-sixth—16⅔ per cent. The increase in respect of season tickets and workmen's tickets is in the order of 15 per cent. In the case of goods traffic and canal charges, it is to the extent of 8⅓ per cent., and dock charges, 20 per cent.

It is obvious that this is a matter of considerable moment to the country as a whole, and it is one which, I am certain, hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree, the country as a whole and all our constituents would expect this House to discuss, because whether the decision be right or whether it be wrong, it is surely beyond argument that it is of far reaching economic importance. I am certain that we should be held at fault as Members of this House if we did not in point of fact, and without undue length and, I hope, without prolixity, give some discussion to this matter, notwithstanding the recent very heavy inroads upon the time of the House which has been made by the pressure of Government legislation.

It is beyond all argument that increases of this nature constitute an element in the costs of almost every form of industrial production inasmuch as rail transport forms part of them. It is equally manifest that increases of this nature in passenger fares cannot be without their repercussions upon the wages policy of the Government, although I am not myself clear as to what that wages policy is. It is obvious that there are very considerable sections of the community, certainly a very large proportion of my own constituents, the cost of whose season ticket means a very substantial proportion of their expenditure, and it cannot be gainsaid that increases of this nature are the sort of charge which may have some effect upon the whole balance of the wages question. That being so, it is fair that the House should have an opportunity of examining the question, and hear the Minister's justification for it. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the opportunity to tell the House, in a fuller manner than was possible to him in accordance with the Rules of Order when he made his-statement on the 29th May, why he has taken the action which he has taken, and which will result in this very sharp increase of charges from 1st July. The House has the advantage, which it does not always have when discussing delegated legislation, of having some information as to the reason why this action was taken, because, as I have already reminded the House, the right hon. Gentleman made a statement on 29th May. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I misrepresent him, but as I understand his argument on that occasion, the course which has been taken by him was because of the loss of revenue suffered by the railways through the stopping of wartime traffic.

I notice that the right hon. Gentleman nods his head, and I am glad, therefore, that I followed his argument correctly. It also follows from that statement that the action he took for increasing the fares was only the first action, and is to be followed by a reference to the permanent members of the old Railway Rates Tribunal sitting as a type of consultative committee. This is only the first action. I hope I will not be accused of repetition if I say that the fact that there is to be further action makes it all the more important that this House should have the opportunity of "discussing the matter.

The main issue is, granted that the right hon. Gentleman has taken this action because of the admitted falling off in wartime traffics and the consequent loss of revenue: Is this the right way to deal with a fall in traffic by increasing the prices? The normal commercial practice is the reverse. If one wants to sell more of a commodity, be it an industrial product or transport, the normal action is to reduce the price. The action of the right hon. Gentleman is precisely opposite. He cannot sell enough transport at present rates and so he raises the prices. I trust that when he replies he will tell the House what effect on the volume of traffic is expected to result from the substantial increases in rates and fares. I mentioned a moment ago that the right hon. Gentleman is referring the question to the Railway Rates Tribunal. Their terms of reference appear at the conclusion, in the Official Report, of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. It is possible that those expert advisers will recommend that rates be not increased. They may take the view that to increase the charges is not the best way to remedy a falling off in traffic. If that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is prepared to carry out that recommendation and to reverse the action which he has just taken?

It seems a most unfortunate way of handling this matter. First of all, he takes this drastic action; subsequently, he refers the matter to the experts. Surely, it would have been more practicable and reasonable to take the advice first and then to have acted. I cannot believe that the urgency is so great as to necessitate this somewhat panicky action. The tendencies of railway traffics have been manifest for months. If the situation had really been so urgent it was possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have referred the question to the experts months ago and to have had their advice by now, and not to have taken action with some precipitancy and then go for advice.

Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the advice of, or consulted, the railway companies? Naturally, they have very considerable technical knowledge of the subject, at least as much as has the De- partment of the right hon. Gentleman. The basis of the action of the right hon. Gentleman has been the falling off in wartime traffic. Has he taken the advice of other Departments concerned with the economics of trade, with the Board of Trade, for example, as to the likelihood of wartime traffic being replaced by an increase in the normal peacetime and industrial traffic? If a replacement can take place in a fairly short time, the rather panicky action of the right hon. Gentleman will have been inadvisable. If, on the other hand, there is no chance of a recovery in normal peacetime traffic, the fact casts a rather strange light on the reassurances recently given by colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman about the prospect of early economic recovery. The whole action taken by the right hon. Gentleman in raising rates in this way seems to argue a certain lack of confidence, to put it no higher, in the immediate economic results of the policy of the Government of which he is so distinguished a member.

There is one other matter which is of some importance, and which was raised, when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, by two hon. Members on the opposite side of the House—the hon. Members for Luton (Mr. Warbey) and Stalybridge (Mr. Lang)—concerning the timing of this change. The date selected is 1st July, and the House does not need reminding that that is the period at which the holiday season can be said to open. There are a very considerable number of people in this country, ex-Servicemen and industrial workers alike, who are hoping in the near future to have their first decent holiday for seven years. Many of these people have, inevitably, to balance their holiday budget rather carefully and to save and plan sufficient funds to enable them to spend the time that they have free at the place of their choice. In the case of a large family, railway fares are a very big item, and all these people are being faced, as a result of the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, with a substantial increase in the expenses which they will have to meet in taking their first peacetime holiday for seven years.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to explain to the House why it is that he has struck this substantial blow at the summer prospects of a very substantial number of the most deserving section of our fellow countrymen. I would express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman may, quite apart from the general merits of this question, be persuaded that the precipitancy with which he has acted was not really called for by the necessities of the situation, and that he may be persuaded to postpone, at any rate, the severe penalty which he is imposing, by the action he is taking under these Orders, upon the holiday makers of this country.

Finally, there is the fact that, as a matter of high economic policy, this action has a considerable inflationary effect. Railway traffics, and the cost of them, are an element of substance in most of the activities of our economic life. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is always reminding the House of the necessity of the most severe and drastic action to combat the danger of inflation, which danger, whether one agrees with the methods of the right hon. Gentleman or not, one appreciates, is a serious one. The increases carried out under these Orders must have some inflationary effect, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible again to explain to the House what steps he is taking to minimise the danger which inevitably flows from this. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the opportunity to debate this matter, and I believe that he will not regret the initiative of my hon. Friends and myself in giving the House the opportunity to discuss this serious matter.

I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say, but I hope that he will deal, above all, with these two major points—first of all, with the substance of the matter, with the effect upon the economy of this country and upon railway traffics themselves, of this big increase in rates, and, secondly, I hope he will deal with the method he has adopted, the method of action prior to consultation, the method of rather precipitate action, and with the timing of these measures at the very moment when so many of our fellow countrymen—though I regret that one cannot include hon. Members themselves at this stage of our Session—are preparing to set forth upon their magnificently-earned holidays. It is in the hope that the House may have an explanation of these matters—an explanation which must necessarily affect the decision of the House upon the Orders themselves—that I move this Motion.

10.20 p.m.

I beg to second the Motion.

This is a matter which affects everybody throughout the country, rich and poor alike, the business man, the wage earner, everybody. [An HON. MEMBER: "Except M.Ps."] A Member of Parliament may travel to his constituency free, but I see no objection to that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in recent speeches has warned business men and companies against increasing dividends because he believes that any increase in dividends will lead to inflation. I submit that these Orders will lead to inflation. This means that the wage earner will have his wages raised for, if he lives in the suburbs and has to travel to his place of work, he will have to pay an increase in railway fares. His costs will, therefore, go up and, in turn, he will ask his employer for an increase in wages to counteract the increase in his expenses. If that is not inflation, just as much as increasing dividends to widows, who may be living on their fixed dividends, is inflation, I do not know what inflation is.

Secondly, I would ask the Minister whether he really believes the railways really got a fair share in wartime. I may be jeered at for asking this question, but I ask it sincerely, because the railways, in my opinion, did a wonderful job.

When the hon. Member uses the term "railways," will he be good enough to define those for whom he includes in that term?

I include the main line railways, especially perhaps the Southern Railway, which was bombed so consistently during the war period. I know what the hon. Member has in mind, but I am asking whether the widows, the orphans, the rich men, the poor men, all the men who have shares in the railways—[ Laughter. ]—Hon. Members may laugh but I do not mean any particular class at all, because there are hon. Gentlemen opposite who may have constituents with shares in the railway companies.

I was wondering if the hon. Member gives an occasional thought to the employees of the railways.

Is it not the case that the National Union of Railwaymen is one of the largest investors in the railways in this country?

I cannot answer that question, but I know that the hon. Member who asked it never asks a question unless he has substance with which to back it. I suggest that the railway stockholders are not only rich men. Railway stock is a trustee stock, and there are a great many people who have their small "all" in railway stock—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the insurance companies?"]—and I am asking whether those people had their fair share during wartime.

I do not think this argument is relevant to the Order. Revenue for the railways is guaranteed by the Government. Therefore, there is no question now whether the shareholders would get more or not.

I was only asking whether the shareholders had a fair deal under the guarantee.

These Orders will increase the cost of railway fares. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is a very pertinent point whether the railways have been guaranteed sufficient money by the Government.

That matter is quite out of Order. The guarantee has been decided by the House, and the question cannot be reopened on this Order.

May I ask the hon. Member—I think and hope this will be in Order—whether the whole purpose of these Orders is not to provide more money for the shareholders?

I could answer that point, but Mr. Speaker has ruled that I cannot even answer questions on it.

I do not understand Mr. Speaker's Ruling to have been that. I understood the Ruling to be that the hon. Member could not discuss the merits of the agreement because the House has consented to it, and it is not now in issue. I should have thought it was not out of Order for the hon. Member to tell me whether it is not the case that the whole purpose for which these fares are now being raised is to provide more money for the shareholders.

May I point out to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that if he looks at the speech made by the Minister of Transport, he will see that the point of the Orders is to reduce the Exchequer obligation?

If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will read the OFFICIAL REPORT of 29th May, he will see from the statement of the Minister of Transport that what my hon. Friend has said is correct.

Even if that were so, supposing that the object were to decrease the amount of the contribution from the Exchequer, then, since there would be less money in the pool and since the obligation of the agreement would still be what it was, it would be necessary to raise the fares to meet that obligation.

I do not agree with that. The agreement has another year to run, in any case. The next point I would like to make is that I do not believe a matter of this character should have been brought to the notice of the House by Orders in Council. We ought to have had a Debate on this matter long before any Order was laid before the House. I believe that hon. Members on all sides would have welcomed a Debate before any such Orders as Nos. 842 to 846 were produced to the House. In the OFFICIAL REPORT of 29th May, there is a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale)—who, I am glad to see, is in his place tonight—asking whether the House would have an opportunity of debating the increases before they came into operation. The answer which the Minister gave was the usual answer which avoids giving any sort of answer. He said:

"The question of debating the increases should be directed to the Leader of the House. I am not responsible for determining the timetable of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 1173–4.]

That is quite right, but, on the other hand, if the Minister had thought that this matter was important, which it is, because it affects everybody in the country, he would have gone to the Chief Whip and to the Cabinet, and he would have said: "This is a matter which concerns everybody in the country and it should be debated on the Floor of the House." I think that the Minister might have gone to the Cabinet and said: "This is a matter of substantial importance to everybody in the country and a Debate should take place in the House." I certainly think that there should have been a Debate. If the nationalised railways run at a loss, what is to be the position then? Are we going to have the same sort of thing as occurred in the Post Office? Are we going to have penny stamps put up to 2½d.?

Is it not true that the price of the penny stamp has not been put up? It still remains at one penny.

Yes, who put them up? Personally, I am not concerned with that tonight. But there we have a nationalised industry and it has increased costs.

On the point which has been made about the raising of the postal rates, would the hon. Member like to tell us what the corresponding postage rates were before the service was nationalised? I thought it was necessary to nationalise the Post Office in order to get the penny stamp at all.

The hon. Member's history is obviously better than mine. He seems to know more about that. But the Post Office runs the telephone system, and there are places which run the telephones more cheaply than they are run by our nationalised system. One of my hon. Friends asked the Minister of Transport about the increased fares, and in view of the Minister's reply, can we take it that a policy of subsidising the railways will not be adopted in future, whether the railways are nationalised or not?

This matter is the increase of charges, and has nothing to do with the nationalisation of the railways.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, a statement on this matter was made at the time; you allowed it.

One of the reasons given, I think, for the increase in railway fares is the necessity for having the railways in a profit making position. Would it not, therefore, be in Order to put forward the argument made last month? The merits or demerits of rail nationalisation need not be made now, but the policy of the Government has been announced, and steps will have to be taken by the Minister of Transport.

These Orders deal with the raising of revenue, and, therefore, this is entirely out of Order.

The hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting him again, but he cannot anticipate, in this discussion, legislation which has been announced by the Government.

I bow to your Ruling, Sir, and I shall not mention nationalisation again, except in passing. I would like to quote one other answer which was given by the Minister, again from the OFFICIAL REPORT, of 29th May:

"I do not think anyone could justify a policy of subsidising an industry like transport, which, normally, should be able to meet its own expenses,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 1174.]

When have the railway companies not been able to meet their own expenses? When has it been that they have run at a loss? They have, perhaps, not been able to pay a reasonable dividend to their deferred shareholders, but when have they operated at a loss, except during the war, when the railways were virtually taken over by the Government?

The hon. Member has not given the list of all the railway companies' obligations.

I have no hesitation in saying that the railway system in this country is the best in the world. I am not saying that it fulfilled the best standards during the war, but, generally speaking, we in Britain should be proud of our railway system. It is a jolly sight better than the nationalised railways of—I see your eye on me, Mr. Speaker, so I will not pursue the point any further.

The hon. Member has made an important point about the railways not having run at a loss, but does he remember that they avoided a loss only because of the voluntary action on the part of their workers in giving up 10 per cent. and, subsequently, smaller percentages, of wages before the war?

I have said that we should be proud of them. There is another Question which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), who asked the Minister why the policy of increasing railway fares was not included in the election programme of the Government. These Orders will increase railway charges. Again, the answer given by the Minister was remarkable; it meant nothing much at all. The right hon. Gentleman said that the policy that the services should economically pay their way had always been part of the Socialist philosophy. Frankly, what does that mean? Nothing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why."] I will give way if any hon. Member likes to explain to me what it means.

These Prayers do not relate to the policy of the Socialist Government. They relate to an agreement which was come to with the railway companies during the war by the Government. That is what is covered by these Prayers, and nothing else.

I will leave that point. I now come to the next point, which was the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Captain Crowder) at the time of the statement on 29th May. It was as follows:

"In view of the very large increases in passenger fares, will the Minister now be able to restore the cheap day tickets?"

These cheap day tickets were a very valuable help to people in the days before the war, and the Minister, in his answer, said:

"The House will remember that, from time to time I have been asked Questions about cheap day fares and I have indicated that the matter will come under review. I think the House can now see that I was facing this problem, and that it would have been inopportune to deal with matters of that kind until the general rate structure had been brought more into conformity with postwar prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 1174.]

Can we have an answer to-night about cheap day tickets, because they are a very valuable concession to the general public? There is one other question I would like to ask about the Minister's statement. He said then:

"I propose, accordingly, as a second step, to request the permanent members of the Railway Rates Tribunal, to act as they did in 1940 as a Consultative Committee, and to advise me as to the best method of adjusting charges."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 1172.]

Could we be told who are the permanent members of the Railway Rates Tribunal, and why a distinction was drawn between members and permanent members? I would like to ask the Government to-night whether they feel that it is their job to increase the rates and railway fares? Is it their job, or is it the job of the companies? I may be ignorant, but I do not really see why the Government should be increasing the charges of the railways, the railways are not nationalised yet. Some of us hope they will never be nationalised. Why are the Government taking powers under an Order in Council to increase the charges and the railway faxes? I would like to hear that question answered. Have the directorate, the management of the railway companies, agreed to this increase in charges? Have they been consulted?

Is the hon. Member prepared to support a reduction in the dividends of the shareholders of the railway companies in order to maintain the old rates?

The agreement provides for the payment of a fixed sum, and the shareholders are not affected.

I would like to ask the hon. Member, firstly, Is he in favour of keeping the agreement we made? and, secondly, How does he propose to keep it unless the fares are raised?

That also, I am afraid, is not a legitimate question. The agreement has been made, and we are bound by it. Therefore, whether the hon. Member objects to it or not, he is out of Order because it is a decision of the House.

Would you allow me, Mr. Speaker, to ask another question? Seeing the agreement has to be met, how does the hon. Member propose to meet it unless the fares are raised?

The agreement was a wartime one. The railways were perfectly well able to look after themselves before the war. They gave a first class service and rates were reasonable.

I think I had better leave it.

I have two more points to make. I represent a seaside holiday resort. Our livelihood, which was considerably upset during the war, depends upon holiday makers. We try to provide good holidays for the British working people, and we do a good job. The holiday resorts all round the coasts of Britain will be considerably affected by this Order. As my hon. Friend said, people budget for their holidays up to the last penny. If this Order has to be introduced, we feel that it should at any rate be postponed until after the holiday period, to enable people who have already budgeted up to the last penny or shilling to take their holiday without the fear that they will have to economise. My last point is about the season ticket holders, who will be considerably affected. Again I come back to the first point I made about inflation. If these fares are raised, there will be inflation, whether the Government like it or not. Employees of a business, company or concern will go to their employer, and say, "Our expenses are higher. We cannot live on our wages, and you will have to increase them, because the Government have said that we have to pay higher fares." The employer will have no alternative but to raise their wages. I hope and think that we have made a good case, and I hope we shall get some support from the Members on the opposite side of the House on the points we have raised.

10.49 p.m.

I had not anticipated intervening in this Debate, but I have been provoked into doing so by the very unusual statements of hon. Members opposite. Perhaps I should first indicate my interest. I happen to be the President of the Railway Clerks' Association of Great Britain and Ireland. Because of that it was my deliberate intention to refrain from taking part, because we do not regard it as part and parcel of our duty to argue about railway rates and fares. But after listening to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) I feel that their contribution calls for some immediate reply on the points they have raised, and more particularly on the points they have omitted, perhaps deliberately. The most notable feature has been the good temper of the hon. Member for Eastbourne. May I examine for just a few minutes the contribution made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who seems to be willing to wound, but afraid to kill. He did not tell the Minister that he ought not to increase the fares. He did not say that the increase could not be justified, but just expressed a little disappointment and misgiving because the Minister has not been to the Railway Rates Tribunal.

As the hon. Gentleman challenges the attitude I took up, may I say that the Minister of Transport has not yet had the opportunity to put forward his justification of the action he has taken? Therefore, I do not think it right to condemn until we have heard the prisoner in his own defence.

That confirms the impression I had, that you were not prepared to condemn the increases as being unwarranted. But you went a stage further. You said—

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. But the hon. Member went a stage further and offered a remedy to the Minister of Transport. That remedy he culled from what he described as industrial experience. For instance, he said that if business people cannot sell their products they reduce the price, and presumably if the railway companies are unable to obtain sufficient traffic, they might attract a good deal more by reducing rates or reducing fares. But hon. Members know that our experience in that direction has been most unfortunate not only in the railway industry, but in every other industry. What has happened in coal, iron, steel, timber—industries which very closely affect the prosperity of the railway companies? I can recall that when the colliers were working for the lowest wages in this country there was the greatest measure of unemployment in the industry. I can recall a time when, if the iron and steel workers of this country worked for nothing, iron and steel would still have been a very dear commodity and a hindrance to industrial prosperity. I would be grateful if the hon. Member, or someone on his behalf, would indicate how far we should go in reducing the prices of transport in order to gain prosperity. If this is the remedy, I would like to examine it very much more carefully before I accept the suggestion. Then the query is made, why the increase should be made now; why not wait? I can only attribute that to the integrity of the Minister of Transport, and it may be a measure of disappointment to hon. Members opposite that this move was not made until a new policy in transport is brought before the House and accepted, because then it would be a simple matter to engage in a public campaign and say that as soon as we get a new policy in transport it costs a great deal more. I was very disappointed that their range was so very limited. The hon. Member for Eastbourne cited a number of people who are interested in the industry, but said not a word about the 500,000 or 600,000 employees who are still waiting for a reply to their simple claim that their war bonus should be consolidated. We are still waiting for the industry to report on the matter.

Can the hon. Member say what is the percentage rise they had during the war?

We had a modest bonus which was quite inadequate to meet present conditions, and the war bonus was based upon unsatisfactory scales of service and wages which have obtained for far too many years.

I have not the figures. It will be a simple matter to demonstrate that the just claims of the people concerned have not been met. The Minister is in great difficulty to meet the claims of employers and employees, and the other people concerned, without getting a proper scale of rates.

I do not want the hon. Member to misrepresent me. There are two answers to the question he raises: firstly, the Government have been controlling the railways throughout the war; secondly, there is the National Union of Railwaymen. I believe in negotiation between trade unions and the employers. If I did not mention the enormous num- ber of railway employees, the reason was that apparently the union and the employers have reached agreement, or at any rate there does not seem to be any disagreement.

I am glad that I have enabled the hon. Member to have some regard to the claims of the staff. I am indebted to the Minister for his readiness to put the industry on to a proper basis. I do not wish to anticipate his reply but I think that he is to be commended and not blamed for doing the right and proper thing in taking these steps. I ask hon. Members to compare the increases during the war with those of the other commodities I have mentioned, such as coal, iron, steel and timber, of which the railway companies are the greatest customers. The Minister will have no difficulty in demonstrating the wisdom of his action, and I hope it will be approved in no uncertain manner.

10.57 p.m.

I propose to deal shortly with one point, and in doing so perhaps I may be able to answer the question which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) put to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor). He asked what he would do to maintain the present agreement. Whether the agreement is fair or not is a matter we cannot discuss. The fact is that when huge surpluses were being made, the Exchequer took huge sums out of the railway pool.

The sums which the Exchequer took out of the railway pool were part of the agreement, were they not?

I was going to argue that as the Exchequer had taken these large sums, it would only be fair, now the surplus has been turned into a deficit, for the Exchequer to make good the loss instead of raising the charges. Generally speaking, I do not agree with subsidies for industry, whether it is or is not a nationalised industry, but I think that in present conditions, when we are passing through an exceptional transitional period, we should wait to see what the normal peacetime traffic will be. It seems better to me to spread this deficit over the general body of taxpayers than to impose this heavy burden on industry, and on a certain selected class of people, some of whom use the railways much more than others. I ask the Minister to consider that possible alternative during this transitional period.

11.0 p.m.

I recognise the general interest in this matter, and I am certain that almost every hon. Member could make an individual contribution to this Debate. If I intervene at this stage, it is because I recognise that we have had an exceptionally heavy week, and I hope that, if I can make out a good case for my action, it may save an unnecessarily late sitting.

The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), in introducing this Motion, rightly said that an increase of railway charges for passengers and freight was bound to have very wide repercussions. I certainly welcome an opportunity of ventilating this matter on the Floor of the House, although, as I have indicated, I wish that it had come at a time when the labours of hon. Members had been less onerous. I should first like to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) about the necessity for this Debate. He was well aware, when I gave the answer, that the responsibility of requesting a Debate on any Government or ministerial pronouncement rests largely upon the Opposition, and is negotiated through the usual channels. That was not done at the time, and hon. Members have now availed themselves of this Parliamentary opportunity to raise the matter.

May I next clear away the point about the Railway Rates Tribunal before I deal with the wider economic implications of this decision? The Railway Rates Tribunal was largely suspended in the early stages of the war because war-time conditions made their duties more or less irrelevant, but the services of the permanent members were retained to be at the disposal of the Minister for consultation purposes, and for the early increase of 16⅔ per cent. their services were invoked. The members are Sir Bruce Thomas, and Messrs. Parkes and Argile. I will deal later wiith the sequence of their activities in this matter. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, and other hon. Members who have spoken have not really faced the issue. The railway agreement governs the whole of this matter. I have not heard the slightest hint in any speech that we should dishonour an agreement which this House has authorised, especially in view of the fact that during the war, if the railway companies had been free to exploit the position, which they could have done in the circumstances prevailing, the results to the railway companies would have been much better than they actually were.

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain how and when the agreement could be terminated?

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say whether he will review it at the end of the next financial year?

I expect, of course, to deal with that problem when it arises. The financial advantage to the State, which was represented in the surplus which the Chancellor acquired over and above the net revenue for the rent paid to the railways was largely on account of Government traffic. In 1944 the volume of Government traffic amounted to £123 million. In 1945, especially in the last six months, as indicated as my statement, the traffic was dropping very rapidly, and in 1945 it was £102 million, a decrease of £21 million, the greater part of which occurred in the second half of the year. I was confronted with the problem, which any Minister dealing with this matter would have to face, that there would be a rapid changeover to industry, and with it the responsibility of ascertaining, as quickly as possible, what were the trends of traffic receipts in 1946. I want to assure hon. Members that the whole of the information upon which I based my decision was obtained from the railway companies and the Railway Executive Committee. Therefore, I think I can claim to have consulted and to have met the railway companies in this matter, in every possible manner, and it was the companies who brought to my notice the trend of circumstances which was developing.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the proposal also came from the railway companies.

No, I accept that responsibility, because I consider it is my responsibility to carry a decision of that kind. It was the railway companies who were responsible for furnishing me with the data upon which I based my decision. It was quite clear this year that there would be a heavy deficit on the railway account, and hon. Members must make up their minds whether that should be borne by the taxpayers, or by the people who use the railways.

Will the Minister make it clear that, whether there is an acceptance or withdrawal of this Order, it will not make a penny of difference to any shareholder of any railway company?

The problem arises because we have to meet, in this year, as in previous years, the rent fixed at £43 million which is the payment made to the railways by the Government and with which they pay their interest charges. To that extent we have to make up that deficit, and as that is roughly, the estimated sum, it can be argued that this increase of fares is for the purpose of providing the interest charge on the capital. However, those capital charges would have to be met, whether the railways were in the hands of the State or in the hands of individual shareholders. It is merely a question of meeting the normal, economic legitimate charges which rest upon railway transport.

There is a lot of doubt in the House on this question. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer a straightforward question—whether the acceptance or refusal of this Order would make a halfpenny of difference to any shareholder in any railway company? Will the Minister answer "Yes" or "No"?

Certainly not if the hon. Member puts it that way, but I submit that it is an irrelevant way to approach this problem. I put that point quite clearly earlier. The State is under an obligation to meet that charge, and nobody suggests that we should dishonour our responsibility. It is a legitimate charge in this year's railway charges, and must be met by railway users or by the Budget.

I do not think that the purpose of this Debate will be served by undue interruptions. I shall be pleased to answer any questions, but I cannot give way to interruptions from some hon. Members and deny the same opportunity to others.

I would like to indicate the relative position of transport charges as compared with similar basic services which affect the general level of prices. For instance, the price of cotton goods has advanced 98.2 per cent.; wool, 80.8 per cent.; building materials, 61.6 per cent., and coal 97·9 per cent. The wholesale price of milk has increased by 50 per cent. Apart from these necessary commodities, let us look at other forms of transport. Take the case of shipping. General cargo liner charges for freight have increased by 100 per cent., and tramps are still higher. Then look at some of the costs which the railways have to meet, for the ordinary running of railways. Steel rails have increased 61 per cent., sleepers by 206 per cent., lubricating oil by 157 per cent., and clothing by 126 per cent.

I do not feel that there is any advantage in hon. Members trying to debate issues of this sort by interruption. I may say that these prices have increased largely under the determination of private enterprise. Hon. Members claim that these matters should receive proper consideration, but they are placing themselves in this position. They admit that these increases have occurred over some of the basic commodities of this country, and have entered largely into transport, but they then say it is sound business policy to ignore factors of this description and they advocate generally that we should place these charges on the Budget. In no other industry is that policy followed.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Food."]—Well, that was not determined by a Socialist Government, but by a Coalition Administration. It has to be borne in mind that the result of the subsidy policy in food, is that the basic supplies have risen far above the level of the controlled and subsidised food supplies.

In view of these circumstances therefore, the position I had to face was this: transport is essentially an industry that should normally be able to pay its way, and could do so if it followed the normal practice. Two years after the 1914–18 war railway charges increased by approximately 100 per cent. over the 1914 cost. Later, there was a reduction to approximately 60 per cent. and the figure was stabilised, in 1928, at approximately 60 per cent. above the 1914 cost. In this case transport charges have not moved in any way above the level of the general price movement within the community. The increase I am putting on at the highest level, with regard to passenger and freights, brings the figure up to 33⅓ Per cent. over the 1939 cost. With regard to coal, general merchandise, workmen's fares and season tickets, the rates vary by 7 per cent. to 13 per cent. My purpose is to bring the rates in that group to a level of 25 per cent. over 1939 cost. If every other commodity and service in the country had an increase of only 33⅓ or 25 per cent. we should be in a very much happier position than we are today. But, in any case, it is desirable that we should face up to the position, instead of making our Budgetary position more difficult.

I indicated that I could not tackle the problem of reduced or cheaper fares, and excursion fares, until this main issue had been settled. This matter is now being discussed, and while I cannot give any details to the House tonight I am confident that within a short time some adjustments and facilities will again be available to the public. In the circumstances this is a sound policy, and I stand by it without any qualification.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how Order No. 846 agrees with what he has just said? He should give up trying to level up all charges by 25 per cent. over the 1939 figures. Part of this Order states that the increase will be 40 per cent.

That applies to railway docks and harbour dues. Hon. Members will find that during the war, at the Aberdeen and Tyne docks, the figure increased by approximately 100 per cent. They are not railway owned docks. The P.L.A. and Mersey docks have had an increase of between 80 and 90 per cent., and Bristol, a municipally owned dock, has had an increase of 40 per cent. Railway dock charges have been increased by only 20 per cent., and we are putting on an additional 16⅔ per cent.

But why did not the right hon. Gentleman consult the Railway Rates Tribunal before coming to this decision? What will he do if the Tribunal say that, in their opinion, other methods should be tried to bridge the gap?

The longer this was left, the greater the deficiency that would have to be met, and, in consultation with the Chancellor, we made a clear division of the year's loss by which I would recoup the loss in the second half of the year—namely, from 1st July—and the Chancellor and the Treasury would meet the loss incurred on the first half of the year. The longer I had left that, the more unequally that division of the first year's loss would have affected the balance. With regard to the Railway Rates Tribunal, I put on the minimum increase, and the Tribunal will make a more thorough examination of the problem. Further, I considered that now we were reaching this decision it was only right that the Railway Rates Committee should be re-established so that organisations and bodies representing public opinion should have the opportunity of expressing their views on matters of this description. If I had withheld the decision to meet certain difficulties, I would have aggravated the problem, and I was not disposed to shelve my responsibility.

11.21 p.m.

Like other hon. Members, I was anxious to hear the reply of the Minister to the arguments put forward, and I now intervene to draw attention to certain matters which are of some importance. First, the right hon. Gentleman took the opportunity of saying that he wished these discussions had taken place at a rather less exhausting period. That may be a general view, but he must appreciate that when he made his statement in the House on 29th May the view was expressed in various quarters of the House that there should be a general Debate. Such a Debate did not take place, and it was only possible for this matter to be raised as it has been raised tonight by means of a Prayer. In these circumstances, we are justified in asking the House to deal in this manner with a matter which is of vital importance to a large section of the community. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that owing to the consideration of speed he was disinclined to set up the permanent membership of the Rates Tribunal to advise him, before he decided upon the actual increases. But, in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) the Minister does not state whether if that tribunal were later to take a view that some different method would be preferable to increasing the fares, he would be prepared to reconsider his present decision.

After all, there are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with cream, and I am by no means sure that the right hon. Gentleman is adopting the wisest method of dealing with this question of the railway deficit. I understand he consulted the directors. The pertinent point was made by my hon Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames when he asked whether the Minister, having seen the decrease in the latter part of last year—a decrease which was quite natural in view of the gradual change from war to peace—consulted with the Board of Trade in regard to the likely flow of peacetime traffic, under the grand new schemes which this Government were considering to create a brave new world. I make that point for one reason. If the deficit is to be merely temporary, and for a short period, it would be, in my view, very unwise to take the line that fares have to go up, and go up by a substantial amount. I know the Minister has quoted the fact that certain commodities have gone up a good deal more than he proposes to put up railway fares. But railway fares play a considerable part in the budgets of a large number of people of the working class and middle class, and if this deficit could be bridged, for a comparatively short period of time, until there was a greater flow of peacetime transport, I should have thought that the taxpayer might have bridged it this year. That is, unless the right hon. Gentleman has consulted the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade are rather lacking in enthusiasm about the brave new world.

I think that the greatest criticism of this increase will come from the many people who will say, "It is all very well increasing what we have to pay in railway fares, but in point of fact we are getting fewer amenities and less return from our railways than we did before the war." Railways are not comfortable at the present time. They are considerably slower than before the war. Restaurant cars are appearing somewhat slowly. They never seem to appear on the trains which I have the misfortune to use. We are being asked to pay more for something which is giving less service than it did in prewar days. I am not blaming the railways, or those working on the railways. I realise the difficulties of wartime and the fact the railways have been under a great strain. But the fact remains that it is a bit hard to pay a good bit more for something which is not giving one as much as it did prior to the war.

Beyond my suggestion that the taxpayer might have bridged the deficit this year, I would say frankly to the Minister that he has made a grave psychological error. I have no doubt he was encouraged by the Exchequer to make it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was not the Chancellor? Very well. I repeat that the Minister has made a grave psychological error in deciding to make the increases just before the first real holiday season the people of this country have had for many years. I know, as do other hon. Members, that not everybody is receiving largely increased wages, not everybody is feeling very prosperous at present. But everybody does want a decent holiday in July, August or September this year. There are people who will be badly hit by these increases. I realise that some increase will probably be essential. My two objections are, first, that I think there was a chance that the gap might have been bridged rather more than it has been. But why I can vote quite honestly for these Motions tonight, is because by putting up charges on 1st July a good deal of unnecessary suffering is being brought to a large number of decent, respectable, hard working people. If they have to go up, put them up in October and let us until then spread the burden among the taxpayers as a whole.

11.28 p.m.

I apologise profoundly to the House for speaking at this stage, but I have a duty to perform to my own constituency and my own country. The part of the Order which profoundly disturbs me is that dealing with harbours. I am grate- ful for the reasonable way in which the Motion was moved by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), which makes it all the easier to bring forward these considerations from this side of the Committee. My objection is that the harbours are being dealt with as ancillaries to the railways. I do not know whether the harbours themselves will lose on their running. Whether they do or not, the question arises whether it is desirable to increase the rates of harbours by as much as 40 per cent. Now the Minister knows perfectly well that he has been pressed time and again about the position of the harbours in Wales. There is great unemployment among the port workers, and a constituent, writing to me the other day—and he is not a Communist or a Tory—said that the position there was much the same as it had been during the general strike. One explanation is the high rates charged in the Great Western Railway harbours. Every harbour in Wales is a Great Western Railway harbour, and every harbour in Wales is included in this list in Part 1 of the Schedule to the Order. All will have increased charges under this Order.

One of the difficulties we have had in Wales in dealing with the ports is that the charges have been high compared with those in London and Liverpool. The result is that it has been most difficult to attract to the Welsh ports any traffic in competition with London and Liverpool. The Minister has been pressed to look into these charges; he has been pressed to reduce them. He has promised to investigate them—and the only practical result has been an increase of 20 per cent. in the charges in the Welsh harbours. That means that the discrepancy between the charges in the Welsh harbours and the English harbours in competition with them, so far from being decreased, is increased under this Order. I can understand a step of this kind being taken as a line of least resistance. It is a comparatively simple matter to slap on 20 per cent. here, and 20 per cent. there; but I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether, in fact, the result of these increases in the harbour charges on the harbours in Wales has been considered by him, and with what result. In view of the unemployment in the harbours in South Wales—and North Wales too—what has led to the conclusion that there should be a 20 per cent. increase?

These are not immense harbours. They represent a minute fraction, compared with the harbours of London and Liverpool. In view of the comparatively small revenue which will be got by the 20 per cent. increase, and in view of the fact that unemployment will be accentuated by the increase, why does the Minister impose it? We in South Wales are profoundly disturbed to find that there is still no sign of a plan for dealing with unemployment in the Welsh ports. We are somewhat more disturbed that these increases should be imposed at this time. I can understand, as I say, this charge being imposed as a line of least resistance but I cannot understand its being imposed as part of deliberate planning. I hope the Minister will deal with this difficulty.

11.35 p.m.

I apologise to the Minister for not having heard his opening remarks but I was interested to hear his description of the conditions which faced him in relation to this matter. We should be even more interested to know whether he can project the story a little into the future. Do I understand that these increased charges are necessary to bridge the gap which has already arisen? Is it likely that this process will continue? Is traffic likely to drop, and is the gap likely to be larger in the future? In other words, is this the end of the increased charges, or does the Minister anticipate that he will have to make proposals for still further increases? If it is not his intention to come forward and make further proposals for increased charges, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to carry the burden? Clearly the hon. Gentleman is in this dilemma. He says, in my opinion rightly—and I make him a present of this—that despite the difficulties, and despite the serious effects, such as those were suggested by the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas), on various industries and areas by this increase in railway charges, traffic ought to bear the necessary increased costs, and that we ought not to go in for increasing subsidies. If he accepts this, as I think he does, the Government clearly must agree that they will come forward at some future date for further increases in charges, or go back on their word and bear any increase in costs out of the Exchequer beyond what is meant by these increases. I imagine from what the Minister said that the Government will not be prepared to adopt this last course, and if the costs increase to an extent which these increases will not meet, then the Minister will again come forward with further increases. I think this Debate has served a very useful purpose if it has done no more than elicit the fact that in the opinion of His Majesty's present advisers the Exchequer ought not to be called upon to subsidise industries under national control. I hope I have correctly interpreted the Minister's view, and we should be much obliged if he would confirm it.

11.38 p.m.

I am moved to intrude in this Debate to put one vital point which has not been dealt with so far. That point is whether this increase is necessary. We have had no information upon that point. We should apply our minds to the figures. The last figures of railway receipts and expenditure were given in the White Paper of December, 1945. That showed for the year 1945 that the railway pool made a gross overall profit of £62,500,000. Of that figure, £43,000,000 went to the railway companies and the remainder to the Exchequer. That figure of £62,500,000 is the most recent figure we have. What has happened since? In the first four months of this year there has been a diminution in passenger receipts of only 2 per cent. I prophesy that there is a great unsatisfied demand for passenger transport coming in the next few months, when people are going to take the first summer holiday they have had for many years. It is true, of course, that there is a substantial diminution in merchandise receipts, which came down by 23.2 per cent. We were in the transitional stage from war to peace, and the great volume of wartime traffic had gone. With peace time traffic in operation to the full there is no reason to anticipate that under a Socialist Government the volume of merchandise will not increase, and the receipts will tend to go up rather than down.

What was the view of the experts on the matter at about the time when this question was first mooted? On 4th May, 1946, this matter was dealt with in "The Economist," and the very able writer of the article made his prophecy on the rates and expenditure of the railways, and he gave perfectly accurate figures. He estimated that the gross diminution of receipts for the first four months of this year as compared with the first four months of last year is £14 million. On that basis there will be a diminution of £37 million for the whole year. If you take the 1945 figures of gross receipts and compare them with the 1944–45 figures, there is a diminution of £28 million. The writer in the "Economist" assumed that the diminution will be progressive, and that there would be a progressive increase in expenditure of about £4 million a year. On those figures he estimates that the deficit—I am using the term in the same sense as the Minister used it, i.e., deficit as against the Government guaranteed payment of £43 million—would, for 1946, be £13 million or in other words a gross profit of £30 million. I do not think the writer of that article was quoting optimistic figures. In the first four months of 1946, there is a deficit of £14 million, and when I speak of a deficit I am doing so in the same sense as the right hon. Gentleman used it. On 29th May, the right hon. Gentleman came to the House, and without any warning, and, without any figures or reason being given, he stated that he anticipated a deficit of £40 million. I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I am wondering whether that computation was made by the simple process of saying that there was a diminution of £14 million in gross receipts in four months, multiply that by three for 12 months, and that gives a diminution of £40 million. The right hon. Gentleman has put forward only one defence of his figures. He said that costs had gone up by 70 per cent. or 71 per cent. Nothing has been said about the increase of revenue. The revenue receipts of the railway companies in any comparable prewar year—I take 1935 as a fair year preceding the great volume of rearmament traffic—per week were in the nature of £3,400,000. The receipts week by week on an average of each month this year have been over £6 million, and that increase is much more than 70 per cent.

An hon. Member has made the point that the railways are not giving the services at the moment which they did in the past. Before the war, I used to travel from Leicester to London. I was able to run a little business in Leicestershire, and I used to have the choice of catching three fast trains between 11.18 a.m. and 12.9 p.m. I had lunch on the train, did some work in the City, and caught a train back at night which got me into Leicester about half-past eight. Today, to travel from Leicester to London and back is a task of some magnitude. Travelling facilities are infinitely poorer.

I sympathise with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He put his case with great restraint and great ability, but he does not get much help from hon. Members opposite. In my submission, having regard to the fact that industry is not yet in full production, and with the reasonable anticipation of an increase in the amount of merchandise which has to be carried I suggest that this conclusion is premature. There are matters in the air which in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, we have in our minds but cannot have upon our tongues. I can say, however, that the right hon. Gentleman may in the future, as well as the ruler of railways, be the Colossus of roads. That is a task of great magnitude and I wish him well in it. He will have my support. However, in this instance of railway fares I must on behalf of my constituents put to him a matter which is of vital importance.

I have the honour to be the junior Member for the town of Oldham. I do not say there is anything exceptional about the town of Oldham except the quality of its representation. It is a Lancashire industrial town, and it has one custom which is shared by many Lancashire towns—it takes its annual holiday at one and the same time. During the time of the Oldham Wakes Week the town is deserted. Rich and poor and employer and employee all take their holidays in that one week. This was going to be the victory year. It was going to be a great time for all of them. The Wakes Week is to take place shortly. I do not want to introduce mean, little arguments into this Debate, and I do not want to reproach the Minister, whom I respect so much, but could this matter not be postponed for a month or a couple of months and let the people have their holidays tax free, because let us face the fact, this is a tax on holidays?

The hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Morris) spoke as he always speaks, with great sincerity and ability, and I am in agreement with a great deal of what he said, but we are only considering a question of reimbursing the Exchequer through a possible loss of revenue. Let us consider the figures. Let us take the figures that the Minister gave. He said that by the increase of railway rates he expects to raise £30 million, but he anticipated the amount required would be £40 million. In answer to one right hon. Gentleman opposite the Railway Rates Tribunal is being required not to consider the rights and wrongs of this or to express considerations for improvements of the railways; it is being set up to consider the deficit and to make recommendations as to what further increases will be necessary. There is going to be a further increase. Obviously there is a gap of £10 million on the Minister's figures. That is implicit in the instructions which the Committee has received. They are not to make recommendations for the better running of the railways, but they have merely to consider the prospect of another deficit.

What is the position to-day? Six months of the year have already gone in which according to the Minister they will show a loss of £40 million on our guarantee. A sum of £20 million of that has already got to be paid by the Exchequer, and of the final £20 million only £15 million will be raised by the additional relief in fares increase. So there is another £5 million to fall on the Exchequer this year. I think that is confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman's figures.

The right hon. Gentleman dissents but that is what his figures work out at. We have got to find £20 million to meet the deficit up to June. I would say that it would be a comparatively small matter to delay this for another month or two months and give the people an untaxed holiday, so that their first holiday after the war will not be taxed by a Socialist Government. I do implore the Minister to consider this aspect of the matter. I do not want to say anything that is embarrassing. As a matter of fact, the only embarrassing remarks I intended to make will now be ruled out of Order. I cannot say it now, but naturally I must have it in my mind. A question was asked by an hon. Member opposite in regard to railway shares. Of course, this increase does not put one penny directly into the pockets of the company's shareholders. It does, however, increase the value of the shares, and because it is not possible to discuss nationalisation now I will content myself by saying that by reason of this increase in fares and freight the value of the railways is materially increased, and by reason of that the shareholders are and will benefit. Now that is the position, and in these circumstances I ask the Minister to reconsider these facts, and say that he will defer this for a couple of months.

11.50 p.m.

Two points have emerged during this Debate. The first is whether controlled industry should pay its way. There is no dispute about that. The second point which is more strictly relevant, concerns the method adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in so suddenly producing this substantial increase in fares. In moving this Motion, I put certain questions. I asked the Minister whether, before deciding on this subject and its effect on railway traffics, he consulted the Board of Trade as to future trade prospects. Secondly, he was asked if the railway companies had been consulted, but, as the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) has pointed out, there is no evidence of that. So far as I can elicit, no recommendation was obtained from the railway companies, who have considerable information on this matter. Then we learn from the Minister's own statement that the Railway Rates Tribunal is to be consulted, not in advance, but later. We have these big changes put forward with little notice, right on the verge of the holiday season. I do say to the House that this casual method of dealing with a matter of transcendent importance invites criticism, and this House would be failing in its duty if it failed to bring it forward.

I do not want to weary the House at this hour, but there is one other matter to which I must refer. The Minister, in a rather panicky manner, has indulged in these substantial increases. He could not effectively have done it in this way had there not been a shortage of petrol—temporarily, we hope—which cripples road transport and gives the railways what is really a monopoly. That is a consideration to be borne in mind when the House comes to consider whether or not the method adopted by the Minister in this case is an intelligent and effective method. I must also refer to what the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) said with regard to the ports. The House has not been given facts and figures to show whether the method adopted has been of an intelligent and responsible nature. I hope, there will be no misunderstanding when I say that while right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House criticise the doctrine advocated by hon. Members opposite, we welcome the statement from the Minister that a State-controlled industry should be managed, in the long run, in a solvent way. But we feel that the method adopted, on the verge of the holiday season, is one which cannot pass without criticism and, therefore, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to mark their criticism in the Division Lobby.

I wish to make but a few remarks, Sir, if you will allow me. I quite agree with the Minister that the railways should not be a permanent charge on the Budget, but I think it would be a technicality to say that any deficit this year would be such a charge. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that during the war the Government made a profit of £195 million out of the railways, over and above the annual rental of £43 million paid to the Railway Companies. That being the case, I think that that very large Fund should be drawn upon for, say, this year, in order to give the Minister rather more time to consider the matter with the Railway Rates Tribunal, and so on. Not only finance, but human justice is involved in this. I would like to make one quotation—because the position could not be better put—from what was said by the present Minister of Town and Country

Planning in the Debate we had on the railways in December, 1944. He said:

"After all, these profits"—

that is, the profits which the Government were keeping out of the railway revenues during the war—

"are being made very largely at the expense of the travelling public, who are not getting the comfort and convenience for the fares they pay, and which they are entitled to expect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 2012–3.]

In those circumstances, it would be only fair if that great fund of £195 million could be regarded as being available for the relief of what would otherwise involve a charge on the Budget during, say, the current year. That would enable the Minister to give further thought to the matter in the light of all the available advice, as a result of which he might possibly come to a conclusion which would be much more favourable to the public and to industry.

On a point of Order. The Order on which we should like to take a decision, Mr. Speaker, is the one referred to in the last of this series of Motions—No. 842—which covers the whole question.

Then I take it that the hon. Member does not wish to move to annul the three other Orders which are the subject of Motions on the Order Paper?

No, Sir. I beg formally to move:

"That the Railways (Additional Charges) Order, 1946 (S.R & O., 1946, No. 842), dated 15th June, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 19th June, be annulled."

I beg to second the Motion.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 121.

Division No. 224.]

AYES.

[12.0 m.

Baldwin, A. E.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

Bower, N.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Davidson, Viscountess

Hope, Lord J.

Challen, C.

Drayson, G. B.

Jennings, R.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

Lambert, Hon. G.

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

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Turton, R. H.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Raikes, H. V.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Walker-Smith, D.

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Scott, Lord W.

York, C.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Mellor, Sir J.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and

Mr. Charles Taylor

NOES.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Perrins, W.

Attewell, H. C.

Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

Popplewell, E.

Awbery, S. S.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Pryde, D. J.

Bacon, Miss A.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Randall, H. E.

Baird, Capt. J.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Ranger, J.

Balfour, A.

Hewitson Capt. M.

Rankin, J.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Holman, P.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Bechervaise, A. E.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Bing, G. H. C.

Hoy, J.

Scollan, T.

Blackburn, A. R.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Scott-Elliot, W.

Blyton, W. R.

Irving, W. J.

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Bottomley, A. G.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Brown, George (Belper)

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Skeffington, A. M.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

Buchanan, G.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Burke, W. A.

Keenan, W.

Stamford, W.

Champion, A. J.

Kenyon, C.

Steele, T.

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Kinley, J.

Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

Cobb, F. A.

Kirby, B. V.

Swingler, S.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Lindgren, G. S.

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Lyne, A. W.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

McEntee, V. La T.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

McGhee, H. G.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

McLeavy, F.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

Deer, G.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Timmons, J.

Donovan, T.

Mathers, G.

Titterington, M. F.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Medland, H. M.

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Walkden, E.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Moody, A. S.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Morley, R.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Ewart, R.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Farthing, W. J.

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Forman, J. C.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Willis, E.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Orbach, M.

Wilson, J. H.

Gibson, C. W.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Woodburn, A.

Gilzean, A.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Yates, V. F.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons

Adjournment

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. R. J. Taylor. ]

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.