I beg to move,

That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to bear in mind the importance to the future development and progress of our mercantile air service, of an adequate supply of men of the highest quality and qualifications for aircrew duties.

I count myself fortunate to have this opportunity, through the luck of the Ballot, to call attention to the lack of alternative sources of trained aircrew for civil aviation. I have a personal interest to disclose in the subject which we are discussing this morning. Nearly thirty-eight years have passed since I first obtained my wings in the Royal Naval Air Service, and for all these years I have flown as a pilot and, until recently, I possessed a pilot's licence. I am also a director of a group of independent air companies and so, through this association with the civil air transport industry, I have some personal knowledge of the problem which we are about to discuss.

In May, 1954, a memorandum on the supply of pilots for civil aviation was prepared and submitted to the Minister by the Air League of the British Empire, in collaboration with the nationalised air corporations, the independent air operators, the Guild of Air Pilots and the British Air Line Pilots' Association. On 8th July last year the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) raised the subject of this memorandum on the Adjournment, and in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation said this:

"The policy of Her Majesty's Government continues for the present to be that ex-Service pilots provide a source of trained pilots for civil aviation. The effect of the change of policy in Royal Air Force pilot training is at present under examination with the Air Ministry with a view to ascertaining the extent to which pilots from the Services will meet the future needs of civil aviation. If the results of the examination with the Air Ministry show the need for an auxiliary scheme, the recent proposals made by the Air League of the British Empire will receive most careful and sympathetic attention from my Department."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1954; Vol. 529, c. 2493.]

That was nearly eight months ago. I am sure the House will agree with me that it would not be premature if, during this debate, the Parliamentary Secretary gave birth to a statement of Government intentions. I very much hope that he will have something to say which will relieve the very real anxieties of all those engaged in the civil air transport industry at the inadequacy of the supply, for the future, of aircrew with the necessary high professional qualifications, for without a satisfactory continuity of supply our merchant air service will wilt and eventually fade away altogether.

There is no need for me to enlarge today upon the importance of a flourishing civil aviation industry for the general well-being and economic health of the United Kingdom. The importance to the British aircraft manufacturers of an outlet for their products amongst British air transport operators is now well known because this prepares and leads the way for large exports of civil aircraft to customers overseas who, perhaps, otherwise would not buy without getting a lead from British air operators.

The indirect revenue obtained from the international carrying of passengers and of goods is also a very important contribution to our national economy. The flying of the flag, as with our ships on the high seas, is also, nobody will deny, of great value, and there is the extreme importance in case of national emergency or war of having a highly efficient civil aviation transport system for the carrying of troops and others to various parts of the world.

For Britain to have successful air transport operators, whether they are nationalised corporations or free enterprise individual private operators, the aircraft they use must be efficient, modern and up-to-date. But it is quite useless to have the best aircraft in the world unless those aircraft are manned by the very best human material this country can provide.

The captains of our aircraft must be highly educated to enable them to achieve the necessary technical qualifications for the carrying out of their job which, in spite of important technical aids, becomes ever more responsible as the speed of aircraft is increased and as the new, more modern aircraft carry more people.

As well as having a high intellectual standard before they can start upon their profession they must also be physically fit. Throughout their professional life physical fitness must be maintained so that they can always be mentally alert. That is only right and proper for safety considerations, quite apart from anything else. It is right that only men of the highest quality should be in charge of our aircraft.

In addition to a high standard of technical qualifications, a commercial pilot is also expected to have commercial ability. By using his judgment, by correctly handling his aircraft, by flying at one height, perhaps, rather than at another, he can save his organisation appreciable sums of money over the years. Such men can become expert in their profession only after many years of training and flying experience.

For those reasons it is not possible suddenly to increase or to decrease the effective strength of the merchant air service. For those reasons there is a rigidity about this industry which does not exist in any other industry, whether of transport or anything else. It cannot be helped because pilots are limited, and rightly so, to approximately 1,000 hours of flying every year. Therefore, if there is a sudden extra amount of work to be done in the course of the year they are not allowed to do it and overtire themselves, as would be the case in other professions. That is quite right for safety reasons.

Nor can they be under-employed to any extent; otherwise it would be quite uneconomic for the operators. If the pilots did not fly at all they would get out of practice and lose their licences. There is a further hurdle which a commercial pilot has to face. He must be medically examined every six months to ensure that, in addition to maintaining his professional skill, he is maintaining a necessary physical state of health.

In no other profession are there such stringent requirements as in the profession of commercial air pilots. A lawyer, a doctor, or an accountant is not precluded from practising his profession if he is not physically fit. Such a professional man can leave his profession for a time, turn to some other kind of work, if he wants to, and then return to the work of his calling without having to requalify or undergo any further test or examination of any kind. The same also applies to sailors in the Merchant Navy. That is far from the case with the man who takes up the profession of civil air pilot.

For those very important reasons the capacity of the industry for a rapid expansion is strictly limited in peace and especially should a grave emergency arise, or war break out. It is just not possible to have a sudden addition of strength. Therefore, it is essential that there should be a carefully planned input to the civil aviation industry of men of the highest quality not only to maintain present operations and to cover wastage, but also to provide for the expansion which many of us believe will continue to take place in years to come.

That, however, is not enough. There ought to be a flexibility and some margin of reserve, for emergency of one kind or another or for war purposes, of fully trained, operationally fit, licensed pilots. I will deal with that matter at greater length a little later. I now ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can tell us whether there is a carefully planned input of pilots to the merchant air service to preserve the position for the future. If so, where is this planned input coming from? Will he tell us how many men of the high qualifications I have described as necessary are being trained who will be available for entering the civil air transport industry each year during the next few years to make good the wastage and to provide for expansion?

Trained by whom?

:That is what I want to know and, I think, probably the House wants to know. What planned intake, if any, is there? Where are they coming from to provide for wastage and expansion in years to come?

I am trying to follow the argument of the hon. Member. Do I gather that what he is really asking is that pilots should be trained at the public expense to go into private companies with which he is associated to earn profits for those companies? If so, it seems a rather blatant claim.

If the hon. Member will listen, I will develop that argument. I have tried to point out the importance to the national economy of having these men available in one way or another. Men can be trained—whether it is for medicine or anything else—to serve their country, and, indeed, to make profits. Half the profits of any operator, whether a nationalised undertaking or an individual operator, goes to the State. I will deal with that matter again later.

At the outbreak of the Second World War there were about 1,000 licensed pilots. Shortly after the war that number had increased to 1,500 as pilots turned from military to civil aviation. The number has steadily increased until now, I believe, there are about 2,300. The source of recruitment for these civil aviation pilots has been almost entirely the Royal Air Force. Pilots with short service commissions have concluded their military service and, with many hours of flying to their credit, have taken up civil flying. Of course, without difficulty, they have been able to obtain necessary commercial pilots' licences. They have been absorbed from their past military duties into the civil aviation stream. This source will shortly no longer be available now that no more short service commissions are being granted. In any case, this source has not been entirely satisfactory.

When there are no men in the Royal Air Force who have been granted short service commissions, civil aviation will be left without any appreciable source of supply for the future. In the total of 2,300 civil pilots who hold commercial licences of one kind or another are some who do not fly more than the minimum necessary to qualify for certification. That is to say, they do not really serve civil aviation as pilots.

There is a further complication. Immediately after the last war, the civil aviation industry had a rapid expansion by a large number of experienced pilots, all of approximately the same age, who all changed over from military to civil aviation at about the same time. This means that if they retire at the age of 48, when full pensions become payable, more than half the licensed pilots, and half the present strength, will leave civil aviation over a period of five years. Unless, there- fore, fairly early action is taken to make provision for this exceptional circumstance, the industry will find itself in great difficulty in the years ahead.

The increase in the number of pilots has not been in the same proportion as the rapid increase in the mileage flown and the number of passengers and quantity of goods carried. The reason for this is that the new types of aircraft travel faster and carry more passengers. If an aircraft flies twice as fast and carries double the number of passengers or double the quantity of freight, one pilot can do the work that was formerly done by four pilots. That is why, although the industry has expanded greatly, the number of pilots has not increased in the same proportion.

While that trend will undoubtedly continue for a time, it will certainly not be so marked as it has been. In a few years' time, therefore, it is to be expected that there will be a greater yearly demand than hitherto, and this demand for trained pilots will be additional to the extra demand, of which I have spoken, due to the exceptional mass retirement of pilots who are all of the same age and who entered civil aviation together after the war.

As far as I can make out, the present annual wastage is about 75. In other words, the industry wants 75 new pilots each year to replace wastage, quite apart from expansion. But for the reasons which I have given, an increasing number of, perhaps, 100 or 125 pilots will be required each year as replacements.

It can be asked why, with such excellent prospects before them, there is not a long queue of young men, with the necessary physical and intellectual qualifications, waiting to enter the merchant air service as pilots. The answer simply is that it is a matter of cost. Without considerable financial assistance, no young man can today afford the expense of undergoing the necessary training to reach the standards required to enable him to enter the merchant air service.

Even when a man does attain the fairly high standard required to enter civil aviation, considerable sums of money must then be spent upon him by the operator, whether State or private, employing him so that he may acquire the necessary experience and skill to discharge his full responsibilities. Young men of the right type are ready and waiting, but, for the reasons I have given, they are denied the opportunity to enter the merchant air service.

Letters have been written to me in the past few days by two such young men. One of them says:

"For a long time my ambition has been to become a civil airline pilot. During the past year I have carefully studied the various means of fulfilling my ambition. I am now faced with National Service, or signing on in the Royal Air Force for eight years. I will be 18 in April. In the General Certificate of Education, I obtained a pass in elementary maths, additional maths, English language, physics, chemistry, French with oral, history, geography and art. In the … School C.C.F. (Air Section) I won a flying scholarship and thus hold a private pilot's licence. What would you advise me to do, in the circumstances …?"

Here are the particulars of another young man. At school, at the age of 15, he obtained his air proficiency certificate. At 16, he obtained his advanced air proficiency certificate and his glider pilot's licence. He obtained a Government flying scholarship, awarded after taking full aptitude tests for the Royal Air Force, when 17, and he obtained a private pilot's licence after completing the scholarship, total flying 40 hours and four hours' gliding, with an 85 per cent. examination marks average; and he passed in various subjects in the General Certificate of Education.

This second young man does not wish to enter the Royal Air Force as a pilot since he cannot do so unless he signs on for seven or eight years. Rather than do that, he prefers to enter the Army, but in that way he would not gain flying experience. Will my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary please tell us what these young men should now do? Is the money already spent upon them to be wasted, and is this valuable potential asset to be lost to civil aviation?

The Air League and its associates, in their memorandum last year to the Minister, suggested a scheme which would enable young men to become pilots without the need for civil aviation to draw upon the Royal Air Force. Briefly, they suggested that recruits with the necessary education and physical standards should be sought in the 16 to 18 age group and that, after appearing before the appropriate selection committee and after flying aptitude tests, they could be given preliminary training.

Here I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd). The expense of this preliminary training would be covered by flying scholarships, during which time candidates would continue their studies at school or university or by evening classes, or even, perhaps, in some form of employment. If candidates made satisfactory progress, for the next year or two they would train for their commercial pilot's licence and instrument rating at an approved establishment. Having completed that stage, they would then be in a position to gain the commercial pilot's licence and would be eligible for employment by an air operator. From then on, they would be in the civil aviation industry and the further cost of giving them more training and experience would fall upon the organisation employing them.

In the Air League memorandum, it is stressed that the financial assistance required to be made available should be similar to that available for other young men aspiring to university degrees or technical or professional qualifications, such as medicine. A candidate or his parents would be expected to shoulder at least a share of the cost of his maintenance while undergoing training.

In the memorandum, the Air League and those who collaborated with them estimate that out of 400 young men who might begin training every year, for one reason or another only about 75 would complete the training. There must, therefore, be a large number of potential pilots to start the training before we get the required number at the end.

The fact is also stressed in this memorandum that while up to now the Royal Air Force has been the source of supply, that source of supply has not been entirely satisfactory. That is only natural, because the Royal Air Force wishes the best men in the Service to remain with the Service, and it does all it can to encourage them to remain in the Service. That is only natural. Of course, there are some excellent men in the Service who, for one reason or another, wish to leave the Service and enter commercial aviation, and some have done so. Nevertheless, it is a fact, I think, that men recruited from this source have fallen short of the highest personal and technical standards required for civil aviation.

A civil pilot requires some training in and knowledge of aviation engineering and a wide knowledge of radio processes, of navigation, of international rules and regulations, and of control systems. When he is in the Royal Air Force his training is concentrated much more on air fighting, bombing and other similar Service requirements. The main requirement of a Service pilot is to complete his mission in the face of the enemy, disregarding, if need be, his own personal safety and that of his crew. On the other hand, the main requirement of a civil pilot, is, of course, above everything else, safety. Because of this difference the memorandum of the Air League considers that

"The longer a pilot has spent in the Service, the more difficult becomes the mental conversion to the attitude of mind required in a civil pilot."

From what I have said it can be seen that, unless something is done to provide a planned entry scheme or schemes for civil aviation, including financial assistance, there will be nobody taking up the profession of pilot in civil aviation as a career. Now that there are no longer short service commissions in the Royal Air Force, that source of supply will cease, and so, unless something is done, and done quickly, British civil aviation will simply die out, and that is quite unthinkable. Something has got to be done, and it has got to be done quickly.

I am going to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether, in addition to considering the principle of the scheme proposed in the Air League's memorandum, he will also discuss with the Air Ministry the desirability of making provision through the Royal Air Force of a steady and planned supply of men of the highest qualifications for civil aviation. I am very glad to see that the Undersecretary of State for Air is present to hear this suggestion. I believe that there are many young men with the necessary physical and intellectual qualifications who desire to become commercial pilots, as is indicated in the two letters that I have just read to the House, but who are prevented from doing so by the cost.

This is the suggestion I want to make. Could not arrangements be made for young men to enter the Royal Air Force at the age of 18 to do their National Service, to obtain their wings; and then, because their intention is to become pro- fessional civil aviation pilots, during this period and for the next two, three or four years could not the same technical and commercial training be given them as they would get in civil aviation; and, at the same time, could they not be appointed to Transport Command for flying duties? In that way, after a minimum of two and a maximum of four, five or six years' service in the Royal Air Force, they could then pass into civil aviation, well trained, at the right age, and with a good grounding for the further training and experience which they will need in civil aviation before they can become fully qualified captains.

If such a scheme as I have outlined could be introduced it would, I believe, save our commercial air service from disaster. It would also provide a useful supply of aircrew for the Royal Air Force for specialised service, which they could undertake in Transport Command. In time of war or emergency all civil aviation pilots available will be wanted to carry people, but, equally, they will be wanted in Transport Command to fly the aircraft to carry specialised equipment which will accompany the troops. Aircrew, therefore, who pass through the Royal Air Force in this way into the world of civil aviation would be on the Reserve of the Royal Air Force, and since they would always have their commercial licences they would always be operationally fit for Royal Air Force transport requirements, and in time of war could be used either to transport troops in civil aircraft or to fly specialised equipment in the specialised aircraft of Transport Command.

The cost of training a pilot is very great. I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Air said the other day that it was about £25,000. When a pilot has gained further flying experience in the Royal Air Force, obviously his value is even greater than that amount of taxpayers' money. It seems to be most important that this asset should be preserved to the national advantage. That being so, I should like consideration to be given by the Government to a further scheme which will make civil aviation flexible, far more flexible than it is at the present time.

Earlier I explained that the civil aviation industry is so rigid and how that cannot be helped. I suggest that it is in the national interest that it should be made more flexible, and I suggest that it is very desirable indeed in time of emergency or war that there should be available a reserve of aircrew trained not for fighting or bombing but for transportation. Such a reserve with consequential flexibility could be obtained, but, of course, at present does not exist.

Naturally enough, air operators have only the exact number of pilots they require to carry out their work, because, obviously, it is quite uneconomic to keep on the books a number of highly skilled professional men without the full amount of work for them to do, and it is here that the State can help and where flexibility can be ensured. Instead of the various nationalised corporations and individual operators flying their pilots to the full extent of, say, 1,000 hours a year, they could fly them to the extent of 750 hours a year; and the difference would not matter because all the pilots would be operationally fit; but in that way the civil aviation industry would have a reserve of some 25 per cent. available for war, for emergency, or for any sudden expansion that might be needed. This would give flexibility to the industry that it has not now got.

Clearly, the operators cannot be asked to pay for this reserve, and, if so, the taxpayers' money has to be spent. All of us are taxpayers, and, of course, we want to know what value we get for our money. I think the answer is that because of the specialised nature of trained pilots' work, and because of its importance, and because it takes some time to train the pilots, the country can afford to pay for that reserve. A man in the Merchant Navy can be out of a job, or employed in another occupation, for some time, but it is not possible for a commercial air pilot to be unemployed because of the considerable commercial cost; and because the air pilots are such a valuable asset, I hope that this insurance expenditure—for that is what it is—that I have suggested will not be considered as other than money wisely spent.

Pilots, and not aircraft, will be the most serious limiting factor in the future, I think, and unless, as I have already said, immediate, positive action is taken by the Government to secure a properly planned and financially assisted intake of men of the highest calibre as pilots for civil aviation, either by a direct scheme or through the Royal Air Force, and on the lines that I have suggested, then in two or three years' time our civil aviation industry will start to decline, and, eventually, will cease to exist. This is not just a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact, because without a steady intake of pilots to replace wastage and retirement due to old age there can be no flying of aircraft. Unless something is done now there will be no intake, or at the very best quite an inadequate intake, into the civil aviation industry.

I ask what the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government are proposing to do about this most serious position, and I earnestly hope that we may have a satisfactory answer today to a problem which is causing all of us very great anxiety.

I beg to second the Motion.

I think that I made my last reference to the subject of the Motion, which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir Wavell Wakefield), in a debate on 8th March, 1954. I have observed that the problem has been attracting increasing attention lately, not only among the various interested bodies but also in the aviation Press, not least in Captain Norman Macmillan's article in last month's number of "Aeronautics"—the "Hobson's Choice" number—and in the memorandum of the Air League, which has been referred to this morning.

It is a long time now since the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North(Group Captain Wilcock) presided over a committee which went into the problem and reported very fully on it, but I do not think that the findings of that committee are any less relevant today than they were at the time the committee reported. Ever since the war, the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm have been shedding in large numbers pilots which civil aviation has been snapping up, but the snag about that is that the policy of the R.A.F., understandably, has changed, is changing and is liable to change. Therefore, if we depend upon that, civil aviation itself must depend upon a variable matter. In this respect we have come to the end of the ex-war pilots and ex-short service pilots.

All the war pilots are getting rather too long in the tooth. They are all getting rather old, at the same sort of age, and are liable to finish service or ground themselves, in one way or another, in the next few years more or less simultaneously. Therefore, a rather sharp increase in the number of pilots required in civil aviation can be foreseen and, as the short service scheme is drying up, the flow must decrease. The young National Service pilot is most in demand, but for natural reasons that is not likely to be a very fruitful source in future years.

I have been trying to find out the size of the problem, which is variously estimated. The Wilcock Committee, looking towards the future, reported in 1949 in these terms:

"Our conclusion, based on discussions with the Air Ministry and on our estimate of civil needs, is that the numbers of civil pilots required annually from non-R.A.F. sources from 1951 onwards, will vary between 100 and 350, and will average about 225. If the five years 1953–57 alone are considered, the average annual requirement from non-R.A.F. sources will be about 190."

The Royal Air Force itself has discharged pilots who, at the end of their service, have applied for professional licences in these sorts of numbers—250 in 1952, 263 in 1953, and in 1954, up to October, 141.

I understand that it is expected that the number is likely to run in future years at about 350, although what proportion of that number are likely to apply for employment in civil aviation is impossible to estimate. One of the great airways corporations sees the problem in this light:

"In order to satisfy the age requirement"—

that is, 20 to 24 years—

"the ex-National Service pilot has proved to be the most desirable type of applicant. Unfortunately, the supply of these young men has been inadequate and older, but more experienced men, have to be recruited to make up the balance. Recent reduction of the National Service pilot scheme to a mere 150 trained pilots per year has reduced the applications received in this category to very small proportions. The R.A.F. expect to retain, on extended engagements, at least 20 per cent. of the total. Assuming that 25 per cent. of the remainder elect for Civil Aviation, the total available becomes only 30 pilots of whom perhaps 20 may be suitable for engagement. It is, therefore, clear that an alternative source of recruitment is necessary, even supposing that the National Service pilot scheme is not further reduced."

The Royal Air Force, of course, is not a benevolent institution for the supply and welfare of civil aviation.

Captain Norman Macmillan, in his article in "Aeronautics," states:

"Ever since the foundation of the Directorate-General of Civil Aviation in 1919…there has been a tendency for the civil side to be disregarded by the military. It was in those early days that the present Prime Minister…when holding the dual offices of Secretary for War and Secretary for Air, made the famous remark that 'civil aviation must fly by itself.' It has had to do so ever since."

Taking all these opinions into consideration, it must be said that the National Service pilot, the most desirable for the civil aviation industry, will be produced only at the rate which, broadly, will suffice for the maintenance of the Royal Air Force reserves and auxiliaries. The other great airways corporation has said that in two or three years some further sources must be found. If that is so, we must get going within twelve months with the establishment of whatever training scheme can be devised.

It is true that there is a basic difference between the personal attributes of Service and civil pilots. Broadly, the Service man has to disregard risk and carry out his mission "regardless," whereas the civil pilot, first, last and all the time, must be a cautious man whose caution must never relax.

:I hope my hon. Friend makes it clear that he is talking about war and not peace, and will not give any impression that R.A.F. pilots take unnecessary risks with their lives, with the lives of their crews, and with their aircraft in times of peace.

Certainly not. The point I made was that the R.A.F. pilot must be prepared to face any risk and, therefore, he has not the ingrained caution which might make him perhaps pull his punches. He would not be as good a pilot if he did have that caution. There is that basic difference between the Service and the civil pilot, though I should be the last man to denigrate R.A.F. transport pilots, who are not expected always to be quite as dashing as fighter pilots.

What is being done to supplement R.A.F. sources? Most operators are tending to live on their fat, as it were, and the corporations are re-training quite a number of navigators and wireless operators and even some of their ground staff, through the agency of the Airways Aero Club, to become pilot-navigators. B.O.A.C. have a scheme to assist employees to obtain the qualifications required whilst serving the corporation at a reduced salary of £500 a year. That is all that is being done at present outside the R.A.F., as far as I have been able to discover.

What have we to do? I support the broad principles of the Air League's scheme and the propositions of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone, and I suggest a few further points. We should be very careful and move quickly to retain some of the flying schools which are now at a very low ebb. We want the good ones. There are, for instance, Air Service Training, the University of the Air, and the Airways Aero Club, which has been operating with the London School of Air Navigation to produce a comprehensive scheme. I am sure that the Aerodrome Owners' Association, whose hospitality many hon. Members now present enjoyed last night, would be very keen to provide ample facilities in so far as these are not yet defunct, and to revive the club movement which has supplied so many good pilots in the past.

The next thing that needs to be done is that we have to organise recruiting from young men, well qualified, at about the school-leaving age of between 16 to 18. I do not think we need fear a tug of war with the R.A.F., although that must be in the minds of my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State for Air and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport who are responsible for these matters. But I do not think the danger is great, because nobody has yet started trying to attract lads direct into civil aviation.

When they do and when they hold out a lifetime's career in a stable industry, I believe that there will be a large number of potential entrants. Parents will change their minds to some extent and encourage their offspring to go into what looks like a stable lifetime's career in an expanding industry. The schools, which, I think, are the worst offenders in turning lads from aviation, will, too, then be able to relax somewhat and encourage some of their pupils to enter flying, instead of deterring them.

I cannot agree with the Air League's contention that entrants should acquire their qualifications more or less universally on flying scholarships. Some effort and sacrifice are needed. We do not want the "fairy godmother" attitude about this business. There should be a struggle to get into it, because we are all agreed that anything we get free is not of very much value to us. A man in his early years should need to struggle and save to bring out what is best in him.

As far as concerns the next two years of commercial pilots' training, I am inclined to favour the attitude of Mr. McNicol, of the London School of Navigation, that instead of pupils relying entirely or largely on State scholarships the operators should pick apprentices at the earliest possible stage and see them through their training, recovering some of the cost at a later period after the candidate has secured his pilot's qualifications and is on a five-year indenture to the company which looks after him. That seems to me much nearer a sound financial scheme, and I am sure it will find favour in aviation generally.

The main question at issue is the part the Government are expected to play. Without a doubt the qualified man becomes a national asset and in return for his reserve liabilities—I see him as a reservist who is completely and immediately available in the way that nowadays is so vitally necessary—he is entitled to a contribution from the Government towards the cost of acquiring these qualifications, which make him such an excellent reservist. No doubt in some cases the cost may already have been covered by his employer, but the employer may reasonably expect to recover some of the expense.

Another thing the Government might be able to grant to these highly-qualified reservists is deferment in their National Service. That deferment might be made indefinite, comparable to that of the men in the Merchant Navy fleet. I believe that such deferment would be a proper reward, for, after all, what better National Service can men do today than train to be first-rate reservists who are immediately available in the nation in time of crisis?

If we accept, as I think we must, that the numbers from the Royal Air Force will prove inadequate for civil aviation if it is to maintain its strength, it behoves us for the country's sake to take advice with all speed to set about finding the pilots we need before a crisis of shortage can become apparent.

We are all grateful to the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) for opening this debate this morning. They, and no doubt those who will follow me, have had first-hand experience and knowledge of this subject and are speaking about a matter which they sincerely feel requires immediate attention—and by that I mean immediate attention on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

As I see it—and the idea has been well expressed by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone—there are only three methods of entry into aircrew today. One method is through the Royal Air Force, and another is by private enterprise, whereby an individual works his way up and pays the fees necessary to enable him to become a commercial pilot, a very difficult and expensive way of doing it. The number in this second category is small. The third method is through training by the public corporations and by a number of the larger charter companies. Here also I think the numbers are comparatively small.

An important question is why we have attracted so few people from the Royal Air Force. One of the reasons may be that the profession of aircrew and pilot still provides a very precarious livelihood. It is subject to slumps like no other profession of which I know. There have been times within my knowledge—and I declare my interest in aviation—when one company with which I was connected had straightaway to discharge 70 pilots. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone will know quite a lot about this particular charter company.

Then there was that black day when the Under-Secretary of State for Air had to—I am sure he had to; he did not want to—come down to the House and announce the closing of all flying training schools, which meant that within three days I had to give notice to 105 pilots to cease their engagements. I personally interviewed them all, and a large number of them declared that they were going into another sphere of activity. They said that they had had enough of that kind of thing. So civil aviation has had a reputation for providing a precarious livelihood. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone and others present believe that that time is now passing and that in civil aviation is to be found a career which is well worth while, and with this view I agree.

The hon. Member for St. Marylebone stressed the importance of civil aviation, and I should like to add my contribution to that view. I have always felt that it is no exaggeration to state that the prosperity of the country depends upon the progress of civil aviation. We are particularly well served in the air by our young people because the Britisher—and that includes the Scot and the Welshman—is pre-eminent in the air. Certainly in Europe or Asia there is no other nationality capable of turning out the type of pilot and aircrew which we in this country are accustomed to see in the R.A.F. or in British civil aviation.

I am afraid that Her Majesty's Government have done very little about this all-important subject of the provision of the civil pilot. Hon. Members have been kind enough to refer to a committee of which I happened to be chairman. That was a great honour because there were most distinguished members on that committee. It is true that we did sit a long time ago. I have never referred to this subject in the House before, but I should like to say now that we sat for many months and interviewed many people in the aviation industry. We took evidence from all important bodies connected with it, and we produced a report which secured—I am very sorry to say this—very little support or apparent interest from the Government, which was then a Labour Government, and possibly less interest still from the Conservative Government since that date.

Reference has been made to the recommendations of the Report of the Committee on Recruitment, Training and Licensing of Personnel for Civil Aviation, and I beg the Ministers concerned to read the Report again. To give the Minister an idea of the eminence of the members of that Committee, who gave their time over months, may I give their names? They were Air Commodore Helmore, well known in aviation and one of the foremost scientists in the country; the late Air Commodore Brackley, who was one of the most distinguished pilots and operators we have ever had; Sir Edward Crowe, the late Lord Dukeston, Mr. Leslie Gamage, an astute industrialist; Group Captain Hockey, Captain James, the chief pilot of B.E.A.; Mr. James, the Highmaster of St. Paul's School, the Right Honourable the Marquess of Londonderry, the Right Honourable Lord Milverton, Sir Eustace Pulbrook, the Chairman of Lloyds; the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson), and Sir Miles Thomas, the Chairman of B.O.A.C. We had one of the most brilliant civil servants with whom I have ever had the pleasure of working, Mr. G. W. Stallibrass, to help us. We sat a long time and considered the very problem before us this morning.

The recommendations were, briefly, as follows:

"The fullest use should be made of ex-R.A.F. pilots for employment in civil aviation… R.A.F. aircrew intending to enter civil aviation should be pre-selected, and suitable applicants should be given an assurance of at least trial employment with civil firms…. A Liaison Committee should be appointed to pre-select aircrew for civil aviation…. Preselected aircrew should be granted facilities for obtaining civil aviation licences before leaving the Services…."

That is what we asked should be done, and I can say without fear of contradiction that pretty well nothing was actually done. At the end of the war Transport Command accepted pilots who were later to go into B.O.A.C. That scheme was easy to operate and satisfactory, and yet since those days very little has been achieved in pre-discharge training.

We also made this recommendation to the Government:

"In view of the State's responsibilities for civil aviation, and of the fact that lack of sufficient pilots would cripple the maintenance and development of British air services, we see no practicable alternative to the provision by the State of financial aid for pilot training purposes."

Again nothing was done about that recommendation. It costs an individual over £1,000 now to obtain a commercial pilot's licence from scratch, and yet we wonder why schoolmasters and headmasters have not encouraged their boys to go in for civil aviation. This is an important matter for the industry. Unlike most prophets, the Committee has proved to be right in estimating the numbers that will be required during the years 1956 to 1960.

What is the answer? I believe the answer is that there must be closer liaison with the Royal Air Force on this matter. I do not accept the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the R.A.F. pilot is not liable to be a suitable commercial pilot after many years in the Service.

The views that I quoted were not my own. I said they were in the Air League memorandum and that the collaborators and associates had expressed those views.

Well, I do not accept them. I hold to my view that there are a large number of pilots in the R.A.F., particularly in Transport Command and Coastal Command, who are quite suitable, who have the necessary knowledge and experience and who could quite easily take their commercial licences. Their instrument ratings are of a high category, their overseas and route flying is extensive, and so I see no reason why as many, as would like to come into this profession of civil aviation should not be encouraged to do so. The second part of our recommendations concerned State financial assistance, which I emphasise again is still necessary in some form or other. The scheme put forward by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham would be acceptable.

The third possibility, which was touched upon briefly, was that of club flying. This has been sadly neglected, I think deliberately, by the Government during these last few years. As a result, many clubs have closed down and others are on the verge of doing so. It is a great pity because, undoubtedly, they serve a useful purpose in elementary training and airmanship.

Here again I declare an interest, in that I am the chairman of what is declared to be the finest aero club in England this last year. It has 200 members, all young. This is a flying club, not a drinking club. Not one of these members could be a commercial pilot, because it would cost him too much money. There is no way round that fact. There is the finest material in these clubs and, if they could receive assistance from the Government, selected people, as well as from schools and other sources, could be sure of a career.

It would be a great thing to put civil aviation on the map as a career. We have now passed the stage when piloting was a rather interesting, amusing and adventurous kind of life. Aviation is now a business, and in these early days—and they are still early days—I ask Her Majesty's Government to show a much more sympathetic interest in our problems—the problems of the clubs, the problems of training, and other associated headaches.

Finally, I beg the Ministers concerned to take home with them the Report we made five years ago and use it as light reading tomorrow in order to see whether the relevant Departments could not be encouraged to take a slight interest in the recommendations submitted by the very distinguished members of that Committee, and which, if adopted even today, would go far to creating a healthy civil aviation.

Hon. Members on all sides of the House are right in drawing attention to this vitally important problem. After all, we in the United Kingdom are absolutely dependent on international trade. Each day trade results because our salesmen, including our engineers, proceed by air to all parts of the world to get orders in the face of intense competition from other nations. It is safe to say, also, that in the years to come many of the orders they book will be delivered by freight aircraft. It is unthinkable, therefore, that this nation, which is so dependent on international trade, should not have sufficient trained pilots to fly the civil aircraft.

The problem, however, is not so great as it may seem. We are asking for about 100 trained pilots a year to meet the needs of the civil operators. This is surely a problem which needs early attention from the Government. As hon. Members have said, in the past the Royal Air Force provided much of the material, but it is clear that as aircraft get bigger, more complicated and expensive they will become less numerous. Therefore, the number of trained pilots in the Royal Air Force will also decrease and we shall not be able to rely upon an uneven flow from that source to feed this very important industry.

The seed of air mindedness must be sown in the schools. The A.T.Cs. and various schools are doing a good job. They are selling the idea to young people and giving them the opportunity of getting in touch with flying. Thereafter, there are the gliding clubs. They receive a little help from the Government, but many of us feel that more help should be given in that direction. This is a cheap way of flying and of allowing the seed which has been sown earlier to germinate and start to blossom.

Then there are the civil light aeroplane clubs, to which the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock) has referred. Incidentally, they were also referred to recently by the Duke of Edinburgh. He deplored the fact that this industrial country, of all countries, had fewer light and private aircraft available for flying than most others. On that score alone we are in a less advantageous position than foreign industrial nations.

Assuming that a young man, bent on becoming an airline pilot, has taken an interest in the A.T.C. at school, and, perhaps, has done some gliding in his spare time or been associated with a civil air club, I do not take the view that he should be exempted from National Service. This business of exemption is a very slippery slope. Once we exempt one category we find that there seems to be no limit to the number of others which may legitimately be exempted. Moreover, I believe that such a young man will gain immeasurably from serving two years and from close association with the Royal Air Force even though he is not trained as a pilot. I wholeheartedly support the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North in his argument that such a young man can gain valuable experience in Coastal Command, where flying discipline, instrument ratings and other procedure are now very tight indeed. He can gain equally valuable experience in Transport Command. But once such a man has completed his term of National Service, the State should help, with State scholarships, to undertake his pilot training during the extensive phase which follows, and which is absolutely essential if he is to emerge as a trained civil pilot.

Earlier, hon. Members opposite asked one at a time why the State should finance pilots who will eventually benefit private companies. That is a very illogical argument. The State helps in the education not only of doctors, but of scientists, engineers and lawyers. In fact, the State helps in the training of personnel in almost every profession, and, in the long run, this pays immense dividends in increasing the prosperity of our country. It should also be underlined that operating companies have to do their share when this period of training is over.

I visualise training of scholarship men being done at universities, possibly in association with university air squadrons. Some of the equipment is common, and there is an enthusiastic band of personnel which is keen and anxious to fly in all weather. That might form a good nucleus around which to build a system of State scholarships for civil airline pilots. When hon. Members on this side of the House make these suggestions, they do so only in the hope that the Government will give a considered view in reply. There are many different ways of dealing with this problem, but it is vitally important that something should be done.

If our proposals are not accepted I hope that the Government will come forward with a constructive alternative plan, because if we do not tackle this problem we shall be woefully short of trained men, and if we have not the pilots we shall fall behind in the vitally important sphere of air transportation. This is vital not only to carry personnel round the world but, later, to carry our export goods as well.

I am glad to be able to support the Motion of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). I also congratulate him for having the courage to bring before this House a matter which, although important, he must have known would not attract mass popular attention. During the course of his speech he showed that he has a very wide experience in these matters. He declared his interest in the industry and showed that he understood its problems. I have to declare a similar interest, which goes back for some time, and in the course of what I have to say I hope I may be able to express the same kind of experience as that of the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, his hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett).

There are three propositions about which there can be no dispute at all. First, we must have an efficient air transport industry for this island nation. It is more important to us than to most other countries, and it is absolutely indispensable if we are to maintain a leading position in world affairs. Secondly, it is evident that an adequate number of competent pilots is essential to the maintenance of our air services. Thirdly, unless something radical, definite and constructive is done, there will soon not be an adequate number of pilots, and our position will consequently suffer. That is the basis from which I look at this problem.

We are not making any party attack upon the Government—because this situation has been developing for some years. As has already been stated, the problem was first considered by the Committee which was presided over by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock), and I, too, want to pay tribute to the work which was put into that Report.

The seriousness of the situation has been masked by two factors, which have already been referred to by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone, and the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham. One is that the increasing size of transport aircraft has meant that each pilot has been able to contend with an increasing number of passengers. Secondly, the two corporations have introduced valuable schemes for training air-experienced radio operators and navigators as pilots. This latter supply must now be drying up, and it is unlikely that any further relief can be expected from this tendency towards bigger aircraft. Indeed, it seems that the tendency has already gone too far, and that the proportion of aircrew to each aircraft is just about as small as is consistent with safety. My view is that in the future the proportion may well tend to increase.

I appreciate the disappointment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Derby, North at the fact that nothing was done following the presentation of his Report, but it is not quite true to say that nothing was attempted. When I had some responsibility for these matters, under the successive direction of two of my noble Friends, I thought at one time that we had contrived a solution to these problems; that we had found a way through for the young fellow from school to the cockpit of a civil aircraft through his National Service obligations. I remember that I had a good deal of discussion at the time with those responsible in the Royal Air Force, but even before flying training was stopped for National Service men I must say that our scheme never looked like coming to fruition—those responsible for civil aviation had such difficulty in sticking to what I thought was their side of the bargain.

My quite definite conclusion is that we cannot expect to find any complete solution—or even, indeed, a significant part of the solution—to the problem of civil aviation pilots in any scheme which involves pre-Service training. There are several reasons for that and some of them are contained in the memorandum to which reference has been made. It was obvious to me three years ago that the Services were having such difficulty in filling the needs of their own establishments that they just could not afford to adjust their requirements to help their civil colleagues.

I remember that one of the provisions of the scheme which we had in mind was that men entering on their National Service and opting for a civil profession should be given training in the heavier type of Service machine, but at that time the demand was more for fighter aircraft pilots and the Air Force people said that they just could not afford having these good young fellows all going to the heavier aircraft. The Service required them for the fighter machines, but that type of experience over a period of three years in the light, probably single seat aircraft is not the experience needed if they are to go into civil aviation. The difficulty of the Service in getting enough young men for their own requirements seems to be not lessening but increasing as the years go by. It is also the fact that, apart from transport machines, the type of experience obtained in the Service aircraft is steadily diverging from the type of experience required for civil aircraft.

And Coastal Command.

And Coastal Command, yes. I am not going so far ahead as to talk of the sort of man we shall have operating the ground-to-ground guided missiles, but, again, he will not be the sort of person we want for the civil side of the aviation industry.

As far as the background of experience is concerned, the qualifications necessary for the civil pilot are really different—indeed, they are really more important—from those necessary for the Service pilot. They have to be of such a high standard that, in my view, it is just not tolerable to consider this essential civil profession as a sort of second-string, or second thought, to the Service profession. I say that with no disrespect at all to what is the sister or brother Service.

Mention has been made of the possibility of pilots serving in Service transport aircraft and in Coastal Command aircraft moving on to the civil airlines. No doubt this may be a source of some supply—and I have no doubt that the men concerned will be very useful—but the fact is that, good as these pilots on the Services transport aircraft may be—and I accept what the Under-Secretary of State said in his intervention—if they are as good as all that the possibility is that they just will not leave the Service. The best of them will stay with the Service. The second best might still be good, but it should not be upon the second best that we should rely.

Moreover, in my judgment the R.A.F. cannot afford to have two or three years' flying from these Service men and then allow them to go over to the civil side. The reason for that is partly that the type of jet transport aircraft which the Services are now buying are not aircraft which can be flown by a man who has only had two or three years' experience. The transport pilots for the Service aircraft will have to be more and more experienced, they must stay longer in the Service, and, to that extent, therefore, the supply from that source must necessarily be limited.

My hon. Friend has practical flying experience, and we therefore listen with great respect to what he says, but may I point out that the suggestion that the pilots should come from the Royal Air Force is nothing new? I should imagine that now 50 per cent. or more of commercial pilots are ex-Royal Air Force pilots. Furthermore, the suggestion is not that they should come in as captains. They would obviously come in as second officers.

I accept what my hon. and gallant Friend says.

Of course, most of the people now in the civil profession came from the Services. The reason is that a great number of very experienced men came out of the Services about the same time, following the war. I would again emphasise to my hon. and gallant Friend that the sort of aircraft we were flying in 1945 and 1946 was very different from those the young fellows will be flying now and in the next few years. I emphasise that there is now a divergence—an increasing divergence—between the experience required of the Service and of the civil machine.

I do not accept the fact that there is any more difficulty in flying the present-day aircraft—particularly the jets—than the old type engine and aircraft.

We are all entitled to our opinion. I could go into it at greater length, but I do not think it is required. My own conclusion is that we must have some form of direct entry for the civil airline pilot. I do not rely to any large extent upon the Royal Air Force as a source of supply in the future. In general, I support the scheme as outlined in the memorandum submitted to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation last March.

Perhaps I might say just a word about that memorandum because it has been referred to as an Air League memorandum. That is not, strictly speaking, correct, nor, indeed, is it fair to the British Air Line Pilots' Association, which initiated the inquiry in the first place. It invited representatives from the other organisations to get together and discuss the matter. The Secretary of B.A.L.P.A., I believe, was the secretary of this committee, and indeed B.A.L.P.A. was responsible for the original draft. Therefore, although the Air League was physically responsible for handing over the memorandum it was really a joint effort—a very valuable joint effort—and I think that appropriate tribute should be paid to the pilots' trade union as well as to the other organisations.

I do not propose to go into the mechanics suggested in the memorandum, nor into the mechanics suggested by one part of the report of my hon. and gallant Friend. Given the will, I do not think there would be any difficulty at all in putting into operation a scheme of this kind—and by "will" we really mean also the money. I have but one reservation about these proposals. I am not at all sure that it would be proper to expect the financing of the scheme to be wholly the responsibility of the State. To that extent I agree with the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham.

Certainly, it is correctly contended that at the present time the State accepts responsibility for much of the university education of our young people. Nevertheless, there are many technical apprenticeships and training schemes which are not financed by the State, and it might be considered very invidious to single out this particular industry for State help to this extent. However, the amount of money involved does not seem to me to be of such an order as to prove any real obstacle at all if the impetus were given by the Minister. I believe it is about £200,000 or £300,000 a year, a little more than the amount we shall be spending upon blowing up aircraft for the purpose of pressurisation tests on the Farnborough pattern. It is chicken-feed compared with the amount of money that is expended in the aircraft and airline industries.

If I wanted to be controversial, which I will not be this morning, I would say that if the Hawker-Siddeley Company were to devote the money which it now spends in unnecessary advertising to a fund of this kind it would probably be of greater advantage to the airline industry.

This group operates a school, to which the diversion of some activity might well be worth while.

I am aware of that school and I know the basis upon which it is run. It is a very valuable school. I still think that some of the full-page advertisements of this group, trying to persuade its one customer to buy more of its products, might well be devoted to other purposes.

I am sure that some way could be found, possibly partly from the State, partly from the industry and partly, too, from the potential pilots who would benefit. It would be in the general interest if intending trainees and potential pilots could make a contribution on a repayment basis. We might well remember that other countries have come to the United Kingdom and have recruited trained pilots for their airline services.

If we took the lead and trained suitable men, we might again have foreign airlines coming here with attractive short-term offers and taking away from the United Kingdom pilots who have been trained, initially at any rate, at the expense of the British public. That needs to be taken into account, and we might well meet the possibility by a repayment or indenture scheme, along the lines that have been suggested.

I am quite certain that we should have no difficulty in recruiting suitable numbers of young men once it was known just how they could start on the road to the pilot's seat. Reference has been made to letters by young men who wanted to know how to go about it. Though they were of the right scholastic background and had the flying aptitude, which had been proven in various ways, they had to give up the idea of going into civil aviation because they could not afford the expensive initial training. I have seen letters from similar young men who wanted advice about the way through. At present, there just is no way through for young people, although they may be excellent material; and now we are losing them.

I would add a word, which I think is relevant, about making the profession more attractive. I do feel that something more might be done to give an outlet at the top for pilots who have served to the age of 40 or 45 in the air, and who have ability to give further service on the ground to the industry. The situation at the moment is not altogether happy. A man gives the best years of his life from 20 to 45—he certainly receives an appropriate salary—but at the age of 45 he is expected to drop out completely from the industry. At that time his financial responsibilities are as high as they ever will be and his ability for administrative work on the ground is probably at its height.

I hope we can make it possible for more pilots to serve the industry on the ground. The present Master of the Guild of Airline Pilots has shown that it is possible for pilots to take responsible positions of this sort, and we might also think of Captain James, in British European Airways. There are any number of individuals with B.O.A.C., but there are comparatively few of those who go through the industry. Though there are difficulties, I would like to think that something could be done to deal with this aspect of the problem.

We might also give more careful attention to the general status and prestige of the airline pilots' profession. The standard of qualification and the degree of responsibility now required are higher than ever. The standard was always high, but with modern machines operating at high speeds on more congested air routes the qualifications and responsibility needed are higher than ever before. It seems to me that this fact is sometimes not reflected in the pilot's conditions of service, even allowing for the traditional tendency of pilots to complain. However, whatever may be done to improve the conditions of service there must still be some known procedure through which suitable men can be recruited and given essential initial flying training.

On this side of the House we support the Motion, with the reservations that I have expressed on the details of the memorandum. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us something definite and constructive. After all, the Minister has had the memorandum for eleven months and it is not unreasonable to hope that a decision can now be reached.

): It often happens in this House that the most interesting debates are those in which Members taking part have a thorough understanding of the problems discussed. Everyone would agree that this morning's debate is no exception. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) for putting forward this Motion and giving me an opportunity to clarify the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards this most important problem.

I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I go back into history. The provision of trained aircrew for civil aviation has been under continuous review since 1946, when it was first considered there was a need to watch this matter so as to obviate a shortage. Because of the wide implications, Lord Nathan, the then Minister, set up a committee on the recruiting, training and licensing of personnel for civil aviation, under the very able chairmanship of the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North (Group Captain Wilcock), whose deep understanding of these matters the whole House appreciates.

One of the conclusions of that committee was that it was only in respect of pilots that special measures would have to be taken to ensure an adequate supply for civil aviation. That conclusion has been borne out in practice. The hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North said that the conclusions of the report for which he was responsible were not acted upon. The report recommended that, from the point of view of the national economy, the fullest possible use should be made of ex-R.A.F. pilots, and that is the view from which, I venture to suggest, we should be wrong to depart, unless there were very strong reasons.

Lord Pakenham, in the memorandum published with the report, accepted the need for continuous review of this problem of the sufficiency of pilots and set up a standing committee consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, as it then was, and the Service Ministries, as well as the employers. That committee still operates, but the then Minister felt unable to accept, without further examination, the view that aid for training pilot entrants to civil aviation should be provided from public funds, as was suggested by the committee.

That still remains the view of Her Majesty's Government. Owing to changes in R.A.F. pilot recruiting policy in 1953, it appeared at one stage that the number of pilots available from the Services might no longer be sufficient to meet the requirements of civil aviation, and that, as my hon. Friend in his opening speech said, the basis for a planned intake might disappear altogether.

The hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North regretted that very little had been done about this, but, when this possibility became apparent, my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies and my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air in 1954—and perhaps I may just make the point that this was before my right hon. Friend received the memorandum from the Air League and B.A.L.P.A. and others—set up a new inter-Departmental Committee to look into this matter. I think the House may be interested to know something more about this.

For instance, perhaps I may tell the House the composition of that committee. The hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North very rightly referred to the composition of the committee over which he presided. This committee had for its chairman Mr. E. A. Armstrong, an Under-Secretary in my own Department, and, from the Air Ministry there were Air Vice-Marshal the Earl of Bandon, Assistant Chief of the Air Staff, Air Vice-Marshal McDonald, Director General of Manning, and Mr. A. E. Slater, Assistant Under-Secretary (Personnel). From my own Department, there were Group Captain J. B. Veal, Director of Air Safety and Licensing, and Group Captain G. F. K. Donaldson, Deputy Director of Training and Licensing.

The terms of reference which my right hon. Friend and my noble Friend gave to that Committee may also interest the House. They were:

"… to examine the future recruitment and training of pilots for civil aviation in the United Kingdom, taking into account the following factors:—

(i) Future trend of civil aviation requirements in numbers and qualifications of pilots.

(ii) Effect of the new policy for R.A.F. aircrew engagements.

(iii) The need in the national interest to maintain a close link between aircrews serving in civil aviation and the R.A.F.

(iv) The need for economy in the use of resources devoted to pilot training; and

(v) The demand for ex-R.A.F. pilots from civil operators outside the United Kingdom."

This Committee sat for a long time, and it is understandable that it did, because there was a great deal to be done. The hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North said that his own committee sat for many months, though I agree with a slightly different background. There would have been no point in setting up such a committee unless its deliberations were very thorough.

As a result of a long and painstaking examination, that committee came to some conclusions and made some recommendations, and it concluded, firstly,

"that the R.A.F. will continue to provide for at least the next seven or eight years a field of recruitment of pilots for civil aviation adequate to meet the estimated requirements of civil operators in the United Kingdom and in the Colonies.

Secondly, that the age-spread, experience and technical background of pilots released from the R.A.F. should be acceptable to civil aviation, bearing in mind the varying demands of the operators."

Can the Minister give us some idea of the age-spread and experience of people expecting to leave the R.A.F.?

I was not going into it in detail, but, if I may answer the hon. Gentleman's query, there is obviously a considerable spread because we are still getting in the R.A.F. National Service men who come out at the age of 22, and those who come out at 26 who have already had experience as captains of aircraft. We must take that sort of spread and qualifications into account.

If I may continue to refer to the conclusions of the Committee, the next was that,

"in view of the continuance of the R.A.F. as an adequate source for civil pilots, the setting up of an independent civil aviation flying training scheme supported from public funds"—

and I emphasise that—

"is not justified."

Finally, they concluded that,

"in view of the uncertainty of the position at the end of seven or eight years, and because of the time which would be needed to set up an alternative training scheme, the whole question of future recruitment should be reviewed after four years."

The Committee then recommended

"that the Standing Committee on Recruitment for Civil Aviation from the Services should be invited to continue its work in establishing a procedure for direct liaison between civil operators and potential civil pilots from the R.A.F., while they are still serving,"

and that is the point which the hon. Gentleman put, and, secondly,

"that the Standing Committee should invite the operators to consider the institution of a central agency to collate current vacancies in civil aviation."

I should very much like to hear the remarks and conclusions; I think they are very interesting. I think it is a pity they have not been given publicity, but that may be the Minister's intention. I should be more impressed but for the fact that there is a shortage of pilots, and, if everything is as good and as satisfactory as that Report suggests, there should be no shortage today.

:First of all, with regard to publicity, I am informing the House officially for the first time of the conclusions of this Committee. I am afraid I cannot really accept the contention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there is a shortage today. One of the problems we have been up against in regard to the future is that we get very varied reports from the various sources from which we get information, but, by and large, it would be wrong to say that at this stage there was any acute shortage or crisis.

If the Minister cares to look at the aviation papers, he will see that there are advertisements for pilots every week.

:That is quite true, and, indeed, there are advertisements, but, on the whole, it would be a mistake if we were to suggest that there was a shortage or a crisis in regard to pilots in civil aviation today, taking the industry as a whole.

I wish to go on to say that my right hon. Friend accepted the recommendations of this Committee, with one proviso, about which I should like to say something later on.

Several hon. Members, in quoting outside documents and from their own information and experience, have said in criticism that the R.A.F. will perhaps be unable to provide sufficient numbers of pilots of an acceptable age range for civil aviation. What about those criticisms? The Committee took the view that this opinion has been shown to be ill-founded. They recognised the problems of the unpredictable fluctuations and argued that, under peacetime manning arrangements, the effects of any major change in aircrew recruiting policy on the flow of pilots to civil aviation were likely to be delayed—and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air agrees—and ought to be foreseeable.

It is sometimes said that the intake from the Royal Air Force is not likely to be suitable for civil aviation, and points have been made about that today. I should remind the House that most pilots flying in civil aviation today are ex-R.A.F. pilots, and it would seem to me to be difficult in view of this to justify the argument that Service pilots are unsuitable for civil aviation. Another argument is that a Service training and background do not prepare a pilot for civil employment. Although I admit that much of the training given to a Service pilot is unrelated to the qualifications which he needs as a civil pilot, his basic training is very sound and in many respects goes beyond what is required to qualify for a commercial pilot's licence.

On the question of temperament, as I might call it, the Report finds no grounds to support the criticism that Royal Air Force pilots are temperamentally un-suited for civil flying. I think that I can say that what one might call the "wizard-prang" era in the R.A.F. is over. I was pleased that my hon. Friend interjected, as he did just now, because modern Service aircraft and flying technique demand the most rigorous training, and, quite apart from the fact that human lives are involved, aircraft today are far too expensive to be recklessly endangered. So I think that we can dispose of that point.

The Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone calls attention

"to the lack of alternative sources of training aircrew for civil aviation;"

I do not think that he would advocate alternative schemes financed out of public funds in the absence of any likelihood of a shortage of ex-Service pilots of suitable qualifications and age. There is no reason, of course, why operators should not themselves jointly or severally introduce a scheme for ab initio training of commercial pilots without State assistance. This has been commented upon today. Nor is there any reason why the State should not recognise such a scheme or schemes and give them moral support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham mentioned the Airways Aero Club. The Club is doing very good work indeed, and I think that its work is typical of the sort of thing that certainly can be done on a larger scale with considerable effect.

I want to say a word or two about the training of helicopter pilots, which I thought the hon. and gallant Member for Derby, North might in his wisdom himself have mentioned. The responsibility for the training of pilots for civil helicopters is no different from that in respect of other classes of aircraft, and it will be for operators to take the necessary steps to obtain helicopter pilots as they need them.

In considering the general problem of the supply of helicopter pilots for civil aviation, we have taken account of the need for pilots qualified on helicopters. However, detailed assessment of requirement and any decision on the way it is ultimately to be met must, I think, await a clearer picture of the way in which helicopter services will develop. The training of helicopter pilots already qualified on aeroplanes is a problem similar in many respects to that of training a pilot on a new type of aeroplane. This must be regarded as an operator's responsibility.

As I said a few minutes ago, we have accepted this Report to which I have referred, subject to one proviso. May I explain this in a little more detail? The Committee's principal conclusion that the R.A.F. can continue to provide for at least the next seven years a field of recruitment of pilots for civil aviation adequate to meet the estimated requirements of operators in the United Kingdom and the Colonies is, to a large extent, based on a canvass of over 500 pilots on short service commission due to leave the R.A.F. in the next two years, and who have not applied to remain in the Service under the terms of the scheme introduced in March, 1954, whereby they had the opportunity of direct commissions for a period of 12 years, with the option to leave after eight years and the possibility of transfer to permanent terms later. That, to some degree explains why we have taken a rather long time over this. It is no mean problem to canvass over 500 people, and it was necessary—and I emphasise this—to do this as thoroughly as possible if the Report was to be of any value. That was based on the Committee's Report.

:This is obviously a most important Report, and it is most interesting to hear about it. Is it to be published as a White Paper?

My right hon. Friend is prepared to publish the Report, but I think that if my hon. Friend will allow me to come to the end of what I am saying, he will understand why, at this stage, I am not intending to publish it at the moment.

:I cannot follow the deduction that, because at the end of two years so many men will come out of the R.A.F., the needs of civil aviation will be catered for for seven years. Was it a general survey, and was it expected that there would be a continuous flow after the second year, and, if so, how is that reconciled with the fact that every short service commission man is not now to be given flying training?

Perhaps I can explain that difficulty. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I can only state that the recommendations were very largely based on the canvass, which I have quoted to show how thoroughly this matter has been gone into. It is expected that this flow will continue for the next six or seven years, and that it will be adequate to meet the demands of the industry, which we have estimated on the best advice that we could get from the operators and those who really know.

Since the Committee presented this Report, a modification to this scheme has been introduced by the Air Ministry, whereby such pilots are now offered an immediate grant of a commission up to pensionable age as an alternative to a 12-year commission.

Whether this change of emphasis—because that is what it is—in the R.A.F. policy will cause any important change in the attitude of these short-service commission pilots towards leaving the R.A.F. and applying for employment as pilots in civil aviation cannot possibly be forecast with any precision without further detailed examination. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend has decided to refer this specific point back to the Committee for further consideration.

I am quite sure that the House will appreciate why that has happened. We may take it that these inquiries will take a considerable time. But my hon. Friend wishes me to say that if he has any reason to change his view—the view which is now held by myself and by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air, then he will inform the House. Meanwhile the Government's policy continues to be that, in the interests of the national economy, the fullest use should be made of ex-Service pilots, both from the R.A.F. and the Royal Navy, to meet the needs of civil aviation.

In spite of forecasts to the contrary, there should be a supply of ex-Service pilots for at least the next seven or eight years, sufficient to meet the needs of civil aviation. Whilst this continuing source of supply is assured, Her Majesty's Government cannot contemplate heavy public expenditure for any alternative scheme for training pilots for civil aviation.

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say who are the 500 pilots who state that they would like to go into civil aviation? Is the position which he is now quoting a result of that investigation?

The provision which I am quoting is as a result of the investigation without our having detailed knowledge of any difference that may accrue because of the new announcement on R.A.F. recruiting. Her Majesty's Government's attitude is that the air transport industry is quite free to set up any individual or co-operative scheme which it chooses to augment the numbers of pilots available from the Services, but the Government can do no more than give such schemes moral support. The Government will co-operate with civil aviation interests in keeping the problem of pilot recruitment under review, particularly in relation to the supply of pilots from the Services, so that action may be taken by the industry in ample time should a likely short-fall of pilots be apparent at any time.

In conclusion, may I say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend for bringing this Motion before the House, a Motion which I am very pleased on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to accept. I am also grateful to other hon. Members who have taken part in a debate, which I shall read with great thoroughness as soon as it is printed, and which I hope has been of some value to hon. Members interested in this matter.

I am gratified by the support which has been given to the Motion, I think from all sides of the House, and also by the fact that an opportunity has been provided to the Parliamentary Secretary to make, on behalf of the Government, what I consider to be a very important statement. He has given the House and the country some information which was not otherwise available, and I am quite sure that all of us who are so interested in this very important subject will look forward to studying what he said in close detail. If any further amplification of it can be published, I am sure it will be read with great interest in the country.

My hon. Friend said that it looked as though there would be a continuing supply of pilots from the R.A.F., probably adequate for civil aviation, for the next seven or eight years. He said that 500 pilots would be available in the next two years. May I point out to him—I am sure account must have been taken of this—that if 500 pilots suddenly come on to the commercial market in two years——

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I do not want him to get this wrong. I do not think I said—and if I said it I certainly did not mean it—that 500 were coming out from the R.A.F. I said that our conclusions followed a canvass of over 500 pilots.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for clarifying that point. It had appeared as though 500 pilots were coming out in the next two years, in which case the same number would not have been available later.

There is one point which I hope the Government will reconsider, and it concerns the gap in civil aviation in respect of the man who does not want to go into the R.A.F. but wants to enter commercial aviation—the keen young man whose circumstances I described to the House earlier. I feel that something ought to be done in such cases.

Are we to understand that the inter-Departmental Committee continues to sit?

indicated assent.

I am very glad to have that assent from the Parliamentary Secretary. This is most important, for it means that the problem will be kept under continual review. None of us can see exactly how the flow from the R.A.F. will continue or exactly what will be the expansion or wastage in civil aviation, and it is important that there should be such a committee in order that immediate steps could be taken if it appeared that urgent fresh action was necessary.

I hope that the Committee will continue to study this question, in collaboration with the civil aviation industry, and I also hope that the Government will reconsider its attitude towards giving some help in some scheme or another. It might be that the civil aviation industry could offer to provide so much financial assistance and that the Government might go 50–50 in supplying financial assistance. I feel that some scheme ought to be set up as soon as possible to make use of the money which has already been spent on these flying scholarships and to preserve the potential asset of these young men who cannot get into commercial aviation except through the R.A.F. and yet are keen to get into commercial aviation.

If a satisfactory solution could be found to that problem in the next year or two, I think we need have no undue anxiety about the immediate prospects of an adequate supply of men with the necessary qualifications for aircrew duties—pilots in particular—in civil aviation. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for accepting the Motion and for giving us the information which he has given today.

Would the hon. Member like to give his opinion on the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) that the industry itself, out of its funds, might also provide money towards this very worthy object of training young and not-very-well-off men as pilots?

I did not quite catch what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, but I understood him to ask whether the industry would provide some funds to help the training of pilots. I think that proposal ought to be fully explored, not merely with the section of civil aviation concerned with air transport but also with that section concerned with production, which is vitally interested. As I said earlier, it is not much good producing the finest aircraft unless we have pilots in civil aviation to fly them and to act as a means of demonstration for sales to overseas customers. The idea of financial assistance from the aircraft industry in some way or another ought certainly to be pursued with, I hope, some Government co-operation as well.

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the possibility of the benefits to be obtained from the peaceful applications of atomic energy, with particular reference to the programme outlined by the Government for the development of electricity from nuclear power and to the use of radioactive isotopes in research, medicine, industry, and agriculture.

The world has long been accustomed to draw its warmth and power from the stored-up energy of the past by means of chemical reactions. When the nature of those chemical reactions came to be fully understood, as a result of the progress of atomic physics, it was realised that locked up in the nucleus of the atom was a source of energy millions of times greater than that which we had been exploiting by familiar chemical processes such as burning and which was entirely untouched and untapped by those processes.

It was not until 1939, however, as a result of the work of Lord Rutherford and his distinguished team of pupils— including Sir John Cockcroft and others, many of whom are now scattered in responsible scientific positions in all parts of the world—and of the fundamental research carried out mainly in this country that the secrets of how to unlock that source of power was discovered.

Unfortunately, the years which followed 1939 saw an intensive development of that discovery in the interests of military striking power. That, of course, was an inevitable development, since the Second World War supervened almost immediately after the publication of the fruits of those fundamental researches; and, in consequence, the fruition of the work of Lord Rutherford and his pupils came vividly before public attention as a result of the explosion of the bomb at Hiroshima in August, 1945.

Since then, the world's main anxiety, very naturally, has been whether the human race can preserve itself from destruction from the continuing development of this fantastic source of energy. That is inevitable, because if we do not succeed in limiting and controlling nuclear explosions, we shall be unable to interest ourselves or to derive any benefit from all the other peaceful uses to which nuclear energy can be put.

But, in fact, the peaceful uses to which the power of the atomic nucleus can be put are already numerous and are increasing rapidly year by year, and this Motion aims to draw attention to those many peaceful uses which have been multiplying and growing almost unnoticed by public opinion in the shadow of the great bomb explosions.

One result of the concentration of public attention upon the military development of atomic energy has been that we frequently underestimate the contribution made by the United Kingdom to the development of the use of nuclear energy. Had it not been decided to transfer the work on atomic energy of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to Canada and the United States in 1943 in order to take that work out of the range of German bombing and carry it forward more intensively in countries where manpower was not strained by the demands of war, and where material resources were more abundant and had been less intensively canalised into more immediate military preparations, British work in nuclear science, which was ahead of that anywhere else in the world at the time, would not have become merged in the parallel development in the United States.

The statement made by the Prime Minister in 1945, after the explosion of the bomb on Hiroshima, made clear the pioneering role of our country in that respect. But, since then, that has become rather overlayed, and continuing attention upon ever bigger and better explosions as one bomb succeeded another has created the general impression that in the atomic field the United States leads and other countries follow. If that assessment of the position has been at all correct in the past few years, I emphasise again that it is solely because of the necessary allocation of endeavour we made between ourselves and the United States and Canada in the later years of the war.

Since 1946, Britain has been catching up in the nuclear field the ground she lost in that way. This is not the occasion to remind the House of the programme of construction of atomic factories from 1946 onwards under the supervision of Sir Christopher Hinton, but in the course of that programme entirely unfamiliar problems, on the very largest scale, had to be met. They were successfully overcome and atomic energy factories of various kinds went up at Spring fields, Windscale, Capenhurst and elsewhere in addition to the experimental plant at Harwell. There are other projects now in course of construction at Calder Hall and Dounreay.

It is a matter of congratulation to the Atomic Energy Authority and those who control it, and, in particular, its Production Division, that the achievement of that Division can be summed up in the sentences I will quote from one of the more recent Government publications on the building of Britain's atomic energy factories:

"The first bulk output of plutonium was produced on the date specified. In less than five years the Division built a new industry worth some scores of millions of pounds; every factory came into operation within a month of the estimated date, every plant cost within a small percentage of the estimated sum. It is an achievement that will stand comparison with any other in the history of British industry."

I am sure that with those sentences the House will cordially agree.

As a result of the concentration of attention on atomic bombs we have not watched the more peaceful development of the Atomic Energy Authority with quite the public care and attention it has deserved. This is perhaps a happy opportunity for saying not merely how much we hope for the future, but for saying, also, "Well done" for the past. The programme has shown not only great vision and imagination, but also extremely careful and successful planning.

Ten days ago, Her Majesty's Government presented the Command Paper containing their provisional programme for the generation of electricity from nuclear energy. It is an immense programme under which two great power stations will come into production in about five years from now and a further 10 power stations will come into production over the following five years. That is an immense concept. Two power stations of about 100 megawatts in the next five years is in itself very surprising, but that it should be possible to bring into actual production a further 10 in the following five years really does catch the imagination and make one feel that in the sphere of nuclear development once again Britain has run right ahead of the rest of the world. In ten years' time it is estimated that these power stations will be contributing a capacity of not less than 1.600 megawatts to electricity generation. As the White Paper points out, in ten years nuclear energy will be providing one-quarter of the newly-installed generating capacity of the country.

In twenty years' time, by1975, it will be possible for all new generating capacity to be based on nuclear energy. The next twenty years will be years of transition. At present, all our electrical energy is produced either from the burning of coal or the tapping of hydro-electric resources. Over the next twenty years we shall have to build a certain number of coal-fired power stations but, thereafter, it will probably be possible for all new generating construction to be of a nuclear type and by 1975 a quarter of the total generating capacity of the British electrical industry will be based on nuclear power.

A quarter of the capacity means more than a quarter of the total generation, because it is intended that these stations shall be base load stations which will operate continuously at full load. The coal-fired stations will take the fluctuation of demand up to and below the maximum. Therefore, a very considerable part—certainly more than a quarter—of the electricity consumed, from 1975 onwards will come from nuclear energy.

The total capital expenditure involved in this programme is given in the White Paper as £300 million. That is a far higher initial cost than that of coal-fired stations because the competitive power of atomic generation depends on the relatively low cost of running the stations. The main item in the cost is the initial capital expense. It is desirable to run the atomic stations as the base load stations so that any saving below the maximum consumption is taken up by the coal-fired stations, where the capital cost is lower but the running cost is much higher. The figure of £300 million is a useful guide to the magnitude of the investment which this country is to make under the Government's programme.

In twenty years' time, we shall be saving, by this programme, about 40 million tons of coal annually. The projects put forward in the White Paper will place us ahead of any other country in the peaceful use of atomic energy. That is a matter which one ought to emphasise, because we have felt in the past that we have fallen behind. No other programme of anything like comparable dimensions has been announced in the world. What goes on behind the Iron Curtain, one does not know, but as far as can be gathered there is nothing behind even that veil of secrecy which compares in magnitude with the projects outlined in the White Paper. The Government are to be greatly congratulated on their courage and imagination in putting forward this programme.

For us in Britain, it is not simply a matter of prestige to put forward an imaginative atomic programme. Without this programme, we should in ten or twenty years' time be running into serious difficulties about fuel. The White Paper points out that the cost of generating electricity by nuclear fission will be about 0·6 of a penny per unit, which is about the same as the cost of generating electricity in an efficient coal-powered station. That is in itself a comforting comparison, but it is not the true comparison.

The true comparison would be the cost to generate electricity by nuclear fission in the proposed stations compared with the cost of generating that power by burning coal during the next ten, twenty or thirty years if there were no nuclear stations. If that were the position, the shortage of coal in this country and throughout the world would become so intense that the cost of coal might rise considerably above its present cost, so that it would no longer be possible to generate electricity by burning coal for anything like six-tenths of a penny per unit. In any case, whatever the cost of coal, we might find ourselves quite unable to get sufficient coal to generate all the electricity that we shall need in twenty years' time.

The magnitude and boldness of the project outlined in the Command Paper are not, therefore, merely a measure of the success of the Atomic Energy Authority or the courage of Her Majesty's Ministers; they are not merely a matter of prestige for this country as compared with the rest of the world. They are a matter of vital necessity for the economic and industrial health of this country in the years ahead. It must come as a great relief to us to know that just as we are approaching this critical state in our consumption of fuel, the possibility of an alternative source of energy has opened up before us.

Having said those words of well-deserved congratulation to the Authority and to the Government, I should like to ask a question which sounds grossly ungrateful. I hope that the mere asking of it will not make my right hon. Friend think that public opinion is only appeased to be whetted. It seems to the uninitiated, which must include nearly all of us on this subject, rather a long time before the first power station in the programme starts construction. Bearing in mind what I said earlier about the progress in the atomic energy stations since 1946, and how successful their planning has been in both timing and cost, I have no doubt that there are excellent reasons why so long a time must elapse before the first brick is laid for the first two stations. But I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he can indicate today some of the reasons why the preparatory period of two and a quarter years from now before the actual start of construction cannot be shortened.

One might have thought that the experience from the other factories and the experience now being gained in construction at Calder Hall might have made it possible to cut down that preparatory period. I feel a little ungrateful in even asking the question, but the public, having once got over its surprise of finding that atomic energy was so close to us, has now turned round and is beginning to ask the Government, as public opinion always asks, Why so little and why so late?

One factor that will bear rather hardly upon the Atomic Energy Authority and the Government in this matter is the shortage of scientific manpower. There is at present a shortage of graduates in natural science and a shortage of men trained in what is now called technology. I have heard it said, with what truth I do not know, that the existing atomic programme including that contained in the White Paper, could absorb the total output of physics graduates from British universities for several years to come.

That, obviously, cannot be allowed to happen, if only because some of those graduates must themselves become teachers of science; and there are the other demands of industry. It seems, however, as though the scale of expansion of atomic development upon which we are now embarking will render even more acute than it has been in the past few years the shortage of graduates in mathematics and the natural sciences and of those skilled in the higher techniques of modern industry.

I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Government will bear this urgently in mind, as, I think, they are doing, and will try to expand the output from the universities and press on with their announced programme of expanding higher technological education. By no means the least important step is to try to interest boys at school in mathematics and in the natural sciences, so that they will seek qualifications in these subjects. There is great scope here for the secondary modern schools. It would revitalise those schools and give them a new sense of mission if they felt they were playing a considerable part in supplying the skilled scientific and technical manpower that the country will need to carry out its atomic programme in the coming decades.

The further programme outlined in paragraphs 32 to 35 of the White Paper is bound to be more provisional and is, indeed, almost speculative, because we must ascertain which type of reactor is most successful and how the various reactors show up relatively to each other. There must be a considerable margin of doubt, but, whichever set of assumptions in the White Paper is correct, and whatever view we choose to take of the market value of plutonium in the future, or of the other by-products of nuclear energy, it is quite obvious that electricity can be generated in this country on a vast scale from nuclear energy at a cost which will be comparable with that of the most efficient coal-powered stations. Therefore, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend one other question on which, I think, he can give us a reassurance, and that is, whether we have, in the Empire especially, in the sterling area especially, ample sources of the raw materials for this industry, uranium and thorium.

This is going to build up into a vast industry, and it is quite obvious that nearly all of its raw materials will be imported raw materials. We all want to see the industry developed, but we shall, of course, have to bear in mind that, as it develops and fills a huge role in the national economy, we shall be undertaking yet another of those standing liabilities of importing our basic materials, which will have to be paid for by continuing exports from this country. I believe that in the Empire, or in the sterling area, there are ample sources of uranium, but the White Paper mentions a period of only ten years. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will say a little about that when he replies to the debate.

Of course, we have to bear in mind that, if in one way we are building up our import liability, yet if we do not have this programme we shall almost certainly have to import perhaps as much as 30 million or 40 million tons of coal in replacement of it. So I do not know that any nett increase in the burden has really to be envisaged. Considering what is now virtually inevitable, that we shall have to import fuel on a massive scale, it may well be that the development of nuclear energy will lessen our standing import bill in the future, not increase it.

Now I would say a word on a matter which has always interested me particularly. We had a debate the other day about atmospheric pollution. In London, one of the difficulties is that whether we use solid smokeless fuel, in accordance with the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who has urged its advantages very successfully in this House for a very long time, or whether we have efficient burning appliances consuming anthracite or rely on supplies of electricity, we do not get over one problem, the pollution of the atmosphere by sulphurous fumes. [Interruption.] I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) is not suggesting that this House can supply any deficit of sulphurous fumes. However, there will be no sulphurous fumes from fission generators. They will provide energy without the atmospheric pollution that at present comes from coal-fired electric-power stations.

A word about safety, because there is a good deal of public anxiety about that. Of course, the power stations projected in the White Paper are perfectly safe. They are inherently safe, because if the moderator inside them does get overheated, if the process begins to go too fast, it stops itself. As I understand, if the fission products, the neutrons which are cast off during the process of fission and which carry on a chain reaction by themselves, producing new fissions, move too fast, they get caught up in the wrong thing—I hope that is a compendious way of putting it. They do not get caught up in the other atoms of fissile material, so that the chain reaction continues.

In other words, an atomic pile, the atomic reactors, cannot run away and turn into junior atomic bombs as some people seem to fear they may. They are inherently safe. I think that that should be emphasised, because a lot of public anxiety can work up over these things. We just cannot have an atomic power station blowing up—certainly, not any of the atomic power stations which are conceived of in any part of the present programme. They are inherently safe, and there is not the slightest reason why they should not be sited right in the middle of London, but I am glad that, in fact, as the White Paper makes clear, as the Lord President has made clear, merely in deference to very natural public opinion on the subject, they are not going to be created in the first instance in built-up areas.

For the present generation atomic energy is likely to remain a deus ex machina——

A what?

A god out of a machine.

Thank you.

Succeeding generations will take for granted what to us is unfamiliar and slightly worrying, so I think it is right to site the first dozen stations anyway out of the built-up areas, although the risk factor of atomic power stations is virtually nil.

The matter of the disposal of atomic waste has also aroused a lot of public attention. I think it should be said, as, I am sure, my right hon. Friend will reaffirm when he replies to the debate, there is no risk to the public from the disposal of atomic waste. There has been a lot of misunderstanding. I think some people were worried the other day because atomic waste was to be put into the sea off Land's End. The place chosen was 1,000 miles out in the Atlantic, in about 2,000 fathoms, and the waste was locked up in a lead coffin or something of the kind, and any fear of risk to human life in the British Isles was entirely fantastic and out of the question.

Naturally, there is almost bound at first to be some misunderstanding about these things, and it therefore should be said that the disposal of even the great and increasing volume of atomic waste that there will be will cause no serious trouble at all in the years that lie ahead. The treatment of the waste will not take place in the power stations but in processing factories which will be remote, and the disposal of the processed waste can be easily undertaken without any danger to the surrounding population.

I have congratulated the Government on the programme which they have put forward. I think they have an exceedingly difficult role to fill from now on. I am sure that the Atomic Energy Authority and the Government will discharge it successfully, but we have to remember that they have become statutory monopolists of atomic energy.

A very good thing, too.

We had a debate on monopolies yesterday, and it would be interesting to know what the view of the Opposition is on this.

The Opposition are divided.

They have fissionable minds, perhaps.

Atomic energy will become a prime national consideration for an industrial country. There is no doubt about that. It will become a major national consideration, and the Government have to be very careful from now on that their control of atomic energy is as imaginative, as flexible and as diversified as if it were wide open to the interplay of private enterprise and competition, if that end is possible of achievement, and in so far as it is. We must not sink into a rut. All the possibilities of the application of atomic energy must be explored and we must remain ahead of the rest of the world in the whole field.

I think there is no economic future immediately for nuclear propulsion. Possibly, there never will be a future for it in the case of the motor car, because the smallest reactor is very heavy, but there may well be a considerable future for atomic energy in marine propulsion. The fact that the United States is already operating an atomic energy powered submarine shows that where cost is not the prime factor one can already use nuclear energy for propulsion. Therefore, there is considerable scope for research there. Innumerable other possibilities also present themselves.

I turn now to a side of the subject which is even less well known publicly, but which interests me particularly because I have in my constituency an establishment which is principally concerned with it. It is the use of radioactive isotopes in all kinds of ways, in research, medicine and in industry. I am not a scientist by any means. When the natural sciences were being expounded at school, I did not always listen as carefully as I might have done, but I have tried to repair some of the omissions recently. An isotope, as I understand it, has the important characteristic that it is an atom of an element which behaves chemically in exactly the same way as all the other atoms of that element, but because the number of neutrons in its nucleus has been disturbed it behaves in a radioactive manner and emits ions.

The significance of these isotopes is that these atoms behave in precisely the same way chemically as any ordinary atom of that element and, therefore, the behaviour of these marked and traceable atoms is characteristic of the behaviour of the ordinary atoms of the elements, and by putting in a certain number of these marked particles one can trace what is happening during a process. Whether in the growth of a plant, the processes of industry or in the application of medicine, one can see things and trace a chain of events which one could not trace in any other way.

There are in use at present about 300 or 400 separate isotopes, of which about one-tenth are in common use either in medicine or in industry and there are, of course, innumerable chemical compounds of each of these isotopes. I do not think that there is much general knowledge of the way in which these radioactive isotopes can be used and I hope that I may be forgiven if I take a little of the time of the House in saying something about them. If I appear to be crying the wares of my own constituency, I am also drawing attention to a matter in which the public benefit would be advanced if more were known about it.

In medicine, for example, one can put radioactive isotopes into drink or food which can be taken by mouth and absorbed into various parts of the body where the isotopes can do a job which otherwise can only be done by surgical operation. If a patient drinks radioactive iodine it is differentially absorbed by the thyroid gland. It damps down the hyper-activity of that gland and relieves a condition which otherwise would necessitate a surgical operation and perhaps three weeks in bed after it.

That is one instance where these fusion products can be and are used day by day in the advancement of medicine. Another is the use of radioactive gold, which locates itself in tumours and allows treatment of cancer in parts of the body where otherwise surgical operation might be needed. There are many other instances, which I will not develop because my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay will deal with that aspect.

Outside medicine, these isotopes have a vast field of activity in industry and research. One can watch the growth of plants, for example, and one can follow the absorption of different substances in their growth. I heard of a very interesting experiment the other day in which the Rothamsted research station was trying to find out why bees are always turned away at the door of the hive if they do not belong to that hive. It is a matter which has been noticed for a long time and most of us have wondered about it. How do the guardian bees know whether it is one from their own hive that is coming to the door or a stranger? [An HON.MEMBER: "Or just another bee."] It was thought that the method of distinguishing was by scent, because it was possible that all the bees in the same hive shared each other's food.

That was the logical explanation, but how does one find experimentally whether the bees in the hive share each other's food? It would not be easy to do that without the use of radioactive isotopes. They gave to one marked bee a radioactive meal and put him back in the hive. Rothamsted scientists examined 350 bees, putting them under a radioactivity detector, and it was found that 345 out of 350 had been sharing the meal of the marked bee. It was, therefore, established that the guardian bees at the entrance of the hive are able to keep out intruders because inside the hive there is food sharing, with consequent identity of scent. That is a little example from biological research to show how these radioactive isotopes can do wonderful work.

They can be used to sterilise food and drugs, because radioactivity is sterilising; but their main use will be in industry in which they are of tremendous value. I want to say something about that, because the use of radioactive isotopes in industry is increasing rapidly and the proportion of export is very high. That is gratifying in itself. Fifty-four per cent. by value of the output of the radio-chemical centre at Amersham goes abroad. While that has its obvious attractions, there is a slight danger that in this as in so many other things British industry will lag behind the application of British fundamental research, and this is something which we should watch. The number of dispatches from the radio-chemical centres at Amersham and Harwell have gone up very substantially over the past years. They started in 1947. In round thousands, the centres first sent out two, then four, then seven and then 11, 13, 16 and last year 19,500 consignments of radioactive materials for use in industry and research. As much as 54 per cent. in value went abroad and only 46 per cent. were used in this country.

The United Kingdom is now the world's chief exporter of radioactive isotopes. I hope we shall maintain that position. We send them to over 40 or 50 different countries in all parts of the world and more than half of the deliveries from Amersham are by air. Obviously, we have established a commanding position for radioactive isotopes in the markets of the world and it is important that British industry should recognise how valuable these isotopes are for economy, cutting out processes and saving of costs, for testing, for standardisation and efficient marketing and for solving problems of production and even of industrial chemistry, which may be perplexing them.

The publicity about atomic development is mainly concentrated on the hydrogen and uranium bombs and that has created in the public mind a totally erroneous impression of the complexity, danger, and cost of using radio-active substances. First of all, complexity: use in an industrial process is extremely simple. May I give an example? Isotopes may be wanted for use in an oil pipeline to discover when the character of the oil going through the pipeline is changed. It may be necessary to turn off supply A and go on to supply B.

All that is done is that a few radioactive isotopes are injected into the second kind of oil and as it passes through the pipe it goes past a detector which indicates when the first of the new oil passes. Thus, it is known when we move from the first to the second kind of oil. That shows us how simple some of these processes are. From the point of view of safety, in most cases the amounts used are so minute owing to the high sensitivity of the detectors that no element of risk is involved and nearly all industrial use of radio-active isotopes is quite safe.

Thirdly, and perhaps most dramatic of all is the question of cost. Last year Amersham sent out 10,000 consignments of radioactive materials to industry and research. The average value of each dispatch from Amersham is £20 and for £5 one can get something very useful. I do not think that those facts are sufficiently well-known throughout the country and industry. The cost of instruments, like detectors and of the apparatus is usually a two-figure cost in pounds. The whole thing is immensely cheaper than is generally realised.

Then, of course, the processes which it replaces are usually much more complex and much more expensive. Radioactive isotopes are now being used for measuring the thickness of metal sheets, of plastics and of cardboard. I heard of a case recently where a British firm got a six-figure order for supplying a cigarette-making machine to the United States because it embodied in it a radioactive device for measuring the amount of tobacco which goes into each cigarette.

Of course, if the demand for these radioactive isotopes could expand, the cost would become very much less. They can have a considerable half life and they can be stored. "Half life" is the period during which the substance loses half its energy. It is a very convenient criterion when applied to radioactive substances. If it were applied to politics it might be highly embarrassing. But many of them are very short-lived, and they have to be manufactured specially for each order whereas, if the volume of orders were greater, they could be manufactured by machine systems and the cost would fall even below what it is at present.

I think I have said enough to show how vast is the scope of these substances for industry. At Amersham, and, I think, also at Harwell, there is a research and development section. All that industrial firms need to do is to send their problems and inquiries to those establishments and they will be told how and in what way they can use radioactivity in their industrial processes. What is needed is far greater awareness in British industry of the way in which it can be helped by the research and development section at Amersham.

There is a fabulous wealth of these radioactive substances and at the Centre they can make almost anything that anybody wants in the way of radioactive chemical compounds. I hope that industry will take full advantage of this possibility, and so strengthen the competitive power of the British economy by this wonderful new development and the opportunity which it throws open to us. I am sure that if only all the opportunities in the various fields which are thrown open can be made use of, the development of atomic energy will open wide vistas of material betterment to this generation and to that which will follow.

I beg to second the Motion.

The whole House will want to join with me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell), first of all on his good luck in the Ballot, secondly on his good sense in selecting this particular subject, and, thirdly, on the very considerable grasp he has shown in the course of his most interesting speech of this complex subject.

Speaking for myself, I think that the more we can learn about atomic energy and its consequences for our age the better, because there is some danger of technology leaping ahead so fast that even those of us who consider we are really informed may fail to grasp the full social and economic significance of the vast changes that are coming.

First of all, I think it is necessary to put the matter in perspective. It is not that nuclear power will replace coal in any conceivable time in the future; on the contrary, expanding industry in the next 20 or 30 years quite clearly is going to need more coal and not less. It is rather that its arrival providentially rescues our country from the inevitable decline which would follow a chronic and sustained coal shortage. As the House knows, the Ridley Report estimates that by 1960 our coal requirements will fall some 20 million tons short of what is necessary. It is a happy accident, I might almost describe it, that nuclear power has become a reality.

Nor should we forget that enormous advances are taking place in other directions, for example, in electronics and in microbiology. The frontiers of knowledge are being pushed back all the time, and at a faster rate than we have ever before experienced. It is this which is going to revolutionise our lives.

Take one aspect of nuclear science. My hon. Friend referred at some length to the use of radioactive isotopes. Few people seem to realise that a wonderful new tool has been put into the hands of industry and medicine. Radioactive isotopes are already used in a wide variety of processes in industry in checking and measuring the thickness and purity of a wide range of industrial products. Though as yet, and speaking as one who has a small connection with a variety of businesses, I would say that industry, notoriously slow to adapt itself to new ideas, has scarcely awakened to the fact that we now possess a means of reducing production costs and of increasing the quality of production.

In medicine it may well be that radioactive isotopes are now assuming a greater importance from the point of view of diagnosis than in clinical use. Two examples occur to me. The first is simple enough. Using the characteristic of radioactive isotopes, described so clearly by my hon. Friend, faulty circulation in a patient can now be discovered by injecting a radioactive salt solution into his blood stream. The solution courses round, and by applying detectors to parts of the patient's body it is possible to measure the time taken for the blood to circulate and to measure it against what is known to be normal. I am told that by this means it is possible now to locate the exact site of the constriction in the arteries caused by a thrombosis. Such techniques are adding immensely to medical science.

Then again, it is now possible to detect and to locate brain tumours, since isotopes fed into the patient's system tend to concentrate in the affected area and, by the application of detectors, it is thus possible to discover the site of the tumour. Some of us were privileged last week to visit the Royal Marsden Hospital at Chelsea and to see some of the inspiring work being done there by Professor Mayneord and his gifted team. Two aspects of the work there struck me as being immensely interesting and significant. The first was that an isotope technique has now been developed which takes the place of the old X-ray method of photographing obstructions or fractures in the body, without the use of mains electricity. One can see at once a range of new possibilities in both peace and war opening up.

The second aspect of the work which seemed to me to be significant was the investigation into the hazards which exist wherever radioactive substances are being handled. It is obvious that as nuclear power stations are erected, not only in this country but overseas, as the use of radioactive isotopes in industry and in the hospitals is extended, and as uses are found for radioactive wastes, so means must be found of minimising the effects of radiation or of alleviating those effects when they occur; otherwise we shall find a limitation being imposed upon what might otherwise be a considerable expansion. In employment in this field a great deal more needs to be known, but undoubtedly a wonderful vista of opportunities is opening up.

Nevertheless, it is important to recognise the limiting factors, and I want to address myself to that subject. Clearly, to design, build, operate the nuclear power plants and factories of the future, to export plant overseas and to operate, to service it there, to apply all these new techniques, will require more than an increasing supply of atomic physicists. We shall need more technologists, whom I would describe as people who can apply science in a creative and forward-looking way, and more technicians too, that is to say, people who apply science expertly in the ordinary day-to-day jobs of industry.

If we can find the men there is no limit to the possibilities. If we fail to find the men, then our knowledge goes for nought and the leadership in its application will pass to others. I emphasise that not one but many new industries are about to be born. To design and build the new power stations and new atomic factories, will require engineers of the highest calibre. To analyse, to separate, to purify the chemical compounds, to enrich uranium, to extract plutonium, to deal with radioactive by-products and to handle radioactive materials will call not just for more industrial chemists but industrial chemists of exceptional quality. To apply the new techniques to industrial processes will require managements not only with exceptional business drive, but with imagination of the highest order. The new age is already calling for a higher degree of skill and accuracy, especially in chemical and metallurgical processes, than we have ever known before.

If I may digress for a moment, it is this which makes it improbable that back- ward and under-developed countries are likely to be able to apply the new techniques rapidly, and so take a short cut to development—as some people seem to think is possible—precisely because they lack the industrial skills and the organisational capacity without which nuclear engineering on any scale cannot be undertaken. So I say at once that the main limiting factor is the availability of scientific manpower, not only for nuclear industry but for our industry as a whole.

The House knows well, because the matter has been discussed on numerous occasions, that despite an increase in the output of scientists since the war—an encouraging increase—expanding production and the increasing use of scientific techniques in industry have caused demand to outrun supply. The most alarming feature of all is the fact that future supply is jeopardised by the shortage of science teachers, particularly graduate teachers in the schools.

The matter has been well ventilated both in this House and outside, and the Seventh Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy makes some interesting recommendations. I should have thought that the attack ought to be made on two fronts: firstly, by hook or by crook, we must attract more science teachers into the schools. Their status must be improved. I am ready to face the fact that we ought to pay them more if only as a simple investment in the future. I believe there are ways and means of attracting more science teachers into the profession. Secondly, I want to see graduates undertake more part-time work in industry.

Does not the hon. Member agree that it is a shameful disgrace in modern civilisation that a comic actor who comes over here should be paid £10,000 a week, whereas a distinguished scientist of the highest calibre should have to struggle to get £2,000 a year?

:Of course it is shameful, but that means that our values have to be adjusted, and that cannot be done in five minutes. One of the purposes of my hon. Friend's Motion is to bring to the attention of the nation the tremendous possibilities of nuclear power, but also the obstacles which stand in the way. We must also stop the present wastage of potential scientists among early school leavers. I shall not take the matter beyond that point, because time does not permit and many other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.

There is, however, a second limiting factor of special application to our own country which I must mention. The Motion calls attention

"to the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes"

and my hon. Friend has suggested certain lines of development. As the House well knows, however, in industry there is a very wide gap between the discovery of some new idea and its commercial application. Once an idea is recognised to have a possible commercial application it has to be worked out in practical terms; the pilot plant has to be built and experimental production entered into—research taking place at all stages—and between the recognition of the original idea and its commercial application a great deal of time and money must be spent and research undertaken.

We have all heard the complaint that while the quality of our fundamental research is as good as, and probably in advance of, that of the United States, somehow or other we always seem to fall behind in its application. That is unfortunately true. I notice that an American economist recently estimated that the United States benefits more from British fundamental research than Britain herself, and I think that is generally accepted—but have we ever bothered to ask ourselves why this is so?

I should be the first to recognise that the present Government have been giving generous aid to research of all kinds. I notice that in the current year £20·7million has been provided, as against only £13·4 million in 1950–51. That is an increase of 55 per cent. If one breaks down that figure and looks at the additional money provided for research in agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food, one finds that the increase is of the order of 88 per cent. In addition to these figures, a very high proportion of the recurrent grants to the universities must be considered as money devoted to research. I should be the last person therefore to criticise the Government for not making sufficient funds available.

None of us knows how much money the Government devote to research on defence, although clearly a proportion of that research has a civilian application. Britain does not publish as many figures as the United States in this respect, but it is interesting to note that the total amount spent last year by the United States Government upon research of all kinds, including defence, was £750 million. That is vastly more than we are spending. I am well aware that we have to be careful in talking about money and research. Last year "The Times" suggested that industry might be prodigal of its research effort and manpower, and went on to say:

"For every inch won, there may be acres of waste. Research can become a vested interest in itself, can be undertaken for prestige rather than product, can be duplicated within the same industry, can be so 'pure' as to be purposeless, can give a yield hopelessly incommensurate with its effort."

That is a perfectly fair observation. Nevertheless, the disparity between what we are spending upon research—especially in applied science—and what is being spent by the United States is very great.

A similar disparity exists in private industry. It is probably true that major British firms are spending between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. of their turnover upon research, and that compares quite favourably with anything in the United States, but the point to bear in mind is that our market is very much smaller and the risk of undertaking research very much greater than it is in America. In my view, it is wrong to link research with turnover. We should look upon it as an investment for the future.

My own suggestion is that there must be a case for considering whether we ought not to redress the balance by devoting more Government resources to applied research and the dissemination of information than we are now doing. I have particularly in mind the closing words of the Seventh Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy. It says:

"For now that the material fruits of Britain's past industrial greatness are no longer sufficient to carry us forward into the future, it becomes increasingly imperative to equip ourselves with new knowledge and new wealth. In doing so it is inevitable that we shall have to turn increasingly to science, for in a world which becomes more and more competitive, science constitutes one of the few instruments we have for attaining success and security."

There is certainly a strong case for looking again at the way in which finance is provided for medical research in such matters as radiation sickness. As my hon. Friend mentioned, it is quite clear that the existing hazards to health are a limiting factor to development. There is little doubt that the budgets of the Medical Research Council and the Ministry of Health—which, after all, have to deal with a very wide field—are stretched to the uttermost.

I speak solely for myself when I say that financial help should be given directly to help this very special and expensive research. But certainly nobody would have expected the British Electricity Authority to have found the means of nuclear power development, but organisations such as the Ministry of Health are having to carry this additional burden. I think I am right in saying that in the United States the Atomic Energy Commission finances medical research upon a very large scale. It may be, as "The Times" suggests, that it is doing it too lavishly, but there is a happy medium, and I am not at all convinced that we have attained it.

Atomic energy has given our country a new lease of life, but if we are to take the fullest advantage of it it is imperative to secure the maximum Commonwealth co-operation. I can never think of this country in isolation; I can think of it only in terms of the hub and heart of a great Commonwealth system. Happily a great deal of co-operation already exists, and there is a considerable exchange of ideas and information. There is a constant coming and going of Commonwealth scientists. It is remarkable how many South Africans, Australians. New Zealanders and Canadians are here, and how many Britons are in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. We are getting very well mixed together.

It is also true that Commonwealth scientists have contributed in very large measure to the success of our own nuclear energy progress. I would say too that the existing scientific liaison service is not only filling an extremely important gap, but is a model for a wider Commonwealth service. Nevertheless, when we are considering Commonwealth countries either as suppliers of raw materials—I am thinking not only of uranium and thorium—but of all the other minerals which are called for in the new nuclear age—or as potential markets for the goods which we can produce in this country, there are three considerations which we ought to bear in mind.

The first is—and I regret that this is so—that strategic interest has tended to pull the overseas Dominions towards the United States. The second consideration is—and the Paley Report gives a pretty clear indication of it to anyone who cares to read it—that if the United States economy is to expand at its present prodigious rate it must look increasingly to sources of supply of raw materials from overseas, and particularly from the sterling area. In sheer self-defence the United States economic policy will be framed to ensure that it has access to all the raw materials that are necessary to it.

The third consideration is that the United States capacity in the atomic field will obviously be much greater than our own in time. Against this we have the undoubted advantage of Commonwealth goodwill plus the fact that, at the moment, we have a slender lead in the application of the new knowledge to peaceful industrial purposes.

I pray that everything humanly possible will be done to ensure that we maintain that lead and to ensure that we intensify Commonwealth co-operation in this and in every other possible field, so as to enable our people to reap the rewards which the inspired genius of our scientists has brought, providentially, within our reach.

I should like to congratulate the hon. Members for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell)and Billericay (Mr. Braine) not only on the choice of subject, which is of world-wide importance, but on the manner in which they have moved it this afternoon. It is even more important when we consider that next week on Tuesday and Wednesday the over-riding topic of our debate will be the hydrogen bomb, which is the very antithesis of what we are discussing this afternoon. It is rather tragic that today so few hon. Members are here to debate the peaceful use of atomic energy when, next week, the Chamber will probably be full of hon. Members discussing its powers for potential destruction.

There was only one point where I think the doctrinaire approach of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South led him into difficulty. That was when he was seeking to defend that private enterprise should be let loose at some stage in the development of nuclear energy. I cannot think of any other sources which should be more debarred from private enterprise than that particular one. I think that the tribute which he paid in the rest of his speech was a remarkable testimony to the success of public service and of public enterprise in this sphere.

:I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me. I was only pointing out the very special nature of the responsibility which lies upon the Government because they have to take upon themselves all the responsibilities for the diversification which otherwise would be taken by so many others.

I accept that, but we are all very proud of the part played by British skill in this endeavour under public control, public initiative and public enterprise. This is a matter not only for us in this country, but for the world as well.

I was pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Billericay about the part which the Commonwealth can and must play in this development. Peace was once supposed to be indivisible and I should have thought that the peaceful uses of nuclear energy are also indivisible and that we cannot confine their good uses to this country of any section of the population as a whole.

The whole of our efforts should be devoted towards seeing the widest possible spreading of the benefits which can come from the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. I do not want to be technical—indeed, I cannot be technical—and I was interested to hear the explanation given by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South, which seemed to be remarkably clear. I think that it will be sufficient, for my purpose, having tried to understand what all this is about if I just say that we have now found an alternative source of heat energy by which we can drive our electric generating plant.

I do not want to go into the question of protons, neutrons, electrons and all the rest of it. My scientific knowledge was gained merely by putting iron filings into Bunsen burners, and that did not take me very far. I think that we have to find the alternative sources of power which will supplement our existing sources at the time we most need it, and at a time when our resources, during the next thirty or forty years would be seriously inadequate to maintain our industrial production and our exports and keep our place in the world.

It is most opportune at this time, when we are seeing the beginning of this large-scale development of atomic energy, that there should be this extra source of power. We have been very profligate in our uses of our energy in the past in this country. I do not know what the sources of atomic energy throughout the world will be, but I think that we shall have to be very careful how we used them for the benefit of mankind because, otherwise, we shall be negating some of the progress which we have already made.

There are some questions to which the Minister will have to find answers. One has been touched upon already. That is the question of the supply of trained personnel. We would all wish to know from him exactly what steps are to be taken to see that so far as is humanly possible we shall have trained people to carry on this progress not only at the highest level—because I think they will come from the universities and there is an attraction in this which will induce people regardless of awards—but also lower down the scale, where we shall need technicians and technologists to do this job.

Some will come from Loughborough College.

I know that some will come from there and from all the other technical institutions and colleges throughout the country. But when we think of the competing demand which there is for this kind of personnel throughout the country today and the priority which we must give to meet nuclear energy science we may have to take some extra special step to attract them into that sphere.

We shall have to face the fact sooner or later—and the sooner the better—that we shall have to provide a more scientific training in school than is being given today. We have to be ready to give teachers of science greater monetary value than teachers of some other subjects. We want to get them into the schools, because these are the places where we must have them to teach science and physics to the sixth forms. We must compete with industry, which is prepared to pay large sums to attract the very same people who should be teaching in our institutions.

Perhaps some of the people now engaged in the nuclear energy field could go back for a certain time of the year into universities and technical colleges to impart their information to students and encourage them to come along. It will not do for us to shut our eyes at the fact that in a few years' time we shall not have adequate trained personnel unless special steps are taken to keep up the impetus.

My second question to the Minister concerns the spread over ten years, during which time it is estimated that the investment will, roughly, be £300 million. Is that enough? Are we giving enough of our national investment to this all-important subject? To devote £300 million over ten years is an average of £30 million a year, which seems a very small sum to provide for what we want. I would have thought that out of our vast investment programme it would be wise to give an added amount to this work.

I am a little disturbed at the time it is estimated to take before the proposed power stations come into operation. Perhaps it is wise of the Government to be a little cautious in fixing the time, and they may surprise us later by the speed of development. It may take only half the time before the stations come into operation. When will the experimental stations now in existence be producing power for the national grid? Will it be in one year, or have we to wait a longer time? Is it possible to convert existing power stations working on the ordinary coal or oil-fired processes to nuclear energy as an experiment, without radically re-designing them or pulling the places down? If so, we may save a considerable amount of time and money.

On the question of co-operating with other people, I remember asking, as a supplementary question to the Prime Minister about two years ago, whether it would not be wise to co-operate by giving some of our information on the peaceful uses of atomic energy to the United States. A cold shudder went through the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister did not seem very anxious to take up the point. That attitude seems to have changed considerably. We now have no wish to conceal our knowledge from the United States and from other countries, and I welcome the fact that that change has come about.

Considerable interest has been shown in the supply of raw material to carry on the work. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can indicate the amount and the sources of supply, and whether he is satisfied that we have adequate arrangements, by pooling resources in the world, to see that not only our own developments go on but those in the Commonwealth and in the world at large. That brings me to Commonwealth co-operation. I noticed that one of the subjects discussed at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting was the peaceful use of atomic energy. It seemed that very fruitful co-operation was arrived at in what is going on in Australia, Canada, India and South Africa. I would ask the Minister for a little more information about the effect of that co-operation on our production at home.

President Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" plan is one of the most imaginative gestures of all time, and is perhaps equal to the Marshall Plan gesture. It was bogged down for a little while with procedural difficulties, but there seems to be a prospect of the plan getting under way, with the conference which, I believe, is to be held some time in 1955. I make a plea that we should have the widest information on the use of atomic energy for peace. There should be no veil of secrecy surrounding it. We should have international co-operation covering research, the supply of raw materials and an interchange of information of all kinds regarding health, welfare, safety, production, and so on.

One other point causes anxiety. How is this section of the capital investment programme being fitted in with all the other programmes that have been announced recently? There is the plan for modernising railways, and plans for roads, housing, and hospitals. The plan for atomic energy should have complete priority in all this development. Do the Government con- sider that they have enough manpower, technical skill and material to do the job, and to give it the priority that it deserves?

If we make the wrong use of atomic and nuclear power we are faced with the prospect of quickly going back to the dark ages. A right use of atomic power can bring about a new era of peace and prosperity, and a chain reaction for the benefit of humanity. That is a challenge to our statesmanship and common sense, and I hope that in our debates today and next week our common sense will prevail.

The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and, as I recall, his right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), when commenting on the statement made a week or two ago on this subject, agreed that it represented a great triumph for the work of public enterprise.

This is not a subject on which we want to make party points, but it is fair to say that this field is probably unique in that private enterprise has a great share in the success, in the sense of having manufactured components on time. Reference has already been made to contracts which have been carried out right on time. Indeed, some of them appear to be running a little ahead of time. Possibly the hon. Member represents a good many people who work in large private-enterprise concerns intimately concerned in this field; but I do not want to pursue this point further.

I am glad of the chance to say a few words in support of this Motion. My excuse for troubling the House is that last week I was lucky enough, at the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, to go on a tour of some of these factories in the North-west.

I will begin by saying a word or two about the numerous members of the staffs of these factories who took such immense trouble to make this trip a success. As far as many of us were concerned—and I speak mainly for myself, though also, perhaps, for some others on this side of the House—they were showing round a completely untechnical and unscientific party of people, absolute laymen in this field, who were not even capable of rising to the height to which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) rose at one moment in his speech, which I thought was very high indeed.

I have no doubt that, in regard to some of the things which they showed us, we were incapable of understanding them through a lack of background, and, indeed, some of the questions which we put to them may not have seemed particularly intelligent. In spite of that, I am sure that the trip was very well worth while, not only for us, but possibly also for some of the staff as well, if only as a kind of exercise in public relations.

We hear it said often enough that seeing is believing, and that is quite true. It is one thing to read about this development in a White Paper or to hear it discussed in this House, but it is quite another to see what is actually being achieved on the spot. I think that I am speaking for all hon. Members of the delegation from both sides of the House—and I do not think that the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. F. Anderson) will dissent—when I say that we came away completely convinced of the wisdom and boldness of my right hon. Friend in giving to this industry the signal to go ahead. We were equally convinced that the men to whom the job has been given fully justify the confidence of my right hon. Friend in them.

I wish to follow up the idea of public relations, and I hope that this will not, by any means, be the last of such visits which my right hon. Friend may be able to arrange. To build up a good atmosphere of public relations is very important to this industry, as indeed to all industries. At the moment—partly because the Press, for obvious reasons, does not have full scope in relation to this industry—it seems to me that this field of enterprise is perhaps to many people rather unknown, and, as it were, remote. The public need more knowledge, which, in its turn, will breed more confidence, which, perhaps, though inadequately enough, Members of Parliament who see these things may be able in the course of their travels round the country to supply.

One of the main values of the White Paper—coming as it did coincident with our visit—and of this debate today, is that the publicity which is given to the peaceful development of atomic energy comes at a most opportune time. People's minds have certainly been disturbed, as it is right they should be, by the prominence hitherto given to the military uses of atomic energy, and all this will help to restore a healthy balance.

I think I noticed this feeling among some of those to whom we talked at the factories. In many ways, they have a lonely job, and I should think that working on atomic energy, especially on the military side, can be a very difficult job for a sensitive man. I believe that they welcome the feeling that the whole thing is beginning to be seen more in perspective, and they have realised, as we have, that we could not possibly have had this tremendous and beneficial development on the civilian side but for the imperative demands of the military side. The whole of this development works in together, and I am sure that this should be said and realised.

Then there is the question, which is also one largely of public relations, of the element of safety in these plants, and a matter to which reference has already been made. I am glad to see that it is so fully dealt with in the White Paper. Obviously, it will be of even more concern if and when stations are sited in more closely-populated areas than is, the case at the moment, but it is of very great importance now to people who live near and who work in these plants. The White Paper, at the bottom of page 8, says this:

"The first important thing to recognise is that it is impossible for an atomic explosion to take place in a power reactor."

Speaking for myself, the force of those words was very keenly brought home to me as I stood the other day on the top of an atomic pile at Windscale. I think we all realised that it is very important, and if I lived in Cumberland I should certainly want to have that said. I am glad that it has been said authoritatively.

Next, there is the question of what comes out of the chimneys. Here again, the apprehensions which exist about the chimneys on the site of an atomic pile are, I think, due to strangeness and un-familiarity with the technique. Until the advent to this House of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), we all thought that the right and proper function of a chimney was to smoke, and everybody expected a chimney to smoke, certainly outside and possibly inside as well.

These chimneys do not smoke, and that is what upsets the people, because they wonder what, in fact, they are doing. What they do is emit air, and that air, by the time it reaches a place where anybody can breathe it, is just the same as any other air anywhere else, and probably rather better than some. We were shown conclusively that anybody living within twenty miles of Windscale, either inland or even on a boat at sea, could write to the safety officers and ask, "What about the air where I live and which I have to breathe? Is it all right?" Such a person would be shown the result of a test which was conducted within a very few miles of the spot in which he was interested, and which had proved satisfactory. I think that that is important.

Needless to say, the health precautions inside these factories are just as stringent, and the House will be glad to know that they were rigorously applied to the delegation. Protective clothing is always worn and often changed. Indeed, we were reminded of the occasion when a gentleman chose, as part of his epitaph, the words:

"Tired of all this buttoning and unbuttoning."

This meticulous care will, of course, obviate the need for any epitaphs in future, and it is important that it should be scrupulously observed.

Two questions arise, one from our visit and one from the White Paper, and perhaps my right hon. Friend may like to comment on them. The first question is about the staff, and the position of the staff in these projects has been mentioned by almost every speaker today. I think that some of us have wondered particularly about the younger employees at Windscale. I mean those who are in the research laboratories, and who are, I think, graded as assistant experimental officers. I suppose that there is a fairly good presumption that these young men and women will have a good career before them in this industry, if they want it, and if they show themselves to be quite capable.

Some of us then wondered whether, outside the ordinary routine experimental research work which they do during the day they have adequate facilities for further training outside. If they have not it might be a wise provision for the future to make such facilities available. I gathered that some of them at present make their way from their hostel to Whitehaven to attend technical classes. That may be enough, but perhaps more should be done to provide a more specialised course nearer at home.

There might also be examined the related fact that in that part of the country there is the quite unusual situation for young trainees in industry that they find themselves plumped down in the middle of the countryside a long way not only from their homes but from the town interests and pursuits to which most of them are no doubt accustomed. They probably adapt themselves to it, but it is a novel situation for them.

The second point arises from paragraphs 39 to 41 of the White Paper which deals with the international aspects of commercial atomic power. There we read:

"Physicists and engineers from a number of countries have taken the opportunity of learning nuclear technology by attending schools and courses in this country such as the Reactor and Isotopes Schools at Harwell. So far as resources permit we intend to provide further facilities for nationals of other countries to attend these schools. Other countries will also be helped to build experimental and development reactors which are an essential preliminary to the building of commercial reactors. We are already helping in this way a number of Commonwealth and European countries."

How soon do we expect to earn something substantial from the extension of these and similar facilities? I realise that many of those coming here have useful experience which we can share and from which we can gain. I realise, also, that in the long run it is probably profitable to us to take the Biblical advice:

"Cast thy bread upon the waters:"

and, by giving some information for nothing, build up a future market for our technological skill and products. It would be interesting to hear when it is likely to be possible to reap definite financial benefit from these vast potentialities—and they are vast—for export earnings, both visible and invisible, which have become possible through the outstanding lead we have established as a result of the Government's bold initiative in this important field.

It is with some pleasure that I intervene, because in my constituency we have a famous college—Loughborough Technological College. Just over seven years ago, from the benches opposite, I recommended that we should give far more attention to the development of science and science teachers than we were then giving, or are even now giving. If we have not the science teachers we cannot have the pupils; if we have not the pupils we cannot have the students; and if we have not got the students we cannot get the scientists.

We have reached a high degree of scientific development in the world of atomic energy, but as atomic development expands we shall want more and more scientists, chemists and physicists. We shall want them more perhaps than we shall want clerks and shop assistants. Short as we are of most raw materials, it is important that we should develop one thing which we have got, and that is a talent for science.

In America, were is not for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it is very doubtful if the atomic bomb would have come into being when it did. I do not say that that has been a blessing—it may be a curse—but with the atomic bomb came great atomic and nuclear developments. Those developments were largely due to M.I.T. I have urged here that Loughborough College should be developed on the same basis as M.I.T. It should be a central technological institute for the whole Commonwealth. To take full advantage of these new developments, we must have a centralised institute where young scientists from all over the Commonwealth—India, Canada, Australia and the rest—can obtain the highest degree of further nuclear technical knowledge. It was I who was principally responsible for getting the name of the Loughborough College of Engineering changed to Loughborough Technological College.

Time is very short. Now that the Germans are coming back into their own they will be pushing ahead with nuclear development. They were very far ahead of anyone else. If we do not develop this new science we shall be outpaced. When the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) spoke of giving adequate pay to our scientists, I intervened to say that I thought it a shame that the comic actor Danny Kaye should come here and be paid £10,000 for a week when Pontecorvo was paid only £1,500 a year.

Much too much.

Say what one will, he was of the foremost mathematicians in the world and we do not know whether or not his reason for abandoning this country was to go to one where scientists are better looked after. I have been in Russia three times and have been astounded at the civic position accorded to scientists there. We cannot say that £1,500 a year for one of the finest mathematicians in the world is adequate pay, and we must forget this idea that entertainment should be very richly rewarded whereas science should be neglected, because unless we pay the scientists well, we shall have no science.

We should bear in mind the problems, today, of high taxation, the difficulties of gaining a livelihood, the difficulties of a man bringing up his children and educating them well. He may not be able to leave them a fortune; instead, he may have to give them the wherewithal, which is worth more than a fortune. Unless we make it possible for scientists to do these things, this country will be perennially short of the scientists we require.

Let us forget this idea that all teachers must be paid the same. The scientist is a special sort of teacher who is absolutely necessary to this country, not merely for the development of the country but for its very existence. If we do not pay these teachers enough we shall not get them, for they will go into other walks of life.

I appeal to the House to give this matter careful consideration. The scientist is a very valuable person, essential to the existence of this country. Let us pay him well. Let us pay him what he deserves to be paid. Let us see that he gets the finest college in the world. I know that it will be difficult to get an M.I.T., because Eastman, the Kodak man, left the whole of his fortune to M.I.T. He was a bachelor. I believe he left them 50 million dollars. We cannot expect that, but we can expect the Government to come forward with 50 million dollars or £50 million. If they cannot give all of that to Loughborough, at least they could give a satisfactory amount to Loughborough which would establish in this country an institution for the study of nuclear development which would be the envy of the world.

I join with hon. Members who have congratulated my hon. Friends the Members for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) and Billericay (Mr. Braine) on their excellent speeches. They have put the subject in the right perspective and have done great service by bringing their knowledge of the peaceful use of atomic energy before the House.

The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) mentioned the peace-time use of atomic energy in Germany. As hon. Members know, that is the subject of an undertaking given by Dr. Adenauer in an exchange of letters which has just taken place, but I agree with the hon. Member that this is a point which should be kept constantly under review.

Several hon. Members present will remember having taken part in the first debate on the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, as it then was, a year ago, and I think it is fair to say that few of us here then visualised the great steps which have been taken since and the tremendous advancements in the planning of full-scale generation of atomic electricity which have taken place. At that time we were all very anxious that certain assurances should be given to the staffs, and I raised that matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works in an Adjournment debate a fortnight ago. I am glad to say that, as far as I know, the assurances which he then gave show that progress has been made towards a solution of many of the staff problems about which some of us were worried at that time.

But this bold and imaginative step which has been taken—first, through the building of experimental power stations by the Atomic Energy Authority, and, secondly, in the building of atomic power stations by the British Electricity Authority—has, of course, given rise to a point made by more than one hon. Member—for instance my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South and the hon.

Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd)—that it will take a great deal of time and cost a great deal of money. I think that point is fairly and frankly dealt with in paragraph 52 on page 12 of the White Paper, part of which reads:

"New technical developments that cannot at present be foreseen may perhaps lead to a more rapid improvement in the performance of stations than has been assumed. If so, we should be in a good position to take advantake of such developments. On the other hand, the provisional programme may turn out to be too optimistic: the stations may take longer to design and to build; they may cost more; the amount of development work needed may have been under-estimated."

The point is properly made that at this stage we cannot say very precisely how long this programme will take to develop and what new technical discoveries may result which will mean either that the programme will go faster or that we shall encounter difficulties.

Will the hon. Gentleman agree that it takes about four years to build a power station in these days?

The hon. Member is quite right. We may encounter unusual difficulties with atomic power stations which have not yet been foreseen.

There is a part of this great new area of research which, as the White Paper modestly said, we have not yet been able to discover. I do not think it is a proper criticism to say that it is going to take too long at this stage. It is, however, a very inspiring plan and I think it has heartened many doubters and faint-hearts as to the future of our country. With the co-operation of industry of all kinds, public and private, this new Atomic Energy Authority may bring great well-being to our people.

Coming to a practical point and a practical question arising out of it, I ask whether the Minister can tell us what is to be the future of the Isotope and Reactor School, at Harwell, where representatives of industry from all over the world are being taught the mysteries of atomic energy? I do not know whether they understand those mysteries as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South, who told us a great many things which would have interest even for the most expert chemical engineer and physicist. How many are attending the School. How long are the courses? Are they paying for them? What are the financial arrangements?

Another point which has been touched upon by other hon. Members is the question of safety. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) mentioned, with other hon. Members from both sides of the House he has visited various atomic stations, as I have. We have been very much impressed with the amount of safeguards we discovered, the amount of protective clothing we were expected to put on, and the tests which were applied for monitoring the amount of radioactivity which might be in us when we left the factory. But I did not agree with my hon. Friend that the remarks in the White Paper are adequate on this point. There are only three paragraphs relating to safety and I should like to see more publicity given to that subject.

There is a feeling among people who, somewhat naturally, have been obsessed by fear of the military use of and danger from nuclear explosions that harm may result from these factories. That fear arises from not knowing some of the important facts we have heard today and which are told us by the White Paper. For instance, the phrase referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate that "it is impossible for an atomic explosion to take place in a power reactor" ought to be published very widely and made very clear. I mention that because, like other hon. Members, I have visited various atomic sites and Harwell is in my constituency. I do not see why the widest publicity should not be given to these matters.

It is also very important that the public should know the extent of precautions for the protection of atomic workers, that constant vigilance is exercised, and safety is complete when it is exercised. The workers have less danger from radiation than in some respects workers in other industries have from burns, scalds, cuts, bruises, and so forth. That is a matter with which perhaps the Minister might deal.

I understand that at Harwell there has been no serious accident to any of the workers involving radiation in the whole history of the project. How far that applies elsewhere, I do not know, but it is a matter about which the public ought to know. Since this project is an inspiration to us all, surely some of these anxieties could now be cleared up and details of the work of the health physics and medical divisions in the atomic factories should be revealed.

Welcoming, as I do, the assurances which have already been given to the atomic energy staffs on housing and other matters, I end by reminding the House of the issues which have been raised by other hon. Members and of the field in which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is in the van. This country's urgent need for coal has meant that the great discovery of atomic energy has come just in time. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster has described it as a second Industrial Revolution. He may well be right. Therefore I, like other hon. Members, am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham, South and Billericay for the way in which they have moved and seconded the Motion today. In doing so, they have made a great contribution to public understanding of the whole question.

I join the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) in congratulating the hon. Members for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) and Billericay (Mr. Braine) on promoting this very useful discussion. Politically, I am much encouraged by the warm enthusiasm they show for public enterprise. I hope that this is not to be regarded by their political colleagues as deviation, but as a sign of reform in political thinking in the Conservative Party.

We have to admit, on both sides of the House, that the development of atomic energy could have taken place only through public enterprise. It is unrealistic to make political capital, as Conservatives often endeavour to do, about the disadvantages of public enterprise when we have had such a debate as we have had today, extolling the virtues of public enterprise in a new field of development. But I do not wish to introduce political discord into this discussion, save, perhaps, also to note that the ebullience of hon. Members opposite seems to have diminished since the statement made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I should like the Minister to tell us what effect that statement will have upon the atomic energy programme. It is quite obvious that the Chancellor's statement will affect capital investment. I should have thought that it was the will of all sides of the House that this programme should not be affected and that it should, as everyone has urged, be a top priority.

I pass now to one or two questions arising from the White Paper, which is written with imagination and boldness and is very encouraging to have come from a Conservative Government. My first question is one in which I have a local interest. The White Paper makes it clear—I do not know what strength there is in the suggestion of hon. Members who say that progress could be expedited—that the construction of two gas-cooled graphite moderated stations will be started in about mid-1957. I should like to know when we may expect a statement about their location.

It is quite obvious, on practical grounds, that a decision must have been taken, or must very shortly be taken. We in the North-East believe that we ought to get one of these stations. I dare say that people in other parts of the country think the same——

They certainly do.

—but I have been unable to get any information from Lord Citrine. Therefore, I am trying the right hon. Gentleman. If the programme is envisaged in the terms put forward in the White Paper, a decision about location must be made soon, and I hope the Minister can say when an announcement is to be made. Clearly, these stations must be co-ordinated with the construction of other power stations now proceeding.

Secondly, particularly as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power is present, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say something about the relation of the development of atomic energy to the coalmining industry. This should be explained, and on both sides of the House we should do what we can to make the position clear. The coalmining industry, as the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates, is a communal industry. A coal miner lives in a community of coal miners. For that reason he very properly takes a long-term view of his industrial prospects.

It is clear, as I read the White Paper, that there is no slackening in the demand for coal, and that coal will remain a high priority, and almost top priority, for as long as we can foresee, but the coalmining industry is one which has had an unfortunate history of uncertainty and unsettlement, and it depends on a community of people who devote themselves to a very uncongenial, hard task, and so I hope that the Government and all of us will emphasise, and continue to emphasise, the importance of the coalmining industry, because this is, as I see it, of absolute importance. If there were any feeling that the coalmining industry was only relatively important, or that its importance had been lessened, that would affect the coalfields immensely.

I think the hon. Gentleman is overlooking but will recall the fact that the Minister of Fuel and Power made the position very clear when he announced the content of the White Paper in reply to a Question by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles).

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate what the Minister said. What I am emphasising is the importance of making the value of the coalmining industry understood throughout the country, particularly in such regions of the country as Durham, where part of the coalfield is becoming redundant, although the other part, of course, is becoming of increasing importance.

I wish thirdly to emphasise what almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has remarked, and that is the importance of giving high priority to technical and scientific education, and the importance of its application. It was, I think, the hon. Member for Billericay who spoke particularly of that. It is in this regard that we are, as is generally conceded, behind the United States, and possibly behind the Soviet Union. The development of Calder Hall is very encouraging. I remember meeting some of the distinguished physicists who came back from the States after the war, and being very impressed by what they said. namely, that "This is a field of research which is peculiarly British, and nuclear research depended upon British fundamental research." But we were not in a position to develop it, and if we had not gone to the United States it would not have been developed as it has been. The Soviet Union, too, has been able to place enormous resources to helping the backroom boys.

I know the difficulties about this. I would be the last one to try to interfere with academic research and academic education, but I think there is a case for argument here. I would not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick). When we talk about education we have to talk cautiously. I do not welcome a technocracy. If we are evaluating teaching, we should still place a high value on culture and moral teaching. However, we have to realise that we are living in a changing and a competitive world, and we have to see that we are as well equipped as we possibly can be to live in it, and the best way to secure ourselves is by developing high skills.

There is another point that has been made, particularly by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Abingdon, and I want only to emphasise it. A good deal of—I hesitate to use the word "propaganda"—of information must be given about safety in the development of atomic energy, because there is much needless fear, which is aggravated of course by the atomic bomb. There is an association in people's minds between atomic energy for peaceful purposes and the atomic bomb, and so there is fear, which is needless because the development of atomic energy for peaceful uses is a different thing from the development of the atomic bomb. I am not criticising anyone. All the people who have been concerned have made it abundantly clear Chat there is not the danger that in some quarters is supposed to exist, but it is necessary to make the information available. It was for that reason that I hesitated to use the word "propaganda." We want to be as well informed as we can be about this development.

Finally, I should like to say a few words on the rather controversial subject with which I began. It is quite clear that the Government have issued a large number of programmes, some of which are possibly window-dressing because there may be a General Election fairly soon—one never knows. Be that as it may, it is clear that if we have all these vast schemes of capital development we must have priorities. That is the language of Socialism. We must have a good deal of Socialism from the present Government if we are to proceed with these developments in an orderly way. I would support the plea that in the list of priorities atomic energy development must rank very high indeed, possibly as a top priority. We must see that in this initial stage of the new world that is opening before us Britain is in the lead.

I have been taken a little by surprise at the speed with which this debate was begun today. I thought that there would have been enough aviators and medical men in the House to keep discussion going on the other Motions for quite a time before we reached this question of nuclear power. Like other hon. Members, I am also very grateful to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) and the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) for providing us with this valuable and interesting discussion.

Last week, I had the pleasurable experience with other hon. Members on both sides of the House of visiting the industrial division of the Atomic Energy Authority. I went to Capenhurst, Spring fields, Windscale, and, most interesting of all to me, because I am interested in the electrical power industry, to the Calder Hall plant. We were very well looked after in the austere Civil Service tradition which apparently still persists in the counsels and organisation of the Atomic Energy Authority.

Two distinct impressions remain in my mind. The first was the extreme youth and enterprise of those who were in charge. The men who took us round were in their 30s and early 40s, and we were all vastly impressed by their energy and enthusiasm. Another impression that remains with me is that here was a tremendous tribute to public enterprise. I do not think that anyone, even the most extreme hon. Member opposite, can say after visiting the Windscale plant that public planning and enterprise is incapable of wrestling successfully with industrial problems of this kind.

I should like to say something about the development of nuclear energy for electrical power purposes. When we were discussing the Bill, which is now the Atomic Energy Act, I was fairly persistent in suggesting that the British Electricity Authority should be brought into the matter at a high level and that there should be men from the electrical industry serving on the Atomic Energy Authority. I feel that the publication of the Government White Paper is a justification of that point of view.

I disagree a little with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), who seemed to suggest that we should confine the peaceful development of nuclear energy entirely to public enterprise. I am all in favour of public enterprise taking the initiative and having the primary responsibility. But if we want to move away quickly from the use of nuclear energy for the sole purposes of war to the wider purposes of peace, we must accept the economic system that we find here today. That means, I think, bringing in many private enterprise firms to play their part in the development of nuclear energy for general industrial use. For instance, the British Electricity Authority in the years ahead must of necessity use private contractors for the construction of the nuclear power stations, and I do not see that private contractors can be used properly unless they are given information about nuclear energy techniques.

I am glad that the British Electricity Authority is to have the ownership and operate the new nuclear power stations. It will mean that these will become a normal part of the public utility development of, this country.

I disagree with the suggestion made by one hon. Member opposite to the effect that nuclear power stations would necessarily be more complicated, needing a high level of technique to operate them. It may very well be that there will be engineers who will find a nuclear power station a relatively simple thing to operate once some of the outstanding technical questions have been overcome. There are difficulties about temperatures and pressures, and in that connection I might put a point to the Minister if he has available the technical advice which will enable him to answer it now.

The type of reactor which is used at Calder Hall uses uranium in its solid form, and that limits the temperature at which the pile can be operated, because solid uranium must be contained in a particular type of aluminium casing. I understand that in the United States of America they are making progress in the development of a rather different type of reactor which uses uranium in some kind of solution form. I shall be interested to know if we are pressing ahead with that type of reactor, because that is more likely to be found in the power stations of the future, I imagine, than the reactors which are now being erected at Calder Hall, which follow on the models of those at Windscale immediately adjoining.

It has been put to me that it might be convenient if I sat down in a few minutes, but before doing so I should like to make this point. The electrical power industry in this country has been criticised for what has been described as extravagant capital expenditure. It has been said that since 1945 far too much has been spent on new electrical projects, little perhaps of which was urgent. I suggest that the planning of the previous Government which, in the main, the present Administration have carried on, of large-scale electrical development has been thoroughly justified by the publication of this White Paper. Because, unless there is large-scale intervening electrical development, the advantages of nuclear energy cannot be taken from the nuclear energy plants to the factories, to the homes and to the farms.

I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power has now left the Chamber.

I shall reply to the debate.

Yes, and I do not doubt the helpfulness of the right hon. Gentleman. I was about to say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power is more closely in touch with my further question because he is responsible for both the nationalised coal industry and the nationalised electricity industry. We are proposing to spend a vast sum of money on the development of nuclear power to obtain electrical energy. At the same time we are arranging to sink new pits and to spend large sums of money on the mining industry which, in turn, will be translated into electrical energy. What is to be the balance in economic planning between capital expenditure on nuclear energy and capital expenditure on the coal industry?

I can see that for the time being the two are complementary, but eventually nuclear energy is destined to supersede the other—as in fact the White Paper makes plain. It may be that after 1980 nuclear energy will take over entirely the large-scale obtaining of heat and energy from coal. Therefore the Government should look ahead now and ensure that there is a proper planned ratio between cap expenditure on coalmining on the one hand, and the development of nuclear power stations on the other. I shall be grateful if the Minister of Works can give us an answer on that important point when he replies to the debate.

:We have had a helpful debate with admirable contributions from both sides of the House, and I want to add my congratulations to those of many hon. Members to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) who moved the Motion, and also to his seconder the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine). My hon. Friend gave us an interesting historical account of how these matters have come about and also some admirable instruction in science. I am told by my advisers, who know all the answers, that although he did not get 100 out of 100, his information was good enough to earn him a distinction.

It was very good.

I agree. This White Paper has been generally welcomed as a realistic document, but there has been criticism about whether we are going fast enough. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) asked whether £300 million will be sufficient.

It is a paltry little amount.

The House ought to realise the way in which this amount has been arrived at. My noble Friend and his advisers did not say, "We have £300 million. What shall we do with it?" What they did was to ask, "What in all the circumstances is the sensible thing to do about the development of this new means of producing electric power?" They had to take into account a large number of different factors. They had to take into account the speed at which the necessary teams to construct these plants could be trained. They also had to take into account the speed of the development in techniques which is going on all the time. We do not want to put vast sums of money into a type of reactor which will be out of date almost at once.

The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) asked about what I believe is known as the homogeneous type of reactor. It is well known to us; it is being developed and tests are being made. It may be that at some time we shall want to put down such reactors, but at this stage invention and design are going on at the same time; we must try to keep our feet on the ground and feel our way. As is clearly pointed out in the White Paper, the programme is a provisional one. It is not fixed, as were the laws of the Medes and Persians. It is subject to adjustment as we find out new things and see more clearly where we are going.

Several hon. Members opposite referred to the capital investment programme. It may be said that £300 million is too little, or that it is too much. The only point I want to make about it is that, on whichever side of the House we sit, we would all agree that our country must have electricity. We know how excessively inconvenient it is when we have not got it. This programme provides for an alternative way of producing electricity, and the capital cost is not, therefore, a net addition—because in any case we have to increase steadily our capital investment in the production of electric power. That is a point worth making.

Everybody recognises that atomic power offers a most hopeful development for the future, and it is coming none too soon. Cheap fuel is a source of economic vigour. Cheap coal was the source of our industrial pre-eminence in the past, and cheap coal, oil, natural gas and water power are the sinews of the American economy. If, therefore, we are to have prosperity, we must have further sources of power. The essential fact is that the steady and rapid expansion in the consumption of electric power will go on. The White Paper estimates that in 20 years' time we shall probably be using about three and a half times as much electric power as we are using now.

I want to give one or two figures in order to put the matter in perspective. In 1975 our requirements of generating capacity are likely to be between 55,000 and 60,000 megawatts. At that time, upon the assumptions contained in the White Paper the amount generated by nuclear power will be between 10,000 and 15,000 megawatts. This is not a very large proportion, but it is better than it looks, because all the nuclear power stations will be base-load power stations. In 20 years' time we can expect that about 30 per cent. of electric power in this country will be generated by nuclear power.

A rather important point was made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) in this connection. In spite of the increased use of nuclear power, not only will there still be a demand for coal, but there will be an increased demand. In the current year the demand for coal for generating electricity will be about 40 million tons. In 1975, upon the assumptions to which I have referred, there will be a reduction in the demand for coal, from what it would have been if we had no nuclear power, of between 35 million and 40 million tons. Without that reduction, the demand for coal would not be 40 million tons but 100 million tons, and we shall therefore still need 60 million tons, or half as much again as we now use for generating electricity. Therefore, any idea that in the foreseeable future we can afford to relax in the production and development of our mines is wholly illusory. To say that because we have nuclear power we can possibly slack off in the production of coal is a misapprehension. So far as we can see, there is no immediate basis of any sort for saying that. We must realise our continued dependence on coal.

As to costs, it is estimated in the White Paper that the costs will be competitive with coal stations. I think that the estimates look reasonably conservative. I am afraid that it would be wildly optimistic to suppose that we are likely to get any reduction in the price of coal. In fact all the probabilities are the other way round. It is worth making the point that if we average out the costs of electrical power stations at the present time, we find that only 40 per cent. of the costs are fuel costs.

Nuclear power is simply another form of fuel, and we have to bear in mind that the bulk of the costs of electricity are not in fact fuel costs. Although I am sure that this will be an economic and a competitive source, I think it is a mistake to suppose that any reduction there may be in price in the foreseeable future will or can be a very dramatic one.

Several hon. Members have mentioned the siting of the new stations, and I have had lengthy correspondence on the subject, which I am passing on to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I hope that when it comes to the time for deciding where the stations are to be hon. Members who have been agitated about this will welcome the stations when they arrive, because they do not always welcome them when they are actually on the ground.

I am not in a position to say where the stations will be. The siting of the stations in England and Wales is a matter for the British Electricity Authority, and, in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland, for the electricity authorities concerned. The considerations affecting where these sites should be are very much the same as those affecting ordinary sites. Ordinary sites have to be centred in an area where the base load is great, where they do not offend against amenities, and where there are ample water supplies. The only difference, I think we can say, is that it is not necessary for a nuclear power station to have such good communications, because there is not the immense traffic in coal coming in and in ash going out. Therefore, the question of communications is not so important.

The hon. Member for Billericay talked a good deal about Empire co-operation. We have both given help to and received help from our partners in the Commonwealth. Over the years, as the hon. Member knows, there has been much exchange of information with Canada, and we are now developing close technical collaboration with Australia and New Zealand. Hon. Members will have noticed in particular that we are now about to set up a plant to make heavy water in New Zealand. So far as the supply of uranium is concerned, the Commonwealth is of immense importance. South Africa is one of the main suppliers of uranium, and Australia is just beginning to come into the market. We look forward in the future to increasingly close relations with the Commonwealth in the whole of this development.

The next subject which bon. Members raised was training. For a few moments I thought it was developing into a sort of N.U.T. agitation on behalf of science teachers.

As a member of the N.U.T. I did not follow the argument which was adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick).

What is more, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) does not know what he is talking about.

It may be. Neither do you.

Science teachers must be paid according to their value.

:I hesitate to intervene between the two Members opposite——

Hon. Gentlemen on the Government side raised this matter too.

All right. I do not want to go back as far as the school child. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. I know it exercises his mind very much, and no doubt in due course he will have proposals to make.

I hope he will.

We are talking about what is to happen in the next 10 years. The training of children at school is not very relevant to that period, although it is highly relevant, I agree, to a later period. One of the main factors in the speed of development of the programme is how quickly we can train the men we shall need. A big part must be played by the universities, by the Atomic Energy Authority and by industry. As the hon. Member for Cleveland pointed out, the new atomic-power stations will be erected not by the nationalised authority but by private industry.

Universities are helping. I would like to mention Queen Mary College, London, and Birmingham and Manchester. They are all making special efforts in training people in the peaceful use of atomic energy. Manchester, in particular, has a six weeks' full-time course on nuclear engineering specially designed for industrialists. We hope that in time all universities will gradually do more in this direction, and by giving basic courses in nuclear and reactor physics.

What about Loughborough College?

Loughborough College is doing its best, as I am sure it will continue to do if the hon. Gentleman helps it. Training is carried out at Harwell, and a number of people from industry have had the chance to visit Atomic Energy Authority establishments. The object is to build up teams. We want teams with representatives from the British Electricity Authority, consulting engineers, heavy electrical and other engineering firms. These teams are being trained, and we hope they will be able to take care of the plans being made.

Safety is my next point. I am glad that many hon. Members mentioned it, and I am grateful for the contributions from those who went on the recent tour, which I have heard was a success. The Atomic Energy Authority will be grateful for the tributes paid to it over this. There is naturally some anxiety, because we are dealing with the unknown. As a matter of fact, the effect of radiation on the human body is not a new problem. It has been known about for a very long time. X-rays and radium have been used for 60 years, so we have behind us 60 years' experience of the effect of radiation on the human body. Experiments must go on but we are not starting from scratch.

Most stringent precautions are taken in all these stations. Some people say that the precautions are too stringent and go too far. The record of safety has been quite extraordinarily good. The mover of the Motion pointed out that there can be no question of an atomic explosion in a nuclear-power station, because the fissile materials are so diluted with other materials that there can never be a critical mass of sufficient size to cause an explosion.

On the question of atomic waste, how we shall get on with this problem depends, of course, on the degree of refinement of our techniques. Great advances are being made, and I want to emphasise that the greatest possible care is taken to see that the disposal of radioactive waste and waste products takes place without any danger whatever to the public being incurred. The method of disposal depends on the degree of radioactivity. Some goes into the air, some is piped out to sea, and some is taken in concrete or steel containers and dumped 1,000 miles out at a depth of 2,000 fathoms of water, and some of the very dangerous stuff has to be stored.

There are certain other waste products, such as Strontium 90 and Caesium 137, which are particularly dangerous, but we are evolving techniques to put them to useful work. For instance, we can use Strontium 90 to eliminate static charges from moving belts working in a dry atmosphere, while Caesium 137 can be used for medical purposes. The point is that this is a manageable problem. If the whole of the electricity generated in this country was now produced from nuclear power, the dangerous products would amount only to one or two tons per annum; clearly, with these precautions, this is an easily manageable proposition. There really is no danger, and the very natural fears of the unknown which have been aroused are unnecessary.

On the question of isotopes, I agree with one hon. Gentleman who spoke of more industrial development. Only one-tenth of Harwell's total consignment of isotopes in 1953 went to industry. I think there is room for a good deal of improvement and expansion, and it would be a good thing if the managements of British industries knew more about it.

Many examples have been given of the simple uses of isotopes, like detecting leaks in pipes—I wish they could do it in respect of my own plumbing, but they never do—and taking very accurate measurements of the thickness of various materials. There is a number of more imaginative uses. Recently, the Port of London Authority was anxious to trace the movement of silt in the estuary of the Thames. Certain radioactive particles were mixed with ground glass and put into the silt, which enabled the Port of London Authority to trace exactly what happened to the silt.

Unfortunately, we are not all as intelligent or well-informed as Lord Waverley, and we do not necessarily think of these things for ourselves, but there is an immense field for the use of isotopes in most varied ways. The Atomic Energy Authority is always willing to help anybody who has a problem if it can in any way be solved by the use of isotopes or nuclear techniques.

In the medical uses, to which one hon. Member referred, great progress is being made, such as in tracing the circulation of the blood, as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay described, and also in cancer research and treatment, in which radioactive cobalt is much more powerful and also cheaper than radium. For example, progress is being made in the treatment of cancer of the ear by the use of radioactive gold.

Therefore, I think we can say that a good deal of useful progress is being made, and that the White Paper shows that the Atomic Energy Authority has its feet on the ground, that its judgment is pretty good, and that it is determined to pursue a progressive policy in the future.

As is quite clear from the White Paper, no very dramatic results can come about in the next few years—we do not expect them—but they will come about in time. I do not doubt that our successors will mock us for the lack of simplicity in the devices we have used, but simplicity is one of the last things we think of—it has to be earned—and I do not think that, in the end, we shall find the techniques are so mysterious or difficult.

There are the most fascinating possibilities in the future—possibilities of breeder reactors and still further possibilities that may lie ahead. Those possibilities will bring us great benefits, not only in medical research and in the production of electric power, but in enabling us to fulfil our traditional role as the exporter of skills, techniques and advanced processes. Therefore, on every possible ground it is right to push on.

Several of my hon. Friends, and I think one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite, pointed out that all this sprang from the necessities of war. That point was particularly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). None of these things would have happened without it. In the stress of war we picked the lock of Nature's most formidable secret, and as a result the most appalling possibilities of danger and evil were launched upon the world. When thinking of the atomic bomb I always think of "Paradise Lost." I am sure that such a well-educated man as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will remember that in "Paradise Lost," when the devil was expelled from Heaven and was plotting how to revenge himself on God, he said:

"And out of good still to find means of evil."

Our object must be out of evil still to find means of good. That is what we are trying to do and, pray God, we shall succeed. I thank my hon. Friend for moving this Motion and I accept it with pleasure.

I should like to echo the last sentiments uttered by the right hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that we did not burst the lock of Pandora's Box and release a great many evils on the world. What this debate—and all debates on this subject—has proved is that science must be made the servant of our moral feelings. The tremendous powers with which we are now endowed call for the making of right choices in a way that has never been more important in the history of the world. Unless this generation trains people, not merely as scientists but as believers in the great, moral, human principles that have governed us in the past, what should be a blessing will certainly be a curse.

:I do not wish to talk out a Motion which speaks of the necessity of accepting this power for peaceful purposes. I was only sorry that in one of the last speeches there seemed to be a little deviation from peaceful purposes to what can be done for warlike purposes. I heartily support the Motion before us.

I wish briefly to raise the question of the withdrawal of the British administration from the Ogaden, an area primarily used by Somali tribes. This matter affects some 25,000 square miles and about 300,000 people.

I apologise to the Minister for having changed the subject of the Adjournment, but I am sure he will appreciate that the Somaliland Orders are not debatable and that he will welcome this opportunity to make a further Government statement on a matter which, as his right hon. Friend said, is one of great difficulty. As his right hon. Friend said, it turns on the "unfortunate" Treaty of 1897.

I wish briefly—because of the time allowed—to put several questions to the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. The burden is on the Government, I feel, to explain why such short notice was given of the Agreement signed on 29th November last and why these sheikhs were informed only as late as 5th January, when the Treaty comes into operation on Monday. After all, this matter had been in abeyance, rightly or wrongly, for a very long time, and in those circumstances I should have thought that much longer notice could have been given and a better and fairer opportunity provided to the tribal leaders to make representations to Her Majesty's Government.

While I realise that it is now unrealistic to press the suggestion of a postponement, made by several hon. Members when the subject was raised this week, I want to ask the Minister, in spite of the fact that the Agreement comes into force on Monday, whether he will endeavour to reopen the question of the boundaries, seek an opportunity for boundary revision—these are, after all, very artificial boundaries—and, if necessary, facilitate boundary revisions by means of such measures as lease or purchase.

Thirdly, I want to turn briefly to the Treaty of 1897, which the Secretary of State for the Colonies himself admitted to be unfortunate. It is an example of appeasement which has had unfortunate repercussions. I appreciate the Government's point of view that they cannot repudiate an international agreement, but I do not think the question is quite as simple as that. Admittedly, I have made only an elementary examination of the Treaty, but it certainly seems obscure and there seems to be an argument on the Treaties of 1884 and 1886 that the tribal elders voluntarily placed themselves under British protection. It is very creditable to our administration that they still seek that protection. They sought it then for the maintenance of their independence, the preservation of order and other good and sufficient reasons.

In short, there seems to be argument that at no time was any territory transferred. Consequently, it was not in our power to give away that which we did not possess. I cannot pretend to speak with any authority on these Treaties, but I should have thought that at any rate there was a case that the 1897 Treaty did not succeed in doing what it purported to do and that it was not within the power of the British Government to transfer these territories. In those circumstances, I invite the Minister to consider negotiating a reference to arbitration and to seek that the matter be referred, without acrimony, to the International Court, or in some other way that an authoritative decision be obtained out with the parties.

I put the further point to the right hon. Gentleman, because I think it arises out of the obscurity and confusion of the conflict between these Treaties, that he should make a statement on the treaties of 1884 and 1886. I invite him to say that those Treaties are still binding and in no way impaired. I should like him to do this for the very good reason that there is conflict between the two Treaties and, even if the Government stand by their present Agreement on the ground that they cannot repudiate the earlier Agreement, we should still maintain the duties and obligations we formerly undertook.

Finally, I would raise with the Minister the matters which the Secretary of State particularly argued in favour of the present settlement, that this Agreement guarantees certain very important rights and that there goes with it certain important assurances. I have had a look at those and find they are not absolute. To have grazing rights recognised in perpetuity is certainly most important, but the rights are not absolute. In an Agreement like this, one would not expect absolute certainty, but the grazing rights are to be ensured "as far as possible."

Article III of the Agreement says that

"Without prejudice to the jurisdiction of the Imperial Ethiopian Government …"

services, including educational services, are to be "at the existing scale." Those services cannot be extended without negotiation. There is reference to "political agitation" which could go very wide. These are not unexpected provisions in an Agreement of this sort, but I do hope the Minister can deal in a little more detail with the assurances that accompany the Agreement, that we can be assured that the provisions will be liberally interpreted and the guarantees will be properly carried out. I concede at once that it will be of great advantage to have a British liaison officer.

The Secretary of State referred to the high bearing and courage of the delegation he met. He has referred to the very difficult decision at which the Government arrived. I think the Minister of State would accept that there is an obligation on him to give some consolation and satisfactory assurance to these proud people who sought British protection and still seek the maintenance of that protection.

I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) because perhaps more than any other hon. Member I have been in close touch with the delegation, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I wish to say a few sentences about the demean our and bearing of the delegation and the way in which they met hon. Members at Westminster.

We are very grateful to the Secretary of State for the words he said about the way in which the members of the delegation conducted themselves at this most difficult time; for within a few days they will be, not handed over, but leaving us to go under the jurisdiction of the Abyssinian State. Their people can be well proud of the way in which the delegation have behaved in this country. This affair is a shabby thing—I say that quite advisedly—because, being a Protectorate, they have only an Advisory Council and have been kept in the dark. Responsible members like Mr. Mariano have asked for many months, if not years, what was going to happen; and the Governor has said, "You are our wards and we will look after you."

In the actual event, the bombshell came on the 5th of last month, and a bombshell it was indeed, giving so short a time for them to come over here and consult us. It is almost scandalous that they were kept in ignorance and fobbed off in this way for so many months. I hope that the Minister will give us an explanation.

The history of the case is in no doubt whatever. These people came under the Queen's protection in 1884 and 1886, willingly and with full knowledge, and in 1897 we signed the agreement with Abyssinia without their knowledge, and, obviously, without their consent. In the 1930s, they were enslaved by Mussolini. In 1940 and 1941—it is important to say this—we liberated them. After being under the heel of Italy for those years, they now go back to a power like Abyssinia, about which they have doubts and fears. In that they are justified.

I have been in Kenya and know what is happening in South Abyssinia, on the N.F.D. border. Whatever may be said about the cultured and able men in Addis Abbaba, I believe that on the borders of Abyssinia the Ras of Harar does not behave himself in the same way as people in Addis Abbaba. These Somali people, about whom we are so concerned, are rightly hag-ridden by the fears of the old days and are scared of going back to Ethiopian rule.

The Somali delegates have told me that about 40 Ogaden sultans and tribal chiefs now live in Mogadishu as political exiles. The Somalis who reside under Ethiopian jurisdiction do not dare to exercise freedom of expression, and the sultans are compelled to sign "By order." It is most important that the people who are now going over the line, so to speak, should be safeguarded by our administration in every possible way.

On Wednesday last, the Secretary of State for the Colonies admitted that the Haud and the Reserved Areas are used predominantly by members of the British protected tribes from the Somaliland protectorate. May I ask the Minister whether or not the members of these tribes will be considered foreigners, with no safeguards, if, for instance, oil were to be found in this area by the American Sinclair Oil Company, and the area were to be urbanised? As I understand the Agreement, it is only people who use grazing rights, who are nomadic and on the move, who are to be safeguarded. If there were to be a fixed settled community, would it come under the Ethiopian regime? Are people who settle in farms and towns safeguarded under the Agreement?

In some respects, we have given way upon this issue. I am not one who has used the expression "scuttle"—I never have done and never will—but there is no doubt that our prestige will suffer. There will be talk in the bazaars all the way to Kenya and Aden on this matter, and I wish that we might have found some other way of settling it, particularly for the benefit of these people, who have fought with us ever since the campaigns of the "Mad Mullah," who fought against Mussolini and who now look to us for protection in these difficult modern times.

There can be no hon. Member of the House who does not regret the fears and anxieties which the Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement of November, 1954, has caused among the people of Somaliland. Certainly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made his position in the matter very clear, and I should like to join him in paying my tribute to the dignified bearing of the members of the delegation during their visit here and to the loyalty of which they have given such proofs to this country. On the other hand, I believe that in all the circumstances the Agreement itself was a good one.

To see the matter in its proper perspective, we must look back over the historical background of the area during the past seventy years. In July, 1884, the Egyptian garrisons were withdrawn from the Somali coast following the successful rising of the Mahdi, in the Sudan. For the purposes of preserving order and the security of British interests in Aden, which was largely dependent upon the Somali coast for its supplies, the Governor of the day occupied Berbera with a British force. In 1884 and 1886 respectively Agreements were signed with the Elders of the five tribes residing in the area. The first of those secured British rights in the territories of the tribes, and the second Agreement formally extended to them and the territories under their authority and jurisdiction the protection of the Queen.

Those Agreements, I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman, are certainly as binding and valid today as they were when they were signed, but the exact area covered by them was never defined. The only indication of its extent was a reference to two points on the coastline in a notification which was made to the Powers which signed the Berlin Treaty of 1885, which we know as one of the Congo Basin Treaties. Nothing was said whatever about the limits of the extension in the hinterland.

In 1897 the Ethiopians, no doubt taking advantage of the unsettled conditions arising out of the Anglo-Egyptian operations against the Khalifa, in the Sudan, made a number of territorial claims which included half of what is now British Somaliland. In the face of this pressure the late Lord Rennell of Rodd, who was then on a mission to the Emperor, was successful in concluding a treaty delineating the boundary of the British Protectorate, and thus setting a limit to Ethiopian pretensions. I must say that at that time we had not the forces in that area to resist an attack had the Ethiopians decided to press it.

However, it was then recognised that this line had the unsatisfactory effect of cutting across the traditional grazing areas of the Somali tribes, and letters were accordingly annexed to the Treaty providing that the tribes on either side of the frontier were free to cross that frontier for the purpose of grazing. Those grazing areas which were known as the Haud were never administered by the Ethiopian Government, and the others, the so-called Reserved Areas, were administered only very much later, shortly before the Italian invasion of 1935. What happened was that British officers followed and administered the British-protected tribes on their annual migrations over the border. Then, in 1935, when the Italians took possession, the Haud was detached from Ethiopia proper and incorporated into Italian Somaliland. The territory was then administered by the Italians, but certain facilities were given for the use of the grazing areas by the tribes, in return for some facilities in Berbera.

After the liberation of Ethiopia in 1942 a large area of Ethiopian territory, including the Haud and Reserved Areas, remained under British military administration. In 1944, parts of this territory were handed back, but again without prejudice to Ethiopian sovereignty, as specifically stated in the Agreement, the Reserved Areas and the Haud were left under British military administration. This Treaty was liable to denunciation on three months' notice by either party. Immediately after the war steps were taken to try to replace the 1944 Agreement by a more permanent arrangement.

In 1946, negotiations were opened with the Ethiopians on the basis that the Haud should be exchanged for a strip of territory in the north of British Somaliland, which would give the Ethiopians access to the sea through the Port of Zeila. There were many difficulties in the way of this exchange, and nothing materialised. Of course, since then Eritrea has been federalised with Ethiopia, and the Ethiopians have their access to the sea in that way. Attempts were also made to lease the Haud, or alternatively to extend the status quo, but these, too, were not successful.

We now come to last year, when the Ethiopian Government made it clear that they wished to resume full sovereignty over the Haud and the Reserved Areas. I must point out to the House that had they chosen to press this to the point of denouncing the 1944 Treaty there would have been no alternative to reverting to the situation which arose at the time of the 1897 Treaty. It was, therefore, decided to negotiate in the hope not only of securing the protection of tribal grazing rights but of allowing the tribal organisation to function properly in the grazing areas under the control of British liaison officers.

The arrangements which were concluded last November provide that the Protectorate Government should be authorised to furnish veterinary, medical, educational and other services, and to negotiate for the extension of water supplies and various other concessions. They also enable British officials to maintain law and order among the British protected tribesmen and to hear in the Protectorate cases arising across the border affecting them. I must emphasise that these provisions represent real and substantial concessions which, if, as we hope, they operate successfully, should preserve the tribal life of the British Somalis, whether entering or residing in the area. In reply to the query by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), as I understand it the tribesmen residing in the grazing area will be entitled to the same privileges under the Treaty as those who are merely entering or going out.

Even though an oil field were to develop on the lines of Kuwait?

As far as I know, it certainly would not extend to matters such as the development of oil, but they certainly would not lose automatically their British protected status under the Treaty.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "automatically?" Either they lose it or they do not.

:They do not lose it, but, as in any other country, people who settle in the country would have the right to become naturalised at a later date, if they wished.

Several hon. Gentlemen have asked me why the Agreement was not announced earlier. The fact is that after the conclusion of the Agreement in November there were a number of subsidiary points which had to be cleared up with the Ethiopian Government, and, at the same time, proper preparations had to be made for explaining the position to the tribes. That took the few weeks between the conclusion of the Agreement and the beginning of January, during which time the delegation which had been over here negotiating the Agreement had to return to British Somaliland.

I was asked why it was not possible to discuss the revision of the boundary with the Ethiopian Government. Minor rectifications of the frontier would really make no contribution at all to the solution of the problem. The only thing which I think would have satisfied our Somali friends would have been the cession of the whole area, and I am satisfied that there was no possibility of persuading the Ethiopian Government to agree to abandon their sovereignty over any of this territory.

I have also been asked whether there was not a case for a reference to the International Court, because of the alleged conflict between the Treaty of 1897 and the agreement previously signed with Somali leaders. There can be no doubt that any submission of this question to the International Court could only have led to a reaffirmation of Ethiopian sovereignty. In a matter of this sort the Court would be bound to base its decision on the Treaty of 1897, which, as an international instrument, leaves no doubt as to where sovereignty lies. Moreover, such a reference to the Court would certainly have provoked Ethiopian hostility and would have rendered far more difficult the task of obtaining the practical concessions in the interests of the British-protected tribes to which I have referred.

:The right hon. Gentleman says that he thinks the Court would be bound to take a certain view. Surely it would be much more satisfactory from the point of view of the people who are affected that they should know definitely the view of the Court after the submission of the case to the Court. They would then know finally rather than have the right hon. Gentleman's view of what the Court might or might not decide.

I was not saying what I thought. The point I made was that the 1897 Treaty is an international instrument, whereas the other Agreements were not.

The fact is that this Agreement is a great improvement on the previously existing legal position. The only alternative which would have remained to Her Majesty's Government had they not decided to conclude such an Agreement would have been to repudiate the obligations which we hold under international law, and, in those circumstances, we should have had to be prepared to hold by force an area which was legally Ethiopian territory and which, for sixty years, we have recognised as such.

As a nation which upholds the rule of international law, we could not possibly do this. Had any British Government thought they were able to do it, the Ethiopian Government would have been entitled to bring the matter before the United Nations or the International Court, which could only have led to a humiliating withdrawal on our part.

While Her Majesty's Government fully understands the point of view of the Somali tribes, which have been so clearly expressed to us by the members of the delegation, and while we sympathise deeply with their anxiety, we believe that in the very difficult circumstances in which we were placed, having done everything we could to secure an arrangement by some other means, the best way of safeguarding Somali rights was to conclude a treaty in which we obtained the maximum possible concessions to make sure it works.

I hope that this debate this afternoon will perhaps throw further light on the origins of this problem and, indicating the sympathy of this House and of the British people with the tribes in British Somaliland and our appreciation of their loyalty, will serve to convince them that their true interest lies in carrying out this Agreement harmoniously and with good will.

On the other hand, we are equally entitled to expect the Ethiopian Government to see that the Agreement is carried out both in the letter and in the spirit, and with full regard to the interests and the feelings of the British Somali tribes. The House can rest assured that, as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we shall be vigilant in seeing that the rights of the tribesmen and of Her Majesty's Government in this new Agreement are fully preserved.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) said, this is a sad and shabby deal. It is a sad end to a shabby piece of history about which this country has no claim to be proud. If this had been carried out by a Labour Government there is no doubt what we should have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite and from the Conservative Press. As it is, with the notable exception of the "Daily Express," which has been true to its convictions on this matter and has not been afraid to say what it thinks, the Conservative Press has remained silent.

I think we need only remember what the Prime Minister said on a famous occasion, "I have not been called upon to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire." This is a very small part of British territory and we have given up the administration and responsibility for these people. As the Secretary of State himself said, they have behaved in a brave, dignified and honourable manner. All of us have the deepest regret that it should have been thought necessary by the Government to bring this new Agreement into force and with such indecent haste.