CLAUSE 1.—(Agreements for subsidising transport.)

HC Deb 25 May 1936 vol 312 cc1651-734

3.54 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES

I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "and to furnish facilities for their aircraft."

This Clause appears to be the most important financial Clause in the Bill. I should have thought it would have been desirable, therefore, to couch it in more precise terminology. I have seldom seen a vaguer financial Clause in a Bill than this, which authorises the Secretary of State to pay an enormous sum of money, amounting to £1,500,000, in subsidies to Imperial Airways and other concerns. In addition to that, up to a total expense which is in no way specified or limited by this Clause, the Secretary of State is to furnish facilities for their aircraft. It has been thought necessary to impose a limit upon the amount of the subsidy, but not upon the benefits which the company are to receive by way of further facilities, and the first question that we shall ask the Minister is, what is the nature of the facilities which he proposes to give, and how much will they cost?

In the Debate upon the Financial Resolution it was pointed out that almost every Department of the State has contributed in some form or another to the maintenance, control and assistance of Imperial Airways, the main concern which is in receipt of subsidies, and will be in receipt of further facilities. Has the right lion. Baronet, or anybody at the Air Ministry, made any computation as to the total cost to the State of the further facilities which have been granter? to Imperial Airways in the past, and which it is proposed to grant in the future? If I might give the Committee one or two indications of the methods by which expenditure can be incurred under this phrase "further facilities," I would mention first the meteorological service. Perhaps the Minister would give us a precise figure, which must be considerable, of the cost of that service which is maintained by the Ministry. Anyone who is acquainted with the Air Force knows that at nine o'clock every morning a machine from what is known as the "Met flight," meaning meteorological flight, flies to 10,000 feet in order to take observations. Considerable organisation is involved, and the whole of it is at the disposal of Imperial Airways. What is the total cost of that form of State control which Imperial Airways receives?

The second illustration is the diplomatic assistance received by the company. I am seeking to concentrate the attention of the Committee upon Imperial Airways, not because I imagine that it is the only company to receive these facilities, but because it will undoubtedly be the main company. I should, therefore, like to know the total cost of the diplomatic assistance granted to the company. When we were discussing this matter the other day upon another Motion, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) put forward, as a substantial objection to State control, the point that if this concern were so controlled, the State would be brought into collision with every kind of foreign Government.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That point does not arise upon the Amendment.

Mr. GARRO JONES

May I point out with great respect that the Clause entitles the Minister to pay money for furnishing facilities for the aircraft of the company? If it is necessary for the aircraft to fly over Greece, and if they cannot do so until the diplomatic machinery of this country has been put in motion, that machinery, at the request of the Secretary of State, is spending money in furnishing facilities for the aircraft of Imperial Airways.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Not under the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which is moved to leave out specified facilities. The point described by the hon. Member might arise on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," but not on the Amendment.

Mr. GARRO JONES

I see the force of your Ruling and, of course, I shall bow to it. I shall, therefore, content myself now with asking the Minister to give us an indication of the various facilities which he proposes that these concerns shall have, and, above all, to give us an idea of the cost, because we have never been able to find out what these services from the State represent and their total cost. I hope that before the Committee pass from my Amendment to others they will at least see that the Minister gives a full statement such as has not been given to the Committee hitherto.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. MANDER

I would like to support the request of my hon. Friend for further information. When we were discussing the Financial Resolution I put a point covering a number of aspects of it, and the Solicitor-General was good enough to make inquiries, but he said later that it was not practicable to give any precise answer. I appreciated that, but I should have thought it was possible to give some approximate answer, some limit one way or the other. Friends of mine who have expert knowledge of this question have made calculations, and the figures they have reached are so enormous that I almost hesitate to mention them here; they go into millions. I hope that to-day the Solicitor-General will be able to give us some sort of indication. We are entitled to know, before we vote a large sum of money for a subsidy, what the recipients are getting in indirect services of one kind or another. The point arises in connection with a statement that I saw in the Press yesterday. The Portsmouth City Council have decided to spend a lot of money on an air station, and have stated that it was required to support Empire flying. There followed this statement: It is estimated that it would result in an annual loss of £45,000, which would be paid by the Government and by Portsmouth between them. They were asking the Air Ministry to pay 75 per cent. of this loss. Can the Under-Secretary say whether that is one of the items on which it is proposed to lend money, and whether there are other items of the same kind?

4.4 p.m.

Mr. G. HARDIE

The Committee are entitled to know two things. It is proposed to spend the sum of money that is mentioned in the Bill. One would have thought, since that is a limited amount which can be split, that we would be told how many companies or persons are to receive it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That question does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE

The Amendment is to leave out words following the words "to any persons" If "persons" were ruled out, I submit that the words that follow would have no meaning.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Amendment does not leave out the word "persons." Therefore, any question as to what arises from its omission is not in order now.

Mr. HARDIE

The words that follow, which it is proposed to leave out, have relation to the persons or companies. The money that is to be spent in the way of subsidies has not to go to other than "persons." I would like to know whether those persons are individuals.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must raise that point on the question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but not on this Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE

Then I would ask this: Since the amount of subsidy is limited, are the facilities to be limited? The facilities must be measured by the amount of money spent on them. If the Minister wants the Clause to be made plain and wishes to get his Bill through speedily, he should give us a statement as to the meaning of these words. What is the meaning of "facilities"? It is something like the word "reasonable," the interpretation of which has caused many difficulties. What does the word "facilities" include? As an engineer I can calculate something regarding aircraft facilities that £1,500,000 would not touch. The Committee have a right to know every detail that can be produced. Facilities that might be given under this part of the Clause might include things with which the whole Committee disagreed. Who is going to say whether the facilities will be either £100,000 or £500,000; whether they are to be worth £1 or £100? The Clause mentions the words "for their aircraft." What does that mean? Is the money to be spent only on the machine itself or does it mean provision of a landing place which is not a machine? If it is merely "for their aircraft," for what part of the aircraft is it? Is it to be general? I could go on much longer, but I think I have made clear to the Minister what kind of details I want.

4.8 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

I tried at an earlier stage to move an Amendment which provided that the Ministry and the Government might spend their money not wholly on subsidising companies, but in actually providing aerodromes, I was told by the Solicitor-General that that was possible by virtue of the words, in the Clause, "furnish facilities for their aircraft." That is why I am a little nervous about the Amendment, because if these words were taken out the Amendment would deprive the Government of power to make an aerodrome of its own, quite apart from the scheme for making aerodromes through subsiding some company. I feel strongly that when on the great Imperial air route, throughout the world, we are making aerodromes, those aerodromes should be a national possession and not the possession of private companies. It may well occur in future years that other companies passing through a particular area would want to use such an aerodrome. If the State owned the aerodrome all would be well, but if a company owned it a considerable penalty on another organisation might arise. I would draw attention to the fact that already in some parts of Africa aerodromes that were provided by virtue of the money of the taxpayer are to-day in the hands of great companies, and the ordinary private flyer with a small aeroplane is charged as much as £2 to land. That is the thin edge of the wedge of a great abuse. I, therefore, ask the Government, when they are considering the building of aerodromes up and down the world, that they should do it entirely on their own, and that the work should be divorced from the help given to the company. I hope that the Government will leave in the Clause the words that it is proposed to leave out. I resist the Amendment.

4.10 p.m.

Colonel ROPNER

I do not want to follow very far the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. My information with regard to aerodromes on Empire routes is that to-day in fact they do belong to the Government, and that it is only in very exceptional circumstances that they are in the possession of Imperial Airways. I think I am right in saying that Imperial Airways own only one aerodrome, that they use other aerodromes on our Empire routes in accordance with the arrangements made with the Air Ministry, and that these aerodromes are open to any other lines or passenger machines. I do not think that either the hon. Gentleman who proposed or the hon. Gentleman who seconded this Amendment will expect the Under-Secretary to accept it. It was probably moved with the idea of obtaining information. Obviously about one of the matters which the Mover of the Amendment inquired, namely, meteorological reports, it is not possible for the Air Ministry to give detailed figures of the cost of that service in so far as it affects aeroplanes. Meteorological reports are broadcast throughout the world. They are used by Thins as well as by aeroplanes, and it would be impossible to apportion the cost between aeroplanes and ships, let alone between one aeroplane and another or one air line and another.

I would like to revert to the question of aerodromes, as this may be an opportunity of eliciting from the Under-Secretary a statement as to the future policy and the management of aerodromes. As I see it, it will be more and more necessary to limit the use of aerodromes to trunk lines and particular services which may or may not be subsidised, but which are the recognised services along that route. Take Croydon as an example. As Imperial Airways develops, as Continental services develop, as the large passenger machines become more and more numerous. I feel certain that it will be found necessary to limit the use of certain aerodromes to those lines, and to discourage and probably eventually to prohibit the use of those aerodromes by private aeroplanes.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member is travelling very wide of the Amendment.

Colonel ROPNER

We are discussing the facilities which are to be granted to aircraft, and what I am trying to point out is that the Air Ministry may find it necessary to limit those facilities to certain companies. If I may add a few words I will finish what I was saying on that matter. I would like to know what is the policy of the Ministry, or what the policy will be when aeroplanes become more and more numerous. It is just at the time when the weather is thick that privately-owned machines will want to land at the aerodromes used by Imperial Airways. I know the difficulties. Dangers may be created for private machines, but I am certain that aerodromes will have to be used more and more in the way that railway stations are used, with limited tines running in and out of them, rather than as harbours into which any ship can go. If the Under-Secretary can give me some information with regard to this matter, I shall be much obliged.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. SIMMONDS

I hope the Under-Secretary will not agree to this Amendment. In our previous discussions on this matter I think it has been the general view of the House that already these subsidies are too much canalised in one or two directions, and the present Amendment would prevent as wide a dispersal as the Government at present intend. Facilities for aircraft, which hon. Members opposite seem to have such difficulty in appreciating, would be really appreciated by those British air transport companies that are not in the enjoyment of a capital sum of money, and I think that the Committee would not be fulfilling its own intention if it were to prevent the Secretary of State from assisting those otherwise non-subsidised companies to enjoy some benefit from this expenditure.

4.16 p.m.

Captain F. E. GUEST

I should like, if I may, to submit a suggestion with regard to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), and more or less supported by other Members, namely, that the facilities given under the head of aerodromes which are State-subsidised should be State property. I have very intimate experience of the route which is known as the South African route, and my hon. and gallant Friend is quite right in saying that a private individual—and it will be true also of a competing company—is liable to be charged heavy fees for the use of grounds which have been provided by State labour. I do not want to dwell on the Amendment, but should like to draw attention to the looseness of the phraseology of the Bill. I would suggest that the question of aerodromes, which is vital to the development of commercial aviation as a whole, should form the subject of a new Clause on the Report stage. I shall vote for the deletion of these words and shall put down a new Clause, if I can get anyone to support me, to deal with this matter specifically and in detail on the Report stage.

4.17 p.m.

Captain GUNSTON

It seems to me that the hon. Member for East Wolver-hampton (Mr. Mander), in asking the Under-Secretary for information with regard to the facilities to be provided, had in mind the aeronautical survey. I wonder if the Under-Secretary could tell the Committee what is the actual position with regard to the information given to airway companies in meteorological reports—whether any charge is made, or whether the informatiton is provided by the State without any charge to people making use of this service? If this service is provided free, it must amount to an enormous subsidy given to all aircraft and shipping. This is a matter in which I believe the country is very interested, and I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend will dead with is as well.

4.10 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR

Would the Under-Secretary explain whether the words which the Amendment seeks to delete will apply only to companies which are in receipt of subsidies, or whether the interpretation is that all companies will be entitled to receive facilities, irrespective of whether they are in receipt of a subsidy or not? Personally, I should not support the Amendment, and I trust that the interpretation of the Under-Secretary will be in the widest sense. I believe there is a universal desire in the Committee that subsidies should be reduced as the period goes on and as aviation develops, and I believe that the granting to aircraft of facilities other than direct subsidies is probably the most useful way in which the State can serve this new development of aviation.

With regard to the phraseology of the Bill, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) I was a member of the Gorell Committee. We sat for a long time, and had great difficulty in framing phrases for our report which would interpret the intentions in regard to a newly developing art, and I believe that the loose phraseology of the Bill is in some degree necessitated by the difficulty of interpreting a new art working in the ether. The real questions is, how are the Executive going to administer the powers which the Legislature is giving them? I think it would save a good deal of time in this Committee if, as the beginning of the Committee stage of the Bill, my right hon. Friend could give us an assurance that the Executive intend to administer the Bill in the spirit in which the Gorell Committee wished them to administer it. The other day my right hon. Friend said he was not going so far as the Gorell Committee wished, and I do not dispute that, but we should like an assurance that this nebulous thing which we are handing over to the Executive will not be crushed administratively, but will be interpreted by them in the widest possible way. I believe that to be what the Legislature desires.

4.22 p.m.

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

I am very glad at the outset to be able to give a complete reassurance to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour). The intention is to give the maximum possible amount of freedom to civil aviation, and I hope that that intention will be carried out. With regard to the question whether the furnishing of facilities applies only to subsidised companies, I am equally glad to say that it will apply to any companies, whether in receipt of a subsidy or not.

Mr. MONTAGUE

That does not appear in the Clause; it is merely the assurance of the Under-Secretary.

Sir P. SASSOON

It is obvious that the facilities provided at aerodromes which are open for the use of any line must be available for any company using the aerodrome—

Captain GUEST

If my right hon. Friend could delete the words "for their aircraft," which specifically refer to companies receiving subsidies, it seems to me that the matter would not be open to dispute.

Mr. HARDIE

On a point of Order. May I ask what is the difference between the word "companies," which I used just now when I was ruled out of order, and the word "persons"?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It seemed to me that the hon. Member was arguing whether the subsidy should be given to persons or to companies, and that question does not arise.

Mr. HARDIE

The question is, who gets the facilities?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to be arguing that point, but something quite different.

Sir P. SASSOON

I will do my best to make the matter clear. "Facilities for their aircraft" apply to any persons, and, therefore, my interpretation is that facilities can be provided for any line, whether it is in receipt of subsidy or not.

4.25 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS

May I point out that the facilities may only be furnished "in consideration of undertakings entered into by those persons"? The right hon. Gentleman will have no power to furnish facilities at all except in consideration of such undertakings, which must be entered into by the persons to whom subsidies are payable. It is clear from the terms of the Clause that in no conceivable circumstances would the right hon. Gentleman have any right to give any facilities except to subsidised aircraft.

Sir P. SASSOON

People who are not in receipt of subsidy can surely give undertakings.

Sir S. CRIPPS

The words are "undertakings entered into by those persons"—not "by any persons"; and "those persons" are the persons to whom the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to pay subsidies.

4.26 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON

Perhaps I might proceed with my remarks in reference to the Amendment—

Mr. MONTAGUE

The Clause speaks of furnishing "facilities for their aircraft"—that is to say, the aircraft used in connection with, the persons to whom subsidies axe paid. The question that we desire elucidated is whether the facilities will also be available for aircraft belonging to other companies using these aerodromes.

Sir P. SASSOON

I thought I had made that point clear. These facilities are afforded to people in receipt of subsidies, but they are, of course, available for any other line that uses the aerodrome. May I give an example? The facilities provided at aerodromes on Empire routes are provided, in the first place, because those routes are being run by a national undertaking, but there is absolutely nothing to prevent any other aircraft from using those aerodromes and availing themselves of those facilities. I cannot see that there is any difficulty in interpretation.

Mr. MONTAGUE

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree to delete the word "their" on Report?

4.28 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Terence O'Connor)

I am loth to interrupt or intervene in my right hon. Friend's very clear exposition of the meaning of these words, but, with regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), may I give an interpretation which perhaps is not quite in accord with his, but is the interpretation that I put upon the words we are discussing? As I read the Clause—which, I may say, is practically identical in terms with the Section of the Act of 1930, which has been in operation for the last six years—it provides that the Secretary of State may pay subsidies to any persons and may provide facilities for the aircraft of any persons, but can only provide facilities for the aircraft of any persons in consideration of undertakings entered into by those persons; that is to say, he may provide facilities which can be used by people who give an undertaking to carry passengers or goods, even if those persons are not in receipt of a subsidy. That is the interpretation that I put upon the words. It is not the interpretation of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, whose opinion in these matters I very greatly respect, even when it differs from my own. As I read the Clause, the Secretary of State is not authorised to provide facilities for aircraft which are not either subsidised or under an undertaking to the Secretary of State. So that the Clause does not provide for the provision of aerodromes for private undertakings.

Captain GUEST

The hon. and learned Gentleman is separating private flyers who may be conveying passengers from one place to another from commercial undertakings which are not on the list of those receiving subsidies. It is a very narrow distinction to draw. Surely, unless they are all entitled to use national aerodromes, there is an opportunity of differentiating.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I think that point is met in this way. This is not intended to be a method whereby the Secretary of State provides aerodromes for private persons. That is not the method adopted. There are other ways in which these aerodromes can be provided, and other ways in which the expenditure is met out of the Vote. This is not the relevant procedure. It is intended, as I understand it, for a different kind of service altogether.

4.32 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

I do not think the Solicitor-General need apologise at all for intervening. Here is a Clause drafted in such a sloppy way that already the lawyers are arguing about it. What sort of chance will the ordinary man-in-the-street or in the aeroplane have when he does not know what the first Clause is all about? It has not been made perfectly clear as to what the Government intend to do for these aerodromes. As far as I understand, it is possible for someone who enters into an undertaking but who has not had a subsidy to land upon these aerodromes. If one of these companies proceeded against the Government for allowing a private man to land on the aerodrome, I understand from these words as they stand that he could get an injunction against the private man. What sort of national aerodromes are we talking about?

Mr. SIMMONDS

Is it not clear that, although it is the intention of the Government that these aerodromes should be available to companies other than those in receipt of subsidies, and equally the desire of the Committee that this should be the case, there is, nevertheless, great legal doubt as to whether, in fact, these words give the Government the power they think they possess? Will the Under-Secretary give an assurance that the matter will be further looked into before Report, and then give us a succinct definition of the wording on the Clause.

4.35 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) says the Clause is drafted in a very sloppy way. If that is the case, it has been in this sloppy state since 1930, because it is identical with the first Section of the Act of that year. This Bill in no way has anything to do with the provision of aerodromes. It is a question of facilities. These are supplementary facilities in the shape of ground organisation and meteorological services. If they were excluded, there would obviously have to be a far greater cash addition to the subsidies with which the Clause deals. The facilities are wireless facilities, meteorological facilities, facilities for night flying and moorings for aircraft. Such activities as those are in accordance with international practice and the normal facilities provided by Government agencies. If they are not available for other services, British or foreign, we have no guarantee that any company or national organisation appointed by the Government to operate British air services will be able to secure the necessary facilities and ground organisation on routes outside British territory.

The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said he was appalled to gather the impression that the expense of these facilities amounted to six or seven figures. Of course, the cost of this ground organisation is a continuing expenditure year by year, and the sums that are taken for it are shown year by year on the Air Vote. For instance, the total provision for 1936 is shown under Sub-head C of Vote 6, £250,000. Outside this there is the cost of meteorological facilities under Vote 9, totalling £20,000 for civil aviation. It will be impossible to give a total figure as to what these facilities come to, because it is a continuing charge. It is essential that they should be provided, not only for the benefit of the national lines but also for those other British lines that may be operating without a subsidy, as well as for those foreign lines from whom we get reciprocal treatment. I hope that in the circumstances the Committee will agree that these words shall remain.

4.39 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS

The Amendment seems to raise two points. First of all what the words mean which it is proposed to delete, and whether they ought to remain, whatever their meaning may be decided to be. As to the first, the words are "to furnish facilities for their aircraft," and one has to inquire to what "their" refers. It must clearly refer to some words that precede it. The only words to which it can apply which have preceded it are, "to pay subsidies to any persons." It must, therefore, be read as "to furnish facilities for the aircraft of the persons to whom subsidies are payable." That is the only conceivable definition. If what the Solicitor-General suggested was the meaning of this, it would not have been "their aircraft," but "any aircraft," which would have covered the situation admirably, and shown that it was not limited to the persons already mentioned. That is made abundantly clear by the words that follow, because the facilities will only be furnished in consideration of undertakings entered into by those persons. Again, the only persons who have been mentioned are the persons in receipt of subsidy. So that the undertaking must be given by the persons who are in receipt of subsidy, and you can only furnish facilities to the aircraft of those people and in consideration of the undertaking. It is clear that the words as they stand are limited to empowering the Secretary of State to furnish facilities for the aircraft of those people who are in receipt of subsidies. He would be going outside his powers were he to furnish a ground staff, or meteorological services, or wireless or night flying services, or moorings for any other aircraft at all. I understand from what the right hon. Baronet has stated that part of the objective of these words is to provide reciprocal services for foreign aircraft. He said that, unless such services are provided, international flying will become impossible. This could not conceivably give him power to provide facilities for foreign aircraft in any circumstances, and, if he desires such powers, he will have to seek them somewhere else, and by some other measures.

Secondly, if that is what these words mean, they are really only a concealed subsidy, and it is surely highly undesirable, when we are considering the quantum of the subsidy that is to be granted in connection with these undertakings entered into by persons with respect to the carriage by air of passengers or goods, that part of that subsidy should be expressed in cash and the other part by undefined services of a concealed nature. The question whether the £1,500,000 is sufficient will depend very largely upon the value of these concealed subsidy services. The right hon. Baronet stated that, if these were excluded, there would have to be a far greater addition to the cash subsidy. He, therefore, admits that these services are in the nature of a subsidy. Why is it not possible to make charges to these lines, as are made to anyone else, and to increase the subsidy, if necessary, in accordance with those charges in order that people generally may know what in fact is the value that is given annually to these various companies, because it is clear that it is going to be a great deal more than £1,500,000.

I will not enter into the question of whether it is desirable to give more than £1,500,000, but surely it is most desirable from the point of view of public accountancy that we should know what we are giving, and at present he tells us we do not know what we are giving. If these words are to be omitted it will be possible for the right hon. Baronet to pay any subsidy or we might enable him to provide services of any sort to these various companies to the extent of £1,500,000 and, if he thinks that is not enough to cover what they really need in connection with national flying, he should increase that amount of money. He should not leave it merely to be covered by this vague permission for the Ministry of Air to provide ground staff, to provide moorings, to provide wireless services and all the rest of it in an indefinite and quite irregular way. I, therefore, hope the Committee will delete these words, not because they wish the right hon. Baronet not to provide proper services but because those services, if they are to be provided, should be provided in the proper way, and the proper way is not to limit them to a few privileged companies, putting in if he requires it a provision by which these services can be provided to civil aviation as a whole, when it will not be a con- cealed subsidy, but will be a national service, and will be a start in nationalising the flying services of the country, which is the only proper solution of the problem.

4.45 p.m.

Major HILLS

I am reluctant to draw swords with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), but he says that the best plan is to omit these words altogether. If we should omit them altogether, I do not know what would happen to civilian aviation.

Sir S. C R I PPS

I said that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister should introduce proper words to cover what he really requires to do.

Major HILLS

These have been the proper words for six years, and they had not been questioned until the hon. and learned Gentleman questioned them.

Sir S. CRIPPS

It was not I.

Major HILLS

Well, then, my two hon. Friends on my right. Do they expect to be provided with free airports? That is not what this Bill provides; it does not provide free airports. Do they expect to get them without giving any undertaking? [Interruption.]They do; then I agree with my right hon. Friend that this Clause does not make that provision. It was never intended that the Bill should go as far as that. It is a very different undertaking altogether, if it has to give any company which intends to fly, the right to claim an airport anywhere. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) nods his head.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

We cannot go into the general question of whether the Government should or should not provide facilities for anybody. Hon. Members are entitled to ask what the words mean and what they cover, but we really cannot, on an Amendment to leave out these words, enter upon a general discussion of high policy.

Major HILLS

I accept your Ruling, Captain Bourne. I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment. No one wants the Amendment carried except those who desire to destroy the Bill. If the Amendment were carried, the whole Bill would go by the board. I am certain that the Committee, although hon. Members want certain Amendments to be made, really do want the Bill, and unless this Clause is inserted no Bill will be possible.

4.45 p.m.

Mrs. TATE

One thing has emerged very clearly from this Debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) have disagreed slightly as to the interpretation of the words, but neither of them has disagreed that under the Bill, when it passes, no company will be able to land at a Government-provided aerodrome unless it is in receipt of a subsidy. An hon. Member says "By arrangement." The Under-Secretary of State stated that it is his wish that other companies should land,

but when we have passed the Bill it will not be the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman that will count, but the interpretation of the Bill in law. I think that everyone will agree that no clearer exposition of the interpretation of the Bill in law could have been given than that which was given by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. There fore, what we are now doing is giving a huge concealed subsidy in another form to Imperial Airways, and I sincerely hope that the Committee will not allow the Amendment to pass.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 96.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)	Titchfield. Marquess of
Pilkington, R.	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)	Touche, G. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)	Tree, A. R. L. F.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.	Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)	Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Ramsden, Sir E.	Smithers Sir W.	Wakef[...]d, W. W,
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)	Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)	Wallace, Captain Euan
Reid, D. D. (Down)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)	Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.	Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Remer, J. R.	Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L	Warrender, Sir V.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)	Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.	Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T, R.
Ropner, Colonel L.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)	Williams, C. (Torquay)
Runclman, Rt. Hon. W.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)	Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)	Storey, S.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)	Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.	Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchln)
Salmon, Sir I.	Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)	Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Salt, E. W.	Stauss, H. G. (Norwich)	Withers, Sir J. J.
Samuel, Sir A. M, (Farnham)	Strickland, Captain W. F.	Womersley, Sir W. J.
Sanderson, Sir F B.	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)	Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Sandys, E, D.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.	TELLERS FOR THE Ayes—
Savory, Servington	Sutcliffe, H.	Major George Davies and Captain
Scott, Lord William	Tasker, Sir R. I.	Waterhouse.

NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke	Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)	Montague, F.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Adamson, W. M.	Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Muff, G.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)	Groves, T. E.	Naylor, T. E.
Barnes, A. J.	Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Barr, J.	Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)	Potts, J.
Batey, J.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Ritson, J.
Benson, G,	Hardle, G. D.	Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Brooke, W.	Harris, Sir P. A.	Rowson, G.
Burke, W. A.	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Seely, Sir H. M.
Chater, D.	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Sexton, T. M.
Cluse, W. S.	Holdsworth, H.	Shinwell, E.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.	Holland, A.	Simmonds, O. E.
Cocks, F. S.	Hopkin, D.	Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Compton, J.	Jagger, J.	Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Cove, W. G.	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cripps, Hon. sir Stafford	Johnston, Rt. Hon. T,	Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Daggar, G.	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Sorensen, R. W.
Dalton, H.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	Kelly, W. T.	Tate, Mavis C.
Day, H.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Ede, J. C.	Lawson, J. J.	Thorne, W.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)	Leach, W.	Thurtle, E.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Lee, F.	Tinker, J. J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.	Leslie, J. R.	Walker, J.
Gallacher, W.	Logan, O. G.	Welsh, J. C.
Gardner, B. W.	Lunn, W.	Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Garro-Jones, G. M.	Macdonald, G. (Ince)	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	McGhee, H. G.	Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)	MacNeill, Weir, L.	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Mander, G. le M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Marklew, E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grenfell, D, R.	Messer, F.	Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN

Mr. Montague.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

On a point of Order. Will you give some indication, Captain Bourne, how it is that a very important Amendment which I have put down—in page 1, line 13, after "persons," insert "and confirmed by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament"—is not to be taken. It seems to raise a question which is dear to the hearts of hon. Members. Here we are voting a lump sum of money, and we want to know how it is to be spent. I cannot see that my Amendment is in any way out of order. Parliament should be able to see how a subsidy is being spent and what agreements are being made, and should be given an opportunity of confirming such arrangements by resolution.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment is not out of order, but it happens to be repeated in a very much superior form by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander).

4.49 p.m.

Mr. MONTAGUE

I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "five hundred thousand."

The purpose of the Amendment is to reduce the amount to the original subsidy of £1,000,000. I cannot help thinking that the answer that was given by the Under-Secretary in the discussion on the last Amendment is the strongest argument that I can put forward for this Amendment, because he told us that in addition to the proposed subsidy of £1,500,000 there was a concealed subsidy, which amounted to more than £250,000. He referred us to the Air Votes. In our opinion, merely to refer us to the Air Votes and the Estimates is not good enough in connection with a Bill of such importance as this. We desire that the whole question of subsidies which is involved in this Clause should be fully debated and that the Committee should have a full opportunity of debating that issue when it is before us. Merely to refer us to the Air Votes in regard to concealed subsidies is not sufficient.

We are proposing to reduce the Vote back to the original amount of £1,000,000. When subsidies for civil aviation were first accepted by the British Parliament, the amount of £1,000,000 was voted by this House to cover a period of 10 years. In the discussion on that amount the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) used a phrase that has been so often quoted, about civil aviation beginning to fly by itself. After all these years it seems that we are further off than ever from civil aviation being able to fly by itself. So far as the importance of civil aviation is concerned, I should like to draw attention to the fact that to a large extent civil aviation is a hobby, and the hobby of people with money. It may be true—I do not doubt the truth of it, in fact I have asserted the truth of it more than once—that the development of civil aviation is important from the national point of view, but I consider, and we on this side consider, that a great amount of justification requires to be brought forward for huge subsidies of this description, increasing by £500,000, by 50 per cent., in this single year because of the development of certain Atlantic services, and so forth.

These huge subsidies ought to carry with them an equivalent amount of national control. Our reason for moving this Amendment is not that we fail to appreciate the importance of civil aviation to the country, but that there are many other things of great importance to the country. The condition of the people of the country is of some importance. There are many other questions that require consideration from the point of view of expenditure. We were told a day or two ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in order to pay for certain expenses of armaments, the social services of this country have to come to a standstill. We were told that quite definitely. Yet we are to come calmly to the consideration of a Bill of this character which increases by 50 per cent. the subsidies to be given to private aviation, without anything in the nature of adequate Parliamentary control or national responsibility. As I said on the occasion of the Second Reading, we are not worrying ourselves about the division of the spoil. We are not concerned whether Imperial Airways or any other company gets the spoil, but we are concerned about the importance of Government representation upon the board of any company that receives subsidies.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I would remind the hon. Member that there is a later Amendment which raises that specific point, and I am proposing to call it. If the hon. Member deals with that point now, it will make it difficult for me to call that Amendment.

Mr. M0NTAGUE

I must accept your Ruling. Our objection to the amount of the subsidy proposed and our reasons for moving the Amendment to reduce the subsidy have been stated and will be further debated before the debates are finished, because the whole question to which I have referred is involved.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. EVERARD

I had not intended to speak on this Amendment, but I am impelled to do so by speech of the hon. Member. I think he will agree with me that as times goes on and speed is the essence of communications between the different parts of the British Empire, obviously the faster yon go the larger the subsidy must be. It we are content to have obsolete, slow machines, it would be possible to carry on with the present subsidy, but the general feeling of the public as expressed in this House, the feeling against Imperial Airways, is that they do not go fast enough. In order to go faster you must have increased subsidies for the provision of new machines, because as speed increases so much more does the cost increase.

There was one observation made by the hon. Member to which I certainly take exception. He said that he had at the back of his mind a feeling that some of this subsidy of £1,500,000 is going into the pockets of private owners, or what he called people with money whose hobby is flying. Nothing of the sort. The £1,500,000 is purely for air services. It has nothing to do with private flying or with the clubs. There is no country in the world where the private owners and the whole of the air-minded population do more at their own expense for civil aviation than we do in this country.

Mr. MONTAGUE

I did not refer to private flyers. Does the hon. Member seriously consider that the ordinary use of aircraft for travel is not a. question of people with money, and a hobby? Does he imagine that the majority of the people of this country are able to use aircraft?

Mr. EVERARD

The hon. Member does not seem to understand what I mean. The main idea of communication with the Empire is for mail services and quick communication. Everyone can afford, from the poorest to the richest, to send a letter by Imperial Airways to Australia, and certainly they will do it at Christmas time and at other times. Therefore, the development of such services is as important to one member of the public as to another. The hon. Member infers, as I understood him, that this has something to do with rich people, who can afford to own aeroplanes, getting something out of this subsidy. He is entirely wrong. If we compare our position as regard the light aeroplane clubs—I do not wish to speak about them now, because it would be out of order—we get only £15,000 a year, and we are not getting one penny from this subsidy towards private flying. The French find enormous subsidies for the purpose of helping everybody who has a private aeroplane. We do nothing of that sort.

For the hon. Member to suggest that wealthy people who own aeroplanes, and who are endeavouring to play their part in establishing civil aviation, should he held up to scorn, is very unfair. If the hon. Member did not mean that, I am prepared to accept what he says. From the words he used it seemed to me that that was the line of argument he was endeavouring to put forward. I entirely support the Minister in regard to the increased subsidy. It compares favourably with subsidies given by every other large nation, and it is money which will be much better spent from alI points of view than similiar money spent in other countries, especially in the United States of America, where so much money has been wasted in the past. For these reasons I shall certainly have great pleasure in supporting the Government.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES

The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) troubled himself unnecessarily over the remarks of my hon. Friend. I am sure that my hon. Friend had no intention whatever to make any charge against the private owners of aircraft in this country. The Amendment is to reduce from £1,500,000 to £1,000,000 the maximum amount of subsidy payable annually. Every business man in the Committee, and I hope every other hon. Member, knows that when you are fixing an amount in negotiation it is very much easier to go up than to come down. Therefore, if the Minister is good enough to accept the Amendment there will be nothing to prevent him at a later date, should it prove that the Committee was wrong in its estimate of the maximum amount required, in coming again to the House to ask us to increase the amount. If we allow the amount to go at its present figure, we can be certain that the Minister will never come to us with money in hand and say that he has succeeded in accomplishing the policy of Parliament at a less figure than he expected it would cost. It is well to remember that we are voting this sum of £1,500,000 for 17 years.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has an Amendment on the Order Paper on that point. I think he had better take the two points separately.

Mr. GARRO JONES

I had that Amendment in mind and I was not going to run any risk of you ruling that Amendment out of order by expatiating upon it in connection with this Amendment, but it is relevant to mention that we are fixing this subsidy for 17 years and that in that time it is very likely that a less amount will prove to be needed. Let us look at the present time as sufficient for the day. Suppose we fix the amount at £1,000,000. What is going to suffer? Is the cause of civil aviation going to suffer, or is the only thing that is going to suffer the amount of dividends which will be paid by Imperial Airways? I do not want to dwell on the question of the dividends of Imperial Airways, because I am more concerned with the capital situation of that company. The capital situation of that company is relevant, as to what amount they will require by way of subsidy to strengthen their capital position in the inauguration of the new routes. In that connection the Minister gave us an interesting piece of information. He told us that Imperial Airways were about to go to the public for an increase of capital. The present capital is £700,000 odd. I believe a figure of £2,000,000 was mentioned in the Debate. At any rate, the issue was to be for £1,000,000 and to be issued at a premium. If that be so, Imperial Airways will find itself in possession on the new issue account of £1,000,000 of capital in addition to its increased nominal capital. Surely, that sum will be available for new expenditure on the inauguration of the new air routes?

I am firmly convinced that the cause of civil aviation will not suffer one ton-mile if we reduce the vote to £1,000,000. If we do that, there is nothing to prevent the Minister coming to ask for more. If he does not do so, then the House of Commons will be able to congratulate itself on having saved £500,000 per annum of the taxpayer's money.

5.15 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER

I hope the Under-Secretary will not accept the Amendment. If it were carried it would mean that the Atlantic services which are now going to be brought into existence—we hope soon—would be stopped. Already Messrs. Short have two large flying boats getting ready for the service, and if we stop this work it will mean that men will be driven out of employment. That is most undesirable. We want to develop the North Atlantic service. If we do not, the United States will. Also, if the Amendment were accepted it would also mean stopping any investigations into the Southern Atlantic service. At the present time the French and German Government give large subsidies to this service, and it costs this country a sum of £65,000 a year to send letters by German and French air mails across the Southern Atlantic. I have a letter, from an officer ire the Royal Navy in Argentina, who says that our prestige is suffering in the Argentine because we do not send our mails by British machines. Surely the hon. Member for Islington West (Mr. Montague) does not want our prestige to suffer in this way or to stop all investigations as to the desirability of an air mail service across the Southern Atlantic?

5.18 p.m.

Mr. MANDER

Speaking for myself, I have a good deal of sympathy with the proposal to increase the amount of expenditure on civil aviation. As a matter of national prestige it is necessary for us to be triumphant in the air, and we can attain that only by way of a subsidy. Other countries do it, and we are bound to do the same thing. I want to see civil aviation developed and I have a good deal of sympathy with the increased demand that is being made.

5.19 p.m.

Colonel ROPNER

The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) made one or two unfortunate remarks, and perhaps the most unfortunate was that civil aviation is something of a hobby. I cannot believe that that is his considered judgment. It is not something of a hobby which enables us, or will enable us, to send our mails over the whole of the Empire for 1½d.; to send mails to India or East Africa in two and a-half days, to South Africa in four and a-half days or to Australia in six or seven days. These are the projected services of Imperial Airways, if they receive the increased subsidy possible under this Bill. The only justification for reducing the amount of the subsidy proposed would be that we had received a bad service from the £1,000,000 odd which has been spent annually in the last few years. The Bill, of course, actually dives no money to Imperial Airways, but it is generally recognised that this; great company will receive a large proportion of the money which is voted under it. Surely it cannot be alleged that we have received bad service in the past. The ton-mile cost in French lines has been 9s., in the German lines 4s., in the Italian lines 11s., and in Imperial Airways something under 2s.

I have always contended, and I still contend, that in spite of the fact that the machines owned by Imperial Airways can certainly be considered to be slow to-day, nevertheless they have been run with the greatest efficiency. If increased speed is what we desire then it must be paid for; and at a high cost. Surely the justification for the increase in the subsidy is the startling programme which has been outlined by the Under-Secretary of State. On all Imperial routes there is projected a tremendous acceleration of schedules, a very large increase in the frequency of the services, and the proposal which I have already mentioned, of carrying all first-class Empire mails for 1½d. per half ounce. To my mind that programme if it is carried out, and I have every faith that it will, fully justifies the increased subsidy we are voting. I feel sure that the Under-Secretary will resist the Amendment.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. WAKEFIELD

I listened with care and attention to what hon. Members have said in support of the Amendment and their arguments have left me entirely unconvinced. It seems to me that by granting the maximum amount of subsidy the country could not spend the money in any better way. It is of the utmost importance that this country should have a large and adequate reserve of pilots, and this can best be obtained by developing and extending civil aviation. By granting this comparatively small subsidy the Committee, therefore, will enable civil aviation to be extended and expanded in a way which would not otherwise be possible. I think this is probably the cheapest of all expenditure that is now taking place in connection with defence purposes, and although it is actually for civil aviation it will yet indirectly strengthen our defensive position. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) suggested that it was always easier to come down than to go up, and that the maximum amount voted during the last few years has never been spent. As the money has always been returned there is no justification for the hon. Member putting forward that argument. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) suggested that we should reduce the proposed subsidy because of concealed subsidies for meteorological and other purposes. Surely the meteorological services are not given only for civil aviation but to the country as a whole, and private individuals who listen in to the weather reports know the weather they are going to have for their picnic the next day. Therefore, that argument does not hold good. I trust that the Under-Secretary will not accept the Amendment.

5.25 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON

The projects contemplated in connection with Empire air mail schemes, including the North and South Atlantic routes, entail a subsidy in excess of the £1,000,000 which was voted under the 1930 Subsidy Act. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) shook his head when my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) said that when we had not spent up to the limit of the subsidy the balance had been returned to the Treasury. That, of 'course, is the case.

Mr. GARRO JONES

I know that there have been years in which the subsidy has not been fully spent. I was speaking of some years ago. The Government instead of a repayment of cash took deferred shares, which have never yielded any dividend, and never will.

Sir P. SASSOON

When the limit of the subsidy was fixed in 1930 the services then contemplated were, of course, very much less than the immense increases which are contemplated to-day. When one thinks of the proposed increase in the programme and remembers that we are only asking for 50 per cent. more subsidy, the Committee, I think, will say that we have been fairly modest. It must be remembered that this figure is a gross figure. It does not include the contributions from the other Governments of the Empire, which will be returned to us in the form of grants-in-aid, and will result in a considerable reduction in United Kingdom expenditure. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) said that the ideal put before us by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), that commercial aviation should fly by itself, was further off than ever. I do not agree with the hon. Member at all. The schemes which are contemplated show that there is an eight-fold increase in the ton-mileage capacity of the services as compared with two years ago, when the outline proposals were drawn up, with an increase in subsidy of only £30,000 on the average. I think it is fair to say that while the. amount and extent of the services have gone up each year, proportionately the subsidy has decreased. I hope the Committee will on reflection think that the £1,500,000 is a fair sum.

5.29 p.m.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS

I should like to support the Under-Secretary of State. I was surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) that a reduction of £500,000 in the subsidy would not affect the development of civil aviation. The object of the money is to get out a programme, and he will see that the amount cannot exceed £1,500,000. That does not mean that the £1,500,000 must necessarily be spent, but that it shall not exceed that amount. If there is to be £1,500,000 in order to develop a programme—and we do want to develop a big programme—of civil aviation, it would surely be very much easier to do it with the £1,500,000 in the Bill itself, instead of bringing it in later on, as was suggested by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen. Possibly there may have been something a little more subtle in his arguments; it may be that he wants to reduce the amount now in order later on to show that there has not been a success and that private enterprise has not worked, and possibly he would then

be able to bring in a national scheme in order that it should be taken over by the Government.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH

Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain how it is private enterprise with a subsidy of £1,500,000 from the Government?

Sir W. BRASS

It is private enterprise because most of the money is provided by private enterprise. Private enterprise is something which is run by private enterprise and not, run by the Government.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH

It is public money run by private enterprise.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)

The only point before the Committee now is whether the subsidy should be £1,500,000 or £1,000,000.

Sir W. BRASS

I entirely agree with you. I did not raise the point myself; it was the hon. Member opposite who did so. I think it is most important that we should support the Minister on this occasion and that the amount should not be £1,000,000, but £1,500,000.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 92.

Division No. 197.]	AYES.	[4.50 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.	Crltchley, A.	Keeling, E. H.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)	Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page	Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.	Crooke, J. S.	Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Albery, I. J.	Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.	Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)	Culverwell, C. T.	Kirkpatrick. W. M.
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.	Davison, Sir W. H.	Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Aske, Sir R. W.	Donner, P. W.	Latham, Sir P.
Assheton. R.	Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.	Leckie, J. A.
Atholl, Duchess of	Drewe, C.	Leech, Dr. J. W.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Dugdale, Major T. L.	Lees-Jones, J.
Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)	Duncan, J. A. L.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Balniel, Lord	Dunglass, Lord	Levy, T.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Eales, J. F.	Lewis, O.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Liddall, W S.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)	Ellis, Sir G.	Lindsay, K. M.
Belt, Sir A. L.	Emmott, C. E. G. C.	Liewellin. Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Bennett, Capt. Sir E. M.	Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Lloyd, G. W.
Blair, Sir R.	Errington, E.	Locker-Lampson. Comdr. O. S.
Blindell, Sir J.	Erskine Hill, A. G.	Loftus, P. C.
Boulton, W. W.	Everard, W. L.	Mabane, W, (Huddersfleld)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Findlay, Sir E.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Bower, Comdr. R. T.	Furness, S. N.	McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G, E. W.	Fyfe, D. P. M.	Maclay. Hon. J. P.
Brass, Sir W.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.	Gluckstein, L. H.	Macquisten. F. A.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)	Magnay, T.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Granville, E. L.	Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Bull, B. B.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Bullock, Capt. M.	Gridley, Sir A. B.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Butler, R. A.	Grigg, Sir E. W. M.	Markham. S. F.
Campbell, Sir E. T.	Grimston, R. V.	Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Cartland, J. R. H.	Guinness, T. L. E. B.	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Cary, R. A.	Gunston, Capt. D. W.	Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham
Castlereagh, Viscount	Guy, J. C. M.	Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)	Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.	Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Hanbury. Sir C.	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)	Hannah, I. C.	Moreing, A. C.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)	Hartington, Marquess of	Morgan, R. H.
Channon, H.	Haslam. Sir J. (Bolton)	Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)	Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Clarke, F. E.	Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)	Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Clarry, Sir Reginald	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)	Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Cobb. Sir C. S.	Holmes, J. S.	Munro, F.
Colfox, Major W. P.	Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.	Nicolson, Han. H. G.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.	Howitt, Dr. A. B.	O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)	Hudson, R. S. (Southport)	Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)	Hurd, Sir P. A.	Patrick, C. M.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.	Peake, O.
Courtauid, Major J. S.	Jackson, Sir H.	Penny, Sir G.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.	James, Wing-Commander A, W.	Petherick, M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)	Titchfield. Marquess of
Pilkington, R.	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)	Touche, G. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)	Tree, A. R. L. F.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.	Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)	Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Ramsden, Sir E.	Smithers Sir W.	Wakef[...]d, W. W,
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)	Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)	Wallace, Captain Euan
Reid, D. D. (Down)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)	Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.	Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Remer, J. R.	Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L	Warrender, Sir V.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)	Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.	Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T, R.
Ropner, Colonel L.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)	Williams, C. (Torquay)
Runclman, Rt. Hon. W.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)	Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)	Storey, S.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)	Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.	Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchln)
Salmon, Sir I.	Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)	Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Salt, E. W.	Stauss, H. G. (Norwich)	Withers, Sir J. J.
Samuel, Sir A. M, (Farnham)	Strickland, Captain W. F.	Womersley, Sir W. J.
Sanderson, Sir F B.	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)	Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Sandys, E, D.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.	TELLERS FOR THE Ayes—
Savory, Servington	Sutcliffe, H.	Major George Davies and Captain
Scott, Lord William	Tasker, Sir R. I.	Waterhouse.
NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke	Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)	Montague, F.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Adamson, W. M.	Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Muff, G.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)	Groves, T. E.	Naylor, T. E.
Barnes, A. J.	Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Barr, J.	Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)	Potts, J.
Batey, J.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Ritson, J.
Benson, G,	Hardle, G. D.	Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Brooke, W.	Harris, Sir P. A.	Rowson, G.
Burke, W. A.	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Seely, Sir H. M.
Chater, D.	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Sexton, T. M.
Cluse, W. S.	Holdsworth, H.	Shinwell, E.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.	Holland, A.	Simmonds, O. E.
Cocks, F. S.	Hopkin, D.	Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Compton, J.	Jagger, J.	Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Cove, W. G.	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cripps, Hon. sir Stafford	Johnston, Rt. Hon. T,	Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Daggar, G.	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Sorensen, R. W.
Dalton, H.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	Kelly, W. T.	Tate, Mavis C.
Day, H.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Ede, J. C.	Lawson, J. J.	Thorne, W.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)	Leach, W.	Thurtle, E.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Lee, F.	Tinker, J. J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.	Leslie, J. R.	Walker, J.
Gallacher, W.	Logan, O. G.	Welsh, J. C.
Gardner, B. W.	Lunn, W.	Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Garro-Jones, G. M.	Macdonald, G. (Ince)	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	McGhee, H. G.	Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)	MacNeill, Weir, L.	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Mander, G. le M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Marklew, E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grenfell, D, R.	Messer, F.	Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.	Castlereagh, Viscount	Donner, P. W.
Agnew, Lieut. -Comdr. P. G.	Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)	Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Albery, I. J.	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Dugdale, Major T. L.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)	Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)	Duncan, J, A. L.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)	Dunglass, Lord
Aske, Sir R. W.	Channon, H.	Eales, J. F
Assheton, R.	Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Atholl, Duchess of	Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)	Ellis, Sir G.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Clarke, F. E.	Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Ballour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)	Clarry, Sir Reginald	Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Balnlel, Lord	Clydesdale, Marquess of	Errington, E.
Barclay- Harvey, C. M.	Cobb, Sir C. S.	Erskine Hill, A. G.
Baxter, A. Beverley	Colfox, Major W. P.	Everard, W. L.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)	Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.	Findlay, Sir E.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsrm'h)	Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.	Furness, S. N.
Beit, Sir A. L.	Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)	Fyfe, D. P. W.
Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.	Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Bernays, R. H.	Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Blair, Sir R.	Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)	Gluckstein. L. H.
Blindell, Sir J.	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Goodman, Col. A. W.
Boulton, W. W.	Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.	Graham, Captain A. C. (Wlrral)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Critchley, A.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.	Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page	Gridley, Sir A. B.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.	Crooke, J. S.	Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Brass, Sir W.	Crooksnank, Capt. H. F. C.	Grimston, R. V.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G,	Crowder, J. F. E,	Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Culverwell, C. T.	Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.	Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Bull, B. B.	Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)	Guy, J. C. M.
Bullock, Capt. M.	Davison, Sir W. H.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Campbell, Sir E. T.	De Chair, S. S.	Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Cartland, J. R. H.	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hanbury, Sir C.
Cary, R. A.	Denville, Alfred	Hannah, I. C.
Hartington, Marquess of	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Simmonds, O. E.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)	Markham, S. F.	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.	Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-	Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)	Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)	Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)	Smithers, Sir W.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)	Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)	Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Holmes, J. S.	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)	Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.	Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)	Morgan, R. H,	Spears, Brig. -Gen. E. L.
Hurd, Sir P. A.	Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)	Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.	Morris-Jones, Dr. J, H.	Spens, W. P.
Jackson, Sir H.	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
James, Wing-Commander A, W.	Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Keeling, E. H.	Munro, P.	Storey, S.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)	O'Connor, Sir Terence J.	Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)	O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Strauss, E. A. (Southwark N.)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.	Orr-Ewing, I. L.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Kirkpatrick, W. M.	Palmer, G. E. H.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Lamb, Sir J Q.	Patrick, C. M.	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.	Peake, O.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Latham, Sir P.	Penny, Sir G.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Leckle, J. A.	Petherick, M.	Sutcliffe, H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.	Plckthorn, K. W. M.	Tasker, Sir R. I.
Lees-Jones, J.	Plikington, R.	Tate, Mavis C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.	Titchfield, Marquess of
Levy, T.	Ralkes, H. V. A, M.	Touche, G. C.
Lewis, O.	Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.	Tree, A. R. L. F.
Liddall, W. S.	Ramsden, Sir E.	Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Lindsay, K. M.	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)	Wakefield, W. W.
Lloyd, G. W.	Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)	Wallace, Captain Euan
Locker- Lampson, Comdr. O. S.	Reid, W. Allan (Derby)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Lumley, Capt. L. R.	Remer, J. R.	Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Lyons, A. M.	Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)	Warrender, Sir V.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)	Ropner, Colonel L.	Waterhouse, Captain C.
McCorquodale, M. S.	Rothschild, J. A. de	Wedderburn, H. J. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)	Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.	Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)	Williams, C. (Torquay)
Macdonald, Capt. p. (Isle of Wight)	Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)	Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.	Salt, E. W.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Maclay, Hon. J. P.	Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)	Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Macnamara, Capt. J, R. J.	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.	Withers, Sir J. J.
Macquisten, F. A.	Savery, Servington	Womersley, Sir W. J.
Magnay, T.	Scott, Lord William	Wragg, H.
Maitland, A.	Seely, Sir H. M.	Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Makins. Brig.-Gen. E.	Shakespeare, G. H.
Mander, G. le M.	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)	Captain Hope and Lieut.-Colonel
		Llewellin.
NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke	Grenfell, D. R.	Muff, G.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)	Naylor, T. E.
Adamson, W. M.	Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Oliver, G. H.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)	Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Paling, W.
Ammon, C. G.	Groves, T. E.	Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Barnes, A. J.	Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)	Potts, J.
Barr, J.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Price, M. P.
Batey, J.	Hardie, G. D.	Ritson, J.
Benson, G.	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Brooke, W.	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Rowson. G.
Burke, W. A.	Holdsworth, H.	Sexton, T. M.
Chater, D.	Holland, A.	Shinwell, E.
Cluse, W. S.	Hopkin, D.	Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.	Jagger, J.	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cocks, F. S.	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)
Compton, J	Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.	Sorensen, R. W.
Cove, W. G.	Jones, A, C. (Shipley)	Stewart. W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Daggar, G.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphllly)	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Dalton, H.	Kelly, W. T.	Thorne, W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Thurtle, E.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	Lawson, J. J.	Tinker, J. J.
Day, H.	Leach, W.	Viant, S. P.
Ede, J. C.	Lee, F.	Walker, J.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)	Leslie, J. R.	Welsh, J. C.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Logan, D. G,	Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.	Lunn, W.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Gallacher, W.	Macdonald, G. (Ince)	Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Gardner, B. W.	McGhee, H. G.	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Garro-Jones, G. M.	MacNeill, Weir, L.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)	Marklew, E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Messer, F.	Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Montague, F.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. EDE

I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, to leave out "fifty-three," and to insert "forty-one."

Hon. Members will have observed that there is a number of Amendments dealing with the dates to which this subsidy shall extend, and it would appear that my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) and myself have almost reached in our minds the same date as the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonei Moore-Brabazon) and the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). In fact, if we moved one year forward and they moved one year back, thus splitting the difference, we should be in agreement. May I say at once to the hon. and gallant Member and the hon. Lady that if it would assist them in supporting us in the Division lobby, we should have no difficulty in arriving at an accommodation on that point.

The object of the Amendment I am moving is to limit the time during which this subsidy shall be paid, and I think there is a great deal to be said for that. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) had a little skirmish during the discussion on the last Amendment with the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), with regard to the question how far this is private enterprise and how far it is pauper enterprise. By limiting the time we should be more certain that private enterprise would not be treated as a pauper for a greater time than it stands in need of public assistance, and it seems to me that that is a highly desirable thing to secure. Another great advantage that would be obtained if the Amendment were accepted is that it would enable the Government in charge of the country immediately after the next General Election, if this Parliament runs its full length of time, to be in a position to review the situation. On the assumption that the Cabinet meetings that were held yesterday all over the county of Surrey by various Noble Lords—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN

Order, Order!

Mr. EDE

I was going to suggest, as did my hon. Friend, that they are entirely in the air and never likely to fructify. Assuming that this Parliament lasts until 1940, I suggest that the date should be made 1941 for the very good reason that the much more efficient and proper Government that is then likely to control the country would be really master in its own house with regard to this particular matter. Can it be suggested that the world will continue for much longer this mad competition between nations, conducted on a basis of subsidies, with regard to this and other public services? The argument for this subsidy is that other nations give such subsidies. Everybody deplores the fact but nobody seems to have the strength of mind to stand up against this fatal tendency on the part of all nations. But I strongly believe that hard facts will compel one nation after another to reverse the policy which has been pursued during recent years, and that we ought not to pledge ourselves to continue this subsidy for the tremendous length of time proposed in the Bill, if there is the slightest possible hope of this service being able to stand on its own feet any sooner.

I hope the Committee will not agree to such a long period of subsidy. I do not think any of the subsidy proposals which have hitherto been before Parliament have covered such a long time and I do not see why this subsidy should be treated on a different basis from others. It is understood that the service is likely to develop and that it ha s a future before it as a means of international transport. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or behind it."] I have known some peopIe whose futures have been behind them and they do not sit very far from me. They still cherish hopes which are only delusions. I suggest that it would be in the best interests of the State that this subsidy should be reviewed as soon as is reasonably possible, and the date suggested in the Amendment is one that might he seriously considered by the Committee.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES

I have been very careful riot to introduce a controversial note into anything I have said this afternoon. One reason was that I wished to avoid antagonising the Minister who would, I hoped, be inclined to accept some other Amendments which we had in the Paper. This is one of those Amendments. A great many arguments can he advanced in favour of it but I do not propose to weary the Committee by putting them all forward. It has also behind it what I think influences the Government a great deal more, if I may say so inoffensively, namely weight of numbers. Hon. Members in every part of the Committee have put their names to this or similar Amendments. We are not tied to a reduction of the period by 12 years. Our Amendment is in two parts. It proposes to leave out 1953 and to insert 1941 and I shall address myself for the moment to the first part of that proposal, because I believe that on that part of the Amendment we can get a very large body of support in the Committee. If the Minister finds that to be the case, we are prepared to withdraw this Amendment in order that he may substitute some compromise date if he feels disposed to do so.

The hon. Baronet was almost vehement, at least as vehement as I have ever seen him at that Box, in asserting that civil aviation was making rapid strides. He became almost angry with an hon. Friend of mine for asserting that civil aviation had made little or no progress. I am prepared to admit that he is right and that civil aviation has made important progress in the last 18 years which is the relevant period. Can any hon. Member casting his mind back to 1918 say that, at that date, we could prudently have fixed a basis of subsidy for the following 18 years. That would have been a farcical proposition, both in the light of the probabilities at the time and in the light of the developments which have taken place since. What is going to happen in the next 18 years? I believe that the Under-Secretary would be the most dejected man in this Committee if he thought that in 18 years time civil aviation would not be a profitable proposition without any State subsidy. Things are moving along those lines. We hear of almost revolutionary developments in civil aviation, any one of which might at any time enable it to cross the narrow line between payability and nonpayability and make all the difference in the matter of subsidy. Yet we propose to commit ourselves to an arrangement covering a period of 18 years with regard to a service in which there are such possibilities of speedy development. I hope the Minister will meet us and that if he does not meet us, hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will support us in trying to get a reduction of the period.

I mention one or two possible lines of development which might result in making civil aviation, to use a trite and hackneyed aphorism "fly by itself." I do not wish to embark on technicalities, but as one long connected with flying I take an interest in recent developments and the geodetic system and the new petrols may make an enormous difference in the future. There is also the question of increased traffic which is of vital importance. I believe that certain services between London and Paris are paying at the present time. Who can say that in 18 years' time the trans-Atlantic service and the services to Australia and India, even at the present rate of progress, will not he paying for themselves 4 There are even more important possibilities. War may come or on the other hand assured peace may come. Either contingency would upset all our calculations with regard to this subsidy and the length of time for which it ought to be granted. If discussion in this Committee means anything, I hope that the Minister, who has not yet signed these contracts and is not committed to them—if he is committed to them he has done something wrong—is prepared to go into these questions and to agree to a period at any rate less than the 18 years which is here demanded. If he cannot do so, then I hope that hon. Members, acting in no party spirit, will help us in imposing this Amendment on the Government.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS

If there is one point on which the Government and their critics are agreed, it is that the period of time suggested should not be longer than can be shown to be reasonably necessary in the circumstances. Obviously it is difficult to fix exactly the right period of time. The defence by the Government of the proposal in the Bill amounts to this—that they have carefully considered the matter and in their opinion the time limit here suggested is the shortest that is reasonable. The Under-Secretary on one occasion even took refuge behind that committee of anonymous persons to whom he resorts when particularly hard pressed. I think, however, that now, in the Committee stage, it is reasonable to ask the Government to say on what grounds they have come to their conclusion. In essense it is a mathematical problem, the principal factor in which is the question of amortisation.

In order to determine the proper period I imagine that it would be necessary, first, to say in respect of the machines over what period it would be necessary to write off their cost. The same factor would have to be determined in respect of buildings to be erected on the aerodromes. I do not think the question of land would fairly enter into the calculations because, as far as the company would acquire freehold land, that land would be situated in or near some centre of population and would therefore be likely to rise rather than fall in value. If there was any question of acquiring leasehold land the amortisation figure could be very exactly ascertained. Having determined those rates of depreciation, the next process would be to determine the proportion of the outlay of the company which would be devoted under these various heads—how much in respect of machines, to be written off at such a rate, and how much in respect of buildings, to be written of at such a rate.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Gentleman is now going rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. LEWIS

I am suggesting the only basis on which it is possible to arrive at a definite period of years. I am seeking to get from the Under-Secretary a statement of the reasons why a certain term of years has been proposed. I was explaining the only method which occurred to me by which such a computation could be made, but I had practically completed my argument. and I do not press it any further. I may summarise my submission in a sentence. I ask the Under-Secretary, when he seeks to support the proposition in the Bill, not to put us aside with the bare assertion that as the result of considerations unknown to us he has arrived at a given period but to tell us how he has arrived at that figure.

5.58 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

The Amendment which is on the Paper in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) and myself differs by two years from the Amendment which is before the Com- mittee, and we note that we have the permission of hon. Members opposite to vote in the same Lobby with them on this matter if we should so desire.

Mr. EDE

Not merely permission but invitation.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

I would not like to allow that invitation to pass without a word of thanks for it. But we raise this question for a different reason from that of hon. Members opposite. It is quite futile to give a subsidy without fixing a certain period of time. The companies which undertake this work will have to solve great problems—problems which are not to be solved in one or two years. It will be necessary for these companies to be able to look very far ahead, and I think it is only right, if you are going to subsidise an undertaking like Imperial Airways, that you should do so for a fairly long term of years. Then they could build upon that and get going.

That is quite true, but there is another point to consider. What are we giving to the world by stimulating this industry? We are giving a method of transportation which has the advantage of speed over every other form of transport, but in the end it has got to succeed or pay on the basis of whether or not it can earn money. If you lay down a term of subsidy for too many years, it seems to me that it will deprive the runners of transport services and also the manufacturers of aeroplanes of that very incentive to get costs down which is, to my mind, the most important thing with regard to civil aviation. I have seen big developments, but I have regretted always the close connection between the military and the civil sides. I have never accused our Government of that, though I have accused other Governments of it, but from the point of view of deciding this particular problem, they have never shown the divorcement which they were justified in showing. The Diesel engine is more economic than the petrol engine, and yet what incentive has there been for the makers of engines of the runners of transport services to indulge in that more economic form of power plant? None at all. If you are promising a subsidy for a long terms of years. nobody will attack this problem from that important angle of economics. If we pass this Bill—I am not opposing it; I only want information as to what are the reasons for choosing this figure—people will not attack the problem, because they will know perfectly well that civil aviation will carry on by virtue of the subsidy which this Government is going to give it, which other Governments will give it, and which Governments throughout the world will give it. That, to my mind, is unwholesome. I am not really opposing this. I do not say the right hon. Gentleman is not doing the right thing, but in my heart I would like to see all aviation throughout the country deprived of every form of subsidy that exists and to let the technicians fight ab initio to see whether they could run a form of transport which would pay without a subsidy. I would join with the Mover of the Amendment in asking the Government to give us the reason, first of all, for the length of time chosen and then actually why they chose this particular year.

6.4 p.m.

Colonel ROPNER

I would hesitate to disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Colonel MooreBrabazon) on anything connected with the air. He holds a very honourable position in the flying world. He is the oldest pilot in the country, and I am possibly the youngest, but I would venture to dispute his assertion that the Deisel engine is more efficient than the petrol engine.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

More economical.

Colonel ROPNER

I would still dispute the statement. Over long distances it may be more economical, but over short distances—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN

I am afraid we cannot allow the merits of the Deisel engine to be discussed on this Amendment.

Colonel ROPNER

I must admit that I rather anticipated you would interrupt me, Sir Charles. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment seemed to me to presume that subsidies are being given by all nations to their air lines in a competitive spirit, and with no thought of the requirements of modern transport. It may be that there is a spirit of competition and that one nation does compare its achievements with those of another, but I feel certain that the Under-Secretary of State would agree with me when I say that very largely the subsidies which are given for air transport are a necessity of the times. I cannot agree with those who have said that there is any immediate prospect of air lines being self-supporting. So long as there is this constant demand for increased speed, you are compelling Governments to subsidise their air lines.

This Amendment proposes to reduce the period from 15 years to five years. We have already been told that the decision to guarantee the subsidy for 15 years was taken after very careful consideration by the Government, and from what knowledge I have of flying, of the speed of development which may be anticipated, of the necessity for a very complex and extensive ground organisation, and of the development and acceleration which have been promised us by Imperial Airways, I believe that 15 years is not too long a period. The capital of Imperial Airways to-day is, I believe, £650,000, and we have been told that they propose to increase their capital to £2,000,000. They are under the necessity of going to the public for £1,500,000 of new money. Can anyone believe for a moment that that money would be forthcoming from the public unless Imperial Airways were assured of a long-term contract from the Government 4 My own view is that on account of the expansion of Imperial Airways itself and of the necessity for encouraging other companies to commence services of an extensive nature on other routes, the Bill should remain as it is and that the Minister should oppose the Amendment.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH

I think the last statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) shows what we are doing so far as the subsidy is concerned. I do not want it to be taken that I am saying anything against Imperial Airways. It is with the question of subsidy that I am concerned. When the hon. and gallant Member speaks of a company that is coming to the public for £1,500,000 capital—I think it should be £2,000,000 in fact—and that in order to get that the company must have a subsidy of £600,000 for 17 years, it shows what it means in terms of subsidy. I want to appeal to the Minister to shorten the period. I am not married either to 1941 or 1946, but there is a great deal in what the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Colonel MooreBrabazon) said. I have no doubt that the Minister thinks he is putting in this period in order that Imperial Airways or any other company might work out a long-term programme, but I can also see the force of the argument that a company which is going to pay a dividend during the whole of that period ought of itself to be apt to show some enterprise and initiative and not merely want a subsidy of this amount for so long a period. I would ask the Minister to substitute some date other than 1953, as in the Bill, because I cannot see how 17 years are necessary. When one thinks of the tremendous development that has taken place in the last 17 years, it may well be true that within a much shorter time than 17 years aviation will be a paying concern without any subsidy, and I think we should have a much shorter period in the Bill. The people of this country ought not to be called upon to subsidise anything that can be shown at any time to be a very paying proposition, and I beg the Minister to accept one or other of the Amendments.

6.11 p.m.

Major HILLS

The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) is always consistent. He opposes a subsidy altogether, which is quite a reasonable attitude, and I go a long amount of the way with him. I want to see civil aviation pay without a subsidy, and if I did not conceive that to be possible, I should not be supporting this Bill, because I do not look forward to an indefinite subsidy, and I certainly do not want one given. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallassey (colonel Moore Brabazon), to whom I always listen as a pupil to his master, said —and I entirely agree with his statement of the case—that a subsidy was whether a company could earn money without being subsidized. He wants a subsidy for either seven or five years, but I want of money to build up an air service, and you want the company that runs that service to be look a long way ahead. I know that we may differ to the amount of a year here or a year there, but nobody, I think, would call five or seven years sufficient time to give the company, whatever that company might be. They have to look ahead and to spend money, and a very large amount of money.

How will you get the best chances of success? Safety comes a very long way first in the list of requirements, and for that do you not want long period and the very best machines that you can build? I put with that, regularity of service and a number of advertised routes that are completed and operating, and there again do you not want the very best service Lastly, I put cheapness. I believe that you can only get these things by giving a long time to the company in which to work. The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey spoke as though a long term would mean that the company that got it would go to sleep. There is no chance, it seems to me, judging from our experience in this House, of Imperial Airways going to sleep.

Mrs. TATE

Is there any chance of their waking up?

Major HILLS

As long as Imperial Airways exist, I suppose criticism of them will continue, and, of course, T welcome those criticisms. I do not think that there is much chance of their sleeping. The only obstacle that I see to a civil aviation which pays for itself is the demand for too much speed. I foresee a time when the service of one country or another may pay on its own basis, and I foresee also that there may be a demand in the Parliament of that country to reach the speed attained by countries which do not look for a self-paying aviation. A great many countries recognise civil aircraft as an ancillary to their military aviation. Except for that consideration, I think that we can look forward' to the time when civil aviation will pay for itself. It will only get that by having a fair chance over a Jai,: period of time. We may argue whether 12, 15 or 20 years is the best period, but I submit that five or seven years is far too short. We shall get a civil aviation which pays for itself only by giving the subsidy over a fair period.

6.16 p.m.

Mrs. TATE

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) is very anxious to see aviation paying for itself. I submit that it is difficult to say what is or is not economical. It depends on what we are getting in return for what we pay. We cannot afford to be without an efficient commercial aviation. We can afford it less than any other country. If the period of years is shortened from 15 to five, there is nothing to prevent the House at the end of five years extending the period. If we now vote this colossal sum of money for 15 years without any question, we are seriously delegating our responsibility. No one can suggest that either this House or the country would allow our commercial aviation to fall too far behind the commercial aviation of other countries, especially when the country becomes educated to the imperative necessity of the air to ourselves and the Empire. If we now vote this sum for 15 years, there is a great danger that we shall fall asleep and lag behind other countries. It is a very good thing for the country that this House has to be re-elected every five years. The country has had the sense to send back a National Government, and we should have the sense at the end of five years to know whether civil aviation continued to need a subsidy. I think that at least we should be able to judge not only what the companies which we have subsidised have been doing during that time, but what other companies have been doing and be able to compare what has been going on.

The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) stressed the fact that present-day invention was so remarkable that no one can tell what may have occurred in five years. That is the crux of the whole problem. The internal combustion engine has completely revolutionised our lives and our outlook, even the outlook of lives of people like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon. None of us can say, when we are dealing with an invention which moves with such astonishing rapidity and which is still in its infancy, what changes may take place, and it is a terrible thing to give this subsidy without any question for 15 years. There is nothing to prevent Imperial Airways from planning their schemes for a long period ahead, because the House would never interfere with them if they were doing what the House-and the country wished them to do.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. SIMMONDS

The discussion of this Amendment would have been valuable if for no other reason than that, with the exception of two or three hon. Members who seem to proced on the basis that Imperial Airways can do no wrong, the Committee seems unanimous that the period of years proposed in the Bill is somewhat extended. The discussion has been somewhat academic because, as a matter of fact, the Government are committed, and committed up to the hilt, to Imperial Airways to subsidise them for this period. Therefore, it leads one to this consideration, that in future—

Mr. GARRO JONES

The hon. Member has made a statement which will have a somewhat serious effect on the Minister's answer. Is he speaking with any knowledge or authority when he states that the Government have prejudged the opinion of the Committee and. committed themselves to a period of 15 years?

Mr. SIMMONDS

Obviously, there is no formal agreement with Imperial Airways until the Committee have approved it, but it is well known—and I am making no breach of confidence when I say it—that there is a gentleman's agreement with Imperial Airways for this period. Do hon. Members imagine that Imperial Airways would be expending this vast sum of money in aircraft and flying boats if they have not the most definite understanding from the Government that this agreement would be implemented and put in a formal agreement?

Mr. EDE

Are we to understand that the hon. Gentleman asserts that there is such an agreement between the firm and the Government as would lead to a charge of breach of faith if this Committee uses its own discretion with reference to the date and shortens the period?

Mr. SIMMONDS

As I said, my understanding of the situation is that there is a gentleman's agreement between the Government and Imperial Airways upon which Imperial Airways have thought it a prudent commercial risk to proceed with the construction of aircraft for these services, and I do not doubt for a moment that if the Committee were not to agree with my right lion. Friend in this matter, Imperial Airways would have a substantial claim for compensation against the Government.

Mr. JOHNSTON

May we again ask, in view of that statement, whether the hon. Member, who seems to be speaking with some authority, actually speaks with knowledge, because, if so, a very important constitutional point has arisen?

Mr. SIMMONDS

I have been perfectly frank with the Committee in this matter, and the position should be perfectly obvious to any hon. Member who examines it. Here we have this company, highly skilled in the commercial art—and I do not criticise them for that reason—constructing these vast fleets of aircraft, unprecedented in size, which many hon. Members have inspected at Rochester. Is it not obvious that the company, before they went forward with the agreement to construct these aircraft, had some understanding with the Government that the Government would use all their authority to persuade the Committee and the House to approve the payment of these subsidies? That is all I say.

Mr. JOHNSTON

That is not the statement which the hon. Member made. What he said in specific terms was that, if the terms of this Bill were not implemented, and if this Committee in the exercise of its discretion did not agree to this period of years, Imperial Airways would have a substantial claim for compensation against the State. That is either a statement of fact or it is not. We ought to know whether the hon. Member speaks with authority on this matter.

Mr. SIMMONDS

I am honoured that the right hon. Gentleman should value my opinion so greatly. I express it as my opinion that, if this period were reduced now, Imperial Airways would have a claim for some compensation—

Mr. ED E

The hon. Member said "substantial claim."

Mr. SIMMONDS

I will repeat the word "substantial" if it affords any pleasure to the hon. Member. I believe that, with that vast construction, they would have some claim to substantial compensation. That is my opinion. The matter is clearly hypothetical at this stage, and I cannot see that hon. Members opposite should take any exception to my expressing my opinion. I voice it because I believe that the position in which we now find ourselves should warn us that for the future, when we are relying upon a vast subsidised concern such as Imperial Airways to develop some national service, we should see that in due time, before one agreement runs out, we discussed the forthcoming agreement. That is what we have not done in this case. Thus I believe I are right in saying that the Government have largely had to take, in regard to the question of period, the terms that Imperial Airways were willing to accept. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Of course they have. Let us be perfectly frank about this.

I believe that the Government have let this matter run all too long, and the one event which wakened the whole nation to the situation was the McRobertson race to Australia, when it was shown, not only by the British Comet machine, but by the American Douglas machine, that speeds vastly in excess of those now being achieved on the Empire services, and of those proposed in the revised Empire services were possible if only a modern conception of air transport were adopted. After that there was a scramble to do something, and as a result of that scramble there was clearly only one outcome, namely, that as there was no time to consider the claims of any new company for these accelerated and multiplied Empire services, we had to re-subsidise Imperial Airways. Frankly, if I had had a free choice in the matter, I should have granted a new subsidy to Imperial Air-ways—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

This question seems to me hardly to arise on this Amendment. We are now dealing with the period of subsidy and not with the principle of subsidy.

Mr. SIMMONDS

I was mentioning that en, passant on the principle of re-subsidising Imperial Airways. When we have to consider the period of subsidy agreements we should discuss them at an early date before the old subsidy agreements run out, so that we may make fair and competitive terms with the company we are proposing to subsidise.

6.30 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON

I think I had better start my speech by dealing with the remarks of the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds), and I think I can make it plain to the Committee that if this Bill does not go through we fall back on the 1930 agreement, which takes us as far as 1940, so that the expenditure on ships which are now being built by Imperial Airways will, of course, be utilised for the next four or five years. As regards having given our word to Imperial Airways that they would have this service, of course that is not the case—there is not an agreement; but, as I said on the Finance Resolution the other day, the Government decided two years ago to entrust the operation of Empire airways, including the North Atlantic service, to Imperial Airways. There is no secret about that. The idea is that if this Bill goes through that agreement should run until 1953. If this Bill does not go through the agreement will anyhow run till 1940. I think that is perfectly clear. I made no secret of the fact, in my speech on the Financial Resolution, that the approved policy of the Government was that Imperial Airways should have the operation of the Empire routes, and I even gave the sum, which I said would be in the neighbourhood of £600,000. I think that is perfectly clear.

Mr. JOHNSTON

The point that worried us was that when the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) was speaking he said that if the Bill were not approved by Parliament Imperial Airways would have a substantial claim to compensation. Secondly, he said that the Government had to take Imperial Airways' terms. On those two points we should have a clear and explicit disclaimer from the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES

I think it ought to be made crystal clear to the Committee that we are not only not debarred from rejecting this Bill as a, whole but that we are not by implication debarred from snaking any alteration in any particular terms in the agreement. Everybody knows that there must have been an outlined agreement, but at the moment we are discussing whether we are at liberty to reduce the period to five or 10 years, and we are entitled to an explicit, unequivocal assurance from the Minister that the Committee are entitled, if they so desire, to reduce this period of years without being charged with having wrecked the whole Bill. I hope the Minister will be very clear on that point.

Sir P. SASSOON

Parliament will have every opportunity of agreeing to this plan or not. I do not see—

Mr. GARRO JONES

We are at the moment discussing an Amendment to reduce the period of years for which the subsidy is to be guaranteed by the Government. It has been stated that the Committee's views on that matter have been prejudged and that we are not at liberty to amend the plan as a whole. Everything that the Minister said in his explanation had reference to the Bill. He said that if the Committee did not pass the Bill we should revert to a certain arrangement. We are not discussing whether or not we shall pass the Bill, but whether the Committee are at liberty to reduce the period of years, and we wish to know whether there is anything —absolutely or by implication—in the agreement with Imperial Airways, or the outlined agreement, to prevent us from making a change.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. EDE

May I remind the Minister that the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) said in his well-informed speech that our discussion on this point was entirely academic, in his opinion, because if he varied the date the company would have ground for action which would entitle them to substantial compensation from the Government. In reply to a question which I put to him, he said that they would be able not merely to charge the Government with a breach of faith but would be entitled to this financial compensation. What we are entitled to know is whether we are in a position to vary the terms of the agreement if we so desire, or whether a pledge has been given on the assumption that the Government control the House and we merely register their opinions with our discussion which, in the words of the hon. Member, is entirely academic.

Sir P. SASSOON

I think I can make the situation quite clear. It is perfectly open to the Committee this afternoon, or at any time while we are discussing this Clause, to reduce the date without there being any question of a breach of contract on the part of the Government.

Mr. LEACH

Without compensation?

Sir P. SASSOON

I am talking about the date. As far as compensation is concerned, if there were any, it would be entirely on the question of the fleet. Imperial Airways had to make certain preparations in view of the scheme which was decided upon two years ago. Therefore, they had to order, as the Committee know, a fleet of boats. They therefore ordered some boats, and if this Bill were not put through those boats would be used on the routes they are now flying till the end of 1940. In so far as they would not be able to use those boats on their existing routes we would reimburse them for any loss they had incurred, under powers which we already possess under the 1930 Act. There is no question of having entered into a contract or having to compensate them if the Committee turn down the Bill. The Committee are perfectly free to reduce the date by the three years suggested from the benches opposite or the five years suggested from the benches behind me, if they choose to do so, and there would be no question of breach of contract of any sort or kind.

Mr. J0HNSTON

For the fourth time will the right hon. Gentleman tell us clearly and explicitly whether there is any truth whatever in the statement made by the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) to the effect that the Government had to take Imperial Airways' terms? That is a statement of fact which he made. Is it true or is it not?

Sir P. SASSOON

There is absolutely no truth in it.

Mr. H0LDSWORTH

Will the right hon. Gentleman also say what powers under the Act of 1930 would come into force in the circumstances he mentioned?

Sir P. SASSOON

We have powers to pay £1.000,000 a year up to 1940.

Mr. SI MMONDS

I have been seriously misquoted by several hon. Members. The bon, Member opposite, for instance, asked whether the statement that Imperial Airways had forced the terms was correct. When he reads my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that I did not mention "terms," in general, I mentioned "period"—I think he will see that I used that word. So far as the question of compensation is concerned, I think the Under-Secretary has shown that there clearly will have to be some compensation if, after 1940, these flying boats are rendered useless.

6.40 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make the position as regards compensation somewhat clearer, because this is a very grave matter indeed. We are now being asked to approve a new scheme of subsidies to, among other people, Imperial Airways. The right hon. Gentleman has now told us that this scheme was approved by the Government two years ago.

Sir P. SASSOON

Not the scheme.

Sir S. CRIPPS

Well, the right hon. Gentleman told us that this scheme—I do not say in all its details—was approved to this extent, that Imperial Airways were led legitimately, by the approval, to proceed with the construction of a number of flying boats, and we are told that they will be entitled to compensation because they proceeded with the construction of those boats, if this scheme does not receive the approval of Parliament. That means to say that the Government have so conducted themselves as to commit the country to expenditure upon a service for which they have had no approval from this House. That raises a very serious constitutional point indeed, and cannot, I submit, be lightly brushed aside by the right hon. Gentleman. What we want to know is this: Did the Government give authorisation to Imperial Airways, prior to the consent of this House being obtained, to embark upon an expenditure for which, in the event of this scheme not being passed, they would be entitled to be reimbursed, either partially or wholly? As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman has already told us that the Government did do that, that they did encourage and authorise Imperial Airways to embark upon expenditure.

If the Government are going to do that this House will sever know where it stands. It will have Bills presented to it or demands made upon it backed by such a statement as was made by the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds), which seems to be substantially accurate, that unless the House accepts the scheme there will be a large bill to pay, a bill based on the authorisation given by the Government. In those circumstances it is not difficult to see that the Government are compelled to accept that which Imperial Airways insist upon as the terms for implementing this agreement, and we find that instead of their being faithful stewards of the resources of this country the Government are extravagantly spending them without any authority whatsoever. There could not conceivably be a better reason for reducing this period than that we should be making it quite certain that in future the Government would not embark upon understandings as regards expenditure to be undertaken by private enterprise until it is ascertained from this House or this Committee that they have authority so to proceed.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS

When the right hon. Gentleman rose to reply I understood that he said that he proposed first to explain the speech made by the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds). Since then he has been interrupted. Am I to understand that he clues not propose to pay any attention to any part of this Debate before the hon. Member for Duddeston spoke? Some of us asked whether he could give some explanation of the period of time suggested. Are we to understand that he does not propose to reply to any of these questions?

6.44 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON

I would say, in the first place, that the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), when he began his remarks, was rather on the optimistic side in saying that this was one of the Amendments which he hoped we were going to accept.

Mr. GARRO JONES

I am not expecting to have our term of years accepted, but I am certainly expecting that some reduction will be offered.

Sir P. SASSOON

The hon. Member went on to say that he thought the period was too long, because anyone looking back over the past 18 years would see the immense strides in aviation, and we could not know what the future might hold, and he really gave the impression that on the whole he was not in favour of a subsidy. Of course, we all agree with him there. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) on the last occasion will be remembered, in which he said that subsidies were a confounded nuisance. They are a confounded nuisance, and it would be far better if civil aviation could carry on by itself, but when we look round the world we see that enormous amounts of subsidy are being paid by other countries, we are forced to pay subsidies ourselves; yet we can be glad to think that we are getting so much more for our subsidy than other countries are getting. I hope that the period in which civil aviation will fly by itself will come to us more quickly than it comes to other people.

The 15-year period is only five years more than is given in the 1930 agreement, and this is a very much bigger scheme. Air France, the French competitor of Imperial Airways, has an agreement now for 15 years. Although the period covers 17 years, we have no intention of effecting an agreement with Imperial Airways for longer than 15 years. I think it has been said before, that, owing to the vastly increased nature of this scheme, a very large sum of money will have to be found, and it is only fair to give a certain security of tenure. Imperial Airways also, owing to the vastly increased nature of the scheme, will have to spend a great deal of money on ground organisation. Having regard to the facts, I think it might be agreed by the Committee to-day that 15 years is a reasonable period. His Majesty's Government have arrived at this conclusion after considering all the facts of the situation, and they consider that it is a fair compromise among the various conflicting factors which have to be taken into account in dealing with a question of this sort.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel MooreBrabazon) said—and I was entirely in agreement with him—that companies have to look far ahead. He went on to say that civil aviation had not benefited in association with military aviation. It is not in order for me to deal with that point, but I could give countless instances of the benefits that civil aviation has derived from association with military aviation. I think I have now dealt with all the points about which hon. Members have asked. Fifteen years is a reasonable period, and we hope that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to be a great deal more explicit about the very serious statement made from a bench behind him by the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) who persists in, and repeats, the statement which he made in the course of his speech. We have for the first time heard that arrangements were made two years ago committing this country and the Government to a very large expenditure of public money with a particular firm, and that this House has never been consulted. We are asked this afternoon to discuss the details of a Measure, which, if we amend it in any degree whatsoever, may land this country and the Government in claims for compensation. That, in essence, is the statement made by the hon. Member for Duddeston.

Mr. SIMMONDS

I think the right hon. Gentleman now enlarges vastly the scope of what I said by saying that we cannot amend the proposal in any way whatsoever. He is clearly not entitled to read that into what I have said.

Mr. JOHNSTON

I will not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman on that point. There may be small matters of form which could be amended and which would obviously not interfere with this agreement made between Imperial Airways and the Government. The substantial point is that the hon. Member, in presenting the Government's position in respect of the Amendment to alter the

date when the subsidy should terminate, expressed the view—I put it no higher than that—and he speaks with some authority as a director of an aircraft company—

Mr. SIMMONDS

indicated dissent.

Mr. JOHNSTON

At any rate, the hon. Member speaks with Tome authority upon the industry, and he has expressed the view, first, that an understanding or agreement has been come to with Imperial Airways to such an extent that we have embarked upon a considerable expenditure of money, and that if this Committee should amend the date now we may be landed m a claim for compensation; secondly, he did say that the Government had to take the terms of Imperial Airways. These are two most remarkable and significant statements. The Minister has not disputed that two years ago such an understanding was come to, or that, if this Committee decide not to approve the agreement, the Government would be compelled to meet compensation claims. In our view, the right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated the constitutional significance of the allegations made on the bench behind him, and he has not sought to clear our minds as to the extent to which the Government have been involved in this matter. In order to get such an explanation, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The CHAIRMAN, being of opinion that the Motion was an. abuse of the Rules of the House, put the Question thereupon forthwith.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 243.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.	Montague, F.	Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)	Sorensen, R. W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Stephen, C.
Kelly, W. T.	Muff, G.	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Naylor, T. E.	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Kirkwood, D.	Oliver, G. H.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Lawson, J. J,	Owen, Major G.	Thorne, W.
Leach, W.	Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.	Thurtle, E.
Lee, F.	Potts, J.	Tinker, J. J.
Leonard, W.	Price, M. P.	Viant, S. P.
Leslie, J. R.	Ritson, J.	Walker, J.
Logan, D. G.	Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)	Watson, W. McL.
Lunn, W.	Rowson, G.	Welsh, J. C.
Macdonald, G (Ince)	Seely, Sir H. M.	Whiteley, W.
McGhee, H. G.	Sexton, T. M.	Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Maclean, N.	Shinwell, E.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Mander, G. le M.	Silkin. L.	Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Marklew, E.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Messer, F.	Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Milner, Major J.	Smith, E. (Stoke)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
		Mr. Charleton and Mr. Paling.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.	Duggan, H. J.	Lewis, O.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)	Duncan, J. A. L.	Liddall, W. S.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.	Dunglass, Lord	Lindsay, K. M.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Aske, Sir R. W.	Ellis, Sir G.	Lloyd, G. W.
Assheton, R.	Emmott, C. E. G. C.	Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Emrys- Evans, P. V.	Loftus, P. C.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)	Entwistle, C. F.	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Balnlel, Lord	Errington, E.	Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Erskine Hill, A. G.	Lyons, A. M.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)	Everard, W. L.	Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)	Findlay. Sir E.	McCorquodale, M. S.
Belt, Sir A. L.	Fremantle, Sir F. E.	MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Bernays, R. H.	Fyfe, D. P. M.	Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Blair, Sir R.	Ganzoni, Sir J.	Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Gledhill, G.	McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Bossom, A. C.	Gluckstein, L. H.	McKie, J. H.
Boulton, W. W.	Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.	Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.	Goodman, Col. A. W.	Maitland, A.
Bracken, B.	Gower, Sir R. V.	Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Brass, Sir W.	Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)	Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.	Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Gridley, Sir A. B.	Markham, S. F.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Grigg, Sir E. W. M.	Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Bull, B. B.	Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)	Maxwell, S. A.
Bullock, Capt. M.	Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.	Guinness, T. L. E. B.	Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Butler. R. A.	Gunston, Capt. D. W.	Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Campbell, Sir E. T.	Guy, J. C. M.	Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C
Cary, R. A.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.	Morgan, R. H.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hamilton, Sir G. C.	Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)	Hannah, I. C.	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Hartington, Marquess of	Muirhead, Lt -Col. A. J.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)	Harvey, G,	Munro, P.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)	Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)	O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Channon, H.	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)	Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)	Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Clarry. Sir Reginald	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)	Palmer, G. E. H.
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Holmes, J. S.	Patrick, C. M.
Colfox, Major W. P.	Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.	Peake, O.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.	Hopkinson, A.	Penny, Sir G.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.	Hore, Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.	Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack, N.)	Petherick, M.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S,)	Hudson, R. S. (Southport)	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)	Hulbert, N. J.	Pilkington, R.
Craven-Ellis, W.	Hume, Sir G. H.	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Critchley, A.	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.	Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page	Jackson, Sir H.	Ramsden, Sir E.
Crooke, J. S,	James, Wing-Commander A. W.	Rathbone. J. R. (Bodmin)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.	Joel, D. J. B.	Rayner, Major R. H.
Crowder, J.F. E.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)	Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Culverwell, C. T.	Keeling, E. H.	Reid, Captain A. Cunningham
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.	Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)	Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Davies. Major G. F. (Yeovil)	Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)	Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
De Chair, S. S.	Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.	Remer, J. R.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Denville, Aifred	Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.	Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Donner, P. W.	Latham, Sir P.	Ropner, Colonel L.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.	Leckie, J. A.	Ruggies-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Drewe, C.	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.
Dugdale, Major T. L.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld')	Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Salmon, Sir I.	Storey, S.	Warrenaer, Sir V.
Salt, E. W.	Stourton, Major Hon. J J.	Waterhouse, Captain C.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)	Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)	Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)	Wells, S. R.
Savery, Servington	Strickland, Captain W. F.	Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Scott, Lord William	Stuart, Lord C. Cri[...]hton- (N'thw'h)	Williams, C. (Torquay)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)	Suetar, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.	Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Simmonds, O. E.	Sutcliffe, H.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut. -Colonel G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.	Tasker, Sir R. I.	Winterton Rt. Hon. Earl
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)	Tate, Mavis C.	Withers, Sir J. J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)	Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)	Womersley, Sir W. J.
Smithers. Sir W.	Titchfield, Marquess of	Wood, Rt Hon. Sir Kingsley
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)	Touche, G. C.	Wragg, H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Tryon, Major Ht. Hon. G. C.	Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Spears, Brig. -Gen. E. L.	Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.	Wakefield, W. W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Spens, W. P.	Wallace, Captain Euan	Commander Southby and
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)	Ward, Lieut.-col, Sir A. L. (Hull)	Dr. Morris-Jones.

Original Question again proposed, "That the word "fifty-three" stand part of the Clause."

7.2 p.m.

Mr. A. HENDERSON

The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) raised an important constitutional point which the Under-Secretary has not seen fit to answer. We understand that the Government have entered into an agreement with Imperial Airways whereby certain guarantees are given for a period of 15 years. We want to know whether, in the event of this Amendment being carried, compensation would be payable to the company. The hon. and learned Member pointed out that in that event a liability would have been imposed on public funds without this House having approved of that liability. I would like to know the view of the Solicitor-General on this grave constitutional problem. It is a matter of great importance and I would like him to answer this specific point: Would this obligation be imposed on the Government to pay a sum of money by way of compensation to Imperial Airways, and, if so, would that payment be a consequence of an obligation incurred by the Government which has not been approved by this House?

7.4 p.m.

Sir W. BRASS

May I answer that point? [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] Before the right hon. Gentleman answers surely I am allowed on this side of the Committee to say a few words. The right hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said that this amount of money had been incurred by the Government without the sanction of Parliament. Surely this was done under the Act of 1930, and was not done in anticipation of the Bill now before us?

7.5 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS

As the hon. and gallant Member appeals to me, I will make another explanation The Under-Secretary told us that as a result of the decision of the Government. two years ago Imperial Airways had embarked on a programme of building a large number of ships, and that in the event of the period of the agreement we are discussing being shortened they would be entitled to some compensation. The new ships which they built were not in the old agreement; they- were in contemplation of the decision of the Government—so we were told by the right lion. Gentleman. Of course, I know that the hon. and gallant Member is much more familiar with this than is the Under-Secretary; he ought to exchange places no doubt, but at the moment they are where they are. We have been told by the authoritative voice on the opposite benches that this arrangement was made in contemplation of this new scheme when the decision was made two years ago to embark on this new scheme. Ii the facts are right, then there has bean an incurring of liability by the Government without any authority from this House.

7.8 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON

The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right when he stated that I said this fleet of boats had been ordered in anticipation of this new expenditure. But I thought I had made it clear to the Committee that were the Committee to turn down this Bill we would still be perfectly able within cur financial limits to conclude this new agreement with Imperial Airways for these extended services. It would come to only £600,000, and it would be well within the limit imposed on us by the 1930 Act. Our present agreement with Imperial Airways comes to an end in 1939, but under the Act we would be able to consider an extension up to the end of 1940. Meanwhile, the boats which have been ordered would have been in use four years on these new services. I meant by compensation, which really was not the right word to use, the percentage always put into an agreement for obsolescence. I think, knowing the life of aeroplanes is not long, that probably at the end of those four years these boats would be worn out. If they were not completely worn out then under the agreement that could easily be met by the 25 per cent. obsolescence, or some small figure of that kind. What the Committee is not clear about is that if this Bill were rejected the Committee is under the impression that we should not be able to conclude these new agreements for these services.

7.10 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS

This is vitally serious from a constitutional point of view. The right hon. Gentleman has now told the House categorically that two years ago the Government took a decision and as a result they permitted or instructed Imperial Airways to embark on a building programme under which the Government assumed some liability, never mind whether it is called obsolescence or anything else, and for that liability they have never yet had any authority. Does the right hon. Gentleman justify conduct of that sort in any Government? Whether it is a small or a big amount the constitutional point is the same. Does he justify a Government two years ago entering into a liability and not until to-day asking for approval from the House for that liability? I ask for a categorical answer to that question. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that action of that sort by the Government is constitutionally justified?

Sir P. SASSOON

Yes, we have full authority for that action in the 1930 agreement.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. EDE

The right hon. Gentleman has not really met the point raised by the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds). He was dealing with the Amendment which would bring this agreement to an end in 1941. The right hon. Gentleman says that the machines that have been built under this agreement will be out of date by the end of that period. But the hon. Member for Duddeston was obviously thinking of machines that would be running beyond that period. If the obsolescence payments had been made in respect of them prior to 1940, there could be no such claim as that to which the hon. Member has alluded. I join in the plea of the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) that this is a matter of the interpretation of an agreement, either written or, as the hon. Member for Duddeston said, a gentlemen's agreement. On that we should undoubtedly have the opinion of the Solicitor-General. The question is, are the Government liable or not? The hon. Member went so far as to begin his speech by saying that this discussion was entirely academic and proceeded to pour scorn on those of us who had raised the issue. I am not sure whether, if he was right, the Amendment would have been in Order, because it seems to me that it would be imposing a charge on the Exchequer not mentioned in the Financial Resolution. In so far as it is the anticipation of an agreement, implied or written, we should have the assistance of the Solicitor-General in assuring us whether any legal claim would lie against the Government in the event of the Committee exercising its discretion and inserting any date it thought fit. There has been too much in the last few weeks of this coming down to the House and saying "This is what the Government have agreed and you have to take it" I had hoped that we were not going to see that spirit evinced again, but apparently it is a spirit that will not be eradicated until the Government have been well and truly beaten on some occasion.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. BENSON

The right hon. Gentleman said, apparently with the idea of trying to defeat the Amendment, that if the Amendment were carried compensation would have to be paid to Imperial Airways—that if this period were reduced to 1941, Imperial Airways would have a claim against the Government. In his latest statement he said that, even if the Amendment were carried, the Government would have full power under previous legislation to carry out their agreement with Imperial Airways. He cannot have it both ways. If the Government have the power to fulfil their agreement with Imperial Airways, there can be no objection to our Amendment; if they have not, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to mislead the Committee. May I ask him, under which Act does he want powers to fulfil his agreement with Imperial Airways?

Sir P. SASSOON

The power is in the Act of 1930 to conclude an agreement with Imperial Airways up to 1940.

Mr. BENSON

Interpreting the right hon. Gentleman's statement which he has just made in the light of the fact that he said that by 1940 the boats would be worn out, why did he say to the Committee that, if this Amendment, which would carry the agreement on to 1941, were carried, compensation would be payable? There is a palpable contradiction between these two statements, and the right hon. Gentleman has not yet explained that contradiction.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. MANDER

I must say I was astonished to hear the Under-Secretary say just now that the Government had authorised or permitted two years ago the building of this new fleet for Imperial Airways. It happens that a number of Members of the House paid a most interesting visit to the premises of Messrs. Short Brothers some weeks ago, at the invitation of Imperial Airways, to see this fleet being built. It is true that none of those machines have ever left the water, and they may, of course, never succeed in doing so, though I hope and believe they will; but I must say that when we went down there I did not for a moment imagine that we were being asked to see something which was being illegally built, or was being constructed without any authorisation from Parliament—that the House of Commons had no knowledge of it, and had not authorised or permitted it in any way. That puts a different aspect on the matter, and I should like to know how many other secret schemes the Government have. What are they building to go on the land, in the air, or under the water? How many other civil or military schemes have they which have not been authorised—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

While I am sure that that would be a fascinating topic, I cannot regard it as germane to the Amendment.

Mr. WANDER

Then I will confine myself to wondering how many schemes connected with civil aviation the Government have in contemplation or in operation at the present time without the knowledge or consent of Parliament. I feel that a very serious constitutional point is involved, and the Government cannot really take any exception to its being explored by the House of Commons. Now that the Deputy-Leader of the House has come in, I hope he will be able to throw some light on the subject and to explain in what circumstances this extraordinary incident took place, and to give its some assurance that nothing of the kind will be repeated in future.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. SIMMONDS

I do not want to detain the Committee, hut, in view of the observations of hon. Members opposite, I think it right to say that while I was under the impression, and am still under the impression, and am confirmed in that impression by what the Under-Secretary has said, that compensation would be payable to Imperial Airways, no hon. Member will accuse me of having said that improper compensation would be payable. It is quite clear that the Empire services have to be maintained until 1939 or 1940 as the case may be, and it would have been a very proper and simple way of compensating Imperial Airways, if they should not need these boats after 1940, to allow them an increased rate of depreciation under the old agreement. I do not think the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) will controvert me in that expression of opinion.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I will at once, for the very simple reason that the agreement cannot run beyond 1940, and that, therefore, compensation beyond 1940 could not conceivably be part of the agreement.

Mr. SIMMONDS

I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot quite have caught the gist of what I was saying. My point was that, if the agreement did not run beyond that time, and if these boats were built for a service up to that time, and were not worn out by that time, then, clearly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I would ask hon. Members opposite, now that the tide is flowing somewhat against them, just to listen to my remarks. They were very intent on listening to me earlier in the Debate, when they thought they might possibly score a point off my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, but the fact remains that it would clearly be perfectly proper for the Government to pay, under the 1930 agreement, accelerated depreciation should these boats not be required after the completion of the agreement. For the rest, my remarks were a criticism of hon. Members opposite that they had not appreciated the fact that these subsidy agreements were bound to run out, and had not made certain that competitive offers would be put forward by various companies—not only Imperial Airways—so that the Government could have chosen between two or three offers, without having to accept the offer of the only company that had the material resources and the professional experience to implement the decision of the Government to run these vastly increased Empire air services.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN

The Under-Secretary has told us that he had powers under the Act of 1930 to make the agreement, but I noticed that he did not say that he had exercised those powers. When the agreement was made, was it made under the Act of 1930?

Sir P. SASSOON

No agreement has been made.

Mr. STEPHEN

The right hon. Gentleman says that no agreement has been made, but a sanction was given for the building of these boats. When the Under-Secretary gave that sanction, was he contemplating making an agreement under the Act of 1930? So far as I have heard his explanation, he did not convince me at all that he was intending to use the Act of 1930 in this connection in making an agreement, and I would like him to make that point clear.

7.26 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

May I assure the Committee that any seeming reluctance on my part to rise was only due to the fact that I doubted whether I could give any assistance to the Committee on what I venture to think is not a constitutional problem at all. I do not pretend to have any knowledge of the negotiations, or conversations, perhaps, that took place two years ago between my right hon. Friend and Imperial Airways, but this is, the situation as it seems to me, and I venture to think it ought to commend itself to the Committee as being a perfectly ordinary state of affairs. The Ministry has the power under the existing Act, the Act of 1930, passed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to: agree to pay subsidies to any persons… in consideration of those persons maintaining in accordance with the agreement". —concerning which a White Paper, I understand, was laid before Parliament— a regular service for the carriage by air of passengers, goods and mails". They are entitled, therefore, under that Act, to pay subsidies to Imperial Airways in consideration of their maintaining services under the agreement which they have signed. That agreement is current till 1940. We are to-day in 1936. The conversations to which my right hon. Friend referred took place in 1934, and the agreement was therefore to run for six years under the then and at present existing Act of Parliament. As I see the situation, the Ministry was fully within its powers in saying to Imperial Airways: "In order to enable yourselves to carry out your function under your agreement, in order to enable yourselves to extend your existing services, and to enter into a new agreement which may expire in 1940"—even if the Amendment we are now discussing be passed, it will run until 1941— "in order to enable yourselves to carry out these services, get on with the work of preparing your rolling stock". And, Imperial Airways having done that, the Ministry would be perfectly entitled to say to them: "Parliament has thought that the period of 15 years which we were discussing was too long, and has limited us to five years. Very well, put your rolling stock on to use for five years, and, if you cannot make full use of it in those five years, then, under our existing powers, we propose to make up to you the output that has been entailed upon you in order to carry out the arrangement." That seems to me to involve no constitutional problem, but to be merely a matter of good, ordinary, common sense.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES

It is not for me to say whether the discussion that has taken place for the last half-hour or so has been within the four corners of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), but, without actually moving to report Progress again, as I do not expect you would see your way to accept that Motion, I would like to express my regret, in view of certain new aspects of this question which have arisen, that we are not discussing it on a Motion to report Progress rather than within the narrow terms of the Amendment. The Minister has just told us of something which is entirely outside any agreement to provide a subsidy. He has told us that, in order to enable Imperial Airways to carry out these services which they have contracted to run in consideration of the payment of the subsidy, they have been asked to get on with the building of some flying boats. What form did that request take? Was it a binding contract with the company, and is it under the subsidy agreement, or under the superimposed agreement, that we are liable to pay compensation to them? Is there an agreement in existence other than the agreement to pay subsidy?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I cannot allow the hon. Member to pursue that point. It could not possibly be affected by this Amendment, whether it were carried or not.

Mr. GARRO JONES

That only goes to illustrate that we have in fact been discussing for the last 40 minutes matters which have not come within the narrow terms of my Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It is quite obvious that it has been in order to ask whether there was an agreement which, if the Committee altered these words, would be affected and whether such alterations would give rise to compensation, but the hon. Member cannot go into what may or may not arise under an agreement made under another Act of Parliament which we are not now discussing.

Mr. GARRO JONES

I will content myself with saying that the difficulties of the Opposition are considerably increased in putting their case, and the difficulties of the Government are even more greatly increased in their reply, by the fact that the reply must be confined to the narrow terms of the Amend- ment. Perhaps we can get some more information on this basis. What is there in the form of the agreement with Imperial Airways which prevents the Minister from saying, "I will reduce the period from 15 years to 12 "? That is the best test, and I should like to make that the touchstone of this discussion. There has been an almost unanimous agreement in the Committee that it would be better to make some reduction in the period of years for which this agreement is to run. Superimposed on that weight of argument the Minister is confronted with serious Parliamentary difficulties. Putting them both together, there is no reason whatever why he should not give us two or three years. He would at once dissipate our objections from a Parliamentary and constitutional point of view, and he would dissipate the objections of Members in all parts of the Committee that this is too long a period for which to grant the subsidy. I am quite prepared to give way, indeed I should be very glad to do so because I am not able to think of any further arguments. If the Minister fails to meet us, not only will the Committee conclude that his proposition is unsound, but their suspicions will be greatly strengthened that there is something of which we are not aware that prevents him from making the concession.

Captain. HAROLD BALFOUR

I rise in consequence of the hon. Member's remarks that, if the Government would make the concession for which he asks, the great constitutional principle for which he is standing so strongly, and on which the whole Opposition is ranged behind him, would be placated. If he can have his constitutional principles placated by a concession of two or three years, they will find the value in this House which they deserve.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. BENSON

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has completely misrepresented my hon. Friend's point, which is that the Government have tied themselves, and thereby- tied the House, to Imperial Airways. If they are sufficiently free to be able to reduce the period of the subsidy, they are not tied. Our point is that they have tied themselves in a manner which, if it is not definitely unconstitutional, is at. least very undesirable. We desire that they should let us know that Imperial Airways is not their master by reducing the period of the subsidy. If they do that, they will have dissipated the constitutional point that we are making. I hope the right hon. Baronet will explain why he tried to mislead the Committee by saying that, if the Amendment were carried, we should be liable to compensation, and later on trying to get away from my hon. Friend's point by saying that it was not so. He made two contradictory statements. If one is true, the other is not. I hope we are going to have an explanation of which, if either, is true.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES

It has become obvious that I cannot influence the Minister to adopt a reasonable Parliamentary attitude towards an Amendment which has been supported from every quarter of the Committee, but I believe that I am within the custom of the House in insisting at least on an answer to a specific question. I want to ask him what further agreement there is with Imperial Airways super-

imposed on the agreement to pay subsidies. The Solicitor-General told us that, on top of the agreement to pay subsidies, a request was made to the 'company to proceed with the building of new flying boats. Was that in the form of a binding agreement or consideration? If not, in what form was it, and for what amount? Were there any further permissions given to Imperial Airways, such as to enter into an agreement with Pan-American Airways and commit themselves to that company, with the consequence that they will have to pay further compensation on that account? Is the whole information before us? Are there any further hidden agreements or undisclosed considerations making the Government liable to pay? I really think the Committee will not do itself justice if it does not insist on information on these points.

Question put, "That the word 'fifty-three' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 120.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.	Rayner, Major R. H.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
McKie. J. H.	Reed, A. C. (Exeter)	Storey, S.
Maitland, A.	Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)	Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Makins, Brig. -Gen. E.	Reid, W. Allen (Derby)	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Remer, J. R.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Markham, S. F.	Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Maxwell, S. A.	Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Ropner, Colonel L.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. E
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)	Rowlands, G.	Sutcliffe, H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.	Tasker, Sir R. I.
Morgan, R. H.	Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)	Touche, G. C.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)	Salmon, Sir I.	Train, Sir J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.	Salt, E. W.	Tree, A. R. L. F.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)	Sandys, E. D.	Wakefield. W. W.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.	Ward, Lieut. -col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Munro, P.	Savery, Servington	Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Nicolson. Hon. H. G.	Scott, Lord William	Warrender, Sir V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)	Waterhouse, Captain C.
O'Neill', Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)	Wells, S. R.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.	Shepperson, Sir E. W.	Wickham. Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.	Simmonds, O. E.	Williams, C. (Torquay)
Palmer, G. E. H.	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Peake, O.	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'll'st),	Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.	Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)	Windsor-dive. Lieut. -Colonel G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Smithers. Sir W.	Withers, Sir J. J.
Pilkington, R.	Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)	Womersley, Sir W. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Wragg, H.
Porritt, R. W.	Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Ramsden, Sir E.	Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)	Spens, W. P.	Sir George Penny and Lieut.
		Colonel Llewellin.

NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Groves, T. E.	Owen, Major G.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)	Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)	Paling, W.
Adamson, W. M.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Parker, H. J. H.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)	Hardle, G. D.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Ammon, C. G.	Harris, Sir P. A.	Potts, J.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Price, M. P.
Barnes, A. J,	Henderson, J. (Ardwick)	Pritt, D. N.
Barr, J.	Henderson, T. (Tradeaton)	Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Batey, J.	Hills, A. (Pontefract)	Ritson, J
Bellenger. F.	Holdsworth, H.	Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Benson, G.	Holland, A.	Rowson, G.
Bevan, A.	Hopkin, D.	Seely, Sir H. M.
Brooke, W.	Jagger, J.	Sexton, T. M.
Burke, W. A.	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Shinwell, E.
Chater, D.	Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.	Sllkin, L.
Cluse, W. S.	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Clynes. Rt. Hon. J. R.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Compton, J.	Kelly, W. T.	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cove, W. G.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford	Kirkwood, D.	Sorensen, R. W.
Daggar, G.	Lawson, J. J.	Stephen. C.
Dalton, H.	Leach, W.	Stewart. W. J. (H'gnt'n-le-Sp'ng)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Lee, F.	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Day, H.	Leonard, W.	Tate, Mavis C.
Ede, J. C.	Leslie, J. R.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)	Logan, D. G.	Thorne, W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Lunn. W.	Thurtle, E.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	Macdonald, G. (Ince)	Tinker, J. J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.	McEntee, V. La T.	Vlant. S, P.
Furness, S. N.	McGhee, H. G	Walker. J.
Gardner, B. W.	Maclean, N.	Watson W. McL.
Garro-Jones, G. M.	Mander, G. le M.	Welsh. J. C.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Marklew, E.	Whiteley, W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)	Messer, F.	Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)	Milner, Major J.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Montague, F.	Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)	Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Grenfell, D. R.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)	Muff, G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Naylor, T. E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)	Oliver, G. H.	Mr. Charleton and Mr. John.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON

I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert: ( ) in the payment of subsidy to any company it shall be a condition that the Secretary of State shall be entitled to appoint one or more representatives to the board of the company This Amendment ought to receive general acceptance in all quarters of the Committee, as the principle is already admitted by His Majesty's Government. On the Board of Imperial Airways there are already two State representatives, acting, presumably, as our watch-dogs in respect of the sums of money we have already donated to that concern, and if it is right and proper that Imperial Airways should have two representatives of the State on the board, it is equally right and proper that every aircraft company who are to receive a subsidy under this Bill should have Government representatives on its board. The two State representations on Imperial Airways are Sir John Salmond and Sir Walter Nicholson. As it has been considered advisable in the national interest to have State representatives on the Board of Imperial Airways, and if the Government do not propose to accept the Amendment, I hope that they will be able to give a satisfactory reason why the principle should not be applied to every company which receives a subsidy under the present Bill. I would remind the right hon. Baronet the Under-Secretary of State and other Members of the Government who are present, that it is not only in respect of Imperial Airways that the Government insist upon representation on the board when a subsidy has been given. The Government, as I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, insisted upon representation on the Board of the MacBrayne Steamship Company, and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and away back in Disraeli's time the Government of that day insisted upon choosing representatives on the Suez Canal Company.

The principle is three-quarters of a century old. Wherever State money is given, there should be State representatives on the board of these corporations to see how the money is spent and report to the Government. We cannot get, as we fain would, civil aviation nationalised. We are in a, minority, and we have been beaten on that issue. We cannot even get civil aviation run as a public utility corporation. We have been beaten on that matter. But we ask, and, I hope, with good reason, that in the future years, when there is an annual donation of public money, the same principle as that applied to Imperial Airways shall be applied to other companies which are to obtain these gifts. We trust that the Government will meet us at least as far as saying that the principle, already admitted, shall be continued and developed, so that wherever any money is given there shall be public representatives on the board.

7.48 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON

The right hon. Gentleman has put a very wide interpretation on this Clause. His Amendment can apply only to this Bill, and not to the many other departments of public services, and it is only in this narrow, restricted sense that I can address myself to the Amendment. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Secretary of State has the power—and he has used it—to place Government directors on the board of a company to which a subsidy is given. He has done this in the past, and, no doubt, he will do it in the future, if le thinks fit. Therefore, I should have thought that the Amendment was not really necessary. If it will give the right hon. Gentleman comfort and reassurance, I am willing to accept the form of words contained in his Amendment, but I should like to make it clear that it must be regarded as non-mandatory, and that the Secretary of State will exercise his discretion in each case, either at the commencement of the subsidy, or, at any time, during the currency of the subsidy to insert conditions to make that course desirable.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON

The right hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared to accept these words, but the words of the Amendment say it shall be a condition."— of the payment of subsidy to any company— that the Secretary of State shall be entitled to 'appoint one or more representatives.

Sir P. SASSOON

"shall be entitled."

Mr. JOHNSTON

If you are making an agreement, you say definitely and specifically that you reserve to yourself the right to appoint a representative or representatives to that company. That is precisely in the terms of my Amendment.

Sir P. SASSOON

That is what I said.

Amendment agreed to.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. MANDER

I beg to move, in page 2, after the words last inserted, to insert: (4) each agreement made for the payment of a subsidy shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than fourteen days during the Session of Parliament, and if either House before the expiration of that period presents an address to His Majesty against the agreement it shall cease to have effect; (5) the intention of the Secretary of State to consider proposals for an air transportation scheme covering the route involved in the agreement shall be publicly advertised, and reasonable opportunity shall be given for the presentation of offers on a competitive basis. The Amendment has already been described as a very superior one, and I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to treat it in the same way as the Amendment that has preceded it. The Amendment is in two parts. The second part with regard to the publicity of any proposals which the Government have in contemplation has already, in spirit, been accepted by the Government in the speech which the Under-Secretary of State made last week. He has, I think, gone the whole way with regard to what is asked in the Amendment, and I hope, therefore, he will be able to say that he accepts, as a mandatory part of the Bill, that which he accepted as a voluntary act in his statement last week. I do not think that I need labour that part of the Amendment, as clearly it is now the policy of the Government.

With regard to the first paragraph, I hope that he will give very sympathetic consideration to the proposal. Although, as he said last week, he may feel that everything has been perfectly satisfactory as regards negotiations in the past, that all the particular companies who have been to the Air Ministry and have negotiated and tried to get contracts have been given fair treatment, and that everything has been exactly as it should be, I can assure him that that is very far from being the feeling of representatives of the various companies who have gone there. I have no interest in any of these companies at all, but I have been in contact with representatives of both the companies who have been successful and those who have been unsuccessful. I can assure him that there is a feeling of very grave dissatisfaction among several of the companies who have failed, not because of the fact that they have failed, but because they have never had a square deal at the Air Ministry. I am not in a position to say whether this is well-founded or not, but I know the impression which has been left on the minds of these people, and it is very undesirable that anything of the kind should be allowed to exist in the future.

One of the best safeguards against that, and one of the things that will help the Air Ministry and put them more in contact with public opinion on this matter, is to allow each contract to be brought for confirmation before the House of Commons. After all, there cannot be very many contracts. There. are only two companies which have contracts at the present time. If there were half a dozen in due Course—and that number is unlikely—it would not take up a great deal of Parliamentary time. There are a good many precedents for proposals of this kind. We often bring Orders for confirmation before the House of Commons. They could be taken after 11 o'clock, and so would not interfere with the normal conduct of Parliamentary business. The Debate we had just now has shown the necessity for a provision of this kind. There is dissatisfaction. My right hon. Friend can see from what has been said about Imperial Airways, and if it were known that a contract would go, not in an indirect way in the form of this Bill, but directly in the form of a contract which would come before this House, and upon which we should all have an opportunity of cross-examining the Minister and finding out exact1y the details that had been worked out and agreed upon, it would give far intro satisfaction when every chance had been given to all the interests involved, and the best possible scheme had been put forward for the advantage of civil aviation in this country. I am sure teat the Under-Secretary of State would gave great satisfaction to all interested in these matters if he would say that, either in this form or in some altered form of words, he would be willing to accept the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

I am particularly interested in the Amendment moved by the hon. Member. I have never been interested in any way with the running of aircraft, nor have I special information about complaints as to contracts, but I do know from my experience of the Air Ministry that although mistakes may be made there has been no crookedness about the matter. I could not believe that for one moment. However, like the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) I feel that when we have contracts being given to definite interests by Government Departments, nothing could be better for the whole country than that everything should be made quite clear, to the whole world. Advertisements such as are indicated in the Amendment could be inserted in the newspapers and everything could he made known about the company, and why they were given the contract.

It is, however, on the first point that I feel exceedingly keen, and that is that we should have these contracts with operating firms laid upon the Table of the House. It is not a very big thing to ask the Government to do. It is not something that will delay the coming into operation of any particular scheme, because unless someone prays against the contract it will automatically go on. It is not like an Order in Council which requires an actual formal Resolution. In the proposal that has been put forward by the hon. Member there is a chance of allowing the House of Commons and the country to know exactly what agreements are being made. When that is done I think that a lot of the misgivings and suspicions about long-term contracts and short-term contracts, and this company getting this, that or the other, would be dispelled. We could then march forward with a certain knowledge that a good contract has been made with a particular company and that that contract has been laid before the House and approved by it. If we do that, we can go forward with a good deal less suspicion, and it will be for the benefit of the whole community.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. A. HENDERSON

I should like to associate myself with what was said by the Mover of the Amendment and the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. I cannot imagine that the Under-Secretary will take the view that if he were to accept the Amendment he would be putting something into the Bill which would tend to delay its operation. There are many precedents for the Amendment. With regard to the second paragraph, having regard to the discussion in the Committee to-night, I should have thought that the Committee would have taken the view that the more publicity we could have the better it would be. All that the first paragraph seeks to do is to provide that when any contract is entered into between the Government and any company interested in aviation and seeking a subsidy, that agreement shall be laid on the Table of the House for not less than 14 days, to give any Member of the House an opportunity of taking exception to it. There are many precedents for that proposal, and I hope the Minister will realise that it will reassure hon. Members on this side of the Committee if he can see his way to accept it.

In regard to the second paragraph there, again, there are many Acts of Parliament which require public advertisement. The Solicitor-General will, I think, bear me out when I make that statement. The whole object of requiring public advertisement is to ensure that there shall 'be no secret agreements. I am not suggesting that there would be anything improper even if this Amendment were not accepted, but the object is to ensure that there shall be no secret agreements, and to assure the public that there has been open and free competition. The Government benches are filled with hon. Members who believe in free play competition. This Amendment will give a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of offers on a competitive basis. There is nothing very revolutionary in that proposal. Therefore, I hope the suggestion that there should be public advertisement, and every opportunity for the various competitors in this industry to compete for the advantages of this Act with regard to air transportation schemes.

8.6 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON

With regard to the first part of the Amendment, I have already explained the action that will be taken in the case of future contracts to ensure that the House is kept as fully informed as possible. A White Paper will be laid outlining the main features of each proposed agreement, particularly specifying the precise services to be performed and the amount of subsidy to be paid. The Amendment suggests that the agreement should be laid before each House. The agreement is a very voluminous legal document, and I feel sure that what Members of the Committee would like to have is a plain statement, giving all the facts. There will be nothing to conceal. I think that will satisfy the hon. Member.

Mr. MANDER

If my right hon. Friend means that a White Paper is coming before the House for the approval of the House in the way indicated in the first paragraph, then I agree that it does meet me, but I do not gather that the right hon. Gentleman suggests that. If he does, I am willing to accept that as an alteration.

Sir P. SASSOON

The agreement would be too voluminous to circulate, but a White Paper will be laid before hon. Members containing everything, and it will be perfectly open to hon. Members to raise the subject if they have any objection. It will be laid on the Table of the House for 14 days. Therefore, it is obvious that it will be a matter that can be taken up.

Mr. ATTLEE

Surely, the right hon. Gentleman recognises the difference between an agreement being laid before Parliament, and a White Paper. A White Paper is not an agreement.

Sir P. SASSOON

The object of laying the White Paper is that it shall be laid before the agreement is signed. If the opinion of the House were against the White Paper, then the agreement would not be signed.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH

How is the right hon. Gentleman going to test whether or not the House likes the White Paper? The Amendment would ensure us of something, but a White Paper would not serve the object unless the Government appoint a day for us to discuss it.

Mr. MONTAGUE

Am I to understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that an agreement will be too bulky to be laid before the House, seeing that the agreement of 1929 takes about five or six pages of typescript only?

Sir P. SASSOON

I know what these legal documents are. They are usually very long and very difficult to understand, and I feel sure that hon. Members would prefer to have a clear statement of what the agreement contains. A Motion might be put down, if there were a desire to discuss the White Paper, and if the vote went against the White Paper, then the agreement would not be signed. TM whole point is that the Debate would take place before the agreement was signed.

Mr. ATTLEE

Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows the Rules and Procedure of the House. To put down a Motion means getting a day from the Government for its discussion. When we are dealing with an agreement, it is a different matter from a White Paper. The White Paper may be giving information, but you may be depriving the House of the usual method of dealing with a problem such as this.

Sir P. SASSOON

Surely, it is possible for the Leader of the Opposition to put down a Motion.

Mr. A. HENDERSON

The right hon. Gentleman is surely not telling the House that his main reason for objecting to the Amendment is on the ground that the agreement would be too bulky to lay?

8.11 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH

The Committee is entitled to know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman means, and whether we are to be in a position to give a vote on this question. Surely, he is conversant with the Rules of Procedure. In the ordinary course of procedure, there is no discussion on a White Paper, as such. Is it intended to bring before the House an abbreviated form of agreement? We do not want to know every comma and dot in the agreement, but we want to know about the company with whom the agreement has been made, and, we want to preserve the power of the House to pray against an agreement if it does not like it. The right hon. Gentleman puts us in a fearful difficulty, because we never know what exactly he has in his mind. We want to know whether we are to have something on which we can vote, and not be presented with a sort of fait accompli, and told that we may take it or leave it.

The Bill would probably have been through some time ago if proper explanations had been given in the first place. I agree that last week the right hon. Gentleman did try to give explanations, but according to his statement in Column 1035 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of last Tuesday he led the House to believe that in future no agreement would take place unless the House was conversant with the details of it. The only satisfactory thing for the Committee would be the submission of an agreement upon which we can pass an opinion. It is no satisfaction to come to the House and say: "You can go into the Library and see all the details, but the thing has already been done; so you need not worry about it. Leave it with us." We are not sent here by our constituents to accept that sort of procedure. We are sent here to give our opinion, particularly where money is involved and money is being given away. We do not ask for all the legal phraseology, but at least it could be put into language so that the ordinary person could understand what it means and what obligation is created by the agreement. In regard to the second part of the Amendment, everyone will agree that there was a tremendous amount of suspicion as to how the agreement was drawn up when we had our first debate. I am willing to concede the point that a good deal of that suspicion was dissipated by the reply of the right hon. Gentleman last week. In order that there may be no suspicion at all in the mind of anyone that A is being favoured at the expense of B why is it not possible for there to be competition with regard to these services? The Under-Secretary will create the suspicion that certain people can go to the Departments and get certain advantages. No harm will arise if the Amendment is accepted. Will the Solicitor-General tell us whether in future this House will be able, not by an affirmative Resolution but by a Prayer, to decide whether an agreement should be ratified. That is the specific point upon which we desire a specific answer.

8.16 p.m.

Major HILLS

Agreements of this character go through two stages. In the first place, you have the heads of the agreement drawn up by the business people, and then these heads of agreement are cast into legal shape, of course always at greater length by the lawyers. If anything is inserted in the Bill it should be "heads of the agreement." The Amendment wants very careful revision as regards the first paragraph. The hon. Member does not say at what date the agreement, or as I suggest the heads of the agreement, should be laid. It would obviously be unfair to the company if a substantial time elapsed and then after an agreement had run for some time it was annulled when laid on the Table of the House. There ought to be a provision that the agreement, or the heads of the agreement, should be laid as soon as possible. So far as the second paragraph is concerned, that is not applicable except to new contracts. At present Imperial Airways have a charter from the Government covering certain routes, and on these routes you cannot ask for competitive tenders. On certain other routes it is the practice of the Government to give full opportunity to other interests concerned to state their case, but I do not think you can ask for tenders except as regards new contracts.

8.19 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The position in regard to this matter is as follows: Before 1930 no legislative authority existed for the Air Ministry to enter into contracts at all. The Minister acted within his ordinary executive powers and if Parliament was dissatisfied with the agreement it took the ordinary steps against the Executive. That was thought not to be a very satisfactory procedure and the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) was responsible for piloting through this House the Act of 1930. When he introduced that Bill he said that it was the intention of the Government to continue the existing practice: It is intended in the future, as in the past, as and when each new agreement reaches its appropriate stage, to inform Parliament of its main features, and there will, of course, continue to be opportunities for discussion in the annual Debate on the Air Estimates."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1930; col. 667, Vol. 238.] That was good enough for the hon. Member and his party, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air has gone a great deal further. What he proposes to do is not to stand upon executive authority or the legislative authority which he possesses under the 1930 Act, but to lay a White Paper giving in the fullest possible detail the gist of the agreement into which it is proposed to enter, and he is giving an undertaking that nothing shall be done until the agreement has lain on the Table of the House for 14 days, in order to give the Opposition an opportunity of asking for a day on which the matter can be discussed. He has gone even further than that. He has taken what is perhaps a most unprecedented step. Not only will the House he able by means of the White Paper to receive the whole gist of the matter—and when I say "gist" I do not mean in broad outline but the whole range of the matter—but that in the Library there will be placed the agreement. itself, so that hon. Members will not only have the popular explanation of the agreement in the White Paper but those who are interested may examine the agreement itself clause by clause. It really is unreasonable to ask the Government to go further or to ask any Department to go further. That is the point of view of the Government on the first part of the Amendment.

My right hon. Friend is not prepared at the moment to accept the words in the second part of the Amendment. The hon. Member suggests that a reasonable opportunity should be given for the presentation of offers on a competitive basis. We do not wish to incorporate in an Act of Parliament anything that will suggest, even in the remotest degree, that we ever intend to allow this new service to get into the state of competitive chaos which exists in the United States. We will endeavour to avoid that, and for that reason we do not like the words "competitive basis" at the end. Subject to that, it is the intention of the Government before the Report stage to frame an Amendment which will carry out the meaning which my hon. Friend intends to attach to the Clause.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. MANDER

I fully appreciate the Solicitor-General's remarks about the second part of the Amendment, and I have no doubt that the wording which he intends to bring forward will be a great improvement. It was never my intention that the word "competitive" should mean that the lowest cash tender should be accepted, for there are a great many other things to be taken into consideration. I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for saying that an Amendment will be accepted on the Report stage. With regard to the first part of the Amendment, I hope the Solicitor-General will not regard the matter as being closed, and that between now and the Report stage he will consider whether it is not possible to accept it in another form. After all, we are not very far apart. All I am asking is that there should be a White Paper, which, after all, is merely informative, that in addition there should be the agreement and that then the first paragraph of the Amendment should come into operation. That would give the House a much more definite and specific opportunity of taking action if it so desired. Probably in most cases nothing would happen at all, but in the very few cases where there was a feeling that everything was not right, the House would have a well-known procedure laid down according to which it could take action.

From the Debate which has taken place the Solicitor-Genera] will have seen that there is very general sympathy for an Amendment of this kind. I can assure the Solicitor-General that such a course as I have proposed would satisfy all those hon. Members who are dissatisfied now, and would get rid of all trouble and criticism in the future. If I withdraw both parts of the Amendment, will he not consider, with regard to both of them, whether it is not possible to arrive at some general agreement before the Report stage?

8.29 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOOREBRABAZON

I would like to say a word or two on this particular point. The Mover of the Amendment now intends to shift his ground to a hope on the Report stage.

Mr. MAND ER

Not until I have had a reply.

Lieut.-Colonel MOOREBRABAZON

With regard to the second part of the Amendment, the hon. and learned Gentleman was very sympathetic, although he does not like the wording, but on the first part he was very strongly against the whole principle. On the first part, the Under-Secretary is prepared to give us even more than we asked for. All we asked was that the agreement should be confirmed by the House of Commons, but the Under-Secretary is prepared to give us White Paper. What he forgets is that all one can do with a White Paper is to read it. This is not a party matter. Many of the agreements will not be of first-class importance, but we shall not be able to raise any objections to them except on a definite Motion from the official Opposition, which is a big thing and which has to be done, as it is said, through the usual channels. It might, however, happen that some of the supporters of the Government would like to say a few words on some of these matters. We might wish to have a little information, but we should be unable to get it under this procedure at all.

The Solicitor-General was speaking with the iron hand of the Department behind him and with none of the sympathy which was so nicely shown by the Under-Secretary, but I do hope that if my hon. Friend withdraws his Amendment the Solicitor-General will give us the assurance that something will be done along the lines of that Amendment between now and the Report stage. The heads of agreement might be given to us so that we should not expend these great lumps of Government money without the confirmation of the House.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE

I would like to press the Government on this point. I think it will be agreed that we have not had any real statement as to why there is any difficulty in laying these agreements on the Table. I do not think anybody is impressed by the story about their bulk, for we constantly have bulky Government documents. Nor is there any real difficulty as regards procedure. Masses of things are laid on the Table of the House, and nothing happens unless some hon. Member takes the matter up. It is suggested here that instead of having this procedure, which works perfectly well, the whole matter should be put. in the hands of the leader of the Opposition, who would have to watch all these things and would be pestered by every hon. Member who is interested in them. I cannot see why the leader of the Opposition should have to do the work of hon. Members when Parliament provides a simple procedure. I have heard no valid objection to that procedure, except a quotation of what was done by my hon. Friend in the Labour Government of 1929 to 1931. Speaking as a very humble member of that Government, I think we ought to give up always considering everything that was done by the Labour Government as a sort of criterion' of perfection. I think it is time for the Government to stand on their own feet.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon)

The Leader of the Opposition has put what he had to say very persuasively, especially in his final sentences. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) for the way in which he has dealt with the observations of the Solicitor-General, and I assure him that if he will take the course which he indicated, everything which has been said on this Amendment will be very carefully considered. He cannot expect me to give him an undertaking, nor can I give an undertaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend, but I do not want him or anybody to think that we are shelving the matter and will forget all about it. I. can assure him that the whole discussion, and the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, which undoubtedly have much force in them, will be very carefully considered between now and the Report stage.

Mr. MANDER

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on those conditions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.