§ The power of requisitioning carriages, horses, and vessels in case of emergency conferred by the Army Act shall extend so as to include a power of requisitioning aircraft of all descriptions, and accordingly at the end of Sub-section (2) of Section one hundred and fifteen of the Army Act there shall be inserted the words "and also of aircraft of every description"; and the consequential Amendments specified in the second column of the Second Schedule to this Act shall be made in the enactments mentioned in the first column of that Schedule.
1986The CHAIRMANThe Amendments down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Enfield Division, after the word "shall" ["Army Act shall extend so as to include"], to insert the word "not"; and at the end of the Clause to add the words, "but where the power of requisitioning a mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a locomotive, or of any aircraft is exercised, the rate per mile shall not be less than that enacted in the Third Schedule of the Army (Annual) Act, 1913," are not in order here. The first Amendment is a negative of the Clause, and the second one refers to the Third Schedule of the Army (Annual) Act, 1913. There is no Third Schedule to the Bill that we are discussing. There are only two Schedules.
§ Mr. NEWMANI will raise the matter on the Question that the Clause stand part.
Captain CRAIGI only desire a very few words to repeat a question which I put a few days ago in the House to the Secretary of State for War. He promised he would give the matter full consideration. I trust his substitute on the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary, will be able to satisfy the Committee on the point which I put forward, and which I think is vital in respect of this particular part of the Army (Annual) Act of this year. Clause 5 is entirely fresh in the Army (Annual) Bill. Hitherto there have been no powers taken by the House, I think, to make use of aeroplanes or aircraft of any description. This year it has been found necessary—and I think Members of the House will agree quite rightly—that the same rules and regulations that apply to the power of requisitioning carriages, horses, and vessels, in case of emergency, should be also applied to any aircraft in the country. The point I particularly wished to impress upon the Secretary of State a few days ago was that the thing was rather different in the case of the complicated machinery of aircraft. There are various patterns, and if we are altering the Act and simply adding the words "carriages, horses, and vessels," and comparing with them aircraft, we are really comparing one class of article with another which is different. I want to impress upon the War Office that it is important to take into consideration the absolutely vital importance of the appurtenances of the aircraft. Everybody is aware that many patterns of aircraft are 1987 quite useless. Unless you are able to have some kind of power to acquire the necessary spare parts which may fit a particular class of machine, and make use of aerodromes, it will be a mistake. There are patents, too, which in many instances are in the hands of a very few persons, and it would be desirable to be able to use all that are necessary to make your aircraft of real service to the country. Clause 5 refers to Section 115 of the Army Act. It also refers to the Schedule of the new Bill, and if you look at the second paragraph of the Second Schedule you will see that for the words "and vessels" wherever they occur shall be substituted the words "vessels and aircraft." My reason for calling attention to this is, if you refer to the Act itself, you will see that the horses, carriages, and vessels, which it is necessary to requisition are all at the end classed together in the rates of remuneration, or so much per mile. And if he looks at Section 4 of Clause 115 of the Act he will see that the Army Council gives due payment for carriages, animals, and so forth, and now he proposes by this new Clause to pay for aircraft commandeered. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the House whether in commandeering aircraft he is not only commandeering the actual craft from persons, but also the spare parts of machinery for putting that aircraft in such proper order in case anything should happen to it while in use. I presume he is not putting this new Clause into the Bill without making some inquiry in the country to know of what value it would be in the case of an emergency arising. I think that is most important after the statement made by the Secretary of State that the War Office is only prepared to put 121 aeroplanes at the disposal of the Army. So far as experts who have criticised that statement of the right hon. Gentleman are concerned, I think the whole balance of opinion of those in close touch with aircraft and the general estimate of the various airmen, both in the Army and the Navy, have led to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman exaggerated to an absurd extent the available number of this aircraft. Very grave criticism was made with regard to the exaggerated statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the number of aircraft at the present moment. Naturally he always takes a smiling and very comfortable view of these matters. I 1988 assure him that those less qualified to know, as experts who take part in flying, deny absolutely the accuracy of his figures and they tell me that there is gross exaggeration somewhere.
5.0 P.M.
The right hon. Gentleman is such an optimist that he can gloss over everything of this kind in a masterly style, but outside the House those who know what is going on are very gravely troubled by the state of affairs in that branch of the Service. The Debate to-day may give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of correcting the misconception and misunderstanding aroused by the words he used a few days ago. I would ask him, Has he made any inquiry in the country in order to find out how many of these aircraft will come under Clause 5 at the present moment, and whether he can give us any reliable statistics as to the makes of the machines required, and whether there is any standardisation amongst them or whether the bulk are of very varied type, or whether they belong to one type which would enable men engaged to attend to the whole as one fleet of aircraft, or whether he would have to rely entirely on private owners supplying the airmen to work the craft themselves. I think this is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to clear up what is the very great feeling in the country, first of all, as to what the Army's position is, and, secondly, what he hopes to gain by commandeering privately owned machines throughout the country, and the third point is whether the new type used very largely by the Navy would come under the head of aeroplanes. I understand that some private owners have craft which it is quite true are able to fly, but are used more on water than for long distance journeys in the air. I should like to know whether these will come under the head of aeroplanes or vessels. They seem to be a combination of the two. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a very large amount of interest taken in these vessels, and people have been studying very closely their development for the purpose of skimming over the top of the water and making short flights when necessary. Are the private owners of this class of machine covered by this Clause. And is it intended to make any amendment in the Clause so as to satisfy the country, so that they will not only be able to get the bare machine, but the necessary parts to keep them at work as well?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)The hon. and gallant Gentleman was good enough to give me notice upon the Second Reading of this Bill that he would raise the specific points he touched upon in his speech, and I am glad to be able to give him the information he wants. With regard to the first point he raised, I do not think the Committee would wish me to dwell upon the question of how many aeroplanes the Army is in possession of. It is not possible for a Secretary of State for War to go round counting the horses and the guns in the Army; he naturally has to rely upon the statements made to him by distinguished officers who supervise these arrangements. I have done so in this case, though it so happened I have a good deal of special knowledge upon the matter. I have no reason whatever to doubt the statements made to me by distinguished officers, and I do not think in any responsible quarter any doubt will be entertained either. I shall always be ready to give what information is possible, consistent with the public interest, with regard to the actual number of aircraft in our possession. I make that reservation "consistent with the public interest" because, as the Committee will recognise, a great deal of the aeronautical service must be regarded as confidential. One may say almost all of it is so regarded in other countries, but here it is not so, and I will give the information except in so far as it is undesirable to give the type of machine in reference to which we think it is not in the public interests that figures should be given. Then I come to the last point as to how far aeroplane would include hydroplane. The word used in this Clause, "aircraft," we are advised by the legal advisers of the Government, would include all sorts of aircraft, including hydroplanes, and I am also advised, so far as it is necessary to obtain appurtenances, we shall also have that power under this Section.
A more important question arises as to how far we shall secure the co-operation of civilian aerodromes in the country. We take powers in this Bill, which I hope the Committee will grant us in case we wish to do it, to take the high-handed action of taking away from people what they do not want to let us have. It is the universal rule with regard to all other things that in time of extreme danger the State should have that power, and Parliament has given that power, and it would naturally wish to do the same in the case of 1990 aircraft. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked upon the Second Reading and again to-day how far we had been able to co-operate with civilian aerodromes. I am glad to say we have gone some way in that direction, and are now on the way to go much further. The Royal Aero Club, of which the hon. Member for Cambridge-shire is chairman, has given us the greatest assistance in this as in other matters and they have now appointed a committee upon which the War Department is represented with the view to securing complete co-operation between the War Department and the different aerodromes in the country which would enable us to have the advantage of those aerodromes and the sheds on suitable payment and every other ad vantage which comes from proper assistance and co-operation between the War Department and proprietors of aerodromes. I shall be glad to make a statement to the House when this committee has finally reported, but so far they have only brought in an interim report, and they are at this moment further considering the matter. I do not think I need add any more, but we are most carefully bearing in mind the importance of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member, and I am glad to have had this opportunity of making the statement I have made as to our desire to work in such a way as to secure the co-operation of the Royal Aero Club and of private aerodrome owners in this country.
§ Mr. NEWMANUnder this Clause the Government ask power to requisition airships the same as other vehicles, but they are apparently silent as to the cost. The last scale of such payments is to be found in the Third Schedule of the Army Act of 1912. That particular Schedule is absolutely archaic. I do not understand whether this particular Schedule is to be used for the payment of aircraft, but it certainly wants bringing up to date. It might be very useful and fair in the time of Wellington, but at the present moment it is absolutely wanting and archaic. For instance, I find that, taking the first item, if an officer requisitioned a wagon with six oxen, or four oxen and two horses, the rate shall be 1s. per mile. Is it likely that any officer would requisition a wagon with six oxen, or four oxen and two horses, to-day? I put this to the Government: Would any officer like to have his ammunition brought up by such a conveyance? The thing is absolutely ridiculous. The fact is that the vehicle to-day would not 1991 be a wagon and six oxen, but would be a motor lorry, yet we have no Schedule as to the rates which should be paid for such a motor lorry. I venture to say that the price should be 1s. a mile, which is a very small price indeed. Only yesterday we had a long discussion in the Committee upstairs as to what was the cost of running a motor omnibus per mile. I said 1s., but I was told it could not be done for less than 1s. 6d. I have put down 1s. in this case, because the cost of a motor lorry would be less, I think, than a motor omnibus. You ought to put down the rates exactly which should he paid to the owner per mile if you requisition a motor lorry.
I do not know what is going to happen in the case of aircraft, or what will be the price per mile which the War Office will pay. I think the Third Schedule is so archaic and ridiculous that one cannot go through it without smiling. What happens in Ireland? If an officer requisitions an outside car all the jarvey is going to get is threepence per mile. That means that in case he has to carry four sergeant-majors he may get more than threepence a mile, and he will not smile when he gets his correct fare at the end of twenty miles. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite was to requisition an outside car…
§ Mr. NEWMANNo, I was dealing with the Third Schedule.
§ Mr. HAROLD BAKERThe hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Newman) is still under some misapprehension about this Schedule. May I point out to him that the Third Schedule, which he has analysed, does not apply to hiring under Section 115 of the Army Act. The Third Schedule has nothing to do with Section 115, and probably I might have usefully interrupted the hon. Member's speech earlier. It has no connection whatever with that Section and no connection with the Amendment proposed in Clause 5. I might add that I think the hon. Member raised a number of very interesting points of terminology, although I am not so sure that the antique phraseology of some of the notices to be seen about the country is so ambiguous as to prevent free passage from one place to 1992 another. I may say that some of the points which the hon. Member has raised will be considered before next year.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXCan the hon. Member give some answer to the main question raised by my hon. Friend as to what arrangement has been made, or will be made, in regard to payment for the use of aircraft which may be requisitioned?
§ Mr. JOHN WARDSurely that is already provided for in Section 115 of the Army Act, which says, "The Army Council shall cause due payment to be made." Then it goes on to say, "Any difference respecting the amount shall be determined by a County Court." Apparently the amount is unlimited in this case, because no Schedule is made out, and the sum to be paid has to be decided by the County Court. That seems to me to be a much better provision, from the point of view of the hon. Member, than making out a Schedule which very often does not meet the case at all.
Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)It seems to me that, under Section 4, if there is any case of difference it has to be settled by the County Court. I think in the ordinary course of events it is recognised that it is better to have some minimum charge fixed. I can understand that under certain circumstances the minimum would not be adequate payment for the services rendered, but in many cases if a minimum price could be fixed I think it would do away with a large amount of litigation. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield has done very great service in raising this question, and I hope something will be done to mitigate what I think will and must be a source of very great inconvenience and trouble if there is no minimum price fixed for the services that may be rendered.
§ Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.