AIR BOARD.

HC Deb 26 April 1917 vol 92 cc2620-74

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £l,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course: of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Air Board."

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the AIR BOARD (Major Baird)

I hope the Committee will think it a convenient arrangement if, before entering upon a discussion on the Air Board, I give a few facts concerning the composition and functions of that body. There has been no opportunity hitherto of explaining precisely what the Air Board is, and what are its duties. The present Air Board was created by a Minute of the Cabinet on 22nd December last. It retains all the powers of the previous Air Board, with a certain number added. The Committee will remember that when the former Air Board was constituted, the Leader of the House referred to it as a necessary step in the development of what might eventually become an Air Ministry. The present Air Board is undoubtedly another step forward in that direction. I would ask hon. Members to remember, if perhaps they are a little disappointed with the powers now exercised by the Air Board, that in proceeding, not only with a new arm, but with an arm which is of vital importance to both Services, and which is fighting daily, it is absolutely necessary to avoid any rash experiments which might lead to a diminution, either of the output of machines or a dislocation of the activities of the Services at the Front. Therefore, it is essential to proceed cautiously.

The present composition of the Air Board is as follows: There is a President, Lord Cowdray; the Director-General of Military Aeronautics; the Fifth Sea Lord, who is Director of Air Service at the Admiralty; the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies, who is an officer of the Ministry of Munitions; the Controller of Petrol Engines, equally an officer of the Ministry of Munitions; and the Parliamentary Secretary, who, in the absence of the President, has to preside at the meetings of the Board. The duties of the Board may be summarised as follows: The Admiralty and the War Office concert their respective aerial policies in consultation with the Air Board. The Admiralty and the War Office formulate the aerial programmes required for the fulfilment of the approved policy. Then the Air Board decides the extent to which it is possible to meet that approved departmental programme. The Air Board selects and is responsible for the design of the aeroplanes and seaplanes and for their engines and accessories; the Board furnishes approved plans and specifications to the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies, and to the Ministry of Munitions, which is responsible for their production, and who subsequently hand them over for the use of the Air Service for which they are designed and manufactured. It is quite obvious that that arrangement is open to the criticism that too many cooks may spoil the broth. It is equally open to the contention that if you have a stiff hill to climb four horses are better than two. For the success of our work two conditions are essential. First, that all the members of the Board should work in the closest harmony and co-operation—and that we have got to the utmost extent—and the second is what was not foreseen at the composition of the Air Board, but what has been achieved since, that everybody should be housed under the same roof. The idea of the Naval Air Service having to visit first of all the Air Board in one house and then to go on to the Ministry of Munitions in another house, and of their correspondence having to be passed backwards and forwards by boxes, or through the telephone, and so on, would have led to delay which in a service where it is absolutely indispensable that the user of the machine should be in constant daily communication of the closest nature with the producer of the machine would inevitably have led to disaster.

4.0 p.m.

An essential feature of the present arrangement, therefore, is the fact that by securing the Hotel Cecil the Air Board has been enabled to house as its guests the whole of the Royal Naval Air Service, in so far as it is concerned with heavier-than-air machines, the whole of the Royal Flying Corps, and, of course, the whole of the Service of the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies. They are not yet altogether in the building because a certain number of rooms, which are not yet at our disposal, have to be vacated, but this matter is going forward as rapidly as possible. In addition to that the Controller of petrol engines also has his office in the building. Criticism may be offered that this arrangement applies only to heavier-than-air machines. That is true. Therefore, it is suggested, it does not cover the whole ground of aeronautical activity. I would beg the House again to remember that we are in the middle of a war, and we are dealing with a great service, with an arm which is of the utmost importance to our Forces, whether naval or military, at the front, and the Air Board covers the branch of the air arm which is common to both Services. The Army does not use lighter-than-air machines, and consequently there is no question of any competition between the Army and Navy in regard to manufacture. As seaplanes and aeroplanes are machines of the same nature they require the same materials for their construction. They are made in the same factory. They require the same sort of labour. They employ the same kind of engines, and it is in these directions that a unification has been effected with a view not only to prevent any kind of overlapping, but with a view to using to the utmost possible extent the resources of the country for the benefit of the nation as a whole. I pass on from that brief description of what the Air Board is to the different sections which have taken up their headquarters in the Hotel Cecil. As I said, the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies, of the Ministry of Munitions, who is a member of the Air Board, undertakes the responsibility, on plans and specifications supplied by the Air Board, of producing the aircraft that are necessary for carrying out the programme of the two services. But design is a function of the Air Board itself, and it is the business of the Technical Department of the Air Board to settle upon designs of the aircraft which are used by the two services. That does not mean that the Technical Department designs aircraft. On the contrary, the Technical Department furnishes the designers of the country in connection with private firms with the requirements of the two Services as sent home from the front. The designers of the manufacturers of the country are supplied with the lists of the specifications, and their designs are received by the Technical Department of the Air Board, stresses are checked and calculated, and they are considered in the light of the best technical experience available. Experimental machines are then ordered for trial.

The head of the Technical Department of the Air Board, Brigadier-General Pitcher, was nominated by both the 'Director-General of Aeronautical Supplies and the First Sea Lord, who agree that he is the best man for the post. He is not only a very experienced pilot, but he has commanded a wing at the front, and he is therefore in close touch with the requirements of pilots at the front, and he knows what the technical and manufacturing difficulties are from the point of view of the man who has to keep his wing up at the front. The Deputy- Controller of the Technical Department is Captain Groves, of the Royal Navy, who is a Wing Captain in the Royal Naval Air Service, and who, in addition to a long experience—long as far as anything can be said to be in connection with aeronautics—has had considerable experience at the Admiralty and commanded a naval wing abroad. Therefore, we are fortunate in having in these two officers able men in the closest touch with their brother officers in the services, whose technical attainments are admitted by all. In this technical branch they examine the designs, consider them and report on them to the Air Board, and it is the function of the Air Board to decide whether a design is to be adopted or not. That is the joint responsibility which falls on all members of the Air Board. It comprises, as I have said, the head of the Naval Air Service, the head of the Royal Flying Corps ("Military Branch), and the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies, who looks at the thing from the manufacturing point of view, and we are in possession of the requirements of the services at the front, and we have to make up our minds what machines shall be ordered, and in what number.

One of the chief functions of the Technical Department is to arrive, as far as possible, at a common specification and standardisation of the machines used by the Army and by the Navy. For no very apparent reason, it has occurred in the past that machines of precisely the same type used by the Naval Air Service are different from machines of the same type made for the Royal Flying Corps, and consequently, if the two happen to be serving together, inter changeability is not possible, and there is an inevitable waste of resources. That branch of standardisation is being developed by our Technical Department, as far as it is possible to do it. Of course, I do not wish the House to carry away the impression that we are endeavouring to standardise machines on a large scale, because nothing, I believe, could be more fatal than that. You might standardise machines, and get vast quantities of them, and when you had them they would be out of date, and you would be better off with one-tenth of the number of up-to-date machines. Therefore, I do not want there to be any misconception as to the extent of standardisation which is being carried out. It has been carried out such instances as this. It used to be the practice for the speed indicators fitted to an aeroplane that was flown by an officer in a blue coat to have the speed marked in knots, but the same machine flown by an officer in a yellow or a brown coat had the speed indicator with the speed marked in miles. That seemed to be an unnecessary duplication, and, therefore, aeroplanes are having their speed indicators marked in miles, and the seaplanes have their speedometers marked in knots. That is only reasonable, as it is the system used on the sea. There are a few other points of that sort. Standardisation, so far as it is possible to be carried out, is being carried out to the utmost extent.

Let me say, further, that there is a very close liaison maintained between the Technical Department and the Headquarters at the front. There is a constant interchange of visits between competent officers, with a view to climinating delays as far as possible, and in order to enable modifications desired by the pilots at the front to be produced in the machines, and at the same time keep London in close touch with the general requirements of the services at the front. Then, as regards the production of experimental machines, there also the Technical Department has access to the manufacturer through the Director of Aeronautical Supplies. The Committee will realise that production in quantity and production of experimental machines are two quite separate departments of commercial activity, and nothing retards production on a large scale more than confusing the two, and insisting on a machine being put on a productive scale into a shop before you have got the machine entirely satisfactory for use. Therefore, every effort is made to keep quite distinct the experimental section of the manufacturers from the production section of the manufacturers, which is devoted to productions on a large scale. Communications from inventors are, for the moment, dealt with by the Technical Department of the Air Board, but we are in process of creating a Department specially designed for the purpose of dealing with inventions, and for that purpose we are calling upon, and hope to secure, the services of the officers and others who have been employed in the Invention Section of the Ministry of Munitions, the Admiralty and War Office, in so far as they relate to aircraft. The proposal is—it is only a question of arranging the thing— to amalgamate all those three bodies of competent people dealing with invention, so that they should form a branch of our Air Board.

As regards the Royal Aircraft Factory, that is considered from the point of view of the Air Board as precisely on the same footing as other manufacturers. It is under the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies. There is at the head of it Mr. Henry Fowler, who has rendered great service in connection with the production of munitions. I shall have rather more to say about the Royal Aircraft Factory when I come to the Department of the Controller-General of Supplies. Lastly, the Technical Department is in constant and close communication with manufacturers. A society of manufacturers has been formed, and both through them and through individual manufacturers the Technical Department keeps in the closest possible touch with the trade. It is hardly possible to go to the Department without finding manufacturers and designers in constant and daily touch with the officers of that Department. I would add that the same close liaison is established between our Technical Department and the corresponding Department of our French Allies, and we are now arranging in the same way with our new Ally, America. I think the Committee will agree that, in so far as co-operation and co-ordination between the Allies are possible, a great advance has been made.

With regard to the Department of the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies, let me say at once that he is a gentleman who is in a peculiar position, because, though a member of the Air Board, he is an official of the Ministry of Munitions, and I suppose technically, according to the strict letter of the law, any reference to him should be made by the Minister of Munitions, but, as a matter of convenience, and also, I suppose, from a common-sense point of view, as I have the privilege of being in daily and hourly contact with Sir William Weir, and the Ministry of Munitions sees very little of him, perhaps it is more practicable that I should deal with the subject.

With regard to the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies, I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the magnitude of the business with which he has to deal. I have been furnished with a list of 958 firms engaged on work for the Directorate of Aeronautical Supplies. Of these, 301 are direct contractors, and 657 are sub-contractors. In addition, there are a very considerable number of sub-contracting firms of whom we never hear, unless they have troubles in regard to labour or material. The total number of hands employed by the fifty firms of most importance is 66,700. It may interest the Committee to know that dilution has been carried out to the extent of 31 per cent. in those firms, and by dilution I mean the employment of women and males under military age. It is, of course, necessary to remember that that degree of dilution does not help manufacturers. It is a sacrifice that had to be made, but when you take a quite new industry like the aeronautical industry, which requires the very greatest skill that can be produced, I think it is fair to say that it speaks well, both for the manufacturers and the organisation, that it has been possible to carry on that business and combine this very high degree of dilution.

I do not know that the Committee will want me to deal in detail with the various subjects of manufacture. I think probably they will not. No doubt certain points will be raised in the course of the discussion, which I shall endeavour to answer afterwards. There is, however, one point which it may be well for me to refer to now, and that is the recent Order issued by the Minister of Munitions concerning the manufacture of experimental aeroplanes. That Order is in no way intended to impede progress, but, on the contrary, to directly facilitate it. It is now necessary to obtain a licence in order to be able to manufacture experimental aeroplanes. We have no desire to hamper the genius and ingenuity of those who think they have machines which are going to be of service in the field. On the contrary, we want all the inventions we can get, but there are a very large number—in fact, an immense proportion—of inventions which, although their creators believe they are bound to revolutionise aeronautics, or anything else, when they are judged by practical men, it is perfectly obvious that they are of little use. It is to prevent the waste of material, time, and labour on inventions which have no prospect of proving useful to the country that this Order has been issued.

The applications for licences afford the Technical Department the opportunity of knowing what is being done in the country, and guidance and help can thereby be extended to all hopeful propositions. At the same time, an opportunity is afforded of refusing permission in the case of useless proposals. A number of examples could be quoted illustrating these points'.

As regards the Royal Aircraft Factory, from the point of view of the Air Board, this factory is now regarded in the same light as the private contractor. Any designs which it may prepare are subject to exactly the same technical criticism as those of a private firm. The factory is under the direct charge of the Ministry of Munitions, and is utilised for detail experimental work, which is carried out under the requisitions of the Technical Department of the Air Board. In addition, repair work is carried on, together with miscellaneous urgent requirements. Either in the way of alteration or manufacture it may suddenly become necessary to produce one particular type or any of the hundred and one stampings or things required for manufacture, and time is saved by having that work done at the Royal Aircraft Factory, and that is the kind of work that is being done there.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

By miscellaneous requirements, I take it the hon. Member does not mean the manufacture of a complete aeroplane?

Major BAIRD

Certainly I do, because it is often possible to get out the first lot of a new design of an aeroplane quicker from the factory than it would be if we had to wait for the manufacturer who is going to bring them out. It is our practice, and I think it is a very wise one, to get from the Royal Aircraft Factory the first number as quickly as possible of the new type of machine which there are not facilities for making elsewhere, and to that extent it is a miscellaneous requirement. Under the new arrangement, the Aeronautical Supply Department, being under the Ministry of Munitions, benefits directly as regards the many and varied activities of the other Departments of the Ministry; for instance, priority, raw material, machine tools, labour, etc. In addition to these, many additional facilities have been provided for the carrying out of aeronautical supplies. That applies to all the factories. When I come to the question of affording additional facilities, a subject in which the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) is much interested is the adaptation of factories which, owing to the changes in the programme of the manufacture of munitions, may become available for employing in the aircraft industry. That policy is carried on so far as possible, but it can only be carried out to a limited extent. Considerable investigations have to be carried out as to the nature of the machines and the character of the work done in the factories when they were used in their former occupation. Every possible use is being made of those factories, but there are very distinct limitations to any indefinite extension in this direction on account of the difficulties which I have mentioned.

Mr. BUTCHER

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the Committee whether any changes have been made in the Royal Aircraft Factory s regards experimental trials and research?

Major BAIRD

No essential difference has been made, and there is a branch carrying out experiments of every kind at the present time, and it is a very valuable branch. It is necessary to point out that aeroplane construction and aeroplane engine construction are industries entirely built up during the War, involving highly technical processes, great precision and accuracy in machining work, and a necessity for the most accurate machine tools and the most highly specialised materials, involving the most modern metallurgical processes. This work has largely had to be carried out with a very small nucleus of skilled labour, and consequently a very large percentage of unskilled and female labour, involving long training and fairly long periods of inefficient production. The use of such diluted labour necessarily calls for the closest degree of inspection.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING

Are we to understand that inefficient mechanics are allowed to proceed with their work, although you know their production is inefficient?

Major BAIRD

I do not quite understand the hon. Member's question.

Mr. BILLING

With regard to this inefficient production: At what time is this inefficiency discovered? Is it discovered in England or in France?

Major BAIRD

I did not mean to say that we turned out bad machines, but simply smaller quantities than we other- wise should if we had more efficient labour. It does not matter to us who the machine is turned out by as long as it can satisfy a certain test. It is a question of labour, and it is no disgrace to the labour that it was not then efficient.

Mr. TENNANT

Can the hon. and gallant. Gentleman elaborate the point about testing by informing the House how and where the tests are made?

Major BAIRD

The engines are tested at the manfacturers by the Aeronautical Inspection Department under the Aeronautical Supplies Department. The Minister of Munitions is responsible for the quality of the machines produced, and consequently that Minister must have at his disposal the services of the skilled inspectors who have been employed hitherto. Certain modifications have been made in the exact nature of the inspection—that is to say, the principle of inspecting individual parts rather than the inspection of the finished article is being rather extended now. An effort is being made to place men in the factories, whose attainments are sufficiently strong to warrant them being given rather greater latitude in assisting the manufacture than would be possible when you had to depend on unskilled inspectors who discharged their function by a purely mechancial process. The inspection is now carried out at the works, and the machines are taken over by the Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps at the door of the works, and they are flown away by representatives of those services. The Air Board is responsible for the design of machines, and the Minister of Munitions is responsible for construction and delivery.

Mr. BILLING

Am I to understand that these machines are delivered without any air test? Do the Air Services take them over without the air test and only after inspection?

Major BAIRD

That is so.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)

The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Billing) has interrupted five times already, and I would suggest to him that he should as far as possible allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make his statement without interruption.

Major BAIRD

I must apologise for being rather long in this statement Personally, I do not resent interruption, except that they interfere with the flow of one's ideas. The interruptions are not unnatural, but I would remind hon. Members that, with the leave of the House, I propose to reply to any points that may be raised in the course of the Debate. The functions and composition of the Air Board are well known to hon. Members. We are responsible for the machines until they leave the factory. They are then taken over by the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps at the factory, and the reason for this is pretty obvious. It is that they are flying men and we are not, and having their own stock of flying men, they prefer this arrangement, which also suits us best. With regard to the increase in production, the Committee will realise that it is quite impossible to give definite figures with regard to what we are producing. But it is possible to give a ratio, and I rather hope that the Committee will be satisfied that the ratio will indicate satisfactorily an improvement in the matter of production. Taking the average monthly output of last year at the arbitrary figure of eight, the output for the first two months of this year, January and February, was sixteen, the anticipated output for the next three months is nineteen, and we hope by the end of the year to have doubled that, or very nearly to have doubled it. Let me say also—and this is a point which the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies desires to be realised—that it would be most unjust to forget that those who have had the duty of supplying the aeronautical requirements of the two Services up to the present are solely and entirely responsible for that very satisfactory increase. Anything that can be done by new arrangements which did not come into force until this year cannot show any appreciable effect certainly until the latter half or the third quarter. That is a point which ought to be remembered when people are prone, and I think very unjustly prone, to criticise the arrangements previously made for production. It is only fair to remember that that very substantial increase is entirely due to the energy and foresight displayed by those whom we have now succeeded.

There is another point which ought also to be remembered. We are under a very large debt of gratitude to our French Allies for the assistance which we have received from them, not only at the beginning of the War, when we had to rely upon them to an enormous and even an appalling extent for our aerial equipment, but for assistance of a very valuable character which we are constantly receiving from them. We hope that it is not altogether one-sided; but they organised their Air Service before we organised ours, and there is no doubt that they are rendering us invaluable service to-day. Our relations, I am pleased to say, are of the most cordial and satisfactory kind. Before leaving altogether this question of the manufacture, I would point out to hon. Members what a complicated thing an aeroplane is. Sir William Weir tells me that the number of separate pieces in a modern aeroplane, exclusive of the engine, is 2,234. When you come to think with what accuracy each one of those pieces has got to be made, using only the very best material— consequently, a large proportion of rejections is inevitable—and how the very best skill must be exercised in order to put those pieces together, you do get some idea what a complicated and difficult job is this aeronautical business. Then he also points out that there is probably a wider range of materials than in any other manufacture of munitions, covering the finest timber, the highest qualities of alloy steels, textiles, mechanical instruments, guns, making demands on the widest range of industries. To afford a slight example of the new facilities which require to be provided and the character of the provisions to be made, the following may be cited. It is necessary to obtain assurance of satisfactory deliveries of flax seed for the flax crop in Ireland. Hon. Members may be surprised to learn that is important, but it is a matter of vast importance. It has, moreover, been necessary to build up the magneto industry in this country entirely. Before the War we were dependent upon foreign supplies. Lastly, new chemical works have had to be erected for the manufacture of dope to render us independent of imported supplies. Those are only very small instances of the wide range covered by aeronautical supplies.

I pass now from this question of supplies to another field of activity of the Air Board. Although its functions are restricted to heavier-than-air machines, and although it has nothing to do with operations, the Air Board does have the duty of considering air policy, and in connec- tion with air policy it appeared to the Board, and it has been approved by the Prime Minister, that it should be our duty to investigate the question of aerial civil transport after the War. It will be apparent to hon. Members that when the War comes to an end there will be not only a vast number of (highly skilled pilots, but there will be a large number of aeroplanes in the hands of the Services, and a still vaster number of aeroplanes and aerial engines on order. I have quoted the number of people engaged in the air industry to-day. They are more likely to increase than diminish. This whole great industry (has been built up for the purposes of the War, to make use in warfare of an element which certainly cannot be neglected in peace. Therefore, it does not appear to be unreasonable that the Air Board should take up as a subject of inquiry as far as possible the uses that can be made of aircraft after the War, and for that purpose it has been decided to institute a Committee of which Lord North-cliffe has been asked to take the chair, and has accepted, and it is proposed that the Committee should comprise representatives not only of the two Services and of the Air Board, but also of the Board of Trade, the Post Office, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the. Customs, and the Treasury, representatives from the Dominions, representatives of course of the manufacturers and designers in this country, and obviously it would be desirable that Parliament should also be represented. The terms of reference arc as follows: To consider and report to the Air Board with regard to:

1. (1) The steps which should be taken with a view to the development and regulation, after the War, of aviation for civil and commercial purposes, from a domestic, an Imperial, and an international standpoint.
2. (2) The extent to which it will he possible to utilise for the above purpose the trained personnel and the aircraft the conclusion of peace may leave surplus to the requirements of the Naval and Military Air Services of the United Kingdom and Overseas Dominions."

The proceedings of the Committee to a large extent will have to be confidential. The Committee, I would remind hon. Members, corresponds to a similar body which has been already created in France under the presidency of M. d'Aubigny It was set up by the Ministry of Commerce and was appointed to consider the routes to be followed in France, the Colonies, and in Allied countries, type of machine to be employed, type of postal car or carrier, bases, relay stations, and the recruitment of the personnel, as well as the question of the purchase of hangars, aeroplanes, motors, etc., for the military authorities. I trust the Committee will agree that this was a branch of the subject which ought to be tackled. It is only necessary to exercise very little imagination to realise what far-reaching and vast opportunites may offer for the development of the Empire. I have dealt with the technical department of the Air Board and with the Aeronautical Supplies Department of the Ministry of Munitions, which makes the machines for the Air Board, and I do not propose to detain the Committee more than two minutes on two other subjects. First, I would ask the Committee to remember—and I submit this for their consideration—how necessary it is to be careful, in criticising any branch of military or naval service, that you do not give to the enemy information which we should be delighted to have with regard to his service. It would be most unbecoming on my part to endeavour, and I do not seek to endeavour, to induce Members to refrain from criticism. Everybody is a judge of what is warrantable and what is unwarrantable criticism, but I think it fair to suggest, as regards the Air Service, that criticism ought to be limited in precisely the same way as it is limited with regard to guns, or types of guns, or equipment of any other kind. There really is no justification for thinking that we, as laymen, and we are all laymen, are more competent to criticise aircraft, or the use of aircraft, than we are to criticise types of guns, or submarines, or destroyers. The danger is that you will give to the enemy information which it is very desirable that he should learn in one place and one place only, and that is in the air. The effort of the Air Board is and ought to be to secure that that information which the Germans will derive from our airmen shall be even more disagreeable in the future than it has been in the past, and I do not think that they have had much to smile about during the past week or ten days. Nobody denies that criticism can have a very stimulating effect, but as regards aeronautics it can have another effect. It can have the effect of reducing, or diminishing or destroying, the confidence of an airman in the machine which he has got to fly, and there is no more certain way of killing a man than to send him up in a machine which for one reason or another he believes to be unsound. That is one thing which I do think hon. Members should bear in mind in criticising the Air Service.

I want to take advantage of this opportunity to modify, or to explain, an answer which I gave to the hon. Member for East Herts (Mr. Billing) yesterday. I think it gives an example of the dangers, and to some degree of the uselessness, of a certain kind of criticism. The hon. Member asked me, as he was perfectly entitled to do, whether a certain type of machine was used for long-range bombing, and I replied on perfectly competent authority that the machine which they use normally for gun spotting and artillery reconnaissance was on certain occasions used for long-range bombing. The hon. Member, I think, said, "Are these machines considered fit to send on a long journey?" I replied, "They are considered fit by the officers who send them out." Let me qualify that answer. It is perfectly true that the officers would not send out these machines if they did not consider them fit for the job, and the proof that they are fit for the job is that they have done it; but I do not deny that if they had other machines they would send them out in preference. That is a point which hon. Members who have not been on active service may find it difficult to realise. It is inevitable that in every campaign there comes a moment when you do not have to ask, "Is this the best thing for the particular job?" but where you have to use every man and every machine you possess in order to defeat the enemy. My answer to the hon. Member yesterday was not of a character which covered the whole ground, and I invited him not to continue that form of criticism, but to reserve his energies for a subsequent occasion. Is this House going to dictate to officers in the field how they are to use the material sent out to them? You cannot do it. You would then get into the range of operations, and once you do that, you must have absolute confidence in the officers who are in command of our forces in the field, so long as they show that they are worthy of that confidence. The idea that we here can interfere with the use made of the machines we send out is really untenable.

Mr. BILLING

As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred definitely to a question which I raised I should like to take this opportunity of replying. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] He has referred to a question which I asked yesterday, and I would suggest that he has put words into my mouth which I never used. I must ask you, Mr. Maclean, for an opportunity now of putting the case as it was put yesterday, or for an opportunity of doing so when the hon. and gallant Gentleman sits down. I trust you. Sir, will give me an early opportunity of replying to that particular point.

Major BAIRD

If I have misrepresented the hon. Member I shall be only too glad to have it pointed out. As a general rule, we cannot interfere in this House with operations so far as aircraft are concerned. If the hon. Member or anybody else asks, are we satisfied with the machines we have at the front? I say plainly, No, we are not. We have endeavoured to improve the machines. To go on clamouring for the production of certain kinds of machines in substitution for the machines we have does not help. Nobody imagines that a suggestion which may be made in this Committee to-day with regard to a machine can be brought into effect to-morrow. The changes which are now taking place are the results of measures taken month? and months ago, and any changes we are now planning in our Air Services cannot take effect until months and months ahead. It is not in the interests of the country to represent our machines as being unsuitable for the work which they are performing, when you know that those machines cannot be replaced at once, when you know that those machines are being replaced as rapidly as can be, and when you know that, however inadequate those machines may be, the duties performed by our Air Services are second to none in the whole field of operations. The question really is whether or not the work is being done properly. It is our business to secure that the officers in the field shall have the very best material we can produce. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is agreed. All our efforts are being made to that end. I would remind hon. Members that whereas ginger may be a very good thing, they must not think that they are the people who have a monopoly of that very useful article. We have it supplied also from the front. Hon. Members must not imagine that we do not hear of requirements and suggestions from the front as well as from this House. Hon. Members may be quite certain that long before they raise points here with regard to machines, those points have been raised, probably weeks and months before, by competent officers who have visited the front. The only other question with which I have to deal is that of the mastery of the air. I do not know who invented the expression, but it has really very little meaning.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I think I did. I have tried to get it for years.

Major BAIRD

Perhaps the hon. Member will tell us what he means by it. I can tell him that there is no such thing as mastery of the air, for the reason that the air is not only a very big place but that it is getting bigger every day. That is explained when you realise that if from being able to get up to 10,000 feet you are able to get up to 20,000 feet you have extended the air by 10,000 feet. In that sense it is true to say that the air is getting bigger every day. However numerous your machines or your patrols, nobody can pretend that you can patrol a strip of air 100 miles long and five miles deep in such a way as to make it impossible for the enemy to get through your patrol. It is not wise to endeavour to impress upon people the idea that aerial mastery is going infallibly to prevent any enemy aircraft getting through. The thing is impossible. Therefore, if we should receive visits from the Germans from time to time, we have got to put up with them to a certain extent. It is not fair to lead people to believe that you can give them that protection which they cannot be given. It would be very unwise to withdraw from useful and effective work a number of machines merely in order to do the work of reassuring people at home. You might have a large number of machines waiting here on patrol duty to meet possible and hypothetical raids, when you know that they would provide inadequate protection and that those machines might be better employed elsewhere. I think it is wise to say a word or two of warning on this matter.

What you can do in the air, and what is being done in the air, is to ensure that our men shall enjoy a degree of predominance sufficient to enable them to carry out their duties and to prevent the Germans from carrying out their duties. That has happened and is happening. So long as that State of affairs exists, I am bound to say it is as much as we can expect. The men are carrying out their functions. They are not satisfied, and we are not satisfied, with the machines we have got. We never have been satisfied, and I do not suppose we ever shall be, for the reason that you can either have a service with the very best machines, in which case you will have very few of them, or you may have a service comprising second-rate machines, in which case you can have a great many of them, or you can have a service combining both, in which case you will have the advantage of both. That is exactly what we have. To have nothing but first-rate machines, which implies their immediate substitution for the machines which are in use, is not really a practical proposition. It does not lead to any useful result and is likely to produce among the pilots a degree of discontent and a degree of lack of confidence in their machines which is not wise. Let hon. Members remember that, although very good machines may be produced, you will always have to continue to produce large numbers of slow, obsolete machines in order to enable the pilots to be trained. You must bring up your pilots step by step. It is necessary to do what is accepted and well-known by competent judges in this matter, namely, produce slow and obsolete machines in order to train your pilots efficiently up to the highest point. May I say, in conclusion, that I hope to have an opportunity of replying at the end of the Debate to any criticisms which may be offered.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. MONTAGU

I want, first of all, to express my thanks and the thanks of the whole Committee to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the very clear and interesting account which he gave us of the activities of the Air Board. I congratulate him on being able to give what seems to be a very satisfactory statement of the position of affairs. My sole object in rising is to say something on only one part of the subject—because I know nothing about the air—the part of the subject which deals with the supply of machines. My hon. and gallant Friend will admit that all through the earlier stages of the history of this matter the Ministry of Munitions gave all possible assistance in its power to the needs of the Air Services, conflicting though they often did with the needs of other supplies. Of course, it was recognised that the needs of the Air Services must come first, and that every effort must be made to meet their demands. The old system of things was very inefficient and wasteful, and led to the greatest possible delays in the equipment of the Air Services. If one were asked the root cause and the greatest difficulty in the equipment of our fighting forces in this War, it would be right to say that it was the conflicting demands made by different Government Departments for the same services on the same limited supply of raw materials and of manufacture. It was not sufficient to take one service and give it to one Department, and another service and give it to another Department. No service is wholly watertight. You might allot a firm which used to make motor lorries, equip it, take it away from the service of the War Office, and give it to the service of the Admiralty to make aeroplanes for the Admiralty, and then discover that that firm was also making spare parts for the motor lorries of another firm, and that you had rendered useless the lorries in France by the transfer of that firm. The whole of the engineering resources of the country ought to have to deal with one coordinated authority, which should be responsible for supplying all the needs of the nation. It was for that reason that, during the time I was at the Ministry of Munitions, the whole of those interested in the matter united in their demand that the Navy should not build aeroplanes for itself and the Army for itself, but that we, who had to deal with petrol engines, motor lorries and with the same firms that were making aeroplanes, should be entrusted with the responsible task for which we thought our organisation fitted us, of supplying everything for everybody. The problem was not easy; it was not as simple as the transfer of the supply of guns and ammunition from the War Office to the Ministry of Munitions. There was no stereotyped design. There was, as my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Baird) has said, a great necessity for keeping the user of a machine in touch with the manufacturer and for facilitating production. Design and alteration of design is always tedious and bothersome for the manufacturer to have to put up with.

It appeared likely that friction might arise owing to the difficulty of interdepartmental negotiations. If the President of the Air Board had to write a letter to the Minister of Munitions it had to filter down through his Department, and then a reply had to be sent: "I am desired by, etc., etc." Red-tape and official etiquette might have been preserved by that means, but friction must have resulted, and delays could not have been obviated. The hon. and gallant Member (Major Baird) and the Air Board have found a satisfactory solution of this difficulty. When two or three Departments are concerned in a common work, I think the maxim they ought to adopt is that of never writing letters. If they meet in a room and confer with one another, that is best. During war-time, at any rate, there is no time for writing letters and red-tape. If the designer and manufacturer are in daily or weekly intercourse with the user of the machine, and sees both or either, all these difficulties-are overcome, and you have a tremendous advantage in the cessation of a conflict between the different needs of the nation from the engineering resources and the raw material supplies of the world. I would say, in conclusion, that I trust the House will consider this, as the months go by, as a precedent for the organisation of the nation. Let us never face a war again—if there be another war—let us never face peace again, with the departmental spirit in the Navy and the Army competing against one another. The Ministry of Munitions began with small things, and, growing from day to day, is beginning to be a Ministry of Supply. I hope such a Ministry of Supply has come to exist as a permanent part of our organisation.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I desire, in the first place, to associate myself with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Montagu) in the remarks he has made with reference to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Baird) this afternoon. We all knew that Lord Cowdray was making and was bound to make a most efficient Air Lord. We thought, and hoped, my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Baird), if I may say so, would make an efficient Under-Secretary. He has proved this afternoon that he is that by the speech which he has just made and by the clear way in which he has put the difficulties and, may I say, the honest way in which he has confessed those difficulties. He has shown us that we have in him an ideal Parliamentary Secretary for this particular post. I should like also to congratulate him especially, and the Air Board also, upon the suggestion he has outlined of the new Committee under the aegis of Lord Northcliffe—than whom I do not think one could have a better man, for he has been so keenly interested in flying for so many years—to consider the naval and military and commercial side of flying as soon as the War is over. I am only too glad to think that a Committee is to be formed, for there is need for a large amount of work to be done.

Major BAIRD

The Committee is to consider the civil side of aviation.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

Still, I am very glad that a Committee is to be formed to consider the civil side of aviation. There is quite enough work in connection with that to provide the Committee with plenty to do for a good many months. At the same time, I hope the enormous advance which is bound to take place in the next few years in naval and military aviation will not be overlooked, and that someone will appoint a Committee, or that somebody will be appointed whose duty it will be to look after that, and not leave us in the parlous position in which we were when the War began. There is one other small point in regard to the suggestions made by my hon. and gallant Friend with which I desire to refer—that of the licence for the manufacture of experimental aeroplanes. I hope and trust those licences will be freely granted. I know that in time of war one cannot press too strongly the right of the individual inventor, and I hope these licences will be freely granted, and that no inventor will be crabbed, however absurd his ideas may be to the minds of those in the Air Service, because it is out of absurd ideas that very often brilliant inventions result. The utmost facilities should be given to those who desire to manufacture new-inventions in the shape of aeroplanes.

I have not made a speech on this subject, which is one very dear to my heart, for many many months past, partly because I felt, after the appointment of Lord Cowdray to what we hoped would be the position of Air Minister, that it was my duty, and the duty of the Parliamentary Air Committee, for whom I have the honour to speak in some respects, to leave Lord Cowdray in undisputed possession without any criticism for some months in order that he might see in what condition the Air Services were and might formulate his plans and then come down to the House of Commons. After all, even in war-time, we here are the arbiters and deciders of all matters connected with the War. We are and we must remain, as-representatives of the people of this country, the final arbiters in these matters. I do not intend to indulge in any random criticism, nor do I want to indulge in hostile criticism. My hon. and gallant Friend has put us in a difficulty in regard to objections and criticism. At the same time, the Parliamentary Air Committee and we cannot be unmindful of the grave anxiety that there is at the present time: in regard to certain machines at the front. I will call them A and B. I do not want to mention them particularly, but there is anxiety with regard to the casualties from time to time. Numbers have been kept from us by the Under-Secretary of State for War, but I venture to suggest that secrecy in the House of Commons means publicity outside. Through the Press, through correspondence, through wounded men coming back, the facts filter through, and the country gradually begins to realise what machines are good and what are bad, and what the state of affairs at the front is. When Lord Cowdray was. appointed there was a strong consensus of opinion that we had got the right man at last, and that Lord Cowdray was going to have the real powers of a real Air Minister. I admire my hon. and gallant Friend's candour in making the remarks he did in regard to the powers of the previous Air Board. Those powers, such as they were, might be developed into an Air Ministry, and that, at all events, would be a step forward. How at last we have in Lord Cowdray an Air Minister in whom are concentrated all the civilian powers which have been previously exercised in regard not only to manufacture but in regard to the civilian control of both the Air Services.

What is the position? I will first of all say what I mean by command of the air. I was challenged in regard to that a few minutes ago by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Baird). General Henderson stated last week at Birmingham that neither command nor mastery of the air had any existence. On the other hand, I think I am right in saying that General Smuts at Edinburgh stated we have got mastery of the air. Personally, I agree with General Henderson. I do not think that up to the present there has ever been mastery or command of the air by either belligerent in this War. The object of the Committee and of those of us who have for years been interested in the Air Service is that we should get the mastery or command of the air. What I mean by command of the air is this: we should have in relation to the air exactly what the Royal Navy has in relation to the sea. I leave out for the moment the question of submarines, which is quite a distinct point. But we all know that Great Britain has known for generations past what command of the sea means. We had it at the beginning of this War. We controlled the seas from one side to the other; we swept off the seas all the enemy shipping; we kept command of the sea. I think it perfectly possible for us to have in the same way and in the same sense command of the air. I want to be able to block enemy machines from coming out of their aerodromes. I want to be able to prevent them spotting for Artillery. I want to be able to prevent them sending over airships here in order to carry out raids on innocent people. I want to prevent them sending over their aeroplanes here to drop, not very harmful, but unpleasant, bombs on our East Coast towns. I think that is possible if we have such a predominance in numbers as will ensure it. We have the predominance in men. There is no question about that among any of us. I have never said in any of the speeches I have made on this subject, and I am not going to say this afternoon—I am sure the House will bear me out—one word in criticism of the morale, bravery and devotion of our airmen. That is absolutely beyond any words. They are the super-heroes of the War, and, inasmuch as they are so brave, so brilliant and so determined, it is for us to see that we give them the very best machines that they can possibly have. That I suggest is the view which I have always taken and is the view which the Parliamentary Air Committee takes with regard to this matter.

I see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War (Mr. Macpherson) is here. What is the position with regard to mastery or supremacy of the air at the present time? On the 7th March the Under-Secretary of State for War was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), "Can he assure us we still maintain mastery of the air on the Western Front?" "I think I can make that assurance," said my hon. Friend. On the 13th March he rather modified that statement, "There has not at any time on any side of the Western theatre been a situation which can properly be described as the mastery or supremacy in the air," he said. I am rather inclined to doubt that. I think there was a time when we had the supremacy in the air. If you read the dispatches from France from the Commanders-in-Chief in the spring of 1916 to the summer of 1916 and at the commencement of the Somme offensive in July, 1916, you will see that we undoubtedly had a distinct and total supremacy of the air on the Western Front. We had all last summer a distinct supremacy. We smashed the German aeroplanes down, we prevented their artillery from having the advantage of efficient air observation, and at the same time our men went over their line and brought back at much less cost than they are doing to-day large numbers of photograps and records of observation. They will go on doing it however costly it may be. Our brave airmen care nothing for losses. Whatever the cost they get the information. Our men, as we learn from a recent report, brought back in one day 1,700 photographs, but I am afraid they are doing this at a greater cost than in 1916. We have not the same supremacy on the Western Front that we had during the whole summer of 1916. The reason is this. My hon. Friend went on to say: The War Office is satisfied for the moment with the best types which are being employed, hot there are machines still in use of types, which are not up to the latest standard. These are being: replaced as rapidly as possible. What does that mean? The War Office is satisfied with the best types which are being used. So am I. Our best machines are equal, or superior, to the best German machines. There is no question about that. But what proportion of these best machines have we got at the front to-day? I will not give any figures, but I will hazard—and I think I am not very far wrong—that we have at the front to-day 4 per cent of our machines of the best type. My hon. and gallant Friend will know what I mean by the best type of machines—I mean the ones that the hon. Gentleman meant when he spoke on 13th March as being superior to anything of the Germans. Can he or the Air Board tell me that there is any possibility of, I will not say 100 per cent., but 50 per cent. of our machines at the front being replaced by the best type of machines, such as he and I have in our minds during the course of the coming summer? I am afraid not. I am afraid it might have been done if it had not been for the confusion and the lack of driving force in the last two Air Boards or Air Committees, or whatever they are called. Has Lord Cowdray the power that he ought to have? Is he in any degree nearer being an Air Minister? Have we taken a step forward or is he merely in the same position as Lord Derby and Lord Curzon and Lord Montagu were in reference to the previous Air Board or Committee, which I fear were not very much good, in the autumn of last year? The public believes in Lord Cowdray, firstly, because of what he is, because he has great powers, great organising ability, and great driving powers, but also because they believe he has the power to do things. They believe he is really in control. Let me ask whether he really has any effective control with regard to the Air Services at all? What do the Air Services consist of? There is the Royal Flying Corps, which is an integral part of the Army to-day. Its officers are appointed and its regulations framed, not by Lord Cowdray. All its strategy and all its tactics are framed by the Army. It is under the Army Council. In the last resort it is under the civilian head, Lord Derby, the Secretary of State for War. There is no doubt whatever about that. Lord Cowdray and the Air Board have no power whatever to move a man or move an aeroplane which belongs to the Royal Flying Corps. Exactly the same is the case with regard to the Royal Naval Air Service. The Royal Naval Air Service is under the Board of Admiralty. Although we talk of the Board of Admiralty and the Army Council, the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War are predominant in those Councils respectively, and the First Lord of the Admiralty can override—we had that discussed in the recent Dardanelles Debate—the decision of the Admiralty exactly in the same way as the Secretary of State for War is master of the Army. Therefore you have two civilian heads of the two Flying Corps entirely apart from Lord Cowdray as the head of the Air Board. Then I ought also to mention that the lighter-than-airship side has never come under Lord Cowdray or the Air Board at all. They have nothing to do with it, and when we wonder whether we are going to have any Zeppelins to meet Zeppelins—the German Zeppelin menace is not yet finished, and in all probability we shall have them over again—and when, after two and a half years of war, I want to know who is responsible for the fact that we are not able to meet like with like. I am not entitled to go to Lord Cowdray at all. He says it is nothing to do with him, and I have to go to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty and ask him.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty?

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I most deferentially beg his pardon—the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty—and ask him why there are no English Zeppelins to compete with German Zeppelins. Then, not merely are these two services under separate heads, but there is no interchange between officers of the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service. I hope and believe that Lord Cowdray and my hon. and gallant Friend can act as friendly go-betweens between the services and modify differences between them, but there is no power to say to this service, "Do this, and you must do it," or to the other, "You must come in closer touch." They can only say, "We hope you will accept our recommendation and be better friends one with another than you have been in the past." Then there is the Advisory Committee of Aeronautics, which has not been mentioned this afternoon, and which, as I gather, is responsible to no one except the Prime Minister direct. Why it should report to the Prime Minister I do not know. That at least might be at once put under the supervision and control of the Air Board.

Let me go a little further and find out what powers Lord Cowdray has. My hon. and gallant Friend has been speaking about a particular type of machine at the front. I myself think we might mention the name because it has been quoted so often, but if he likes I will call it the A machine. He knows perfectly well to which I refer. There are three variants of it. Suppose Lord Cowdray and my hon. and gallant Friend come to the conclusion, as sooner or later they are bound to come, that that is an inefficient machine for present purposes. It was a valuable machine two years ago. It was an excellent machine at the beginning of the War. Suppose they come to the conclusion, as responsible members of the Air Board, that it is desirable that those squadrons should be brought back, and that the work they are doing is being done at too great cost. They have no power whatever to bring those machines back. They have no power to say to the Royal Flying Corps: "You must send those machines back and even if you do less work you must do it for the moment until we can send you out some newer and better type," or if they come to the conclusion that a certain type—let us call it X—is better than anything else, they have no power to say to the Royal Flying Corps or to the Royal Naval Air Service, "We are going to manufacture you this X machine. We are convinced by our technical advisers that it is better than anything you have got, and you must use it." The Royal Flying Corps will say, "No, we do not agree with you. Our technical experts do not agree with yours, and there is no authority whatever in Lord Cowdray over those two services." In effect, the new Chairman of the Air Board is only an intermediary between the two Air Services and the Ministry of Munitions. He does not even control his own factory. The Royal Aircraft Factory is not under him. He cannot, as I understand it, appoint or dismiss a single man in that factory. That is under the Ministry of Munitions. This is a matter which cannot help the Germans at all, otherwise I should not criticise in this way. With every desire to be fair to my hon. and gallant Friend, he has not shown us that the new Air Board has any real powers greater than the last, nor is it one whit nearer to the ideal which so many of us have in mind of an Air Ministry to control the new and great services which are gradually growing up and which must develop ere long into an Imperial Air Service. Even on the Air Board itself I am not quite sure what the Minister's powers are. Suppose he differs on a matter of principle from General Henderson or Commodore Payne, I do not know that he can call for his resignation as a member of the Air Board. Probably he would have to go to the Prime Minister and get him to institute a fresh Air Board, leaving these gentlemen over, but that would not alter their position as heads of the Royal Flying Corps and of I the Royal Naval Air Service. All you would have would be Lord Cowdray as head of the new Air Board with General Henderson as head of the Royal Flying Corps, having had a disagreement on a vital matter with the head of the Air Board, but responsible to Lord Derby as head of the Flying Corps, and not to Lord Cowdray as head of the Air Board. I suggest that the proper course is to transfer to the Air Board the civil powers of the Secretary of State for War over the Flying Corps and the civil powers of the First Lord of the Admiralty over the Royal Naval Air Service. I do not suggest that Lord Cowdray and his Board should interfere with the tactics of Sir Douglas Haig at the front. Lord Derby does not do so. Theoretically he may have the power, as Secretary of State for War, but, of course, he does not do so, nor would the Prime Minister. Therefore, I suggest that their civilian powers ought to be amalgamated in the head of the Air Board, so that even during the War the lines may be laid down on which a great Imperial Air Service may be built up.

I want to ask a further question of my hon. and gallant Friend. I am afraid the answer is in the negative, as to the other question. Supposing Lord Cowdray and his own immediate advisers come to the conclusion that it is desirable and feasible to do what so many others have asked should be done ever since the War began and have a large air offensive, either at Essen or in the Rhine country, consisting of at least a thousand machines?

An HON. MEMBER

That is not a matter for the Air Board.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

That is the position. It is not a matter for the Air Board. Supposing they have an idea that it is possible, on the one hand you have the Generals at the front managing their own strategy and their own tactics, and you have the Admirals of the Fleet managing the Fleet and requiring aeroplanes or seaplanes for their Fleet purposes. I am suggesting quite seriously that there is an opening for a third man or a third body such as this Air Board to formulate, while supplying the Army with all it wants in the way of reconnaissance machines, bomb-dropping machines, photographic machines, a new Imperial Air Service, under a new head if necessary, which would take in hand an offensive which, I suggest, might have a very real effect on the conclusion of the War, which would get behind the German lines in a way that artillery cannot get, in a way that Cavalry and Infantry cannot get, and destroy, in the German country, the moral which is at present upholding the German forces. That is what I want to do, and I ask my hon. and gallant Friend can that be done? Even if the Cabinet decided that it could be done, there is no Air Service. If he tried to get 10,000 men for the purpose, the moment they enlist they become soldiers and sailors and ipso facto under the control of Lord Derby and the First Lord of the Admiralty. My hon. and gallant Friend should suggest this point to Lord Cowdray. The country, I believe, has such confidence in the Air Minister that it would be willing to give him almost whatever powers he likes to ask, believing in his power of push, go, and determination. It is no good telling me it could not be done. It is no good telling me, "You cannot manufacture the machines." Eighteen months ago we thought it could not be done with regard to artillery and munitions, but, owing to the imagination and determination, almost the genius, of one man, the present Prime Minister, who took hold of the munitions question and turned England into munition manufacturing area, it was done. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said eighteen months ago we could turn out half what we are turning out to-day in regard to munitions of war he would have been laughed at, and I am afraid I should possibly have laughed myself at the great imagination of the Prime Minister. What he did for the Army could be done by a man with the same determination and imagination for the Air Service. I am speaking to-day on the assumption that the War is not to be over this summer but will last another year, which is the only assumption upon which the House of Commons and the Air Services can go. Whether it is or not, we must be prepared for another campaign in the spring of next year, and now is the time to make your preparation.

I feel in a very great difficulty after the appeal which has been made to me by my hon. and gallant Friend. I realise what has been done. I do not know whether the House realises that when the War began, in August, 1914, there had never been a single aeroplane engine manufactured in this country at all. They had all been brought over from France. Someone will hang on a lamp post in Whitehall when the War is over for the abominable neglect of the Air Service and the engine question at that time. When I come to the machines, I am afraid that I must take my courage in both hands. Even after the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend, I must say that there are certain machines at the front to-day which are obsolete so far as bombing raids and offensives over the German lines are concerned, which are putting upon our airmen too great a strain, a greater strain than we have a right to ask. My hon. and gallant Friend was, I think, not quite right in the suggestion which he made just now, when he asked, Is the work being done? Of course the work is being done. The position is that we are responsible for asking ourselves the question, Is the work being done even in wartime at too great a sacrifice? We are responsible. The Russian Army went into war some little time ago partly armed with broomsticks and partly armed with rifles, and they did very well. They gallantly allowed themselves to be slaughtered, though some of them were only armed with broomsticks. Would it have been right for the controlling Minister in Russia to say, "1s the work being done?" Would it not have been his duty to say, "Is it right for me to allow these men to go into battle armed only with broomsticks when a little energy and determination might have equipped them properly?" I suggest that the Committee is responsible, and this is the occasion to-day. You are entitled to say, not merely "1s the work being done?" but "1s it being done at too great a sacrifice?"

I told the Committee just now how many of the best machines there were. I am not going to say how many of the A type of machines there are. It is a machine which is perfectly well known to the Germans as well as to us, which can fly at the outside only seventy or seventy-five miles an hour in favourable circumstances, and at the outside can climb only 8,000 ft. to 10,000 ft., and it takes from forty minutes to forty-five minutes to go up 1,000 ft., and it has to go into battle with German machines, and it has to go on bombing operations over German lines, where it has to meet German squadrons of Halberstadts and Albatrosses with an engine-power double that of our machines and a climbing-power of 1,000 ft. per minute, so that it can get up 18,000 ft in less than twenty minutes, while it can fly at a speed of 110 miles an hour. Should I mention these figures? I hardly know. I am told that if I mention them in this House I shall cause our young men who are flying this machine to be afraid.

Colonel FABER

Not they.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

But I am bound to say that not once or twice, but over and over again I have had letters from men at the front with regard to these machines. Here is a letter from a flight commander, a relation of a Member of this House, who has sent the letter to me. It was written a few days ago, and it shows that the men who have to fly know that this is an inferior machine: I do not know if you have seen the criticism about the Royal Flying Corps? and then it mentions that my hon. and gallant Friend said that this particular machine was not sent on bomb-dropping expeditions. He quite admits that that was a mistake, but I have had numerous letters from flyers in regard to that unfortunate statement. Then he goes on: This is precisely what they are working it for at the present moment. This is a man who has done well. He is a flight commander, whose father is a gallant officer in our own Army and a Member of this House. He goes on: If from any ill-luck I get done in in a bombing raid. I hope that someone will make a fuss about sending flyers out bombing with those machines, which, as everybody knows, are not lit for the work. He is willing to go and he is going, and he has fought well. Here is letter received this month from another man who has done well. I have seen this man. He is fighting in one of our squadrons. He says: No. So-and-so did a bombing raid, and No. So-and-so did a raid. and he mentions three machines of this A type, who were sent on another raid. It is too sad. The Committee will believe me when I say that there is a condemnation from top to bottom, by the men who fly these particular machines, of the policy which sends them to fight these high-power German machines on these expeditions. I cannot help saying, it is my duty to say, that last month another colleague in the House telephoned me, "I have got a young Australian officer from the Flying Corps who would like to see you. I will guarantee him, he is a relation of my own." He came and saw me. I asked him about this particular machine. He said, "If you want to know," and he used an ugly expression, which has been used already in this House, about "murder machines, which my squadron is flying on to-day."

It is better to face these facts. Man after man comes and tells me that. Am I to smother that information? Am I to say," I am a Member of the House of Commons and will say nothing about it"? My hon. Friend told us just now in his speech that he got this information months before we got it. I have had that information. The hon. Member for Herts has had that information months ago. Therefore, if he has got it months before we got it, there has been time to clear out those machines altogether, and there has been time to manufacture new machines. I had that information six months ago. My hon. Friend had it six months ago. There has been ample time to clear out the whole of those "A" machines, but, instead of doing that, even to-day they are ordering that type of machine, and they are ordering them not merely for certain purposes at home, but for use at the front. I admit that they are good machines, stable machines, useful for night flying. But they are not machines that ever ought to be allowed to go over the German lines, and to come into conflict with the enormously high-power German machines, who can pounce on them and shoot them down, even before they know that they are attacked, swooping down from a height of 18,000 feet, while almost invisible from the ground, and smashing up and crashing to the ground our machines almost before the pilots know that they have been attacked.

We have heard during the last fortnight of the great successes of our Air Service at the front. I admit that it has been magnificient. No words of mine are needed. It would be painting the lily to praise the work which they have done, but the cost has been great. We have not been told the figures of our losses. I obtained them in the same way as the Germans have got them. I obtained them by putting somebody to read through the file of the "Times" newspaper from the 1st of January to to-day. I would not give the figures to this House at all if the Germans had not got them, but the "Times" goes to neutral countries. The. Germans are not such fools as not to have gone through our casualty lists, which are published for all the world to see. What it the position? It is right that you should know. You Members of the House of Commons are jointly responsible, in spite of the magnificent work. In the casualties that have been mentioned in the "Times" reports are included the casualties for both Macedonia and Mesopotamia. I think that my hon. and gal- lant Friend will agree with me that the casualties there in flying are very small. At all events, they would not in any degree alter the proportion in these lists from the 1st January to to-day. They also include men—non-commissioned officers— who were flying. There, again, the number would be very small indeed— perhaps two or three a month, because nearly all of our flyers are of the officer class. They do not include any accidents. They include only killed, wounded, and missing at the front, as given in the casualty lists in the "Times." In January there were 56, in February 119, in March 152, and this month up to date there are 319, more than double the figure for March, nearly three times that for February, and nearly six times that for January. There were this very week 117 reported in the paper on one morning.

I present this dilemma to my hon. Friend: Either those men were on the best machines or on inferior types of machines. If they were on the best machines, then I am afraid that the statement of the Under-Secretary that our best machines are better than the Germans is rather discomforting. If, on the other hand, you think that they were on inferior machines, then a very heavy responsibility is upon the directors of the Air Service, who sent these men over on machines which, on my hon. Friend's own showing, he knows are insufficient for the work they have to do, and obsolete so far as conflict with the high-power German machines is concerned. In addition to this, during this same period, the Royal Naval Air Service has lost 121, and at home there have been 73 pilots killed. That is a rather serious toll to take place at home. A great many of them are on a particular machine—not the one I am talking about now—which has been referred to in this House, which I will call "B," if my hon. Friend will allow me. One was killed yesterday in my Constituency. Five were killed within the last few weeks in that constituency. Many of them were killed at the aerodrome. After going there all you. hear is that this machine is a very dangerous machine to fly. I know that my hon. Friend says that one of the leading generals in the Flying Corps has flown it over to France. I know the general in question, and if it were possible to saddle the devil himself, he would saddle him and fly him without hesitation. But while he can do these things it does not follow that it is always desirable for young men to follow his example. The right course is to stop all contracts. When you find machines getting obsolete, instead of taking delivery by the hundred, you should cut with a knife into the contracts, whatever it may cost the country, and, instead of building obsolete machines, build some of the magnificent machines which we know they are turning out. The new machines are very fine machines indeed. They are sent over with the young men, and men who have been out at the front flying for months are still kept on the old machines, instead of being transferred to the new first-rate machines. In the French Flying Corps, a man goes up from a seventy or eighty miles an hour machine to a 100 or 120-mile machine. With us the men are kept at the old machines, and the new men go out on the new and best machines. That is a small criticism of detail, but I know that my hon. Friend will inquire into it.

There are not many of these new flying machines. I will call one of them "X." It is a machine better than any German machine, fitted with our newest and best engines, and can climb and fly faster than the German machines. A squadron of these machines were sent over. There is no harm in telling the House how Lieutenant Robinson, V.C., met his fate, whatever that fate may be. A squadron of these machines were given pilots, most of whom had never been over the German lines at all. They were practising flying up and down behind our lines, and afterwards sent for a short distance for one day. Then six of them were started off for a long patrol over the German lines, and these included Lieutenant Robinson. They were X machines, the best we have got. Out of that six one got back to our aerodrome all right, one got back just safely behind our lines, and four either came down or crashed down behind the German lines, and the Germans have got those best machines now. Surely those machines ought not to have started. You ought to have waited until you had got three or four squadrons ready to go over. It is like the old tanks over again. Instead of waiting for a lot and crushing the Germans, they sent six machines over and they were met by nobody knows how many German machines, and, as I have said, four out of the six were brought down.

I hear on all hands that there is much anxiety in regard to our flying machines. I wish I could get my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Baird) to realise that it is no pleasure to me to bring these facts before the House, but the only way to force the Air Service, or the Air Control, whoever that may be, is by pressure of public opinion in this House. The whole secret of the matter is engines, engines, engines. My hon. and gallant Friend agrees. Last week I met six of the principal aeroplane manufacturers in this Kingdom, and they told me they could turn out, and were turning out, as many machines as you like of the best and highest type, but they could not get engines for them. One man said, "For every fifty machines that we turn out I can only get five engines. I am praying that I may get more soon." The engine position was known. It had been spoken of in this House. There is no essential difference between an aeroplane engine and a high-class motor engine, and the manufacturer who builds one can build the other. Years ago arrangements ought to have been made to build these high class engines. Ask any manufacturer of engines you like—I will not mention any names— how they have been treated in regard to the manufacture of engines, and whether they have been given sufficient orders months ago, as they ought to have been. Perhaps now they are being given the encouragement that is so necessary. But are proper plans being laid down for the necessary engines, or are constant tinkering alterations being made to the engines? A Member of this House said he was manufacturing a certain part of one of our new and best engines, and that he had been doing it for three months. The week before last an alteration of a ¼in. was made in regard to a certain portion of it; and I asked him what would be the result. I said, "Will it mean a fortnight's delay?" He said, "The result will be three months' delay!" Why was that not thought of before? Why was not that design made sufficiently correct before, in order that the manufacturer, when he had started, would be able to go straight ahead with the work.

I want to congratulate the Government on the reprisals which took place a fortnight ago at Frieburg. But if you are going to have reprisals you must be thorough. You must have an offensive Air Fleet apart from the everyday require- ments of your Army. You cannot take your machines from Sir Douglas Haig at the time of a big push. You must have an independent striking force, and I hope the time is coming when such arrangements will be made that every time there is a Zeppelin raid over defenceless towns in this country, every time a hospital ship is torpedoed, every time a merchant ship is torpedoed without notice, every time the German Army commits a breach of the civilised usages of war, there will be a reprisal, swift, sudden, and determined, on German territory behind the German lines. The time has come to take off our gloves in this War. Having once started reprisals, the Germans will laugh, and laugh heartily, if you give them up again. You have had two more hospital ships torpedoed since your last reprisals. The very next day there ought to have been a squadron of machines sent off to German territory to let them know that the opinion of civilised Great Britain was against any such dastardly things as the torpedoing of hospital ships. But you cannot do that unless you have the necessary machines. I know that the speech I have made this afternoon will not be popular in certain quarters, but the first duty of a Member of Parliament is not to be popular, but to be honest. It is our duty, knowing these facts, to put them before the only place where a Member of Parliament has a right to be heard, and that is the House of Commons. My responsibility, I admit, is great in putting them before the House, but I feel it to be my duty, and I ask the Committee to realise that I have only done what I feel bound to do in regard to these obsolete machines. When the Secret Session comes I will give my hon. and gallant Friend and the House a lot more information. I will read a lot more letters, and I will tell him of more interviews I have had. This is a matter for the Secret Session, because I do not want to do anything that will possibly give the Germans information. While our men are what they are, with their superb gallantry, their determination, their bravery and their fearlessness, it is the duty of the Air Service, and it is the duty of the House of Commons, to see that they are provided with the very best machines brains can devise and hands can manufacture.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I caught your eye, Sir Frederick Banbury, with some diffidence, as I am not able to speak on the question now before the Committee with anything but very slight information. I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), as the whole Committee did, with great interest and sympathy for the earnest desire that he always shows to make the lot of the flying officer at the front, supported by intelligent criticism at home, as good as it can be made. I think my hon. Friend deserves great praise for having devoted so much time and attention to this subject and having, therefore, acquired the right to make criticisms to the best of his ability. But I confess I was not quite able to follow what is the remedy that he desires to apply to the evils which he alleges to exist. He was very anxious, as I was, to increase the authority of the Air Board and to make it an Air Ministry. As I understand him now, the Air Board is mainly concerned with the supply department, and he complains that its control is limited to supply, and that it has no control over operations. I thought that rather a surprising complaint because practically speaking no Board sitting here in London could ever effectively or usefully control operations at the front. It is quite true that Sir David Henderson is an official of the War Office as well as being a member of the Air Board, and it is quite true that a similar observation might be made about the Air Lord of the Admiralty. The practical truth is that operations must always be left in the hands of the professional soldiers and sailors. When my hon. Friend came to deal with the practical evil which he alleges to exist, it amounts to one, and that is that the machines used at the front are not sufficiently good. That is the fault of the supply department. If such fault there be, the fault lies with the very Air Ministry the power of which the hon. Member is anxious to increase. If it really be so, that the machines used at the front ought to be very much better than they are, the blame obviously lies rather with the supply department than with any other department of the air administration, because they are supposed to supply the combatant officers with as good machines as can be obtained. My hon. Friend is anxious to meet Zeppelins with Zeppelins. I thought that of all the successful things in Home defence the resistance of Zeppelins by aeroplane had been most notable. People have been impatient that this form of Home defence was slowly developed, but. at any rate it has been a really good piece of work through the organisation of aeroplanes and searchlights. I always think that the value of searchlights arc inadequately recognised by the public. They are as important in the defence of the country against Zeppelins as aeroplanes. So far as that criticism goes, surely the hon. Member is carrying criticism rather too far when he complains of our Home defence against Zeppelins.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

My point is this: Will the Noble Lord consider the question of the demands of the Fleet in regard to aeroplanes and the great use Zeppelins have been in naval battles?

Lord H. CECIL

That is another point. I understood my hon. Friend to be dealing with the question of Home defence against Zeppelins, which has been one of the things that has been very well done. With regard to the hon. Member's suggestion as to sending a large number of machines over German territory, that is not a question upon which the opinion of this Committee can be a really valuable one. If ever there was a question which is a technical military question, it is this question as to sending a vast number of military aeroplanes to make an attack upon Germany, and in regard to that technical question the opinion of this Committee is not worth much. The main difficulty is not so much the supply of machines as the supply of pilots for these expeditions. A pilot takes a much longer time to make than a machine. I do not know whether they have got quicker now, but a year or two ago it took from three to five months to train a pilot. If you were unfortunate enough to throw away three or four hundred pilots in this way it would be a serious hindrance to your operations for some time to come. Then we come to the question of obsolete machines. I am not in a position to contradict my hon. Friend, and I must not be understood to make any assertion on the subject, but my hon. Friend did not quite convince me that he was overstating his case. I do not think you can prove anything merely by dealing with casualties. My hon. Friend was led so far as to say that if these casualties occurred on the best machines it showed that those were not the best machines. Surely you can conceive that a casualty can happen on the best machine whenever a shot hits the petrol tank or whenever a shot kills or seriously injures the pilot in a battle in the air, and you cannot say because in a number of cases aeroplanes are brought down over the German lines that it shows that that type of aeroplane is not the best. The mere fact of casualties happening shows that you are using the Flying Corps with more enterprise and energy.

6.0 P.M.

I understood my hon. Friend to argue that only the very best machines should be sent out on hazardous duty, and it is certainly obvious that the better the machine the safer the enterprise. It is desirable, of course, that as soon as possible we should have the best machine that can be devised for the task. If I am correctly informed, the machines which are sent out upon raiding expeditions are accompanied by fighting machines, which are supposed to guard the attacking aeroplanes. I am not in a position to judge of the matter, but it seemed to me that my hon. Friend represented that inferior machines should be sent back to the base, and that a battle should take place between two sets of good machines.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

The whole point of the question is whether the protecting machines are as good as the best machines there are in Germany. We have not sufficient protecting machines.

Lord H. CECIL

I have not the name of the machine referred to.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

The names are 2 C, 2D, and 2E.

Lord H. CECIL

I only wish to point out that the particular machine which has been referred to has various qualities which should be taken into account. It is true that the machine is not so fast as many a more modern machine, and it is true that it has not the quick climbing qualities of other machines, but it is a very easy machine to fly. Let me take an illustration. We are sometimes told that a horse is a "confidential animal," and this aeroplane to which I refer may be described as a "confidential aeroplane." It is easy to fly, and puts less strain on the attention of the pilot. That is a quality of an advantageous character, because the eye of the pilot is not being constantly called to his machine when he has other things to claim his attention. There are machines which fly faster, but they are not so easy to handle. That, I say, is a consideration which must be borne in mind, though, at the same time I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, that it should always be the object to have the best machines we possibly can get for the front. I think my hon. Friend is a little too hard in his criticism of the machine. He said it would only go seventy-five miles an hour, but my recollection is that it goes between eighty and eighty-five an hour.

Mr. BILLING

What height will it climb?

Lord H. CECIL

That I cannot say. I flew the machine on the level, in still air. I admit, as I have said, that we should provide the best machines we can, but we do not want to delay operations, because we cannot get everything perfect. My hon. Friend would seem to suggest that we must hold up the operations of the Flying Corps, to some extent, at any rate, until we can chiefly replace all the older machines with newer machines. But we must go on with the War, even at considerable risk; we cannot stop the vital and important work of the Royal Flying Corps until we get what is lacking. I cannot help remembering the speech of my hon. Friend a year ago when we had supremacy in the air, for I almost jumped to my feet because he was even more pessimistic then than in his present speech. The machines were even worse then than they are now, and I have often had the idea that when members of the Flying Corps are at all depressed and out of spirits, they should write to the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). Large numbers of the officers of the Royal Flying Corps are very young men, but I would venture to repeat an observation which has been made, that the root of human progress is to be found in the criticism and ideas of young men under twenty-five years of age. At that period of life young men are almost always very critical, and it has been said that the ideas, beliefs and criticisms of young men under twenty-five, ten or twenty years later, become realised; and we may assume, therefore, that the young man's conception of what the ideal aeroplane ought to be will be realised ten or twenty years hence. I think, however, that criticism of the present machine may be overstated, and if you cross-examine those who make the criticism you often find that very considerable deductions have to be made. I think we are well entitled to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on the prosperity which has attended the Air Service in the past year, and on the special measure of success which has attended the operations of the Royal Flying Corps. I think that if we could get into the minds of the German General Staff we would find that there is nothing for which they envy us more than our Air Service, and they consider that we have nothing which is better and more efficient. We have, also, the gallantry and glory of our soldiers, and, therefore, let us heartily rejoice.

Mr. BILLING

The Noble Lord spoke of the requirements of the machine B 2C, and I think what he said was substantially correct. It is a machine which I, months ago, described here as the "murder" machine. It has a speed, when turned out from the factory, of 72 to 75 miles, with a 90 horse-power engine. In all circumstances it should have a careful pilot who is an engineer, but I suggest that the majority of our pilots are not engineers. With this machine, if the pilot is an engineer, and in sympathy with his engine, he might possibly obtain 75 miles an hour, but when it is sent out before very long it is found that the speed goes down to something like from 62 to 68 miles an hour, and in some cases even lower. With such a machine it is almost impossible to use it to cross the line, carrying an observer. It has a Lewis gun at an angle of 43 near the propeller, and another Lewis gun at the back sticking out at an angle of 43. Under ordinary conditions its speed is about: 62 miles an hour, while its maximum altitude is about 6,000 feet. A machine when it crosses the line must be at a height of not less than 6,000 feet. When going on bombing raids the machines cannot carry a passenger, because they have to have the weight of the bombs. They go in batches, or squadrons, and are convoyed by fighting machines, but they have great difficulty in keeping in touch with the convoy, some of which circle away to the right and some to the left. In a case of that kind, with these convoys the him has a simple trick for dealing with them, and it is very difficult to stop him doing it. While our machines have been spending fifty minutes to get to an altitude of 6,000 feet, some of the better machines of the enemy get up in from three and a half to four minutes. Those pilots get up about 18,000 feet, and dive on at least one of those bombing squadrons, or perhaps two of them. The result is that the convoys go out in front in order to get those two enemy machines down. What are the bombers going to do with their speed of about 62 miles'! They plod along and hope for the best. The convoy engages with the two chance machines, confident that they will be able to catch up with the bombing party. Before those fellows have got on about two or three miles there are two or three more Huns at a height of from 18,000 to 20,000 feet. Directly they see the convoy drawn away by the first two pilots, down they come and shoot those other fellows down.

That is the point I want to make—to try and get them to stop sending over those fellows in that type of machine. It has taken me thirteen months before any Member would get up to support me on that point. I used the word "murder" thirteen months ago. It is all very well for the Noble Lord to make a joke about a pilot having nothing else to do, and so he writes to my hon. Friend. It is a most unseemly remark. Pilots think quite differently from that. I have had four letters this week, signed by pilots, and fellows who fly these machines call themselves the Suicide Club. I do not want to trouble the House with those letters. I have here a letter coming from a totally different source, which bears out what my hon. Friend above the Gangway said. I think I should, without mentioning the squadron, read an extract. No.— squadron did a raid on Good Friday. The previous day No.—quadron did a raid. Then he gives the names of three other squadrons all on B.E. machines, who were under orders for another raid, and continued: If the raid is only two to three miles over, you can probably get there and back without being attacked, but they send us to— nearly 14 miles over. and the Huns catch us on our return. It is not as if one had a chance. Our machines are unable to carry two bombs and an observer, so we go solo. These machines climb very badly, especially when loaded with bombs, say, 6,000 feet in 40 to 50 minutes, and fly 50 to (SO miles an hour. We have two Lewis guns which fire at angles to avoid the propeller and the rudder, and are almost useless on this account and because of the difficulty of sighting in their awkward position. The machines we are flying are the 1915 type. We do not complain about using them with an observer for Artillery work, but it is pure murder to send one on long bombing raids and solo. Besides, the effect of the raids is insufficient. He goes on to make further remarks with reference to forthcoming operations. That was from another pilot in the same squadron as that to which my hon. Friend refers. It may be a very sound thing so far as the administration is concerned for a member of the Government to stand up and say that it is not in the interests of the country to criticise and that you must not give information to the enemy. If there had been no criticism in this House I do not know what would have happened. The agitation that took place twelve or thirteen months ago resulted in alterations and, in fact, it provided the hon. and gallant Gentleman with the position he now holds. If it had not been for that agitation there would have been no Air Board, and we should have gone on in exactly the same way.

I do not say that the Air Board is perfect. I have considerable confidence in the ability of the Chairman to do a very great deal, and, anyhow, it is a step in the right direction. I understand that the Director-General of Aeronautics, Sir David Henderson, is being found an appointment in the Scottish Command outside aeronautics. If that is so, I am very pleased to hear it. I have no grievance against Sir David Henderson. I never had. I have no grievance against any particular per-son, but the difficulty in criticising a service without mentioning the responsible head of the service is just the same as criticising a Department without mentioning the responsible head. It has always seemed to me a rather deplorable thing that criticism in this House to be of any use must naturally and necessarily be what one might call destructive criticism. If any Member of the House presumes to offer destructive criticism, always presuming there is someone on the Front Bench listening, it is regarded as something bordering on impertinence to suggest how the Government should do things or how a military Department should do things. The result is that before criticism is tolerated in this House there must be something pretty rotten in the Department that is being criticised. If it were only a slight fall from efficiency I think the critic would have a very bad time. Time is of the essence in this matter, and we have got to get on with the position at the front. There are times when the spur of destructive criticism is the only thing that official apathy will feel. It is necessary, more so now than ever.

I would ask the hon. and gallant Member one very distinct question—namely, if the Chairman of the Air Board, assuming that he has the authority, if certain Members here can produce evidence to him which cannot be contradicted that these machines are totally unfit for this purpose, will he give orders that these machines are not to be employed any further in France for this purpose, that is, for bomb dropping behind the enemy lines? He might limit their activities to gun spotting and other observations of that kind. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an undertaking that the statement he made to me in this House on the 20th of last month shall be kept, and that they shall not be used for this work. If he will not grant that, will he say this, that no further machine of this type shall be sent from England to France to be used for this purpose. If that is too much to ask him, will he see that no further machine of this type shall be ordered now to he built in the future and to be delivered in six months' time in France at the front? From information I have in my possession I am satisfied that that is what is now being done at present. They are ordering these machines. If they are so hopelessly inadequate, outranged and inefficient today, how much more likely are they to be so when delivered in six months. I would like him to give an assurance to the men at the front that when they are through with this lot of machines, if they are necessary for the efficiency of present operations, they will not continue to be sent over. I do not think that any Member of this House can say that they had not fair warning as to what would happen to the pilots if the ordering of these machines was persisted in. Twelve months ago I mentioned the matter. It is perhaps poor satisfaction to suggest that one has told anybody inside or outside this House, but they had fair warning of what was likely to happen if they persisted in ordering these machines, and the result we have seen.

There is another question I should like to ask. The hon. and gallant Gentleman told us in his address that the Air Board delivered aeroplanes to the respective services at the gates of the factory which built them. I should like to know at what precise moment from the time the order is placed until the time the machine is delivered the contractor ceases responsibility. If my hon. Friend says there is no air test, as far as I remember, eighteen months ago that was not so. An air test was required before the machine was taken over, in order to see the general assembly of the machine and that it was up to contract. Perhaps, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman replies, he will deal with that point. The hon. Member above the Gangway raised another point, in which I think he was a little misunderstood. That was the question of the men flying better types of machine, of which he gave an instance. It is not always because a man is on the worst type of machine that he is at a great disadvantage, or because he is on the best. It entirely depends on the machine a man has been used to, and not the type of machine. It is a question of judgment. We know at the present moment there are fellows sent out to France who have not had ten hours' flying. They are being drafted out there, they are put into high-speed machines, sent over the enemy's lines for the first time, and they have not a look in. Candidly, they would be better at home here, quite a number of them. I do not want to give the House the number of pilots that went out four days ago, but a vast number of those men had not sufficient experience, and I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to use whatever influence he may have with the authorities to see that those men are thinned out when they get out there, and not sent over the lines until at least they can have some chance to use that bravery which we are all so busy praising in this House. If these men were not so brave and so full out you would hear a great deal more about it, but it is because they are so full out that they put up with these inefficient machines.

The hon. Member for Brentford also raised the question of a sustained air offensive, and I would like to suggest to the Air Board that there has existed for a long time an opening for a sustained air offensive quite independent of the requirements of the Naval and Military Wings. The Naval Wing was formed, in the first instance, to provide the Grand Fleet with machines for gun spotting and observation and to assist the Grand Fleet in operations on the High Seas, but the Royal Naval Air Service has never fulfilled its functions. It has never yet been able to produce anything that was really of any material use to the Grand Fleet. The result has been that it has been used in many instances to devil for the Royal Flying Corps. When the Royal Flying Corps have been weak in any place we have sent them a squadron of Royal Naval Air Service machines. I think the members of the Royal Naval Air Service at least do not think very highly of that, although they are quite willing to do it. I can assure the Committee that there are a vast number of machines now in this country, despite our losses at the front, under the administration of the Royal Naval Air Service, booth stored here and being taken delivery of. If these machines are in the country and the pilots, surely they can be put on some useful work. It has been suggested that to initiate one reprisal raid and then stop is a bad policy, and I quite agree. What is responsible for the apathy in the administration of the Royal Naval Air Service? One thing it is doing—it is using up an enormous amount of the output of this country and arresting an enormous amount of facilities which might be used to advantage for the Royal Flying Corps. When we have an opportunity in Secret Session I trust that someone on the Front Bench will be as candid with this House as it is suggested that this House should be candid with the Front Bench, so that at least we can get something approaching the actual figures. I should also like to know whether the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty will be so good as to tell us how much of this country's money has been spent on developing the Royal Naval Air Service since August, 1914. I think it is out of all proportion to the value that the service has been to the country, although it is not out of all proportion to the value the service might have been to the country.

I had occasion last week to ask the Prime Minister what our attitude towards America on the question of the production of machines was likely to be? We all know that the American mechanical resources for the building of aeroplanes are limitless; if any resources are limitless, they are in the United States. It is some weeks now since the Americans came into this War, and yet, I understand, we have absolutely refused to give them access to our designs or to our latest types of engines, owing to some commercial cause. I think that is a very great pity. I am confident that the constructors in this country would be willing to meet the American Government and supply them with the very latest types of our machines, and I quite fail to see why we should not supply the American Government with the latest types. What is the use of asking our new Allies to blunder through all the mistakes which we have made for two and a-half years? When the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Baird) replies, I should like to know whether there is any likelihood of the drawings and specifications of one of our latest types of machines being sent to America in the next ten days. I cannot see any excuse for them not having been sent ten days ago, so that the American constructors might have something to work on. It would be quite possible for the American nation, without any great strain on their resources either of personnel or of material, to raise 5,000 or 10,000 bomb-dropping machines in the next six or eight months. I think it is also feasible that they might be able to provide pilots for at least half that number, which would be a very fair average to allow for crashes; and I think, if this War does continue through this year, as it seems likely to continue, it would be a very useful thing for the Allies if the Americans could put from 3,000 to 5,000 bomb-dropping machines on the Western or on the Eastern front early next year. The effect of raids carried out on a vast scale, as they could be carried out, without any trouble to ourselves or any drain on our resources beyond supplying America with the drawings and specifications and possibly one or two machines to help them through the initial stages, would be incalculable. But it wants to be done now. We do not want to talk and haggle about it in the middle of December and then say, "I think it is time to do it," with the result that the machines will not come along until the following winter. It seems to me that in this matter of America, also, time is absolutely of the essence of the contract.

Possibly it will be fair for me to say that the officials of the Royal Flying Corps and of the Royal Naval Air Service are not so much to blame in these matters as what one might describe as the political interests at the head. There are so many things that have to be taken into consideration, and so many vested interests to be consulted before anything can be done in this War at all, and there is such an utter lack, with one glorious exception, in both this Government and the past Government, of vision and imagination in dealing with these subjects. I do not want to suggest that the result of that lack of vision and imagination is to be laid entirely on the shoulders of the Royal Flying Corps or the Royal Naval Air Service. I think they have suffered all the way through owing to the political attitude, which has been very difficult to overcome. The question of vast numbers of aeroplanes being ordered has been sug- gested as a way out. Personally, I have never held that view. You want vast numbers of aeroplanes, but the mere ordering of them will not win the War, and what I have endeavoured to suggest here is that what is essential is to start off with a policy. Never since the outbreak of the War has there been anything approaching a fighting policy in either of the Air Services. Somebody brings out a new machine, and it is brought to the Admiralty or to the War Office, and they say, "Would you like to try it?" "Yes." "Then go and try it." We will say that Lieutenant Smith, or Captain Smith, or Commander Smith is in charge of the Department an that he initials a slip saying it is a good machine, and somebody works out slide-rule calculations, and fifty of the machines are ordered. In six months' time somebody comes up and says, "Where shall we deliver these machines?" "What machines?" "These machines." "Who ordered them?" "Commander Smith." "Where is he?" "In Egpyt." "What shall we do with them then?" "Oh, you had better ask So-and-so Department." They have been ordered in a most haphazard manner. I have given the House dozens of instances of the manner in which these machines are ordered. I gave an instance of Short bomb droppers the other day, when, because they could not get the drawings complete, they kept on giving orders for more and more of the machines, and, although the initial order was to be for fifty, after they had increased the order in this way to 250 the whole lot was cancelled and a different type introduced.

If whoever is responsible for initiating an air offensive will make up his mind what offensive we shall initiate, and then consult with those who understand the construction of the machines as to what sort of machines will be necessary to carry out that operation, then we might get a little further. The Chairman of the Air Board should ask himself three simple questions. The first is—What damage both to material, and, what is more important, to the moral of the enemy, can be accomplished by striking at him from the air behind his lines? It has been suggested that the Chairman of the Air Board has not the authority to do anything in this matter. Then I commend it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Air Board to pass these suggestions along to whoever may have the power. I only wish there was one man in this country absolutely responsible for an air offensive. He should then ask himself, What types of aeroplanes is it necessary to construct to accomplish this thing? And thirdly, What steps is it necessary to take to enable us to standardise production and produce the necessary quantities in order to make an air offensive effective? It is possible to turn them out providing that you have a policy, but if you have no policy you cannot standardise. Assuming that we were contemplating a big raid on Essen in six months' time, and continued raids on other parts of Germany, it is possible to standardise a bomb-dropping machine for the next six months. Not only is it possible, but we have the types now. One gets into consultation with the people who have experience in these matters, and the Chairman of the Air Board says, "I want a machine of such a performance at such-and-such an altitude." It need not be a a very quick-flying machine if heavily loaded, because in bomb-dropping raids they always start a good way behind our lines, so as to get height before crossing over into the enemy's country; but it must have at 16,000 feet a speed of not less than about 90 knots, or even 90 miles. If it has got that, and if it is capable of about five or six hours' duration, which would give 500 to 600 miles radius there and back, and if it is capable of carrying perhaps two 200-pound bombs, that will do. We have that machine in existence to-day.

It is quite an extraordinary thing, as we had it in existence twelve months ago. To a certain extent it has been standardised, because we are still building the machine. But we have been at it for twelve months, playing at it. We have never taken it seriously. If the authorities standardised that kind of machine for six months, and put 1,000 in hand, and then put in hand the training of the men necessary to fly these machines, in six months, or in three months' time, as was necessary, it would be well. Then it conies to a question of providing fighting scouts to accompany them. That is a thing you cannot standardise. It is utterly impossible to do it. I would suggest that orders for that type of machine should not be given at a maximum of more than one month's output to any firm who took it on. Those machines want restandardising practically every month. Provided that a firm is given an order, at twelve or fifteen machines a week for sixty of them, which will represent a month's output, then at the end of that time you could standardise that type again with the improvements that the month's air flying had taught, and that machinery could go steadily on. You could standardise your fighters every month, and your bomb-droppers every six months. There is nothing to stop you doing it now. We could arrange the delivery and the commissioning of the pilots to synchronise with a definite policy in hand, and these raids could be commenced. All this could be done without interfering in any way with the output in this country for naval and military requirements, providing that which is asked for the naval and military pilots is limited to what the Army and Navy is justified in asking for.

It has been suggested that the Admiral of the Fleet or the Field Marshal in France should be responsible for arranging these raids. That is a false policy. All we want is the matter of the enemy's country in conference with the Secret Service people. The whole thing could be done from this country without any trouble at all. We know quite well that we can accept practically every German township as a hive of military activity. The Secret Service could act with a man who never went outside this city, providing he understands and appreciates the task that is set a pilot to do when we send him out. It is quite possible in conference with a Secret Service officer and a map to plan any number of raids where they shall be initiated and where they shall take place. I say that this could be done without interference so far as either naval or military requirements are concerned. Not only that, but if the material which the Royal Naval Air Service at present are not employing was taken over it would form a very considerable nucleus for such Imperial Air Fleet or raiding squadron. I think the operations of the force I suggest want to be absolutely distinct from the Army and the Navy. I think that that is a point upon which we might get a little information later. To me it seems perfectly clear and simple that we should have a separate raiding squadron which will initiate raids and carry out reprisals. I do not see why Sir Douglas Haig should be concerned when we are raiding various parts of Bavaria or Frederickshaven, or other parts of the enemy country. The only interest that Sir Douglas Haig would appear to have in the matter is when he gradually found his Army opposing an army with a weaker morale, which would probably continue to decrease in proportion to the increase in our raids.

I should like to congratulate the Government on the recent changes and promotions in the Royal Flying Corps. I consider the new system of a Director-General one of the happiest appointments that has been made for a long time. The promotion, too, of several other officers is likely to have not only far-reaching, but immediate results in many of the cases which hon. Members have felt it their duty to bring before the House. I do not know that I have anything further to say beyond expressing the feeling that I at least have a great deal more confidence in the future of our Air Service. More particularly did I like that very interesting suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend as regards what is likely to happen when peace comes, and as to the Committee he proposes to set up. I think the Government are fortunate in their selection of a chairman. I should also like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it is proposed to have naval and military representatives on this Committee, because I think it is most essential that it should be so. It is no good having a Committee set up to inquire into this thing unless they have in common conference with them those men who control or will practically control the supplies of the aeroplanes with which they will have to deal. It is quite possible that after within a month or a couple of months of peace coming, the Irish or the Paris mails may be carried by aeroplanes.

It will be a very sound thing if the senior in command in both services, who is fully conversant with the types of machines they have, and what they are capable of accomplishing with a useful load, were in conference with this Committee so as to point out the facts to the Postmaster-General if he asks whether they have any machines capable of doing certain special work. I think most probably that it will work sweeter if those officers were called in whenever this Committee met than if it were left only to the Committee to come to some wrong decision from their ignorance of the facts—facts the officers could supply at a moment's notice.

It seems to suggest that at last the administration of the Royal Flying Corps, the Royal Naval Air Service, and the service generally is passing out of the hands of what might be called the elderly politician. It has always seemed to me such a pity that the administration of a service such as this should not have been placed unreservedly in the hands of the generation that brought it into being. It is a new service. It demands new interest Young men should have their opportunities. I do not think that history records any case where it has taken longer for the younger men to come into their own, both in the administrative departments and in the other departments than in this War. We have trusted very much to elderly ad vice, for in this country we always pay respect to grey hairs. Hence it has been rather difficult to convince some of them that possibly their views and their opinions were not quite in keeping with the ordinary lessons of the War in front of which we find ourselves. The lamp of their youth will be utterly out, But they shall subsist on the smell of it, And whatever they do they will fold their hands, And suck their gums and think well of it; Yes. the shall be perfectly pleased with their work, And that is the perfected hell of it.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. TENNANT

We have had a very useful discussion, and I should like to join with my right hon. Friend, who sits on this bench, in congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend opposite on the speech which he delivered earlier in the proceedings. I should also like to congratulate him further upon having received the congratulations of almost everybody who has spoken. It is a very difficult position that he has, and one which I had in years gone by, when I had to meet the stormiest attacks, and a good deal of criticism and antagonism from Members in all parts of the House—from Members representing those constituencies which had received visits from Zeppelins in the course of the previous few weeks. It was important, I think, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should give us, as he did give us, a correct account of the functions of the Air Board. In the minds of a good many hon. Members, certainly in my own, there was some confusion of ideas as to what were the proper duties and functions of the Board. We all know that in the past there have been difficulties—I think even the word "friction" would not be too strong a word to use—as between the various Government Departments concerned in the provision of the material necessary for this most important branch of the service. If I am right, and I think I am, in saying that the new Air Board has smoothed away these difficulties and has reduced that friction to comparative insignificance, or perhaps has absolutely got rid of it altogether, then the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Air Board here is much to be congratulated. I was very glad to hear the various other things that he told us. Passing from the functions of the Air Board to actual activities in which we have been engaged, I was glad to hear of the co-ordination which he announced between ourselves and our Allies, in order that the best brains and the best experience which can be brought to bear upon the problems connected with flying should be so brought to bear, and the best results obtained. I also was interested in the question of inspection. None of the field of the production and activity of an aeroplane seem to me to be more important than it should be thoroughly tested, and that the Inspection Department should be as efficient as possible. I am not quite certain, but my hon. and gallant Friend will correct me if I am wrong, whether it is not desirable that trial flights should be made at the factories. I do not know whether the great manufacturers have any facilities for trial fights or not. but it does seem to me important that before a machine actually comes out to be used in the manner in which it is used—always a very dangerous proceeding even at home in peace times—that it should be tested in a satisfactory manner. I listened rather with some astonishment to the hon. Member for Herts (Mr. Billing) when ho spoke of the absence of a policy, and he said that ever since the beginning of this War he could not see that in any of the conduct of operations there had been a policy at all. I venture to think that he is wholly mistaken. If the House reflects on what the Royal Flying Corps has done, how it has contributed in the operations in the field by photographs, by its wireless telegraphy, and in artillery observation, I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me that that has been a policy which has been not only of inestimable value, but absolutely of the greatest possible necessity to the operations. And not only in observation for artillery, but in observation of every kind, in reconnaissances throughout the whole of this War, the Air Service has really been the eyes of the Army. That is a commonplace. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) made a very illuminating contribution to our discussion, as he has done on more than one previous occasion. He referred to the young men who, being in low spirits, wrote letters to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). I have often thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford deserved our greatest consideration and our entire sympathy for the astonishing productions which come in his post-bag. I am very sympathetic with him for being the recipient of so many disheartening missives.

Whereupon, the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod having come with a Message to attend the Lords Commissioners, the Chairman left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER

resumed the Chair.