HC Deb 26 July 1926 vol 198 cc1873-9

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.] Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1925, that the aggregate expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for these Services, and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net expenditure is £261,178 12s. 4d., namely:

£ s. d.
Total Surpluses 1,157,353 8 5
Total Deficits 896,174 16 1
Net Surplus £261,178 12 4

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other grants for Air Services."

SCHEDULE.
No of. Vote Air Services, 1924–Votes. Deficits. Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Excess of actual over estimated gross Expenditure. Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
£ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d.
1 Pay, etc., of the Air Force 143,485 8 0 — —
2 Quartering Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport. — 150,334 14 11 239,328 6 3
3 Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services) 389,829 18 3 — —
4 Works, Buildings, and Lands — 145,703 8 9 549,178 2 10
5 Medical Services — 38,809 16 11 36,847 13 8
6 Education Services — 5,131 9 11 25,058 3 5
7 Auxiliary and Reserve Forces — 373 17 9 71,198 8 4
8 Civil Aviation — — 152,044 19 2
9 Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services. — 18,206 8 8 42,675 15 9
10 Air Ministry — — 8,283 16 5
11 Half-Pay, Pensions, other Non-Effective Services. — 403 13 2 32,738 2 7
— Amount written off as Irrecoverable. 3,895 19 9 — —
537,211 6 0 358,963 10 1 1,157,353 8 5
Total Deficits £896,174 16 1 Total Deficits £896,174 16 1 Total Surpluses £1,157,353 8 5
Net Surpluses £261,178 12 4 Net Surpluses £261,178 12 4 Net Surpluses £261,178 12 4

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Sir Samuel Hoare.]

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN

I wish to ask for an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. This Motion authorises the expenditure by the Air Ministry of money on one head which was allotted for another head. Under Item 3 (Technical and War-like Stores), which includes aeroplane expenditure, there is £389,000 in excess of the Estimate, and I would like the Secretary of Stale for Air to explain what the reason is for this excess of expenditure. The reason why I ask this question is that at the present time we are carrying out an expansion programme, which was outlined by the present Secretary of State for Air in June, and which aims at giving us 82 squadrons. At each stage we have been told that this is necessary because a great air force is being built up within striking distance of our shores, namely, France—

The CHAIRMAN

A discussion on general policy is not in order on this Motion.

Captain BENN

I do not want to open up a general discussion, but I think I am entitled to ask why the programme estimated for has not been reached, and why the right hon. Gentleman has authorised the expenditure of£400,000 on additional machines. There was a report made to the French Chamber in June which showed that the so-called French expansion programme had not by any means been realised. I do not want to go into details, but this is a matter of great interest. In the report to which I have already referred I observe that 79 per cent, of the engines were 1918 engines—

The CHAIRMAN

The only question to be considered now is why these miscalculations were made, and why these items have to be set off against one another.

Captain BENN

If the Committee votes a certain amount to be spent for a certain purpose and the Air Ministry take advantage that and spend it for another purpose my point is that they can be questioned as to what they are spending it upon. If this is not the proper occasion for questioning such expenditure, I do not know any other. This is obviously a matter that requires further explanation. If we are building for a one-power standard and it is revealed to us that the one Power we have taken for our standard is not really building to that standard, it is obvious that we are entitled to ask the Minister why he has in that particular year sanctioned an expenditure in excess of that sanctioned by the House of Commons.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare)

This Vote deals with 1924–25 and therefore the question as to what has been happening in another country is not relevant to this debate.

Captain BENN

This deals with the period from 1920 to 1925 and what I have referred to appeared in the "Times" on the 25th June.

Sir S. HOARE

No. I have not over-looked the report at all. It has only come to the attention either of the Chamber of another country or this House in the last few weeks. Obviously therefore, in the period 1924–5, to which this Vote applies, it could not have been in the mind of anyone. 1924–5 was the year immediately following the announcement of the Home Defence Programme and it was with the general assent of all parties in the House that we progressed as far as we could with that programme, and pressed on with orders for new aircraft and new engines. It is always very difficult to get aircraft and engines delivered. As a matter of fact, we were more successful than we expected and our deliveries were better than we thought they would be at the beginning of the year. That is the sole explanation of the fact that in this Vote we overspent the amount by a considerable sum. It was due to our desire to press on with the Home Defence Programme and the fact that we were more successful in getting deliveries from the aircraft and engine industry than we expected at the beginning of the year.

Captain GARRO-JONES

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite met the points my hon. and gallant Friend raised. What baffles me in this document is how it is that, while it was found necessary to spend so much more money on the fighting part of the right hon. Gentleman's charge, he found it possible to spend so much less on the civil part. It seems to me a rather strange coinci- dence, if it was due merely to the accident of procuring more deliveries of warlike machines, that at the same time there was less expenditure on civil aviation and the Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services. That is a point I do not quite understand. [Interruption.] It is the duty of hon. Members opposite to agree to anything proposed from that Front Bench. Our duty is to criticise and find out if there is any irregularity in the matter. Can we have some explanation of why less was spent on civil aviation? I have always advocated greater expenditure on civil aviation, and I want to know why it is that this expenditure was not proceeded with. Further, there is a specific item that I should like to know about, because we generally find when these little sums of £3,000 or £4,000 are dealt with that there is something very interesting behind them. There is an "amount written off as irrecoverable." That ought not to pass without comment or some sort of explanation. It may not seem a large amount when we are dealing with millions, but there may be something behind it.

Sir S. HOARE

As to civil aviation, I suppose the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to the surplus of £152,000. That is almost entirely due to the fact that the money was voted for the improving of the Croydon Aerodrome. It was found that we could not proceed with the improvement of the Aerodrome without a Bill, and we had to introduce a Bill. That delayed the Croydon programme by several months, and it explains almost the whole of that sum. With reference to the Meteorological and other Miscellaneous Items, large claims for compensation at home and abroad were repudiated or considerably reduced. Those reasons explain the surplus almost entirely. With regard to the small sum of £3,900 written off as irrecoverable, there is always a sum of that kind in the Service Votes. We do not estimate for any irrecoverable sum, and some irrecoverable sums must mature in the course of the year. I think, with an expenditure running to over £20,000,000, that is a very small sum for irrecoverables and other claims to be inserted in the Estimates.

Captain BENN

Here was the year 1924–5 in which the right hon. Gentleman himself moved a Motion urging more Air expenditure because of the expenditure in other countries. Now, as the facts are known, I am surprised to hear that they came to his notice for the first time in the "Times." I should have thought that his Department would know of them. Now we know that while he was moving for a larger expenditure because of this menace, the menace did not exist.

Sir S. HOARE

I cannot enter into a discussion with the hon. and gallant Gentleman on a question of that kind, but I must contradict the whole basis of his argument. The Air Force programme is as fully justified to-day as it was then.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.