I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

A conspicuous feature of this Bill, as the House will have noticed, is that its main provisions deal with matters—

On a point of Order. Can we have some candles, as it is quite impossible to read?

I will give the necessary instructions.

A conspicuous feature of this Bill is that its main provisions deal with matters of a highly technical nature, associated with the many complex ramifications of air navigation law. It is not concerned with the general policy of development of civil aviation, which was covered by the Civil Aviation Act passed last year, nor does it cover matters of private air law such as those affecting the relations between the commercial air lines and the public they serve. The Bill has become necessary for two main reasons, namely, to give effect to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and the Interim Agreement which were signed at Chicago on the 7th December, 1944, and to bring air navigation law into conformity with the developing science of air navigation to which the rapid technical advances of recent years have contributed.

Our existing international obligations in the sphere of air navigation are governed by the Paris Convention of 1919, to which statutory effect in the United Kingdom was given by the Air Navigation Act, 1920. The Chicago Convention will replace the Paris Convention of 1919, and the Bill now before the House will similarly replace the corresponding provisions of existing legislation on the subject. It will probably assist the House to a fuller understanding of the scope and the purposes of the Chicago Convention, with which this Bill primarily deals, if I give a brief historical survey of its predecessor, the Paris Convention and the parallel Havana Convention of 1928, which was adopted by the United States and certain Latin-American republics.

On 13th October, 1919, the 25 Allied and associated Powers represented at the Peace Conference signed the International Convention for Air Navigation in Paris. The Convention was eventually ratified by 33 States, including the United Kingdom, the Dominions and India, but among the more important countries which did not subscribe to this Convention were the United States of America, Brazil. Mexico, China and the U.S.S.R. The Paris Convention embodied the general code of international air navigation law, and, in relation to the international regulation of civil aviation, was concerned mainly with its technical aspects; it laid down the doctrine of the national sovereignty of the air and envisaged the maximum freedom for the passage of commercial aircraft, subject to the consent of the States through whose territories the services passed.

In practice, however, the operation of regular commercial services was governed by bilateral agreements often negotiated with difficulty and introducing considerations extraneous to air transport. As a result, the Convention made no significant contribution to the development of economic collaboration in international air transport services. It made provision in its Articles for uniform standards and practices in technical matters, and there were eight technical annexes, forming an integral part of the Convention, dealing with such matters as lights, signals and markings, safety regulations, rules of the air, airworthiness, licensing of crews, maps, meteorological information, registration of aircraft and customs procedure. The Convention was administered by the International Commission for Air Navigation, known as I.C.A.N. The most important duties of this body have been to receive and make proposals for improving the Convention, and to review and revise as necessary the technical annexes.

The requirements of the Convention and its annexes have been embodied in English law by Orders in Council issued under the Air Navigation Act, 1920, which now appear as the Air Navigation (Consolidation) Order, 1923, as amended to i9th February, 1946. Hitherto, therefore, effect has been given to the internationally agreed annexes by Orders in Council and regulations made under the Air Navigation Act, 1920. The United States of America and eight central American republics and Chile, which were not parties to the Paris Convention, entered into the Havana (Pan-American) Convention, 1928. This Convention provided rules and dealt with matters of public international air law similar to those of the Paris Convention, but there were certain important differences. In particular, its application was limited to the American continent, and it made no provision for international uniformity in technical matters. So much for international air navigation law as it existed at the time of the Chicago Conference.

Parties to the Paris and Havana Conventions are under an obligation to denounce these Conventions on ratification of the Chicago Convention which is to supersede them. In anticipation of ratification of the Chicago Convention, His Majesty's Government notified its denunciation of the Paris Convention in. May, 1946. This will become effective either in May next at the end of the prescribed period of one year, or when the Chicago Convention enters into force for the United Kingdom if this date is later. The Chicago Civil Aviation Conference of 1944 was convened by the United States Government after consultation with a number of other governments who were in agreement that the time had arrived to discuss arrangements for the resumption of international civil aviation. The main objectives of the Conference, apart from temporary arrangements to re-establish air transport services to meet the need then in early prospect, were to establish a new multilateral Convention of world-wide application which would lay down uniform technical codes and practices to supersede existing Conventions on international air navigation law. In addition, the Conference was to explore the possibility of providing in such a multilateral Convention for the regulation of the economic and commercial aspects of international air transport.

As the House will be aware, complete agreement was reached on the form of a multilateral Convention, and preliminary interim agreement, introducing standardised procedures and practices for international air navigation and associated matters. It has not proved possible to deal multilaterally with the economic and commercial aspects of international air transport. As the House will be aware, too, the divergent views of the United States and ourselves were subsequently resolved in the bilateral agreement between the two countries signed at Bermuda in February of last year. The conclusion of this agreement marks an important step forward, and holds out distinctly favourable prospects of the early conclusion of a multilateral agreement which will dispense with the present necessity for the numerous bilateral agreements required to enable international air services to be operated. These matters do not arise directly on the Bill before the House, but no description of the results of the Chicago Conference would be complete without a brief reference to the early promise of translating the failure at Chicago into success at Montreal.

The final Act of the Conference was published in two Parts. Part I, which contains the various substantive resolutions and agreements, was laid before Parliament in a White Paper, Cmd. 6614/1945. Part II consists of the draft technical annexes which, when completed, will supplement the Convention. A copy of this Part was placed in the Library of the House. Part I includes both the interim agreement and the Convention on international civil aviation. The former, which established the provisional international civil aviation organisation now actively functioning at Montreal, was designed to introduce, pending the Convention coming into force on ratification by the necessary 26 countries, up to date standardised practices and codes of universal application to meet the needs of modern air navigation and safety. It was contemplated that the interim agreement and the governing body it established would have a maximum life of three years. If, as is anticipated, ratification by the necessary minimum of countries should take place by 1st March, the period of the interim organisation will shortly come to an end.

The Provisional International Civil Aviation Organisation or P.I.C.A.O., as it is familiarly styled—is constituted on the basis of an assembly which meets annually, and an interim council whose duties require the continuous attendance of its elected members drawn from 21 different States. The functions of the Council, which are set out in Section 6 of the interim agreement, are purely advisory and include the collection and study of all information relating to the various aspects of international air transport operations, the study and report to the assembly on the unresolved differences of the Chicago Conference and the continuing study and revision, as necessary, of the international Convention and its associated draft technical annexes. The Interim Council has the assistance of the Air Transport Committee in dealing with the first two of these functions, and of the Air Navigation Committee in dealing with the technical field of air navigation.

The Convention, as I have already indicated, covers the whole field of public international air navigation law. In form, it is somewhat more comprehensive than the interim agreement and amplifies many of its provisions. It provides for the establishment of the International Civil Aviation Organisation which will carry out the functions hitherto exercised by I.C.A.N. and P.I.C.A.O. This organisation, as established by the Convention, will consist of an assembly, a council and any necessary subsidiary bodies, including an air navigation commission and an air transport committee as the successors of the corresponding committees of the Interim Council. The assembly, as is usual, will be representative of all member States and will normally meet once a year, but extraordinary meetings may be summoned at the request of the council or of any ten adherent States. The council will consist of 21 members in permanent session to be elected by the assembly every three years from among the States of chief importance to air transport, States making the largest contribution to the provision of facilities for international air navigation and States not otherwise included but necessary to ensure that the major geographical areas of the world are represented on the Council.

The first council, which includes the United Kingdom in its membership, was elected at Chicago on this basis. The Convention will be supplemented by 12 technical annexes related to governing articles of the Convention. The articles, so to speak are the pegs on which the technical annexes will hang. The first drafts of the technical annexes prepared at Chicago covered communications systems and air navigation aids, characteristics of airports and landing areas, rules of the air and air traffic control practices, licensing of operating and mechanical personnel, air worthiness of aircraft, registration and identification of aircraft, meteorological information, log books, maps and charts, customs procedures, aircraft in distress, and accident investigation.

The drafts produced at Chicago were acknowledged to be incomplete and to require further study and revision. Since the establishment of P.I.C.O.A. the annexes have been further considered both by the Air Navigation Committee and at a number of regional conferences. Considerable modifications of the earlier drafts have been made as a result. This work has made considerable demands upon the technical staffs of the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

In relation to the technical matters, the Chicago Convention is broadly of the same scope a.3 the Paris Convention, but the former introduces certain new features. It establishes, for example, that in the application of the provisions of the Convention, or in bilateral agreements entered into by adherent States, there shall be no discriminatory provisions directed at third parties. Another important provision of the Chicago Convention is the procedure for giving assistance by way of grant or loan to States unable to construct and maintain airports and other air navigation facilities. These arrangements are detailed in Chapter XV of the Convention. Another innovation the provision for the collection, study and publication of information and data relating to all aspects of the operation of international air services Turning to the provisions of the Bill, Clause 1 is perhaps of greatest importance. The powers sought in this Clause are, for the most part, directly related to the subject matter of the technical annexes of the Chicago Convention I have just described. These provisions are, therefore, necessary to enable us to fulfil our international obligations, but they also include supplementary powers necessary for the regulation and development of air navigation to United Kingdom standards. These powers, however, are substantially the same as the existing powers conferred by the Air Navigation Acts of 1920 and 1936. Clause 2 of the Bill is designed to give statutory effect to the provisions of Article 27 of the Chicago Convention, to secure exemption from seizure of an aircraft or other equipment on the grounds of infringement of patent rights. Clause 3, which will come up for consideration on the Financial Resolutions, makes provision for meeting our financial obligations under the Chicago Agreement, and for defraying the expenses incurred in the administration of the Bill and the Orders made under it. The scope of this Clause is described in the Financial Memorandum.

With this description of the general background, scope and purposes of the Bill, I commend it to the House. The passage of the Bill into law will be an earnest of the interest of the House in facilitating the carriage of passengers and goods by air, in the improvement of air navigation methods, and, above all, in promoting the highest standards of safety for aircraft operating on the United Kingdom register.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I put a question to you about the Procedure of the House? Since the present Administration came into office we have had the repeated reading of speeches by Ministers in this House. I do not know how far you would like to give a hint to His Majesty's Ministers that here in Parliament we are accustomed to hearing speeches delivered, and not read as the hon. Gentleman just did. The House would much prefer to have speeches delivered in the old-fashioned way, which we had in this House in days gone by.

It is not within my province to give a general direction as to how His Majesty's Ministers shall make speeches. It is the rule, of course, that speeches should not be read, but that notes should merely be referred to as notes.

Arising out of that, I think I shall be within your recollection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and within the recollection of many other hon. Members, when I remind the House of that occasion when a previous transport Bill, in that case a land transport Bill, was being discussed. A Conservative Minister of Transport read a very long speech, which was followed by an hon. Member from the Labour benches, I think the then hon. Member for Silvertown, Mr. Jones, rising to his feet and solemny proposing a vote of thanks to the typist. On this occasion we propose a vote of thanks to the Department; and on the occasion of a somewhat uncontroversial Bill we wish every possible success to those friends of all of us in whose hands, in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, at the moment are charged the responsibilities of guiding British civil aviation to a pre-eminent position in the world.

This is an uncontroversial Bill. Largely through co-operation in another place it has been very considerably improved, and there is little criticism that we on these benches shall make about the Bill itself. This is an opportunity, however, for a number of my hon. Friends to raise one or two technical points, which I hope will be in Order, and on which we should like some further information from the Parliamentary Secretary. I myself will be very brief. I shall be almost as brief as the hon. Gentleman was when he asked for a large sum of public money a few days ago. The purpose of this Bill is twofold. The first purpose is to make effective the undertakings entered into by the then British Government at Chicago, the Chicago Conventions and Agreements, and the further undertaking which involves in due course the arrangements reached later on with the United States. The second purpose is to continue still further with the process of controlling or guiding—according to how one looks at it—civil aviation, which was set on foot with the inauguration of the Ministry of Civil Aviation itself.

Let me deal very briefly with the first purpose, namely, implementing the undertakings we signed at Chicago. These, as the hon. Gentleman has shown in his speech, are based largely on the work of the Coalition Government and the proposals then put forward by Lord Swinton on behalf of the Coalition Government, which met with partial success—a large measure of success, considering everything—at Chicago. It is true that full agreement was not reached, and the remaining stages of controversy were happily resolved later on at Bermuda. But on the whole a very wide measure of agreement was reached, particularly in the technical field, at Chicago; and most of the conventions and agreements to which we are now giving legislative sanction spring from the work on that occasion of Lord Swinton and his delegation.

I vividly remember the attacks made on my noble Friend Lord Swinton on that occasion from the Socialist benches. I remember the attacks that were made on the failure to reach agreement at Chicago, and, indeed, on some features of those agreements that were reached. I remember the hurried meetings that were held by the Labour Party's Parliamentary Civil Aviation Committee, and the many speeches that were made, in particular by an hon. Gentleman, who has left the Chamber for the moment, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), attacking the Conservative Minister who had been leading our delegation at Chicago. He, on that occasion, suggested that had it been a Socialist Minister who had been introducing an agreement it would have been an agreement for international civil airlines everywhere, with every nation cooperating; and he broadly hinted, as did many of his hon. Friends, that the failure to secure full international civil airlines was due to Tory obscurantism in the Cabinet. Now all that has changed. With the coming of responsibility comes, to some Ministers, a measure of sobriety. It is interesting, albeit a shade ironical, to see agreements which were so fiercely attacked from the Socialist benches now handed out to us by the Parliamentary Secretary as something the House ought to endorse enthusiastically. Well, we do endorse them, and we are glad on this occasion to set the seal on the work Lord Swinton carried out on behalf of the war Coalition Government, work in which throughout he had the full support of His Majesty's Governments in the British Dominions.

Much the most satisfactory feature of these conventions and agreements is that they represent a wide measure of cooperation between ourselves and the United States. We are not, of course, forgetting, and shall never forget, that we are not the only two air-minded nations in the world. Sometimes, in talking of air navigation, people are inclined to think that no one in the world matters except Great Britain and the United States. We shall not make that mistake. There are many other nations interested in the air, and many coming along to be great air-minded nations. I remember, on the occasion of the various talks that took place in this country, at a time when the agreements which now find legislative sanction in this Bill were being hammered out, Mr. Adolf Berle telling a story at a public dinner, which summed up his own approach to this problem—an approach which many of us shared. He described two drunken men in the United States, who had been turned out of some township for their insobriety. They hurried off to the railway station, where they found a bottle of whisky. which they drank between them. The two men, by that time still more fuddled. looked down the long line of the great American railroad stretching out into the distance. One of the men turned to the other and said: "I think I'll buy this railroad." Whereupon the other remarked, "Suppose I won't sell?" Mr. Berle told that story as an illustration of the fact that England and America must never make the mistake of imagining that there are not other Powers determined to play their part in the air, and not only great Powers, but also some of the smaller nations, like the Dutch, who have just as tine records in civil aviation. None the less, we are the most important air Powers, and we welcome the agreement that has been reached.

I only want to make one or two very brief comments about the first Part of this Bill. The present Government are wedded to the state corporation system, and to a rigid system of nationalisation in the air. This demands, of course, international agreements. We on these Benches do not accept the present organisation in civil aviation as permanent. We are determined, when the opportunity comes again, to restore a wide measure of private enterprise in the air, to throw the lines open to private competition under proper regulation, and to have some system analogous to the Civil Aeronautical Board in the United States, which has given the benefit of co-ordination and the benefit of freedom of competition as well. But even when this happy change comes about we shall need international agreements to keep order in the air, and those agreements will take the form of the agreements for which the hon. Gentleman is now asking authority and as such of course we welcome and shall continue them.

My second point deals with frequency. Some part of these agreements deals with the method by which frequencies can be regulated on the Atlantic and other routes. As was said elsewhere a few days ago, the United States are now flying 23 services every week across the Atlantic, while we at the moment are only able to fly four. We must do our utmost to increase our number, and these agreements will allow alterations to take place, should the traffic demand it, in the number of American services across the Atlantic. We look to a gradual building up of British trans-Atlantic services, and wish every success to the Corporation in the task which lies ahead. There is one other point to which I should like to refer very briefly, and it concerns the technical mission that went to Montreal some time ago under Sir Robert Watson Watt. There are a number of questions relating to the technical annexe on which we want information, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) will ask some questions to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give an answer. So much for the first Part of the Bill, the Part dealing with the Chicago agreement.

There is, of course, smuggled into this Bill another Part giving still further powers to the Minister of Civil Aviation. Owing to the discussions that took place elsewhere and the clarification that was brought about as a result, we do not take exception to any of these powers, though there are one or two questions we should like to address to the hon. Gentleman.

We welcome the fact that at least the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary did not repeat his Minister's astonishing constitutional doctrine, enunciated in the other place, that Ministers' powers should be drawn as widely as possible but their exercise should be narrow, a doctrine wholly at variance with the views of the Committee on Delegated Legislation on which a number of his hon. Friends served. We shall want answers on questions like this, relating to Clause 1 (2h). Can we have an assurance that nothing will be done under that power to alter the accepted view that, if a captain of an aircraft is unwilling to fly, he should not be obliged to do so, and if he is stopped from flying by the orders of some aerodrome official, it shall be for reasons that do not come within the accepted responsibilities of a captain?

We should like also further assurances that the position of the charter companies will be protected under this Bill. Assurances were introduced in the Civil Aviation Act that there should be no discrimination in regard to the use of aerodromes, but a number of stories are coming through of the difficulties in which charter operators find themselves in regard to aerodrome facilities which, though strictly Government-owned, from time to time appear to be treated as if they were owned and monopolised by the Corporations. The problems dealing with night storage for charter planes, facilities for maintenance and repair and the like are the type of questions. We should welcome a further undertaking from the hon. Gentleman that this Bill will do nothing still further to prejudice or penalise private charter flying. After all this Bill is, in the main, an attempt to see that nations treat each other fairly, and it would be a poor way in which to set about that desirable business for still further unfairness to be perpetrated at the expense of our own fellow citizens.

Having said this, I have little to add. We wish the Bill a speedy passage, and hope that it will be followed by increased vigour in claiming and maintaining for this country that leadership in the air which our geographical position and the talent of our people both should justify.

The time which is being spent on this Bill is well worth while, because civil aviation is a comparatively new industry. It is expanding, perhaps not as rapidly as we would like to see it expand, and is costing the country enormous sums of money. As time goes on, the country will be increasingly interested in the results of this great industry. There is enormous scope, and I believe that if the industry is handled correctly, it will be of great advantage for this nation when our aeroplanes are flying to every part of the world.

I intend to refer to two or three technical points. The first concerns the delegation which went to America in the early autumn. If I may say so, I thought it was a very representative delegation. The British Airline Pilots' Association was there, and the Guild of Air Pilots. I have read several reports from members of the delegation since their return, and I must say that I have found it very difficult to find out what agreement they really "cached with the Americans. The impression I got was that no real agreement was made but that it was one nation against another, each trying to sell its wares. It is important from the point of view of safety that we should have some form of agreement with the Americans on navigational aids, and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the position regarding the S.C.S. Type 5. I know it is a late type of radar equipment, but what agreement if any was reached upon it, and also upon the British equipment Gee, "in which we have great faith in this country? Great Britain, which developed radar years before the war and during the early years of the war, handed it over to the Americans free of charge, and I do not think that is always appreciated by our friends on the other side of the Atlantic. We often hear about Lend-Lease, and the amount of cash they gave its, but we did nevertheless give them very great inventions of which this is one, and T think the Americans ought to reciprocate by handing over, at this stage, any developments which have been brought about in their own radar industry. I think we must press for that to the full.

I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question regarding the licensing of aerodromes, which is mentioned in this Bill. I know that certain methods are used in determining the length of the runway and the approaches, and I want to press the point regarding Croydon Aerodrome. That airfield has never been a good one.

It would have been, had it taken in the playing fields to the South of Purley Way, but as it is now I do not think this aerodrome is safe for large aircraft. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary a Question about it a few weeks ago, and he said that he had been informed by his technical advisers that they were of the opinion that it was safe. I implore him, however, to give this matter further consideration before we have another crash. It has bad approaches, with enormous gasworks, chimneys and houses around the whole of the aerodrome. There are no runways, and the surface is like a rough sea. Every time I take off from Croydon, I am absolutely terrified. I took my wife off the other day, and she had to use smelling salts and brandy. I thought it was a very dangerous aerodrome. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look into this, because if we are to have a proper system of licensing aerodromes—and this is referred to in the Bill—we must exercise the powers and see that they do tally with what is required at the present day.

I also want to put a question regarding pilots who break the rules of the air, principally foreign pilots flying to Great Britain. I heard two months ago of a pilot coming in at the London Airport who actually approached in the wrong direction. A British aircraft was coming in, and a collision was narrowly averted. What happens in a case like that? Is the pilot put in irons pending an investigation; do we report him to the foreign Power, or do we prevent him from flying here again? As I understand it, nothing very much can be done at the moment, but it is a situation which has to be cleared up in the interests of the travelling public.

I wish also to refer to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) regarding maintenance of aircraft, particularly in the case of charter companies. My own interest in this matter is well known to the House. I think the Ministry are doing their utmost to solve the problem, but one of the difficulties is the question of understanding and insufficient personnel. The result has been that the Corporations have had priority, and the smaller charter companies have had to get along as best they can. Many of their aircraft are left in the open, and the engineers, even before this cold spell, were unable to service the machines as they should have been serviced, with the result that they were delayed. There are no suitable workshops, and on one aerodrome I was told that the charter company had to take out their benches from the hangars. It is a deplorable situation, because, as the Minister has said, the charter companies are in the family, and he is going to look after them on similar lines to the Corporations. I want the Minister to pay particular attention to this question of facilities for charter companies, because we do not want accidents due to the lack of them. I understand that the Accidents Branch is still occupying valuable space at Croydon. They could surely move elsewhere, so that additional aircraft could be maintained under proper conditions.

My next point concerns the meteorological service, which is mentioned in the Bill. I hope that something is being done to improve this service. We had that very terrible accident in Kent a few weeks ago, which was directly connected with the meteorological service. In this regard, I should like to ask a point regarding pilots. I welcome the fact that pilots are not to be compelled to take off, but will there be some regulation whereby a pilot who receives advice in the air has to accept the instructions given, because he cannot know what is the situation on the ground and where there are fog and ice? If the ground control have good, well-paid men in charge who can tell a pilot he has to fly elsewhere, there will be no misgivings on the point. I now wish to refer briefly to "Notices to Airmen," published by the Ministry. These notices frequently come out late, and if they are to be of any value, they must be sent out on time with all the up-to-date information. A friend of mine telephoned Northolt the other day, and they did not know that Croydon was waterlogged; one would have thought these two aerodromes would be working in the closest co-operation with each other. The essence of safety is a quick distribution of news relating to airfields and conditions of flying. In conclusion, I wish the Minister well, and I think that if he can get the right people, and if he pays them well and gives them the right status, there will be a great future. I would stress once again that the filling of all vacancies in the staff does need looking into.

We all join in welcoming this Bill. I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary has not had time to tell us more about the spirit in which he proposes to interpret the various Subsections of Clause 1. It seems to me that the success of his work depends entirely on the lead his Ministry give now in the matter of implementing paragraphs (h), (i) and (c), of Clause 1, in relation to air safety. Air safety, as he has said, is almost entirely a question of taking off and landing. Air safety depends entirely on confidence between those in the air and those on the ground. If this country is prepared to give a lead now, and puts all it has into the development of flying control and air safety, we can not only help ourselves financially, but we can raise our standing in the eyes of other countries to such an extent that the traffic at our airports will be greater than that of our competitors. We are in a position to give that lead, because we have a great fund of experience in the development of radar and flying control during the war.

I think I can refer on this occasion to the last speaker as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), as on various occasions during the war he was my hon. and gallant "boss." He knows a good deal about the development of radar, and has referred to it today. I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of our getting back to the position we were in at the end of the war. We have the experience and the technical development, but it appears that the development in radar since the war has not been carried on with the same sense of urgency. If the Parliamentary Secretary can assure us that there has been no relaxation in development and research, and can say how soon the apparatus being developed will be available at all English aerodromes, and also how far the work which was done here has since been developed in America, and how soon we shall be able to obtain from America the improved models, we shall be very relieved. The first thing we need is up-to-date equipment, and we are not convinced that all the equipment we had at the end of the war is being properly used. It seems almost certain that some of that equipment is scattered around in caravans, tenders and in stores, and that among it there is apparatus which would be most valuable on the airfields of this country.

It is not entirely a matter of equipment, because much more important than that is the confidence of the pilot in the men on the ground who are operating the equipment, and the knowledge that they are men on whom he can rely. Therefore, equally important is the establishment of morale and co-operation between pilots of all countries and our control organisations on the ground. This is not difficult to achieve, because it was achieved during the war. Most unlikely people suddenly arrived out of the air, and because they had confidence and did as they were told, they got down. Our gallant Allies, the Poles, sometimes sent the most alarming messages, such as "Your message received and understood. Please say again." It did not matter, because they knew the organisation was working, and they came in. If every pilot in Europe knew he would get a fair deal from the men on the ground in this country, and there were efficiency and rapidity of change over, the amount of traffic coming in would be still further increased.

I should like to refer again to the question of loss and wastage in aircraft. If a command in the Royal Air Force were planning a campaign, they would calculate how many aircraft were needed, and would bear in mind the safety measures and control apparatus available at the airfields where the aircraft were to land. They would know, on the average, by ascertainable records, how many aircraft were likely to crash on landing. That can be worked out as almost a cold scientific tact. When there is only limited safety apparatus at an airfield, a certain proportion of the aircraft coming in inevitably suffer some mishap. Although its provision involves very heavy capital expenditure, it is absolute folly to economise on research and development of radar if that will prevent damage to aircraft which are now being built. Therefore, leaving out the sentimental side, or the prestige side, in terms of hard cash, it is in our best interest to put all urgency into the development of radar.

It is also necessary to develop quickly a relationship between control on the ground and pilots of all nationalities, which we had during the war. Reference has been made to regulations which may be made about forbidding or encouraging pilots fly. The old established rule that the controller can forbid but cannot compel is not a bad one, and should, I think, be developed. When there is confidence between the control system on the ground and the pilot in the air, however exasperating it may be for him to be told that he may not fly, he will accept that ruling, because he knows that it is given for good reasons, based on sound information, secured from various parts of the country. The Parliamentary Secretary has shown us, by the resilience with which he has adapted himself to his new job, that he is a person who can give a personal lead. The success of air safety depends on morale and mutual personal confidence, and I hope that he will be able to tell us what he proposes to do in this connection when it comes to implementing this Clause in the Bill.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to go into some detail on paragraph (h) of Clause 1. It has already been referred to by each hon. Member who has spoken. It seems to me to be one of the most important parts of the Bill. Presumably, by taking powers by Order in Council, the Government intend to do something on this subject, about which there are different opinions. Some pilots are inclined to feel that they would prefer not to be under too much control by traffic control officers. On the other hand, it can truthfully be said that the tragic accident in Kent was largely due to what happened at Bordeaux, to the pilot deciding, that for some reason, he would not take the advice of the traffic control at that airport. I feel that we should carry on as we did during the war. At Bomber Command in 1942, there was worked out a very successful plan under Air-Marshal Harris, which resulted in extraordinarily few accidents to the bombers going out, night after night, and day after day, to Germany and elsewhere.

We should have a definite flying plan and routing, power should be given to the traffic control officers to tell pilots where they should go and which way; they should have some definite flying plan on leaving this country. It is said by some pilots, "After all, you do not order a captain of a ship to do things; he is in control while his ship is at sea." They forget that once the captain of a ship gets to port, and the pilot comes on board, it is the pilot who gets him to the dock. In the same way, when a pilot is about to enter an airport, the traffic control officer should have the major power. One reason why pilots are not happy about the position at present is that the traffic control officers are not in the same position with regard to flying control as were the wing-commanders during the war. They do not get the same amount of money; they are not at present, to my mind, sufficiently instructed on the subject; and I think that not enough care is taken in that matter. I hope, therefore, when the Ministry of Civil Aviation finally decide to pass an Order in Council on this subject, they will see that the traffic control officers are given considerably increased pay and then power, which, I believe they ought to have. If that is done, I think that many pilots would have more confidence in the whole system, and the standard of the traffic control officers will be higher.

Then there is the question of F.I.D.O. We have talked about radar, and developments are fast going ahead; but there seems no reason to me why we should always have our eggs entirely in one basket. The subject of F.I.D.O. has been brought up before, and I am inclined to think that it is being rather left to drift. It may be that the Ministry feel that nothing need be done, because radar will be so far advanced in a year or two that if we drift on there will be no need for F.I.D.O. I have approached the Minister of Civil Aviation on this subject, and I have pointed out that the people who knew most about it during the war in Petroleum Warfare Department are now in civil life. I said that I could get them back if necessary to advise and I offered to put him in touch with them, but, apparently, he has not made any effort to do so. He is now, I understand, working out a scheme of F.I.D.O. with America but not with the people who originally started it. That being so, I would like an assurance that the question of F.I.D.O. is not being overlooked, and to know if he can tell us how far developments have gone.

We all welcome this Bill. I do not Complain, as an hon. Member did, about the Minister reading his speech. I complain, because I think that the Minister might have taken the opportunity to tell us more of what is happening in his Department with regard to the development of civil aviation. Now that this is to be a national concern, and the taxpayers are, as it were, shareholders, I think that they are anxious to know, as much as possible, what the Government are doing in this matter.

I think it would be better if hon. Members would relate their remarks to the proposals in the Bill, because we are not discussing air administration at the moment.

The hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Opposition said that this Bill was a product of the Coalition. I think that that is undoubtedly so and that Lord Swinton had a great deal to do with it, as was said in another place. In fact, I am not sure that that is a complete parentage. I believe that Lord Beaver-brook had a great deal to do with the beginning of this Bill, particularly with regard to the political negotiations and Colonial cabotage. If the Parliamentary Secretary who shakes his head makes inquiries I think he will find that this is so. We are having an increasing number of Bills in this House which are products of the war Coalition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has said, "No Coalition," but it seems to me that we still have a good deal of what remains in the pigeon holes of the administration of that Coalition being produced by the Government.

As the Parliamentary Secretary said, this is a Bill which gives considerable powers as regards administration and great deal of liberty concerning policy. It really implements the Chicago Conference and the Bermuda Conference, and it might well be called the Montreal Convention. I wish the hon. Gentleman would tell us something of what is happening at Montreal since it must depend very much on the passing of this Bill. I believe that there is a conference proceeding there at the present time with regard to charter, and in view of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman above the Gangway said concerning charter, I hope the Minister will endeavour to tell us something about this international discussion at Montreal. Being the centre where P.I.C.A.O. holds its meetings, Montreal has become very much the world capital of civil aviation and a great number of these important conferences and decisions take place there. We send experts from this country, but I am not sure if a Minister has been to any of them to represent His Majesty's Government as one of the members of the Assembly and the Council. I hope that if he has the opportunity the Parliamentary Secretary will pay a personal visit to see the developments that are going on so that he may give the House first-hand information at some time in the future.

I understand from newspaper reports that a new building is to be taken over in Montreal to house these conferences. If that is so and it is to be the world capital of civil aviation, I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us something about that and to give us some idea of the cost and who bears it, because the cost is involved in the passing of this Measure. On the whole this Measure is a step forward, not only towards some sort of international agreement but, eventually, towards world government or one world in the air. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) reminded the House that we used to have speeches from the Benches opposite during the days of the wartime Coalition which envisaged international civil aviation being set up and run by a Swedish or Swiss board of directors, or something of that kind. It may be a little disappointing that this Government has not been able to introduce a much bolder Measure tending towards the real inter-nationalisation of civil aviation. However, perhaps these are early days and it may be that they still have to clear the department of some of the Bills left behind by their predecessors.

I seem to recollect that the civil aviation committee of the Labour Party has issued pronouncements, reports and memoranda on the subject for many years and, as my hon. Friend said, many of them take a great interest and were very critical during the war when we here also pleaded for postwar civil aviation. Surely this Measure cannot be the last word of preparation for a party which owes its very presence on those Benches to its policy of internationalism. Surely this cannot be the last word in their desire to see an effective international control of civil aviation. This Bill deals with potential international agreement on airports, radio, traffic control, meteorological systems, airworthiness, Customs—and I do hope that the hon. Gentleman will note carefully the word "Customs," because everything we can do to expedite the passage of air-travellers through the actual airports will increase our traffic—airmail and a hundred and one other matters. But there is one other thing I would have expected a Labour Minister to develop, either administratively or through policy, and that is the international pooling of safety devices, equipment and technical research. Is there nothing envisaged in this Bill so that if a new system of de-icing is discovered it will be made available in the interests of the safety of air passengers to all civil aviation producers of the world? I should like to ask the Minister if anything of that kind is contemplated or has been discussed.

During the war a great deal of cooperation was effected in the pooling of patterns, designs, techniques and so on between this country and the United States of America. Is something of that envisaged in civil aviation production? Has the Minister any idea, for instance, of proposing the standardisation of equipment to the various conferences which will be covered by this Bill? I remember that before the war, we tried to discuss this with the French, and I believe it has been discussed with other countries. Surely it would save the taxpayers of the world millions of pounds, dollars or francs if we could get the producers of civil aircraft in the various countries to adopt a single common standard of measurement, or at least more standard equipment. Does the Minister intend to propose this? We are told so often that this country may agree, but what about the other countries? I have always found that a great deal depends upon the way in which such a scheme is suggested or proposed, and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he has any ideas on this now to suggest to international conferences. They may, of course, already be discussing them on the technical level.

Reference has been made to crashes of certain types of machine for which we cannot get supplies of spare parts, and so on. It is all part of the problem of 5,000 man-hours being wasted in converting blue prints and drawings from British to American standards and vice versa.This is something on which there could be international agreement; produc- tion could be increased and money could be saved, thus easing the burden on the taxpayer of this country.

Reference was made in another place to the question of accidents. I think I shall be in Order—it is a point to which my hon. Friend above the Gangway referred—when I say that this House and the public are much concerned as to the measures which the Minister is taking to deal with this serious problem. There are a number of hon. Members who have had a great experience of these matters, and they have all offered advice and made suggestions to the Minister, which is all to the good. I should like to tell the Minister what my experience has been. I have found that the vital question is that of supervision throughout the length and breadth of an airline, beginning with maintenance and continuing with Customs, airports and flying. B.O.A.C., the old system of airways, and the whole development of civil aviation in this country are now placed under national control. During the war of course you had as well the Royal Air Force Transport Command. I understand that the big problem of the Minister is to get things working quickly and smoothly, and, at the same time, to get high frequency and general services. Are the staffs of the airports satisfied? Are the maintenance, servicing and meteorological staffs satisfied? Are they happy about the conditions of their organisation? One often gets the impression that the men are there to do the job, but that there seems to be nobody responsible for seeing that the job is done. There is lack of supervision and consequently lack of co-ordination.

Now that the Government have taken over the airports and the three Corporations arc working under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is arriving at the same efficiency in flying as there was during the war. During the war there was, of course, military discipline. Thousands of bombers touched down and took off night after night in the most difficult conditions. But what effective supervision is there in civil aircraft today, when a small error of judgment may be disastrous? Is there anybody comparable to an inspector-general who can go round the airports of the country and also see for himself how things are done in other countries, and whether there is the necessary co-ordination and supervision? I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give that question of efficient supervision his particular attention.

The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford referred to the equalisation of traffic, particularly Atlantic traffic. He said that there were 24 American services, and only four B.O.A.C. services. I believe that Trans-Canada Airlines also operate seven services a week each way. I would like this House to pay a tribute to that very excellent service which is run daily by them. I would like to know what is to happen if traffic continues to drop. Are the American services going to be reduced to the same number as ours, and are we going to have some other agreement or understanding with the Americans? As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, many of the planes flying on the North Atlantic airlines today are half empty, or even worse. There has been a sensational drop in bookings for a variety of reasons.

The hon. Gentleman's statement is not true, so far as the North Atlantic services are concerned

A friend of mine who flew from America quite recently said that, on one occasion, there was only one passenger in the plane, on another four, and on yet another only three. If the Parliamentary Secretary says that there has not been a sensational drop in North Atlantic traffic, perhaps he will give us the traffic figures.

It the hon. Member will put down a question, I shall he only too happy to do so

At any rate, there is very serious drop in traffic from the other side. Of course there may he a number of reasons for that, but, if the Parliamentary Secretary will inquire about it, I think he will find that if he tried, as an ordinary citizen, to book a seat today on any one of the airlines, he would have no difficulty in getting a place within a day or two of booking, whereas, six months ago, he would have had to hook five or six weeks ahead.

One hon. Member referred to flight control. That is something which has to he cleared up At the moment, there is great uncertainty on flight control and as to who is responsible for it. That also comes under the heading of lack of supervision. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us what will happen under this Bill, and who is to be in charge. A distinguished air-marshal has been appointed at Heathrow. There is certainly a lot of work to be done there. Is it to be the policy to appoint distinguished air-marshals to take charge?

In conclusion, I should like to see an all-party civil aviation committee set up in this House, similar to the Science Committee, or something of that sort, so that the Minister and his experts could give us helpful information. With three Corporations and the Minister of Civil Aviation, it is a difficult technique to decide who is to be responsible, and so on. We had the same difficulty with the B.B.C. and the Postmaster-General. I am sure that it would help the Minister if there were such an all-party committee to discuss these matters. The Minister will get his Bill without any trouble, but the handing over of civil aviation to State control is a decided challenge. The Government are on trial. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford said that when his party return to power, they intend to go back to a system of competition, and to have some yardstick for efficiency. If the Government do not make good in this matter, what the hon. Member for Bedford said will almost inevitably come about.

With due respect to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville), I submit that the question of whether or not our airlines are nationalised has nothing at all to do with this Bill. This Bill would have been just as necessary if we had had unlimited private competition. Such a Measure was already in existence. This Bill merely replaces an old Measure. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) who, on what he himself described as a non-controversial Measure, succeeded in introducing so much controversy, and so many party points. But, considering the hon. Member's usual performance, I suppose that, on this occasion, he did exercise a considerable amount of self-restraint. I also thought that he was very unfair to his colleagues behind him when he said that this Government were exercising the greatest rigidity in nationalisation of aviation. Of course, it is true that there is a considerable amount of flying going on from this country at the present time which does not emanate from the national Corporations. We ought to recognise the energy which certain hon. Members are putting into civil aviation.

The first point I wish to make is in relation to the regulating of charges for the use of aerodromes. What principle will guide the Ministry in regulating their charges and laying down their standards of landing fees, hangar accommodation and so forth? Whereas there has been a certain amount of criticism in this House about the amount of money being spent by the Corporations, there could be an even greater criticism about the money spent on airports. Colossal sums of money are involved. Will the Government charge an economic landing fee? If it is not to be economic, how will they base their scale of charges? In the recent controversy over nationalisation, the railway companies submitted a scheme by which the Government took over the tracks, the signalling and the railway stations, and left the railway companies simply to run the trains. This most desirable proposition from the point of view of the railways did not receive much consideration, but such a situation appertains to civil aviation at present. It is conceivable that private concerns are making a very good bargain out of it—

If the hon. Member made a few further inquiries, he would find that some of the private companies have been paying double fees at various aerodromes and at the Customs airports. If he studied this subject a little more in detail, he would see they are losing money by it.

I agree they pay fees, but what I am trying to establish is what principles guide the Government in establishing the fee. I have no desire to suggest that anyone is trying to evade the proper payments.

My second point is about navigational aids. One of my hon. Friends said that the most important part about flying was taking off and landing, and he said that most accidents occurred during taking off or landing. The greater proportion of recent accidents have taken place because the aircraft has not kept on its proper route. Very often in such circumstances the aircraft has run into what we used to call a "stuffed cloud"—in bad visibility the aircraft has hit high ground. What is required is some navigational aid to keep aircraft on the proper routes. This navigational aid must be internationally agreed, and there was to have been an international navigational system under the Chicago Convention. Like other hon. Members, I would like to know exactly what progress has been made towards that international system. It seems that at present we are getting bogged. The position with landing aids is similar. A British aircraft may have a certain equipment for this purpose, but it requires a complementary system on the ground when they go to another part of the world. The purpose of the Chicago Convention and the committee concerned with provisional organisation was to get some international agreement on the standardised landing aids that were to be used. What has happened to the findings of that body? When I was in the United States I gathered that the airline companies there were to take unilateral action with their own equipment, irrespective of what the international body agreed. Is that true? If it is not true, what hope has the Parliamentary Secretary of getting an internationally agreed system, and what is that system to be?

My third point is concerned with the enforcement of international standards. A good deal has been said about the assistance which can be given by ground control to pilots in the air. My experience travelling around the various air routes has been that we decided that such and such a person, at such and such an airport was reliable, and that we would heed what he said. On the other hand, the individuals controlling at certain other airports were written off before we started because we knew that their advice would be, to say the least, very unreliable. We made our judgment accordingly. What method will be employed to ensure that throughout the world the staffs engaged in control of one kind or another are to be of the internationally agreed standard? That is a most vital matter if the pilots are to have confidence in the instructions they receive from the ground.

In the matter of airports, I agree with what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). I have landed aircraft at aero dromes in 14 or 15 countries in four continents, and I do not know a main airport as dangerous as Croydon. I would far rather go to Gibraltar and land on the runway on the Rock, than come in on a turbulent day at Croydon Airport. As to the question of taking off, much nonsense has been said and written recently about the overloading of aircraft. It is absolutely ridiculous to talk simply of overloading when one compares the differences in taking off at Croydon and Heathrow, for instance. If there is an internationally agreed system about airport standards, it ought to be a standard which cuts out Croydon.

The Parliamentary Secretary ought to look into this question again, but on the other hand, we should pay a tribute to the Department for the great advance which has been made in having two quite good airports functioning at Heathrow and Northolt. They have been brought into operation far in advance of the expected time. In spite of all the propaganda, Idle-wild is still not in use, and there is still congestion at LaGuardia, but we have both Heathrow and Northolt working and the Ministry must be congratulated on the efforts made. At the same time that is not an excuse for keeping Croydon in operation.

Surely the Royal Air Force should take some credit for Northolt, and not merely the Minister—

I am referring to the present-day Northolt airport and the present length of runway.

Even so, I think the Royal Air Force put the runway in, but I would not like to be caught out in an argument which is not strictly relevant. This Bill represents a most auspicious beginning to postwar international civil aviation. It is not easy to secure international agreement these days, even in a technical sphere, and this represents a tremenedous step forward. Inevitably there are a number of serious omissions, and I hope it will be possible to obtain agreement on a number of additional matters which are essential if we are to achieve international safety in the air. I refer in particular to such matters as the standardisation of maps. It is most important that maps produced by different countries should mean the same thing to the people using them We should aim at standardisation in symbols and terms. A wireless mast is always represented by the same symbol whatever the language of the printing surrounding it.

Similarly there is a great need for standardisation of meteorological information. Undoubtedly both the Ministry of Civil Aviation here and the comparable authorities in other countries would be concerned with supplying accurate meteorological information, and I hope they will give full attention to the importance of standardising the information so that pilots who may not be very familiar with the particular language of a country will be able to understand the meteorological report, or at any rate the figures and data which accompany it.

I am delighted to see that it has been possible for the Chicago Convention to agree to what is described as recommended practice. Obviously, it would be difficult to achieve international agreement if the standards of the most advanced country in aeronautics were to be imposed on a number of countries. The system of recommended practices which has come, I think, from the United States railway practice is to be commended. It means that the Convention, and any subsequent meeting, can recommend a particular standard or a particular practice in the air without it being enforced rigidly by all subscribing countries. As the new idea takes on and it is proved to be successful in practice, it can be made legal by Statute in each country, as and when they feel able to take on the extra standards.

We should remember that the field of aviation is a developing field, and that is why the system of recommended practices is singularly appropriate. We do not want to make systems too rigid until we are sure that they are successful. That is the great obstacle to what is undoubtedly wanted in the way of aids to blind landings, and similar radio and other devices. We obviously want standardisation over as wide a field as possible, but if we insist on too high a degree of standardisation, we may stultify future development. At the same time—and it is significant that it is referred to as the Chicago Convention, for it is an American Convention—we may well find that if we go in for too much standardisation too early, we shall be standardising on the American model, rather than on the British economical model, or even more economical models and equipment which less wealthy countries than the United States can afford to insist on installing in all their airfields. It is a dilemma of the future to know to what extent we can reasonably press for standardisation on radio and radio equipment without stultifying development, or insisting on too high a standard for relatively poor countries, who, nevertheless, wish to take part in international air traffic.

I hope it will be possible for P.I.C.A.O. to help in the matter of rivalry by competing groups. I am all for competition, but I am in favour of regulating what might be called cut-throat competition, and there seems to me to be some evidence of that at present. Naturally, everybody who can wants to get into the air, and we are seeing not only duplicated routes but even rival airfields set up in adjacent territories. I mentioned last week the question of the provision of a large aerodrome at Dakar and the fight to establish a similar aerodrome at Bathurst, both a short distance away from each other on the East Coast of Africa, both striving to attract the South American traffic, when it is a question of whether there is enough for two aerodromes. I feel that in this international organisation there is some hope of avoiding, not all competition, but cut-throat competition.

It is significant that undoubtedly air traffic in certain directions is already easing off, and the point made by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) was only too clearly brought out by the speech of the Minister of Civil Aviation in another place on 10th December last year, when he said that while aircraft operating Westbound to America are flying to capacity, load factors are not so persistently high in the Eastbound direction. It is now two months later, and probably it has become a more extreme situation since then.

We must also look carefully at Subsection (2, m) of Clause 1 which deals with Customs, and the various regulations for preventing smuggling. This is an important matter and obviously there are many channels for contraband to this country, either through normal aerodromes or through other means, but we do not want so to devise regulations and to apply them so rigidly that it becomes extremely difficult for foreign airlines to keep spare parts in this country. I hope it will be possible for every foreign airline having a service into or through this country to be able to have a small bonded stores for spares and equipment. Such spares and equipment are probably subject to very high tariff duties, and it would be an intolerable burden if we should have to pay the duties and then only get them on drawback when the aircraft fitted with those spares left the country.

The same applies to reasonable equipment. If they wish to establish their own office on an airfield, there is a case for them to bring in furniture and equipment without having to pay full tariff rates. I expect this is a matter of some legal complexity, but I hope we shall not lightly brush aside the importance of attracting foreign airlines to this country, provided of course that it can be done on a reciprocal basis. I recognise that other countries have much more onerous traffic restrictions than we have and, therefore, we are in a good bargaining position in this matter because we can offer carriage free facilities with less of a break with our tradition than perhaps some other countries can. Nevertheless, a quid pro quoin such a matter would be most valuable.

There are a number of other provisions which arise out of the Chicago Convention, and it would indeed be most interesting to cover the whole field of the Convention and its Agreement. However, I feel that we must in this case await the development of events. The Bill is a good start. It is now up to the Ministry of Civilisation—[Laughter.]—I mean the Ministry of Civil Aviation to act well and to use the facilities which we are proposing to give. We on this side of the House, therefore, accord a hearty welcome to the Bill and wish it a speedy passage through the House.

In winding up this Debate, I would reiterate—

I am so sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; may I have the leave of the House to speak again? The reason for my error was that I was anxious to start off with the very good point made by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Erroll) who, whether intentionally or by a slip, called us the Ministry of Civilisation. Our Ministry can be and, in fact, will be the Ministry which will most easily spread civilisation throughout the world.

I was rather taken to task by ode or two speakers for opening the Debate with a written speech. I had no idea, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you would be so long in the Chair for this Debate, because most of the items which have been raised have been matters outside the scope of the Bill, and those which have been within it, have been very largely Committee points. If you will be as lenient with me as you have been during the Debate with others, I will try to reply to some of the points which have been made. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) spoke of the success of Lord Swinton when he was at the Ministry of Civil Aviation. And I also would like to pay tribute to the work done during his tenure of office for the development of civil aviation. There are qualifications to that, because one cannot help feeling, having read the memoranda, debates and proceedings at Chicago, that perhaps if that conference had been handled a little differently the Bermuda Conference, which was quite a success as a corrective to Chicago, might not have been necessary.

May I ask, in fairness to my noble Friend, is it not a fact that when the head of the American Civil Aeronautical Board came over here after the Chicago Conference, he said, at the Wilbur Wright lecture, that Lord Swinton's proposals were, taken generally, a civilised set of proposals?

If it is agreed that we can get safety by national effort, is it not equally true that we can only get full advantage taken of State provided navigational and safety aids by nationalised airlines? In point of fact this Bill is only before the House because of the work which was then done. We were twitted that we were not moving as swiftly as some hon. Members on this side of the House wished, when they were not in the Government, towards the internationalisation of civil aviation. It is the intention and desire of His Majesty's Government to work with all the will and power they have towards that happy end. I must admit that when one has to deal with technicalities of nationalities, we find difficulties. Even in Britain, Scotland can be a little difficult, but on the world stage, such difficulties are very apparent. However, the will to work towards that end is there and the general direction has been decided and we are pressing forward. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford should have brought the general question of policy into this Debate, as I think that policy considerations are outside the scope of this discussion by reason of the Debates on the Civil Aviation Bill, 1946. We are not today discussing whether it is right to have specialised airlines or not. What we are discussing are the means, including the safety means, by which those airlines -hall fly. It is pertinent, the point having been made, to ask why, if it is possible and desirable to allow profit to be made by private enterprise in the operation of civil airlines, it should not be right on the basis of State, or international enterprise, to provide the means by which the planes fly in safety.

If satisfactory safety standards can only he got by national effort, is it not equally true that we will only get the fullest advantage taken of State-provided navigational aids and safety equipment by internationalised airlines? I have been drawn into that statement by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford, and I agree that it is outside the scope of this Bill. Bermuda was in fact the conference at which the unresolved items at Chicago were reconsidered. One of these items was the question of the determination of frequencies. It was agreed at Bermuda that discussions as to frequencies and capacities on routes should be discussed after routes and frequencies were in operation. As and when we are in a position to improve those frequencies I think we ought to be able to say—and I do not think this is an excuse but it is the obvious reason—that we haw not had the opportunity to take advantage of frequencies that we would have had, because the whole of the wartime effort of this country in aircraft production was in the production of fighters and bombers. Our aircraft industry could not give the time, effort and energy to the development of civil flying types which tire Americans could afford. Because of the types in production during the war we have not the opportunity now

to take full advantage of the frequencies which offer. I can give this assurance to the House. There is no evidence anywhere that, as and when we can take advantage of those frequencies by the availability of aircraft, the United States or any country in the world would not give way on those questions as agreed by the bilateral agreements.

I have been asked about Clause (2 h) in which power is taken to prevent the taking-off of aircraft. I was specifically asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford, and by one or two other Members, to give an assurance about this. This power does not enable anyone at any time to instruct a pilot or a captain of an aircraft to take off. It gives power to the controller of the airport to say that it is unsafe for a craft to fly, and that therefore it shall not take off. From experience, not only in our country but throughout the world, my noble Friend has thought it desirable in this country at least to have power, in the interests of safety, for someone to be able to say that it is unwise for an aircraft to take off. While the pilots have every right, within reason, to take risks with their own lives, we, as the managing authority, must have some responsibility for the lives of persons in the aircraft. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford also asked for an assurance that there will be no discrimination as between the corporations and the charter companies. I can give that assurance; there is no discrimination between the charter companies and the corporations. No preference is given to the corporations. But let me say this quite frankly, where there are large corporations, like B.O.A.C., operating from a number of very large airports, there must be some relationship between the type of traffic dealt with by an operator, and the facilities given to him. If we have an established airline operating a frequency of 30 or 40 planes a day from a particular airport, it is obvious that they have a right to sites, equipment and facilities superior to those of an occasional user. As far as the Ministry is concerned every facility is given, and will be given, to charter operators at the appropriate aerodromes where they operate.

Interventions of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) in civil aviation Debates are always interesting. I would like to express my appreciation of the courtesy with which he has always discussed matters with me, and with which he has always approached my Department with advice and help on many matters which have never reached the Floor or the Order Paper in this House. Of that help and assistance, we are most appreciative, and I hope that happy relationship will continue. He expressed appreciation of the wide delegation which went to the C.O.T. Committee in Montreal. It is the intention of the Ministry that delegations which go abroad, particularly on technical issues, shall be delegations which have the widest possible knowledge and which will, therefore, be of the greatest possible advantage to the conferences they attend. Arising from that Conference, the hon. and gallant Member asked about S.C.S. 51 and Gee. It has been agreed, and will be implemented, that S.C.S. 51 and S.B.A. shall be available at certain airports. That is being done. The position about Gee, which is the short range aid, is by no means as easy, and further discussions will be held, particularly with the European countries. We hope that the result of a conference will be to show the advantage of the adoption of Gee.

Much has been said this morning both by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield about Croydon Airport. It is not so long ago that Croydon was the main airport for London. Times have changed. It was correctly pointed out that I said in the House some time ago that, on the technical advice available to me, Croydon was a safe airport from which to operate. I qualified that by saying "by that type of aircraft"—the Dakota. I would point to the frequency and freedom from accidents in the operation of aircraft from Croydon, for which we are grateful. I can, however, give the undertaking that in conjunction with the Department, we will go into the general question of Croydon and its operations

I was asked what happened to pilots who break the rules of the air, and particularly in regard to foreign air pilots who break them. That is a question of discipline. The breaking of rules sometimes results from the deliberate attitude adopted by people who say, "I am the boss of my own craft. I intend to do what I like." Far more often it arises from a misunderstanding, difference of language, and even, perhaps, an error in dealing with the aids that are inside the craft. Generally speaking, if it is a matter of deliberate disobedience and indiscipline, what is done, and all that can be done at present, is to report the matter to the appropriate authority in the country to which the pilot belongs; and, according to the seriousness of the offence, action is or is not taken by those authorities. Whether we shall ever get to the stage when we shall be able to ground personnel because of errors or indiscipline in the air is a matter for future discussion.

Reference was made, quite rightly, to the very important "met." requirements, not only in this country, but more particularly abroad. At the moment at least, the meteorological services are a matter for the Air Ministry, but there is, as I said during last Friday's Debate, a close relationship between the Secretary of State for Air and my noble Friend. Discussions are taking place, in relation to "met." services abroad in particular, with a view to seeing how far they can be established to a more satisfactory extent than they are established at the moment; and one must admit that they are not altogether satisfactory, due very largely to demobilisation and the withdrawal of personnel from various parts of the world.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Parkin) asked questions about the spirit in which this Convention and this Bill would be worked. The spirit behind His Majesty's Government, in their operation of this Bill, is that throughout the whole world everything possible shall be done to provide an opportunity for the safe flying of aircraft from point to point, and to assist and encourage those countries which today, for one reason or another, are unable, and sometimes unwilling, to provide facilities. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford quite rightly, said—and I was glad he made the point—that we should always remember in this country that civil aviation is not only a matter of the United States and ourselves. It is in fact, in the spirit that we are an operator; indeed an important operator, a country making a valuable contribution to the development of civil aviation, that we are going into this matter, in conjunction with the Americans, to see in what way we are able to assist other countries throughout the world.

I was asked what is being done about the development of radar and radio. Reference was made to the fact that certain R.A.F. equipment which was not being used at present might be available. Extensive and inter-related research by ourselves, the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Supply, is proceeding in the development of radar and other equipment. There has been no slackening off on the scientific side of research in connection with those aids, and everything will be done to develop them. I would like to dispel an idea which appears to be held, not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud—I have heard it said from a number of quarters of the House—that the Air Ministry have an amount of R.A.F. equipment which, for some reason, they are keeping out of sight of anyone, and are not making it available. That is far from my experience. My experience at the Ministry of Civil Aviation, short as it is, has been that the Air Ministry has been most helpful, at all levels, in making available to us any equipment redundant to their requirements. If confirmation of that is needed I would point to the operation of the G.C.A. equipment at Heathrow at the present time as the latest example of that co-operation between the two Departments, and in fact between all Departments.

I would like to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that expenditure on the development of navigational aids and equipment pays. When we were discussing the Supplementary Estimates I said I thought that it paid. A sum of £45,000 was included within the Supplementary Estimates which were before the House a few days ago, and for nearly two hours, Members opposite, in particular, criticised the placing of staff within the Ministry to operate navigational aids and to make the operations at airports safe. If we are to have civil aviation and give safe service to the airline operators, it depends upon the ground facilities available for those airlines. Not only the provision of these aids, but their operation, is a costly business, and I hope the House will remember that fact at the appropriate time on a later occasion. The provision of these facilities is a costly business for which the Ministry will have to provide much increased expenditure in the years to come, and particularly, I would emphasise, in the next few years, because we are at present instituting aids, introducing them, bringing them into operation, and bringing airports up to a high standard of efficiency. Such capital cost is very heavy indeed. I was asked by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) to deal with the question of pilots, and I think that I have already dealt with the question of the authority of the pilot in taking off. Was there some further point concerning pilots?

Will the hon. Gentleman say something on the question of whether the pilots are going to be satisfied with the control office staff. Will they be in a position to regard them as really responsible persons?

I agree that that is a very valid point. Whether or not navigational aids are used to the fullest extent depends upon the standard of the staff which is provided at the airport. Very close attention is being given to the question of recruitment. Although this is slightly outside the scope of the Bill, I would say that if we are to obtain that confidence which pilots must have, there must be recruitment of staff of the highest standard, so that those engaged in the operation of aircraft may have the fullest confidence in those who are in control of the aerodromes: that whole question is being considered very seriously indeed. There is the point that the higher the standard of the staff, the greater the degree of remuneration they will rightly expect. It is not necessarily a question of a greater number of staff, but it is still a very costly business.

I was asked by the hon. Member for Brighton about F.I.D.O. I would remind him that I made a statement last week in regard to it. The door is by no means closed, and my noble Friend has arranged with the Air Ministry that facilities shall be made available and work is now proceeding at Blackbushe. In addition, we are sending to America a very highly technical delegation to investigate what is going on in America in this field: and the Ministry of Supply and my Ministry are dealing with this matter on the basis of urgent inquiry, with a view to immediate consideration so that something may be done before next winter.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, at Heathrow, where there was a certain amount of preparatory work done, it is to be completely scrapped?

The question has been put to me, and, while I would not like the answer to be regarded as completely authoritative, I would say that, so far as my information goes, to instal F.I.D.O. at Heathrow at the present stage of development would be almost impossible, without, perhaps, closing one runway. If it was done, it could not be done on a main runway, and would haw to be done on a secondary one; and the work has so far developed that, if it were to be installed underground, it would put the main runway out of commission for a considerable time. The matter is still under consideration, but this is hardly the time to decide what equipment should be used, as we have reason to believe that the Americans have, in the last few months, developed a new type of equipment and a new type of fuel, and, when we have the latest information, its application to Heathrow and other airports will be considered. The cost, of course, is a material factor, and we are informed that, by this new method, the cost will be less.

asked me what was going on at Montreal. I would dearly like to spend a while telling the House the scope of the various discussions which have taken place in Montreal, but I think this hardly the time or place for that. Reference was also made to a suggestion that an invitation might be given to an all-party Committee on Civil Aviation. That is a very dangerous field on which to embark, but, if hon. Members think they would like that to be done, I should be only too pleased to arrange for an all-Party meeting, at which the discussions at Montreal and questions of the general development of civil aviation could be dealt with in an atmosphere of an all-Party meeting upstairs. If that is desired, I shall be glad to put that suggestion to the Minister, who, I am certain, would take steps to arrange for it.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there was any reference at Montreal to an international conference on charter services, and whether the Minister has asked that it shall be given the full support of the British delegation?

Again, I am subject to correction, but I did say that some conference was being held, though I am not in a position to say to what extent our delegation has been instructed, but I will find out and communicate with the hon Member. Further, the hon. Member asked me what was being done in regard to the standardisation of equipment. This is one of the urgent matters now under discussion, and is one of the reasons for which the international organisation was set up.

Reference has been made to the falling-off of traffic. Traffic from this side to America has been maintained very well, but traffic from America to this country is not so heavy. This is perhaps due to the time of the year, in which such traffic is at its lowest, and I do not think we should over-emphasise this falling-off of traffic and allege that it is due to any reasons other than the one I have given, which is perfectly natural at this time of the year. I do not want to be drawn into an argument as to the competition between sea and air. So far as this Government is concerned, it believes that all forms of transport, engaged in the transport of goods and passengers from one place to another, should proceed all under one direction.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, when one of these official delegations visits America or Canada, they go by sea or by air?

It depends upon the availability of transport at the time and on the persons travelling. As regards the position of air transport, for instance, a few months ago, there was a difficult situation because numbers of U.N.O. delegates were also wanting to go, and I believe that some of them had to go by sea; but, generally speaking, those who are advocating the use of air transport use that means of travel for themselves.

I was also asked by the hon. Member for Uxbridge what principle determined the charges made for the use of landing facilities at aerodromes. Frankly, I cannot go into that authoritatively at the present time, and can only state the general position. Of course, these charges are influenced by the density of traffic at the airport, the number of aircraft landing and the costs of maintenance, because these have a relationship to the revenue received, and that revenue must have some relationship to the capital expenditure which has gone into the provision of the facilities and to the normal running costs at the airport. I do not think it will ever he possible, particularly in relation to the development of airports, to arrive at an economic landing charge which will cover the running costs and capital developments.

If that is true, would my hon. Friend agree that it is irrelevant for any private company at any time to say they make a profit out of civil aviation? Is it not a fact that they are receiving a subsidy in the shape of uneconomic landing fees?

That is an argument which can be developed. The same can be said about motor vehicles on the highways. They are provided with a permanent way at the ratepayers' expense. We accept the fact that if there is to be increased safety in flying, it would not be an economical proposition for a charterer to fly if he bore all the costs of the services provided for him by the State, either on the aerodrome or on the route.

Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that many other countries charge less than we charge in this country for equal facilities, and that even before the war, in those days of civil aviation, some private enterprise aerodromes managed to get along without a loss?

But very often when there is something for nothing, there is a catch in it.

Like Election promises.

Let us face the future. Even in cases where aerodrome facilities were provided at a very low cost, there were special reasons for attracting traffic in that way. I was asked a question about the development of navigational aids and the provision of these aids on aerodromes. That is the job of P.I.C.A.O., and it would be idle not to admit that this task is much easier in some parts of the world than in others. There is a lot to be done in this direction, and the greatest value of P.I.C.A.O. up to the present has been the holding of the regional conferences which have filled with enthusiasm the delegates from a number of States in which, probably, real enthusiasm for development is required. Reference was also made to the standard of aerodromes. P.I.C.A.O. has determined the requirements and nature of A., B., and C. aerodromes in relation to the type of aircraft which will be using them. We shall have to deal with Croydon on the basis of what it is safe to operate in and out of that aerodrome. P.I.C.A.O. is determining the standards according to which aerodromes will be able to cater for various types of aircraft, and I think those standards will be accepted.

The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale asked a question about the general development of international meteorological information. That is the task of P.I.C.A.O., and attention is being given to that question. With regard to the question of Customs, we entirely agree with what has been said today, and it is the desire of His Majesty's Government to make it possible for people to have free interchange as between country and country with the least possible irksome restrictions, while protecting this country against persons who are obviously out to bring contraband into this country or who might be a danger to the community. With regard to the equipment for airlines, and bonded stores, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the attention of the Ministry will be given to those points.

I have been longer than I ought to have been in replying to this Debate. The reason is that I was criticised for keeping too closely to my brief in my opening remarks. I kept closely to that brief because I thought we were concerned much more with technicalities than with the general policy of civil aviation, and I endeavoured to give as good an outline as I could. I hope the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.

As Chairman of the Members' Fund Trustees, I would like to say how glad I am that this Committee is being set up. With regard to the powers of the Committee, I would like an assurance in this regard: The House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939, Section 3 (7) says:

"So far as is consistent with the due performance of their respective functions under this Act, the trustees of the fund, the Gov eminent Actuary, the Comptroller and Auditor-General and their respective officers and servants shall treat as confidential all information relating to the making or refusal of grants in particular cases; and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, there shall not be included in any accounts or report laid before the House of Commons under the last preceding subsection any identification of the persons to whom grants have been made."

I hope that under the powers which are now given to the Committee they will not ask for any information of that kind which I feel most strongly—and I am sure the House will agree with me—should be treated absolutely confidentially, in regard to people who are receiving benefit under this fund. In Erskine May, at page 593, it makes it quite clear that the Committee cannot

"…require an officer of a public department to produce any paper which, according to the rules and practice of the House, it is not usual for the House itself to order to be laid before it."

It is unthinkable that I, as Chairman of the trustees, should be asked to give evidence before the Committee, and certainly not an officer of a public Department. I hope the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion will take steps to see that nothing will be done by this Committee to give the names of the recipients of benefits. It would be highly undesirable in every way. I never mention anyone's affairs; they are private matters. I hope steps will be taken to ensure that nothing is done in the Committee to give away any of the names of these unfortunate ex-colleagues who receive help from the fund.

I thank the hon. Member very much.

I am very glad to have the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to the case of an individual at present serving in the Army who has, as I shall seek to how, been subject to political discrimination in seeking a transfer to the Army Education Corps. I am particularly glad to have the opportunity of drawing this case to the attention of the House because of the number of important principles involved in it. In view of the treatment that the man concerned has had already, I hope that the Secretary of State for War—who I am glad to see is to reply to this Debate—will agree that we might spare him the additional embarrassment of any personal publicity which might arise from the Debate. In addressing Questions to the Secretary of State on this case hitherto I have used the Army number of the individual concerned, which is 14944324. However, I think it would be more convenient—and I hope the Secretary of State will agree—that we should refer to him in this Debate by the initial letter of his surname. I shall, therefore, call him throughout "Private 'S'."

This case is pretty well known to the Secretary of State. It has been the subject of correspondence with his Department since I wrote originally to his predecessor about it as long ago as 23rd October, 1945. The facts of the case are very simple. This man, Private "S," was called up in March, 1945. He is the holder of a first-class honours degree in modern history, and is a member of the Middle Temple.

What age was he when he was called up?

I should think he was about 26 at the time of his call up. The reason why he was called up rather later than would otherwise have been expected was that during the war he was employed in an aircraft factory, and was deferred by reason of his employment. During the time he was in that factory he was known as an active member of the Communist Party and of the A.E.U. He was, in fact, convener of the shop stewards in the factory in which he was employed for four years. I have in my possession two letters from the general manager of the important aircraft firm which employed him. One is a letter addressed by the general manager to me personally; the other is a letter addressed by the general manager to Private "S" at the time of his call-up. Both these letters pay very high testimony to the broadminded and constructive way in which he led trade union activities in the factory, and to the great assistance which he gave in securing, through the joint production machinery, the fullest possible production for war purposes. The letter addressed to me also refers to the influence and the stimulus of his example among his fellow workers.

Clearly, this was a man whose services, on his call-up into the Army, would be of the very greatest use. On the one hand, he had an exceptionally fine academic record; on the other hand, his trade union activities afforded unmistakable evidence of his capacity for leadership. In June, 1945, he applied for transfer to the Army Education Corps. In August, 1945, he went to No. 5 War Office Selection Board, and demonstrated his fitness for commissioned rank. In September he was accepted by Eastern Command Education Board for transfer to the Army Education Corps. A month later his unit was notified by the War Office that he was not suitable for this transfer. This man has been in the Army for practically two years, and is at present serving with B.O.A.R., with whom he has been for well over a year. His substantive rank at present is that of private; and so far as the War Office are concerned, and so far as my information goes. he is still in the infantry

Those facts were confirmed in November of last year by the Secretary of State in reply to a Question which I put down. Since this man has been in the Army he has, on three separate occasions, been accepted by specialist boards for transfer to the Army Education Corps, and on each occasion he has had his transfer rejected by the War Office. The only additional fact about his personal position, to which I should like to draw attention, is a report which I have of a course he attended at No. 7 Formation College, Rhine Army, in which he is described as:

"An excellent instructor, both as class teacher and in discussion group leadership. A very good all-round man, with knowledge and experience of administration well above the average."

He is classified "A," "Excellent knowledge of his subject"; and, "X," which is "Excellent teaching ability."

As I understand it, there is no dispute whatever as to the facts of this individual case. There is nothing accidental about the treatment which this man has received. In reply to the Question to which I have referred, which was asked in this House on 26th November last year, the Secretary of State corroborated the view which had been taken by his predecessor that this man had been treated quite correctly. He said:

"It is a matter for the Army Council to decide the corps in which a soldier can best serve.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 1403–4.]

In response to a supplementary question he explained that the Army Council delegated this authority to reject a man who has proved his ability for commissioned rank, and for transfer to a corps other than that in which he is serving already, to certain other officers—numbers, ranks and qualities unspecified. It would appear that in this case the relevant officers, or the relevant Department which is having an influence on this man's military career, is the Security Branch of the War Office, or M.I.5.

This case appears to me—and I trust the Secretary of State will comment upon this—to raise at least three important principles or general questions. First, there is its implication so far as the efficiency of the Army Education Corps is concerned. In a written reply on 10th December, the Secretary of State stated that no figures were available of the number of cases of men recommended by selection boards who have not been commissioned, nor of those recommended for transfer who have not in fact been transferred, so we do not know how many other men are in the same position as Private "S"; but we do know what the state of affairs is with regard to the need for trained and suitable personnel in the Army Education Corps.

It so happens that there came into my hands, I suppose just about the time that Private "S" was being rejected by the War Office for the third time, a document which was issued by the Education Branch of the Army of the Rhine. That document is marked "Important and urgent." It was a long document, and I need read only the first paragraph:

"This is the third occasion during the past year on which I have had to appeal to all members of the Army Education Corps in B.A.O.R. to obtain their support in making a determined effort to recruit new officers and other ranks for the Corps, and I do so because the present position is so serious that unless something is done quickly to make good our deficiencies the whole fabric of Army education in B.A.O.R. may break beyond repair."

The date of that document was r6th October, 1946, as I said, just about the time at which Private "S" was being rejected for the third time by the War Office for transfer to the Army Education Corps.

The second general principle raised by this case is that of the proper use of our manpower, especially in the Army, at the present time. Is the Secretary of State prepared to state that it is the definite and declared policy that a Communist, or a suspected Communist, may not reach commissioned rank or be transferred to the Army Educational Corps? He may, quite reasonably and properly, say that that is the view of the Army authorities, but he should let us know that that is his view, and should not go on calling up men of this calibre into the Forces and then refusing to use their abilities to the utmost. The Minister of Education was here a few minutes ago and I wish he were here still, because I should like him to say whether he could not use a first-class honours graduate with first-class teaching ability at the present time. If these people are to be taken into the Army, let them be properly used. If the Army will not or cannot use them, let them be left in. civilian life where they can be used.

That applies to enormous numbers of people who are not Communists.

No doubt the hon. Member will have an opportunity of amplifying his views later on if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

The third, and from some points of view the most important, aspect of all this is that concerned with general civil liberty. This House has always very rightly regarded itself as the custodian, the guardian, of the rights of the individual, and particularly the right of the individual to hold what views he chooses, no matter how unpopular those views may happen to be. Freedom of opinion is indispensable, I would submit, in any educational organisation worthy of the name. So the question of freedom of opinion and civil liberty raised by this case is particularly important, since it is the Army Education Corps which is involved.

I do not think there can be any dispute, in view of these facts, that the individual concerned is receiving certain treatment because of his political views. We do not know, we have not been told, what it is that is so feared by the Army authorities if men holding these views are allowed to enter the Army Education Corps. If any individual serving in any part of the Army acts improperly in any way, he is subject to disciplinary action in accordance with a proper legal process, and of course he is subject to that disciplinary action, quite properly, from whatever cause or for whatever reason he may take any improper action. But this is a case of an individual who has done nothing that is wrong or improper, and who has been given no opportunity of stating his case, no opportunity of showing his worthiness to carry out the duties proper to that corps in the Army for which his experience and his abilities seem peculiarly to fit him.

I think the Secretary of State ought to take notice that there is building up quite a volume of evidence, of which this case is only one item, that this branch of the Army—the Security branch—to which I have referred is exercising an influence in matters which seem to be rather beyond its proper sphere. No one would deny the great importance of the Security Branch in the Army. No one would deny the value of the work which it did during the war, but it is most unsatisfactory if individuals who have views, or individuals—because as a matter of fact there are other cases which bear upon this—who are believed quite wrongly to have particular views, are to be dogged throughout their Army career by the activities of a semi-secret organisation for carrying out petty persecution.

I hope the Secretary of State will respond this afternoon by giving the House an assurance that he will have this case put right, and that he will also ensure that the branch of the Army concerned is confined to its own job and does not allow its activities to become so extended that they go quite beyond their proper sphere.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. C. Smith) for having raised this important matter, because I conceive it to be one of the highest duties of Members of this House to do their utmost to redress what seems to them to be an obvious injustice. I wish to take part in this Debate, because I have a personal interest in the Army Education Corps, having been connected with it for a number of years during the war. I notice, according to the Army List, that I am still relegated to the unemployed list of the A.E.C., and that seems to me to be another place where the War Office phraseology should be brought up to date, because, at any rate, it cannot be said that being an M.P. has any connection with unemployment. This matter raises a very important principal. There should be no discrimination of any kind, political, religious, or racial, in the selecton of officers and other ranks for any branch of the Army, and such discrimination is all the more undesirable in a modern Army, and in an Army under the Labour Government. I should like to know to what extent this supervision goes, and who exercises it.

It may interest hon. Members to know that in the House there are six Members of the A.E.C., three of them being junior Ministers, and three of them being back benchers. I should like to know if each had a political investigation on transfer into the A.E.C., and if there is a file somewhere which says that we are considered suitable people to be in the A.E.C. Knowing the Members, I do not think anyone would dispute that each had a definite contribution to make in the A.E.C. during the war, and no one could say that their influence in any way was undesirable. In the case which has been put forward, there seems to be some sort of idea that this person, if transferred to the A.E.C., would have an undesirable influence on the men with whom he came into contact, and I should like to have the view of the Secretary of State for War on that. What are the qualifications for transfer to the A.E.C? A.C.I. 189, 1946, states:

"1. Officers and other ranks are still required for the A.E.C.…

2. (a) Officers who wish to be employed with the A.E.C., and other ranks who wish to be considered for emergency commissions in the A.E.C., must have graduated at a British university, or hold a qualification which the Army Council accept in lieu.

(b) Other ranks who wish to be transferred to the A.E.C. must:—

(i) have matriculated or qualified for admission to a British university, or

(ii) hold a qualification which the Army Council accept in lieu, or, as an exceptional case,

(iii) be certified by a command education officer as having done outstandingly successful work in the Army under the Army Educational Scheme."

There is no mention of a political test being employed. I consider that the educational test ought to be the only test in transferring people to this important Corps, and there should be none of this victimisation and discrimination shown.

Are not the qualifications of a teacher accepted?

That is one of the qualifications.

The hon. Member did not quote it as one of the qualifications.

I was quoting the A.C.I. There is no need for this exclusion, because no Communist, Conservative—[An HON. MEMBER: "A Fascist?"]—yes, a Fascist—would be able to get his ideas over to the troops. Troops can smell out propaganda, and have a habit of shuffling their feet or coughing, making it impossible for anyone to get across anything that savours of it. No trained teacher or educationist would consider for one moment putting over a piece of political propaganda under the guise of education. He would not put his finger into the scales and tip the weight down one way or the other.

Let me come to what I consider to be the most important question of all. We have to consider the role of the A.E.C. in the peacetime Army. During the war, the A.E.C. performed a useful function in providing an alternative philosophy to compete with the Nazi philosophy. The Corps did much to inculcate the ideas of democracy, freedom and toleration, but it seems that this man is being kept out of the A.E.C. by a Fascist philosophy which denies all those things we try to teach. The future Army must be a democratic Army, and there must be full scope for education. It is clear that we need all the teachers we can get in the A.E.C., and that we cannot afford to misuse teachers in the Army, when they could perform a useful function in civil life.

When travelling a week ago I got into a carriage where there were six young soldiers returning to Catterick. Surprisingly enough, they were discussing education, and I listened very carefully to what they had to say, because they were talking about a part of the world I knew very well. One said he was employed at the education centre. He said that he had applied months ago for transfer to the A.E.C., and that he had heard nothing about it. As I left the train, I asked him what were his political views. He said he was a Communist, and told me that he had worked for the "Daily Worker." I told him that that might be the reason why he had not heard anything but that, on the other hand, it might not be the reason.

There is a growing suspicion that there is a hidden hand at work, applying tests which are not of an educational nature to those people who are considering transfer to the A.E.C. It is the same attitude of mind which tried to prevent the troops from discussing the Beveridge Report during the war, and which was probably responsible for the recent withdrawal of the Bureau of Current Affairs Pamphlet on the Press. It is an attitude of mind that we have been trying to fight for the last four or five years, the attitude of mind which prevents the troops from discussing politics and getting reasonable access to education. If we want to get the right kind of atmosphere in the postwar Army, and if we are to give the troops the best education they can have, we have to get rid of this suspicion, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend to give us the truth about this particular case, and say to what extent political discrimination prevails, and that he will do his best to remove its influence,

The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Charles Smith) has put certain facts before the House. I think that his speech was almost an understatement. It is not for me to prejudge the answer which the Secretary of State for War will give, but if the facts are as stated, then we shall need a good deal of explanation. The issues here are not only those of civil liberty. Heaven knows, that is important enough. But there were two other points raised by my hon. Friend—the efficiency of the Army Education Corps, and the proper use of manpower. If the facts are as stated, and there is a misuse of manpower, then. I think, that my right hon. Friend—especially if there are further cases of the same kind—should give us a satisfactory answer. I have been worried, as he knows perfectly well, and I have put Questions to him for a year, as to when he is to make an announcement about the postwar Army education scheme. I thought that this Government would take an active interest in what was generally recognised during the war as a very remarkable scheme. My evidence is that, at the moment, there is a 25 per cent. deficiency in the Corps of suitable officers and sergeants.

As for the qualifications mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), I can assure him that they are not asking for university degrees. I had the privilege of talking to the men in Northern Italy and in Austria last summer and autumn, when I went to almost every unit. I can bear out that our soldiers, in this war, as in the last, have a very clear way of deciding when they are fed up with propaganda, or anything else; they let one know pretty quickly. It is a very important point—and it arises also in regard to the schools in this country—whether we should interfere with political opinion. The rule is to apply the common sense of the situation, whether with regard to text books or active propaganda; and His Majesty's Inspectors usually satisfy both the local authority and the parents.

There is an obligation when children are compelled to go to school to see that there is no active propaganda, because the children are young, and because the position of a teacher is a very powerful one in this respect. But here we are dealing with adults, with soldiers. I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend does not tell us what the scheme is, and take a somewhat more active interest in it. He must know that, at the present time, the degree of illiteracy, due not to the young men themselves, but to the fact that they are the victims of evacuation and wartime arrangements, is quite high. I do not want to give figures, which are very difficult to substantiate, I think he will know that something like 25 per cent would be called retarded

There is a second question It is all very well to talk about the universities being flooded out now, but what is to happen in two or three years' time, especially when the extension which is being encouraged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes place? My evidence is that a lot of these young men, who have had a year or a year and a half in the Army, are not at all certain whether they will go back to the universities in two or three years' time. Their education has been completely muddled for them, and they are thinking of going into other walks of life. We are in a tremendous jam about manpower, particularly in the technical and technological field, and my evidence is that the soldiers and would-be officers—I am speaking now of evidence which 1 obtained in mess after mess when I was in Austria and Northern Italy—are not at all certain that they will go back, either to technical colleges or to universities. They are in a very uncertain mood about the future. In addition to that, there i. the fact that no university degree necessary to go into Army education; The school certificate is enough to get a person in. If that is the situation, it is very serious and it seems to me that my right hon. Friend must take this question more seriously.

There is something further which I would tell him: There are scores of men, who came to me personally, and who would have gone into the Army Education Corps a year and a half ago, if conditions had been more settled and their future had been more secure. They went into the Control Commission in Austria, and a variety of other things, because as regards education they could not see the shape of things to come. I understand—and my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that the size of the Army Education Corps has been scaled down since the war to a point which is rather like the prewar number. If that is so, I cannot see how we shall get the combination of training and education which is required in a two years' conscription period, A two years' conscription period requires a brand new approach, both to Army education and to training. Hon. Members who know more about the present Army than I do, will, I am sure, agree with me that it is just at the time a man is beginning to be a Ireful soldier that he is demobilised, especially if he has become an officer after 15 months' training and is to be demobilised at the end of two years. Therefore, the whole question must be given much closer attention by my right hon. Friend, although I know he has many other urgent jobs on hand.

The facts, as given, are that a particular Private "S" has remained for two years as a private. If it is true that he passed the War Office Selection Board, and has a first-class degree: and if it is true that he has received from employers and trade unions commendation that he is a man capable of leadership, and that he is not simply carrying on paganda in the Army—of which, on the evidence so far, there is no substantiation—then, I say that this looks to me like a misuse of manpower. If my right hon. Friend can satisfy me that these facts are wrong, and that there is a deeper reason for this refusal, I, of course, shall have to think again. But I would like him to address himself, not only to this case, but to the misuse of manpower generally.

I raised in this House, about nine months ago, the question of teachers hanging about in this country—10,000 or 15,000 ex-Servicemen—waiting to go into emergency training colleges. I admit that these colleges have been split up, but on the figures I have now, there are still 7.000. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will try the use these men for the time being perhaps on short service commissions, which I believe there still are in the Army Education Corps. Otherwise, they are just sitting about, and are a loss to education. Will he say what consultations he has had, with the Ministry of Education on this point?

I would agree at once with what the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) has said about the importance of the Army education scheme and of the Secretary of State announcing, as soon as possible, the War Office's postwar policy in that respect. The hon. Member and I made a tour of Austria during last autumn, and we saw there the difficulties which the Army was experiencing in carrying out the intentions of the War Office, and, I may add, the intentions of all officers, both senior and junior, throughout the Army. It is an extremely difficult problem. Let me say, too, that I agree with the hon. Member for the English Universities that these facts were presented to us in a most excellently clear fashion. I am sure that the House will congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. C. Smith) upon the way in which they 'were presented. We shall, of course, have to wait until the Secretary of State for War has given his answer on the facts.

It is worth remembering that, though the hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate can give us full evidence, it never lies within the power of the Military Intelligence Branch of the War Office and throughout the Army to give any evidence at all. That is the difficulty in such cases. One hon. Member said that security was exercising far too much influence throughout the Army, and there was a ripple of Hear, hear's," from the benches opposite, including the second bench Perhaps, when he comes to reply the right hon. Gentleman will give us his views on this matter because—

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. John Freeman): Perhaps the hon. Member on the second bench will reply.

I did not know that the noble Lord the Member for Paisley (Viscount Corvedale) was going to reply. However, I hope that whoever replies will give some indication of what are his views on this matter. Of whatever else one may accuse the Secretary of State for War, I do not think that anybody in any part of the House would accuse him of underestimating the importance of civil liberty as far as it concerns the Army. I do not always agree with the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do trust him in that respect, and I shall be only too glad to accept his verdict on this matter.

This private apparently remained in the Army for two years without any promotion. That sort of thing does not happen without good reason. A good soldier will rise to be a lance-corporal, a corporal or a sergeant if he has the characteristics of leadership that are acceptable to the Army. I believe that hon. Members opposite and on this side of the House will probably accept the fact that no amount of security interference will interfere with promotion, at any rate to lance-corporal or corporal, in the early stages of a soldier's life. I think that that is worth pointing out. I hope that this House is not going to accept as a general rule that only a man who has first class honours is suitable for commissioned rank in the A.E.C. In presenting his case, the hon. Member for Colchester rather suggested that that was so. Reference has been made to propaganda in teaching. I have no experience as a teacher, but I have, of course, experience in being taught. I have no experience as a propagandist, but I have experience in being "propaganded." I have always understood that good propaganda was never easy to see. The propaganda to which the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) referred was obviously not good propaganda if the soldiers scraped their chairs and moved their feet about. I do not believe that hon. Members of this House should be so simple minded.

The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities drew a distinction between the responsibilities of the Government in teaching young children, and the responsibilities of the War Office in arranging for the education of grown men. I think I am right in saying that he drew such a distinction. He then went on to say that half the difficulties at the moment are due to the degree of illiteracy or retarded education. I believe that, at the present time, the responsibilities of the War Office are just as great as those of the Board of Education in teaching young children.

I have only two more points to make in what, I am afraid, are rather sketchy remarks. However, they must be sketchy until we hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, with his experience in education, referred to his endeavours and those of all his colleagues throughout the war to inculcate into the British troops the idea of democracy. I hope that the Army Education Corps will continue to do that, but, from what I have seen of the two hon. Gentlemen who represent the Communist Party in this House I think that if they were drafted into the Army Education Corps they would be asked to do things with which they totally disagree, and, quite apart from the question of security, it would not add to the efficiency of the Corps for such tasks to be carried out by rabid and ardent Communists. I believe that it is of great advantage to the country as a whole that cases such as this should be raised by hon. Members on the Adjournment. Though one may disagree with the hon. Member who opened this Debate, I am sure that I and my hon. Friends on this side of the House—

All four of them.

—would be the last to disagree with him for having raised this particular case.

Let me say at the outset of my remarks that I entirely agree with the tributes that have been paid from both sides of the House to the moderate and cogent way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. C. Smith) introduced this subject this afternoon. Before I deal with the specific points that he raised, and the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), I would like to dispose of the points raised by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) because he raised a far wider issue, that of the future of the Army Education Corps. He rather inferred that I, personally, and His Majesty's Government were taking less interest in something which ought to excite great activity, particularly under a scheme of national service. If I can, I want to disabuse his mind of any doubts he may have as to either the Army Council's or my own interest in this very important matter.

I have had more than one meeting recently of the Army Council specially to deal with the subject of the education of the Regular recruit to the Army and of the national service man, because I believe that it is not only my duty to make soldiers of these young men, but also to see that, after they have served for a period in the Army and then go back to civil life, they go back better citizens than when they came in. I believe that there is a depreciation of standards in many of these young men due to a variety of circumstances. This was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities. In saying that, I do not include only what I would call the academic education which the Army will give these young men, and which in fact it is at present giving them, although, I admit, not to the same extent as during the war, for reasons which I think will be obvious to the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities. If I may put it this way, I include also training in moral character so that when they go back, more fully grown as men than when they came in at the early age of, say, 18, they will then be ready to play their part as civilians in domestic and social life, and generally far better equipped than when they joined the Army.

I hope that very soon it will be possible for me to announce fully the plans which the Army Council have for the education of our soldiers in the future. It will be possible for me to go much more fully into that in the speech on the Estimates which I shall be making very shortly. I think the House will agree that today I had better deal more specifically with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. In answer to the question which has been put to me as to whether the Army Education Corps is accepting candidates for short service commissions, especially from among that large body of men who are waiting to take up a civilian educational career but who cannot do so at the moment for reasons of which we are all aware, I should like to say that we have announced very widely in the Army that we are prepared to offer such commissions to suitable candidates who are willing to volunteer. This applies both to men who are still serving in the Forces and to those who have already been demobilised

Could the Minister give any indication as to the response?

I cannot say offhand what response we have had to this appeal, but for the hon. Gentleman's information perhaps I should tell him that we offer a gratuity of £337, £450 or £562 to an officer who completes a period in the Army Education Corps of three, four or five years respectively on the active list. If they wish to continue after that short service period these officers may volunteer for a Regular Commission and suitable candidates will be considered. I think I have shown—I hope to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman—that we are doing our best to attract some of the persons to whom he referred in his speech.

Let me turn now to the main subject of this Debate, which is the question of Private "S," as he was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester May I deal with the principle lying behind this case? My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees rather suggested that in the Army we discriminate politically against individuals in the form of employment that we give them. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester went on to say—quite frankly I thought—that this Private "S." was an active Communist and that for that reason we discriminated against him when he applied to join the Army Education Corps.

It is a very strange principle that my hon. Friend is putting to the House. It is true that he emphasised one particular political view—that of the Communist—but there are others which, if I may so put it, are as dangerous as, and indeed more dangerous than, the Communist political point of view. I am certain in my own mind that there are still a number of individuals who hold Fascist views of a very virulent type. I am equally certain that there are individuals serving in the Army who, if we did not take precautions, would by devious methods propagate views that no hon. Gentleman in this House could support—not even my hon. Friend who spoke so eloquently and ably this afternoon on behalf of his Private "S," who happens to hold Communist views. On the principle of selection I deem it my duty to see that in recruiting for the Army Education Corps the candidates we accept should not only have adequate training but should also be suitable to teach the soldiers in the form we wish.

rose—

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to finish. I would put that form in these words, "the British way and purpose," which is a phrase well known to those who were members of the Army Education Corps. That is the fundamental basis of our teaching of civics and current affairs, and let me be quite frank in saying that the teaching of civics and current affairs is to form part of our compulsory education service in the postwar Army.

I think the House ought to be quite clear about this most important principle. Is my right hon. Friend now suggesting that it is the policy of the War Office that Communists ought not to be members of the Army Education Corps?

No, I did not say anything of the kind. What I was attempting to indicate was that the form of education we intend to give the troops must conform to a certain pattern which I explained, in general terms, as being "the British way and purpose," and which I hope all hon. Members accept as being our democratic conception of life. I am only saying that in cases where candidates hold views diametrically opposed to that I should not hesitate to prevent their joining the Army Education Corps.

rose—

If he so desires my hon. Friend can pursue this subject in a speech, but I should like to develop this in my own way, if I may. I come now to the particular case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester in support of his argument that we should have no discrimination whatever and should take into the Army Education Corps anyone who applied for admission, subject to one test only—what he called "the academic test."

I made no such statement at all.

I am sorry. I took a note at the time but in error I appear to have attributed the remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester when in fact they were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees. What my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton- on-Tees said was that the academic qualification should be the supreme test, but I do not think we could apply that principle. I could give a whole series of illustrations to show that if an individual is biased in a certain way—religiously, perhaps, or materially—it might do considerable damage. Speaking as the father of children myself, my view is that the whole essence of education is that knowledge should be imparted in an impartial fashion without any strong views either way.

I am not suggesting for a moment that this individual is likely to do anything but teach in an impartial fashion. Indeed, I believe he has been teaching English in Germany. I would, however, draw the attention of the House to the fact that the argument advanced by my hon. Friends is that merely because he is an individual with high academic qualifications he is thereby suitable for the Army Education Corps. Let me refer to the experience of this Private "S" during the war. I am not denying the facts put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester that Private "S" has good academic qualifications, although I am perhaps not fully qualified to judge because I have not the same qualifications. One would have thought that Private "S" would have utilised those academic qualifications during the war in teaching, but he did nothing of the sort. He was a skilled and trained engineer. We have corning into the Army at the present moment many young men who have been trained in engineering. I cannot find jobs for all of them in their own particular trades, although I utilise as many of them as I can in their trade. Therefore I am bound to put some of them into branches of the Service where their particular qualifications are not specially used. For four or five years Private "S" was a skilled aircraft worker. Then he came into the Army, and it is said that he should he put into the Army Education Corps—

Clearly, the point is that three separate selection boards—Army education selection boards—and a War Office selection board examined his application. It is not a question of what I say or what he says about his abilities, but what these specialised bodies have said about them.

No, Sir. That only goes to prove how carefully we try to sift and examine these individuals. What happened when he went before the selection board? He applied for three branches of the service. He asked for the Royal Army Service Corps, or the Machine Guns, or the Army Education Corps—

Is it not a fact that every candidate for a commission puts down three choices? Is that not part of the normal proforma?

That is precisely what I am saying. The fact remains that the candidate who signifies his choice in a certain order naturally chooses the branches which he thinks he would like to enter, but it is not always possible for us to put him in the branch of his choice and he is not always suitable.

rose—

My hon. Friends know that I am generally willing to give way, but it will destroy my argument if 1 am continually interrupted. I want to dispose, if 1 can, of the suggestion that we misused this individual by not accepting him in the Army Education Corps. What I say is—and I am not going to speak much longer about the subject—is that he may not have been used as fully during some of his service as he might have been. Having looked into the matter very carefully as the result of my hon. Friend's representations, I think that somebody who is a skilled engineer, as Private "S" was—his service was deferred for some time for him to work in engineering shops—and has such academic qualifications, ought to be used in a more suitable manner than he has been used so far. 1 shall make it my duty to see whether it is not possible to use Private "S" in a different capacity to that in which he is being used at the moment. I have looked into his age group number. He is only a temporary soldier—a National Service soldier—and it cannot be many months before he is demobilised. Therefore, I have to use him during the time he is in the Army to the best possible purpose for the Army. I have to use him for the Army—he is there for the Army—and we are in general crying out for skilled men—

Would the right hon. Gentleman look into this question? When did it first become known to the Army that Private "S" had first-class honours? I believe the right hon. Gentleman will find that it would not be known to the Army until Private "S" applied for his commission. Is there not something wrong with that situation?

That information ought to be known by the Army very early in the recruit's career because of the long questionnaire that recruits have to complete. This discloses any special qualifications they have. It cannot be very many months now before Private "S" is demobilised. In view of the plans we have for the future of the Army Education Corps, candidates for that Corps are to undergo a very severe and even long training. It might be a real waste of manpower if I attempted to train Private "S" for that Corps now. He would have to go through a course of at least three months' educational training before we could accept him for the Corps. My best plan would be to look into his engineering qualifications, as it seems that he has high skill in that respect, and use them for the rest of his Army service—

Although the right hon. Gentleman has admitted quite frankly that this is a misuse of manpower, he has not attempted to answer the question about civil liberties. Is he not going to answer it?

I do not know quite how my hon. Friend means me—

Was there discrimination?

If the hon. Member means political discrimination or victimisation, then I think I have answered that point. As far as civil liberties are concerned, that has not the same relevance—

Would the right hon. Gentleman object in principle to this man having a commission in the Royal Engineers, or does the objection to a commission only apply to the Army Education Corps?

I do not know that I have any objection at all to his having a commission. All I say is that I want to use him in the best possible way—

If my right hon. Friend is satisfied that this man has expressed a strong preference for the Army Education Corps, would he be prepared to commission him in that Corps?

No, Sir. We endeavour to give candidates a chance of going into the branch of the Service for which they express preference, but the Army is so short of manpower at the present moment, that we are often having to transfer against their choice to other regiments men with a strong county and territorial affinity because we must fill the commissioned ranks of the Army where vacancies occur.

The right hon. Gentleman has said quite positively that it is not the intention or the policy of his Department to appoint to the Army Education Corps people whose political views—to put it vet), bluntly—they do not like. I think that is a fair description of what he said. I call that political discrimination, though other people may take a different view. I want to say first that I find that very undesirable. It sounds plausible, but it is a very dangerous weapon indeed. Secondly, it is very interesting from this point of view. I have taken up several hundred cases with the War Office during the last seven years of political discrimination of this kind. I hold in respect of each one of those cases a letter from one or another Secretary of State positively denying that the War Office ever exercises any political discrimination at all, and generally resorting to the most ingenious explanations of each separate case. At any rate I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman that he, at any rate, is not a liar; all the others were.

My right hon. Friend suggested that I should not intervene during his speech, as I had hoped to do, to clarify it, but should address the House later. I accept that, and will do so now. I think that there is nobody, on the Benches on this side of the House at any rate, who is not profoundly dissatisfied with what they have heard. The only charitable thing I can say about the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is that in parts it was so unclear that perhaps it did not mean what we thought it did. It is undoubtedly true that there are continual cases of petty victimisation of individuals, and hon. Members on this side of the House may well see in the Estimates, or on some other occasion, an opportunity of dealing with this matter. May I deal with one case which has come to my own notice? It is not that of a Communist but that of a crypto-Communist.

What is a crypto-Communist?

I was just about to explain. He had done something which clearly distinguished him as a crypto-Communist. He was a director of a publishing firm and he published a book by my right hon. Friend.

In that case he deserved promotion.

He hoped that when he went into the Army this youthful folly would be forgotten. He passed through the usual stages mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. C. Smith) and put his name forward to go into the Education Corps. He did not seek a commission but he needed to become a sergeant if he was to have sufficient authority for taking the classes which it was his duty to take. I wrote the usual letter and got an exactly similar reply to that received by my hon. Friend. It seems that there is some type of duplicating machine which is now almost fully employed in turning out identical letters to hon. Members on these subjects.

What was I told? That the Army must decide who was suitable to be a sergeant, and who was not, and this man was unsuitable. What actually happened was that his unit thought he had such high qualifications that they appointed him a sergeant to a vacancy which they had on their own establishment. At the time I received the letter saying that he was unsuitable to hold non-commissioned rank, and that the Army must judge as to who was to be held suitable to hold non-commissioned rank and who was not, this over-ambitious director of a publishing firm was not only made a sergeant hut a sergeant enjoying trade pay. When I communicated with him again, he said, "Please do not raise this matter again because if it were discovered that I had been promoted, I might, through your efforts, be demoted."

That does not seem to me to be satisfactory. I do not want to go into the whole issue at this stage, but it is one which has interested me for a considerable period because I myself have been victimised in exactly the same way for a long period of time. However, I hope to deal with the matter on the Estimates, and then I may be able to answer the questions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite as to when you do and when you do not, get promotion. However, we cannot go into that now, and all I want to do is to express the profound dissatisfaction which is felt on this side of the House. I think I am speaking for myself and my hon. Friends when I say that I do not feel the Minister has investigated this case properly, or, indeed, at all. Nor has he looked into other cases of a similar nature. I ought to add that we on this side of the House are determined that we will have in Departments Ministers who are capable of carrying out such investigations.

I am most grateful for the opportunity of calling to the attention of the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, the position which has arisen in North Scotland and. indeed, in the country generally over the question of oatmeal production and oatmeal stocks. It will take only a moment to recall the history which has led up to the present position. Some eight months ago when bread was put on the ration, oatmeal, along with other cereals, was put on points. At that time the points value of oatmeal was two per pound, and there was the right to exchange bread units into points and points into oatmeal.

The view taken by the Minister—and we are not now concerned with whether it was right or wrong—was that one could buy either one cereal filler or another. Later on, for reasons which are extraneous to this argument, the right to convert bread units into points was withdrawn, but a special provision was made by the Ministry that heavy users of oatmeal could cash their bread units into specially endorsed oatmeal points. Both these practices, however, tended to restrict the consumption of oatmeal, and the position has arisen today whereby oatmeal mills in Scotland are glutted with stocks. I think the hon. Lady and the Ministry are to some extent aware of what is going on because, in a recent S.R. & O. No. 172, the points value of oatmeal have been reduced from two points per pound to one.

The case I want to put to the hon. Lady is that we on this side of the House do not feel that the reduction from two points to one will be sufficient to clear the accumulated stocks. Perhaps I may give the figures of what is happening in the North-East today. I have ascertained these figures and checked them this week. In my own area, beyond my constituency, there are today 81 oatmeal mills. There was a production of 4,600 tons in November, but in January it had been reduced to 2,200 tons. Out of the 81 mills, 70 have either closed or are on short time, and only 11 are working full time at the moment. This is not due to weather conditions. There is plenty of grain for milling. Most of them are worked with water supply and, consequently, the question of power from coal and so on, does not impede the normal milling process being carried on. I can assure the hon. Lady, from my own personal contacts with the men doing this work, that the storage and all the accommodation within the mills is stocked up to such an extent that they cannot go on producing oatmeal.

I want to suggest that it might he wise to make an immediate decision to take oatmeal off points. The Minister has told us that he uses the machinery of points value to regulate demand as against supply in all these things. Here is a case where supply is super-abundant, where it is so great that production is being impeded and here, therefore, it is a case which should commend itself to the Ministry for immediate action. I feel that any action taken should be taken at once. It is well known that the stock position in the North-East of Scotland is as I have described, and the housewives of the North-East are by no means slow in the uptake. If they see it is probable that oatmeal will either be further down-pointed, or come off points, they will naturally run on a very low stock. We could not give them greater encouragement to buy than to take oatmeal right off points at the present time. I feel it is a policy which should be adopted, at any rate until the stocks have gone down. If we find that the removal of oatmeal from points causes a tendency for stocks to fall below normal, then it is easy for the Minister, by raising the points value, to regulate supply and demand.

I can assure the House that until these stocks are moved, our production of oatmeal—and after all that is important over a long view—will be held up. I appeal to the hon. Lady to take very special care in looking into this matter on account of what was said about Scotland yesterday. A remark was made at the beginning of yesterday's Debate, which I am sure must have left a very unfortunate impression as to the view the Government take of Scotland. The remark was made in excuse for the fact that the new Bill was not ready for discussion last night by the acting Leader of the House. He said:

"Scotsmen, after all, are less than 10 per cent. of the population of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c 1416]

I hope the hon. Lady will bear that in mind, and that when looking into this matter she will give an assurance that Scotland will not be neglected in this respect.

I do not know whether the hon. Lady is a student of Burns but, she may have heard that

"The best laid schemes of mice and men Gang aft agley."

One scheme produced by the Ministry of Food has gone agley. It is the scheme whereby the people of Scotland are able to get their oatmeal. Obviously there is something seriously wrong with the scheme, or we would not have to raise the point so frequently here. We do not want to badger the hon. Lady, or the Ministry, unnecessarily over this, but we must keep on pegging away until we get it put right. Our charge is that the scheme has operated most unfairly against the people of Scotland. To quote Burns again:

"What's done we partly may compute, But know not what's resisted."

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Spence) has computed some of the damage and I want to bring to the notice of the hon. Lady the feeling which exists in Scotland about this and the extent of the resistance engendered in the public mind. They all feel that they have had exceedingly unfair treatment in regard to oatmeal. I do not think the hon. Lady, or anyone in the Ministry of Food, really grasps the place of oatmeal in the dietary of the Scottish people Practically every family takes porridge once, and a great many twice in the course of the day. They eat a large quantity of oatcakes, oatmeal bannocks and other things, like haggis, for instance. Haggis, as the hon. Lady probably knows, is an article of diet which is eaten with a considerable degree of ceremony in Scotland. I do not know whether she knows Burns' "Ode to a Haggis' in which are the lines:

"Fair fa' your honest sonsie face,

Great chieftain o' the puddin'-race!

Aboon them a' ye tak your place,

Painch, tripe or thairm:

Weel are ye wordy o' a grace

As lang's my arm."

Translate.

The haggis may be eaten with ceremony on occasions but it is also a quite regular part of the diet of the Scottish people. Every time a sheep is killed, haggis is made, and other things such as puddings which involve the use of oatmeal. Oatmeal is used in cooking herring. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has ever eaten a herring as prepared in Scotland, split and fried in oatmeal. It is one of the most delicious meals one could have and it is highly nutritious as well. To put a cereal like oatmeal, which bulks so largely in the diet of the people, on points is a most unfair proceeding. It shows a complete lack of imagination and something more serious than that, it shows that the Ministry of Food are ignorant of a most important dietetic principle.

The hon. Lady ought to be aware if anyone in the Ministry should be that various races rely principally on specific grains for their cereals. The Indians eat rice, the Egyptians eat dura and so on. Very difficult problems arise if one tries to make a race live on some cereal to which they have not become accustomed in the course of their history. We have had an example of that in India of which the hon. Lady probably knows. Large quantities of wheat were sent to India for consumption by the Indians who are not accustomed to it. They cooked it by boiling then threw away the grain and drank the water. I have had experience of telebun, a grain which it is absolutely impossible for a European to digest. I am not suggesting that anything so serious as that will happen in Scotland. But what I want to bring out is that it is really sharp practice on the part of the Ministry of Food, to try to deal with oatmeal by putting it on points. It is not as if the points available were enough to meet the demands of the ordinary family. I am sure the hon. Lady would make more available if that was possible but it is grossly unfair to take away part of the points supply in order to enable people to buy what is their fundamental cereal, the one they rely upon for a very important part of their diet. It is no good saying as was said in answer to a question put by me that after all we could exchange bread units for flour. It is not flour that we want, it is oatmeal we want and we must get it. I hope that very serious consideration will be given to taking oatmeal off points altogether. It is high time that was done.

I wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friends the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) and for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence). There is no doubt that the position of the oatmeal milling industry in Scotland today is extremely unsatisfactory. Some 70 mills are either shut down, or working on short-time. As has been said, the problem is to remove oatmeal from points altogether. When oatmeal first went on points, there was a slight drop in the sale, due, possibly, to the fact that oatmeal may have been used for animal feeding purposes. But that was not the main reason for the glut in the mills throughout Scotland. The real explanation is that oatmeal is a slow-selling commodity and, since it requires points to purchase, a large pointage must be exchanged by the grocers and the wholesalers. Quite naturally, the grocer normally much prefers to stock points goods which are quick-selling. He gets a quicker turnover and his remuneration is, of course, correspondingly higher. This has resulted in the grocer ceasing to operate in the oatmeal market, and must have the effect that all over Scotland, and in many parts of England, housewives are unable to get oatmeal from the shops, although it is known that all the mills are completely glutted.

We have reached a time when we not only have most rigorous weather, but an acute shortage of food, while more than 70 mills in Scotland are either closed down, or working on halftime, and are glutted with this most important food, causing unemployment at a time when we are doing our best to see that there are jobs for everyone everywhere. The pointing of oatmeal, any miller will tell the hon. Lady, is actually killing the oatmeal industry, which is important to the Scottish farming community, and it is doing something almost as bad. It is depriving the housewife of a valuable heat giving and energy giving food at a time when, so far as I can gather, the housewife has a hard job to find something for breakfast. A recent telegram sent to the Ministry of Food on this question by a recognised organisation in Scotland brought a curt reply from the Ministry of Food—I have verified this—telling these millers that they must cut their production, in accordance with normal commercial practice.

If this is the best the Government can do, all the oatmeal mills in Scotland will soon close, and no one will be able to get oatmeal, even for points, at a time when the mills are full up and we are in the middle of a world shortage of food. It is really time the Ministry recognised that they made what I would call a "howling muck up" of this oatmeal business. Let them now take oatmeal off points altogether, and at any rate see what happens. At the present time the position is really absurd. We have all these mills closed down, hundreds of men out-of work, and our oatmeal mills glutted, when the housewives cannot get any because the shops will not stock it. Surely the hon. Lady will have another look at this and tell us in her reply that the Ministry of Food have decided to remove oatmeal from points altogether.

I should like to appeal to the Minister from another angle, that is, from the farmworkers' point of view. Last weekend, in my constituency, on three different farms, a farmworker came to me and said, "You are a Member of Parliament. Can you not do something to try to help us to get more food? We have practically no coal at home; there is no heat in the cottage, and the food we get is not enough to keep us warm enough to enable us to work in this hard cold weather." I ask the Minister if, say for a month, she could take oatmeal off points. It would help the oatmeal factories in Scotland, of which we have heard that 70 have had to close down because they cannot get rid of their stocks, and are unable to find any more storage room. This solution

would help the fellow working in the field, who has a very hard row to hoe in this weather, and who now, when he comes home at night, owing to the fuel shortage, is unable to get any warmth. Oatmeal is a good food for supplying one with heat and energy, and I ask the Minister to see what she can do about taking oatmeal off points.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence), whose delightful quotations from Burns we shall always remember—although I must confess that I did not understand a great deal of them—was a little apprehensive, in the light of a remark made by the Lord Privy Seal yesterday, lest Scotland might not get a fair crack of the whip. I think that Scottish Members here, and the hon. Member who asked for this Adjournment Debate, will agree that the Ministry of Food have tried their best to help Scotland, and if we have not always done exactly what Scotland has asked us to do, we have at least always been willing to hear their grievances. In fact, I think that the last time I spoke in an Adjournment Debate was when Scottish Members asked me to provide more barley for Scottish whisky. I believe that some of them may have been fairly satisfied with the result of that Debate, but it is a little difficult to satisfy Scotland.

Hon. Members have made a case which appears to be unanswerable, but unfortunately they have not all the facts. I think that those Members present, who are not biased, will agree with me, when they hear the facts, that the Ministry of Food, during the present critical time, cannot possibly consent to take oatmeal off points. May I recall some of the events which led up to the pointing of oatmeal, and to the recent application of the Oatmeal Millers' Association to the Ministry of Food for this special concession? Hon. Members must realise that, owing to the shortage of oatmeal, most of the oatmeal millers stopped production in June or July last year. Later, owing to the very bad weather, the harvest was held up in many parts of the country, and oatmeal millers were still unable to obtain sufficient oats for their mills. This was then reflected in the shops, and there was a universal demand for more oat products.

In view of this unsatisfied demand, the Ministry of Food realised that it would be necessary to make allocations to the oatmeal millers out of the stocks of the Ministry. There was another factor also to bear in mind when we came to this decision. In view of the fact that farmers are allowed to keep their oats for animal feedingstuffs, and also in the light of the shortage of animal feedingstuffs, it was difficult for us to estimate what quantity of oats would come off the farms. In view of these imponderables, we decided that it would be necessary to make an allocation to the oatmeal millers. Therefore, we met their Association and worked out a scheme whereby releases would be made to them from Ministry stocks. We asked the millers themselves to tell us what allocation they would like.

Let me be absolutely accurate, and state that the whole of the allocation was not taken up, but it is now clear that these millers have not only taken up about 60,000 tons of the allocation from the Ministry of Food stocks, but have also been taking oats from the farms, and have consequently accumulated stocks, because they have been producing oat products to the full capacity of their mills, without any regard to current demands. When the Ministry of Food came forward and offered to make an allocation, it was in order to tide the millers over a difficult time. At the same time we expected the millers to have due regard to current consumption during those difficult months in the autumn, when there was a shortage of oat products throughout the country, and the products which the millers produce—other things, of course, as well as oatmeal—were taken up quickly. As the months went on they continued to manufacture, with the result that now a surplus has accumulated. We do not deny it. For one hon. Member to say that this surplus is of such a nature that it is necessary to take it off points is entirely incorrect. The surplus is a matter of one month's stocks. I think that, at the corresponding time last year, the millers had about two weeks' stocks in hand, and now they have a month's stocks in hand.

What would happen if we took oatmeal off points? I think that every hon. Member knows that the oatmeal would not necessarily go for human consumption, hut would be consumed by animals, both in Scotland and England. One hon. Member has said that consumer needs were not satisfied. My Ministry is a consumer Ministry. I would not come here and tell hon. Members from Scotland that consumer needs were satisfied if we had been inundated with letters from consumers at the Ministry. The fact is that we have had only one or two letters of complaint, and they were mainly caused by questions of transport. We have not had a letter from a consumer saying that they were unable to obtain oatmeal, although there is plenty of it

Is the hon. Lady aware that the Scottish Oatmeal Millers' Association has received hundreds of letters, including many from housewives in England, saying that they cannot get oatmeal from the shops, because it is not there?

Is it not also true that the housewives who have written from England were the subject of a considerable amount of publicity concerning supplies of oatmeal or oatmeal products from Scotland, which they knew had to come through legitimate channels, and in regard to which the advertisement concerned was grossly misleading, hence the letters?

I can only say, that during the difficult period in the autumn, the Ministry received a large number of letters from dissatisfied consumers, but we rarely see a letter now, and that, I think, is the answer to those hon. Members who say that consumers are dissatisfied.

I now want to talk about the question of animal feeding stuffs. Every hon. Member knows that it is very difficult for the poultry keeper who keeps a few hens in his back yard, and every Scottish hon. Member knows that a great deal of the oatmeal produced before points rationing was sent to England for the purpose of feeding animals. If we take oatmeal off points today, it would mean once more that oatmeal would be given to animals. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland tells me that I do not understand the part that oatmeal plays in the diet of the Scots. I understand it very well. I would not be able to stand at this Box were it not for the fact that there was a very wonderful Scotswoman who spent 15 years in my house and made life possible for me as a doctor and a politician, and she has seen to it that my family realised the proper place of oatmeal in our diet.

The hon. Member spoiled his case when he spoke about porridge and haggis—and I would remind him, that at least I shall go down to history in this House as the only English person to define a haggis—and when he told us about herrings cooked in oatmeal, at the same time indicating that this food, which is an excellent filler, providing heat and energy, is a substitute for bread. Hon. Members will remember that the hon Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) asked that porridge should be served in this House The Scottish housewife gives her family a bowl of porridge for supper where the English housewife gives her family a piece of cheese and large slices of bread. Thus, we find the Scottish housewife substituting oatmeal for bread. I have gone into this fully, and I have explained to the hon. Member that three B.Us. equal two points, and, with oatmeal pointed at one point a pound, the Scottish housewife receives 2 lb. of oatmeal against the English housewife's 1 lb. of flour.

I have had my attention called to letters in Scottish newspapers in which people have said that I do not understand how oatmeal is used in Scotland. I appreciate that it cannot be a direct substitute for flour if one wishes to make cakes which need flour, but it is an energy and heat giver and, therefore, it is a substitute. That is why, when we had to put bread on points, we recognised that if we were to maintain a saving of wheat we should, at the same time, have to point oatmeal. Therefore, if we took oatmeal off points today the strain would be felt on our wheat supplies.

I want to make it quite clear that the real reason why this surplus has occurred is that the oatmeal millers have been producing to capacity. But let us look at the position if we were to do as the hon. Gentleman asked. If we took oatmeal off points today, there would be an immediate run on it. I am advised that by March or April, our stocks would be so low that the millers would have to stop production completely, and in July or August the position would be so serious that we would have to import oatmeal from Canada. This, of course, would create difficulties, because we are trying to get as much wheat from Canada as possible, and we want the transport for that purpose. Furthermore, there are other oat products which Members have not mentioned. Surely, they are not going to ask me to take points off, let us say, oat flakes, which is another product of the oat millers? Today the demand for oat flakes far exceeds the supply, and it would be quite uneconomical to do that. I fully realise that hon. Members opposite are requested by their constituents to ask the Ministry of Food for this concession. It is very natural that they should do so, but I ask those hon. Members to appreciate the serious repercussions of this step, and, therefore, to allow the Ministry of Food to decide this matter. At the moment we must keep oatmeal on points.

I am glad that despite the breach of the understanding of this House, of which the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) has been deliberately guilty in the last few minutes—

On a point of Order. Was I guilty of a breach of understanding by drawing your attention to a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

That is not a point of Order.

I appreciate that it is quite useless to try to teach the hon. Member manners. I will, therefore, proceed with this most important subject platter which he sought to interrupt. I am very sorry for the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, that even on the occasions when her right hon. Friend the Minister of Food is in this country, she is put up, again and again, to defend thoroughly bad cases, which she does—I hope I may be allowed to say, without imper:inence—with the greatest of a and charm. But really the case of this present example is a hopeless one. Normally speaking—and very properly—the case for the rationing of any commodity is that it is in short supply. It is a new experience for this House to be told by the Minister in charge that a surplus of a commodity has accumulated, but that none the less it must he rationed. That, surely, is making a mockery of the whole system of rationing? The House will recollect that the hon. Lady told the House that a surplus of oatmeal had accumulated. In those circumstances hon. Members—and not only Scottish Members, because all constituencies are interested—are entitled to demand that this commodity be taken oft points and made available.

As I understand the argument of the hon. Lady, she sought to justify the continuance of the rationing of a surplus commodity on three grounds, of which I made a note. First, that the Ministry of Food had received hardly a letter—those were her words—demanding that this commodity be taken off points. I put this to the hon. Lady. If, thanks to that statement of hers, and thanks to any publicity which that statement may be given, her Department receive within the next fortnight a very large number of letters, will she reconsider the position? In fairness, I think she must. She has given as one of the grounds for her refusal to de-ration, or to de-point this commodity, the absence of those letters. If the people of this country hear, that there is a valuable foodstuff which will be de-rationed if they write to the Minister of Food, it may well be they will write to the Minister of Food. And they may write to him on a scale which may tax even the massive staff of his Department. I hope the hon. Lady will indicate that if, in the next fortnight, her postbag bears evidence of the fact that the people of this country do want more of that food she will reconsider that matter.

Secondly, the hon. Lady made what, it might fairly be conceded, is the stronger point, that if she took oatmeal off points, it might be fed to animals. Rut suppose she were to take oatmeal off points and at the same time appeal to the public, and tell them that this was only being done on the definite understanding that it was not to be fed to animals, and that if evidence were forthcoming that it was being fed to animals on any scale it would he put back on points? I hope hon. Members opposite are prepared to trust the public of this country. When it suits their book they are prepared to make every sort of appeal to them. After all, the Minister of Fuel and Power defends, to prevent an utter breakdown of our electricity supplies, solely on trusting the public. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members opposite will not mock that confidence in the public which, if it is misplaced, will bring their Government down in the next fortnight. Why does not the hon. Lady therefore say that she will take oatmeal off points and put the public on their honour not to feed it to animals? If that appeal should fail it could be put back. Is she not prepared to trust the public at any rate to that extent?

Her third argument, as I understood it, was that if she took oatmeal off points it would increase the strain on our wheat resources. I have heard many arguments put forward from the Ministry of Food, but—although the House will appreciate that I am putting it rather strongly—I have never heard as fatuous an argument as that. Is it really suggested that if one foodstuff is made more freely accessible, there is, for that reason, a greater strain on another? Surely, the converse is obviously the case? Surely, it is quite clear that if one foodstuff is made more easy to get the strain on another is not accentuated but is diminished? If the hon. Lady is anxious, as I am sure she is, to diminish the strain on wheat, on those wheat stocks which the House of Commons is not entitled to be told the size of, surely one of the best things to do is to take off points a cereal of which, he has herself admitted a surplus exists?

Unless the hon Lady can be much more helpful that she has been today, unless she is prepared to say that her Department will either take oatmeal off points or provide some reason which the average child of seven would regard as valid for keeping it on, this House will be driven to the conclusion—a conclusion to which many people in this country have already come —that the Ministry of Food likes rationing, and maintains it, not as a means of sharing out scarce commodities, but for rationing's sake.

I have listened with very serious attention to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and I agree with him that it would be very nice if oatmeal were taken off points. But the hon. Member knows just as well as I do, that one of the principal reasons why it was put on points was that it was being used by individuals to feed their poultry. I regret it very much indeed, because I am as fond of oatmeal as any other hon. Member of this I louse, but those of us who like it, have to suffer because of those who used it indiscriminately. To ask the Minister to take it off points and, as the hon. Member suggested, rely on people not using it for poultry is, I think, asking a great deal too much. I am not convinced that we can appeal to the vast majority of people in this country not to use oatmeal for poultry, because once it is taken off points it will again be used indiscriminately for that purpose.

Would not the hon. Member be prepared to make an appeal to the country, with all the persuasive eloquence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food? Would he not at any rate try that experiment, and trust the people?

I am not too sure about that, having had the experience of trying the experiment in other directions.

In other words, the hon. Member does not trust the people.

It may be a sound point, and it might be a possibility; no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will look into it. At the same time, in speaking about oatmeal, I should also like to make a strong plea in regard to Quaker oats, because Quaker oats can provide just as good an early morning meal.

I want a reply to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in regard to oatmeal. I do not wish to resist his other arguments. I happened to be in Kingston Market, which is in his constituency, and I found there was a shortage of potatoes, which is in keeping with the Minister's arguments. When bread and flour were rationed, potatoes were used as animal feeding stuffs. It was obvious that some alternative had to take the place of these rationed commodities, and therefore 1,500,000 backyard poultry keepers and others resorted to the use of potatoes.

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member, who attempted a short time ago to count out the House, now to make a speech?

That is not a point of Order.

The result was that the consumption of potatoes went up by 20 per cent., and there was scarcity, and scarcity in Kingston. I do not know whether the hon. Member would say that the Ministry of Food or the Ministry of Agriculture or the farmers are to blame.

The hon. Member has made a definite and specific allegation against the inhabitants of my constituency, that they are feeding potatoes to poultry. Will the hon. Member have the decency, either to give specific evidence in support of that very serious allegation, or to be sufficiently a gentleman to withdraw it?

I do not know whether there are backyard poultry keepers in Kingston or not.

The hon. Member made that allegation.

My allegation concerns the 1,500,000 poultry keepers, and whether a few of them are to be found in Kingston, I do not know. Certainly, there are not 1,500,000 backyard poultry keepers in Kingston. It is obvious that if backyard poultry keepers are to keep their poultry alive, that they have to resort to the next best thing in unrationed foodstuffs. In this case it has been potatoes, and, consequently, the consumption has gone up.

There is a shortage today and if the Ministry of Food were to say, "We will de-ration or de-point oatmeal," the obvious thing would happen. It is quite true that, as the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. Guy) says, we like oatmeal—we are not fanatics about it—and the folks in Lancashire have been eating oatmeal since the days of the Chartist movement. We were brought up on oatmeal, oatcakes, or oatmeal foods, and we like them very much. We have learned to appreciate oatmeal, so that does not apply to Scotland alone. But I would Maintain that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames is forgetting why commodities are pointed

The pointing of foodstuffs began in the days of Lord Woolton, when the present Minister of Transport and I, and a few other colleagues, gave the best possible advice we could gather from the grocers of Britain, and from all sections of the community, that the pointing of commodities, to give alternative choice to the people, was the best way of handling this difficult problem. In the beginning we suggested that—and I am glad to say the sugegstion was adopted—we should take into account what was the available supply over a period, what was in the pipeline, what was in the warehouses, and, finally, what was in the grocers' shops, to determine the points' value. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that that is the principle on which the Ministry work today. They point month by month, and if a commodity is showing signs of a surplus month by month, then, obviously, the Minister says, "We will reduce the points value"; but if there is a commodity which is likely to be scarce, say, in a month's time, then, obviously, up go the points; and if there is likely to be no supply at all, then a tremendous increase in points is shown by reason of the fact that there is likely to be only the supply in the retailers' stores.

I put this to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, and to my Scottish Friends: If we were to de-point oatmeal altogether, in the next two months, unless the Minister could see, in the third month, a surplus, this is what would happen. We are coming to the season when chicks will be sold in little boxes all over Great Britain, and the result will be that people will look for a commodity on which to feed them. Most of these chicks die, anyway; but millions of chickens will be brought on to the market, and we should see, if oatmeal were de-pointed, a tremendous rush on oatmeal. The hon. Member says, "Trust people—why ration anything at all?" Why ration butter and bacon? If that were done, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and his Friends, who are the people who have the money, would "scoop the pool," and the working class people would get no butter, bacon or anything else.

The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have appreciated the point. There is a difference between a commodity such as butter, which is admittedly in short supply, and a commodity like oatmeal of which there is a surplus.

The hon. Member is now making another speech.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise a point on the argument which I was presenting. I chose butter and bacon. May I choose, as an alternative, canned fruits? If canned fruits were removed entirely from points, I again maintain that only the privileged classes and the well-to-do people, who are largely represented on the Opposition side of the House, would get the canned fruit. There can be no doubt that the Minister in her reply was convincing and brought ample and adequate proof, and from my point of view there can be no argument—unless the Minister is able to produce evidence that after oatmeal has been de-pointed or de-rationed there will be in three or four months an adequate and generous supply for every homestead in Britain. Therefore, I beg the Minister, in no circumstances—whatever may be said by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames or his hon. Friends—to take the risk of gambling with the people's food, but to maintain wherever we can equity in supply and equity in distribution. Let us have fair shares all round. Of course, hon. Members opposite do not believe in that philosophy.

I had not intended to speak in this Debate until the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) showed his ignorance in regard to potatoes and gave us an illustration of how a little knowledge may be dangerous. He said that potatoes were being fed to animals. I would like to point out to him that, in the early part of the season, many thousands of tons of potatoes were condemned by the Ministry of Food, quite unnecessarily, and were sold to farmers for stock food. At the moment, I have potatoes for which I gave 7s. a ton and which I am feeding to animals. I dare not use them for anything else. If the hon. Member for Doncaster sees potatoes being fed to animals, that does not mean that an offence is being committed; it simply means that, as I have said, in the early part of the season not sufficient discrimination was shown by the Ministry of Food in condemning potatoes. That is why we are suffering from a shortage at the present time.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman cannot speak again; he has already spoken.