§ (1) For the purpose of the administration of the Act relating to the Air Force and to the defence of the realm by air there shall be established an Air Council consisting of one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State who shall be President of the Air Council and of other members who shall be appointed in such manner and subject to such provisions as His Majesty may by Order in Council direct.
§ (2) His Majesty may by Order in Council fix the date as on which the Air Council is to be established, and make provision with respect to the proceedings of the Air Council and the manner in which the business of the Council is to be distributed among the members thereof.
§ (3) On the establishment of the Air Council the Air Board constituted under the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, shall cease to exist, and all the powers, duties, rights, liabilities, and property of that board shall be transferred to the Air Council, but nothing in this Sub-section shall affect any orders, instructions, or other instruments issued by the Air Board, and all such instruments shall have effect as if issued by the Air Council.
§ (4) His Majesty may by Order in Council transfer from the Admiralty, or from the Army Council or the Secretary of State for the War Department, to the Air Council or the President of the Air Council such property, rights, and liabilities of the Admiralty or Army Council or Secretary of State as may be agreed between the Air Council and the Admiralty or the Army Council, as the case may be.
§ Mr. BILLINGI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "members " ["Air Council and of other members "], 491 to insert the words, " it shall include a Director of Operations, a Director of Air Defences, a Director of Construction, a Director of Personnel, and a Director of Equipment, all of whom shall be appointed by Letters Patent under the Great Seal."
With regard to the suggested method of appointment, I am following the precedent which is adopted in the case of Lords of the Admiralty. With respect to the Amendment generally, I think the composition of the Council and the various positions to be filled should be specified. The House ought to know what is to be the composition of the Air Council and who it is proposed to appoint. At the present moment there is no information offered us at all as to who is to be concerned in the work or what appointments are to be made, and I submit to this Committee that it is quite in order that this stipulation should be made in the Bill, that a director should be appointed who shall be directly responsible for operations, that one shall be appointed who shall be directly responsible for the air defences of the country, and that there shall be Directors of Construction, Personnel, and Equipment. I want the Bill to state definitely that these appointments shall be made, and I would like to know from some member of the Government what objection there is to the introduction of these words.
§ Major BAIRDFor reasons I gave earlier in the day, it would be impossible to lay down the exact appointments that are to be made. We cannot tie ourselves down either to their number or designation, but I can assure the hon. Member that the ground he refers to will be fully covered by the appointments made.
§ Mr. BILLINGI hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not read into this Amendment any limitation of numbers. The Amendment simply states that the Council shall include certain men who shall be directly responsible to the country for these particular duties, but it will not preclude the Government from making any further appointments they choose. It is all very well to state that the object of the Amendment will be secured, but why is it always impossible to get the Government to introduce these things into their Bills?
§ Amendment negatived.
492§ Mr. BILLINGI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words, " Provided that the number of members so to be appointed shall not exceed nine."
8.0 P.M.
I submit that this is a very necessary Amendment, because I think it would be a very good thing for this House to exercise its power of limiting the dimensions of this Council. We have seen during the three years of war the effect of unwieldy councils. We saw it in the last Government, and we have a glorious example of it in the present Government. This is the only opportunity the House will have of limiting the number of the Council. I certainly do not see why there should be more than nine members. There may be hon. Members here who are interested in the financial aspect. Personally, I am only interested in the question of efficiency, as to whether this is to be an efficient Council or not an efficient Council; and if it is going to add to its numbers until it is a large and unwieldy Committee, I am afraid it will accomplish very little. I therefore submit to hon. Members who are interested in the financial side of not making unnecessary appointments that they should support this Amendment from that point of view. I move it because I consider it will lead to efficiency in the Service if an unwieldy Committee is prevented by the introduction of some such Amendment as this.
§ Commander BELLAIRSI should like briefly to support the hon. Member in his Amendment to limit the number of members of the Council. I think it would be a very sound thing to get the principle established of small numbers. I hope the Air Council will be less than that, but the danger does exist, owing to financial pressure, the checks of the Treasury, and that sort of thing, of any Council getting to unwieldy proportions. We have just seen the Board of Admiralty expanded to twelve members, and I think there is a great deal in the saying of the French philosopher that the greater the number of wise men assembled in a room the less the wisdom obtained. For that reason I support the hon. Member's Amendment.
§ Mr. WATTI should like to support the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken in regard to what he said as to the unusual amount of wisdom. It is wise, I think, to restrict the number of the Air Council to a figure such as nine. We must remember that this Government came in 493 on the question of reduced numbers in their counsels. It was a question of the extent of the Cabinet and of the War Council that brought the late Government to defeat, and the present Government came in with the fixed intention of ruling things by small councils and small committees. I, therefore, think it ought to accept this Amendment placing a limitation on the number of the Air Council; and nine is a satisfactory number. It is neither too large nor too small, it will enable the Council to find the necessary Under-Secretaries of State, and there will not be more than nine of them, we hope. I cannot see any objection that the Government can have to this number being the maximum. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment, because, may I point out to him, that he has not been very flexible today? He has, if I remember rightly, not accepted a single Amendment. Perhaps he will now turn over a new leaf, and accept a limiting number for this new Air Council.
§ Major BAIRDWith regard to the acceptance of Amendments, it is very unfortunate that I was prepared to accept one that the hon. Member (Mr. Billing) could not find. Otherwise I should not have been exposed to this charge of meanness and stinginess. With regard to this Amendment, I do not quite follow what there is in the magic figure nine; or why nine should be exactly right?
§ Commander BELLAIRSAn outside limit.
§ Major BAIRDYes; but the point is that there is no intention whatever of reaching nine. I hope to goodness we shall not reach nine; but there is this possibility: You cannot tell, until you get at the work, how much it will have to be sub-divided to secure efficiency; and it is also possible that, aviation being, from an Imperial point of view, as important a matter as it is likely to be in time of peace, it will prove desirable to have members from the Dominions as members of the Air Council. I hope the Committee will not press this Amendment, because I do not think there is anything very desirable in limiting the Council to a purely arbitrary figure which may be unnecessarily large at the present time—it 'does appear unnecessarily large at the present time—but in regard to which if it is not large enough, it will be rather unwise to have to come to 494 the House of Commons to extend it I can assure the Committee that everyone of us who is concerned with the drawing up of this scheme for the working of the Ministry is fully alive to the importance of having the Air Council as small as possible, and that we shall draw our rules in accordance with that view. I think, however, it would be a mistake to limit ourselves to the number laid down, the exact virtue and value of which, I confess, is not apparent to me.
§ Mr. BILLINGThe hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised a most interesting point in his remark that he regards this as an Imperial measure. I have always wished to regard the Air Service from an Imperial aspect, and I have an Amendment to give effect to that in the title of the Bill. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman were prepared to accept that when we reach it quite shortly, and to express in the title of the Bill that this is an Imperial Air Service, as distinct from an Air Force, I should quite appreciate the only reason that can possibly exist for the extension of the Council to more than nine. Unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman can give an assurance that it is the intention of the Government to make some such alteration I must press this Amendment, because if the question of the introduction of Imperial representatives to this Council arises, surely there will be other matters arising which it will be necessary to come to this House about, and on that occasion the Government could ask for an extension of the members of the Council. I think it was rather a lame excuse to suggest now that the Government should have conveniences for carrying into effect certain powers which they have not the power to do. If they have not the power to add Imperial representatives to their number, and to make this an Imperial movement, why expand the number beyond nine? Unless there is some other reason or excuse for raising the number to nine, I shall press my Amendment to a Division on the ground of efficiency and economy.
§ Mr. HOGGEI do not think we have had a sufficient reply from the Government in regard to the numbers that ought to compose this Council. I think we ought to hear from the Government what the Bill as it stands really allows them to do. The suggestion that it does not admit of the admission of Imperial representatives is, of course, a foolish one, because, before 495 that could be done, we should require to have an Imperial Conference, to draft an Imperial constitution, and to have Imperial control not only of the Army and Navy, but of the Air Service, before you could have any representative control of a Committee of this kind. I can quite see that some Canadian or New Zealander could be attached to this Committee for work under some such arrangement as exists at present, but obviously if this country is to be taxed for this purpose the Council cannot be composed of men who have no status except their Colonial status. I really think the Government have not made it clear to the House that the Bill as it stands prevents them from spending unnecessary money. As has already been pointed out in this Debate by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Commander Bellairs), the Admiralty has increased by leaps and bounds during the War. We do not know yet who the Air Minister is to be. We do not know what his fads may be, or how many men he may want to appoint. He may have different fads from those of the man who follows him, and thus we may have an indeterminate Council with an indeterminate number. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will press this Amendment to a Division, but before we part company with this Amendment I think we ought to have some statement laying down specifically that five or six posts are essential for this Council, and some indication should be given to this House of what others are necessary. Unless that is done I shall feel disposed to follow the hon. Gentleman into the Lobby as a protest against the unnecessary extravagance of leaving the numbers of the Council indeterminate.
§ Lord H. CECILIt would be unwise to make a hard and fast limit to the Air Council, which would last for ever, and with regard to which we can really hardly tell—I am speaking of future years—how the Air Force will be developed. The very experience to which reference has been made, as to the Admiralty and Army Council in recent years having been expanded, should teach us that it is imprudent to have any definite, fixed, legislative maximum for a body of this kind. Of course, it is desirable to practice economy, but I would observe that this Amendment would exclude the adding of officers who might have no special remuneration but whose services might be 496 very useful. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, and that the matter will be left to the discretion of the Government.
§ Mr. BILLINGSurely the Noble Lord who has just spoken is aware that the Lords of the Admiralty are limited in number?
§ Lord H. CECILNot by law.
§ Mr. BILLINGNot by Act of Parliament? In the circumstances the suggestion is made that all these members of this. Council should be paid salaries.
§ Lord H. CECILNo.
§ Mr. BILLINGIt says so later on. The Air Council have the power to pay members, and if we get an extravagant and excitable Air Minister—and really from the recent appointments of the Government there is no telling where their imagination may take them—who has no knowledge either of Army or Navy matters, but who is simply anxious to make a successful post out of the position he is given, he might go off and appoint a totally unnecessary number of officers of this Council, and they might all be civilians. He might take the director of one firm and the managing director of another firm, and all these aircraft firms might be appointed at huge salaries. There is nothing to prevent it. We do not know how much they are going to get. I am only an exceedingly humble Member of this House, but it does astound me to see how alleged private Members allow their privileges to be taken from them. They refuse to fight for them, and they are prepared to hand over to the Government the power to appoint a man they do not know, and people of whom they have never heard, at salaries we can only guess at. It seems to me a preposterous thing, and an insult to the intelligence and an insult to the sense of independence of private Members, that the Government should come down here and bounce these Bills through, and say, "If you do not pass them, we will sit on Friday." It would be a great personal inconvenience to me to sit on Friday, but I would sit on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday in order to get a Bill through.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member should be relevant in his remarks.
§ Commander BELLAIRSI do not think: there is much substance in what has been: 497 advanced by the Government about the Imperial representatives. We have had great Armies from Canada and Australia and have not put members of those countries on the Army Council; neither have we found it necessary on account of the Australian Navy to put an Australian representative on to the Board of Admiralty. It is a far more important matter to establish the principle of limiting the number. Should it be necessary at any time to extend the number it is only right that they should come to Parliament, and our experience has been
| Division No. 110]. | AYES. | [8. 15P.m. |
| Bellairs, Commander C. W. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Bryce, John Annan | Lundon, Thomas | |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Pringle, William M. R. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Mr — |
| Hunt, Major Rowland | Billing and Mr. Hogge |
| NOES | ||
| Adamson, William | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham) | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert |
| Ainsworth. Sir John Stirling | Fleming,Sir J. (Aberdeen, S.) | O'Grady, James |
| Archdale, Lt. Edward M. | Galbraith, Samuel | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gibbs, Col. George Abraham | Parkes. Sir Edward E. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gretton, John | Parrott, Sir James Edward |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones | Pease, Rt. Hon. H. Pike (Darlington) |
| Barnett, Captain R. W. | Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Philipps, Maj. -Gen. Sir Ivor (S'ampton) |
| Benn, Capt.W.W.(T.Hamlets, St.George) | Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.) | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Haslam, Lewis | Pratt, J. W. |
| Bird, Alfred | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Black, Sir Arthur W. | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Boland, John Plus | Hibbert, Sir Henry | Randles, Sir John S. |
| Boyton, James | Hickman, Brig. —Gen. Thomas E. | Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfen) |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Higham, John Sharp | Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hills, Major John Waller | Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Carew, C. R. S. | Horne, Edgar | Rowlands, James |
| Cator, John | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Hudson, Walter | Shortt, Edward |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Smallwood, Edward |
| Chapple, Major William Allen | Jacobsen, Thomas Owen | Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton) |
| Clough, William | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset East) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, west |
| Clynes, John R. | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.) |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Coote, William | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leit (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Tickler, T. G. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jones, William S. Glyn — (Stepney) | Wardle, George J. |
| Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff) | Jowett, Frederick William | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradesten). |
| Craig, Col. James (Down, E.) | Kenyon, Barnet | Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Crumley, Patrick | Kiley, James Daniel | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.) |
| Currie, George W. | Larmor, Sir J. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Dalrymple, Hon. H. H. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.) |
| Denniss, E. R. B. | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Doris, William | Macmaster, Donald | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Macpherson, James Ian | Yeo, Alfred William |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Magnus, Sir Philip | |
| Fell, Arthur | Marks, Sir George Croydon | TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Lord |
| Finney, Samuel | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | E. Talbot and Captain F. Guest. |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
§ Mr. PRINGLEI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "Provided that no member of the Council shall be financially interested in any undertaking which supplies aeroplanes, aeroplane engines, or parts thereof, to the Government."
§ that they will get the Bill through in a very short time. The Admiralty brought forward three Amendments to the Naval Discipline Act, and got them through in. half an hour.
§ Mr. BILLINGMay I ask if the representative of the War Office and the Attorney-General is prepared to meet this. Amendment?
§ Question put, " That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 8;. Noes, 117.
§ The Committee will remember that in the course of the discussion of the Financial Resolution this afternoon I referred to the possibility of members of the Air Council being so interested as is described in the terms of my Amendment. I then suggested that it was an extremely bad
499§ thing from the point of view of public service that members of the Air Council, even although they gave their services gratuitously in that position, should be interested in undertakings which were contracting with their Department. We all know the stringency of the Rules which relate to Members of Parliament having contracts with His Majesty's Government. During the course of the present War, however, the stringency of these Rules has to some extent been relaxed. It has been felt that the nature of the national emergency is such that a Rule of this House which is absolutely sound in ordinary times should not be rigidly adhered to. We know that in connection with the Munitions Department there have been men employed in official positions who have been interested in undertakings which were contracting with them. I do not allege that as a result of these arrangements any abuses have arisen. At the same time, the existence of these arrangements has in some cases given ground for suspicion. The suspicion, for example, of favouritism, of undue preference; while, of course, the very fact that these suspicions can arise is a sufficient ground for putting forward an Amendment of this kind. I could give an example of the kind of thing which is said to have arisen. You may have certain machines supplied at a standard price, and it may happen that, as time goes on, improvements may be introduced into machines. These improvements, of course, disturb the arrangement upon which the standard price is based. If it should occur that a person in a powerful position in the Ministry is interested in the first patent, he will have an advantage which cannot be enjoyed by any competitor. That should be absolutely impossible.
§ There is another point of the very greatest importance to the Air Service. That Service, as we all know, is one which is specially in an experimental stage. We are all desirous of seeing improvements made in the machines at the service of our flying men. We desire, in view of their safety, and for the offensive qualities of the machine, that they should have machines of a higher fighting quality than those to which they are likely to be opposed. If, however, you have on your Air Council men who are financially interested in the production of existing 500 machines, and to whom the scrapping of the existing type and the substitution of the new type would mean a very considerable loss, there is always the risk, under these circumstances, that the new machine, however admirable and useful it may be, or likely to turn out, however simple its construction, may not have a fair chance when it comes to be tested for the purpose of decision. These are dangers against which we should take every measure to guard. The Amendment which I am proposing is not designed to prevent an expert being on this Committee, that is to say a man who knows all about aviation, aeroplanes, aeroplane engines, and so on. I hold it possible to get on the Air Board men who have the highest skill in all these things, and who are willing to denude themselves of all their financial interests in any of the existing concerns, and who in that position would be absolutely above suspicion. I do not think it is inflicting any hardship upon any man to ask that if he takes a position of this sort, if he becomes a member of this Air Board, to act as an expert, that from that moment he should cease to have any financial interest in the continued production of any competing air machines. That is the object of the Amendment. T do not desire to make any imputations against anybody, or to suggest that anybody at the present time on the Air Council has been guilty of such action, but there is the risk.
§ You may have a man who thinks that he has a perfectly sound machine coming along and he asks the Air Council to test that machine. The test may be refused, or an inadequate test may be applied. Either of those decisions may be come to on perfectly sound grounds, but the fact that one of the men who takes the decision is interested against any new departure is likely to create a suspicion in the mind of the disappointed man that he has been unfairly treated. There is not the slightest doubt that, human nature being what it is, he would find very, very many men likely to share that suspicion. That is the kind of thing that one does not desire to grow up in connection with our Government Departments. I have raised this question in regard to the Air Service because I think it is in this matter of new construction and improvements, in the obtaining of novelties and so forth, that the danger particularly lies. It is so much the paramount interest of this country to see that no single improvement in aeronautics 501 should be missed, that anything which has the slightest tendency to prevent the adoption of any but the most up-to-date machines ought not to be allowed in connection with this new Service. I hope the Government, in view of the considerations I have put before the Committee, if unable to accept my Amendment in its present form, at least may be able to accept something which would achieve the desired result.
§ Mr. WATTI think this is a most important Amendment. I hope it will receive the serious consideration of the Government, and not only that, but its acceptance. In any case, I hope they will take action to put some Amendment in the Bill which will bring about the results desired by my hon. Friend. The Amendment, as he has said, is to prevent a man financially interested in any air concern or air machine manufactory serving on the Air Council. My hon. Friend said that he did not want to make any insinuations. I feel it my duty to make those insinuations from what I know. I know outside the Air Board there exists among men skilled in aeroplane making—experts, inventors, and so forth—an idea that they do not get a fair chance from the Air Board for their inventions and their schemes. I have one instance, that of a constituent of mine, whose machine, after many, many months of hard work, was scrapped by the order of the Air Board. That may have been right or wrong. No doubt it was right, but it caused in the mind of this inventor a feeling of great disappointment, a feeling of harshness, and a feeling of having been ill-treated. What is the effect on that man? He never tries again to work for the Air Board. His services are lost to the Air Board, and through them his services are lost to the nation.
I think it is a very unfortunate outcome of events that the men who are desired to exercise their ingenuity in the direction of engine-making are choked off by what they consider ill-treatment by the Air Board. If there were no men interested in any particular manufacture on the Air Board, that conclusion would not arise in the minds of these people, and they would, at any rate, think that they had been honestly judged by the Air Board, and that their inventions had been considered fairly, and they would not have the feeling of umbrage which at present exists. That is one of the points. Another point is that members of the Air Board interested in 502 concerns manufacturing aeroplanes have a tendency to put the orders of the Air Board in the direction of the concerns in which they are interested. Any man who has commercial experience knows that that must exist. It is ordinary human nature that that should exist in the members of the Air Board, and that when they are giving orders the orders will go in the direction of the firm in which they are interested. I do not suggest that in the minds of the men so swaying the direction of the orders there is anything unfair. They think, rightly or wrongly, that the engines in which they are interested are the best in the market, and they use their influence there to sway orders in that direction. I think that is unwise. It is unwise that they should be open even to the suspicion of so doing, and the Amendment of my hon. Friend provides that men on the Air Council shall not be financially interested in the concerns which provide the things the Air Council in the future are to find. My hon. Friend who is now in charge of the measure must see that that is a sound principle. Whether he can give effect to it or not I do not know.
§ Mr. BILLINGI shall certainly support this Amendment, but if it cannot be carried in the present form, owing to the exigencies of war, perhaps the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will meet us by amending the Clause so as to provide that when a state of war does not exist no member of the Air Council shall be in the position described; or will my hon. Friend alter the Amendment so as to provide that only so long as the War exists shall it be possible for a member of the Air Council to be also a member of a trading concern which is dealing with them? Does that appeal to my hon. Friend? This puts the House in rather a difficult position. By an overwhelming majority this House not very long ago passed an Act—I voted against it and fought it all I could, but I happened to be an isolated Member—to empower itself to contract with the Government and to vote public money to go into its own pocket, and here we are debating whether we shall allow anyone else to do it. Yet I am in favour of supporting this, even although it puts in a difficult position hon. Members who go into the Lobby to support it, because I trust the hon. Member will press this to a Division. Personally, I think if Amendments are not pressed to a Division 503 they might just as well not be put up at all. It gives us, if they are pressed to a Division, an opportunity at some future date, when the virtue of the Amendment has become apparent, to bring home to the members of the Government and other Members of the House the folly of their past ways and probably win their support for a future measure.
My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment made out a very good case, and were it not for the fact that I have no particular wish to extend this Committee stage, unless it would be for the purpose of having an opportunity of reconsidering the Bill before the Report stage, I could make out even a better case. Take, for example, the case of the managing director of a large aeroplane firm. He is perhaps not the actual designer for his firm, but the machine which comes out of that man's factory originates to a large extent in his mind. He conceives the general idea of the thing. He gives the machine, in all probability, his name, and he has a sort of paternal interest in the success or failure of that particular type. He is sitting on the Council. I am here waiving the question entirely as to whether it is right to place a man in a position to ruin himself financially by doing an honourable thing, because to force him into that position is a matter which might be debated at some length, but has no particular bearing on this case. There is another aspect of the case altogether—personal pride, for instance. The hon. Member who spoke last mentioned the case of an inventor who was so disturbed by the Air Board turning his machine down. Let the hon. Member realise how difficult it is to make an inventor believe he is wrong, or that his invention would not win the War, or at least would not have a considerable bearing on it. Directors of various firms, although not inventors, are in many cases originators of certain types and designs, and to ask them to sit on a council and turn down designs they have spent months in producing and on which they have spent thousands of pounds in perfecting, to ask such a man to assist in reducing his own machine to the scrap-heap, is placing that director in an invidous position.
Does this Committee seriously believe that, with aviation now nine years old, with the Army having practised aviation for some years, as well as the Navy, it is 504 impossible to find nine, eight, five, or three men in this country who are masters of their business unless they are saturated on the commercial side? It is easy to find men capable of holding positions on the Air Council without going to members of the trade. If you do go to members of the trade, I think they will appreciate the honour paid them sufficiently to dispose of their commercial undertakings, and if they do not they must think a great deal more of swelling their own bank balances than serving their country. I think the hon. Gentleman who is piloting this Bill ought to give us some assurance on this point, and explain why it is impossible to form an Air Council without drawing members of the trade into its number. If, on the other hand, the hon. Member can satisfy the Committee that it is utterly impossible to successfully administer the affairs of the Air Service without putting the control of construction, development, design, design, delivery, and office of works into the hands of tradesmen who will benefit to a very large financial extent by their own management, if he can satisfy the Committee that it is impossible, perhaps he will not mind putting an assurance in that when the exigencies of the War permit, and when peace comes once again, then at least in peace time the Council shall not consist of men directly interested in these matters.
Perhaps the hon. Member will say what is the position of those nominal heads of large firms which are now being supported by the Government itself. Would they be in a position, if this Amendment is accepted, to sit on the Council? I think the hon. Member opposite suggests that it is more or less limited to the speculative development of science. The Government's present method is to erect large dockyards and put the name of some well-known constructor over the door, although he is not interested in the output any more than in simply using his experience to accelerate production. He is not interested in designs, because all these things are done for him. His workmen are paid for him, and the buildings are erected for him, and his name is only put over the door to delude the public into believing that it is a private undertaking when all the time it is a Government concern. What will he the position of a man like that? In the case of a man who simply has his name 505 over the door and who only gets a retaining fee, would he be able to sit on the Council?
§ Mr. BILLINGPossibly the hon. Member representing the Air Board will give detailed reasons for refusing the Amendment, even if it comes to mentioning individuals, and I do not think, on a subject like this, we ought to mince matters. Will he accept the Amendment in so far as it relates to after the War?
§ Colonel C. LOWTHERI have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle), and although I do not entirely agree with him, I think the Amendment is a very important one. I wish to protest against the emptiness of the House. Here we are on the eve of the creation of a Service on whose excellence so much depends in regard to the successful prosecution of the War, and look at this House ! There is not one Cabinet Minister present. We would like to see the Leader of the House in his place, or some other Ministers on the Treasury Bench. Look at what is supposed to be the Opposition Bench! I would like to see more hon. Members taking an interest in what ought to be our greatest Service, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will intimate to Ministers that it is the desire of the House that the Treasury Bench should be a little bit fuller.
§ Major BAIRDThe Amendment on the Paper appears reasonable, and on general grounds it would be difficult to withstand it. I would like to point out quite frankly that if this Amendment is accepted two gentlemen who have rendered greater service to the Air Service than any other two individuals alive would not be qualified to sit on the future Air Council. If it were only in order to be able to avail ourselves of the services of these two gentlemen, I should certainly think it worth while to resist this Amendment. With all that the hon. Member says about having people sitting in judgment upon their own designs I quite agree, but, this only shows a lack of knowledge of the system under which the designs are selected. The Air Board has in its employment a designs, or technical, department, and they act on its advice. The hon. Member never insinuated that it would be done deliberately—he ad- 506 -mitted it would only be done unconsciously —but even if it were possible for a member of the Board who happened to be interested to some extent in the manufacture of aircraft to find himself biassed in favour of his own manufacture as against that of some other man, he would be only one on the Board. Obviously, the last thing that any man would do would be to bring forward something in which he was personally interested. The danger would rather be that he would hesitate to bring forward some invention in which his firm was directly interested.
§ Mr. BILLINGIt is not what he brings forward; it is what he turns down.
§ Major BAIRDIt is precisely the same thing.
§ Mr. BILLINGNo; it is exactly the opposite.
§ Major BAIRDA thing cannot be turned down until it has been brought forward. If it is brought forward, it is either accepted or turned down. The important thing is that it should be brought forward, and that the Board should have at their disposal, and should thoroughly study, the inventions and ideas of the whole country. The danger which the hon. Member fears does not exist, and it would be extreme folly to deliberately deprive ourselves of the services of two men who, I repeat, have rendered greater service to aviation than any other men in the country. Let it be remembered that with the spread of aviation and the manufacture of aircraft it is extremely difficult to find any big engineer part of whose works are not engaged in the manufacture of some part of an aeroplane. That is precisely the case of the firm which the hon. Member has in mind. A certain part of the works in which two members of the Air Board are interested are devoted to the manufacture of aircraft and air ranges. It is not the whole part of their business, but to-day so widespread is the manufacture of aircraft that if we accept this Amendment we exclude ourselves from the employment of almost any big engineer. We cannot afford to do that.
§ Mr. PRINGLEHe could easily part with his shares and put them in War Loan.
§ Major BAIRDSurely it is not reasonable to expect a man to cut himself entirely from his own business?
§ Mr. PRINGLELord Rhondda gave up his directorships.
§ Major BAIRDThat may be, but I do say that you cannot call upon a man when taking on a Government job—the Government may be short—lived— to entirely cut himself adrift for that period from his own business.
§ Major BAIRDYes, in times of peace.
§ Mr. PRINGLELord Rhondda has done it.
§ Major BAIRDThat may be, but it is an understood thing that a man does not abandon his interest, although he does abandon actual participation, in what is known as his private business.
§ Colonel LOWTHERA man abandons his directorships.
§ Mr. BILLINGThousands of men have abandoned their own business to go into the trenches.
§ 9.0 P. m.
§ Major BAIRDI do not think it is necessary to pursue this subject further. You run no danger with the type of man you are going to employ or the kind of man who would be asked to sit on the Council, and it would certainly be taking an altogether disproportionate view of the needs of the situation and the best means of meeting them if we were to exclude ourselves from the right of inviting the services of anybody in a position to render services to the country.
§ Sir I. PHILIPPSI did not intend to intervene in this Debate, because I thought that the bon Members who introduced it were simply ploughing the sands, and that it might be taken for granted that there was no necessity for such an Amendment. How often has it been said from that Front Bench that the principles of the Amendment were to be enforced? Over and over again. It never entered my head for one moment that such a policy was the policy of His Majesty's Government. I cannot believe that my hon. and gallant Friend appreciates the words that he has just used. I can imagine the astonishment with which those words would have been received if this House had been full, as it ought to be full at such a time. Here we have a member of the Government telling us that 508 the people composing the Air Council, the greatest of Services, are to be those who have private interests in the matter. It is absolutely unheard of. It has been unheard of in the Admiralty and in the Army, and I believe the result of the introduction into His Majesty's Air Forces of such a principle should be quite impossible. I cannot for one moment believe that the Government will support the hon. Gentleman in the view that he has put forward. It comes to me as a most tremendous shock to think that it is even possible. I do not know anything about these Gentlemen, but I never thought it possible that a man in the trade making aeroplanes and airships could sit on the Air Council and have the ordering of them. It seems to me incredible, and I do not believe the country knows it.
§ Major BAIRDIt may be new to the lion. and gallant Gentleman, but I myself-at least six months ago in a full House answered a question, and distinctly stated that these two members—
§ Sir I. PHILIPPSI have not referred to them. I do not know them.
§ Major BAIRDI know, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the House would be shocked, whereas the whole House knows it.
§ Mr. BILLINGIt could not shock the House.
§ Sir I. PHILIPPSI at once withdraw the statement that it was not known, but I am afraid that it has not been appreciated. It is contrary to all the views that have been invariably expressed by all the great men who have led this House, and to hear an entirely different policy now announced must cause great anxiety to everyone throughout the country. Have we ever put on the Board of Admiralty great shipowners or shipbuilders? We have never attempted such a thing. Immediately any officer or gentleman assumes any public appointment he is compelled by the laws laid down by various Prime Ministers to relinquish all private interests, and I shall be very much surprised if the Government really appreciates what has been announced by the hon. and gallant Member. I do not say it is a matter that we ought to take up here, because it is a much bigger question, and such an important question should not be dealt with in an Air Force Bill alone.
§ Major BAIRDFor months past the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies and the Controller of Petrol Engines have been members of the Air Board. They were announced as members of the Air Board, and they have rendered incalculable services to the country.
§ Major BAIRDYes, I was asked that question and replied to it in the House, stating that they were interested in particular firms. Is there any reason why, after that arrangement has worked well and after these men have been applying all their experience and knowledge to the subject, we should suddenly, although the House of Commons made no objection to their being employed before, now when we have increased the scope of our aeronautical work, deprive ourselves of the experience of these men and take somebody else who does not know the job? If that is the idea, it is extremely illogical. In addition to the members of the Air Council, to whom I referred earlier in the day, there is bound to be a representative in the Ministry of Munitions. Are we to change the present head of the aeronautical section of the Ministry of Munitions?
§ Sir I. PHILIPPSWho is asking for that? I do not even know the gentleman. All I maintain is that you ought not to have at the head of a Department gentlemen who are personally interested in firms with which they are placing orders. I am convinced that the whole country is with me in that matter. You have asked me the question, and I give you my answer.
§ Major BAIRDDoes the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate what the necessities of the War entail? Would he apply that throughout the whole of the Ministry of Munitions?
§ Sir I. PHILIPPSNo, but I would to the Council. I see no objection to this great technical expert being your adviser, and even your paid adviser, but that is a very different thing from his being on the Council and practically a member of the Government placing the orders.
§ Major BAIRDHe is not a member of the Government.
§ Sir I. PHILIPPSHe is a member of the Council, which is the government of the Air Force.
§ Major BAIRDI ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman would object to the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies occupying on the Air Council the position which he now occupies on the Air Board? That is a perfectly simple position.
§ Sir I. PHILIPPSI do not know what position he is in.
§ Major BAIRDThe Controller of Aeronautical Supplies must be on the Air Council as he is on the Air Board. It is inconceivable that you can have an Air Council without a Controller of Aeronautical Supplies on it. Is the contention that the gentleman who occupied that position, and who was considered by the House of Commons and everybody else perfectly fit to serve on the Air Board—there is no question about it—is no longer fit to serve on the Air Council?
§ Sir I. PHILIPPSIf the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me that question, I would tell him what I think. I know nothing about this gentleman or the Air Board, but we are legislating here for a great new Air Force. We are not concerned with this Air Board, which, so far as I have understood—and, indeed, it was explained from the Front Bench—was absolutely effete and useless to-day. We are now setting up a great Air Force in addition to His Majesty's other fighting Forces. We say that the Air Council should be formed on the same principle as the Admiralty and the Army Council, and that any question of the Air Council being selected from men who are themselves receiving orders and supplying goods should be an impossibility.
§ Mr. BILLINGMay I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is going to carry this matter further, as he has so far committed the Government? Are we to understand that a man with shares can occupy a position on the Council, and that a man on the Council without shares can buy them? You cannot say that one man on the Council shall be a holder of shares and that another man on the Council shall not. To carry the thing further, there is nothing to prevent the officers appointed to the Council taking large interests in aeronautical firms. It is perfectly preposterous, even assuming that we have been driven into such a corner and that 511 our Army and Naval officers are such fools that we must go to the commercial world to find these persons. I do not think that our dives into the commercial world have been attended so far with glorious success. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered the one point on which I laid particular stress, namely, whether he will give an undertaking that when the exigencies of the War are passed and the piping times of peace come, when we are able to train naval and military officers, he will see that tradesmen do not sit on the Council? Will he give the Committee an undertaking that the day peace is signed these men connected with the Air Council shall resign from it automatically? Is silence consent or are we to understand that the conduct of our national affairs and of our naval and military affairs is to pass into the hands of tradesmen who profit by them? I quite understand that there is some difficulty to-day. One of the reasons I put down the Amendment was to obtain a statement as to who were to sit on the Council. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will say what particular posts on the Air Council it is absolutely necessary to fill with commercial men, I Will endeavour, from my intimate knowledge of the officers of the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service, to suggest a few names of men equally efficient and quite capable of filling with distinction these particular posts. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman state whether it is the intention of the Government that at the end of the War these men shall automatically resign from their positions on the Air Council?
§ Mr. HARCOURTWhen I came down to the House this afternoon I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend and other members on the Treasury Bench that I had not the slightest intention of dealing with any Amendment except the Amendment of substance which I had put down on a previous Clause. Without any ill-feeling towards my hon. and gallant Friend or the Government, I really must join other hon. Members in what I think is a vital question in protesting against the obiter dictum which fell from the Treasury Bench that no man, whether he be an officer or a civilian, can be supposed, even in time of war, to understand a subject unless he is financially interested. That is one of the most extraordinary statements to which I have 512 ever listened in the House of Commons. It is necessary to enter a caveat in this matter, because my hon. and gallant Friend must understand that this is precisely the sort of point that will arouse the deepest possible feeling in certain and not unimportant quarters in the country. I feel rather like a Rip van Winkle in these matters. After being away some fourteen months, I come back to find sitting on the Treasury Bench for the first time—I do not complain of it; indeed, I rejoice in it—a Government largely composed of Labour and even of Socialist elements. I do not envy any of them who has to go down and maintain the extreme doctrine which has been enunciated by the Treasury Bench in this matter. The obiter dictum to which I listened from my hon. and gallant Friend is the principle of this Amendment is to empty the Ministry of Munitions. I am very sorry to hear that. I am a great believer in the Ministry of Munitions Inventions Department. It is one of the ablest Departments we have had created under the stress of war. It is infinitely superior to several other Departments which I could name. I have had a good deal to do with that Department but I have never learned, in the detailed discussions which I have had with members and officials—civilians—of that Department, that they were in any way financially interested in the very important inventions for which they have been responsible. I should be extremely sorry, by remaining silent or by abstaining from the Division, not to make it perfectly clear that I think a very dangerous doctrine has been enunciated stated in a form which is quite unnecessarily strong and misleading.
§ Colonel GRETTONI am astounded, on coming into the House after a very short interval, to find things in the position in which they are. This dilemma seems to have arisen out of the attempt to set up a civilian Department to control the War. So long as you have men in charge of this Department who understand war, whose business it is to make war and who know what machines and apparatus and what training are necessary for the purposes of war, you avoid the financial dilemma. Directly a civilian Department is set up you are encountered with the invincible ignorance, no doubt with the best intentions, of the ordinary civilian. The civilian who knows anything about it is the civilian who is financially interested and a civilian Department is 513 therefore obliged to man itself with civilians who know something about the business. They have to go to the manufacturer. I have no particular prejudice against manufacturers. I believe there are many honest manufacturers, people who do their best for the War apart from any financial interest which they may have, but the doctrine which has been enunciated, whether it is a doctrine of peace or of war, is going to horrify this House when it understands it and to cause great criticism and great distrust in the country at large. We are coming to the fundamental principle at the root of this Bill. It appears that the Bill is to set up a civilian Department to make war. I am afraid I cannot support the Government in its doctrine that persons who are financially interested in the supply of the apparatus of war for this Department are to be in control of the Department. I am quite sure the House of Commons, when it realises what has happened, will not support that nor will the country outside. The hon. Member opposite has done service in raising this Debate, because, however urgent may be the necessity of expanding the Air Service, it surely can be done by some other methods than those which are financially absolutely unsound and repugnant to the whole system on which the finance of this country has been built up, and to those principles which are enshrined, and which are, with some difficulties, maintained in certain instances in Departments which already exist. If this Department defies all the principles of financial control and financial disinterestedness which have been at the root of all our ideals in controlling finance and the management of Government offices, then this new Ministry is doomed at its inception.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe discussion we have had has fully justified the proposing of the Amendment. The consternation with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman heard the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Air Board as to the present constitution of the Board shows the absolute necessity of putting on the records of the House of Commons the exact situation.
§ Major BAIRDIt was put on record at least six months ago in a reply which I gave to a question on the subject.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI am quite aware of it, and although in proposing my Amendment I scrupulously refrained from making 514 any personal allusions, it was, nevertheless, the existence of the system now which led me to propose this Amendment. When the Air Board was set up I do not believe a single Member of the House imagined for a moment that men who were directly interested in factories producing aeroplanes were going to be made members of that Board. It is true that after the Bill was passed two gentlemen were appointed members of the Board who were so interested. They are men of great distinction in that particular line of business. The situation is altogether objectionable from the point of view of the standards hitherto prevailing. My hon. Friend (Mr. Watt) has referred to a case which arose in his experience. I am familiar with a case which concerned a gentleman in the West of Scotland who was Chairman of the first Committee that ran me as a candidate for Parliament. He also had designed an aeroplane engine which he submitted to the War Office and they had agreed to build an engine for testing purposes. He had a long litigation with one of the members of the Air Board regarding the patent. Is it possible to get him to believe that that engine received a fair test? It was not a hare-brained scheme, because the former air authority had agreed that the engine should be built. Is there any man in the position of that inventor who would believe that he had had a fair chance? I was asked to raise the matter in the House of Commons and to put all the facts before it. I said I had no technical knowledge and I could not appreciate whether the inventor had a sound case and it was a serious matter to bring forward. I do not allege anything about it. I merely say such a thing as this ought not to be allowed to occur, and I want to put a provision into the Bill to prevent it occurring in future. There should not be the slightest opening for suspicion. It is absolutely futile to say that unless you take people of that kind you cannot get expert advice. I do not believe that to be true. Expert advice can be got, and even if the expert has interests at present I believe there are a sufficient number of experts who are patriotic enough to denude themselves of their interests during the course of the War. An hon. Member suggested that this arrangement might be accepted in time of peace—I mean the arrangement provided in my Amendment—but that in time of war it could not be accepted. It is precisely during the War that we do not want 515 this kind of thing to occur. An inventor cannot get his invention tested during the War except by the Government. He is absolutely at the mercy of the Government. All the engineering industries of the country are practically commandeered by the Government. In time of peace, if a man invents an air engine, he has any number of competing capitalists who are willing to risk a little money in testing the machine, and he can have it tested on a commercial basis. During the War the only people who can test machines are the Government, and if the people in the Government who decide the matter are those financially interested in the result of the test, then you have an impossible position. That is the case for the Amendment. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has offered any answer to it, and in view of that, although I do not believe I have put the thing in the best form, I wish to test the feeling of the Committee on the principle, and in order to test the views of the Committee I am going to press the Amendment to a Division.
§ Major BAIRDIt is quite obvious, after the strong views that have been expressed in regard to this Amendment, that it is impossible to dispose of it by a simple negative on the part of the Government. Nothing has surprised me more than to find that I was apparently enunciating a new principle in the statement which has evoked so much discussion. It is not a new principle, because in answer to a question at least six months ago I gave definitely the information that two members of the Air Board were connected with the trade. Of course, in time of peace, that would he impossible, and I agree that in time of war, on general grounds, it would be far better perhaps if we had not to do it. In view of the very strong feelings expressed in all directions in the Committee, I should be glad if the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) would allow me to bring this matter up again on the Report stage. Obviously, in view of the action of the Committee, I want to guard myself against the accusation of having announced a new principle. I repeated precisely what I stated six months ago, And everyone accepted it.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIn view of the fair way in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has met me and the promise he has made, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, and at the same time to assure the hon. 516 and gallant Gentleman that in spite of some statements he made, he leaves the Debate without a stain on his character.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. PRINGLEI raised the question of the personality of the new Air Minister earlier this afternoon. I expect that my hon. and gallant Friend is still in the same difficulty in regard to this matter, but as we are to have a Report stage on Friday, perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman may put before his superiors a suggestion that it would certainly be to the interests of the House and of the Bill if, when we come to the Report stage we could know who is to be responsible as the Minister for carrying out these matters. Perhaps he will be able to announce the name of the Air Minister then.
§ Mr. BILLINGAre we to understand that if this Clause is passed without this Amendment being pressed, the hon. and gallant Member will consider the advisability of inserting an Amendment on the Report stage, if he finds it utterly impossible to do without the services of these particular gentlemen whose presence renders this Clause so difficult to introduce, providing that after the War, in peace time, this thing shall not be perpetuated. I must express some surprise at the righteous indignation expressed by hon. Members with reference to this matter. I was well aware that the hon. and gallant Gentleman made it quite clear at Question time some months ago what had occurred; but as it was dealing with a purely temporary matter, such as the Air Board, I thought it might be possible to countenance it. What I would like the hon. and gallant Member to understand now, is that in passing this Clause he is passing the Clause of a permanent Act, and would he take the opportunity of assuring us that if he finds it impossible so to amend this Clause as to carry out the Amendment as originally suggested, he will introduce an Amendment which will make it impossible during times of peace for members of a trading company to sit on the Air Council to give orders and practically to vote public money into their own pockets?
§ Mr. HARCOURTAm I to understand quite definitely that the Government have no intention to take the Report, stage as well as the Committee stage to-night?
§ Major BAIRDThat is so. I only expressed a hope earlier in the afternoon that we might get through, but obviously there is too much to be considered for us to get the Report stage to-night, so it will have to be taken on Friday.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMy hon. and gallant Friend earlier in the afternoon said that he would make a statement either on the Financial Resolution or on Clause 8 as to the salaries to be paid to members of the Air Council and the numbers of that Council. That has not been done, and as this is the opportunity for him to do it, I would ask him if he would make that statement. Clause 8 says
" there shall be established an Air Council consisting of one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State who shall be President of the Air Council and of other members who shall be appointed in such manner and subject to such provisions as His Majesty may by Order in Council direct."
The question of the salary of the members of the Air Council comes in under this Clause. I was not here for the Debate which has just concluded, but it will be in order for me to make a suggestion which perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will entertain. It is quite possible for the members of the Air Council who are interested in the aeronautical trade to give an undertaking that they will not give any orders to their own firm. That is generally done where a director of a company is connected with another company. Orders are not given to the firm with which that director is connected. That might be adopted in this case in order to get over the difficulty, if it was necessary to have these gentlemen on the Air Council.
§ Major BAIRDIt may not be a solution of the case, but I promise that the whole matter shall be fully gone into with a view to satisfying the House on the Report stage. I did this afternoon on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution give such information as I had with regard to the proposed composition of the Air Council.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWhat about salaries?
§ Major BAIRDIt is proposed that the salaries of the President of the Air Council, who will be a Secretary of State, and of the Under-Secretary, shall be the same as the salaries of Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThere will be other members.
§ Major BAIRDThe salaries of the members of the Air Council as a whole will be fixed by the Treasury. Our suggestion is to submit to the Treasury proposals for a scale of salaries in accordance with the rank of the officer occupying the position on the same basis as the salaries paid to the Army Council. The Treasury has not approved that proposal because it has not yet been submitted, but obviously this and a great many other points have been worked upon, and that is one of the proposals which we intend to make.