AIR MINISTRY.

HC Deb 21 April 1921 vol 140 cc2111-76

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £915,467 (including a Supplementary sum of £467), be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Air Ministry, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

On a point of Order. Will you state, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, why this supplementary sum is being taken at the same time as the other Vote? Does not the Supplementary Estimate raise a separate question as to the position in the Cabinet of the Air Minister. Would it not be for the convenience of the House to take that Vote separately?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I think this is the ordinary practice. The Supplementary Vote applies to the Secretariat of the Air Ministry, and I think it would be inconvenient if we did not take it with this Vote.

Captain W. BENN

May I ask if the point which my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) wishes to raise can be raised if the Votes be taken together?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member will be able to bring in almost anything connected with the Air Ministry on this Vote.

4.0 P.M.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest)

In presenting this afternoon the Estimates for the Air Ministry it will be remembered that on 1st March the Committee was good enough to grant to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who was then in charge of the Department, Vote A and Vote 1. This afternoon the latitude allowed on Vote 5, I hope, will not exclude the possibility of discussing the Supplementary Vote. Although a wide Debate may be raised on this Vote, I hope the smaller Votes will also be obtained at this sitting. That would be a great advantage to the Ministry, and I hope the Committee will consider it before the end of the discussion. It does not seem to me that, being so lately appointed to the charge of the Air Ministry, it would be either necessary or proper for me to indulge in any speech which would cover general policy. The policy of the Air Ministry is one which I have inherited, and therefore the House will hardly expect from me anything particularly flamboyant or original, and therefore I think any speech from me on general policy can be left out. I will, however, give a short outline of the Vote presented to the House. I would also like to add that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be in attendance this afternoon, and will be available to have points of general policy put to him. Vote 5 deals with the overhead charges of the Ministry, and there is a decrease of £32,000. That is commendable, more particularly when it is realised that the Civil Service bonuses have had to be added this year. Apart from the fact that the overhead charges may seem to some to be rather high, I would like to point out that as the Department settles down these charges will be naturally reduced. The Government's conception of the Air Ministry may be described as one of economical expansion, because the time appears to be looming when the air forces may be actually employed in substitution for more expensive units of both the Army and the Navy. In this connection I would remind the House of the economical and successful performances of the Air Force in Somaliland, not so very many months ago. There was also another instance, which may have escaped the notice of the Committee, where the Air Force was successfully engaged in the Sinai Peninsula; and, again, in Mesopotamia at the present time. These references, I think, will go some way in supporting the contention of the Ministry that it may prove to be an economical substitution for other more expensive arms. Another big item in Vote 5 which requires some special reference is that for civil aviation headquarters. I think one should commence any discussion on this subject by pointing out that during the War the science of aviation advanced 100 years, and certainly the force connected therewith increased a hundred-fold in the five years in which flying machines were engaged. The Air Ministry, I repeat, is responsible for the welfare of civil aviation, and that no other Department of the State has attached to it any similar responsibility. This responsibility of the Government for maintaining and retaining all the secrets of a science which the War developed, and preserving them for the benefit of the civil population till such a moment as they may be able to take over this method of transport for themselves, is one which puts this item in the Vote in a very special category.

Another large item peculiar to the Department is that for research, coupled with an expensive item referred to as "supply." Research includes such an infinite variety of scientific problems that it is too dangerous to run any risk of getting behind other nations. Therefore, although some may feel that the Vote is high, I think the Meteorological Department and all the subsidiary services which come under this head are not only a credit to the Ministry but to Great Britain as a whole. A fact which makes it difficult to show a decrease on this Vote, if not impossible, is that it has only been just lately transferred en bloc from the Ministry of Munitions to the Air Ministry. It is possible and probable that some reorganisation may take place which may result in some economy in this Department, but at the same time I think the Committee will appreciate that it may even prove a source of greater expenditure in the future. The progress of science is an incalculable factor, and in this particular service science is our closest friend.

Passing from Vote 5 to Vote 4, dealing with works and buildings, I would like to say that up till now the Air Force—not the Air Ministry itself, but the active units—have lived almost in tents and have not received from the country that proper housing accommodation by which we may obtain from them the best possible services. Bit by bit, and I hope at an economical rate of speed, permanent buildings worthy of the service are being erected. In this connection, I would like to mention the class of personnel which we hope to attract to the ranks of the Air Force. I will not say that they are any higher in quality than those in other services, but they are certainly more technical. We have to do our utmost to attract to our standard highly-skilled recruits. Therefore, the items such as Halton, Cranwell, Milton, and one or two others demand special notice from the Committee. Halton has been frequently explained, and the salient facts in connection with the establishment are as follows: It is, as the Committee knows, the great technical training centre for boys. Boys between the ages of 15 and 16½ are enlisted and put through a three years' course of highly technical training. We hope, as soon as the accommodation is ready, to be able to pour into the ranks of the fully-grown personnel of the service at least 1,000 per annum. It is hardly necessary to mention that their service in the Force will send them back into civil life highly trained and active members of society. The building when completed will accommodate 3,000. This year we ask for £340,000. The relation between the money to be spent on the buildings themselves and the money spent during the War on the plant which we found at hand ready for the training of these boys is of interest and is not perhaps fully appreciated. During the War immense technical workshops of a most up-to-date and valuable character were erected here for war purposes. I find on reference that the cost of these and the site was certainly more than £1,000,000. Not to have availed ourselves of such opportunities and facilities would have left us open to the charge of being short-sighted and pursuing a cowardly policy. Cranwell, for which we are not asking so much to-day, is, of course, for the young cadets. The other services have got their similar establishments. Up till now the Air Force has had very little in the way of accommodation for this purpose. The cadets there at present number 120, but it must be borne in mind that we are also accommodating a lot of other boy mechanics under training, nearly 1,000 who cannot at present be housed at Halton.

Lest there should be a demand from some quarters that less should be spent on bricks and mortar, and more on other branches of the Service, I would mention that both Uxbridge and Milton need bringing to a better state of efficiency than at present, Uxbridge being the cen- tral depot, the depository, so to speak, of the records and title deeds of the force, and Milton being one of the great store depots from where we draw part of our equipment. I feel certain that one other item will be questioned, and therefore I will go part of the way to meet the criticism now. There is a sum of money to be spent in Egypt. This is a subject which must be approached with caution, because the political situation there and the attendant policy of the Government are yet undecided. It is, however, possible to say that Egypt, geographically and automatically, will find itself the central flying depot of our Eastern activities. It has advantages which, of course, those who have studied the subject will see at a glance. We are asking the House this afternoon to grant £163,000, and the major portion of it is being devoted to the provision of married quarters for the personnel out there. I feel that if the accommodation which they at present occupy were seen by hon. Members there would be a Vote of censure moved on the Ministry. Extra care must be taken of personnel in a very hot climate, and therefore, if I can reassure the Committee that the Vote which it is asked to grant this afternoon will be most economical, and will be only devoted to the purpose which I have named until the Government policy for the whole of that area is decided, I may perhaps persuade it to pass the Vote without very long discussion.

Captain BENN

Can the right hon. Geneleman say why this canal zone has been settled on as the place for this accommodation? Are there military reasons?

Captain GUEST

The subject so quickly leads to that question that I have prepared a reply.

Captain BENN

It will do when you come to it.

Captain GUEST

I will give it the Committee a little later in the Debate. Vote 8 is in the third place in size and substance. It is a Vote in which a great many of us are deeply interested and exercises the minds of nearly all hon. Members. It is the Vote for Civil Aviation. The Vote is shown in two places, that is to say, the Headquarters Staff, which includes the staff of the Meteoro- logical Department, appears in Vote 5, and amounts to £120,000, while in Vote 8 appears the sum of £880,000. The first question that will be asked in connection with this Vote will be how it is when you had £1,000,000 last year that an economy of over £400,000 was effected, and how it is that this year it is proposed to spend that money. If the Committee can be satisfied on these points, I feel that it will view the subject in a better light. The money was not spent last year—incidentally it is a great credit to the Controller-General of Civil Aviation that he effected the economy—chiefly because of the want of interest, so far as one can judge, which the general public took in civil aviation. It was therefore decided that the more elaborate plans to build civil flying centres should be postponed until there were indications of a greater response. A very considerable economy was thus effected. This year, therefore, there is ground to make up, and the money will be spent somewhat in the following way. I say "somewhat in the following way" deliberately, in order to remind the Committee that on this occasion the Treasury is granting a certain amount of latitude in the expenditure of this money. Last year it was not enough. It would have been much better if wider latitude had been allowed. This year we have been granted greater latitude. After deducting the sum allotted for the headquarters staff of the Meteorological Department, a sum of £100,000 goes to upkeep and records work generally. The Meteorological Office has been really collected from all the different branches where it has resided in a distributed form, and it is now so efficiently centralised that it is being appealed to by many branches of industrial life for information and forecasts, and I think so far has shown itself well able to meet the requirements made upon it.

The next item is that a sum of £60,000 has been allocated for the encouragement of Civil Aerial Transport Companies. At a later stage I will bring to the notice of the Committee in detail the agreement which has been arrived at. The next figure yet unallotted is a quarter of a million odd. It will be remembered that the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the last minute when he was in control of this Department considered this sum could be much better used in assisting heavier-than-air enterprises than in keeping an airship fleet in commission. That is a subject which will have to be gone into at greater length, and I shall prefer to hear what hon. Members interested desire to say upon it before dealing with it The remainder of the money to be accounted for is dealt with under four or five heads. The first is expenditure for aircraft, and here I must ask the Committee to appreciate the fact that the class of craft suitable for commercial and passenger purposes is very different from that constructed for Service purposes, and therefore the two classes of supply of aircraft must not be mixed up. Attached to this are naturally officials, and there is therefore an item for salaries and wages. The item for technical equipment is somewhat the same as that which is provided for the Service. The Controller-General has also to keep in order his buildings, and at the same time to meet the demands of the civil population on this subject. To steer an exact course is extremely difficult. If civil flying is delayed through want of facilities which the Government had promised to supply, the Government will be blamed. Equally, if the Government makes too liberal preparations which are not taken advantage of by the public, then it would seem that they are going too fast. To maintain a creditable balance between these two extremes is difficult, and we must maintain it as best it can be.

Passing to the question of cross-Channel flights, an agreement is in course of being signed, and I think it is sufficiently near settlement for me to read to the Committee an outline of its terms. Its operation is limited to seven months, which will give us a very fair opportunity of seeing what response we get from the public. There is to be one machine flown in each direction each day. There are two companies involved who are working side by side and in close collaboration. The Air Council guarantee a clear profit of 10 per cent. to each firm on gross receipts, excluding subsidies, obtained for the carriage of passengers, goods, and mails, any excess to be returned to the Air Ministry. A payment on account is made of £75 for each single flight, treated on a schedule basis, and it is provided that the maximum subsidy payable shall not exceed £25,000 to each firm for this period of seven months. That is the simplest way in which I can condense the agreement, but in order to assist the House further, I have taken out a hypothetical illustration which, with the permission of hon. Members, I will read. I am taking imaginary figures, and therefore the calculation must be treated as an illustration only. On the credit side of the company's account book for a month, I have reckoned 24 as the number of flights. That would place on the credit side £1,200, allowing for an average of £50 taken as fares on each flight. On the same side of the account also I place 24 times £75, the amount of the payment on account for each flight, making a sum of £1,800. On the debit side of the account, I place the operating cost, which I will presume at £150 per flight, giving a total of £3,600. The balance sheet therefore stands as follows. On the credit side, £1,200 for fares and £1,800 for payment on account. On the other side, operating costs £3,600, and if you deduct from that sum the amount taken for fares to which is to be added 10 per cent. you get a figure of £2,520. As, however, £1,800 has already been advanced to the company as shown on the credit side of the account, you will find that the final payment will be £720 for the month. I thought it simplest to put it in this form, but it must be remembered that the first month will be the most expensive, and that the figures, hypothetical as they are in this case, may be expected to show a reduction in later months. In order to be sure that the service could be run for the seven months without exceeding the total amount of the subsidy which the Ministry are prepared to give, I have multiplied the figures by 7, and this is the result. On the credit side, £8,400 for fares, and £12,600 for payments on account. On the other side, the operating cost will cost £25,200, and when you make the same calculation, adding 10 per cent. on the gross profits, you will find that the total subsidy is £17,640, and when you subtract from that the amount already advanced it will be seen that the final payment will be £5,040. It is, of course, really hiring companies to run the service for us, but with a strong inducement to them to try and make a profit for themselves. The success so far has been considerable. We started in 1919 by having a cross-channel business four times as successful as any other country. But it was put out of business by the French companies who received from their Government such subsidies as enabled them to completely undercut us. Apart from that, since we have restarted this service, we have carried an average of over seven persons per flight, while the French company have only, so far, in the same period, carried three persons per flight. I hardly think it requires more than our natural energy and enterprise to overcome the difficulties of this somewhat severe competition.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Are the fares the same?

Captain GUEST

The French subsidy has enabled the French companies to charge only £5 a flight, but if this country wishes to subsidise to the same extent as the French Government are doing, we could, of course, produce as cheap a national service. But the policy of the Government has been to rely more upon civil assistance and private enterprise. The Committee would like to know the personnel of the Committee which has worked unceasingly in assisting us to arrive at this satisfactory position. The chairmanship was placed in the hands of Lord Londonderry who was assisted by the Controller-General of Civil Aviation, and by Sir James Stevenson.

Major C. LOWTHER

Is there any Clause in the Agreement giving the Ministry a right to supervise the efficient manning of the company's fleet?

Captain GUEST

I do not think that at present there is, but that is a point I will look into with the view of giving the hon. Member a definite reply. I come next to Vote 9, which is divided into experimental services and supply. The chief experimental stations are known to the Committee, but in regard to Farn-borough it should be borne in mind that while it does an immense amount of experimental work it must not be considered to be a production Department, the Ministry's policy on that being to do as little as possible for itself so that the trade should not feel that they are being excluded from the Government orders. There is a big amount in this Vote under the head of "Cardington." Here for some months past we have been completing a great airship, R. 38, for America, and I hope it will be completed in a very few months. On the supply side of this Vote, the total of which is £817,000, which covers engines, armaments and every other form of experimental material. There is also another Department attached to this Vote which is worthy of notice. It involves the expenditure of a considerable sum of money, but is in the form, almost, of an insurance. It is the Department which deals with the inspection of all materials used in the construction of aircraft. The highest tests have to be applied to all parts used in the Service. It is only by giving the nation a feeling that this is not only a special Department, but receives constant and minute care, that we can create confidence in the Service, both for those in it and for the public at large. An amount for building also comes under this Vote, in connection with Farn-borough, Cardington and Martlesham, where the trials of engines take place both in the air and on land. There is also an item for liquidation of war liabilities, for which, as the Committee knows, we are not responsible, and which will be non-recurrent. Of the remaining Votes, Vote 2 is heavy, but it is practically automatic in the way in which it follows on Vote 1. It relates to quartering, non-technical stores, food, and general supplies for the Force already voted under Votes A and 1. It includes a big item for transport, but the Committee will, of course, understand that that is not road transport in the ordinary sense of mechanical transport. It is for the transport of the units of the force from one part of the world to another upon their duties, and covers both land and sea transport.

Captain W. BENN

Could the right hon. Gentleman say a word as to the great increase in the rations?

Captain GUEST

Provisions, quartering, light, fuel and transport form the backbone of this Vote. Vote 3, which is also a big Vote, relates to technical and warlike stores, and Vote 6 is for miscellaneous services. Vote 7 is for non-effective services which must inevitably be paid under regulations, such as retirement on half-pay and pension lists—up to now small, but bound to increase up to a certain point in the life of the Ministry, after which they will become normal, and the Committee will be able to make an easy annual calculation. The War Office and the Admiralty have reached a condition of normality in regard to these services, and their Votes on this head, therefore, pass automatically through the House of Commons. As I said at the beginning, although the policy is inherited, yet it is ever-changing. Almost at once the Ministry will be forced to take decisions in connection with civil aviation, in regard to heavier-than-air flying and as to what is to be the fate of the great airships upon which this country has spent so much. Not only is the policy changing, but revolutions are taking place and surprises are occurring in all directions of scientific research as they affect the service. Yet I think one may claim that the Ministry is surviving its infantile diseases, and is getting settled down. Its chief officers and officials have now been continuously in their present positions for a long enough period to enable a feeling of stability to circulate down to the lower ranks. The speck in the sky is beginning to cast its shadow. One of the most hopeful signs is the economy which it appears to be able to bring to this war-worn and rather tired country of taxpayers; and it has another and peculiar function, which brings with it, perhaps, other hopes. It knows no frontiers and it ignores all distances. It is, therefore, able to make friends everywhere, and I hope that the Ministry will succeed in making such friends.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I am sure that the whole Committee will agree in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his well-deserved promotion to the office which he now holds of Secretary of State for Air. It is an office of very high importance, and I should like to say at once that I regret that it is not a little more important than it seems to be under my right hon. Friend, and that he has not been given a seat in the Cabinet. I hope, as I am sure we all hope, that it will not be very long before he takes that position in the Cabinet which the Secretary of State for Air ought to have, and must have if the Air is to be properly represented.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

It is laid down in the Act.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Yes, it was arranged that the Secretary of State for Air should be a Member of the Cabinet and should receive a salary of £5,000. I am not going to discuss the question of salary; if my right hon. Friend is willing to accept a lower one in these economical days we congratulate him; but, as he will have to stand up rather strongly against both the Army and the Navy for the Air Service, I hope he will have full access to the Cabinet, and will be able to put the views of the Air Service strongly before the powers that really rule in this country. I cannot help regretting that there are so few hon. Members present this afternoon. When one thinks of the work that was done by the Air Service during the War, when one realises the tremendous hardships and the wonderful service of those gallant heroes from 1914 onwards, and when one realises how full the House was when we had Debates during Zeppelin raids on Great Britain, and discussed whether we were properly protected or not, one cannot help regretting that, now that the War is over, the interest in the Air Service seems to have fluttered down, and we have now, as on the last occasion, just a mere handful of hon. Members present to discuss the Air Vote. That, however, does not indicate that interest in the Air has lapsed throughout the country. If we are to have military and civil aviation—and I think the Committee agrees that we ought to have it—it is just as important to-day as it was in 1914. My right hon. Friend has said that the developments which took place during the War were the developments of 100 years in 4½ years, and I think it is quite possible that during the next 4½ years, if he and his officers devote themselves to it, the developments may again be the developments of 100 years in the same time.

I am not going to follow my right hon. Friend through the whole of his statement, and I am not in any sense desirous of being a keen critic of the Air Service at the present moment. I am neither going to ask him to spend more money or less money, but only, on one or two points, to allot his money a little differently. The War having been over for two years, we are entitled to go back to the pre-War condition in discussing these Estimates, and I would ask my right hon. Friend—and this applies also to the Army and Navy—to realise that the policy of secrecy adopted during the War cannot be permitted any longer in this country. The House of Commons is entitled to-day to ask exactly the same questions with regard to the Army, Navy, and Air Services, and to have exactly the same information, as in 1914. We are just as responsible to-day for seeing that there is adequate preparation in regard to military aviation as we were in 1912, 1913, and 1914. Therefore, I am sure my right hon. Friend will not feel, if I ask any questions, that he is entitled to give the well-known answer which we always had during the War, that, owing to the War, it was impossible to give any information.

I see that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has not yet returned, and therefore I will leave the question of Egypt for the moment, hoping that the right hon. Gentleman may come back shortly. With regard to civil aviation, the particulars given in my right hon. Friend's statement are satisfactory as far as they go, but they are very poor indeed. Two years after the conclusion of the War, and after the wonderful function that was prophesied for civil aviation in regard to all parts of the Air Service, we appear to be able to run one machine each day from London to Paris. There are none, I understand, running to any other parts of the world; there is only that one paltry service. I assume that the companies are satisfied with the agreement, and therefore I do not propose to criticise the method of paying the subsidy. My right hon. Friend tried to explain it, and I tried to understand it, but I am not sure that he has not left me rather fogged in that Chinese puzzle of hypothetical figures which he gave us. I assume that these two companies are satisfied that they are being adequately remunerated for running this trial service for the next seven months, but that will not quite do for the future. We cannot leave the civil aviation of the world to France. France is spending, as we know, about £1,000,000 a year on civil aviation, and they are providing every kind of facility over and above the subsidy. They are giving all kinds of facilities to their pilots for learning and practising on Government machines, with the free use of petrol on certain days of the week in Government aerodromes. I do not gather from my right hon. Friend that anything of that kind is being done here. We are simply going to give this £60,000 in seven months. I gratefully say that it is something, but civil aviation cannot be kept alive on one service per day between London and Paris, carrying, as I think my right hon. Friend said, seven passengers each way. If that is all that can be done there is an end of civil aviation. It is no good spending something like £1,000,000 a year on meteorology, on a huge headquarters staff, on salaries and so forth, if it is only going to run this one service of seven passengers a day between here and Paris. A much greater effort must be made.

I understood my right hon. Friend to say that this is merely a temporary suggestion, and I should like to ask whether he is preparing his plans for the future, after the expiration of this seven-months contract. We have heard of suggestions as to the formation of some kind of national company for the purpose of taking over civil aviation, receiving large subsidies from the Government, who would maintain a kind of controlling interest in the company. I want to warn my right hon. Friend, in order that he may not say that I am unduly critical later if he does anything of the kind. I strongly hope that he will not be beguiled into anything of that sort. If we have only one company, subsidised by the Government, there will be an end of free competition. This one company would take over all the civil aviation that there might be, and would be the only company that could give orders to manufacturers throughout the country. They would, quite naturally, gradually become associated with one particular firm of manufacturers. It is not necessary to give any names, but if a large firm, whom we may call A.B., got a controlling interest, as it would pay them to do, in this company, all the orders for civil aviation would go to A.B., and the other firms would quickly die of inanition. The secret of maintaining civil aviation with any real power in this country is to maintain centres of manufacture. They must be maintained, not merely for civil aviation, but for military purpose as well. We must maintain as many as we possibly can of centres of aeroplane manufacture, and, more particularly, of engine manufacture. You can make an aeroplane fairly rapidly, but a new engine cannot be made without months, and perhaps years, of experiment and testing. Hon. Members know that all through the War the question of horsepower of engines as between Germany and ourselves arose from month to month and from year to year. At one time Germany got ahead because she produced an engine superior in horse-power to ours. Then we got ahead, because we produced an engine better than the Germans, and then they got ahead. It all depended upon the horse-power and the finish and the ability of the engine makers and the engines they turned out. So if we are to maintain not merely our civil, but our military aviation in future, we must have help given in the way of orders to those firms who are not only building machines, but introducing newer, more powerful, and ever more powerful engines. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what has been done in that respect. Civil aviation has been spoken of by the heads of the Air Service as the reserve for military aviation. Not merely what is my right hon. Friend doing in regard to the £60,000 he is spending on subsidies, but what is he doing in regard to providing outlets for the aeroplane and engine manufacturers? There have already been made four or five new commercial types of aeroplanes. Has he given any orders for them? Is there any consistent policy? I do not mean has he given a sporadic order for one or two machines. That is no good for anybody. Is he prepared to lay down a policy for six months or 12 months ahead? Is he prepared to say to the manufacturers, "Take an order for two machines to be delivered in six months, two more of the same type to be delivered in 12 months, and two more in 18 months?" That would enable them to keep at least a small staff of engineers, designers, draughtsmen, foremen, and workmen going. At all events, the shops would not be broken up, as they have in many cases been broken up since the Armistice.

Sir F. BANBURY

What would be done with those aeroplanes when the Government bought them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The object, of course, is to maintain civil aviation and to connect this country with foreign countries. Supposing the Government were to give an order for the areoplanes I have suggested, they would then be in a position to release these machines to civil companies, which the Government by the present policy of the House is going to subsidise. The manufacturers would know that there would be an output of a very moderate quantity of their machines.

The civil companies would know that without looking ahead, as they are bound to do—you cannot go and buy an aeroplane like you can buy a new top hat; you have to give an order beforehand—

Sir F. BANBURY

They are very difficult to get cheap.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Top hats or aeroplanes?

Sir F. BANBURY

Both.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I am sure it is only a very wealthy man, like my right hon. Friend, who can constantly wear a top hat in the House. I wonder he does not wear the brim out more than he does. But, quite seriously, that is a possible way, that you give these orders to ensure continuity of manufacture, and then that the companies who are running these services may realise that they can go to the Air Ministry and hire from them some of these new machines so as to carry, out a service. I hope my right hon. Friend will strain every possible nerve not to let civil aviation go by the Board. I am not going to say it is going to be a gigantic success, but after all the Air Service did during the War, and in order that we may maintain a reserve of pilots for future military purposes if necessary, my right hon. Friend should do his very utmost to maintain civil aviation, and to see that it keeps on the same level with the French service.

I come to the airship question, with which my right hon. Friend dealt very lightly, saying he would answer any point that any of us might make. There again I am in a difficulty. He has provided in his Estimate for civil aviation £250,000 to be dedicated to airships. But I understand the Secretary of State for the Colonies decided that airships should be done away with. He said he had come to the conclusion that we could no longer maintain our airships and that they were to be given away—the ships, ground equipment, and all the necessary spares connected with them—to anyone who would take them and maintain them as A service. I do not suppose for a moment he can tell us that anyone is prepared to take this vast equipment which the Secretary of State is prepared to hand over. I believe the value of the stuff that is to be handed over to anyone who chooses to take it is something between £5,000,000 and £10,000,000. We have some good airships. Since I spoke last I have been to Pulham in order to see the new airship which has just been made for the Government. We have there two very fine Zeppelin machines which the Germans have handed over since the War. We have a large supply of the German Maybach engine, which is quite as good and in some respects better than anything we can do. We have our own R 33, an excellent machine, and R 36, a brand new machine which was delivered about a month ago. It can be seen flying at its mooring mast, a ship about the size of St. James's Street attached by the nose to a gigantic mast of steel spars. There it is ready and waiting for use, and that, I suppose, is going to be included, having cost probably £400,000, in the goods my right hon. Friend is prepared to hand over to anyone with a pound of tea who will take it.

I do not want to mention any officer's name, nor would it be right for me to do so, but the whole feeling of the Airship Department at Pulham, officers and men, is one of despair that these things should be done away with after all the work and all the experiments which Great Britain made during the War to cope with the German Zeppelin. Germany, which was a pretty shrewd country in regard to aviation, still believes in airships. She has not come to the conclusion that Count Zeppelin was wrong and that airships are no use, nor do I think our own Admiralty takes that view. They only came to the conclusion, quite reluctantly, that they would give up airships because my right hon. Friend said either they could not afford the money for airships or they could not afford to supply the Admiralty with the necessary aeroplanes they wanted. If it comes to a choice between the two and we cannot have both, we should prefer to go on with our aeroplanes. There is no word at all from the Admiralty that airships were not important during the War, there is no word that they were not important at Jutland, and we know quite well that the raid on Scarborough was made possible simply because one of their giant airships right up in the sky was able to wireless to the cruisers that there was no British fleet in the offing and they could safely get into Scarborough and attack, as they did. This wonderful new machine is able to fly to Egypt from here with a non-stop run in two and a half days. It can fly on, if there is a mooring mast in Egypt, from there to India in another two and a half days. That brings India within five days' touch of Great Britain for mail purposes and for special passengers who want to go very rapidly to that country. We can almost, I believe, taking two passengers, make a non-stop flight from here to Japan in about six days. Of course, no aeroplane in the world could do that. An aeroplane cannot possibly fly more than 1,000 miles in a non-stop flight, but this machine could do that, and carry a crew and passengers numbering 50 people, with the utmost comfort. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend if he has been to Pulham.

Captain GUEST

I have not had time.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I implore him to go. He is not bound to carry out the views of the Colonial Secretary. Let him stand on his own feet. He is now a full-blown Secretary of State. When he spoke before he was merely the mouthpiece of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He is entitled to form his own opinion, and I implore him to go down and see what we have got, and consider for himself whether the whole of the experiments which have been made in eight years, the whole of the personnel that has been built up, and all these wonderful machines, are to be scrapped merely because he cannot provide out of this fund of £18,000,000 £250,000 a year for a couple more years. That is all that is needed. He said on 22nd March that if we were to run an airship service we should have to have so many airships running day by day between here and Paris. That is not what I asked. I do not want him to run an airship service. We have got to a point where we are on the verge of being able to decide whether airships are going to be a real success or not. If at the end of another two years, or even Another year, he is able to say, "I have gone into the matter thoroughly, I have had the most exhaustive tests"—of course if he can find helium gas there is no doubt whatever about the future of airships. If we can get non-inflammable gas the military future of airships is absolutely assured. That gas has been found in the United States and in small quantities in Canada. What a horrible thing it would be for my right hon. Friend if he scrapped all our airships and in a year or two a supply of helium gas were found in any other country and some possible enemy—I will not mention any names—which had had the courage to go forward in regard to airships was able to send fleets of airships over this country. If my right hon. Friend comes to us at the end of two years and says: "I have investigated it thoroughly and my advisers agree that we cannot use them either from the military, the naval or the commercial standpoint," well and good. But I ask him to go and use his own brains and intellect and see whether there is not something worth keeping in the wonderful airship station at Pulham and then go on to the other station at Howden. I cannot believe that out of an Estimate of £80,000,000, of which £3,500,000 is to be spent on bricks and mortar, he cannot economise to the tune of £250,000, so as to save money for these airships.

Mr. LINDSAY

Has the hon. Baronet any information as to what weight of mails the R36 could carry?

5.0 P. M.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I believe 30 or 40 tons. It could, I believe, carry the whole of the mails between here and Egypt, and a great proportion between here and India as well. As to the mode in which I suggest my right hon. Friend could find the money, we find that at Halton Barracks he is establishing this boys' training college. There are now 1,400 boys, and there will be 3,000 when it is completed. It will cost very nearly £2,000,000, including a hospital. The Estimates are always exceeded when there are bricks and mortar. Very nearly £2,000,000 for a boys' training college seems a very large sum of money. I have not been to Halton, but I should think we might save a little money on that. I am not complaining. I daresay hon. Members have seen articles in some of the newspapers about extravagance at Halton, and about the beautiful accommodation provided in Baron Rothschild's house for officers. Let the officers have everything possible to make life pleasant, but do see whether you cannot postpone a little, especially in these very expensive days, when you cannot get buildings done at a reasonable price. Let it wait for a couple of years until the builders, if I may say so, come to their senses, and the trade unions allow more men to take part in building.

I turn for a moment from the civil side to the military side, upon which my right hon. Friend has hardly touched, and, after all, only £1,000,000 is provided for civil aviation and £17,500,000 for military aviation. What are you going to get for that? We are entitled to know. It may be said in reply that we have got the League of Nations and we need not trouble about military aviation. If that is the case, do not spend £17,500,000 on military aviation; but if we do spend that sum, let us see that we get something really worth having. Those Members who have been to military aviation stations during the last year will, I am afraid, have come to the conclusion that they are rather like this House at the present moment—they do not show very much interest in aviation I was at Martlesham Heath a few weeks ago. You never see any aeroplanes flying about, and there does not seem any of the keenness there was in 1913 and the early part of 1914. We do not see, as we used to see, military pilots practising all over the country. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what squadrons we have got, and what they are, whether bombing squadrons and scout squadrons, and if we have got ample supplies of the latest engines? Are we doing everything in the way of experimenting with the latest types of engine? You may say that America has far less need of military aviation than we have. Yet America realises up to the hilt that aviation will be more important in any future war than it was in the last War. If I may quote the Report to Congress this year with regard to aviation, it contains this remarkable sentence: That any future war will inevitably open with great aerial activity in advance of contact either upon land or sea, and that victory cannot but incline to that belligerent able, first to achieve, and later to maintain, its supremacy in the air. It goes on to point out that no sudden creation of aerial equipment to meet a national emergency is possible. You must equip during peace time to be ready in war time. Air Marshal Trenchard, the, head of our military aviation, said at the Air Conference: That is the American view. I do not think any of us who have had experience of aviation during the War will be inclined to quarrel with these conclusions. As the head of our military aviation agrees with America, I would ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees, and what he is doing? In America, they are converting 1,000 of the best 1918 machines, D.H.4, into a new type of machine with all the modern improvements. Practically every machine that was used prior to the Armistice is now obsolete. Practically all war machines are to-day obsolete and have been wiped out by improvements made since 1918. That work on these 1,000 machines has been divided amongst six factories, in order to keep those factories going, so that they may be ready at any time of stress. I know my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will agree that the best thing is to be ready and amply prepared before war takes place. Then they are putting a new driving control on to 3,000 Liberty engines. They deal with large figures in America. They are having 500 electric starters. They are experimenting with an all-metal plane, I think, instead of a wood plane, which has been so frequently a source of danger to our pilots. They have a new and wonderful type of 3-seater triplane carrying two 12-cylinder Liberty engines and eight machine-guns. The crew and engine are protected by armour, and they have ordered 10 as an experiment. They have ordered 40 new two-seater observation planes. They have given out contracts for 50 each of two types of scout machines and 20 short distance bombers. I cannot find that we have done anything of the kind. I am reading now from the last report to Congress of the head of the American Aviation Department. If that is so—and there is no reason to doubt these facts—I think this Committee is entitled to know what my right hon. Friend is doing in this matter. At all events, if America can afford to make these statements public, we are far more vulnerable than America with regard to attack from the air, and I ask my right hon. Friend, even if he does not want to give us exact details, to give us an assurance, for I say it with all humility, but quite frankly, that we shall hold him responsible, as head of the Air Department, if he does not give figures to this Committee and the country, that the arrangements he is making are such that, in the event of any other war intervening, England shall not be caught napping, but shall be in as good a position as any foreign country, and, not merely in civil aviation, but in military aviation as well, we shall have value for the £18,000,000 to be spent.

Mr. RARER

I should like, first of all, to be allowed to associate myself with my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and congratulate my right hon. Friend opposite on his appointment to the very important and responsible position to which his distinguished career justifies his being appointed. I have risen, not with any idea of attacking the Air Ministry, but because I wish to draw attention to some points which I suggest require very careful consideration. The hon. Member who has just sat down said he in no way condemned the amount which is being voted, and I thoroughly agree with him; but, at the same time, I do think it is most essential that we should obtain the best possible value for the money, and we should see, therefore, that it is allocated in the proper and best direction. Reference was made by the Secretary of State for Air to the splendid work which was carried on by the Air Force during the War, but it is equally important that the nation should realise that in the event of a future war the Air Service will again be the most important factor in protecting this country from attack from the air, and also ensuring food supplies against submarine attacks. For the same reason we have to spend all the money we possible can; in fact, my only regret—it is perhaps because I am an enthusiast—is that the financial state of the country does not justify our voting more money for this purpose. We should spend as much as possible on research work, to get the best possible machines and equipment and the best trained men, so that in the event of war we should have the best nucleus to reform a large air service.

I should be interested to know whether the Secretary of State for Air is being influenced—I sincerely hope he is not—by a certain section of people in this country who possess the idea—to my mind quite an erroneous one—that civil pilots and civil machines are in any way interchangeable for war pilots and war machines. Take, first of all, the pilots. The ordinary pilot who to-day flies a machine from London to Paris—of course, there are exceptions—is no more fitted, either temperamentally or by his experience, for long-range reconaissance machines and bombing machines, than an engine driver is to drive a tank, and, so far as machines are interchangeable, it is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that machines used to-day for carrying passengers and goods could in any way be used for carying bombs or making attacks. At the same time, I quite realise, as I am sure everyone realises, that these machines would be useful to carry foodstuffs behind the lines or to carry the staff about. The Secretary of State referred to the camp at Halton. It is most necessary that we should have this training ground. In the same way that present machines used for civil purposes would be quite unsuitable for war purposes, I suggest it would be quite wrong to entertain the idea that if war broke out we could go to the nearest garage or some motor school and get men who have the necessary experience. I suggest that the air mechanics necessarily require very special training, and it cannot possibly be obtained unless they are educated when young at a suitable school.

I would like to draw attention to one or two special points in the different Votes. In Vote 1 there is an item for pay of personnel, which discloses that there are 2,165 officers, of whom 1,136 are flying or observer officers. If we deduct from that number the administrative officers and store officers, I suggest we shall not have more pilots and observers than will provide for 250 active machines. That is quite insufficient. Again, it only provides for 24,465 other ranks. I presume this is only regarded as a nucleus. Under the same Vote there is an item, "Hard Lying Money, £500." I do not know whether that refers to some Department of propaganda or information. I understand from my naval friends that in the Navy men are paid a certain extra amount when they are in certain difficult jobs. All I can say is, that if we are going to pay pilots and observers special amounts when on difficult work, it seems that £500 will hardly meet the case. Then there is an item, "Crew Pay, £18,100." I should be very glad if the Secretary of State would give an explana- tion of what that is for. On the same Vote there is an item of £250 for "Interpreter and Schoolmaster Allowances." I understand this is an addition to the ordinary Air Force pay, but I presume it covers more than one warrant officer or non-commissioned officer, and, if that is so, it cannot be very much of a help.

We come to a very important matter on the same Vote—Territorial Air Force. I seriously ask the Secretary of State whether this matter cannot be reconsidered. The Territorial Force is usually understood to refer to the Army. It is quite an unsuitable term to apply to the Air Force, and I suggest that this name be changed to the Royal Air Force Territorial Reserve, which, besides being a most suitable name, appears to constitute a very easy combination of letters. For this Territorial Air Force an amount of —20,000 is to be allowed. That is absolutely insufficient if anything really material is to be done this year. I would like to support what was said by my hon. Friend who referred to what I think is a most excellent system, which is being adopted in France by which, if my information is correct, the French Reserve pilot officers are allowed to fly French Government machines for joy-riding, if they like, without any charge attaching to themselves. I understand that there are a large number of machines which are specially ear-marked for this purpose, and that these machines are looked after by certain aviation firms for which purpose, and the cost of upkeep, they are paid a certain amount by the French Government. In addition, the firms are allowed a certain amount of petrol and oil. I hope the Secretary of State will give that matter his careful and sympathetic consideration.

On the same Vote, Section F.2, there is an item of £900,000 for 4,207 civilian employés, which I understand is entirely exclusive of the Land and Buildings Vote. That is a large number of civilian employés, but I suppose the reply will be, and if so it will be perfectly satisfactory to me, that it is much better to have a large number of civilian employés who can be engaged or dismissed at any moment rather than to keep a large number of service men who would have to be kept on permanently. I would, however, like to have a reply on that point. On Vote 2 there is an item of £190,000 for hire of buildings. I should like to ask the Secretary of State what buildings are being hired for this enormous sum. There is also a sum for kit allowance, which is a point to which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his personal and very careful consideration, because I am told it is causing the greatest dissatisfaction in the Air Force. According to my information the cadets in the Army at Sandhurst are given £240 kit allowance, and I am told that the allowance of £50 to officers in the Air Force is quite inadequate. On Vote 3, Section J, we have an item of £46,250 for hangars, compared with £11,700 last year. I should like to ask whether these are consumable stores or permanent buildings, and in any case why they do not appear under the Land and Buildings Vote. On this same Vote there is a decrease of £6,500 for petrol and oil. I hope that this does not mean that the Air Force are carrying on less flying. Possibly the explanation is that they had large stocks in hand and that now as it is cheaper they obtain larger quantities for a smaller sum. I should like to refer to what strikes me as the most unbusinesslike method which is being conducted at the central aerodrome at Croydon. I went there a little time ago, and to my amazement I found that they were still filling tanks by the old-fashioned method of pouring from 2-gallon petrol tins. Surely to goodness, when many of the ordinary motor garages all over the country are already equipped with a roadside tank with pumps for filling motor cars, tanks with hose pipes for filling machines could be provided at Croydon. In the long run this would not only be quicker but it would be a much more economical method.

On Vote 3, Section M, and this is a very important item, I find a sum of £700,000 for War liabilities, including rewards to inventors. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware of the fact that one of the recent fantastic awards that was made—I say fantastic, and I think all persons connected with the air will agree with me—was an award of £35,000 given to the manufacturer of a 4-engine bi-plane, a bi-plane which I venture to say never flew, 'and which was a very bad imitation of a pre-War Russian Sikorski. Not only did this bi-plane never fly, but I venture to say that the four engines used in the machine were pre- sented either by the Ministry of Munitions, or the War Office, or some other Government Department. If I am not wrongly advised I understand that there is a claim being made against the Department for £170,000 by some worthy individual who claims to have invented the principle of fixing a gun-pit in the back of a large machine. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) will be the first to say that such an idea was self-evident, and it is perfectly stupid for anyone to claim £170,000 for such a so-called invention. I mention these points because I hope that this £700,000, or part of it, is not going to be thrown away on such fantastic claims as those to which I have referred.

On Vote 4, for Works, Buildings and Lands, there is an Estimate of £3,018,000. Under Sub-Head B I find that it is proposed to spend £35,000 at Milton to which the Secretary of State referred in his opening speech. I do not understand why on earth it is proposed to spend £35,000 for housing civilian subordinates at Milton. We were told that Milton is to he used as a stores, but I suggest that there are stores already in existence at Kidbrooke, which might easily be used and might easily contain all the stores necessary for the present Air Force. If it should be necessary to keep a certain number of civilian subordinates at Milton they could be very properly housed in the disused store sheds, without any necessity for spending a further £35,000. It is unnecessary to run both Kidbrook and Milton. A sum of £50,000 is allocated for married officers' quarters. Just as the question of kit allowance is causing great dissatisfaction in the Flying Corps, equally so is the question of married officers' quarters. I think I am right when I say that the Lands and Buildings Department of the Air Ministry, which is the most expensive, is at the same time the most unsatisfactory. I hope the Secretary of State will be. good enough to give his early attention to the question of married officers' quarters.

On Vote 5 there is an estimate of £915,000 for pay and allowances, which we were informed also includes the pay of the staff officers in the Civil Aviation Department. I think these sums are on rather a modest scale, especially as regards the junior officers. I cannot understand how they are supposed to provide any proper method of living on their pay, and if possible it ought to be increased. On Vote 8, reference was made by my hon. Friend to the money being spent in Egypt. There are three items to which I will refer, namely, levelling site of aerodrome at Malta, £13,000; air lights in Egypt, £15,000; and a mooring mast in Egypt, £22,000. Why are these charged to civil aviation? Surely these are of far greater importance from the military point of view. In regard to the mooring mast in Egypt, if this airship is going to be given away, I should like to know why we require a mooring mast in Egypt and a mooring mast at Cardington. Why do we need a mooring mast in Egypt for possibly one trip or a few isolated trips? Possibly the reply will be that we are going to build up an airship service. In that case it will be justified, but if not, I do not know why we should erect a mooring mast in Egypt. This would appear to refer to purely experimental work, and it seems unfair that it should be debited to the civil aviation side. I find that out of £228,000 under this Section of Vote 8, there is a bare £100,000 which could be of any possible use for civil aviation, as distinguished from the airship work; all the rest goes to Cardington, Malta and Egypt. I think this money would be far better spent at Croydon. If the money had been properly spent at Croydon we might have had days there when we could have had shows which might have brought in a certain amount of revenue, and would have been an education to the people as to what was being done.

Reference was made by the Secretary of State to the agreements with civil aviation firms, and I would like to ask him if the subsidy to which he referred is all the advantage that they are receiving. Would it be correct for me to say that they have been presented with a certain number of machines; or if not with the actual machines, that they have been given the money with which to buy their own machines, and that in addition they have received the full subsidy to which he has referred. Another point which is worth the right hon. Gentleman's consideration is the irregularity of the hours of civilian flying. A great deal of disappointment has been caused owing to the lateness and irregularity under which the flights take place. If you refer to the records you will find that there are very few cases where, when the machines are booked to leave say at 12 o'clock, they get away before 1 o'clock. More people might be disposed to use this means of transit as a general method if they knew that they could rely on leaving Croydon at 12 o'clock and being in Paris at 3. It makes all the difference if they know that it is possible that they will not arrive in Paris until 4 or 5 o'clock. On that point I should like to ask the Minister to consider, if it is not too late, including in the agreement with these firms a condition which I know applies in France. In France for every quarter of an hour that the machines are late in starting the French firms lose a, certain amount of their subsidy. It is an excellent idea, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman considers it worthy of consideration. On Vote 8 there is provision of £102,000 for meteorological services, which is over 8 per cent, of the total amount allocated for civil aviation. No doubt this work is of good value, but why on earth is this amount debited to civil aviation? So far as civil aviation is concerned, the amount of value derived from that money is negligible. The chief value of this meteorological service is for the war machines, to a certain extent the Army, to a fairly large extent the Navy and the Mercantile Marine, to a certain extent intelligent farmers, and to a great extent it is of value to people who indulge in golf and trout fishing.

On page 50 there is an item" Atmospheric pollution, £300" To what does that refer? Does it refer to the language employed at the Air Ministry, or by the pilots who unfortunately are misled and crash owing to incorrect information given by the Meteorological Department? If it refers to these unfortunate pilots, it is a great testimony to the splendid reform which has been effected among them. On Vote 9 there is an increase of £362,560. I would like to know what the Royal Aircraft Establishment does for its £364,000, and what the Royal Airship Works at Cardington produce for the £140,000? On page 55 we have the salaries which have been paid at the Royal Aircraft Establishment. The chief designer is paid £600 a year. How on earth can anybody expect to get a first-class designer at £600 a year when civil firms are paying from £1,500 to £2,000 a year? On the next page I see that first-class writers are paid £2 10s. a week, plus bonus. All I hope is that they receive a very big bonus, otherwise I imagine that they must be very indifferent writers. In reference to research work, there is a national physical laboratory at Teddington which is carrying on aeronautical research work. I cannot find any reference in these Estimates to this work. Why do they run this experimental work at Teddington, and spend £1,750,000 on similar work in other directions? On page 58, Section F, there is the sum of £141,000 for works and buildings. Why does this come under the Research Vote? Because the sum is made up of reconditioning barracks, extending aerodromes, and so on? Why should it not come under the Land and Buildings Vote? What has it to do with research work? These points seem worthy of consideration, and I should be glad to have a reply. My comments have been made not in a hostile manner, but solely with the anxiety to do all I can to assist a splendid service.

Mr. MOSLEY

I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon his new appointment, in which we all wish him great success. It is also necessary to offer him sympathy at being placed in the terrible position which the last speaker has thrust upon him, for I have never listened to a more comprehensive survey of the Air Service. I cannot follow my right hon. Friend through the wealth of detail with which he has regaled the Committee, though I hope at a later stage of my remarks to call attention to a few minor matters of finance. Before proceeding to a more critical attitude, I will endeavour to repeat to my right hon. Friend some of the blandishments which those interested in the Air Service offered to his right hon. Friend and predecessor on the introduction of these Estimates. On that occasion many of us took the line which was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), that far too little attention was being paid at present to the development of civil aviation, and still more was this the case in reference to the vital side of aerial research. I do not quite follow my hon. Friend in advocating that further sums should he allocated over and above these Estimates for the development of civil aviation.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I very specially said both to-day and on the last occasion that I merely asked for a reallocation of existing money. I did not think it necessary to add one single penny.

Captain BENN

The hon. Gentleman went on to complain that we had not got large squadrons of bombers.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

I said that we were spending too much money on bricks and mortar, and not enough on actual service.

Mr. MOSLEY

My hon. Friend proposes to economise on bricks and mortar, and to devote some of that money to civil aviation, and aerial research. I join with him in that argument. The present is not an opportune time for launching into expensive building schemes, and I think that an explanation should be forthcoming from my hon. and gallant Friend as to why these schemes could not be postponed for a year or so, even if it involved some slight regrettable discomfort to Members of the Air Force. Why could not they continue under the present arrangement in huts and other buildings which are available until the cost of these operations 'diminishes? I would go further and urge that some reduction might be effected in the extensive military establishment to which the Air Service is now committed. Last year, of the money which was earmarked for the purposes of research, a certain proportion was appropriated for the purpose of creating five new squadrons. This year we find a substantial increase in the expenditure to be devoted to the military side, and a comparatively negligible increase in that which is destined for civil aviation and research. The amount to be spent on civil aviation and research this year shows an increase over last year's figures of £336,000, while the amount spent on military and mechanical enterprise is increased by no less than £1,600,000.

We find ourselves in the lamentable position of only placing £60,000 at the disposal of the hon. Gentleman for subsidising the great air routes, and the result, as he has told us this afternoon, is that only one aeroplane will journey each way each day. At the same time France is allocating to civil aviation £3,400,000 at the present exchange rates, which at pre-War exchange would be £7,000,000, and of this sum at the present rate of exchange £600,000 is allotted to aerial transport. It is hopeless for our paltry £60,000 to hope to compete with this sort of thing. We are faced with the position that we must economise upon our military establishment, or we must decrease the total amount to be devoted to the Air Service if we cannot economise on the military service. That is the only effective remedy if we, are to keep civil aviation alive at all. The result of this economy has been, we know, practically that English civil aviation has been scrapped; only one line is now running. My hon. Friend who has just spoken rather interpreted the view that civil aviation really did not matter, and that the military side was everything. He went so far as to say that pilots were not interchangeable from civil aviation to military service in the event of war. He said that pilots who fly machines carrying mails and passengers could not possibly fly bombers or reconnaissance machines. I submit to my hon. Friend, whose experience is probably more extensive than my own, that the flying of bombing and reconnaissance machines is precisely the function which civil pilots could perform, though they could not fly fighting machines, which requires more extensive training.

Mr. RAPER

I suggested that, to a great extent, they were temperamentally unsuited for the other work. Our experience in the War was that many of the best civilian pilots were unsuitable overseas, though they did very good work behind the lines.

Mr. MOSLEY

We are all, I hope, temperamentally unsuited to fighting, but we do not know until war comes along whether a man is temperamentally unsuited for fighting or not. A man in time of peace may be a perfect stunt pilot. He may be a master of the fighting machine and of acrobatic performances in flying, but when it comes to fighting, he may be temperamentally unsuited to the sound of a bullet. We do not know until a war comes along whether a man is suited for fighting or not, but we can train him in civil aviation to fly reconnaissance and bombing machines. Those who fly machines carrying men are capable of flying reconnaissance machines and bombers, even if they have the temperamental qualification to which my hon. Friend refers. It is, of course, I agree, necessary to have some schemes by which a certain proportion of these men are taught to fly fighting machines—some form of reserve. They might have so much training in the year on fast machines suitable for fighting purposes, but we cannot dismiss training offered by civil aviation as quite useless for military purposes. My submission is that civil aviation should form the great reserve from which in time of war our fighting pilots are drawn, and with far less expenditure of money, by keeping civil aviation going as a live factor in the life of the country, we can build up an enormous reserve of pilots for time of war, and in the event of war we should find ourselves in a far stronger position than if we relied on a small nucleus of pilots trained in the Royal Air Force and confined purely to war purposes.

Money devoted to civil aviation will go much further than it will go in maintaining a necessarily small Royal Air Force. All these arguments apply far more forcibly to the side of aerial research. We must remember that it is not the aeroplane of to-day that matters, but the aeroplane of to-morrow. After all, this is a science which is in its infancy. It is no use taking the type of to-day and building our plans upon that, thinking that it is constant and unchanging and will be equally useful to-morrow. It is no use doing that and starving altogether the experimental and research side which is devising the machine of to-morrow. The type of aeroplane changes far more quickly than the type of battleship or any other instrument of war. When we think of the little time that has elapsed since the first machine flew a mile—I think it was in charge of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon)—and of the gigantic strides that we have made, it is not outside the realm of practical politics to foreshadow the day when the aeroplane will in turn have revolutionised warfare. Men of science may end warfare by adding so immensely to its horrors that war will become an impossibility for the world. At a moment when we are discussing things like capital ships, when at any moment we may launch into millions on some great building programme of dreadnoughts and other such things, when we are about to spend such large sums, it is folly to neglect the development of an arm which by any turn of the wheel of science might suddenly be in a position to drive those ships from the sea.

It is argued with force that capital ships to-day are very susceptible to attack from the air. A very slight development in aerial matters may render those ships so vulnerable that they would be virtually useless. The future, not only of commerce, but still more of war, if it has a future—I hope it has'not—certainly lies in the air. Under these circumstances, with such ever-changing factors to consider, is it not folly to put all our eggs into one basket, when surely no war on the grand scale can be very imminent? Is it not folly to conserve the future for the purpose of the moment? I submit that our true policy in the air is to economise to the utmost extent on our immediate military establishment and concentrate our energies on devising and perfecting the aeroplane of the future, on the fostering of civil aviation, the development of the immense resources of pilots, on making our money go in that way as far as it can, and at the same time 011 developing the side of research with a view to evolving the perfect and most potent type of aeroplane

I now ask the Committee to consider the more mundane matter of finance and certain aspects of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this Department. The Report discloses a most astounding state of affairs. In my brief experience of these matters, I have never read so scathing a Report by one Government Department upon another. I shall refer to page 52, but every page affords abundant material for comment. In reference to the Cairo-Cape Town aerial route, we find that a sum of approximately £25,600, in addition to an amount as yet unascertained for the pay and allowances of Air Force personnel, is charged in that account for expenditure on the Cairo-Cape Town aerial route in circumstances that the Auditor-General says call for mention. He goes on to say: It appears that an understanding was reached with the Treasury that within moderate limits funds were available for civil aviation schemes in 1918–19. A sum of £3,000 was accordingly allotted to the air officer commanding, Middle East, for the inception of this route. He said, too: In July, 1920, it was ascertained that the expenditure, which was administered by Army paymasters and by the Rhodesian Government in certain sections, would be approximately £50,000. The sum of £,000 was sanctioned, and it is already rising to £50,000. Next the Auditor-General says: At this stage the matter was reported for covering sanction to the Treasury, who considered that the scheme should not have been prosecuted without their prior approval. That seems a very reasonable conclusion— They asked for an explanation of the growth of expenditure beyond the amount authorised by the Council. … The Air Ministry have not yet replied to the Treasury inquiry, but it appears from later papers that in November, 1920, the total expenditure on the service had reached about £76,000. There we find Treasury sanction for an expenditure of £3,000 and the Air Ministry spend £76,000, calling down upon its head the severe condemnation of the Auditor-General in this Report. There are two other matters to which I wish to draw attention. The first of the two refers to paragraph 12 on page 52.

Captain GUEST

Is the hon. Member referring to any page of the Estimates?

Mr. MOSLEY

I understand that the general finance of the Ministry is under discussion, and as this Report was presented on Saturday last to the House I presume I am in order in drawing attention to the chaotic condition of these finances.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir W. Pearce)

In the Debate so far very wide discussion has been allowed. It would be inconvenient, however, if the hon. Member developed at any great length discussion of the Appropriation Account.

Mr. MOSLEY

I did not intend to dwell long on this point, but it is of such great importance that I hope I am in order and justified in calling attention to it briefly. On the same page there is a reference to certain airship constructional establishments which are now closed down, and the Auditor-General says: In one case only has any report on the Departmental examination …come before me, and I am informed that examination of the accounts has not yet been commenced in the case of an establishment that was stopped in 1917.

Captain GUEST

On a point of Order. I must ask you to reconsider your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. I find that the accounting officer has not yet given his evidence before the Public Accounts Committee, which will report to the House in due course.

Commander BELLAIRS

Is it not the case that this is a Report published for the benefit of the House of Commons, and that investigation by the House of Commons Committee is an entirely separate affair? We are entitled to form our opinions on a separate subject.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Before a ruling is given I would point out that this is the last opportunity we shall have of referring to these matters. If we dispose of all these Votes to-day we shall not have another chance of raising this question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

There are many subjects to which attention can be called, and it would be inconvenient to dwell at any length on the Appropriation Account. I hope the hon. Member does not intend to proceed much further than the reference which he has already made.

Captain W. BENN

Under Vote 5 the salaries and allowances of the Air Council are being voted upon to-day. Therefore I submit that any criticism of their conduct is in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I understand there is another Vote on which this subject can be raised. I do not feel I ought to rule it absolutely out of order, but I appeal to the hon. Member not to proceed very much further.

6. 0 P. M.

Mr. MOSLEY

I had no intention of detaining the Committee on this subject, but as we were considering the salary of the Air Council, I thought it would be as well in passing to draw attention to their methods of conducting the finance of the Air Ministry. I will not refer to that point further, except to ask the Secretary of State for Air one question: Why was it necessary in connection with these airship constructional establishments for the Air Ministry to launch into the building of model villages? The Auditor-General comments in scathing terms on the Air Ministry's activities in that direction. He says "he is unaware of the reasons for continuing work on this village" after the establishment had been closed down. The Ministry continued its experiments with its model village. The village has since been found to be unsaleable, which is not altogether unexpected if the Air Ministry undertakes work of that sort. The village has been handed over to the Office of Works, and no doubt it will find its ultimate destination in the Natural History Museum. I would ask the Secretary of State for some explanation as to why the Ministry embarked on the construction of a model village, and why, even if it was necessary to start such a village, they continued the work after the airship establishment had been closed. I hope that on a later occasion the matter will be considered in detail, for it is well worthy of the consideration of the House of Commons. It discloses a chaotic condition in the financial affairs of this Ministry which, I think, is unrivalled even in the present condition of Government finance. In concluding my remarks, I would urge upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to turn his attention from the immediate military exigencies of the moment, and to constitute a, great reserve of finance in the event of war by the fostering of civil aviation, and, further, that he will also devote himself to the perfection and development of the aeroplane of the future by keeping alive research and subscribing to that purpose the great bulk of the funds at his disposal.

Captain W. BENN

I should like to support the very interesting contention which was the main theme of the eloquent speech delivered by the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley). If the right hon. Gentleman (Captain Guest) will allow me, I think, however, it will come well from one who has often acted as a critic, that I should admit very gratefully how fully the Government has met our demands, that this Ministry should remain a separate and independent office, and if he will accept it from an old colleague, I would like to say how glad we are to see him adorning that office. Ultimately the Secretary of State for Air must be a member of the Cabinet. It shows a total lack of respect on the part of the Government for the air service that while obsolescent services are -still to be represented in the Cabinet the real dominant service of the future is excluded from its councils. That, however, is said rather with an eye to the future than to the present. The Debate to-day has mainly turned upon a distribution of the money as between the military and civilian sides of the air service. While recognising fully the importance of the military side, I think the Estimate displays a want of recognition by the Government of the real value of civil aviation, even from the military point of view. Everyone admits we must have a fighting air service. We have not reached the point when we can dispense entirely with it. As the Minister himself has said, considerable economies have been effected already by the use of air forces where the Army was hitherto used, particularly in the Somaliland campaign, where at a very small expenditure a very effective blow was struck from the air when with a large expenditure an ineffectual attempt might have been made on land. Those who have experience know there are many fields of war where the air arm is the most effective, as well as the cheapest. It is therefore quite obvious that you must retain an air service for this purpose.

The question is whether the Minister in the task which he is performing is sufficiently seized of the importance of developing civil aviation, even from the military point of view. I do not think I need say anything about the civilising and humanising force which flying may prove in the world in the future. I am only dealing with it from the point of view of a Minister who may be required at some future day to produce an effective fighting air service. We must ask ourselves whether he has been right in his distribution of the money which the Cabinet allows him, as between a service of civil transport, research, and the construction of air squadrons as the nucleus of a large fighting air force. For an effective fighting air force we require three things—the best weapons, the best machines, and the best experience. Regarding the weapons, it is quite obvious that it is only on the military side we shall get the development which is essential. Bombs, guns, and armour are things which have nothing to do with civilian flying and must be developed entirely on the military side. We must, of course, realise that air fighting is absolutely in its infancy. The sighting either of bombs or guns in the air is really almost non-existent. Accuracy in the dropping of bombs improved enormously during the War; but as regards actual fighting in the air, it is nothing more than a point blank encounter between two opponents armed with machine guns, and even with the very clever devices employed during the War, nothing like accurate sighting of machine guns from the air has ever been reached. The development of all this is a matter for the military side of the air service. The weapons, however, really represent the least important element in the success of the future fighting air service. Maintaining oneself in the air and manœuvring represent something far more important. The soldier can walk as we all can walk, and consequently with him it is the weapon that is important. The navigation of the seas is comparatively easy after the experience of centuries, and there the weapon has far transcended mere navigation in importance to the fighting service. In flying, it is the ability to manœuvre that is the fundamental thing at the moment.

Now let us take the machine. We have got to see that we have the best machine for the Air Service in case of any future conflict, as well as the best engines. 'I suggest that on the military side there is not the same opportunity for developing the best type of machine and engine as exists on the civilian side. A man in command of a squadron must have a uniform type of machine and a uniform type of engine, otherwise he cannot get uniform speed for his formations in flying, which are the foundation of air tactics. Furthermore, the flying of the squadron's is of a much more casual kind than the actual experience gained by the civilian flyer. The right hon. Gentleman may say that civilian flying is so backward that he cannot get the work taken up. But that is what we have to sympathise with, and that is why we want to create and foster civilian flying in every possible way. The hon. and gallant Member for Islington (Mr. Raper) said that the civilian type of machine would have no value in war.

Mr. RAPER

The hon. Member will pardon me, but I do not think I said that. I suggested that its main value in war would be behind the lines for the purpose of carrying valuable stores.

Captain BENN

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to say so, I think that is essentially the view of a scout flyer. My contention is that the development of fighting in the air will be similar to the development of fighting at sea. You will get a type of a large and comparatively slow machine operating with a flotilla of small machines acting as scouts. It is a mistake to think that it is only to the development of the small type of fighter that we can look to get a strong air service in the future. On the contrary, air fighting, as I say, will probably follow the same course of development as sea fighting, and what we shall see is a large aerial battleship which will really inflict the heavy blows protected by scouts and small machines. Consequently, so far from the civilian type of machine—which is always striving to decrease its own weight and increase its horse-power so as to carry bigger and more useful loads—being useless from the military standpoint, I think it is the only type of machine in which we can find the nucleus of the big aerial battleship. As regards the question of instruments, parachutes and medical services, those are things in which the experience of civilian aviation is likely to be of much greater value than any experience gained purely on the military side. I do not speak as a flyer because I was only an observer, but I think that the pilot is the worst enemy to the use of instruments in the air. The pilot is a very gallant and brilliant officer whose main desire is to exhibit his own art as a flyer. He is a man who knows his own machine, but when it comes to the scientific development of flying and to the carrying up of instruments and making experiments, which are the real avenues of advance, he tries the weight of the instruments in his hand, refers to them as so mush additional weight which will interfere with his flying, and is critical, if not hostile, towards taking them up at all.

The civilian flyer has to depend on his instruments for his safety in daily flights, and exactly the same applies to the parachutes. I do not know if the Government intend to make some form of parachute compulsory on machines carrying passengers, but the parachute has certainly reached a point where it can be described as the lifeboat of the air. The experience we are much more likely to get in this respect, is the experience which is forced on people; If you are going to collect material in a matter such as this, you are more likely to accumulate it if you have got a really effective and extensive civilian air transport service in operation. Regarding the medical side, I do not know if the Minister will speak of that. In the War it was felt that the study of the airman was a thing demanding specialised medical knowledge. It was largely a question of nerves and was concerned with altitude and alterations of altitude. I believe at that time the Minister announced that he was prepared to have a special service, but even so, the experience on the medical side to be gained from civil aviation is by no means to be neglected.

I have dealt with the weapons and the machines and now comes the most important thing of all, the daily experience of the air, of weather conditions, and of navigation in flying. I have no hesitation in saying that the most valuable harvest in this respect is to be gained from the civilian side. My hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Raper) who is an experienced flyer knows quite well that the fighting pilot is a much finer acrobatic performer than any civilian flyer can possibly be, because it is necessary for a scout to be able to manœuvre his machine in a very rapid way. That is essential to successful flying. That is not really the whole story of flying, however. The civilian pilot was spoken of by the hon. and gallant Member as being useless for war purposes, but you cannot tell whether a man is good in war or not until you get your war, because I have seen pilots who could do the most surprising performances at split-arsing in the air, but who could not be induced to proceed across the line, whereas straight-going, steady people were found to be real stunners in going long distance reconnaissances. My submission is, that in civilian flying we get a reserve of pilots who day after day are threshing their way along the actual routes which will be used in warfare, who are encountering every day the changing conditions of weather, who know their landmarks, who are accustomed to fly through fogs and mists. There it is that you will find your richest source of supply in the future, even from the purely fighting standpoint. I submit that you may find a safe parallel for guidance in this matter in the Merchant Marine. There we have an enormous source of strength for the Navy in time of war.I suppose that, really our naval. supremacy was built upon the Merchant Marine and the sea experience gained by these men and from the fact that we regarded ourselves as a nation fit to take the sea, and I submit therefore that as regards the air the same may be true. If the right hon. Gentleman has the skill and the ability, and circumstances favour him so that with thie money at his disposal he can encourage and foster and build up a big civil side of flying in this country, we may come to regard ourselves as a nation pre-eminently suitable to take the air, and if that is the case you have the essential foundations by which a military aerial supremacy, should it be needed, will be built up.

When you look at how the money is' divided, I think the Committee will agree that the bias that I have suggested has not been present to the minds of those who have actually drawn up the accounts. I put in Research along with civilian expenditure, because I agree that research is more important than a subsidy to civilian companies, but putting the two together, you come to about £2,500,000, whereas on the military side on the maintenance of these formations £16,000,000 is being spent. I have no doubt the increase in the Transport Vote, which amounts to about £300,000, is largely due to the military operations in which, as I hold, we are unfortunately engaged in various parts. There is expenditure for a winter station at Fermoy. I am not going to criticise the military policy of the Government or their policy in Ireland at this moment, but I imagine that the sum of £28,000 down here is associated with keeping some of the Flying Corps in Ireland. Then there is this curious thing in Egypt that has not yet been explored. Egypt is a splendid place in which to have a flying school or in which to give people experience. The climate of the Middle East is essentially the climate in which you may hope for the most promising developments of civil aerial transport, but why are the five stations built in Egypt built in the Canal zone? That is the point which we do not understand, and that is the fact which gives rise to the suspicion in the minds of some people that the free development of flying in Egypt has been in some way fettered by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman owing to some military plans of his own. That may not be so, but I only say that the suspicion is given rise to by the decision as to the sites of these air stations.

I would point out also that some of these so-called decreases are not really decreases. A big decrease is made in the transient charge, and a little but a growing increase is made in every permanent charge, and it is not only the figure which is presented to us in one year which conditions the charge we are committing the country to, it is the services we start, the men we employ, and the commitments we lay out for future years, and so we find that service gratuities to officers and men on discharge show a small decrease, and bounties show a small decrease, but those are not really effective reductions in our military expenditure on the Air Service. On the contrary, the pay of officers and men shows a very considerable increase, and the numbers of non-commissioned officers and men both show an increase, which means, of course, not only expenditure this year, but a very large continuing expenditure for all the years to come. I notice, too, that on the first page of the Estimates, which explain how much the Ministry depends on Votes under other heads so far as the presentation of these Estimates is concerned, there is a considerable increase of over £500,000. I am not sure how far it would be in order for the Minister, except in reference to the Vote on the general policy of the Air Council, to refer to that, but while the increase in the National Physical Laboratory is naturally welcome, one very much wonders why there is an almost uniform increase in every other charge which is borne on other Votes in connection with this Ministry.

Then there is the question of the Territorial Air Force. I do not know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will speak about that. I have never been able to understand what was the idea of devising an air force on a Territorial basis; it is a mystery to me. The air has nothing to do with the ground, and it seems to me simply to be bowing the knee to the military ideal that you must organise all these military things on the same lines. The Air is a Service essentially different from the Army or from the Navy. It is a scientific Service; it is a progressive Service, and I go so far as to say that the discipline suited for the Army or the Navy is not suited for the Air, and if the Territorial Air Force, for which I think £10,000 is taken, is merely an idea of introducing a symmetry into all the defence forces of the country, then I think it is a very great mistake. As regards the civilian side, the actual expenditure shows an increase, because unfortunately owing to the lack of public interest, the full amount could not be spent last year, but it is regrettable that the Minister is not in a position to spend more money on civilian flying. The personnel of the Department, I see, is reduced—I make it a reduction of three persons. We can understand the decrease on the civil side of the Department. The military side is quite simple; you can start new squadrons, and you have your ordinary organisation, and you can enrol new men and attest new officers, but the civilian side is more difficult, because it is agreed that you do not want to start a national civilian flying service, and yet if you assist other people it must only be by way of supplement to their own efforts, and if they will not make the efforts the difficulty of spending money is indeed great, but I most earnestly beg the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not to overlook the fact that, especially at this moment, when great wars are remote and when the type is uncertain and undeveloped, there is an enormous potential value in the development of civil aviation.

Captain Viscount CURZON

I have been very disappointed indeed not to hear any single reference so far to the naval side of the Air Force. I was unfortunate in not hearing the opening remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I have made inquiries, and I understand that no reference whatever has yet been made to the naval side of the Air Force. I regard this as a very serious omission indeed. The Navy, I think I am correct in saying, has always been very suspicious at any rate of the arrangement which placed its Air Service under the Air Ministry. It always suspected that somehow or other it would be dominated by a military influence rather than giving sufficient thought to the naval side of it. I do not pretend in the least to be competent to deal with the question, but it is very unfortunate that the Secretary of State could not have said something about the actual work which has been carried out by the naval wing of the Air Force, if I may so call it, during the past year. I should like to know what developments have taken place, for instance, with the Atlantic Fleet, which went to the Coast of Spain the other day, and a lot of firing was carried out. What experiments were also carried out with the aircraft which accompanied them? People in this country have been told by very distinguished officers from time to time that the battleship is semi-obsolete and is about to be replaced by the aeroplane, but I think it is up to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to try and educate the country in this respect as to what the possibilities of aircraft are.

The possibilities of aircraft in conjunction with the Navy are simply unlimited. I have myself seen a whole squadron on concentration firing, spotting on a target at 10 or 11 miles range on the second salvo by the use of an aeroplane spotting for them. That will give hon. Members an idea of the possibilities of aircraft observation, and that is only a very small part of the functions of the aircraft at sea. There is one particular point which has arisen lately, I believe, and I heard the story with some astonishment and give it for what it is worth. It serves to illustrate the point that it is all-important that the naval wing of the Air Force should under no circumstances come directly under military control, and that there should be more co-operation between the Air Ministry and the Admiralty than there has been in the past. I do not know how many pilots there are who can fly on and fly off an aircraft carrier in the Navy at the present time, but I should like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell the Committee how many there are. My information is that there are only about half a dozen pilots who can fly on and fly off aircraft carriers at the present time with the Fleet. A short time ago, I am told, the Air Force suddenly required pilots in the Middle East, and I suppose they had not got anybody available I believe there were only six pilots serving with the Fleet who could actually fly on and fly off an aircraft carrier, and they promptly ordered all those six to proceed to the Middle East forthwith. What would have been the state of affairs supposing the Navy had required to go into action? The Navy has gone in really for a programme of aircraft construction. The Navy has three large and very fine aircraft carriers fitted up with every development, and what is the use of having these ships properly fitted up and only about six pilots who can use them, and then ordering those six off to the Middle East? I really do think that this matter should be further explained by the right hon. Gentleman. There is another point to which I should like to draw attention in relation to the airships. During the late War the Grand Fleet, on which I happened to serve, hardly ever went south into certain latitudes in the North Sea where we did not sight a Zeppelin.

There is no doubt whatever that it may be possible to produce a non-flammable gas for the use of airships, so that an airship at sea will become less flammable, and a weapon, or an adjunct, to the fleet. Such a ship will undoubtedly be able to work hundreds of miles in advance of the fleet, to keep an enormous area under observation, and will be able to do it as the Germans proved. I do think a very grave step indeed has been taken by the Air Ministry in doing away with the airship branch. I know that we are a poor country, and I certainly do not wish to encourage unnecessary expenditure of money, but I do entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman below me when he says that we are really on the fringe of the subject of airships and that it is absolutely all-important to find out exactly as to what we can and cannot do with them. We never had a chance of experimenting during the War. All the experiments were carried out by the Germans against us. I know that the Admiralty only concurred in the decision of the Air Ministry with the very greatest possible reluctance, and I do think the right hon. Gentleman should really reconsider this problem. If he still wants to give away his airship force and cannot get anybody to take it over, would it not be better for him to go into the whole question and again to reconsider it? Possibly it will cost money. Still, it is of the very greatest importance that we should not be left behind and find ourselves in the lurch when the next war breaks out.

One or two remarks made in the course of this Debate have impressed me, and particularly some of the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Islington (Mr. Raper) and the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) on the subject of the training of pilots. It may be alright to rely on civil aviation for the training of pilots so far as the Army is concerned, but that will not do in respect to the provision of pilots for the Navy. I speak with due deference to the expert opinion which is present in this House, but I do think we shall have to look very seriously to the training pf pilots for the Navy. I do hope, whatever action he takes, the right hon. Gentleman will use big best endeavours to see that no stone is left unturned to ensure complete cooperation between the Air Ministry and the Admiralty in the future. This is of vital importance. He does not want to get them one against the other, and the Navy are very suspicious at the present time. If the Navy were able to give unbiased opinion they would declare against it, I think. So long, however, as complete co-operation exists we can avoid a danger such as that to which I have alluded.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I cannot undertake to address any remarks on the technique of this matter, but I should like to say, in respect to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon), that his observations regarding airships was the only part of his speech with which I did not entirely agree. It was also the only part of the speech of the hon. Baronet near me (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) with which I did not agree. I do hope now that this decision has been made that we shall get rid of these great gas-bags, which were only a temporary success because the aeroplane engine was in a state of development. I do hope that one of the first things the right hon. Gentleman will not do in his new office, in which I wish him very great success, will be to revivify the dirigible lighter-than-air ship. I believe the position now is precisely what it was in the days of sailing ships,' being replaced by the steamship, and while the latter was being perfected. Sailing men-of-war were perhaps necessary in the broad stretches of the Pacific and so on; and while the aeroplane is being perfected the airship may have a temporary vogue; but the whole case was given away by my hon. and gallant Friend when he said that when in the late War the Navy got below certain latitudes they always sighted the Zeppelins. Exactly, that is the whole thing! If the scouting had been done with aeroplanes we would not have sighted them at all. We would not have seen them except by chance; but because the gas-ship is so big and vulnerable, and visible at a long distance, I believe the day of the lighter than air air-cruiser is nearly over. When we develop the super-aeroplane a little more it will be a much more economic reconnaissance machine, very much cheaper, and better for fighting purposes and tactical purposes than the great airship.

Not being a flying man I hesitate to enlarge upon this highly technical subject;, but I have read a great many papers, and I attended a good many conferences during the War at the Admiralty on this very subject, and I must say that I think that the heavier-than-air school absolutely carries the day. When we have to look at every penny twice, as we have to do at present, I think that the money would be much better spent on heavier-than-air craft. I know the matter is highly controversial, and I will not go into it further. Might I, however, here protest, as other hon. Members have done, at the state of the House, with so comparatively few Members present when the new Minister for Air introduces his Estimates and his Votes, and when some of us have been listening to some very interesting and highly instructive speeches. It is worse than when the Navy Estimates were introduced. The House takes little interest in the Navy, and even less in the Air Service! In view of the tremendous importance of this subject I think it is greatly to be regretted that hon. Members find their engagements so pressing that they cannot get here, especially the Members of the great Conservative party, whom I was always taught to look upon as being so jealous for the welfare of the fighting services.

I said I wished to deal with two matters of high policy. I will touch upon them very briefly; but might I add my small voice of protest against the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Air not being in the Cabinet. He will forgive me for referring to this matter in his presence; but it is not personal at all, it is a matter of policy. I think it is a very retrograde step that has been taken. Seeing we have a separate Air Service; and there is a Clause in the Act which lays it down that the Minister of Air shall be one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, why is he not in the Cabinet? My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the ill-concealed plotting in the Navy for the Admiralty to regain control of the Naval Air Service. The worst thing that can happen to aviation would be to put it under the Admiralty, for the Admiralty has resisted the introduction of every modern engineering development for the last 100 years. They resisted the introduction of steam, being in favour of sails, also the breech-loading gun, and the submarine. To put the Air Service under the Admiralty would be the final death-blow to any hope of efficiently protecting the British Empire. That is all the more reason why the Air Minister should be in the Cabinet.

Might I ask these questions? First of all, as regards the Dominions Air Service: I know the great jealousy, and the very proper and justifiable jealousy of the Dominions as regards their sovereignty and as regards their own fighting service. The Dominions have very great objection to have their services out of their own control, seeing they pay for them. Nevertheless I know all the Dominion statesmen are very strongly in favour of the closest co-operation and liaison work between their service and the Imperial service. I would like to know whether there has been communication with our Dominions with regard to their air services and ours; and, in particular, I would like to know whether anything is being done to establish air stations, and the few comparatively simple though very necessary preparations which have to be made. Is the Australian Commonwealth making any preparations of the sort to which I refer in the Northern Territory? I do not wish to particularise more, but the right hon. Gentleman is aware why I ask this question. It is very important. It seems to me that the work of the Imperial General Staff might come in here, and their recommendations would carry great weight in the Commonwealth. We are, I think, entitled to know whether this matter is being kept in mind.

Secondly—and this is a thing which concerns the right hon. Gentleman and his staff—why is it that no preparations have been made for establishing flying station, first of all, in the Straits of Malacca, at Singapore, or some other suitable place, and again on the other side of the world altogether, in the West Indies? We are asked to vote £19,000,000 for the Air Services. I hope that the development of flying will do away with the possibility of war: first of all, by obliterating frontiers and doing away with the intense national jealousies that are the curse of Europe to-day; and, secondly, by making war so terrible for the civilian population that they will not be able to sit at home and cheer on the armies to their death, for war will mean their own death. I hope that the development of flying will do away with war. But in the meantime we are asked to vote £19,000,000, of which the greater part— £17,500,000 or £18,000,000—is for military and naval aviation. Therefore we are interested to know what preparations are being made to fight in areas where we are likely to have to fight for the defence of our possessions, Empire, and trade.

The Navy and the Army are kept for fighting purposes, and not to provide comfortable jobs for old men and young men, and women and children, too, because I notice that there are plenty of nurses and matrons for whom we have to pay, according to these Estimates. We provide these Services at great cost to the Imperial Exchequer for the defence of our possessions and our trade. The two possible wars—of course, I trust not probable—are first of all in the Pacific, and secondly in the Atlantic. In the first case, the Straits of Malacca will be the most important strategical point in the world for the British Empire, and in the case of an Atlantic, or Western, war we shall have to look to our bases abroad in the West Indies. Our fortified posts there have been used by our cruisers, and they must be adapted for our aircraft or they are incomplete as fortified posts. These posts which have not equipment for aircraft, for pilots, for workshops, and repairs shops are as incomplete as if they had not got artillery. I want to know, therefore, why these vast sums are being spent on Egypt and Malta, and why on earth we seem to be preparing for a Mediterranean war. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we are doing this, neglecting the two areas in which our whole national existence might be threatened if the policy of the present Government is continued. Those' are my questions. I feel very alarmed that, apparently, both the Admiralty and the Air Ministry are not 'awake to the great importance of making preparations in the Pacific now. I think we should make such preparations during peace time when we are on terms of friendship, and we should now coolly and calmly consider this matter.

The other question of policy I wish to refer to is to see that the staff organisation of the Air Ministry is healthy, because if it is not all sorts of -diseases will arise. I am speaking now from the experience of naval officers. I want to know if the organisation of the staff of the Air Ministry and the service of day to day administration and operations is separate from the purely staff duties of planning and strategical research? I am in complete ignorance of the organisation of the staff of the Air Ministry, but I do know the principles which, if neglected, will bring disaster. With regard to those who have the ordinary day to day administration and organisation of the administrative service in peace time, if the same people are responsible for great strategical plans for war, and if they are not separated, then a most important thing will be neglected, because those day to day details will absorb the time of the staff.

I see that we have a director of Operations and Intelligence, and those ought to be separated, because they are quite different functions. Then we have a Director of Training and Organisation, and I do not quite know what those functions are. There is also s> Director of Personnel and a Director of Equipment. On paper that seems to be a very good arrangement, if the people who have to take the great decisions in prŕeparation for war are separated. I am enunciating a very great doctrine of war, which is understood by all students of war, and it is an ancient and well-tried fact that you must separate the function of planning from the day to day administration. That has been our great trouble in the Admiralty in the past, but it has now been reorganised. That was one of the main reasons responsible for the disorganisation and want of preparation in the Navy in the past, because the men who ought to have seen to the preparations had their time taken up by such things as victualling, docking, and other things, instead of preparing for war. I have mentioned those two high matters of policy with great diffidence, and I make those suggestions in no unfriendly spirit.

I want to add my voice to a plea for greater subsidies for civil aviation. Why are we not subsidising suitable aircraft for war purposes? We spend a sum of £90,000 subsidising one liner—the Mauretania. The Holyhead to Kingstown mail service is going to receive £100,000, and armament firms are to be subsidised to the extent of £30,000. Why are we only spending £60,000 which is altogether inadequate for the development of civil aviation? I am not so keen on civil aviation from the point of view of a reserve for the Air Service, but it is because I believe that the nation which develops civil aviation will have the means of rapid transport in the future, and the country that drops behind in the development of civil aviation will drop behind the nations of the world. I think aircraft will do away with the miserable lines of painted posts marking the boundaries between countries with their gendarmerie marching on both sides, which produces hatred and mistrust between those little States all over the world. It is in aviation that I see a remedy for this awful state of things. I regret that the Government so far has neglected civil aviation, and I hope the Secretary of State for Air will be known in the future as the Air Minister who set civil aviation on its feet in this country.

Commander BELLAIRS

The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last has declared that airships are of no use whatever. Possibly on this subject my opinion is of no more value than that of the hon. and gallant Member, but I would remind him that in the statement made by the First Lord last year the following words occur, and they embody the considered opinion of the War Staff: While the Admiralty regret the decision of the Air Ministry to suspend the airship service, they realise, in view of the stringent financial restrictions, that no other decision could be arrived at. That means that that decision was arrived at by the Air Ministry because of the stringent financial considerations, and not on the merits of the case. I find myself in cordial agreement with the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut. -Commander Kenworthy) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson Hicks) in their comments upon the scanty attendance in this House during this Debate. That scant attendance here, however, is probably due to a large extent to the absence of discussion outside, and that is very likely due to the want of leadership on the part of the Air Ministry in failing to promote discussion. If there is a secrecy policy, as was more than hinted by two or three speakers, then there is no promotion of discussion. I say to the Secretary of State for Air that the maximum of progress is always associated with the maximum of discussion. I hope, therefore, that he will not indulge in that fatal policy of secrecy which has been so characteristic of Cabinet Ministers in the past.

So far as the Navy is concerned, I know that we were always ahead of every other nation while we did not pursue a secret policy. The moment we embarked -upon secrecy we fell behind. I do not know what the reasons are, but it is an historical fact the the greatest progress is associated with the greatest discussion and the least secrecy, and I hope that will be characteristic of our policy in air matters in the future. The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow commented on a report which was issued last week. I will not comment upon it now, although I confess that it gave me a considerable shock. We have now been appealed to to leave the matter to the Public Accounts Committee. I will venture to repeat, however, what I have said in previous discussions, that the Air Force is comparatively a new force, and it is possible to establish new traditions in that force. One tradition which might be establshed is that it should be the duty of every officer to promote economy as well as efficiency, and an officer cannot be efficient unless he is economical.

The tendency of the Committee on Public Accounts and of this House is to promote Treasury checks, and that at once makes an enemy of the fighting officer, because the officers gradually come to believe that economy is not their business but the business of the civil servants who are continually worrying them. That is quite wrong, and it was not characteristic of our best officers in the past, who always tried to promote economy to the best of their ability. If that idea is right, then you might get rid of many Treasury and civil officials, and in that way promote great economy. As a matter of fact your civil officials cannot check anything in war time, and if you have not trained your officers with any enthusiasm for economy you pay heavily in war. Several speakers have already commented upon the fact that the Secretary of State for Air is outside the Cabinet, and there seems to be a general feeling that the Secretary of State for Air should be in the Cabinet. Personally I differ from that view. The Air Minister is quite as important an official as the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary of State for War, but what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said from, his seat on the Treasury Bench in answer to a question was that there must be a limit to the sizs? of the Cabinet. It is far too large now.

The First Lord of the Admiralty and ' the Secretary of State for War should concern themselves with defence questions, and should also come out of the Cabinet, but remain on the Defence Committee. I think a solution of the difficulty will be found in ultimately making these Members of the Government responsible only for the administrative side of the Navy, the Army, and the Air Service, and I think we should place the three war staffs, the Imperial General Staff, the Naval Staff, and the Air Staff under a single Cabinet Minister, who would be the Vice-Chairman of the Committee, and they should constitute the Defence Committee, leaving the Prime Minister free to come in as Chairman when he thought fit. In that way we reduce the size of the Cabinet, bring the three staffs together, and we separate the administrative functions altogether from the operations of war. The people who conduct the operations of war would simply transmit their orders to the people who carry on the administration.

Captain W. BENN

What body would decide the amount of money to be spent?

7.0 P.M.

Commander BELLAIRS

The war staffs and the Cabinet Minister who would preside over all these war staffs would settle what forces are required to carry out the policy of the Cabinet, subject, of course, as is the case to-day, to the approval of the Cabinet. In that case the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own idea would be forwarded. It has been stated in this Debate that we are undergoing a revolution almost every day in the air service. I disagree with the Secretary of State for Air and with the hon. and gallant Gentleman when they say that these so-called revolutions are making the Air Service a substitute for the land or the sea service. What I say is, that this great development of the air service is an extension of sea power and an extension of land power. If we bring these three staffs together under one Minister then the air service, being the most developing force, owing to the progress of invention and everything else, will be undoubtedly the one that will get the best of the deal, because its importance will be more and more developed as time goes on, not as a substitute for, but as an extension of land and sea power.

That relationship brings me to the very question that was raised by the First Lord of the Admiralty in the Memorandum last year concerning the discipline of the force. I wish to put this as a question to the hon. Gentleman, and to read what the Naval War Staff says because they considered the question of control. They stated: The Admiralty had represented to the Air Council that, in their opinion,

1. (a) the operations of all aircraft flown from His Majesty's ships and vessels with whatever object in view, that is to say, not only operations in the air for offensive and defensive purposes; and
2. (b) all operations carried out by aircraft not flown from ships, but which are being carried out in connection with the command of the sea, that is to say, operations for oversea reconnaissance and for the attack of enemy ships and vessels,

should be under naval control. Dual control would be unworkable. In all matters relating to the command of the sea the Admiralty are and remain the responsible authority. That was the representation which was addressed by the Admiralty to the Air Council affecting the discipline of the officers and men working the aircraft in conjunction with the ships and in overseas operations. I want to know, as that question was addressed in the year 1920, whether any decision has been come to, because it is of overwhelming importance when war breaks out that there shall not be dual control on the seas and over the seas.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS

I do not propose to take up the time of the House except for two or three minutes, and I shall not go over any of the ground that has already been traversed. Nor shall I refer to that very delicate subject of "great gasbags," which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) dilated upon so fully recently. In a very interesting and able speech the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) mentioned that parachutes were now and would in future be the lifeboats of the air, and that the principle of safety will be one which will have a great effect upon the development, certainly, of the civil side of the Air Force, and must also have some effect on the military side. I rise, therefore, to ask a few questions with regard to parachutes. Perhaps the Secretary for Air will not be able to answer them immediately. I can scarcely expect that, but probably he will be able to give me the information afterwards. This is a matter of some interest both to the civil and military aspects of the case. I presume that parachutes are installed very largely in the aircraft in the Air Force, and I should like to know what results have been obtained from those installations. I would like some particulars as to the installations themselves, their number, and so on, and especially whether there is more than one type of parachute, what the types are, and how far they have proved to be efficient in their actual practical working.

I assume there have been trials, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would kindly give us some information as to the nature of those trials and as to the circumstances under which they have taken place. Were they all trials in connection with airplanes—I prefer to call them "airplanes" instead of "aeroplanes". I wish everybody would adopt that, because when the Bill was brought in I moved an Amendment, and the result was that the word "air" was substituted throughout for "aero." Were the airplanes under the control of pilots and did the men, under the most favourable conditions, simply leave the airplanes in a parachute and descend to the earth? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any steps have been taken to test parachutes under crash conditions? I am told that during the War, on the German side alone, no less than 600 German officers' lives were saved by parachutes being used by them under crash conditions. Are our pilots or observers in the habit of practising descents from airplanes in the ordinary course of their duties? What amount of research is taking place in regard to this extremely important matter? It is important, not only from the military point of view, but from the civil standpoint. I happen to be concerned with a society which I believe is the leading society now, outside this House, in connection with the development of civil flying. I have also some hopes that it may be able from time to time to exercise some influence on the Government with regard to military flying. I suppose there is some officer in charge of this branch of the Air Force, the parachute branch. I should like to know what his experience has been, what has been done under his observation and guidance in the past, and particularly what he says as to research. I believe that one of the great things that prevents the public from being interested in flying is the danger which they think is inseparable from airplanes. Certainly, with the lifeboats of the air, as my hon. and gallant Friend called them, just like the lifeboats of a vessel crossing the channel, the ordinary passenger will feel a little more confident.

That is all I have to ask about parachutes, but may I say three sentences? First, will the Secretary of State for the Air be good enough to make friends with the Postmaster-General and see if he can get some arrangement with him by which important letters can be carried by aircraft? More than that, will he kindly do something to institute that about which I spoke about on the Supplementary Estimates on the last occasion, an air service between Cairo and Karachi? I am glad to think he is going to continue the subsidy. Does he not think it advisable that, in view of the development of civil aviation, and thereby forming a large reserve for the military side, that there should be some form of propaganda instituted by the Ministry to popularise flying generally in the country. The Aero League of the British Empire, to which I belong, will give him every assistance. Will he co-operate with us in trying to popularise flying in this country for the purpose of developing, not only civil aviation, but also indirectly helping the military side?

Captain GUEST

I have no cause whatever for complaint with regard to my treatment by the Committee, and I have, during the time which has elapsed while hon. Members have been speaking, done my utmost to obtain answers to the questions which they have put. It will be observed that a great many of them deal with subjects with which I have hardly been able to grapple, and therefore to a great extent I cannot reply to them. I have looked into the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and into Vote 3 of the Appropriation Account of the Air Service, and I think my answers in both cases will satisfy the Committee. The first point is with reference to the Cape to Cairo route, and the expenditure on that in excess of what was originally allowed by the Treasury. I notice that the £3,000 approved by the Treasury was later increased to £15,000.

Mr. MOSLEY

My right hon. Friend will forgive me, but the Report says that the Air Council authorised that increase. It says nothing about the Treasury.

Captain GUEST

Then I regret that I should have made that statement. However, the excessive sum of £40,000—

Mr. MOSLEY

£76,000.

Captain GUEST

Whatever the sum be in excess can, I think, be defended on the following grounds. First, it is almost impossible to estimate what it is going to cost you across a country like Africa. Some of us have tried walking across a great portion of it, and it is extremely difficult to make your calculations very far ahead. In the inspection of the country alone, and in the number of times that you think you have found a site and then discover that you have to find a better one or to change it at the last moment, the difficulties are innumerable. I would appeal to those hon. Members who are strong supporters of civil aviation to support us in what I would describe as a step in the right direction. It is only by threading our way through the jungle and risking the displeasure of the taxpaying public and the Treasury that we can get on with our work. I have some grounds for saying that this is a little bit beyond the scope of the Estimate, and I hope therefore that the Committee will not complain very severely. The other point is, why did the Ministry continue to build model villages after they had ceased to function? The answer to that is, this all occurred before there was an Air Ministry at all, and although it is clear that someone is to blame, it is not this Ministry this evening.

In attempting to deal with the questions which have been raised, and to take them in the order in which they were raised, I would like first to say that some hon. Members who expected lengthy arguments on general policy, such as co-operation with the Navy and suchlike, must not feel that because I do not say anything about these sides of the subject they are being ignored by the Ministry. I did not feel it my duty this afternoon to attempt such a review, and I confined myself more particularly to points of detail in the Estimates. Civil aviation, however, both in the main and in detail, lends itself to further explanation, and I will say to those who have studied the airship question that, although the decision was taken some weeks ago that they should be abandoned, yet there are some suggestions even now being put forward which may lead the Ministry to run the risk of temporising a short time longer. It is said that it is fatal to hesitate, but at the same time it is a very big step to to take to destroy, as we may have to do, this immense and, until lately very precious fleet. If the Committee will be patient for a few weeks more in connection with this subject, I hope St will be possible to make a more definite statement on the subject.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

The suggestion of destroying the fleet is really worse than the other proposal. I think the hon. Gentleman might undertake not to destroy it without the House having an opportunity of discussing it.

Captain GUEST

I used the word really to bring hon. Members up against the hard logic of facts. If no one will take the ships over, if we cannot devise a national service to which they can be put, there is nothing to do but to destroy them unless the Committee is prepared to pay the enormous sum of money necessary for the personnel, for housing, and for general maintenance. Even a few weeks' delay, however, may suffice to bring the matter to a head. The hon. Baronet (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) who spoke first on the question of civil aviation covered the subject fairly well, and my reply to him and to other Members who also dealt with the same question is that, as far as building is concerned, the Secretary for the Colonies when in charge of the Estimates was fully aware that the times were extremely bad for building and that money was much required in other directions. The result was that when the Estimates for the building programme were submitted to him a good deal was struck out, and my right hon. Friend recommended a policy which I feel I am absolutely bound to pursue. In fact, almost the whole of the permanent building programme was postponed till better times. Efforts are being made by reconditioning temporary huts and similar methods to continue with the inadequate and unsuitable accommodation at many stations. The building scheme at Halton, however, and the other items in the present Estimate represent the irreducible minimum with which I must ask the Committee to allow us to proceed, but I can assure the Committee that where possible saving shall be effected. The hon. Baronet spoke of the way in which other countries were going ahead, more particularly America, and he read out a programme which was not only alarming to the Committee, but one which must make the mouths water of anyone connected with the Air Ministry. After all, it is a question of being able to afford it. I cannot say what the estimates of the American Government are for this branch of their service, but ours have been framed in accordance with our limitations, and we are doing the utmost we can. The Construction Department endeavours as far as possible to adapt every improvement to our machines. The hon. Baronet did not raise the subject of Egypt which I rather expected he would, no doubt because he expected that the Secretary for the Colonies would be here to reply. But it is a subject which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), and the information which I propose to give to the Committee in explanation of our policy will, I hope, serve to reply to both hon. Gentlemen. The introductory remarks I made in my speech did not seem sufficient, I suppose, to meet their views. I dwelt merely upon the peculiar pivotal position in the East that Egypt might be forced to occupy. The forces in Egypt to-day must be regarded as normal, and whatever changes there may be in the political situation—and those changes are, of course, dependant upon Cabinet policy and not an aero policy— the force will not be increased without instruction on that subject. Should the Cabinet policy involve larger expenditure later in the year that will have to be provided for in the ordinary way, but as far as Estimates are concerned, we are not budgeting for any alteration in our present policy.

I received from the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Raper) a whole host of questions, and have endeavoured to obtain quick replies to them. I have dealt with the building at Halton already, and several of the points to which the hon. Member drew my attention will certainly receive my consideration. Milton is a place on which a large sum of money has been spent this year. I have been asked why it was necessary to house the civilian employés when they might be housed by the War Office authorities. The reason why they are housed on the spot is that they would have to travel to and from Reading by train, and the cost of thus transporting them day by day would be very considerable indeed. On the question of awards to inventors, the Ministry are not responsible for those; they are made by a Royal Commission. The lodging allowance is based on the same scales as are in operation in the Army. With regard to the Malta aerodrome, it was started 18 months ago, when the England to Egypt route for civil aviation purposes was first taken up, and for that reason it still appears on the Civil Aviation Vote. The question has been asked, in the matter of the cross-Channel service, whether the companies are having other advantages than those referred to in the terms of the agreement which I read to the Committee. The answer is that two machines have so far been hired to the companies for the service, and the number will shortly be increased to three. But the charge for the hire is included in the operating costs of the service, so that the companies will receive no other advantages than those which are apparent on the agreement as I read it. The suggestion that fines should be levied for irregularity of service will receive consideration, and the agreement is still capable of alteration and improvement in that respect. With regard to fares, I am afraid I did not quite sufficiently explain that the charges of both the English and French companies are the same, and it is of course the fact that the French subsidy is so enormously larger than ours which has enabled the French company to compete with us on these terms.

I come next to the questions asked with regard to experiments and research. The hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) expressed the hope that we were doing everything we could, not only to keep abreast of the times, but to look ahead. The latest undertaking, in this direction, namely, with regard to new engines, shows a very considerable programme. Many different types have been investigated, varying in horse-power from 150 to 1,000, and I think we may be sure that that is also the case with regard to all other improvements connected with aircraft. Teddington is a by no means unimportant part of this scheme of experiment and research. The work that is done there is the mathematical work and the highly scientific and preliminary stages of experiments. The rougher or more practical work and the more advanced stages of the experiments are carried out at Farnborough. The hon. Member, speaking on more general lines, expressed the hope that fewer squadrons would be needed, and that, therefore, it would be possible to spend more money on the more peaceful side of our work. At the same time, some hon. Members have been anxious to know exactly what service machines we have, and, although I cannot express any opinion as to which way the tendency is likely to go—whether the world is likely to become more peaceful or more pugilistic—I can inform the Committee what our fighting strength practically amounts to. There are 32 squadrons. Three are in Ireland, but I understand that the additional cost connected with them is very slight, since they would otherwise be doing duty on this side of the water. Three are co-operating with the Navy, one is giving a refresher course, and three are forming. Then in Palestine there are six and one forming; Mesopotamia has five, and one is en route there from India; India itself has seven; on the Rhine there is one and at Malta there is one. That makes, in all, 32 squadrons.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Are there none here?

Captain GUEST

The British Isles are not very big, and the distances are such as can be readily covered by so mobile an arm. The Committee will realise that this is a powerful fighting machine, and at the same time that it is being very economically administered. The broad question whether civil aviation is to be the reservoir for pilots is one upon which I do not think I can usefully intrude myself to-day, as I am, so far, really unable to form an opinion of any particular value. I have, however, collected the speeches made by hon. Members and other contributions to that line of thought, all of which I shall ponder upon and, I hope, benefit from. The Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) asked a question about pilots flying from ships, and he proceeded to ask that airships might be further employed with the Fleet, giving instances in which it appeared that this was a valuable combination during the War. I will certainly look into that and see if it is accurate. It was stated that at a given moment some months ago, however, there was no pilot left in England who was capable of this very necessary co-operation with the Fleet, but I should like to see further evidence on the matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) threw his formidable weight in the balance against the airship. That, perhaps, shows the wisdom of a little temporising on that subject, and, as I have already said, I shall ask the Committee to grant us that latitude.

The question of the Dominion Air Services, and whether we are in close communication with them, is one of great importance. A specific question was asked, whether Northern Australia is making preparations, and whether there is activity there, and that also is an important question. I think it would be better, however, to deal with those subjects when the Colonial Premiers arrive in this country in a few weeks' time. I am able to say that the communication between the Air Ministry and the Colonies is of the closest and most cordial character, but for specific information on the second question I think it would be better to wait until the Prime Minister of Australia reaches this country. The further question, why no stations have been developed in Singapore or the West Indies, can really only be replied to at the moment on the ground of economy. We are trying to weigh up how to spend the very modest sum allotted to us, and there is a danger that, in spreading our- selves abroad before we are quite certain what kind and type of machine can best be used from such distant spots, we may be spending money and regretting it afterwards. Egypt, of course, must be our first consideration before we go any further. It may be that the big flying boats will be found more serviceable for the Straits of Malacca or Singapore than an aerodrome, but in any case the Ministry are fully apprised of the strategic importance of the points referred to, and they will be more fully investigated, to see what part they shall play in our Imperial defence generally.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

You are spending money on the Malta Squadron.

Captain GUEST

That will not be forgotten, and the suggestion will be considered. I was asked whether the staff of the Air Ministry is healthy. Apparently it is very healthy. When one looks at the Vote which describes the composition and functions of the staff, it is seen that there is not very much difference between it and the War Office. Operations and intelligence have always gone hand in hand, or, at any rate, in rooms next to one another, and intelligence is so vital that no operation can be undertaken without it. With regard to training and organisation, the training in this Force is more technical and more like naval training, inasmuch as we start with boys instead of grownup men. The organisation is as I have mentioned in describing the sub-division of our forces. The Directorate of Personnel would, I think, probably correspond with the Adjutant-General's Department in a War Office hierarchy, while the Director of Equipment is more like the Quartermaster-General in that service. I think the Committee may rest assured that the organisation is as up-to-date and wisely conceived as possible. It has had the advantage of starting almost de novo during the last four years. It has had at its head during that period experienced and brilliant officers, and none more so than the present Chief of the Air Staff, who has brought to bear upon this problem of the organisation of a small and highly technical department, not only his own experience, but also the experience that he has been able to collect from the service in which he served in his earlier days, as well as the experience of other countries in the same connection. My hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last (Captain Benn) has raised the question of parachutes—the lifebuoys of the airship. A special study has been made of that subject, and six types are at present being experimented with at Martlesham and other places.

Captain BENN

With regard to aeroplanes?

Captain GUEST

That I must find out; I should not like to answer without having a little more time to ascertain. It is by no means being neglected, and it is considered by those in charge to be an essential part of the service. With regard to the transit of mails, that will have to be worked through the company which has undertaken the cross-Channel service. If that company proves that it can with regularity and punctuality deliver its mails day by day between London and Paris, we ought soon to be able to encourage other companies to come along and do likewise on a larger scale, and then the Postmaster-General will, no doubt, feel more inclined to entrust to them the care of the important documents for the transit of which he is responsible.

Mr. MOSLEY

I desire to draw attention to the entire failure of the right hon. Gentleman adequately to answer the financial question which I ventured to raise on the very adverse Report furnished by the Auditor-General upon his Department. I know that the right hon. Gentleman himself is in no way responsible for these delinquencies, and I am grateful to him for the courteous way in which he has met all our questions to the best of his ability. I really do think, however, that the position of affairs, which amounts to an absolute scandal, should be brought to the attention of the Committee. The position is that, in the year 1918–19, the Treasury sanctioned the expenditure of £3,000 for an air route from Cairo to the Cape, and the next thing that the Treasury heard about the scheme was that £76,000, or 25 times the amount originally sanctioned, had been expended upon it. I wonder what would have happened if, when Mr. Gladstone was at the Treasury, a sum of £3,000 had been sanctioned by him, and, at the end of a brief period, the Department concerned came back with the calm announcement that £76,000 had been expended? This is yet another instance of the utter futility of Treasury control under the system of the present Government. The Treasury safeguard is entirely broken down, and the whole system is reduced to a farce. Unless we can substitute some other system, whereby the Treaury or the House of Commons can control finance, instances of this nature are bound to multiply, and the present very serious condition of our national finances is bound to continue.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Before the Question is put, may I be allowed to say a word on the absence of the Colonial Secretary to deal with the question of Egypt? My right hon. Friend has not dealt with that at all, or has dealt with it from quite another point of view. I raised the question at Question Time yesterday afternoon. The Secretary of State for the Colonies went to Egypt to investigate the Air position, taking with him the Chief of the Air Staff and, I believe, other officers, and we have been waiting for a statement from the right hon. Gentleman. At Question Time yesterday he said to the House: "I will be on the Bench during the Debate tomorrow to answer questions," and I at once gave him notice that I should ask for a report on his journey to Egypt. Of course, I know that there has been a meeting of the Cabinet this afternoon, but the Cabinet has not been sitting the whole afternoon. The Colonial Secretary has been here, and other Cabinet Ministers, also. He has gone out. I do not want to do anything hostile, but I must ask whether I can reserve the right at some future time to ask for a statement. The Committee will see that the position of Egypt is of vital importance. Before the right hon. Gentleman went out it was admitted that Egypt is the very pivot of the Air Service. It means India, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Central and South Africa, and without complete control over a certain portion of Egypt our whole Air System breaks into smithereens. We understand that the Colonial Secretary went out to investigate and negotiate with regard to the political future of Egypt, which is involved in this question, and I wanted from him a declaration as to what he has found out in the course of his journey, and I am sure from what Sir Hugh Trenchard said at the Air Con- ference in December last, that they are just as anxious as I am as to the position in Egypt. If the Colonial Secretary cannot make that statement now, will it be possible to reserve the right to raise this on some future occasion by putting down on the Report stage, or putting down some other Vote, so that we might get into touch with this very important question?

Captain GUEST

The last intention of the Colonial Secretary was to be absent on this occasion. He was in his room at the back of the Chair this afternoon, and he came to me and said, "Perhaps on another occasion, namely, the Colonial Office Vote, I can make a more valuable contribution to the Debate than I could this afternoon." The co-operation of the Air Ministry has been complete because the Chief of the Air Staff went with the Colonial Secretary to that part of the world. We do not mind waiting for the statement, and I think the Committee will find it will get a more practical opportunity of discussing that, and the whole of it is really Colonial policy, on the Colonial Office Vote.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

That being so, I will not press it now, but may I ask you, Sir, to remember that one has done one's best to get it raised on this Vote, and that when the Colonial Office Vote comes on you will give a slight latitude in order to discuss the air position in Egypt?

Question put, and agreed to.