SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR. (Hansard, 6 December 1937)

§ Lieut.-Commander Fletcher
I wish to raise a matter of great importance, namely, the desirability of the Secretary of State for Air being a Member of this House. I have raised this question many times. I asked it of the late Prime Minister, now Lord Baldwin, on 15th March, when he replied that the Air Minister had so much to do that it was better for him to be in the House of Lords. I hope that the Secretary of State for War will note that by comparison with the Secretary of State for Air he has so little to do that he may sit in this House. As regards the First Lord of the Admiralty, I understand that the feeling is that it does not matter very much where he is. The extraordinary thing about the 164 present Prime Minister is that he endorses the reply which I received from the late Prime Minister. He also holds the view that, if a Minister has a great deal to do, it is better that he should be in the House of Lords. If that be so, I wonder why he does not go there himself, because he must have considerably more to do than the Minister for Air.
I do not want to raise this matter solely as a personal one to the Minister; I am really more concerned with the office, than with the man. In fact, I feel quite tenderly towards the man, because I understand that he presided over a committee of inquiry which resulted in the disappearance of Lord Londonderry from the Air Ministry, though I believe the blow was softened to Lord Londonderry at the time by saying it was necessary that the Minister should be in the House of Commons, which makes the reply of the Prime Minister all the more astonishing. In spite of that meritorious deed performed by the present Secretary of State for Air, there are at the present moment a great many expressions of doubt going about as to his capacity in his present position. I will not quote my own opinion, but will merely quote that of a highly conservative paper, the "Spectator," which in its last issue describes the question of the Minister's suitability as A subject on which much might be said. I agree that much might be said. We remember the episode of the reported resignation of Lord Weir about the composition of the Fleet Air Arm inquiry. It at any rate resulted in the Minister going on sick leave for a month. We remember the episode of Lord Nuffield in regard to the shadow factories. Both those matters left a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth. Whatever the Minister's capacity as an administrator may be, he certainly has not made what we used to call in the Navy "a happy ship" of the Air Ministry, the reputation of which does not stand high among other Government Departments.
I feel that during this Session the House has been very much handicapped indeed in regard to the transaction of air business. The late Under-Secretary of State for Air held that office for some 10 years. He undoubtedly knew a great deal about the work of the Ministry, and was very devoted to the interests of the Air 165 Services, but I do not think that even his best friend would call him a great Parliamentarian. I remember that, when the Air Navigation Bill was going through the House, the proceedings were needlessly protracted, the House was kept sitting late, and Government business was thrown out of gear, simply because the then Under-Secretary could not handle his own Bill. The proceedings culminated in his sitting on the Front Bench supported on either side by an arm of the law handling his Bill for him. It was not a very edifying spectacle. I remember the episode of the factory at White Waltham, when the then Under-Secretary said that the decision was immutable and irrevocable. Nevertheless, that decision was altered.
As regards the present Under-Secretary of State, I should describe him as a stone-waller. In fact, I think he would probably take it as a compliment if I said that obstinacy was his long suit. He comes here and speaks to a prepared brief; he answers questions according to a prepared formula. A day or two ago he answered a question involving the term "Q.B.I." After he had answered the question, he was asked what the letters "Q.B.I." meant, and he said he had no idea; but yet he was able to answer the question. In spite of his obstinacy, however, his "No" does not always mean "No," as the episode of the equipment depot at Bishop's Cleeve shows. Members of all parties protested that the site was quite unsuitable, but the Under-Secretary said on nth November that the decision would not be altered. It has been altered.
Again, take the commission of inquiry into civil aviation. Did the Secretary of State for Air appoint that commission on the strength of what the Under-Secretary of State for Air told him? If so, it is perfectly clear that the Under-Secretary of State misinformed him, because he did not understand the feeling of the House in regard to the matter. Again, I quote Conservative opinion. The "Times" of 1st December expressed its surprise at the original composition of that Commission, and the composition of the Commission was hailed as a trick in many quarters of the House. Servants of the Executive were to examine charges against the Executive brought by members of the legislature and civil servants were to examine Members of Parliament, 166 according to the original composition of that Commission. The Prime Minister had to bow to the storm, although on the same day that he did so, the Under-Secretary, in a written reply to a question, said he could see no reason for objection or for altering the personnel. That episode alone is sufficient ground for advancing the view that the Secretary of State for Air should be a Member of this House.
But there are other very serious reasons. The Air Ministry is now a great spending Department, and its head should be here for the Commons to question at first hand. It is not only a great spending Department, but it is a Department which is putting through a vast reorganisation and rearmament programme on which the future safety and security of this country depend. It is a vital Ministry. Our chance of survival depends on it, and the Minister responsible for that programme should be open to question and debate in this House. He is the Minister who is peculiarly responsible for the defence of London; and let me remind hon. Members that there is very grave uneasiness as to the progress and efficiency of the air rearmament programme. Yet in spite of that, the Minister takes cover in the Lords. The brunt of air warfare will be borne by the civil population, and the Minister should be in this House, where the elected representatives of the citizens can question him. What real belief exists that effective steps are being taken to reduce London's vulnerability from the air? Is the problem being thought out by those same great minds which assured us the other day in this House that we ought to paste strips of paper over our windows to protect them against the effects of high explosive bombardment?
I have raised an issue which the "Spectator" describes as "an issue which the Prime Minister ought to face firmly." The Prime Minister may return me one of his aloof, monosyllabic, faintly discourteous replies. He will make a great mistake if he does so. The Prime Minister gave way over the National Defence Contribution, he gave way over the Civil Aviation Convention, and in the long run he will have to give way over this. Public opinion is against him. [Interruption.] I ask the hon. Member to read the Press. Feeling in 167 many parts of this House is against him, and Members are not enthusiastically behind the present Secretary of State for Air. It is a perfectly reasonable request that the head of a great spending Department, responsible for the arm on which our safety depends and which is peculiarly responsible for the defence of London, should be a Member of this House. Pressure will be kept up from all quarters of this House, and in the long run we shall get the Minister here.

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain)
The hon. and gallant Gentleman began by saying that he was not concerned with personalities and was going to confine himself to the specific question of the Secretary of State, as a Member of another place. The greater part of his speech was concerned with personal attacks upon my Noble Friend, upon his predecessor, upon my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air and upon myself. But, however inconsistent the hon. and gallant Member's speech was with the introduction with which he prefaced it, I am going to reply upon that which he proclaimed, but did not carry out, as the principal motive of his observations. The hon. and gallant Member said that he had pressed this question many times before, but I seem to think that he may be a recent convert to the view that it is necessary that the Secretary of State should be a Member of this House.

§ Mr. Garro Jones
Conditions are altogether different.

§ The Prime Minister
The hon. Member says that conditions are altogether different. Why?

§ Mr. Benjamin Smith
You are rearming to-day. You were disarming then.

§ The Prime Minister
It was only in March of this year that the Ministers of the Crown Act was introduced into this House, and conditions were not very different then. In that Measure there was a Clause which laid down that there need not be more than a certain number of principal members of the Government in the House of Lords. That surely was the occasion on which this House, if it thought fit, should have introduced an Amendment saying that certain Ministers 168 should also be Members of this House. I do not remember that the hon. and gallant Member or any other Member of the party opposite thought it necessary at that time to introduce such an Amendment. The Act as finally passed provides that out of 21 principal Members of the Government, not more than three need be Members of another place. At the present time, out of these 21, there are only five who are Members of the House of Lords. I quite understand the omission of this House to ask for any amendment of the Act in that respect, because, after all, a proportion of three out of 21 is not a proportion which could be said to do any injustice to this House.
We are living in this country not on the single-chamber system, but under a Constitution which provides for two Chambers, and if the work of the Government is to be efficiently and properly carried out, it must be adequately represented in the Upper Chamber as well as in the Lower. I do not consider that, in the present circumstances, five Members of the Cabinet in the other House is too large a number, and I am sure that the House in accepting the Ministers of the Crown Act, as it was finally passed, recognised that it would be too much restriction on the opportunities of a Prime Minister, who had to form a Cabinet, to insist that he should find always Members of this House to represent particular Ministries. I listened very attentively to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I was unable to find that he had made out any case for selecting this particular Ministry, rather than other Ministries, for the purpose of his observations. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite possibly thought that I was going on to quote their own case, and that was perhaps why they were in a hurry to interrupt. They know that they are a little weak when they come to precedents, because in both Socialist Governments the Secretary of State for Air was a Peer. The late Lord Thomson held that office in the first Socialist Government and again in the second Socialist Government. After his tragic death, did the Socialist Government fill up his position by appointing a Member of this House? No. Lord Amulree was appointed Secretary of State by the Government of the party to which the hon. and gallant Member belongs. Clearly in face of that it is a little absurd for the hon. and 169 gallant Member to say that the interests of the State are not being served because the Secretary of State for Air is not a Member of this House. The real fact is that he thinks there has been some criticism in this House of the Air Ministry. He remembers a debate not long ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) made a very persuasive and powerful speech and he hopes to be able to take advantage of what he thinks is the temporary unpopularity of the Air Ministry, and founds his indictment of my Noble Friend on that.

§ Lieut.-Commander Fletcher
I had no such intention in my mind. My question had nothing to do with the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins).

§ The Prime Minister
The hon. and gallant Member took care to quote my hon. Friend below the Gangway. Now he tries to say that it has nothing to do with the question he has addressed to me or the 170 observations he has made. As regards the attack on my Noble Friend some day, perhaps, justice will be done to Him. It is not possible for the public to know everything that has gone on in the Air Ministry since my noble Friend took charge, but when it is realised, as it will be some day, with what speed and rapidity, and with what efficiency, he has built up a magnificent Air Force in this short space of time, unequalled in the world in the keenness and spirit of the men, and equipped with machines of a power and fighting force undreamed of before my noble Friend came into office, he will earn, and will receive, the gratitude of the country rather than the carping criticism of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.