AIR ESTIMATES, 1929.

HC Deb 12 March 1929 vol 226 cc993-1071

"1. That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 32,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.

2. That a sum, not exceeding £3,323,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Air Force at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.

3. That a sum, not exceeding £1,700,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands of the Air Force, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.

4. That a sum, not exceeding £6,586,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores of the Air Force (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the (year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.

5. That a sum, not exceeding £450,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I wish to raise a question of some importance on this Vote in regard to the system of recruiting cadets and apprentices, and to deal with certain facts which emerge from the relative figures. The Air Service, when it was constituted, began without any great traditions except the very glorious traditions of the War. It had not the long history extending over centuries possessed by the Army and Navy. Therefore it was possible for the new service to build up its own traditions, its own esprit de corps and its own customs from the beginning. The Army and the Navy were removed from the control of private enterprise, and became national services in an age when the existing tradition was an aristocratic tradition. The Royal Air Force, on the other hand, was established in an age of democratic tradition and whereas it might have been more difficult to alter the system of recruiting officers and the system of promotion from the ranks in the Army and Navy—

Captain FANSHAWE

If the hon. and gallant Member is going to mention the Services, perhaps he will do so in the proper order and refer to the Navy and Army instead of the Army and Navy.

4.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Good wine needs no bush. I do not think that anyone in the Navy who has any balance at all will be upset by any question about the order in which the Services are mentioned. I was speaking about the Air Force and was making a comparison. It has been a matter of slow and painful evolution in the two older services—the Royal Navy and His Majesty's Army—to break the aristocratic tradition and allow men from the ranks in the Army and from the lower deck in the Navy to reach commissioned rank. None of these traditional difficulties existed in the case of the Air Force. It started, as I say, with the glorious fighting traditions of the War and under a democratic regime. Yet, deliberately, the Air Force has been creating artificial class distinctions and class barriers. I make no excuse for mentioning these matters. They are obvious from a glance at this Vote and at the Estimates as a whole. First of all, I want to go into this briefly, though in some little detail, but before coining to the details, I would refer to another question which concerns only the highest ranks in the Air Service. I want to speak on this matter with delicacy, and I will not go into details. When the Air Service was originally formed, a number of officers were taken from the Navy and from the Army. They went through a very difficult time. They were pioneers, and they have risen, of course, to high rank, with the approval of the Service and on their own merits. I have become conscious and I have heard a good deal of evidence that the upper ranks of the Service are becoming almost entirely—I do not like to use the word "militarised"—but confined to officers who began their careers in the Army. I am sure there is no intention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in any way to favour one section of officers as against the other. It may be only accidental, but a glance at the Air List will show that the upper ranks, the highest posts, are held by officers from the Army. It may be mere accident, but I want to be quits certain that those naval officers—and this is in the interest of the Air Service—who went through the heat and burden of the day, sacrificed their Naval careers and, indeed, risked a great deal by entering the Air Service at all, should not be now in any way differentiated. I do not want to go into this in detail, and it may be that it is only a mere chance that it is so to-day; but I do hope that the Naval officers, with their great services to the Air Force, will not be forgotten in the years ahead of us.

With regard to the main question, the great future of the Force, it is to-day practically impossible for a boy, however able, however talented, unless his parents have means, to enter Cranwell, or so I understand. It may be that a few of the apprentices are able to go on, and, if that is the case, may I ask how many? At present there are 125 cadets at Cranwell. How many of those enter from secondary schools? In his explanatory statement, the right hon. Gentleman says that the conditions in the Service for permanent commissions must be such as "to attract the best material from the public schools and universities." I do not like that sentence. The conditions and the emoluments and fees should be such as to attract, not only the best material from the universities and public schools, but from the secondary schools, the grammar schools and, in fact, from the whole country. If you limit your choice to children of parents who can afford to pay £75 a year fees, plus £100 for equipment and books, the only type of boys who can enter Cranwell are these and the sons of officers killed on active service, and even they, I think, have to pay a fee of £40 a year. If that is the case, and if you do not have a free flow of the best of your apprentices into Cranwell—and I am asking for information on that point—you are drawing your future permanent officers for this mighty Force, which is of tremendous importance from every point of view, only from a certain limited fraction of the population. This is something which is, I submit, very mischievous indeed for many reasons. First of all, it is unfair to the general taxpayers. The cost of a cadet at Cranwell is put down at £561 a year, not counting the fees, which makes it £636 a year, and not counting the £100 that is put down by the parents for equipment, uniform, etc. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has gone into this question on the Public Accounts Committee, I think, and he has had something to say about the expense of Cranwell.

Mr. SPEAKER

The particular subject with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now dealing is not on the Vote we are discussing to-day, but comes under the Educational Services, on Vote 6.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY

In that case I will not pursue the matter. I was not going into the details of Cranwell, but I think I shall be in order in asking how many of the 125 cadets who are on Vote A have, in fact, come from the apprentices' college at Halton, how many from the secondary schools, how many from service cadetships, and how many from the Dominions, from Colonial families? There is a scheme by which Colonial commissions, I believe, are given. What fees are charged in that case, and amongst these Dominion commissions are there any Indians, or are there any proposals to have a certain number of Indian cadets, as at Sandhurst? I would like to see, from our great Indian Army, a certain number, at any rate, of chosen candidates trained at Cranwell for the Air Service. The rest of the figures are: 320 warrant officers, 5,000 non-commissioned officers, 20,000 aircraftmen, and 3,500 apprentices. The total figure of 25,000 odd rank and file, if I may so call them, non-commissioned officers and aircraftmen, compares with the total commissioned officers of 3,400. What is the rate of promotion from the ranks in the Air Force—I do not know whether I use the customary term—from Aircraftman Shaw, for example, to commissioned rank? How many are promoted a year? When they are chosen for promotion, do they go through any special course; and may I ask whether it is made possible for a poor man to take a commission?

One of the difficulties in the Navy in the past has been that expenses are so high that some of the best of our warrant officers are unable to accept commissions, because they cannot afford them, as in addition to the actual expenses they have to keep up a certain prestige, and we have lost some excellent commissioned officers because these warrant officers could not afford to take commissions. Is the right hon. Gentleman alive to that danger in the Air Force, and is he really trying, as I submit it is his duty, to democratise the Air Force? It is paid for by the whole body of taxpayers, and I think it is wrong that the fees should be so high as to preclude from permanent commission rank a very large portion of the population. In the Air Forces of two other great Powers, America and Japan, arrangements are made by which there are no fees at all, and anyone who can pass the examination and pass the physical test and so on, and is chosen, can become an officer, even if he comes from the poorest home in the land. That is the case in America, a Republic, and in Japan, a Monarchy, with a great aristocratic tradition. In Japan the young noble or the peasant's son can go into the Air Force or other service if he has not a penny in the world, if chosen and suitable. In England either his father would have to be killed on active service, and even so there is only a reduction, or else his parents would have to put down £75 a year and a lump sum of £100 for equipment.

Commander BELLAIRS

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how the Japanese enter the service? Do not they enter the Navy and Army and then the Air Service? Are they not permanent members of the Navy and Army?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

No, they specialise. I am talking, however, about the principle of the thing. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentle man will see what I mean, and he will be the last to decry the excellence of the material trained by the Japanese both for the Navy and Army and the force who specialise for the Air. If a poor country like Japan can pay the whole fee for the young men to go into the Air Service, why cannot we do the same? I do not want to go into the details of education, but the £75 a year, compared with the whole cost to the Exchequer, is only a fraction, and is an absolute bar to the poor boy. However brilliant, however great a genius he may be, whatever powers of leadership he may have, he is debarred unless that money can be provided. That is wrong in principle, and it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to correct it. But, as I say, there may be a channel by which promotion can be obtained from the apprentices. There may be a fairly wide channel for promotion to commissioned rank for the aircraftsman and non-commissioned officers. I ask, how wide is the channel? Is it narrow, or is it wide enough to allow a steady flow of promotion from the ranks into the officers' corps? Hon. Members, I am sure, will see that you cannot attract the very finest material of the country as recruits unless there is an opportunity to rise to the highest ranks in the service by merit and attention to duty.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare)

I take the opportunity of answering the hon. and gallant Gentleman's questions, and let me say at once that I do not disagree with the importance of the object, with this single reservation. He said to me: "You ought to be democratising the Air Force." I do not want to democratise the Air Force or to aristocratise the Air Force I would much prefer to keep the Air Force clear of these political phrases altogether.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

You are plutocratising it.

Sir S. HOARE

We are not plutocratising the Air Force, for what we wish is to keep as open a career as possible for all classes, making the entry as easy as we can for all classes, and making the flow of promotion in the Air Force as swift and as easy as it is possible to make it. In connection with promotion, let me say to the hon. and gallant Member that the last thing in the world we wish to do is to draw a distinction between ex-Army officers, or ex-Naval officers or officers who have been neither in the Army nor in the Navy. We do hope that we have succeeded in getting the right men at the top, whatever may have been their past careers. It may be that a particular moment in the senior posts at the top of the Air Force there are more ex-Army officers than ex-Navy officers, but that is purely a matter of chance, and it may well be, if chat be the case to-day, that the reverse of it may be the case to-morrow; but the last thing we wish to do is to draw any distinction between officers in the way suggested.

Let me come to what the hon. and gallant Member said about the chances of a poor boy getting into Cranwell and a man of moderate means being able to rise from the ranks to the commissioned ranks when he is once in the Air Force. I think the hon. and gallant Member will find, if he will go into the details connected with the entry into Cranwell, that we are really giving a remarkably wide opening to young men and families of moderate means. I will not go into any very great detail, but let me give one or two points connected with the entry into Cranwell which I think will reassure the hon. and gallant Member that we really are doing what we can to make it easy for a boy of poor means to get a cadet-ship. The numbers at Cranwell are something like 100, and about 50 new cadets enter every year. The total cost, to a parent, of the two years' course is not £560, as the hon. and gallant Member said just now; that is the cost to the country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I did not say it was the cost to the parent. I said that the parent had to pay £75 a year and to put down £100 for the purchase of uniform, books, and so on, but that the cost to the State, additional to that, was £560.

Sir S. HOARE

I misunderstood the hon. and gallant Member. The cost to the parent is £250. First of all, each half-year six prize cadetships are offered, of the value of £210 each, and pressure is brought upon the parents of the richer cadets not to take these cadetships, but to leave them open to families and cadets who are more in need of them. That means that six comparatively poor hoys have the opportunity of these prize, cadetships, which means that no less than £210 out of £250 is found from the Air Ministry Vote. Then the hon. and gallant Member will say, "What about the other £40?" I do not think the other £40 means a heavy burden upon parents, for this reason, that the cadet, during his time at Cranwell gets paid 7s. a day. First of all, there are six prize cadetships, involving a very small expenditure upon the toys' parents, and in addition there is a certain number of scholarships given each half-year from a fund provided by that great benefactor to the Air Force, Sir Charles Wakefield, expressly reserved for poor boys.

Lieut.-Cotnmander KENWORTHY

Who finds the £100 book allowance in the case of those prize cadets?

Sir S. HOARE

I think the parents do, but even so, with 7s. a day, I do not think it means a heavy burden.

Mr. SPEAKER

This question surely comes under Vote 6, which is not down for discussion to-day at all.

Sir S. HOARE

I was only answering a point made by the hon. and gallant Member, but after your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, of course, I shall not go further into detail. Perhaps, however, you will allow me to add a single sentence in answer to what the hon. and gallant Member said, and to say that every year from Halton there is a substantial number of cadetships given to apprentices and that in recent years these have amounted to as much as 10 a year. When you have taken into account all these opportunities for poor boys, you will see that, out of an output of about 50 a year, a very large number of opportunities is given to the boys who are leaving.

As to the promotions from the ranks—and this comes directly under this Vote—there again each year we are giving a certain number. Last year it amounted to about six, but I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that the best opening for talent is that which is given to a cadet in early life; it is perhaps even more valuable than the opening given to an airman later. I hope I have said enough, without transgressing the rules of order, to give the hon. and gallant Member an idea of what we are doing and to reassure him that we are doing a great deal for young men and their families of poor means, but if he wishes to pursue the matter further, I shall be quite ready to give him further details.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE

There is only one point on which I am not quite satisfied, and that is the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) concerning the proportions of naval and military officers in administrative posts at the Air Ministry and throughout the Air Force. I attach importance to this, because aviation is primarily a naval science. The whole navigation of the air, the control of vessels that navigate the air, the development of navigation and of the scientific instruments required, and the keeping of formations in the air are all developments which come more readily to someone who has had a sea experience than to an Army officer, and I suggest that the Air Force has a great deal to gain by seeing that in important positions in the Air Ministry, naval officers are not pushed out and other people put in their places.

Since my hon. and gallant Friend spoke, I have obtained the Air Force List, and I find that, without exception, all the important posts are held by officers—very gallant officers, very distinguished officers—who have been trained in the Army. I would remind the Secretary of State for Air that on the Air Council itself the Chief of the Air Staff, the Air Member for Personnel, and the Air Member for Supply and Research are all three officers who have held positions in the Army, and the only other members of the Air Council are the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Air and the very distinguished civil servant who is the Secretary of the Air Ministry. In the Department of Civil Aviation, the Director of Civil Aviation is, as we all know, a distinguished officer from the War Office; in the Department of the Chief of the Air Staff, under Sir Hugh Trenchard, the Director of Operations and Intelligence and the Director of Organisation and Staff Duties, are both military officers; in the Department of the Air Member for Personnel, the Director of Personal Services and the Director of Training are ex-Army officers, and I believe that the Deputy-Director of Manning—this is a sub-department—is the only one who has had any naval training at all; in the Department of the Air Member for Supply and Research, Sir John Higgins, the Director of Technical Development is a military officer, the Director of Scientific Research is, quite rightly, a very distinguished scientist, who is a civilian without either naval or military training, and the only naval officer in that Department again occupies a subordinate position as the Director of Equipment. Practically every important post is held by somebody who has been in the Army.

Now we come to the Air Commands, and the same proportions hold good. The Air Officer Commanding Inland Area is a distinguished military officer, and so is the Air Officer Commanding the Air Defence of Great Britain. The only command held by a naval officer is that of the Air Officer Commanding the Coastal Area, which is a post having to do with supplying boats and so on, and that could not very well be given to anyone who has had no knowledge of the naval Service. I could go throughout the other commands shown in the Air Force List to prove that Army officers preponderate in overwhelming numbers over naval officers. This disproportion cannot be rectified in the future, because we are simply concerned with those pioneers who have built up the Service in the past and who have got experience of the beginning of the whole science of aviation. It would be absurd to suggest or to contemplate bringing in new naval officers from the Admiralty. That would not be tolerated for a moment, nor is it to be considered that such officers as may come through viâ the Fleet Air Arm will fill these posts at the top. I think the Air Minister ought to pay very close attention to this gradual driving out of the naval element from the Royal Air Force, which will tend to become much too much like a military machine, bringing back all the admitted evils of Army routine and Army methods, with which a new Service ought not to be hampered. I hope further attention will be given to this very important point.

Commander BELLAIRS

I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone), but I submit that the difficulty is inherent in the separate organisation of an Air Force, which will always fall under military control. I rose, however, for the purpose of asking the Secretary of State for Air a question in regard to the young temporary service officers who are passing into the Reserve. I read a statement by the Secretary of the Air League the other day, in reference to these officers who pass into the Reserve and who accept a gratuity on so doing, to the effect that a circular has been issued telling them they are still under discipline and that they must not criticise the Air Ministry. If that statement is correct, I can only tell my right hon. Friend that the Air Ministry has no such power to prevent these officers from criticising it. When they are passed into civil life, they are free to come into this House, they are free to criticise, and they are not under discipline. By no power that my right hon. Friend possesses can he bring them before a court-martial.

Mr. MALONE

They can have their pensions stopped.

Commander BELLAIRS

There is no pension for these officers, who have already got their gratuities. The only control over them is that power which the Secretary of State for Air says he is exercising of recommending them for employment, and it would be far better that that power was possessed by some other body than the Air Ministry, because we are in this difficulty, that the Air Ministry has control over almost every single organisation connected with the air. No manufacturer of supplies for the air, for instance, dare criticise the Air Ministry, but I should be travelling beyond the scope of this Vote if I went into that subject in greater detail. This circular should be withdrawn because it is demanding a power which the Air Ministry does not really possess.

Question put, and agreed to.

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

On the last Vote, reference was made to the cadets at Cranwell getting 7s. a day, and I take it that it is in order to discuss the question of pay on this Vote. It makes my mouth water to think of that 7s. a day, and so, I am sure, it does that of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs). When we were in the "Britannia" we not only got no pay, but we were only allowed a minimum of pocket money, which our parents provided. Indeed, the only pay I ever got as a cadet was 1s. a week for singing in the choir, and I was worth very much more.

Commander BELLAIRS

The choir did not exist in my day.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

That shows how much we have advanced. It is said there the 7s. a day enables a poor boy to become a cadet at Cranwell, but there is a catch in it. From this 7s. certain expenses have to be paid. Do not the cadets have to pay for their own messing?

Mr. SPEAKER

The pay of the cadets at Cranwell does not come under this Vote. The hon. and gallant Member must wait until the Vote comes up.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Does not the actual pay of cadets come under this Vote?

Mr. SPEAKER

I think not. If the hon. and gallant Member will look at page 119, he will find at the bottom, "Pay of Cadets."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I will not pursue that matter. Should I be in order in asking about the pay of apprentices?

Sir S. HOARE

That is in Vote 6.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I do not want to pursue it if I am not in order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Third Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution,

Mr. MALONE

I apologise for not giving the Air Minister notice, but I think that we might know something about the progress of the different airship mooring masts throughout the world.

Sir S. HOARE

That matter comes under Vote 3—the Airship Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

This Vote includes estimates for new works, additions and alterations, and I would like details of the enormous sum for the cost of the air station at Singapore The total amount is £576,000. Up to 31st March, 1929, the probable expenditure is £206,000, and the probable expenditure this year is £100,000. If it is desired simply to prevent the passage of the Malacca Strait by hostile vessels, probably an air station suitably equipped is the best way of doing it. I would agree at once, and I would not criticise necessary expenditure on an air station at Singapore if I thought that it meant, on the other hand, a naval saving, but that is a question of high strategy which I do not propose to pursue. If it is simply a station for the defence of the new dockyard at Singapore, it is an extraordinarily large sum of money. What is the money for? Is it for barracks, clubs or churches? I understand that the ground has been given by the colony. Is the money required for clearing away jungle or the draining of swamps? I want to see the development of flying in this country, and I protest against this tremendous expenditure in the Tropics. It is a very unhealthy place. I know it from personal experience. Men sicken and die very quickly there. You will send young airmen who have been expensively trained, and after a few years their vitality will be gone. I could have understood the expenditure two or three years ago, before the signature of the Kellogg Pact. I can see no trace in these Estimates of any change of policy since the signature and the solemn acceptance by this country of that Pact. I do not believe that, except the Secretary of State for Air and the hon. Baronet the Under-Secretary, anyone at the Air Ministry has heard of it, and the two Ministers have heard of it only because they are Members of this House.

The other matter which I would like to raise is the very heavy expenditure on the college at Cranwell. I raised this matter last year, and the hon. Baronet said that the Government were providing £10,000 for this purpose that year, and that hon. Members would have an opportunity of criticising the item in future years as the expenditure developed. This year £25,000 is asked for the college, and £26,000 for the electrical and wireless school. That is over £50,000 this year, and the total expenditure will be over £350,000 on these two establishments. Once more I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it would not have been possible to obtain one of the great country houses which are empty all over the country, and which could have been picked up for a song because people cannot afford to live in them? These places are practically given away, and they have beautiful surroundings and wonderful parks where aerodromes could be made. Probably there is some suitable house near Cranwell itself. To build in these days, with the high cost of building, at an expenditure of over £250,000, a cadet college, is an extravagant policy, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has embarked upon it.

Colonel WOODCOCK

We see by the Estimates that a total of £274,000 is still required to be spent on the Cadet College at Cranwell. Instead of asking for £10,000 last year and another £25,000 this year out of the total required of £299,000, the Minister should have given to the House some details of the whole scheme. The House should be given full details of the Cadet College, and whether the amount of money which we are to be asked to vote for it is going to justify the proposal. If we are to have a college, we should have a proper college and not one adapted, as the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) suggested, on the ground that it would be more economical. It would not be more economical in the long run. It is better to build exactly what you want, and to build it properly. I would like to ask the Minister a question with reference to the Works Account. The aerodrome at Filton, Bristol, is nearly completed. The sum of £128,000 has been spent this year and a further £2,500 is to be voted next year. It looks as though the Air Minister does not anticipate finishing it this year, as a further £6,200 is required in future years. I should be glad if the Minister could give us particulars of this new aerodrome. Is it being provided for one of the new regular squadrons, and a cadre squadron, and is the building work nearly completed? When it is completed, is it proposed to transfer one of the present units to it, or is it for an additional unit yet to be found? Can he also say whether the £6,200 will complete the work?

Mr. GILLETT

The point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) raised with regard to the ex- penses at Cranwell came under my notice when I was looking at the net charges in connection with the maintenance of buildings, plant, etc., and other miscellaneous expenditure, and it is rather extraordinary to find that at Cranwell, where the number of cadets is 98, this figure is put down at £7,750 for the year. At Andover, where accommodation is provided for 30 students, the figure is only £800. I can only conclude that the exceedingly heavy figure has something to do with the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has just raised in regard to the cost of the buildings. It may be due to debt charges or otherwise. This item, being so heavy, naturally has an effect upon the average cost per student, which at Cranwell is £561 a year. That figure is nearly £100 higher than it is at the military colleges, for at Woolwich it is £473 and at Sandhurst £483. I think these are comparable figures, because in both cases the sum includes allowances. Perhaps the Minister could explain why the figure at Cranwell is so exceedingly heavy.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions, but if I criticise the expenditure on some of these stations I hope it will be understood that I have no desire that the officers or men who are there shall not be properly provided for. The right hon. Gentleman has to carry out the orders of the Government, and his Air Estimates provide us with some interesting sidelights upon the policy of the Government. We are entitled to ask what his orders are. In Egypt, for example, I observe that we are spending at Aboukir a matter of £40,000, and at Abu Sueir, at Heliopolis, at Ismailia, and generally, there is an expenditure of about £250,000. What are the orders which the right hon. Gentleman gets about Egypt? Is he told that he is to put up substantial buildings because our occupation is to persist for another 20 or 25 years? I do not suggest that those who have to live in the desert in the summer ought not to have proper accommodation, but we do wish to know what are the financial implications of the policy of the Cabinet. Take, again, the question of Singapore. When the Singapore Base was first discussed we said that the sum of £10,000,000 which was spoken of would not include a dozen things which would be necessary. I do not know to what the Estimate has risen in the Navy Estimates, but I believe it exceeds £10,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman has to make substantial provision for the Air defence of the Base, and may have to make far more substantial provision in the future. I imagine that very little of this; large item is concerned with the provision of a civilian flying station, although I presume there will be an aerodrome available for the air line to Australia when that is in operation.

In Iraq there is a Vote, for more or less permanent expenditure, of about £20,000 or £30,000. What are the instructions regarding Iraq? We are in treaty relations with Iraq. The political issue is whether Iraq can defend itself. I have never thought it could defend itself. I never believed in its transition into an independent member of the League of Nations; but that was the Government's explanation of their policy—that we were there for the time being, until this infant State was set upon its legs, and that then we should be able to retire with the feeling that we had helped a new nation to come into being. This expenditure does not point to that state of affairs. I notice that we are spending £17,000 on improvements to barracks. I am very anxious that proper provision should be made for the men, but is this a permanent provision or merely a temporary provision? It is in these Estimates that you get the reflection of the true Government policy, as against the avowed policy which is put forward in Debates on foreign affairs. Then there is £31,000 for the defence of Trans-jordania. Does that mean that we are permanently charged with the defence of that Emirate? Does not this expenditure reflect the secret fears which the Government have about their whole Middle Eastern policy? Against whom are we spending £31,000 in Trans-jordania? We are protecting ourselves, I suppose, against the Wahabis, or the Emir of Nejd. In view of these items, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what class of instruction it is which is given to his Department to carry out by the Cabinet in respect of Egypt, Iraq and Transjordania. Are his instructions that he is to make such provision as will enable us efficiently and with security to the health of the men to maintain a permanent occupation of those places?

Mr. KELLY

I wish to put a question with regard to the men in the Air Force. I notice that there is a deduction from their pay.

Mr. SPEAKER

The question which the hon. Member raises was dealt with on Votes A and I, and we are now discussing Vote 4.

Mr. KELLY

In that case I will reserve my point for another occasion. On page 75 of the Estimates there is a reference to the construction of a new air station in East Anglia. The total estimate for the work amounts to £360,000. The sum of £1,000 is to be voted in 1929, leaving £359,000 to be provided in the future. May we be given some justification for being asked to vote this considerable sum for this station? Then I am wondering why we need an aircraft park at Peterborough, on which no less than £108,000 is to be spent in the future, and for which we are asked £10,000 this year. Will the Minister justify this enormous expenditure? The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) referred to the expenditure in Egypt, and I wish to call attention to what is being done at Malta. What is the reason for the enormous sums which are asked for in respect of Malta? This year we are being asked for £1,600 for additional quarters for married officers and airmen, no less a sum than £70,000 for additional accommodation, and £10,000 towards the construction of an additional aerodrome, the total cost of which will be £60,000.

On page 96 there is a heavy item in respect of machine tools. I do not know whether it has been found necessary to go abroad for these machine tools. If so, we ought to be told why it is our own people are not able to manufacture them for us. But why do we require to spend £30,000 this year on machine tools when we expended a good many thousand pounds last year? Machine tools do not wear out as rapidly as that. Is a new factory being constructed, or are these tools required to replace old ones which have been discarded? We are entitled to a further explanation than that which is provided on page 97. Next I wish to refer to the wages paid. One finds store men being paid 35s. a week, rising to 40s. by an advance of 1s. a year. Packers are paid 30s. a week and porters 27s. a week, while writing assistants get 17s. Does the Minister feel comfortable about being responsible for a Department which pays such unduly low wages? It is impossible for men to live on such wages, and there is not a member of the Government who could defend them. It must be a case of semi-starvation for the men who are on such low wages, and I trust the Minister will make an effort to increase their pay to a level which will enable us to hold up our heads when we think of those who are employed by us in the various Departments of the State.

Sir S. HOARE

Three groups of questions have been addressed to me. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) have asked questions with regard to certain foreign stations at Singapore, in Egypt and in the Middle East. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen asked about the policy of the Government in those places. That is not a subject for this Vote; that is a subject for debate on the Foreign Office Vote. What I can tell him is that naturally we take all the relevant conditions into account. When I go through my programme with the Treasury, and afterwards with the Cabinet, questions of future policy must be taken into account, but meanwhile I have to see that the barrack accommodation is fit for the Air Force. Unfortunately, we have found in Egypt and in the Middle East, where the accommodation has consisted of Wartime hutments, that we have reached a point at which we have been forced to make substantial expenditure on buildings during the last few years.

Mr. BENN

The question I put to the right hon. Gentleman was, What are his instructions? Is he instructed to provide such buildings as will be sufficient for the permanent air occupation of that country?

Sir S. HOARE

No, Sir; I can only answer by saying that each case has to be taken on its merits. If I ask for a large sum of money for a particular station the particular considerations applying to it have to be taken into account. We have reached a point in the Middle East where further building has become necessary. We have scrapped a number of uneconomical stations during the last few years and we can point to very big reductions in the building programme in the Middle East during the last three or four years as showing that our policy is not altogether a failure. [Interruption.] It is not that I do not want to give an answer to the hon. Member, but each case, as I have said, has to be considered on its merits.

Mr. BENN

It is quite a simple thing to give an answer if the right hon. Gentleman is willing to answer. The question is: "Are your buildings for the permanent occupation of those particular places or not?" That is a perfectly simple question.

5.0 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE

I cannot give an answer like that. If the hon. Member were in my place he would give exactly the same answer—each case has to be taken on its merits. At Singapore the Air expenditure is part of the general expenditure on the Air base. Assuming, as we have to assume for the purposes of this Debate, that the Singapore Base is going to be organised in the next few years, the Air side of it is a necessary part of it. The provision we are making is on an economical scale. There is not sufficient accommodation there at present for the air squadrons.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Is the aerodrome to be built on the mainland or on the island?

Sir S. HOARE

It is to be built on the island.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Is this air station at Singapore simply for the defence of the dockyard, or is it to be an offensive air station? Can the Air Minister give us some details on that point?

Sir S. HOARE

It will serve a double purpose. It will be part of the naval base and capable of being used for defensive purposes, and it will also be a very important air station in the Far East. The station at Singapore will form a cardinal point not only in the local system of aerial defence but in our line of communications as well. For these reasons a considerable expenditure on air services is inevitable at Singapore. Questions have been put to me about our home defence stations. With regard to Cranwell I honestly regard that station as one of the most important in the Air Force. It is the station where the cadets are educated, and it is one of the central stations of importance to the whole force. At the present time the cadets are living mostly in war-time huts; these huts are beginning to tumble down and they are not economical to maintain. At Cranwell, we have had therefore to undertake a large expenditure upon up-to-date buildings. Of course I cannot be expected to go into every point of detail of that kind without notice. We made no secret of the total expenditure last year on this Estimate. At that time we had got out the plans, and now we are proposing during the next 12 months to spend £25,000 on the foundations and other preliminary work in order to make a start. Of course, we cannot concentrate too much expenditure of this kind in any one year and we try to spread the expenditure over a number of years.

Colonel WOODCOCK

Then you are doing the work by direct labour instead of by contract?

Sir S. HOARE

No. The work is being carried out by contract and we are spreading it over a considerable period. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked me a question about the stations in East Anglia and at Peterborough. Both those stations are part of the home defence scheme and they will both be necessary when we raise our numbers from 31 to 52 squadrons which is the total strength to which we are working. The station in East Anglia will be a very important one capable of housing two squadrons, while the station at Peterborough will be in the nature of a park or depot. At the present time there is a good deal of wastage of technical material going on owing to bad accommodation in the hangars and the park is being established at Peterborough to remedy this defect which has been very apparent during the last few years.

Mr. KELLY

Are the new stations at East Anglia and Peterborough additional stations or are they intended to replace others?

Sir S. HOARE

At the present time we have no park, and as our units increase it has been found necessary to have a depot of this kind. The hon. Member for Rochdale asked mo a question about the increase in the Estimate for machine tools. We do not go abroad to purchase our machine tools and they are all purchased in this country unless under very exceptional circumstances. The large amount for machine tools in this year's Estimates is partly due to the transfer of the Wireless School from Flowerdown in Hampshire to Cranwell in the interests of economy. With regard to the proposed new station at Bristol it will be completed by the end of the year and we propose to place there one regular and one non-regular squadron. I am sure that a great centre like Bristol will welcome the opportunity of having a non-regular squadron stationed in the locality. A number of questions have been put to me with respect to Malta which has now become a very important air base owing to the increasing strength of the Fleet air arm. The growth in the Fleet air arm has rendered it essential that we should have more buildings and another aerodrome at Malta.

Mr. KELLY

Does the responsibility for housing the Fleet air arm fall upon the Air Ministry.

Sir S. HOARE

Yes it does fall upon the Air Ministry.

Mr. KELLY

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question about the lower wages which are paid by the Air Ministry.

Sir S. HOARE

We pay the local trade union rate of wages. If the hon. Member for Rochdale knows of any cases in which this is not done if he will draw my attention to them I will inquire into them.

Mr. KELLY

Surely 27s. a week is not a trade union rate of wages.

Question put, and agreed to.

Fourth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. MALONE

The Secretary of State for Air has already informed us that at some stage of the Estimates he con- sulted the Treasury and the Cabinet. The most important item in this Vote is £6,585,000 for material. Before a total like that goes into print in the Estimates I understand that a figure like that undergoes a certain amount of change first of all inside the Air Ministry, secondly at the Treasury, and lastly before the Cabinet. I want to know is there any point in these negotiations at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister brings together the heads of the three fighting departments and says to them: "If we reduce the Army and Navy Estimates by £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 and increase the Air Estimates by £6,000,000 or £10,000,000 will that provide an adequate defence for this country?" What I want to know is whether at any stage in the evolution of these figures the point I have just put is considered.

I know I cannot discuss the Committee of Imperial Defence on this Vote, but I think we ought to be told how these figures are arrived at. There is a sort of feeling that when the Estimates are prepared at the end of August those who are drawing up the Estimates look at what they were last year and the year before, and then they fix their Estimates within a few hundred thousand pounds of what they were before, and trust to luck that they will go through. I think this question of reducing the Estimates is one of the most vital questions the Government can undertake. An enormous sum of money is being spent every year on the lighting services, and I am sure that there would be no difficulty in cutting down this Vote and the Votes for the other fighting services by three or four times the amount of the reductions which are now being proposed. The Secretary of State for Air can come to this House and ask for twice as much money to be spent upon aeroplanes and seaplanes as was spent last year and there would not be a single member of this House who would attempt to thwart him.

With reference to the programme of aeroplanes and seaplanes, I would like to know how many years ahead is contemplated in that programme. In a new industry of this kind you cannot live from month to month or from year to year, and yon must try to get a programme covering a period of years. The Air Force employs a highly scientific staff of designers and engineers, and when you have to reduce the staff those highly skilled men go back into the engineering world and they are lost to the national service. Consequently, it is well to develop as long a construction programme as possible in order to retain the services of these highly skilled men. I am told by friends of mine in the Air Force that the technical standard of the air mechanic is rapidly deteriorating, and the reason they give for this state of things that all the large contracts are put out to private firms.

I know that the Air Ministry is desirous of keeping private firms going, and as we are not building so many new aeroplanes these firms are given the contracts to repair the old ones. In the early days of flying I know you could not find a more skilled mechanic anywhere than the man who works on the construction of aeroplanes. If all this scientific repairing work is put out to contract, it means that the mechanics have only the humdrum routine work of the aerodrome with which to keep their hands in, and I should like to hear something from the Secretary of State on that point. With regard to Sub-head L—Petrol and Oil—I do not want to develop that subject, because others will be speaking upon it, but I want to ask a question. The Air Ministry is probably the largest consumer of light petrol oil in the whole country. The Admiralty uses a good deal, but not so much light petrol as the Air Ministry. When the Secretary of State saw the recent negotiations taking place—and he must have been informed of them—and when he saw, in particular, a rise in the price of petrol, what steps did he take to get into touch at once with the Cabinet and see whether the price could not be kept down? He must have known that the Government, through their directors on the board of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, have a very material holding in the petrol supplies of the world, and I should like to know what steps were taken to see that the Government had not to pay an extra price in order to satisfy certain private interests who had formed a monopoly combine in the petrol and oil world. That is a very important matter, which interests, not only this House, but hundreds of thousands of motorists out- side who are aghast at the lassitude and slowness of the Government.

Then there is the question of airships. This is an appropriate moment at which to ask the Secretary of State for Air if he can tell us something about the development of the airship. There is a short reference to it in his statement, but in his remarks last Thursday he omitted any reference to airships at all. I approach this question with very great diffidence. I am very 10th to criticise any new invention or any row development, and I do not think that any charge of doing so could be brought against me. In the early days of airship development, in a minor position which I then held at the Admiralty, I tried to help the initial development of airships, but I feel to-day that we must look upon the whole question of airships from a quite different point of view, namely, from the point of view of cost. If we had unlimited money, if we had millions of pounds to spend on experiments, then I should say by all means go in for airship development; but, from the meagre allowances and the small number of machines that are being employed in civil aviation, it is perfectly obvious that, rightly or wrongly, there is no money available for spending on experimental purposes of this sort. Already we have spent, according to the Estimates, £270,000 on R100, and on the Government airship, R100, we have spent £527,000; and the airships have not vet nearly reached the stage of taking the air. We have gone on from month to month and from year to year waiting for these airships to take the air, and I am not sure that the time has not come for a review of the whole state of airship development.

We have seen in the last 12 months the magnificent flight of the German Zeppelin, the "Graf Zeppelin," across the Atlantic; but anyone who followed the diary of that flight must, I think, realise that the airship only just got across, and it got across, not because of its own construction, but because of the dogged endurance of Herr Eckener and the extraordinary endurance and energy of the crew who went with him. To what extent are we benefiting from the experience of the Germans? Are we going on building these two airships, picking up what we can here and there? One hears that there is very little co-operation between the constructors of the two airships, one of which is being constructed by Messrs. Vickers and the other by the Air Ministry. Are they working in the very closest co-operation, and, if so, are they, also, working in collaboration with the Germans? Are they getting the benefit of the flight of the "Graf Zeppelin" across the Atlantic, and, if not, what steps are being taken so that all the details of the experience and information gained by that flight, of which there must have been a tremendous amount, whether the flight was or was not a success, will be applied to the development of our airships here? The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney), apparently, feels that the situation is serious, as I understand he is not going to contest his seat at the General Election. [Interruption]. I thought that his anxiety for his airship was so great that he could not devote any time to an election contest.

The time has come for a review of the whole policy in regard to airships, in order to see whether, while so little money is available for civil air transport, we can afford to spend millions of pounds on what is admitted by everyone, in every country that Has tried it, to be a tremendous experiment. The money already spent amounts to over £1,000,000, and, if weekly services of airships are going to be run between this country and India, tens of millions will be required. Every airship will cost £500,000, every shed £250,000, and every mooring mast another £10,000 or £20,000. Preliminary experiments have cost well over £1,000,000. Therefore, to run routine services once a week, with allowances for casualties, repairs, spare parts and so on, it will be necessary to lay out tens of millions of pounds for every year that the service is kept running, until some day in the future when it pays.

See, however, what can be done now—and, after all, we are in favour of getting results. If one-half of this money that is being put into airships were put into civil air transport, using machines that we know can fly, using machines such as the Secretary of State himself used in his flight to India, it would be possible to operate a daily service between this country and any other part of the British Empire. That is a very important con- sideration, and it emphasises my argument in favour of reviewing the whole question of airships before any more money is spent on this Vote. There is one other point in this Vote to which I should like to refer. Under Sub-head P, there is shown an Appropriation-in-Aid in favour of the Air Ministry, payable by the Admiralty in respect of the Fleet air arm. Can we be told whether the arrangements for co-operation between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry are working out quite satisfactorily? I simply ask that question for information. I shall be glad if we contribute replies on some of these points before we pass this Vote.

Mr. WELLS

In the first place, I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State on the splendid progress that has been made in regard to heavier-than-air machines, and also in regard to safety devices for the benefit of those who fly them. At the same time, I think it would be a pity to limit our interest in the Air Force in this direction only. I welcome the statement of the Secretary of State with regard to the airships R.100 and R.101, from which I understand that these airships are to fly this spring. It will be remembered that when the scheme was adopted the Government invited the co-operation of the Dominion Governments, and that invitation was accepted. A mooring mast has been built in Canada, and one is being built in South Africa. I am not sure what the position is in Australia and New Zealand, but there are mooring masts in Egypt and also in India, and a great deal has been done in regard to the meteorological services. A valuable Report was issued a year or two ago by the Secretary of State, and it is regarded as being most useful, not only in this country, but in all parts of the world, for air purposes.

The Dominions, perhaps, realise the value of an airship service even more than we do in this country for the speeding up of communications. It has been said that there is no portion of the British Empire within 3,000 miles of the British Isles except Malta. The Secretary of State told us in the Debate last week of the speeding up which has taken place in communication with both India and South Africa by means of heavier-than-air machines, but I think we must realise that, if airships once come into use, we shall be able to halve the time that he told us it would take to get to South Africa or India. It is a question of only a few days by airship, as against many days by aeroplane. It is quite possible that, within the next few years, we may have many long-distance flights by airships in this country.

The opponents of airships seem to me to overlook the achievements that have been attained in the past with these lighter-than-air machines. It is now known that, during the War, over 1,000 long-distance patrol flights were made by German airships, and, after the War a small ship was built—the "Bodensee"—which carried out 80 flights to schedule time in 98 days, carrying passengers, without, I believe, a single mishap. Perhaps one of the most wonderful flights that has ever been made by an airship was that of R.34, which flew across the Atlantic and back under the command of Major Scott. That, however, is not an experiment that we should like to repeat, because it is obviously bound to be attended by very great risks; but what put an end to airships in this country for the time being was the tragedy of the R.38. Since that time, tremendous advances have been made in airship design.

I should like to mention three phases of airship development which I think are of very great importance. The first is that of construction. We have just about doubled the size of any airship that has been built in the past. That is in order to get strength and make the airship safe. It is interesting to note that both the United States and Germany are following on the lines which were adopted by the Government four years ago, when the scheme was brought forward for building an airship of a capacity of something like 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 cubic feet, in order to obtain strength. The second point is with regard to fuel. Airships in the past have been driven by petrol, and it is obvious that the use of petrol involves considerable danger from fire. I understand that in the case of the R.101 experiments are being made, and it is proposed that the airship shall be driven by Diesel or semi-Diesel engines. That, if successful, will be a long way ahead of anything that has been done in the past. Germany has developed a fuel gas, which, however, I do not think is as safe as the heavy oil, though at any rate it is safer than petrol. The last point is with regard to lifting power. In the United States, as is well known, they have supplies of helium, whereas we have to rely upon hydrogen. I hope that the Secretary of State will approach the Canadian Government to see whether it is possible in Canada to develop the supply of helium in sufficient quantities for airship work.

If we can succeed in these three directions of strength in construction, the use of heavy oil as fuel, and the use of helium gas, we can make our airships of the future safer than ships are on the sea, and immense developments, both commercial and imperial, will follow. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) mentioned the cost, both of the R. 100 and of the R. 101. I am not sure, but I believe that a great deal of that cost has been taken up by experimental and scientific work with a view to getting as high a degree of safety as possible, and no doubt a great deal of new knowledge has been gained in the last year or two. It is possible that in the next few years we may see considerable alterations in design and equipment, and very great advances taking place in that direction. I hope that the Secretary of State, when these airships have finished their trials, will see that they are properly provided with parachutes, and also, should they cross the ocean, I think it would he very wise if they carried collapsible boats, in case of its being necessary to coins down on a long-distance crossing. I notice that both airships are provided with smoking rooms, but I hope that smoking will not be allowed. I do not thick that, where you have hydrogen used for lifting or petrol for power, any naked light at all should be permitted, on account of the danger to passengers and crew, and I trust, therefore, that, as long as hydrogen or petrol is used, no smoking will be allowed, even though accommodation may be provided for it.

There is one special point that I should like to mention, with regard to the designers and workers on both of these airships. The trials will take some months to complete, and meanwhile no work will be going on in the sheds, and there will be a grave danger that we may lose some of the most skilled airship designers and workers that we have. Later on it is possible we may want these men back, and they will be dispersed all over the country, and perhaps even outside the country. I notice that in America great difficulty was experienced in handling their big airships in and out of their sheds, and they are now designing mechanical means. These ships are double the size of anything that has been built before, and it is very necessary that we should have some mechanical means to save them from being damaged in moving them in and out of the sheds. At present we are leading the rest of the world in airship construction. Other countries, both Germany and the United States, are rather following on the lines we laid down three or four years ago. The Press have created a good deal of interest and curiosity with regard to airships but we have very little enthusiasm in this country for them. In Germany there is a great deal of enthusiasm—in fact I believe public money was raised to carry on airship construction—and when a German workman sees an airship in the sky he looks at it with pride as part of his work. I wish we could get more enthusiasm, not only in this country but in the Empire, to carry on the development of this service. I believe it has a very great future.

Mr. GILLETT

The point I wish to bring before the House is the final stage of a matter that has been referred to in the accounts of the Air Ministry on at least two occasions, the last being in the Report for 1927. It is in connection with the construction of the framework of Airship R.101. There may be a good deal of difference as to whether work should be put out to contract or not, but it seems to me it is very difficult to defend the principles on which this work was put out to contract. Nor can we say it has been specially successful, looked at from the financial and business standpoint. In the Auditor-General's Report for 1925 we find that the framework was put out to contract, and the reason it was given to the particular firm was that the employment of any other firm would result in delay. I asked a few days ago why the contract was put out, and the answer was that it was placed without competition in view of the fact that only one firm had the particular experience that was required to enable it to collaborate in work of such a highly experimental character. The contract was not for a fixed or comprehensive sum, certain of the elements of the contract price being contingent upon actual costs. Although, as the Auditor-General says, this contract was placed with this one firm without competition in order that there should be no delay, as a matter of fact we did not get the advantage of having a fixed price, which is what is gained usually by having a contract, because the figure was based upon the actual cost. It was only as the work was done that it was possible to find out exactly how much was going to be paid.

Then we come to the curious fact that, if the Ministry was anxious to do it without delay, they themselves were responsible for the delay, and we find that, with the sanction of the Treasury, £14,800 was paid in compensation to the contractor because the Ministry was not in a position to fulfil their side of the contract, I suppose in connection with the plans and specifications and so forth. So that the advantage which had been gained, if there was an advantage, by the contract seems to me to be entirely lost. Had we given the making of this airship to our own works, at any rate there would have been no need to pay a contractor compensation on account of delay. We now come to the accounts which have just been presented, and here we find the last stage, as we hope, of the construction of the framework of this airship, and then once again the Auditor-General refers to the delay that has taken place and, as I understand it, another sum of money had to be paid to the contractor because once again the work was not ready. An extraordinary thing is that work to the extent of £1,000 that the contractor was to have done was given to our own employés, but apparently without making any difference to the contract. The work under the contract is not yet completed. The answer to my question went on to say that the total contract was approximately £176,800 and it was expected that £8,000 more would have to be paid in order to complete it. I cannot see what has been gained in any way by placing this contract with the firm. The only argument I can imagine the Minister will give is that he wishes to keep the firm employed. I know that at the end of the War it was impossible to get building contracts otherwise, and they had to be placed under these conditions, but everyone who has placed a contract of that kind knows how unsatisfactory they are, and when you find, first of all a suggestion that it is done in order to expedite work, and then we have to pay £14,000 or £15,000 compensation because the Minister was not ready, the whole affair seems to me to be most unsatisfactory.

The accounts of the Air Ministry in some ways are the least satisfactory accounts that one sees for any of the Departments. Anyone who reads the criticisms of the Auditor-General during the last three years will have noticed many other points referred to which seem to be unsatisfactory. In the accounts for 1927 there was a reference to the misappropriation of petrol and to a considerable loss over an extended period. It will be interesting to hear whether the right hon. Gentleman has any explanation to give in reply to the Auditor-General's criticisms. Another point is the difficulty of finding out exactly what are the stores held by the Ministry, and this applies to the Army and Navy as well. It is impossible to know fully what has been spent by a Department unless the stores are mentioned. On page 55 a number of stores are mentioned, the larger part of which are connected with this Vote. The total amount is £1,200,000. In the previous year the figure was £1,484,000. Considering the right hon. Gentleman's expenditure, note ought to be taken of this reduction of stores. If he had kept the stores up to the level of 1926, I presume certain savings on the Estimates which have been reported would have been considerably less. However, the chief point to which I wished to draw attention is in conenction with the building of the airship. We ought to be given an undertaking that contracts on these lines are not likely to occur again.

Sir S. HOARE

I am glad that more than one Member has raised the question of airships. I purposely said little or nothing about them the other day, though I hoped that someone would raise the subject on the Report stage. The House is entitled to a statement of the position. The programme has been in operation for a number of years, and hon. Members are rightly curious as to the progress and anxious to know when the airships will actually be flying, and what has been our experience in the great experiment in which we have now been engaged for a considerable length of time. It has been a very great experiment, perhaps greater than we contemplated four or five years ago. We were not content to base it simply upon War experience or upon the lessons that might be drawn from the construction of Zeppelins in Germany. We went, as we believed, back to bedrock and started the experiment almost ab initio. We could perfectly well have built two airships, indeed we could have built 20, in half the time if we had been content simply to repeat the construction of the old War-time Zeppelins, but we took a different course and, as a result, we have taken a long time and we have spent a considerable sum of money. I believe it will be shown that that time and money have been by no means wasted, and we are to-day, both in the design of the two airships and in our general knowledge of the operations of airships, far ahead of any other country in the world. I agree that only the results of the experiment can show whether or not I am right, but I can say that we have spared no effort, scientific, technical or operational, which we believe could inure to the success of the experiment.

To-day the two airships are within sight of completion, and it is interesting to note that, although they are designed and have been constructed in somewhat different conditions, they have taken about the same time to complete. The airship constructed by the Airship Guarantee Company took less time in the initial stages, but is now taking a longer time in the later stages. The reverse was the case with the airship being constructed at Cardington. As far as I can see, it looks as if the two airships will be finally completed about the same time. That ought to be some time in the spring or in the early summer. It is also interesting to note that, as tar as we can now judge, the two airships seem to have cost about the same amount of money, in each case, I am afraid, substantially more than the original estimates. But in a great experiment of this kind it is almost inevitable that the final expen- diture exceeds the original estimates. From the information which we have at our disposal it looks as if each of the airships when finally completed will cost about the same amount of money.

The House will want to know what is the next stage in the programme. The next stage in the programme is that as soon as the airships have finished their shed trials, which should take place in the next few weeks, and assuming those trials are satisfactory, we propose to have other trial flights round these shores and within reach of Great Britain. Assuming that these internal flights are successful we then propose to fly R.101, that is the Cardington airship, first of all to Egypt, and, after flying to Egypt, then to India, where already a mooring mast and a shed are in existence at Karachi. Supposing these trials to India are successful, the next step—and I hope that this step will also take place during the next 12 months—will he to fly R.100 across the Atlantic to Montreal. I am glad to say that the Dominion Government, who have most sympathetically co-operated with us in our experiment for some time, have constructed a mooring mast near Montreal, and we should hope that the second big Imperial flight—the first being the flight to India—would be across the Atlantic to Montreal. In the meantime we shall be doing other experimental flights with R.100. Hon. Members will see that there is every reason to suppose that during the next 12 months they will see these airships regularly flying, flying, as we hope, successfully and beginning to make the Imperial flights to which we all attach so much importance.

As to the future, that, of course, must depend upon the result of this experiment, but I am confident that if this experimental period is successful, we shall look back with pride and satisfaction to the work that we have devoted to airship development during the last five years, and we shall look back to it as marking a new stage and a new era in Imperial communications. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Wells), who naturally takes a very close and sympathetic interest in this question, drew my attention to a number of detailed points, and I will certainly give them careful thought. Let me tell him that I am just as much alive as he is to the need of keeping, as far as we can, the key personnel for future developments. We are already considering that question. We realise that it will be most regrettable to lose this small nucleus expert staff, and we hope to be able to make arrangements under which, at any rate, some of that personnel will be for the present retained. Finally, as the experiment has now reached this interesting point, may I suggest to hon. Members on all sides of the House that they would really be extremely interested if they went down to Cardington, near Bedford, and saw R.101. If any hon. Member would like to make the visit, I should be delighted to arrange it. I think that if he would go there he would confirm what I have said, namely, that we have been engaged in a very big and a very interesting experiment, and that we have spared no effort to make that experiment succeed.

I come to a number of other more detailed points raised on this Vote. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone), for instance, asked me whether the standard of the air mechanics had not deteriorated in the last few years. I think that, so far from it having deteriorated, the standard has actually risen, and if I could give him evidence in a single sentence, I would draw his attention to the smaller sums every year which we spend upon spare parts and wastage material. It is very significant that as the standard of training in the Air Force, whether amongst officers or men, goes up, so the wastage in material, machines and engines, goes down. There are reductions here of no less than £156,000 as compared with an even greater reduction a year ago. That goes to show that the standard, so far from falling, has actually risen. He asked me a number of questions as to what the procedure was as between the Air Ministry and the Committee of Imperial Defence and the Cabinet before the Estimates were actually agreed. I am afraid that on this Vote I could not go into matters of that kind, but I can tell him in a sentence that the figure with which it is dealing has run through a number of very fine sieves before it reached its place in this year's Estimates.

The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) asked me some questions about the contract for R. 101 with the firm of Messrs. Boulton and Paul, of Norwich. I agree with him that the contract has been an exceptional contract. There are several exceptional conditions connected with it. It was for a new kind of work, work of a very novel description, stainless steel of various kinds, new kinds of light girders that had never been constructed before. Although it is our desire always to place orders of this kind out to tender, this kind of work was not susceptible to tender. Indeed, my advisers informed me that they were satisfied that the firm in question were really the only firm that could successfully undertake the work. We gave the work to the firm on condition that we paid them for the labour and the material, and we had a definite limit from the very start upon their "overheads" and their "profit," and I am told that we made so good a bargain from the point of view of the Air Ministry that it appears as if the firm will be substantially down on the transaction. I think that if we had tried to do the work by direct labour, or if we had put it out to tender, the result would have been not less but greater expenditure, and for this obvious reason. The work was of such an exceptional kind that there was no data upon which we could base tenders or estimates for direct labour. If the hon. Gentleman would like to go further into the question, I should be glad to go into it with him in greater detail. I am satisfied that his is work of a very exceptional kind, and that when judged by results, the Air Ministry has made a very good bargain.

Mr. GILLETT

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how, if the arrangement was for the Air Ministry to pay cost price, the firm could possibly have been out of pocket?

Sir S. HOARE

We made a very stringent limit in the "overheads." We found that the work took longer to completed and was more costly than we thought, and the firm were quite definitely out of pocket.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

The right hon. Gentleman made a satisfactory statement, which will stop a lot of very unscrupulous propaganda, when he said that the Cardington airship will cost approximately the same as the Vickers airship, and also, apparently, that the date of the completion of these two gigantic air vessels will be about the same time. The reason why I say this is satisfactory, is that I do not think that the Vickers Company have quite played the game. There has been continual propaganda put out to the Press that the Cardington airship was no good—they have been inspired paragraphs, information that could only have come from within—that the Cardington airship would cost twice as much or a great deal more than the private enterprise ship, and that the private enterprise ship would be more efficient, and so on. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will follow this up and later on let us have the exact cost of the two airships—the one built by Vickers and the one built at his own factory—and let us see what the comparison is. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having, apparently a very efficient staff at Cardington, and I hope that he is proud of it, and that in the next few months he will announce his Socialism on the platform.

6.0 p.m.

I should like to ask a quest ion about a matter to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Wells) in his very interesting speech about airships. Is any step being taken to obtain any supplies of helium? I understand that the Americans have a certain amount of helium. The advantage, of course, is that it is non-inflammable and therefore if ever these airships are used for the support or assistance of the Navy, the use of helium will be essential. Otherwise they will be absolutely vulnerable to modern aircraft and aeroplanes, and will be set on fire at once. From the point of view of carrying passengers only it is necessary to have helium in order that you can get passengers to go up without any fear of being burnt in the air. I think that that is a matter of prime importance. With regard to the whole of the rest of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, I think there was far too much of the experiment. The airship is not experimental now, with great respect to the Air Minister. It is really a comparatively tried means of travel in the air. Our own airship was the first to go across the Atlantic and back. It is sometimes forgotten that the first feat of crossing the Atlantic and back in the same machine was carried out by the British. There is the extraordinary flight of the German airship which went with small arms ammunition to the Germans in East Africa during the War; I think it was in 1916. They went all the way from Germany to East Africa and back, and there was no mooring mast or shed. It was an extraordinary feat. I remember someone coming down to my room and asking for a question to be put to our own Admiralty: "What is an airship doing over East Africa?" No one could imagine why it had gone there. Next, there came a commercial flight. Then we had the recent voyage to Australia, and there was the suggestion that this was a wonderful new invention, being tried for the first time, that local flights were to be taken, then rather wider flights, and then the flight to India. That is given as the justification of the Air Ministry for this tremendous expenditure of money. This airship programme was started by a former Conservative Government, Mr. Bonar Law's last Government, in 1923. It was then that the new airships were started. We were to have eight airships, of large size. Lord Thomson inherited that programme from the Conservative Government, but he very wisely and prudently cut it down to the present two airships. Now, in the year 1929, six years later, the Secretary of State for Air is talking about making experimental flights, and I suppose the total cost by the time the first airship reaches India will be from £1,000,000 to £1,250,000. The result will be that we shall have two airships. These very costly experiments will result in nothing more. I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) that if half this money had been invested in civil aviation we could have produced a regular aeroplane service, which we know-could operate and function, to carry mails and passengers between this country and Australia, perhaps once a week; a far more practicable and important service from the Imperial point of view. However, there it is, and as we have gone so far I suppose we shall have to continue with this airship experiment. I hope that it will turn out well, that there will be no accidents and that the expenditure will be justified.

I should like to know how many men are required as the ground staff for the airships, of which R. 100 and R. 101 may be taken as representative types. Is it a fact that over 100 men are required for taking the airships in and out of their sheds? If so, would the number of the ground staff be reduced if we had revolving sheds? Has the idea of revolving sheds been considered or tried? The revolving shed can be turned round by a motor to suit the wind, so that the airships can get in and out without danger. It seems to me that that might be a very important factor in bad weather, and that it would make all the difference between the possibility of losing one of these airships or not. I suppose that if we have another disaster there will be another great reversal of policy, and that everything will be scrapped once more, and all this money will be lost.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to a question which was raised by my hon. Friend, the supplies of petrol. On page 51 of the Estimates, there is a rather remarkable sentence. It says that the Estimate for petrol for the Air Service has gone up from £430,000 last year to £500,000 this year, although the amount of lubricants used has gone down in value from £90,000 to £60,000. There is a note which states that The increase is due mainly to the Petrol Tax offset by the reduced requirements in lubricants. What does that mean? It is unintelligible language to me. Surely the Air Ministry do not pay Petrol Tax.

Sir S. HOARE

indicated assent.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Am I to understand that the Air Ministry pay Petrol Duty to the Government?

Sir S. HOARE

Yes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

To the Treasury?

Sir S. HOARE

indicated assent.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

An extraordinary state of affairs. Is there not an Appropriation-in-Aid? Does the Air Ministry not get it back?

Sir S. HOARE

No.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I should like an explanation of that matter, because it is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing. Do the Air Ministry pay duty on the artificial silk used in the airships?

Sir S. HOARE

Certainly.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

The next sentence in the Estimates says that The aviation petrol and motor spirit for the Air Force are obtained as required from running contracts. I suppose those are not long-term contracts, and that the petrol contracts are made from year to year. Therefore it is possible that this Estimate will have to be revised or a Supplementary Estimate brought in to make up for the extra cost of petrol. Obviously an increase of 2½d. in the cost of petrol per gallon on a contract amounting to £500,000, is a very considerable sum. Does this mean that a Supplementary Estimate will have to be brought forward, or will there be less flying or less training?

Sir S. HOARE

We shall have to see.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Either there must be a Supplementary Estimate, or savings in other respects, or there will have to be less flying and less training. Has the right hon. Gentleman contact with the Government directors on the board of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company? It is obvious that the Air Ministry is probably the biggest buyer of petrol in the country, and it is ridiculous that if we have Government directors on the board of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, that the right hon. Gentleman should not have full information as to future movements in prices. Does he anticipate any further rise? Has he considered any alternative source of supply? I am glad that the Secretary of State for War is now present, because he has a mechanised Army, and he will be interested in this question. Have any sources of supply been sought outside the ring? Whenever you have a price ring or a monopoly, sooner or later some independent person or company comes along—we must hope it will be so in this case—and attempts to break it. If we are helpless in regard to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, has the right hon. Gentleman instructed his Contracts Department to see whether petrol can be bought from some other source outside the combine?

Mr. MALONE

Shale.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

My hon. Friend suggests shale oil, but the trouble is that the home-produced article has gone up also. The advantage that was supposed to be obtained from the tax-free home spirit has been lost, because the home producers have not resisted the temptation to make an illegitimate profit. The right hon. Gentleman must have the very best spirit for the Air Service. Is he looking for alternative sources of supply? Certainly, a contract for half a million pounds worth of spirit is in a position to encourage an alternative source of supply. I do not suggest that we should go to Russia, because Russia is in the ring. The owners of the stolen oil, the usurpers of the property of widows and orphans, have become complete robbers. They are in the ring from which the right hon. Gentleman gets his petrol.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

I can hardly see where fraternity comes in on this Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Fraternity comes in where you have a gang of people who are exploiting the people of this country. Therefore, they may be brothers in crime. Is there any alternative source of supply, not controlled by the shale oil people, or the American group, or the Russians, or the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, so that petrol can be obtained for His Majesty's Forces at a cheaper rate and, incidentally, a service performed for the unfortunate private user of petrol?

Mr. CONNOLLY

The right hon. Gentleman said that several private contractors were "down" upon the work that they had done, on account of the limitation of overhead charges. He said that material was estimated for and paid for, and also labour, but that the firms were "down" because of the strict limitation of overhead charges. That is a most interesting statement, and I am desirous of finding out upon what basis the overhead charges are put down. Are they put down on the basis of material and labour, with a percentage over? I put this question because on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in the Estimates in regard to overhead charges, a very extraordinary discrepancy is shown in the other charges. Take the last two years. We find that in 1928 the overhead charges, out of a total expenditure of £161,000, amounted to £37,000, compared with £31,000 in the previous year, on a higher expenditure of £183,000. In 1925, we find that the overhead charges are 60 per cent. of the material charges, the following year 40 per cent., the following year 27 per cent., and the following year 50 per cent., and average of about 40 per cent. for the four years.

In fairness to private firms, who are down upon their contracts, according to the Minister's statement, it is right to ask what basis has been taken for estimating reaonable overhead charges for private firms, and what estimates the right hon. Gentleman takes for his own. Is he applying the same rule to private firms that he is applying in his own Estimates? The Ministry is right in fixing some limit for overhead charges. "Overhead charge" is an elastic term, and a very convenient term into which one can put all kinds of provision for mistakes. I have done it myself, so I know all about it. So far as the private firms are concerned, we ought to be informed what percentage on material and labour costs are put in as overhead charges. What explanation is there between this seemingly great inconsistency in the figures far the various years which I have quoted, under the term "overhead charges." Looking at the tables we find, roughly speaking, that there was slightly over 20 per cent. for overhead charges on the four years. During the past years you find considerable inconsistencies. I should like to ask what explanation there is for these figures; what method is employed in estimating the overhead charges of the Ministry and the basis the right hon. Gentleman takes for estimating the overhead charges of private firms.

Mr. BECKETT

I am sorry that I missed the right hon. Gentleman's opening statement because I have given him notice that I was going to raise the matter which I propose to deal with now. While I am not at liberty, for obvious reasons, to give the House the sources of my information, I think the matter is sufficiently serious for it to be brought to the attention of the Air Minister, but nobody in the House will be more pleased than I if ho is able to say that the facts which have been brought to my notice are entirely inaccurate. The matter relates to the supply and use of petrol by the Air Force during the past year. In a number of newspapers peculiar statements have appeared with regard to the use of petrol, and I have had brought to me, on what seems to me reasonably reliable information, a number of serious charges in connection with the use of petrol at the Henlow aerodrome, near Hitchin. My informant tells me that at this aerodrome, although the petrol is kept in a large shed and there are big notices up forbidding private motorists and motor-cycles to enter, that they are constantly to be found in the shed, that the private cars of highly placed officers and officials in the aerodrome are constantly filled there, and that this has led to the smaller motor vehicles being filled as well, and that the average amount of petrol used for air flying time is extraordinarily excessive.

I am informed that at an inspection held recently two officers who did not know anything about the particular type of machine said "Well, you cannot expect us to know about it because we have not been up in it," and they were then shown entries in the sheet showing that they were supposed to have taken flying practice in these aeroplanes. This matter is commonly discussed outside this House. I have heard it stated by responsible people, and it is commonly said in important centres in London that the Air Ministry have not taken action because the matter involves such a large number of people and is of such a serious character. As I have said, nobody would be more pleased than I if the Minister for Air can tell us that the whole of this information is without any foundation, but the facts I have received—I cannot publish the sources of my information, although I shall have no objection to supply them privately—certainly warrant a statement in this House.

If the statements are untrue, we shall be pleased to hear it, but, if there is any doubt in the matter, then I should like to hear what attitude the Air Ministry is taking; what number of flying officers are employed at this aerodrome, the number of flying hours that were reported last year, the average amount of petrol used, and how it compares with similar flying hours at similar aerodromes on similar aeroplanes, and how it compares with the average amount of petrol used by the force in other districts. If the Minister can give us that information it would be very useful. I should like to know exactly what steps the right hon. Gentleman takes to check the supply of petrol and the reports as to the number of flying hours. I am well aware of the very serious nature of the suggestions I have put forward, but they are too important, and certainly are too widely discussed in London, to be ignored altogether. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to deal with them.

Mr. KELLY

When the Minister was replying, I hoped that he would have dealt a little more clearly with this question of petrol. I cannot understand yet how this item occurs, "the increase is due mainly to the Petrol Tax." Does it mean that the Ministry imports this petrol and pays the tax direct, or does it mean that the Department is purchasing from contractors and that the Ministry is counting the increased price that is being paid as being due to the Petrol Duty? If the right hon. Gentleman is purchasing petrol through contractors and retailers he is not only paying the increase due to the Petrol Duty but also the further increase which the petrol people place upon the oil in order to recoup themselves and make greater profits. If that is the position then it is time that the Air Ministry looked into the matter and, instead of lining the pockets of the contractors, looked after the interests of the taxpayers of this country. I was hoping that we should have heard a little more about Farnborough factory, which is referred to as a place for experimental work and research. I would not hesitate to vote money for the purposes of research for civil aviation, but I think the House is entitled to know whether the Farnborough establishment—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Ought not this to have come under the last Vote for Works, Buildings and Land?

Mr. KELLY

You will find the Farnborough factory referred to on page 38 in connection with Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services). I think the House should know whether this factory is engaged upon the manufacture and construction of aircraft used by the Air Force or whether in their research and experimental work they have constructed machines for civil aviation. In a huge establishment like that at Farnborough I certainly say that much more than research work is carried on. Then, is there anything in this Vote which Allows the men employed to have holidays with pay? There is nothing in the Vote about it, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will take it into account and before coming to the House for further moneys will see that those employed receive at least one week's holiday in the year with pay. Some of them according to this Vote get very inadequate wages. People employed on the manufacture of airships and aircraft, and engaged in experimental work, cannot have those high flights of thought which the Air Minister has when he deals with aviation questions, if they are given these, rates of pay. I hope some consideration will be given to the wages of the people employed at this factory.

Again, can we be told anything with regard to the item "Chemical Warfare"? Whenever one thinks of chemical warfare one has some doubts as to this being an advancing civilisation. We should be told what is being done in this so-called progress in the matter of chemical warfare, and, as this is being done in conjunction with the War Office, may I ask whether there has been any consultation between the various fighting Departments on the matter? If the Secretary of State for War had been present this evening he could have told us whether he was consulted beforehand. Reference is made to the sale of material at Farnborough and Cardington. May we have some explanation as to what is meant by this, particularly with regard to the sale of material at Farnborough, seeing that this is not a place for the manufacture of aircraft for sale but exists for experimental purposes? This item of some thousands of pounds requires some explanation, and I hope we are going to have it.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON

I want very respectfully to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Air to a difficulty in connection with a man who has been receiving training at Cranwell. As a result of the treatment he has received. I think that some hardship is being inflicted upon him and his family. It is the case of a man who was receiving training, and, when he had completed the course, he was appointed to service overseas. The lad in the judgment of his family was unfitted to undertake these duties overseas owing to health reasons, and his father approached the Department with a view of obtaining his release from the service.

Mr. SPEAKER

Does not this come on some other Vote? This Vote does not deal with the question of training.

Sir D. NEWTON

It is all connected with training and service. I do not know where the border-line comes in, but I hope that you will perhaps permit me to state the case.

Mr. SPEAKER

This Vote, which is for "Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services)," does not deal with training at all.

Sir D. NEWTON

In that case, I must raise the matter on some other occasion.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon)

I would like to answer some of the questions that have been asked. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked what we were doing in connection with supplies of helium for airships. With the advent of the heavy oil engine it is not at all certain that in future hydrogen, which is a much lighter gas, will not be more suitable for ships fitted with heavy oil engines. I am not laying down a definition about the matter, but it is quite likely that that may be the case. We are doing everything we can to get into touch with the United States of America and with Canada on this question of helium supplies. The hon. and gallant Member waxed very eloquent about our regarding these new airships as experimental. He said there was nothing extraordinary or new about them. But there is something new about the building and testing of airships of a capacity of 5,000,000 cubic feet. It is quite a new experience. The two ships that are being built are quite novel and do need a great deal of experiment, for in themselves they are great experiments. With regard to these airships and the number of ground staff necessary for them, with the mooring mast, of course, very few ground staff will be needed. It is hoped that the airships will in most cases be moored to these mooring masts, and if and when they have to be housed in sheds no doubt some of these ingenious suggestions of the hon. and gallant Member about revolving hangars may he considered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

That is not my suggestion. It is a very old one, and I take no credit for it.

Sir P. SASSOON

Nevertheless an ingenious suggestion. With regard to the rise in the price of petrol, no one can regret this more than we do. That is natural, for we are great consumers of petrol. As to alternative means of supply, I do not know where there are any other means of getting petrol than those which we have adopted, but it is the fact that in common with all users of petrol we regret the rise. With regard to the possibility of a Supplementary Estimate, of course, we shall have to wait and see if one is necessary. We may be able to meet the added expense out of savings. But, whatever happens, it will certainly not mean less flying. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) raised a point of which he gave us notice just before the Debate began. He admitted that it was rather short notice. Certainly the very serious charges which he made are quite novel to me. I had heard nothing about them at all. I shall be pleased, therefore, if the hon. Member will give us particulars. At the present stage we cannot either deny or accept them in any way.

Mr. GILLETT

Are they not in connection with the same incident as is referred to in the Auditor-General's report, to which I made reference?

Sir P. SASSOON

No, it is not the same incident.

Mr. BECKETT

No doubt one of the suggestions that I made the Under-Secretary is disposing of. I understood that the Air Ministry were aware of it, and had investigated it and taken action.

Sir P. SASSOON

The hon. Member knows that we will go into the matter, but without definite particulars of all these very serious charges it would be quite impossible for me to make any reference to them here across the Floor of the House. If the hon. Member will give us particulars we will look into the matter.

Mr. BECKETT

I do not want to interrupt, but am I to understand that this is the first that the Under-Secretary and his Chief have heard of this matter?

Sir P. SASSOON

So far as we know, it is. One or two questions were asked by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). First with regard to contracts for petrol. We year by year have a contract with the three principal companies. With regard to "industrials" and leave without pay, that is not a special rule applying to the Air Ministry, but is one which applies to all three Service Departments. There is no special arrangement in the case of the Air Ministry.

Mr. BENN

When the Under-Secretary speaks of a yearly contract, does he mean that the price of petrol is fixed every year in advance?

Sir P. SASSOON

No.

Mr. BENN

Then there is not a contract.

Sir P. SASSOON

As the hon. Member knows, it is for special aviation spirit. A price basis is fixed with provision for variation in accordance with market price.

Mr. CONNOLLY

With regard to overhead charges—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member has already spoken, and on the Report stage he cannot speak more than once.

Mr. CONNOLLY

If there has not been any answer to the question that I have put with regard to the basis upon which overhead charges are laid down for private contracts, can I not ask for an answer?

Sir S. HOARE

With the permission of the House I will answer the question One cannot give any general answer. Each item of overhead cost has to be analysed. In this case we very carefully costed the overhead. There is no general rule that applies.

Mr. CONNOLLY

What method is there? In your own estimate for 1926 you have 100 per cent. overhead charges on material and labour costs That is £21,000 for each. What is the method that is adopted?

Sir S. HOARE

Each cost has to be taken separately. The hon. Member will see the full details set out on page 50 of the Appropriation Account of 1927. He will see the exact way in which we did cost this particular contract.

Mr. CONNOLLY

But the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that firms have lost on a contract. What is the basis? The Minister says there is a careful estimate made. The estimate cannot be careful if firms are losing.

Sir S. HOARE

I am afraid that in this case the costs were under-estimated and that we took too sanguine a view of the transaction.

Mr. BENN

The House is entitled to a little more information about the effect of the Petrol Duty and now of the rise in the price of petrol. This rise is going to cost the Air Ministry over £20,000 a year. Have the Government asked for a special report on the subject? It is extraordinary that the Air Ministry, which is the biggest purchaser in the whole country, should not be able to provide not only against paying the duty—it seems a very odd affair—but that they have also to pay the small addition which the companies make for the cost of collection. The companies have explained in the "Times" that the price is made up not only of the cost of the material, but of a certain commission for the cost of collecting the duty. The Air Ministry appear to be paying all that as well as the Churchill Tax. There is the rise, which is due to the combine, and in addition there is the commission which the combine charges for collecting the duty. All this is being paid by the Ministry under some annual contract, I understand. I do not know what sort of annual contract it is that permits persons who contract to raise the price whenever they like. We want a little more enlightenment on the subject.

Mr. GILLETT

May I have an answer to the question that I put earlier?

Mr. SPEAKER

All this is very irregular. Hon. Members had an opportunity in the Committee of having a discussion of this kind.

Mr. GILLETT

On a point of Order. I referred to the matter in my speech, and specially asked that the Secretary of State would give me an answer. Am I not at liberty to ask for that answer now? The right hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the question. The point I raised was referred to by the Auditor-General in his Report.

Mr. SPEAKER

If the Minister overlooked it in his reply no doubt he will answer.

Sir S. HOARE

I was out of the House when the hon. Member put his question. Of course, we are fully aware of the case to which the Auditor-General drew attention. We at once took disciplinary action. There was no secret about the case. It was due to fraud, and we severely punished everyone who had anything to do with it. As to the more general case raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett), naturally we shall look very carefully into very serious charges of that kind and see if there is justification for them or not.

Question put, and agreed to.

Fifth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. PILCHER

I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would use this occasion to tell the House and the country a little more about the regular flights to India which are to begin on the 30th of this month. The other day we discussed this matter very briefly, and I remember that my right hon. Friend recommended Members to take fortnight's holiday before the General Election and fly to India and back. Is it not a fact that in the first month at least after the start of these flights there are to be no passenger bookings? When are passenger bookings to begin? The country at large will be glad to hear something as to the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the number of passengers who are likely to book by that service. I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the extraordinary courage and perseverence with which, for five or six years, he has pursued that great plan. It is going to revolutionise our position with regard to civil aviation. I imagine that he is relying largely on the great eastern and southern routes to provide him steadily with the reserves and raw material out of which the fighting service can ultimately be built and maintained. Would the Minister also tell us something about the organisation of the aerodromes and caravanseraies which I presume, have been established at places like Tobruk on the coast of Libya and at the new station near Alexandria. It is, indeed, a wonderful achievement that these places should have been developed and that facilities should exist there for a constant stream of European passengers, passing through to and from India. I would also like to know if it is considered possible that these flights can be continued through the Monsoon, from the month of July to the month of October.

With regard to the continuation of the route from Karachi to India, that is a subject upon which many people would like to hear something. We have not heard a great deal as to the Indian organisation between Karachi and Calcutta and beyond. The Minister has, several times, suggested the possibility of a southward and eastward extension down to Australia. I think in reply to a question he informed the House that there was not an aerodrome yet at Rangoon and I am sure the House would be interested to hear more on the subject of the Calcutta-Rangoon and the Rangoon-Singapore routes, if the right hon. Gentleman can spare a few minutes to say something about those points. Last week the Minister was asked what would be the cost of an air passage to India. I understand that there is to be a single fare of £130 or approximately that figure. I am interested to know exactly how it is considered possible for this service to compete with the Peninsular and Oriental first-class steamer rates. The proposed fare by air seems to be an addition of something like 50 per cent. to the ordinary first-class steamship passenger rate.

If the Minister has any particulars as to the extent to which this great service is likely to be utilised by people resident in India, they too might interest the House. It has always seemed to mo that one of the difficulties of this great experiment was the fact that the population of India are for the most part extremely poor, with an average income of only £3 or £4 a year, and of course a great deal of the success of the scheme must depend on the demand for passages from the Services, and from people of a European habit of life in that country. For any information which the right hon. Gentleman can give us on these points, I am sure we shall all be extremely grateful, particularly those of us who are interested in the East. Our best wishes go with the Minister's great experiment. We hope that this new means of communication between the home country and India will be firmly established and will result in linking two great peoples of the Empire much more closely together.

Colonel APPLIN

I desire to raise some questions on Vote 8, Sub-head F, relating to civil aviation subsidies which J notice amount to £107,000 more than last year. At present one of the principal means of training civil pilots is provided by the light aeroplane clubs. These clubs have been subsidised by the Ministry and are receiving subsidies to-day. I think I am correct in stating that there are 13 light aeroplane clubs and that they receive a subsidy of £55 for each pilot trained. These clubs have done great service in the past. They have trained more than 450 pilots, and, in addition, they have re-trained, or kept in training a number of their members who belonged to the fighting service in the past. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that he owes a debt of gratitude to these clubs. Their subsidy comes to an end in August of next year—after that date the clubs will receive no subsidy. One would not complain of that, if the subsidy had been found to be a failure, and if it had been taken away altogether from clubs and flying schools and everybody else. But in place of these flying clubs and their subsidy, we are to get a new company which is to get a monopoly—a form of subsidy—from the Minister. It is a monopoly which I think the House will agree is in the circumstances not only against the encouragement of civil aviation, but is, in itself, something which we ought to examine carefully before passing this Vote. On page 8 of the Memornadum we see: In addition to the sum of £16,000 provided for subsidies to 13 light aeroplane clubs under existing agreements, £3,000 has been included as an estimate of the payments to be made to National Flying Services, Limited, for capitation grants in respect of pilot members of flying clubs affiliated to that company. I think the House ought to realise that last summer the chairman of this proposed company invited the representatives of the 13 flying clubs to meet and pointed out to them that the club subsidies were coming to an end very shortly. He pointed out also that unless they joined his company they would find themselves in very considerable difficulty. The matter was put in such a way that I believe one of those present described it as a threat. It was explained that it was not intended as a threat, but, undoubtedly, there is the threat that those flying clubs who do not join the new company will go out of existence. The question of this subsidy is a very interesting one. It requires at least 10 flying hours to train a man, and it costs on the average £5 per flying hour. I believe the clubs usually charge anything between £6 and £7 per flying hour. The subsidy which it is proposed to give through the company is £10 per pilot trained and I put it to the House that such a subsidy is so small as to be almost useless. I cannot see how they are going to train civil aviators on this subsidy nor how these flying clubs can go on training civil aviators, unless they are absorbed into the new company.

Now I come to the gravamen of the charge. Why should there be a subsidy given, as a monopoly, to a new company? Is it right that Government money should be given as a subsidy, exclusively to one company and that others where have borne the heat and burden of the day, should be compelled, willy-nilly, to join that company or in the alternative lese their subsidy. That is the situation and I have no hesitation in saying that there is not a single flying club which desires such a method of existence. Furthermore, I believe that nobody connected with civil aviation, whether members of flying clubs or flying schools, or even the producers of flying machines, would desire to see the clubs absorbed into this company. The Minister courteously pave me an interview and explained that the company was going to provide 20 aerodromes and 80 landing grounds and in the White Paper will be found a passage which alleges that these flying grounds will be supplied. But if hon. Members read the last paragraph, they will find that it is as follows: The payment of the grant will be dependent upon the fulfilment by the company of the undertaking to provide and maintain, directly or indirectly, 20 new areo-dromes and 80 new landing grounds in this country. What does "directly or indirectly" mean. It means that they need not provide anything, but can leave it to somebody else to do so, if they put up a few tin sheds. It is no guarantee that we are going to get these grounds and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would have done much better if he had encouraged municipalities and local authorities to provide their own grounds, as they are anxious to do. Aerodromes can be used also as sports grounds. They can be taken advantage of by tennis clubs, and for other games, and it would be far better if we encouraged municipalities by subsidies to provide aerodromes in connection with the sports grounds which are so much needed all over the country. May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the public have already subscribed over £30,000 to these 13 clubs. Is that money to be lost? Are these clubs to die because a monopoly has been given to a single company? Is the public to see that money wasted? These clubs, as I have said, have done great service to aviation. Every single one of them has organised an air show or an air pageant or something of that kind, and a sum running into four figures has been collected by the Treasury in Entertainment Duty alone as a result of their efforts in this direction. I appeal to the Minister to consider once again the necessity for keeping these clubs in existence, and I ask him not to confront them with the alternative of perishing or joining a company in which they do not believe, and which I, personally, do not believe will ever be able to raise the capital which is required if it is to come into effective existence at all.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. VIANT

I think the time has arrived when the House would be doing justice to itself and the country by pausing to give some consideration to the effect of these subsidies both on the companies concerned and on the national finances. It will be within the recollect- tion of some hon. Members that the Hambling Committee made certain recommendations on this matter. The Hambling Committee suggested, firstly, that any air operating company should have a capital of £1,000,000; secondly, that £500,000 should be subscribed as a first instalment, and, thirdly, that the whole of the subscribed capital should be guaranteed before the Government commenced to subsidise the company. In view of what has transpired, the House will appreciate the importance of those recommendations. The Government side by side with that suggested, or offered, a subsidy or £1,000,000 to be spent over a period of 10 years in such yearly amounts as to enable the financial group to raise the share capital. The Government subsidy was essential in the view of the Hambling Committee by way of being an inducement to private subscribers. On page 14 of the Report, paragraph 34, there appears the following: We are also satisfied that no effective spending of Government subsidies by the companies can be obtained unless the companies themselves are concerned in the risking and the expenditure of their own resources. Again, on page 16, paragraph 43, the finding of the committee were as follows: An essential condition, however, to such a proposal (of a subsidised air operating company) is that the company should have large resources of its own, so that, in the expenditure of capital on operational experiment, and on the development of new and extended routes, the company is primarily risking its own resources. These are very reasonable recommendations which, I think should have been insisted upon by the Minister of Air, and should have been carried out to the full. I find that Imperial Airways Limited are heavily subsidised by the Air Ministry to-day. The issue of their prospectus showed an authorised share capital of 1,000,000 in pound shares. There were 99,168 shares credited to vendors as fully paid. As a matter of fact, they are only half paid. There were 499,993 shares of which 15s. only was paid. The total amount of capital subscribed was £375,001 45s. On the other hand, we gave as a direct subsidy paid on account of cross-channel services for four years—1924–28—£137,000 per annum, making no less than £548,000. The subsidy for 1928–29 was £112,000, and there was an additional subsidy—for what reason I do not know, and we are entitled to know from the Minister in charge—of £25,000, making the total £137,000. There was a direct subsidy of £93,600 on account of Eastern Services for two years, making a total of £187,200. In addition, for what reason I cannot say, during 1927–28, another subsidy of £19,400 was given, making the total amount of the direct subsidies paid by the Government for the five years, 1924–29, £891,600, or more than twice the amount of capital subscribed by the shareholders of this company. That is totally in opposition to the recommendations of the Hambling Committee, and I think in view of those facts we are justified in asking the Minister to throw some light on the reason why the recommendations of the committee should be departed from. As regards the shareholders in the company it is interesting to note that, at the meeting on 7th September, 1928, the chairman said: There is still no necessity for the Board to call up the outstanding 5s. per share, and I would assure you that the call will only be made when your directors are satisfied that it can be profitably employed in the development of your company. In regard to the new agreement, the chairman said: Another provision of the new agreement is the transfer to the company of two large three-engined all-metal flying boats, built largely to our specification of most modern design on favourable terms. We then find that the most favourable terms amount to this, that the Government have extended the period of the subsidy to 10 years from April, 1929, making an actual period of 15 years in all. The direct subsidy of £1,000,000 is to be increased to £2,490,000 with an extra sum for machines. The Air Ministry are evidently handing over to the Imperial Airways the two experimental Calcutta flying boats recently completed under the civil aircraft experimental programme, but provisions will be made for the payment by the Imperial Airways for these boats corresponding to the subsidy for the first year of operation for the Aden-Egypt section. At the annual meeting on 2nd September, 1926, the chairman said: As you have seen from the Report, your board purposes to call up the remaining 10s. per share of share capital almost immediately. The first call of 5s. will be made payable in October and the second 5s. per share will be payable in December. These calls were in respect of the Cairo-Basra services. The first call was made and the shares went to a discount. On one day the shares stood at 13s. 9d. discount. I would ask the House to note that. It means that 3s. 9d. per share was paid to get rid of a share. The second call was never made. That is most significant. I know right hon. Members on the Front Bench are smiling at these facts. I want to submit that if the taxpayers knew these facts they would not smile.

Colonel WOODCOCK

Were they pound shares?

Mr. VIANT

They were pound shares, 10s. of which was subscribed. The other calls were not made. The company has already received from the Government more than twice the amount subscribed by the shareholders. If we find it necessary to subsidise a company in respect of our air services, I ask that, when recommendations are made by a Committee, the Minister in charge of the Department concerned should carry out his obligations, or see that the subsidies made are in keeping with the recommendations of the Committee. The significant thing is that, as a result of this subsidising of Imperial Airways, the shares are now worth on the market to-day 31s. 6d., proving conclusively that as long as the public purse is available for shareholders the directors will put their hands into it. There are always people ready to put their little bit into these companies. If an air service is necessary at all, it is preferable that it should be a proper, nationalised service and not one which is putting money into the pockets of private speculators. We are not getting the best results. That, I think, is borne out by the facts. The private companies have not delivered the goods, and the expenditure in that respect has been enormous, as far as the Government is concerned. I hope the Minister will give some enlightenment to the House on the points which I have raised. They are so important that from my own point of view I think the Opposition would be justified in refusing to pass these Estimates and holding them up until we had some greater control of the money which we are handing out to these private companies.

Colonel WOODCOCK

When the right hon. Gentleman (Sir S. Hoare) made his admirable statement introducing the Estimates, he made one or two points. One was that he felt that during the course of the Debate there would be many opportunities of going into the matter of the National Flying Services, Limited, and he said: We have been careful to interfere in no way with the existing arrangements with the light aeroplane clubs, and no change whatever is being made in the agreements, many of which have still some time to run, in force between the Government and these clubs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1929; col. 598, Vol. 226.] I hope that before this Debate is finished the Minister will make some definite statement about these light aeroplane clubs and their relation to National Flying Services, Limited, about which several questions have been put to him on the Paper and several speeches made during the discussions on the Air Estimates. Last week, the right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol, North (Captain Guest), who has done a great deal for civil flying and has had great experience at the Air Ministry, spoke about this new company, and we want to know whether or not these clubs are going to be snuffed out entirely through the formation of this company. The Minister tells us that the agreements are to be carried out. That may be so, but at the same time these light aeroplane clubs may be squeezed out of existence altogether by the subsidy and by the encouragement which is being given to this new body. The work and the value of these clubs have been many times recognised by the Minister. Some of them have been formed for five years, and undoubtedly they have been the pioneers in creating an air sense among the public, in teaching sportsmen to fly, and in making flying a sport in this country.

All these clubs have been carried on efficiently, and the work has been done by voluntary subscriptions, except for the grant from the Ministry based on the results obtained by various pilots. Many great air enthusiasts have been developed through the efforts of these clubs, and a great deal of money has been collected to help the clubs in their work, first, in the interests of sport and, secondly, in the interests of the nation, if they should be required at any time in the future. One has only to remember the volunteer spirit in the old days that came before the Territorial Force was created and the great service that resulted during the War, and if the Minister will only see to it that these clubs are not going to be crushed out of existence, I am sure they will be of great service to the country and will carry on the work which they have commenced. There are 13 subsidised clubs, and there are several more being formed in various parts of the country which are not getting the grant, and through the spirit of rivalry and sportsmanship between these clubs they continue to do good work in every part of the country.

They are anxious to know whether, when the arrangement made with the Ministry comes to an end, their existence will cease because there will be no renewal of this grant from the Ministry. If the Minister will let the clubs know that he is prepared to extend this small grant to them, and to let it go on a little beyond the two years, it will be a source of great satisfaction to them, because they will feel that the time has not come for them to cease operations directly the two years of the subsidy ends. It is impossible for them to carry on with their own funds entirely. The grant for the work that has been done is always of the greatest service to them. The right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol North was quite true when he told these clubs that he wished to help them in every possible way, and we agree that he has done a splendid work for aviation, especially on the civil side, but this arrangement which the National Flying Services, Limited, has come to with the Government, although it seems a very good one for the Government, might, on the other hand, become a very dangerous one. If it is not going to encroach on the good work that has already been done in other directions, then it ought to have our support, and if it is going to provide 20 new aerodromes and 80 new landing stations, that is further all to the good of the smaller clubs as long as they exist; but, as the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) mentioned, what is going to happen to the municipal clubs?

I should like the Minister to explain to us how far he has gone in his arrangements with regard to the municipal aerodromes about which he spoke in introducing the Air Estimates on a previous occasion. If the municipal aerodromes are already in existence, or if preparations are being made for them, I think it is to the interests of the country that we should have municipal aerodromes rather than these private aerodromes belonging to the National Flying Services, Limited. Then, again, suppose these light aeroplane clubs fail, at the end of two years, to have made any fresh arrangement with the Minister, and they cease to exist, and supposing this company that is going to provide these aerodromes also ceases to exist, we shall have lost the whole of our public-spirited work, which we might have retained if we had allowed the light aeroplane clubs to carry on and to provide their own aerodromes and flying stations. I would ask the Minister to make some definite statement that at the end of the agreement with the light aeroplane clubs he is prepared to give them some undertaking that he will extend it beyond that time, so that they can carry on as they have done for several years past.

Sir S. HOARE

I will deal at once with the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) and Enfield (Colonel Applin). At present we have 13 light aeroplane clubs in different districts receiving a subsidy, besides which there is a number of unsubsidised clubs. These 13 clubs are doing a most excellent work. I look back with very great pride to the fact that, I think, I originated them. Indeed, there is no branch of the activities connected with the Air Ministry during the last five or six years that has been more satisfactory than the development of the light aeroplane clubs. It was a new idea. No other country had started it. It succeeded here, and it is being copied in many other parts of the world, including several of our Dominions. The defect, however, of the present arrangement is that it only provides flying facilities for a certain limited number of districts and a certain limited number of pilots, the 13 subsidised clubs producing, so far as I remember the figure, about 350 trained pilots. Any hon. Member who wishes to increase the air sense of the country will agree with me that we ought to extend the opportunities-for flying in other districts.

My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bristol North (Captain Guest) came forward with a proposal, not to compete with the light aeroplane clubs in their own districts, but to provide flying facilities in other districts that do not at present possess them, to provide flying facilities, moreover, at a much smaller cost than the sums we are now paying to the subsidised light aeroplane clubs; and, if his scheme is successful, to provide flying facilities on a much bigger scale than the existing light aeroplane clubs could ever hope to reach. I am not saying that in criticism of the existing clubs, but the scheme of the right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol North is on a much bigger scale, designed to give wider facilities to people and districts that do not possess them. From the point of view of increasing the flying opportunities of the country, obviously a scheme of that kind presents many attractions, and I, therefore, agreed, subject to the approval of the House, to make to the National Flying Services, Limited, a small annual payment, based entirely upon results, and first of all upon the number of pilots produced—£10 for each pilot, as compared with the £40 or £50 that we are now paying for the pilots in the existing clubs.

The other result that I am asking from the Company, and making a condition of paying the grant, is the provision, direct or indirect, of a number of new landing grounds and aerodromes, which is of immense importance from the general point of view of flying and also from the point of view of air defence. One of our great difficulties with air manoeuvres or any system of air defence is the deficiency in landing grounds and aerodromes, and if, by means of this new venture, we can obtain 100 new landing grounds and aerodromes, it will be of almost incalculable advantage to the Air Force, quite apart from the benefit to the people and districts desiring flying facilities. My two hon. and gallant Friends say, "That may be all very well, but it may react harshly upon the existing clubs." That is the last thing in the world I should like to see. As I say, I started them, I have watched them month after month with the greatest interest and satisfaction, and the last thing in the world that I should wish to see is any harm done to any of the existing clubs.

I believe that this scheme will do them no harm at all. It is not going into the districts where they are already providing flying facilities. It raises no question of altering anything in the agreements that I have made with the existing clubs, and those agreements, as my hon. and gallant Friend has just pointed out, run for some considerable time further. They were based upon the principle that the clubs required a subsidy for three years and that at the end of those three years the clubs would be self-supporting. I hope they will be self-supporting. I should like to see an end to subsidies of every kind, and the sooner we can reach that point the better. Therefore, I hope they will be self-supporting, but, supposing it is found in actual experience that they are not, between now and the time the agreements run out, quite obviously we shall have to meet together and reconsider the position. For the moment, I can give no further pledge, and I do not think that any hon. Member ought to ask me for any further pledges. These agreements were made for a definite period; the clubs know that they have in me and everyone at the Air Ministry sincere friends, and we shall be perfectly prepared to discuss things with them if they go badly in the next eighteen months or two years. I hope that I have said enough to show how great are the advantages to be gained from the project known as the National Flying Services, Limited, that will provide flying facilities where they do not exist and aerodromes necessary for our Imperial defence at a very reasonable price based entirely upon payment by result.

I pass to the other questions put to me by the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant). I was not quite sure what were the conclusions to which his arguments led. He seemed to imply that we had been repudiating the recommendations of what is known as the Hambling Committee, and that we have not been disclosing to the House the full extent of the subsidies which we have been making to Imperial Airways Limited.

Mr. VIANT

My point was that the Government had not conformed to the recommendations of the Committee, because the subsidies have gone far in excess of the recommendations.

Sir S. HOARE

That is wrong. We have followed in every essential feature the recommendations of the Hambling Committee. The subsidies have been based on the two principles initiated by the committee, namely, that they should be spread over a period of years, and that they should be on a descending scale. We have gone consistently on those principles ever since the Hambling Committee reported.

Mr. VIANT

They have been ascending.

Sir S. HOARE

They have been ascending from one point of view, because we have been demanding greater services from the company. In the last 12 months, for instance, we have entered into the new agreement for the India service, which was not contemplated in the original recommendations of the Hambling Committee. I am afraid that the upshot of the hon. Member's remarks is that civil aviation at present cannot exist without subsidies. I am sorry that that is so, but I believe that we are nearer making civil aviation self-supporting and nearer the point of being without subsidies than is the case in any other country in the world. I object just as much as the hon. Member does to subsidies of any kind, but it is only because in the early stages of civil aviation subsidies of some kind were necessary that this item appears year by year in the Estimates. I hope that the time will come when it will go out of existence, and that civil aviation will exist without the need of payment from the Air Ministry.

Some questions about the route to India were raised, but the answer to the greater part of them must be obtained from the Imperial Airways Company. This is a commercial service, and not a Government service, and the details about costs are details which the company must settle itself. As far as I can judge, I think that there will we a considerable demand for passenger accommodation on this air route. At first, it will be mainly for mails and freights, but I am sure that the passenger demand will tend greatly to increase as the regularity of the service shows itself to the world at large. So far as they accommodation on the route goes, the Imperial Airways and the other authorities have, so far as they could, made suitable accommodation the whole way along the route, and I do not think that passengers will be put to any undue discomfort. I feel that the inauguration of the service marks a new era in communications between this country and India, and I feel sure that it will have most satisfactory results.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

One does not often find a Conservative Member attacking the Government, and on this occasion I cannot see that the Air Ministry is very much to blame. The National Flying Service has had the effect in the East of Yorkshire of already stirring up interest in flying. They have already got into touch with the municipality of Hull and arranged, not for aerodromes for recreation purposes, but for a recreation ground in the form of a racecourse to be used as an aerodrome—a reversal of the process. We are asked for only £3,000, and I do not think that the case is very strong against them. I notice that there is a considerable expenditure on this particular Vote for oil and petrol. I should like to know if this will have to be recast and reintroduced in view of the recent rise in price. With regard to the new National Flying Service, may I ask the hon. Baronet, who I always like to hear, and who takes my imagination to the desert whenever I hear him speak, if the National Flying Service propose to extend their flights outside England and Scotland.

This brings me to my point, which is that I hope that the Air Ministry will really tackle the question of a passenger service across the North Sea. In the north, we get little advantage from the air passenger or mail services from London to Paris. There is an excellent steamer and train service, but it would be a great advantage if we could get a regular service, at any rate in the summer when the weather is good, of large flying boats able to alight on the water in case of accident and not needing any land aerodromes. If we could have a regular service from Hull for passengers and mails across the North Sea to Germany or Denmark, it would be of great advantage to business men, and I cannot understand why the Air Ministry have neglected this important route. If we had such a service, it could be connected up with the Northern European air services. The finest passenger mail services are in the north of Europe, owing to the enterprise of the Germans and their neighbours, and, if we could connect up with that tremendous network of air lines, going all the way to Asia across Europe, it would be a great advantage to our own people.

One of our services which will begin in a few weeks—the India service—was helped enormously by the Air Ministry. One of the most important links in that route, from Cairo to Bagdad, was flown for 18 months or two years by machines belonging to the Royal Air Force with Royal Air Force pilots and all the technical assistance that they could provide. That was how the service began. Why cannot the aeroplanes and flying boats belonging to the Royal Air Force, which have flown round the Mediterranean, to Australia and back, and round Africa, inaugurate a summer service from, say, the Humber or Harwich across the North Sea to Hamburg or Antwerp, or some other convenient landing place? Why cannot they begin and show the way and find out the difficulties and the obstacles, if there be any? That is the sort of thing which I would like the Air Ministry to do. After all, they are building a passenger airship at Cardington and carrying out the same principle in that direction. They started the Cairo to Bagdad service, and why should they not start this service across the North Sea? My complaint against the Air Ministry is that they will develop anything abroad, in the Middle East, Asia, Singapore, and the East Indies, and neglect affairs at home.

With regard to the service to India, I do not like the Air Minister's statement about fares. He said that that is a matter for the company. After all, we have subsidised the company, and surely a question such as fares and passenger accommodation must be within the cognisance of the Air Minister, and he must have something to say in such matters. I do not put nearly so much importance on the question of passenger fares as on the necessity and desirability of sending mails by air. Are we going to take the mails from the P. and O. Line and send them to India by air? That is what the Indian merchants want; they want quicker services between London and India. If the mails are still to be sent by steamer, we shall not gain the advantage that our trade would have from a quicker communication with what is still our greatest single market, namely, the great Empire of India. May I ask whether the great network of European services that is run by the Lufthansa will be able to extend their services to Teheran and to the aerodromes in South Persia, and also fly to India. If so, we shall at once have two things. In the first place, we shall have competition, but I do not object to that at all. We shall have the Germans flying from Berlin to Moscow and Teheran, and then, if they can fly on to the South Persian aerodromes, they will be able to fly to Karachi. Secondly, if we do not make a regular and cheap service with plenty of machines, they will take a good many of the passengers who would otherwise go on our lines. The question I ask is this: Will the other Powers be able to use the Persian aerodromes in South Persia between Basra and Karachi? Will some other foreign company be permitted to fly there? I think myself it would be shortsighted and illogical to hamper it. It would be a foolish policy in the long run, because it would only bring about reprisals, and we are dependent on the goodwill of other Powers if we are to link up the outermost parts of the Dominions by air.

It is also important that Imperial Airways, which is going to run the Indian service, should have a sufficiency of machines. On the London-Paris route they have not always had enough machines, and when there are a lot of passengers at holiday times our people, against their will, have had to be transferred to French or German machines, when they would have preferred the British machines. The Imperial Airways Company seem to have gone on the policy of supplying the fewest number of machines which would suffice for the bare minimum requirements of the service, and I suggest that is opposed to the best interests of aviation. Lastly, I must ask the Air Minister what prac- tical steps are being taken to extend the service on to the Straits Settlements and then to Australia. Round Australia there is a splendid sub-Continental service, subsidised and fostered by the Australian Government, which is opening the interior of that Continent in a wonderful fashion. We shall have our own service going India in a few weeks. What practical steps are being taken to extend it to the Straits Settlements and then, by way of the Dutch East Indies, to the northern territory of Australia, so bringing London within aerial reach of Sydney? That is a matter of the highest importance but there is no mention of it in the Air Ministry's Memorandum. All the Minister talks about there is the further extension to the Cape of Good Hope, of which we have heard every year for five or six years. We must know what is being done as regards Australia, because if we do not start other people will step in and do the flying for us. I do not know whether we are waiting for airships, but when we look at the Estimates and see enormous sums spent in all sorts of directions, we feel it is a pity that the small extra expenditure required to extend the air line to Australia is not being made and that we are not getting on faster with one of the great main air routes of the future.

Sir P. SASSOON

The hon. and gallant Member has asked what steps the Air Ministry has taken to extend the air routes to Australia. The central link is, of course, India, and the Indian Government are considering this question, but until we know what their decision is, and what they are going to do, it is impossible for us to take any effective steps to link up with Australia other than we already have, which is to survey our landing grounds and keep in touch with the Commonwealth Government on the subject. With regard to the landing grounds on the Persian coast, the aerodromes there are Persian aerodromes and it is for the Persian Government to settle who shall use them. They are for international use, but the matter is one for the Persian Government.

Mr. BENN

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us anything about the proposed non-stop flight to the Cape? I do not know whether that comes under his Department. It is proposed that there should be a non-stop flight from Cranwell, I think, to the Cape.

Sir P. SASSOON

That question does not come under this Vote.

Question put, and agreed to.