§ 50. Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the dependants of those who lost their lives on the R.101 are now receiving dependants' pensions?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague)I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) on 30th October.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAIs the answer briefly in the affirmative?
§ Mr. MONTAGUEI would ask the hon. Member to wait for a reply to a written question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) to-morrow.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAOn a point of Order. If my hon. Friend knows the answer to my question, why should it be postponed until to-morrow when apparently there is a written question down?
§ Mr. MONTAGUEI know the general terms of the answer, but I have not the detailed answer with me.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAOn a point of Order. If an hon. Member puts a question and the Minister does know the answer, is it proper that he should refer me to an answer, which has not yet been given, to a written question, and which will not be given in the House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Minister does not know the exact terms of the answer.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThis is a matter which may affect us in future Parliaments as well as this one, and the point for consideration is that any Government may desire—not of course in this case—to avoid giving an answer to a question on the Floor of the House, and can then refer the hon. Member to a written answer to be given the next day. I put it to you, Sir, that the least that can be done for the rights of private Members is that the hon. Member should be asked to postpone this question. Otherwise, we can be prevented from putting questions of public interest in this or future Parliaments.
§ Mr. ALBERYWould you, Sir, permit the Minister to obtain the answer and give it orally at the end of questions?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think that the House is in any danger such as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests. Such questions as these must be considered on their merits at the time.
§ Mr. ERNEST BROWNMay I put it to you, Sir, that this may create rather a serious precedent? It may be a quite convenient course for a Minister, but very inconvenient for the House. Surely the hon. Member who puts a question down first should be entitled to an answer, if it can be given? If not, a Minister may suggest to a back bencher to put down a question next day for a written answer, and discussion of a very grave question of public policy may in that way be burked on the Floor of the House. With all respect, Sir, I submit that this is a very important paint.
§ Sir JOSEPH LAMBMay I ask whether it would not be possible for this question to be starred to-morrow?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAMay I submit this further point of importance? After the answer to an oral question we have the right to put supplementary questions, whereas if I am to be referred to a written answer to-morrow I, in common with the whole House of Commons, am deprived of the opportunity of raising what may be points of very serious importance.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe danger I fear is that we may create further precedents by 854 an alteration of the rule, but, with the leave of the House, I see no objection to this question being starred to-morrow.
§ 54. Mr. DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can give the approximate cost of the past and present upkeep of the Airship R100; and whether, in view of recent events, any further decision has been arrived at as to the use of this particular airship?
§ Mr. MONTAGUEIn answer to the first part of the question, the cost of upkeep—including pay and wages of officers and crew, cost of hydrogen and overhead charges—could normally be taken as approximately £600 a week. This, however, is the cost of keeping the airship in flying condition, with running repairs. The present expenditure is considerably less, but no definite weekly figure can be quoted. As regards the second part of the question, no decision will 'be made until the report of the Court of Inquiry now investigating the loss of R.101 has been received and considered in all its bearings on future airship policy.
§ Mr. MONTAGUENo, not anything more than I have said in the reply. It is considerably less than £600.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHACan the hon. Member say whether a number of men have not lost their employment in connection with this airship, and what is being done for them?
§ Mr. MONTAGUEI do not see that that question arises out of the answer. It is certainly true, regrettably true, that men have lost their employment— simply because there is no work for them.
§ 55. Mr. WISEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if his Department is placing at the disposal of the R.101 court of inquiry a complete copy of the report of the United States court of inquiry into the loss of the airship "Shenandoah," that that court may not merely have to depend upon a description or summary of its contents?
§ Mr. MONTAGUECopies of the report referred to are already in possession of the Court.
§ 56. Mr. WISEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many British airships have been built, or partly built, or begun since the armistice; how much has been spent upon each of them; what has been done with the two German airships taken over at the armistice; whether any money was spent upon them; and if he will give a complete account of each of these constructions, or attempts to construct, to the R.101 court of inquiry, with full details of how or why each was lost, abandoned, or scrapped?
§ Mr. MONTAGUEAs regards the first two parts of the question, the only airships begun and built since the armistice are the R.100 and R.101, but work was done after the armistice on five other airships which were then under construction, namely, R.33, R.36, R.80, R.38 and R.37. All except the last of these were completed. The cost of construction of each of the airships was approximately as follows: R.33 and R.36, £350,000 each; R.80, £275,000; R.38 £500,000; R.37 (not completed), £325,000; R.100, £350,000 (contract price); R.101, including insertion of additional bay and other alterations, £640,000. As regards the third and fourth parts, the two German airships taken over at the armistice were dismantled some time after delivery, being unsuitable for the Air Ministry programme; the total expenditure on theca was approximately £1,000. As regards the last part of the question, the Court has already been given particulars of the British airships built before R.100 and R.101, and further information will be supplied if asked for by the Court.
§ 57. Mr. MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the present position of airship R 100; is this airship now the property of the Air Ministry; is further use to be made of this ship; is a decision on this question dependent on the results of the R 101 inquiry; if so, will the scope of the R 101 inquiry cover this point; what payments have been made for airship R 100, and to whom; and whether any further payments are still due?
§ Mr. MONTAGUEAs regards the first part of the question, R 100 is at present being deflated, and concurrently a full inspection of the hull structure is in 856 progress, together with minor repair work. Later the cover will be removed. As regards the second part, the airship has not yet been formally accepted by the Air Ministry pending the completion of certain repairs made necessary on the trial flight. As regards the third, fourth and fifth parts, a decision as to the further use of R 100 will not be taken until after the investigation into the loss of airship R 101 has been completed. For this purpose, the results of the investigation, which is, however, specifically directed to the loss of R 101, will be taken into consideration, in common with a number of other factors. As regards the last two parts of the question, £337,000 has already been paid to the Airship Guarantee Company; a- further payment of comparatively small amount will become due on satisfactory completion of repairs: its amount cannot yet be definitely stated.