§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 30,880, all ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922.
§ Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House)I wish to make a suggestion to the Committee which unfortunately did not occur to me soon enough when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair. The House heard the discussion about the absence of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) when the Report Stage of the Votes would be taken. He gave an explanation so complete, so full, and, I think, so fair, that I am not going to repeat what he said, except perhaps to remark that it is certainly not in any sense the fault of my right hon. Friend that it so happens that he will not be present for the two days. When the changes were made we had to decide what was to be done with the Air Force. My right hon. Friend had prepared the Estimates. We had discussed them many times in his presence at the Cabinet meeting and at the Finance Committee, and the Prime Minister thought, as I also thought, that obviously whatever happens later on, the right thing was that the Estimates should be explained by the Minister who prepared them and had taken the responsibility. When my right hon. Friend agreed to that we quite expected that it would be possible to have the necessary time before he went away. The Committee knows how we have been pressed with one thing or another which we did not anticipate, and which has made it impossible for him to be here to-morrow.
I am sure the Committee, in a case of this kind, will quite realise, as my right hon. Friend said, that the business on which he is going, from the point of view of cutting down expenditure, is certainly the most important that can be undertaken by any Minister, and that the Committee as a whole, in every part of it, will wish him success in the 1716 enterprise in which he is engaged. We all feel, as my right hon. Friend very fully and frankly said, that it is very undesirable that the House should be asked to go through the remaining stages of these Estimates in the absence of the Minister who is responsible. We quite recognise that, and the suggestion which I would make is that, after the comparatively short discussion which we have had, if the Committee will give us Vote A and Vote 1 now—I hope to finish the Committee stage to-night—I will undertake as soon as possible after the return of my right hon. Friend to give a day for the complete discussion of Vote 1, when the whole subject can be gone into in the presence of my right hon. Friend. I think that is doing everything we can do to meet the convenience and wishes of the House, and I hope they will consider it reasonable.
§ Sir D. MACLEANMy right hon. Friend the Minister for Air said that I used some words with regard to his conduct that were of an unfair character. That may have been so, but he certainly got back on me with full measure so far as any words to which he might take exception were concerned. However vigorously expressed they were, and however unfair he thought they were, it was a perfectly sound Parliamentary point which I made, and I am going to go on taking those points no matter what people say. It is the duty, especially of those who sit on this side of the House, to see that Parliament is fully protected in the exercise of its rights in its control over public expenditure. I will only add, that if my right hon. Friend was not occupying this dual position this difficulty would not have arisen. I am not at all anxious to do anything which would be in the least degree against the personal convenience of my right hon. Friend, nor do I wish to do anything which would appear to be meticulously hostile, if I may use the phrase, to the Leader of the House. I am very anxious, in the pursuit of the duties which fall to me and to others on this bench, to contest our position as fairly and vigorously as we can, but not to take too small points which would lead to unnecessary inconvenience to men engaged in the public service, or to put the 1717 Committee in the position of fighting on mere technicalities and of not trying to get to grip with realities. The offer my right hon. Friend has made is this—of course it must be subject to the Chair— that the Committee stage on these two Votes, Vote A and Vote 1, should be taken to-night, and that the general discussion, which quite properly and fairly arises—again with your permission, Sir— can be raised on perhaps some other Vote. I think, without your concurrence, Mr. Whitley, it would not quite be possible for it to be done. You have, however, observed the feeling of the House, and perhaps, judging by that, on some Vote such as Vote 5 for the Air Ministry, such general observations as hon. Members may feel bound or disposed to make could be heard by the Committee then. That being the case, and having, I think, made good the Parliamentary point which I desire to make, I am quite willing, and I think I carry the assent of hon. Members on this side with me, to assent to the course which the Leader of the House suggests.
§ Major-General SEELYIf on Vote 5, the Air Ministry Vote, we could have, by the arrangement now proposed, the discussion which we should have had on Votes A and 1, I should say, speaking only for myself, that the suggestion is a reasonable one. Also it would be of advantage if it enabled the right hon. Gentleman to go to Egypt on the date named. It does not put him to a very great deal of inconvenience. It is owing to his dual office. He will have to be in Egypt because he is the Colonial Minister, and he will have to be here because he is the Air Minister. That is the whole difficulty, because he would not hand it over to somebody else. We do not want to inconvenience the right hon. Gentleman, but we think his position is inconvenient.
§ Sir D. MACLEANAre we to take it, in view of what my right hon. Friend said, that the position my right hon. Friend holds with the two offices is a permanent one, or whether the whole position is still in suspense?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI understand—I was not present when my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) spoke—that he made it quite plain, certainly it is his view as well as that of myself—that the whole matter is in suspense. For the 1718 present it is obvious that it is right, as he prepared the Estimates, that he should introduce them to the House. What will happen after he returns is undecided.
Lieut.-Colonel J. WARDNearly every speech from the Opposition has been in favour of greater expenditure, and now there has been a suggestion made that a separate Ministry should be set up for the Air.
§ Sir D. MACLEANThere is a separate Ministry now.
Lieut.-Colonel WARDI think the hon. Member is much more in that way than I am. I have always dealt with an opponent perfectly fairly so far. There is a slight variation between impudence and impertinence, and probably the hon. Member would be able to explain on which side he is. The whole of the speeches to-day have been devoted to the idea that we ought to spend more. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Only one speech, that of the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth) was in favour of reducing expenditure.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSQuite incorrect.
Lieut.-Colonel WARDThe speech of the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) was to the effect that we ought to spend at least another million in research work with reference to the science and technicality of aviation, and all the speeches have been delivered in that direction. I confess that even when the Labour men speak on some particular point it is money, more money. There is supposed to be a spirit of economy abroad, yet now attempts are being made to set up another Ministry, and the whole of the suggestion of the Opposition to-day is that there should be a Secretary of State for Air as well, I suppose, as a Secretary for War and a Chief of the Admiralty. That is the whole idea, and if the agitation by the Leader of the Opposition continues, that is what it is going to end in—an additional Ministry, with all the expenses attached to it. If this agitation is pursued, it must mean 1719 another Department being set up, with additional expenses. At present it is attached to another office and is not nearly so expensive as it would be if it were away from that Department.
§ Major-General SEELY indicated dissent.
Lieut.-Colonel WARDI have my view and the right hon. Gentleman can have his. I know perfectly well that this will be another job for someone else. That is the whole idea of it. You may camouflage it as much as you like, but that is the real centre of the whole thing. For this reason I protest absolutely that, so far as the discussion is concerned, it has been more against the man who occupies the position than against the dual position itself. It is much more a personal question, and therefore we are not concerned with it as Members of this House. Right hon. Gentlemen on opposite sides can make their arrangements as they like. The opinion of ordinary Members of the House is that there are quite enough Departments, and that the portion of the Air Force dealt with by the Navy should go with the Admiralty, and the land forces should go with the Army. The idea that there should be another Department, another Secretary of State, and another item of expense, added as a further burden to the people, is not what the private Member intends at all. I am certain we are not going to have it, and if there is any suggestion that the attacks on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies are going to be used for the purpose of bolstering up another Department, both the Opposition and the Government too will be making the biggest mistake. The Air Force has got to be attached to one or other of the Departments. We are not going to have a separate Department without a struggle in this House. I hope the Leader of the House, in his statement to-night, in answer to the soft speech on the opposite side, does not mean that directly the Secretary of State for the Colonies comes back from Egypt that he will be asked to set up a separate Department. That is a suggestion that has been made all round the House to-day. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House does not imagine that that will be acceptable to the House of Commons, either to the ordinary Member on this 1720 side or the other. We have got enough of Departments, and we are not going to have another, and though there may be prospective candidates for the post, they have not got the seat yet.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. STEPHEN WALSHAs we have not spoken a single word this afternoon, I think I am entitled, especially after the impassioned words of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel Ward), to say that, so far as the Labour party is concerned, we have never had the slightest idea of urging a separate and distinct Department, but we had an idea that it was desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should not take with him the Air Ministry and the Colonies. Some of us last Session were a little uncertain as to whether he should have both the War Ministry and the Air Ministry. There is not a man in this House, or out of it— I say this with full sincerity—but who must admit the great abilities of the right hon. Gentleman. I leave it at that. But we were entitled to doubt whether even he could fill the two great posts. He himself, in that wonderful description this afternoon, pointed out to us the great elaboration and complexity of the duties that he had to supervise—54 trades, and so on. Surely we are entitled to consider whether it is a good thing for a Minister who is taking on an office which for five and twenty years, even before the Boer War, had become a highly responsible Department, and since the Boer War has become increasingly important, to also at the same time continue to hold the office of Air Minister. It has been all debated, and it has been debated in the best possible spirit. "The falling out of faithful friends is renewal of love," and I know two people who are all the better friends because of the little interlude this afternoon. If the Leader of the House says we can have a full and open Debate upon Vote 5 upon the Minister's return, then we all wish him well in the great venture he is taking, and hope he will be equally capable of defending his Department upon his return.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI want to say something on Vote 4 where there is £3,000,000 to be spent on bricks and mortar. Part of my proposal will be to 1721 save money in that direction, and I want to make it perfectly clear that whatever Vote may be selected I will not be debarred from discussing Vote 4.
§ The CHAIRMANIn accordance with precedent, I would be prepared, if these two Votes be disposed of to-night, to allow on Vote 5, or on whatever Vote may be selected as the first Vote, as full and wide a discussion as if it had taken place on Vote A.