HC Deb 23 May 1938 vol 336 cc957-1004

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Montague

The Measure under consideration consists of two Clauses in the main, and the first Clause is the one on which there is controversy. May I commence by giving somewhat belated congratulations to the Under-Secretary upon his appointment to a Front Bench position and to his new office, and to express the hope that he will not ruin his departmental digestion by absorbing too many prototypes. I do not intend to take up very much time, because we have already expressed our views upon the general principle of this Measure, and the House knows that we object entirely to the idea of State subsidies being given to private firms in the aircraft industry or any other industry; but I should like to draw attention to the statement of the Secretary of State on Second Reading as to the manner in which the subsidies are to be distributed. He said: The additional financial assistance to be given upon the routes outside Europe will be approximately £1,000,000 and that he hoped for a speeding up by improved aircraft, in conjunction with companies of the Dominions, by extra services to Canada and by the development of the Australia-New Zealand services. Then he spoke about the services which should be established between London and the principal capitals of Europe, and said it was proposed to devote £400,000 to those services. Finally, he referred to £100,000 to be devoted to the inland services and hoped thus to help those companies which are suffering losses to establish themselves on a sound commercial footing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1938; cols. 427–8, Vol. 336.] The one thing we are entitled to know is what is to be done in distributing these subsidies. The general statements of the Minister are not sufficient. This is a Measure which is operated by means of Orders, and it is a comparatively new departure in Parliamentary practice for money to be spent in this way without a preliminary investigation by Parliament of what is to be done with the money. We are told that the amount of the subsidies will depend upon such conditions as the number of approved British aircraft employed, and the efficiency of the services operated on routes licensed by the licensing authority and approved for subsidy by the Air Ministry. The Minister also spoke about internal services which would be competing with one another.

We had from the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) a brief resume of the development of civil aviation in this country, and he drew attention to the fact that at the beginning, as a result of the report of the Hambling Committee, a number of companies were brought in to form Imperial Airways. We wonder why the same principle is not adopted now, and why there should be subsidies to what the Minister described as competing companies. If it is necessary to increase the subsidies and to expand the service in the way proposed, there is no reason why the same principle of conglomeration of existing air companies should not be adopted.

What of the conditions of the subsidy? The right hon. Gentleman said: We propose to devote some Zroo,000 to the inland services, and we hope thus to help those companies which are suffering losses to establish themselves on a sound commercial footing.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1938; col. 429, Vol. 336.] We ought to know what companies they are which are suffering losses. One or two of the companies which it is anticipated will receive subsidies have been operating fairly successfully for some time. In what way will they pass the examination, this means test, and be regarded as having suffered losses? One could understand a proposal to give a subsidy for expansion, but this is a case in which we should know the financial necessities of the companies and the reason for subsidising them for these competitive purposes. One of the conditions imposed is that they should agree to representatives of the Government upon their boards, but when we look at another part of the speech of the Under-Secretary we find that each company receiving the new subsidy is to have one Government representative upon its board. Does the Under-Secretary think that one representative of the Government upon each board is sufficient in the circumstances?

One of the statements made is that companies who receive subsidies must understand that it is only temporary and that they have to put themselves upon a substantial basis. So far as they are concerned, aviation must fly by itself. We were told the same thing 14 or 15 years ago, in reference to Imperial Airways. We were told that the subsidies would not last for ever but would gradually diminish and eventually would be wiped out altogether. That has not been realised; in fact, the subsidies have been extended and have reached the gigantic figure, together with the other services and companies, of possibly £3,000,000 in the course of a year. What guarantee is there from the Government that the necessity for continuing the subsidies will not arise anew as it has arisen year by year in times past?

A question about which I feel strongly —I will not apologise for referring to it again because since reading the last Debate I have made personal inquiries about the matter—is the dismissed pilots. We were not at all satisfied with the reply of the Government. The Under-Secretary replied on that subject, and I am not charging him with replying with his tongue in his cheek; but, so far as he was briefed he was wrongly briefed. The true facts were not told to this House about the dismissal of the pilots. Perhaps I might recount the facts by way of introducing new facts that have not yet been told but which ought to be told about these dismissed pilots. There were either nine or ten pilots dismissed summarily by Imperial Airways, at the time when the Union, the Air Line Pilots' Association, was formed. They were dismissed upon the ground of redundancy; that is what we were told. I understand that the Air Line Pilots' Association are concentrating upon three of the pilots who are of greater importance from the navigational point of view. There is some point that they understand those matters better than others. It is a coincidence that they were all dismissed upon the ground of redundancy at the time that the Air Line Pilots' Association was formed.

All the men were members, and the three pilots I have referred to were officials of the organisation. So far as I understand, no other reason has ever been given to the dismissed pilots. All three of those pilots are long-service, capable navigational officers. I stated in the course of my Second Reading speech that one of them was one of the two men in the world possessing the two certificates for land and marine navigation. That pilot was dismissed on the ground of redundancy; yet, in the week following, another pilot was taken upon a flying boat expedition —which crashed, I believe, at Athens—who had been only once in a flying boat. The other pilots were dismissed upon the same grounds at the same time, although Imperial Airways were employing and promoting other pilots to these responsible positions in their places.

The Under-Secretary told us that two of the three pilots were dismissed but that the other one was simply not taken on again. One of them was to have a position given to him. The other two were dismissed, with the proviso that Imperial Airways would not stand in their way for other engagements; in other words, that they would be given good references. If that is so, may I point out that after the speech made by the Under-Secretary of State in reply the commercial position of the pilots was much more unfavourable than before? He made it clearly evident that it was not merely a question of redundancy but of some dissatisfaction with these officers. We know what we think about that dissatisfaction. We are sure that it was dissatisfaction that they were responsible for the activities leading to the foundation of a union of pilots distinct from the well-known organisation the Guild of Air Pilots. It was obvious from the Under-Secretary's reply that it was not simply a question of redundancy.

Let us consider the one who was not re-engaged. He is not going to be engaged by Imperial Airways, but by the new company that has been formed for flying upon the Paris route. Although it has been stated in this House that that man is upon the stocks, as it were, for re-engagement, he will not get a job until June of next year. The explanation which was given to the House is not satisfactory, and this is not a satisfactory way of dealing with long-service officers, who, if they have done any wrong ought to be given the opportunity of knowing what it was. They ought not to be put off with talk of redundancy. They should be able to make their answer to any charges that might be levelled at them. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give a better reply to-day than he did before, in the light of the fact that he said that the pilot was going to get a job—the pilot who was not dismissed but not re-engaged—and in view of the fact that the re-engagement will not be with Imperial Airways, but with the new company to be formed by Imperial Airways in conjunction with British Airways some time in the future.

I again express on behalf of the Labour party one strong objection to this consistent policy of subsidies without any guarantee that they are necessary without any idea as to how they are going to be used but with power in the hands of the Government to play with public money as it chooses without any real reference to debate in the House. We object to that policy very strongly. We do not propose to divide at this stage of the Bill but our strong objection is upon record.

The Chairman

I think I could perhaps have ruled the hon. Gentleman out of order some time ago. I must say I do not think we can engage in a debate on this question on this Clause. I propose to treat what he said as in effect merely asking a question and I can permit a reply to it. That is not unusual. But I do not think this a proper subject for a long debate on this Clause.

Mr. Kelly

On a point of Order. We are being asked in this Clause to vote a sum of money to particular individuals and it is assumed that they are going to use it as the House would desire.

The Chairman

No, the hon. Member is mistaken. If he looks at the Clause, that is not the way it goes. I do not propose to discuss this. I (lid not stop the hon. Gentleman in his speech, I merely give a warning and I intend to stick to it.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn

Do we understand that at no stage of the Bill will it be competent for anyone to raise the question of the position of these pilots?

The Chairman

I did not say so. I have in fact allowed it to be raised, but I have said I could not allow the Clause to be treated as an occasion for a debate on the question.

Mr. Benn

Would you be good enough to indicate say on which Clause the matter can be discussed?

The Chairman

I do not think it could be discussed at great length on either of the Clauses.

Mr. Benn

This is a subsidy to a private company and public money is being voted to it.

The Chairman

No, the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken again. The Clause is merely one to enable the aggregate amount of certain subsidies which come under another Act of Parliament altogether to be increased.

Mr. Benn

Atlhough it is true that the original power lies in another Act, this is a preliminary to a grant of £1,500,000 of public money to a company which is expanding and employing more personnel. In the circumstances there must be some stage at which we can raise the question of the conditions under which the personnel are to be employed.

The Chairman

The right hon. Gentleman might try but I see no reason for his argument. I have expressed an opinion to which I intend to adhere. I have not stopped any one.

Mr. Montague

In his speech introducing the Second Reading the Minister concerned made a long statement as to how the money was to be spent in general, that is to say, in respect of the different types of service. If it would be out of order at any subsequent stage of the Bills' progress through the House, would it not be out of order at that time?

The Chairman

Not necessarily. The Second Reading is quite a different matter to the question in Committee that Clause 1 stand part.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Mander

I wish to say a few words on the subject of these pilots. I shall bear in mind the observations that you, Sir Dennis, have made in regard to Order, but I think it is clear that we can ask certain questions with regard to the organisation that is going to spend this largely increased sum before making that grant and one will be guided by the reply one gets as to whether it is a suitable organisation to which to make further grants. I do not want to use language with regard to these discharges which will stir up the troubles of the past and renew animosities and perhaps make things more difficult. We have some very gallant pilots who have rendered great service. There is really nothing against them at all, whatever the circumstances may have been in which their services were brought to a termination. Would it not be the right and proper thing now to go back and give them the opportunity to take up their old task which they carried out so well? Surely it would be in the public interest to do that. I understand that the position taken up by the Government is that the directors have looked into it and would be glad if it could be done. But we want something more than that. We want an assurance from the Government that they are through their directors going to put the greatest possible pressure on their colleagues on the board and to use all the influence that they possess. We cannot ask for more. It is not under the direct control of the Government.

With regard to the question of recognition of collective representation, we ought not to grant money to any firm which does not permit it to the fullest extent. I understand that a ballot is taking place now. Can we have an assurance that, if the employes show themselves in favour of collective organisation, there will be no further delay and that all negotiations will take place direct with the Air Line Pilots' Association just as would happen with any other trade union? There has been far too much delay over it, and I hope we can be assured that it is going to end now.

9.33 P.m.

Mr. Perkins

This matter was first raised by an hon. Member on the Liberal benches. I took it up a few days later and was greatly helped by the official Opposition. It has, therefore, become a non-party matter. Members in all sections of the House want to see justice done to these men. The injustice, if there was one, was done several months ago. Surely it is time that the parties engaged in the dispute forgot the past and buried the hatchet and that some of these men were reinstated. We now have the statement of the Under-Secretary to the effect that the Government directors have recommended that two of these men should be reinstated at some future time. Surely the right thing now is for the company in view of the fact that they are getting their subsidy practically doubled, to reinstate these two men and let us forget about the other eight. We ought to concentrate on the things that matter.

The Chairman

I think the hon. Member is now getting into arguments which are out of order. The matter can be referred to and a question asked as a reason for passing or not passing a particular Clause, but the hon. Member is going beyond what I consider the limit.

Mr. Perkins

I will only repeat the appeal I have made to my hon. and gallant Friend that the Government directors should definitely recommend the reinstatement of these pilots, and that he should do his best to get them reinstated at the earliest possible moment.

9.35 P.m.

Mr. Kelly

I hope, Captain Bourne, that I shall be able to keep well within the Ruling that has been given, but I must call attention to the fact that we are going to hand over £3,000,000 to this company, as against £1,500,000 which it has been receiving as a subsidy in the past, and we have a right to consider whether or not the people to whom we are handing public money in this way are people who can be entrusted to deal with it in a way that will satisfy the House of Commons. Up to the present one cannot say that they have shown, on their managerial side, a capacity for dealing properly and humanly with those who have rendered excellent service to them, which means that in that respect they have spent the £1,500,000 badly. We are now asked to hand over, if this Clause is passed, £3,000,000 to people who have not been able to deal in a good managerial fashion with the pilots in their employ. The position to-day is worse than it was when the matter was originally raised. They have now condemned a certain number of the men in the eyes of all employers throughout the country. They have said, in effect, that not one of these men is fit to come back into the employ of the company, which is subsidised by His Majesty's Government, but that, in view of the agitation which has been raised, and in view of the fear that they have been found out, they are prepared, not to employ any one of them, but to recommend that some other people may employ a couple of them. They have withdrawn the condemnation, they have withdrawn the victimization—because that is the only word—

The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne)

The hon. Gentleman is now getting beyond what it is in order to raise on the Committee stage of this Bill.

Mr. Kelly

Here are people who are going to utilise the money of the public of this country, and we expect that whoever expends that money will treat the people in the service in a way that we can justify to the whole country. In examining that question, I have to examine how they have treated the people in their employ when we gave them the £1,500,000, and I am wondering whether one can trust them with this money. As matters stand at present, I cannot trust Imperial Airways with this £3,000,000, because the directors are not fitted to have the control of pilots, and therefore are not fitted to have this £3,000,000.

The Deputy-Chairman

I must point out to the hon. Member that there is no suggestion in the Clause that either Imperial Airways or anyone else gets the money.

Mr. Kelly

No, Sir, but it is to be used for the purposes of the Air Navigation Act, and they will receive part of it for the purpose of carrying out all that is in the Act. In fact, they have victimised eight men. What employer is going to employ them? They will be told, "Imperial Airways have not only refused to employ you, but have refused to recommend you with the other two." Therefore, these eight men, who have rendered excellent service, are being victimised before the whole country, indeed, before the whole world, because the work of an air pilot is not only a national matter, but an international matter, and it is well known throughout the world that these men have been stated to be unfit for work which they have proved themselves capable of performing in an excellent way in the past. I have been dealing with employers for many years now—

The Deputy-Chairman

I really cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to pursue that argument. This is a lump sum for civil aviation, and there is nothing in the Bill to say that this sum is to be paid to any company.

Mr. Benn

On that point of Order, may I draw your attention to the words which describe this as a sum to supplement a sum granted under the Air Transport (Subsidy Agreement) Act, 1930? If I mistake not, the Air Transport (Subsidy Agreement) Act, 1930, was an Act to subsidise Imperial Airways.

The Deputy-Chairman

It does not say that any of this sum is to go to Imperial Airways.

Mr. Kelly

While they are not mentioned here, we are dealing with the people who are carrying on this work of air navigation, and we know who is intended and whom the Government have in mind at this moment. I say at once that, if it is intended by the Government that any portion of this £3,000,000 is to go to these people, I hope the Government will think, not only once, but many times, before they entrust them with money, in view of the way in which they have victimised these pilots, who ought now to be in the service of this company and of our air navigation, instead of being condemned as they are at this moment.

9.43 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson

I do not want to go into details with regard to any particular company, as that has been ruled out of order, but I want to deal with that section of the Bill which says that the members of any licensing authority—

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Lady can raise that question on Clause 2.

Miss Wilkinson

It is a general issue that I want to raise, and I want to raise it in this way. I presume it is expected by the Government that this £3,000,000 will not be paid as a subsidy every year for ever and ever, but that it is hoped that the company or companies concerned will in due time be able to earn sufficient in the ordinary course of civil aviation to do without a subsidy. It is, therefore, extremely important, especially in view of the report which we have in our minds, though we are not raising it to-night, that something should be done by the Minister to re-establish in the minds of the public confidence in British civil aviation as a reliable service. The Minister does not perhaps realise how deep has been the suspicion of ramp and of inefficiency in British civil aviation, and, therefore, I suggest that the new Ministry, in taking this matter over, will do well to consider in what way public confidence can best be established.

A large number of people like myself, connected with the trade union movement, travel wherever we can by air, being very busy people with very little time to spend on travelling. People of that kind use civil aviation as much as anybody, and there is a very large number of them. One thing about which we are concerned is that, so far as it lies in our power, we will not use non-trade union labour, and will not be served by non-trade union labour. I have not made one journey by Imperial Airways since these men have been dismissed, nor will I. I insist on travelling by a trade union line. I am assured that the French pilots are all members of their appropriate trade union organisation. Therefore, I use their services; and, as far as it lies within the power of not only myself and the officials of my union, but of other members of the Trades Union Congress and the National Executive of the Labour party, we shall not, if we can avoid it, be served by non-union labour. I suggest that this is a point that the new Minister ought to take into account. The company have already lost a considerable amount of traffic in this way, and they will lose more if they are going to take this attitude. These men, as we believe—and we have seen nothing to disabuse us of that opinion—have been victimised for starting to organise.

It is not the fault of the Under-Secretary, nor is it the fault of the Minister. They come to this matter with clean hands, and, I hope, pure hearts. The Minister himself, while at the Ministry of Health, has been continually dealing with trade union delegations, and understands how necessary this attitude is in the modern world. I suggest that it would be, even from their own point of view, not only a gracious but a businesslike attitude if they said, "We realise that there has been this dispute; let us start again, and, as there is nothing against these men except their desire to organise, we will insist on their reinstatement." If the Minister does that, he will do a great deal towards restoring public confidence, and if he does not, he will soon realise that responsible people in this country put trade union principles first.

9.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour)

I hope that I shall keep within the Ruling of the Chair in endeavouring to answer some of the questions which have been put to me, and that, in doing so, I shall be allowed the latitude which hon. Members opposite hoped I should be given in order that they might receive the replies which I think they were quite entitled to have to their questions. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) asked me various questions as to how the subsidy was to be expended in respect of external and internal lines. I would point out that Parliament is not losing control of the money which is being voted, because all that we are doing is to authorise the increase of the maximum subsidy to £3,000,000, and each subsidy allotted to any particular service is to be the subject of a special agreement, to be set out in the form of a White Paper which will be laid before Parliament. To that extent we can say that we are not losing control of this money. As to the question of how the internal lines subsidy is to be administered, I cannot give any more information, because that must essentially depend on the outcome of applications for licences to the licensing authority for internal air lines which is being set up by this Bill. Obviously, it will be those companies which are successful in fulfilling the conditions laid down for the grant of licences which will then be able to apply for and obtain some portion of this subsidy.

Mr. Montague

Does that mean that every company that seeks and obtains a licence gets a subsidy?

Captain Balfour

It means that every company that seeks and obtains a licence will be eligible to apply for the subsidy; but I cannot say at this moment who will get it, because there are certain conditions laid down by the Government as to eligibility for this subsidy. The hon. Gentleman asked whether companies which are doing well would have the same advantages as those that are sustaining losses at the present time, in applying for subsidies. I do not think that the financial state of the company should be the determining factor in regard to the grant of the subsidy, but rather the financial result which is the outcome of operating any particular service. It might well be that a company of financial strength will he running an uneconomic line from A to B and, because they are running that line, they might be granted the subsidy; whereas there might be a company in not so strong a financial position which was running a very paying line from C to D, and they would not be eligible for the subsidy because the line C to D would be a paying line, whereas A to B would be a losing line.

Mr. Benn

Is it contemplated, therefore, that A to B would be a permanently subsidised line?

Captain Balfour

No, Sir. I was trying to put forward that the criterion for granting subsidies should not be the balance-sheet of the company, but rather the economic results of the line that the company are trying to undertake. The subsidy is to be a diminishing one. That applies to all subsidies, external and internal. I must join issue with the hon. Gentleman on the point that he made, that although many Governments in the past have adopted the attitude that civil aviation should fly by iself, to-day the subsidy is increased for external services. That is not quite fair, unless you also take into account the task which is being undertaken in return for the subsidy; and if you work out the task which is being undertaken now under the Empire Air Mail scheme, you will find that, although the subsidy granted in total is greater now than in the past, the subsidy per tonmile—and that is the important consideration—is some 5o per cent. less under the new Empire Air Mail agreement than under any air transport agreement in the past. The proposals for the granting of the increased subsidy which may be the outcome of the increased sums we are now asking Parliament to authorise are now unsettled; but we aim at the subsidy being a diminishing sum in relation to the task set, although, let me repeat, the total may be greater because the tasks are greater. The hon. Gentleman then went on to the vexed question of pilots. I should like to be allowed to answer the question he put. He said that I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill with my tongue in my cheek, and that I was briefed wrongly.

Mr. Montague

I said that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was briefed wrongly, but that he could not have been speaking with his tongue in his cheek because he has just come to that Bench.

Captain Balfour

I was not speaking with my tongue in my cheek, nor do I consider that I was briefed wrongly. It is difficult for me to go into the matter in any detail. I gave certain facts on the Second Reading of the Bill. The facts are that the pilots were dismissed by the company and that, at the request of the Government, the Government directors went into the question as to the reasons for the dismissal and the justification or otherwise for that dismissal. They interviewed five pilots, and I shall not prove to be wrong, because I saw the Government directors' report myself. The Government directors found that the dismissals were justified, and they secondly found—

Mr. Kelly

On what grounds?

Captain Balfour

I do not know, and I submit that no one in this Committee, either a Member of the Government or anyone else, is entitled to ask for the full private domestic reasons as recorded in the minutes of the board of the company.

Mr. S. O. Davies

Do we understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell the Committee that he personally saw the report, and that he knew of the grounds upon which these pilots had been dismissed?

Captain Balfour

I never said I knew. I will be perfectly frank with the Committee and give them the full knowledge I have got. I have seen the Government Directors' report to my right hon. Friend's predecessor, which says that the Government Directors investigated the circumstances of the dismissals and found that the dismissals were justified.

Mr. Montague

These pilots were told at the time—and they have been told nothing else since—that they were dismissed on grounds of redundancy. Were these the grounds?

Captain Balfour

I do not know.

Miss Wilkinson

You ought to know.

Captain Balfour

We asked the Government directors to investigate the circumstances of the dismissal of these pilots, and they reported to us that the dismissal was justified, and, secondly, that it had nothing at all to do with membership of the Air Line Pilots' Association.

Mr. Benn

On a point of Order, Captain Bourne. I believe that it is the practice in this House that if a Minister makes substantial reference to some document the House is entitled to have the document laid, and may I ask you whether the reference made by the Under-Secretary in this case comes under that Ruling?

The Deputy-Chairman

It is an old rule of the House that if a Minister quotes from a document—

Mr. Benn

No, makes "substantial reference."

The Deputy-Chairman

—the House is entitled to have the document laid on the Table. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that I am myself at a disadvantage in that I have not seen the document, and I am unable to say whether the Under-Secretary has or has not quoted substantially from it, but I am sure that if he has, he will conform to the ordinary rules of the House.

Miss Wilkinson

Is not the position rather serious and the necessity for the document being laid still greater when the effect of the Minister's speech is to take away the characters of these men by unconfirmed charges of which the men themselves have not been told and to which, therefore, they have never been able to reply?

The Deputy-Chairman

That does not appear to me to be a point of Order.

Captain Balfour

I have given the Committee the gist of what the Government directors have told my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Benn

On a point of Order, Captain Bourne. May I call your attention to the words which have just been used by the Minister saying that he has given us the gist of the report of the Government directors? I submit, not for your immediate decision, but for your further consideration, that the words "the gist" of the Government directors' report constitute what, under the Standing Order, would be covered by "substantial reference" to the document.

Sir Ronald Ross

Does that involve a written or a verbal report?

The Deputy-Chairman

With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member, as I stated earlier, I have not seen the report, and I have no idea whether it is oral or in writing, and I can give no decision. With regard to the "gist of the report," the words in the Manual of Procedure are as follows: If a Minister of the Crown quotes to the House from a document which has not been presented to the House, it ought to be laid on the Table. I do not find there the words "the gist" of the report. Whether the Minister has quoted from the report or not, which, as I stated before, I have not seen, I have not the means to decide, and I am certain that if he has quoted from it he ought to follow the ordinary rules of the House.

Captain Balfour

I have not quoted. I have not the document here, so it would be quite impossible for me to quote from the document. I have given the Committee the general effect of the report and, furthermore, I submit to you, Captain Bourne, that it is not a State paper, but a private commercial paper. I would ask your Ruling whether this document—a private report from the Government directors—would come within the scope of even a State paper?

The Deputy-Chairman

On that point I am not prepared at this moment without consideration to express an opinion, but the words I have read from Erskine May say, "read or quote."

Mr. Benn

I am not asking for an immediate Ruling. Time should be given, but my recollection is that Erskine May describes the meaning of that Clause as being a substantial reference. My recollection is that the words are "substantial reference," and I ask you to take that into consideration when giving a Ruling on this point.

Miss Wilkinson

Is it not the fact that any Minister could get out of that Standing Order by not quoting the actual words, and yet give, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) said, the gist of it? Therefore, is not the Committee entitled to have it laid?

The Deputy-Chairman

At the moment I have not had an opportunity of consulting Erskine May to know whether it was an actual quotation and not the gist, but I do not want to tie myself because I have not looked at Erskine May.

Mr. Benn

Will you be prepared at a suitable moment to yourself to give a Ruling on the point?

The Deputy-Chairman

I will certainly look into the question, but I am not prepared to give a Ruling now.

Mr. J. J. Davidson

May I submit this point of Order. This question with reference to pilots was raised in the House of Commons and as a consequence the Under-Secretary has referred to this report. Therefore, is it not the right and privilege of Members who desire this investigation to have this report submitted?

The Deputy-Chairman

No, certainly not. There is no rule of that kind. A report may be of a confidential nature or otherwise, but it may be impossible to discuss it or to have it laid.

Miss Wilkinson

Surely, the Committee is entitled to know the charges to which the Minister has referred and which he tells the Committee he has not seen, when the livelihood of these men is at stake.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is not a point for me to decide.

Captain Balfour

I am producing no charges at all against anybody.

Mr. G. Griffiths

On a point of Order. When the Minister states that the Government directors have made investigations and were satisfied that there was justification for the dismissal of these men, was he quoting actually what they said?

Captain Balfour

The Government directors have reported to my right hon. Friend's predecessor that they have investigated the circumstances of the dismissals and they have found, first, that the dismissals were, in their opinion, justified; and, secondly, that those dismissals had nothing to do with the Air Line Pilots' Association.

Mr. Gallacher

On a point of Order. I want to know whether the Under-Secretary is giving his own opinion of what the directors found, or is he quoting from the directors' report?

The Deputy-Chairman

That is not a point of Order.

Captain Balfour

I am endeavouring to be quite frank with the Committee. I am stating that the Government directors reported to my right hon. Friend's predecessor that, in their opinion, the dismissals were justified and that those dismissals had nothing to do with the Air Line Pilots' Association.

Miss Wilkinson

With what had they to do?

Captain Balfour

I cannot tell the hon. Lady, because I have not asked and I do not know. There comes a time when the domestic affairs of a company have to be ruled by the company's directors who are responsible for the administration of that company, even when you have on that company's hoard two Government directors of whom we can ask questions and to whom we can refer matters. [Interruption.]

The Deputy-Chairman

I think we should get on better if the Minister were allowed to make his own statement.

Miss Wilkinson

On a point of Order. We are facing to-day a most serious charge against honoured servants of this company, and we cannot learn from the Minister why these men have been dismissed. We get more and more vague charges, and I suggest to you that when charge after charge is made the Minister ought to say what are the grounds; if not, we ought to report Progress until we can find out.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is not a point of Order.

Captain Balfour

May I repeat, that I am making no charges against these pilots and that to the best of my knowledge no charge has been formulated against them which has been made public and which has affected their reputation? All that has happened is that they have been dismissed and that in the opinion of the Government directors those dismissals were justified.

Mr. Benn

On a point of Order. This is a very important matter. When the Under-Secretary says that in the opinion of the Government directors these dismissals were justified, is he using the words which the Government directors used in their report?

Captain Balfour

I would not say that I am using the exact words which the Government directors used in their report. I am trying to be frank with the Committee and giving them a gist of the information which my right hon. Friend's predecessor received from the two Government directors who, at his request, looked into the question of these dismissals. They found, first, that the dismissals were justified—

Miss Wilkinson

On what were they justified?

Captain Balfour

I presume that they were justified because the internal administration of the company made the dismissals necessary. In order that it should be made doubly sure, the matter was investigated by the Government directors, who endorsed the decision of the board of directors which had been previously arrived at. In order to deal with questions which had been asked in this House, perfectly justifiably asked, as to whether there was any victimisation, the Government directors have specifically given the opinion that the dismissals had nothing whatever to do with the Air Line Pilots' Association.

Miss Wilkinson

On a point of Order. The Minister has repeated four times what he has just told us, but he has not made any attempt to answer the point we have raised that—

Mr. Boothby

On a further point of Order.

The Deputy-Chairman

I think we had better deal with one point of Order at a time.

Miss Wilkinson

These men were told that they were redundant. They were not told any other charge, and now the Minister says that they were dismissed on some other ground which had nothing whatever to do with their having joined the Air Line Pilots' Association. Are we not as a Committee, before we vote £3,000,000 of public money, entitled to know why these men were dismissed?

The Deputy-Chairman

The Committee is not entitled to know. That may be a reason for turning down this Clause, but the Committee cannot get information from the Minister which the Minister does not possess.

Captain Balfour

The hon. Lady complains that I have repeated myself three or four times. It is true that I have repeated myself, because she asked me the same question three or four times, and there is only one reply, which is the straight and honest one which I have given. I do not know, and I have not asked for the full reasons, the domestic and internal reasons, why the company took this action. We asked the Government directors whether the dismissals were justified, and they informed my right hon. Friend's predecessor that in their opinion they were justified. There is no charge being made against these men by me, and I do not intend to go any further than that to-night. Two of the five pilots whose cases were investigated by the Government directors were made the subject of favourable recommendations, one for reinstatement and the other that he should be given employment in some future London-Paris concern when that comes about.

As regards the second pilot, who is recommended for re-employment at some future date if Imperial Airways have any participation, major or minor, in such a joint enterprise as may be set up, the fact that he was one of the five dismissed pilots is not in any way to count against his employment. As regards the other pilot who was recommended for reinstatement, his case has been referred to the technical advisers of the company, who, for technical reasons, do not recommend his reinstatement, on grounds which, as far as I know, may be entirely different from those of the original dismissal, the reasons for which I have not asked. I submit to the Committee that the directors of a company who have technical advisers responsible to the company for the safety of passengers would be in an impossible position if they went against the advice of those technical advisers. If any unfortunate event ever happened there would always be the fact that the advice of the technical advisers had been ignored.

Mr. S. O. Davies

Is not that by implication a charge of inefficiency against the pilot referred to? Nothing else can be read into it.

Captain Balfour

The hon. Member is referring to pilots. I am referring to one specific pilot. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) has said that the commercial position of these five pilots has been worsened. I submit to the Committee that the remarks we have heard from the Opposition as regard charges which have never been made by me or anyone else is the worst turn that could be done to these pilots. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) asked whether there was going to be recognition of collective representation and whether I could give an assurance that the ballot which is now taking place in Imperial Airways as to the way in which the pilots desire to be represented, whether by a domestic committee elected by themselves or by the Air Line Pilots' Association, was being conducted scrupulously fairly. I can give him that assurance. In reply to a question to-day I said that I have arranged that a copy of the ballot paper, and the covering letter which goes with it, shall be available for hon. Members in the Library. The conditions are scrupulously fair, and will, I believe, satisfy everyone who wishes this matter to be settled in a fair and open manner.

Mr. Mander

Will the decision when taken be carried out without delay, whatever it is?

Captain Balfour

Yes, Sir. The company have every wish to fall in with the majority view as to the way in which the pilots wish to be represented and are wining to assist and co-operate with the pilots in setting up the machinery forthwith. I have endeavoured to answer the points which have been put to me in the course of the discussion, and in conclusion may I say that I have tried to let no hasty words fall from me which may damage the reputation of these pilots and against whom no charges have been made from this side of the House, but I would appeal to hon. Members opposite to remember that in dealing with this matter they likewise have responsibilities almost, if not as great, as we have.

Mr. Montague

Will the Government agree to postpone further consideration of this Measure until the Chairman has had an opportunity of considering the question raised with regard to procedure in reference to papers quoted?

Captain Balfour

I have never admitted that I have quoted any paper; I have no papers with me from which to quote. The answer to the hon. Member is "No."

Mr. Montague

In view of that decisive answer, and in view of the extreme dissatisfaction that is felt in regard to the reply of the Minister, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 145.

Division No. 216.] AYES. [9.0 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Crooke, Sir J. S. Grimston, R. V.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Allan, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Croom-Johnson, R. P. Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S. Crossley, A, C- Hambro, A. V.
Aske, Sir R. W. Crowdar, J. F. E. Hannah, I. C.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (lilt of Thanet) Culverwell, C. T. Hannon, Sir P. J. H
Barelay-Harvay, Sir C. M. Davidson, Viscountess Harbord, A.
Beamish, Roar-Admiral T. P. H. Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Harris, Sir P. A.
Birchall, Sir J. D. Davison, Sir W. H. Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Blair, Sir R. Dawson, Sir P. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Boothby, R. J. G. Denman, Hon. R. D. Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Doland, G. F. Haly-Hutchinson, M. R.
Brass, Sir W. Dower, Major A. V. G. Hepworth, J.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Nawbury) Dugdale, Captain T. L. Holmes, J. S.
Bull, B. B. Duncan, J. A. L. Hops, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L. Dunglass, Lord Hopkinson, A.
Butcher, H. W. Eastwood, J. F. Horsbrugh, Florence
Campbell, Sir E. T. Edmondson, Major Sir J. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.) Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Hunter. T.
Channon, H. Ellis, Sir G. Hutchinson, G. C.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Emrys-Evans, P. V. James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Erskine-Hill, A. G. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Clarry, Sir Reginald Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Fleming, E. L. Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Colfox, Major W. P. Fremantle, Sir F. E. Keeling, E. H.
Conant, Captain R. J. E. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.) Gluckstein, L. H. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Gower, Sir R. V. Kimball, L.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Latham, Sir P.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Gridley, Sir A. B. Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Craven-Ellis, W. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Leech, Sir J. W.
Lewis, O. Proeter, Major H. A. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Liddall, W. S. Radford, E. A. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Little, Sir E. Graham- Ramsay, Captain A. H. M Tate, Mavis C.
Liewellin, Colonel J. J. Ramsbotham, H. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Thomas, J. P. L.
McCorquodale, M. S. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Touche, G. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Remer, J. R. Tufnall, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Macquisten, F. A. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Turton, R. H.
Magnay, T. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Wakefield, W. W.
Maitland, A. Ropner- Colonel L. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Rowlands, G. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Markham, S. F. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. Wayland, Sir W. A
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Wells, S. R.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Salmon, Sir I. White, H. Graham
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Salt, E. W. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Samuel, M. R. A. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Morgan, R. H. Seely, Sir H. M. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.) Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G-
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Shepperson, Sir E. W. Wise, A. R.
Munre, P. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st) Womersloy, Sir W. J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) Wragg, H.
Perkins, W. R. D. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Petherick, M. Spans, W. P. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Pilkthorn, K. W. M. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Pilkington, R. Strauss, E A. (Southwark, N.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Major Harvie Watt.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Hayday, A. Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Adamson, W. M. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Price, M. P.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Pritt, D. N.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Quibell, D. J. K.
Banfield, J. W. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Barnes, A. J. Hopkin, D. Ritson, J.
Barr, J. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Batey, J. John, W. Sexton. T. M.
Bellenger, F. J. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Shinwell, E.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Silkin, L.
Benson, G. Kelly, W. T. Silverman, S. S.
Broad, F. A. Kirby, B. V. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Bromfield, W. Kirkwood, D. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Lawson, J. J. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Burke, W. A. Leach, W. Sorensen, R. W.
Chater, D. Lee, F- Stephen, C.
Cluse, W. S. Leonard, W. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Leslie, J. R. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Cooke, F. S. Lunn, W. Summerskill, Edith
Cove, W. G. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford McEntee, V. La T. Thurtle, E.
Daggar, G. McGhee, H. G. Tinker, J. J.
Dalton, H. Maclean, N. Tomlinson, G.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Mander. G. le M. Walker, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Marshall, F. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Dobbie, W. Maxton, J. Welsh, J. C.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Messer, F. Westwood, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Milner, Major J. Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Frankel, D. Montague, F. Wilkinson, Ellen
Gallacher, W. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Gardner, B. W. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Williams, E J. (Ogmore)
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Muff, G. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Naylor, T. E. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Noel-Baker, P. J. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Grenfell, D. R. Oliver, G. H. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Paling, W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Parker, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Pearson, A. Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.

Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 217.] AYES. [10.20 p.m.
Adams, D. (Consett) Grenfell, D. R. Pritt, D. N.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Quibell, D. J. K.
Amman, C. G. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Riley, B.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Ritson, J.
Barnes, A. J. Harris, Sir P. A. Seely, Sir H. M.
Barr, J. Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Sexton, T. M.
Batey, J. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Silverman, S. S.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Bromfield, W. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Smith, E. (Stoke)
Burke, W. A. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Charleton, H. C. Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Cluse, W. S. Kelly, W. T. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Cooks, F. S. Kirby, B. V. Tinker, J. J.
Cove, W. G. Kirkwood, D. Tomlinson, G.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Lawson, J. J. Walkden, A. G.
Daggar, G. Lea, F. Walker, J.
Dalton, H. Lunn, W. Welsh, J. C.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Maclean, N. Westwood, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Mander, G. le M. White, H. Graham
Day, H. Marshall, F. Wilkinson, Ellen
Dobbie, W. Messer, F. Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Milner, Major J. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Edwards. A. (Middlesbrough E.) Montague, F. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Evans D. O. (Cardigan) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Gallacher, W. Oliver, G. H. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Gardner, B. W. Paling, W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Parker, J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Pearson, A. Mr. Whiteley and Mr. John.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Price, M. P.
NOES
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J Gower, Sir R. V. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Petherick, M.
Albery, Sir Irving Gridley, Sir A. B. Pilkington, R.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Grimston, R. V. Ponsonby. Col. C. E.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. Procter, Major H. A.
Aske, Sir R. W. Hambro, A. V. Radford. E. A.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Hannah, I. C. Ramsbotham, H.
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Beamish, Rear Admiral T. P. H. Harberd, A. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Birchall, Sir J. D. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Remer, J. R.
Boothby, R. J. G. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Rickards, G W. (Skipton)
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. Ropner, Colonel L.
Brass, Sir W. Hepworth, J. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Holmes, J. S. Rowlands, G.
Butcher, H. W. Hopkinson, A. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Horsbrugh, Florence Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Channon, H. Hunter, T. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Chapman. A. (Rut her glen) Hutchinson, G. C. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Spens, W. P.
Cobb. Cantata E. C. (Preston) Jones, L. (Swansea W.) Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Colman, N. C. D. Keeling. E. H. Storey, S.
Conant, Captain R. J. E. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.) Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Cooke. J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Kimball, L. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Latham, Sir P. Tasker. Sir R. I.
Craven-Ellis, W. Law. R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Thomas, J. P. L.
Crooke, Sir J. S. Leech, Sir J. W. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Touche, G. C.
Crowder. J. F. E. Liddall. W. S. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Davies, C. (Montgomery) Little, Sir E. Graham. Wakefield, W. W.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Llewellin, Colonel J. J. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Dawson. Sir P. Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Dower, Major A. V. G. McKie, J. H. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Duckworth. W. R. (Moss Side) Macquisten, F. A. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Dugdale, Captain T. L. Magnay, T. Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Duncan, J. A. L. Manningham-Buller, Sir M, Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Eckersley, P. T. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Wells, S. R.
Ellis, Sir G. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Elmley, Viscount Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Wise, A. R.
Emery. J. F. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Womersley, Sir W. J.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Wragg, H.
Erskine-Hill. A. G. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Fleming, E. L. Morgan, R. H.
Fremantle, Sir F. E. Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Fyfe. D. P. M. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Captain Hone and Major Sir
Gluckstein, L. H. Munro, P. James Edmondson.
Goldie, N. B. Nail, Sir J.

Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Paling

When this matter was discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill, I think the House generally was dissatisfied with the answer that was given. It left rather a nasty flavour. In view of the appeals which were made on the Second Reading, and in view of the appeals which have been made to-night, not by Members of one party alone, we hoped that it would have been found possible to have given a very different answer to this question from that which we have received. We hoped that it would be found possible to wipe the slate clean, as far as any crime that has been committed by these men is concerned—although I cannot find that they have been guilty of any crime. But in any case, in view of the fact that we are, as it were making a new start in this matter and that this Bill gives more money we hoped that the Government would find it possible to wipe the slate clean, as I say, to reinstate these pilots and to start afresh. I think that hope was shared by almost everybody. We regret that the Government have not found it possible to do what we had hoped for and that even what they have done, has been done in such a very bad manner. It has been done meanly and grudgingly, and on conditions which almost make it impossible for those concerned to accept even what is offered to them. I was hoping that the new Under-Secretary of State and the new Minister for Air would have tackled that position and tried to bring a satisfactory solution to the Committee, but they have not done so and I am very sorry indeed.

I do not want to rake up the whole business, but we are suspicious of it. These people were sacked because of redundancy, we understood, but it happened that they were found redundant at the same time that they had become members of a trade union, and we find it hard to believe that there was no association between the two matters. If they were sacked for redundancy, is that the charge that the Government directors have found proved against them? The Government directors have found that the company were justified in sacking these men. What is the charge? Is it still that of redundancy, and if it was, why are these conditions as to their re-employment laid down? The whole thing will not bear examination, and we suspect that it is an apology, that they do not want to set these men on, and that they have got out of it as best they could with a kind of apologetic statement. I hope the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State will look again into this business in view of the disquiet that reigns in this Committee about it.

If these men have committed a crime—and we do not admit it—they are not the only ones. This company, which has sacked them, has itself stood in the dock. There has been a Cadman Committee appointed, which has gone into the whole business and put this company in the dock, and it has been found guilty. If this Committee were as ungenerous to Imperial Airways, who have been found guilty, as Imperial Airways have been ungenerous to these pilots, who have not been found guilty, instead of giving the company £1,500,000 subsidy on top of what they are already getting, we should have taken the sum they are already getting away from them and sent them on their way. I ask the Minister, when he discusses the question of these pilots again, as he must—the Committee is very dissatisfied—that he should try to do better. This Committee has been exceedingly generous to this company, particularly in view of the Cadman Repori, and we say that the least that the company can do is to show the same generosity to these pilots, particularly in view of the fact that they have not been found guilty of anything.

10.33 P-m.

Mr. Boothby

I do not want to go into the merits of the question of these pilots, and I do not think the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn), who raised the point of Order, will be able to substantiate the case that he has made, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State quoted substantially from a document which he admits is not even in his possession. Without, of course, attempting to anticipate your Ruling, Captain Bourne, I may say that I do not think you will be able to rule that that document has to be laid.

What I want to raise with my hon. Friend is one point which has a direct bearing on the present and on the future in these days of Government subsidies. My hon. Friend seemed to me to lay down a proposition that the Government have no right in any circumstances to require the Government directors of a company which is subsidised by the Government to furnish details or reasons for action taken by the board of that company. I do not think that on reflection that is a proposition which can possibly be sustained by my hon. Friend, and I am sure it is not a proposition which on reflection the House of Commons would ever sustain. If the Government of this country subsidise a company and appoint two Government directors on it, should it be laid down that the Government are unable to require those directors to furnish details and reasons for any action taken by the company of which the Government may approve or disapprove?

I am sure my hon. Friend will realise, on reflection, that it is an impossible position to take up as a matter of principle. And look at the difficulty in which it has already landed him. My hon. and gallant Friend started by saying that the Government directors said these dismissals were justified. He said he presumed they were justified.

Captain Balfour indicated dissent.

Mr. Boothby

That must be so, for he went on to say that he had not taken steps to find out from the Government directors why they were justified. When pressed he said that the Government had no right to ask the Government directors of this company to furnish the reasons why the men were dismissed. I do not think the Government are under any obligation to publish the facts, but to lay down the proposition that the Government are not entitled to require its own directors on the board of a Government subsidised company to furnish the Government with a reason for any action taken would be a dangerous precedent to set. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will say that he did not intend to lay it down as a precedent for the future. This is not a mere party point because hon. Members know that we are coming to an era when this House will subsidise many companies and there will be many Government directors. If it is laid down that the Government cannot ask the Government directors to furnish reasons for any action that is taken by the Government, we shall be setting a precedent that may be disastrous in the future.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher

I do not like the Clause, I do not like the subsidy, and I do not like the Government. When the Minister gets up and makes such a speech as we have heard this evening and gets into such a muddle about such a simple question, and then tries to throw the responsibility on this side of the House, it is time a protest is made. The Minister has made no charge against these men except that their dismissal was justified. What more is wanted against them? If a skilled tradesman is thrown out of his job and it is said that his dismissal is justified, there is no need to say anything more against him. When the Minister refuses to give a reason, then there is the suspicion that there is something sinister behind it. The reason is not redundancy. If it were only that the men would be taken back. Is the reason drunkenness? It is not. Is it incapability That cannot be because Imperial Airways have decided to take one man back and to recommend another for employment on another line. It is not bad conduct in the ordinary sense, because the company would not have made this recommendation.

The only reason left for the dismissal is a political reason, and it is the fact that the men were in a trade union. If the Government directors had a reason other than trade unionism, they would have had no hesitation in stating it. If these men had been incapable or dissolute and badly behaved there would have been no hesitation in stating it. The Minister did not make the statement to which the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) took exception because he had any thought of laying down a principle or because he had any thought of what he was saying. He had no thought of what he was saying; he was not aware of what he was saying. He made the statement that the Government have no right to ask for the reasons because he knows, and the other Members of the Government know, that no reasons can be given. That is the decisive factor. If there had been a possibility of giving a reason of course we should have had it.

We are asked to vote £3,000,000. It is so easy to get the millions for this purpose. No Member opposite questions where the money is to come from, but if we suggest increasing old age pensions the cry is, "Oh, the country cannot afford it." £3,000,000 is to be voted, and this Imperial Airways gang are to get their share of it. As the hon. Member on the Front Bench said, instead of getting the subsidy according to the Cadman Report they ought to go to gaol—or if he did not say it was what he ought to have said. We are voting £3,000,000 for these people, and in the face of that we are met by a statement from the Minister—and I want this to go on record, so that the Minister cannot get away from it—that these men have been thrown out of their jobs and that no reason can be given why they were thrown out. It is admitted by the Minister that the men are capable and two of them have been selected for further employment—one for employment by Imperial Airways, and another for employment in another air service. They are men of good character, there is nothing against one of them. But they are thrown out, and no reason can be given.

I ask hon. Members opposite, if they have any sense of decency—I am not sure that they have; my opinions are all the other way—whether there are not one or two among them who will stand up for these men? Even in Sodom there was one just man, but out of the Gomorrah on the other side it is not possible to find one who will stand up for British rights. I am told there is one just man, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins). We welcome him because he stands out distinct from the great mass of those who, while they have always claimed to stand up for British rights, independence, initiative and all the rest of it, will do nothing in this case. We are encouraged by the fact that we have been able to snatch one brand from the burning, and we ask Members on the benches opposite whether there are not some others who are prepared to take their stand for justice for a group of men who had the ability, the courage and the initiative to take up this employment. How often do we hear talk of the lack of pilots in this country? One of the most essential things for the air service is pilots. Here you are, in the process of destroying pilots, or allowing a company to whom you are supplying money to do so.

I ask hon. Members on the other side to be prepared to support us in order to get a statement from the Minister that this matter will be taken up in such a way as will ensure that Imperial Airways will be forced to withdraw the ban upon these men and to give them an opportunity of returning to their employment and to the service in which they have shown themselves capable in every way; and of giving their best attention to this matter, because there is nothing against these men other than the fact that they were associated with, and were officials of, a trade union movement.

10.46 p.m.

Captain Arthur Evans

I am afraid that I cannot associate myself with this new Scottish front populaire to which we have just listened, between my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). The statement made to-night by my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State must be taken in conjunction with the responsible statements which have been made from time to time on this matter by his predecessor in office.

Mr. G. Griffiths

Were you here when he made it?

Captain Evans

As I understand the position, the late Under-Secretary of State explained carefully to the House that although the Government had two responsible representatives on the board of directors of this company who en-devoured to the best of their ability to represent to their colleagues on the board the views of His Majesty's Government in connection with the conduct of the affairs of the company, they were only a minority. They could only represent the view of the Government, and could not insist upon that view being put into effect. What is the position? An hon. Friend behind me says that the Under-Secretary of State laid down a new principle tonight. I failed to appreciate that from the speech of the Under-Secretary. He made it clear that the Government directors had responsibility, but no power, being a minority, to determine entirely the future policy or administration of the company.

Mr. G. Griffiths

You were not in the House when he made the statement.

Captain Evans

What is the position with which we are faced to-night?

Mr. Boothby

I did not suggest at any moment that the two Government directors had the power to affect the policy of the board, or were responsible. What I intended to say was that if the Government required their own directors to furnish information, the said directors should not be precluded from doing so. It should not be laid down that the Government could not ask the directors to give an explanation.

Captain Evans

I should not say that the Under-Secretary suggested to the Committee, in actual terms—[HON. MEMBERS: "You were not here."]—that the directors should be precluded from reporting to the Government the views that they expressed to the board on any particular point. If I may pass from that point to another material one, it is the refusal of the company to reemploy the pilots in question. Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House are not justified in maintaining and continuing to repeat that the pilots were dismissed and that refusal to re-employ them is based upon the fact that they are members of a trade union or were responsible, in the initial stages, for bringing about a trade union among the pilots in this country.

Mr. Gallacher

What was the reason?

Captain Evans

The position is illustrated by the decision of the company to do everything in their power to encourage the establishment of this union and, as my hon. Friend said to-night, the ballot papers are to be laid on the Table of the House in order to satisfy hon. Members on the point. From the practical aspect of the matter, we are concerned with a company which receives a subsidy from the taxpayers. Surely no responsible trade union leader or director of any public company would suggest that it would be practical politics to explain in detail to the shareholders of their company the reasons why highly-paid members of their staff were dismissed. If that were the case, it would be impossible to conduct the affairs of any public company, let alone Imperial Airways.

It is obvious that, at a time when Imperial Airways in their new organisation are about to extend their activities in Europe and other parts of the world, they would not refuse to re-employ pilots unless there were extraordinary good reasons why they should not be re- employed. It is not only impractical, but it is unfair to the Government of the day to ask them to give chapter and verse for executive decisions for which they are prepared to take the responsibility not only in the House but before the electors when the time comes. There are certain matters of administration in connection with public companies, subsidised or not, or in connection with Cabinet policy, on which it is not desirable in the publc interest that chapter and verse should be given to the country through the medium of the House. I think this comes down to no less than a question of confidence, not only in the Government but in the administration of the Air Ministry and, in view of the changes which have recently been made, we should seek this opportunity of proving to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary that we are prepared to give them a fair trial and an opportunity of justifying their policy at a later stage.

Mr. Montague

In view of the fact that it has been agreed that the Third Reading shall not be taken to-night, might I ask when you, Captain Bourne, will be in a position to give a Ruling as to the laying of the report referred to by the Under-Secretary?

The Deputy-Chairman

I do not know that I am going to have a further opportunity. It is laid down that a Minister who merely gives a summary of a document is not bound to lay it. I have not had an opportunity of looking further into the Ruling but, if a question is put to me or to the Chairman on some suitable occasion, a general Ruling may be given on the subject.

Mr. Benn

While a general ruling would be of great value, the votes of Members on the Third Reading may be affected by the production and perusal of this document. May's Parliamentary Practice on page 329, says: a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interests, and many examples are given dating from 1908. The words: a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House cover the present case, and it would be a good thing if it were possible to find means of giving a ruling before the Third Reading after considering the OFFICIAL REPORT of what the hon. Gentlemen said. I think that what will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT will amount to a citation. If it is possible for you to give a specific ruling on the point before the Third Reading, it will assist Members on this side at least in casting their votes.

The Deputy-Chairman

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difficulty in which I am. I have looked at the passage he has quoted, but I should like to look at the actual Rulings, because necessarily the Statement in Erskine May is abbreviated. The difficulty that I see, so far as I am concerned—it is not a point on which I can give an answer—is that I am not in charge of the business of the House, and therefore cannot say on what occasion I might be able to give a considered Ruling. It hardly appears to me to be a matter that is in my hands. I should be perfectly willing to look the matter up, but whether I can get an opportunity of giving a Ruling appears to me to be a matter that is outside my control.

Mr. Benn

I see the difficulty, too, but I am sure you will appreciate our difficulty, and our desire to have your Ruling on the matter. I do not know whether it is a possible suggestion, but to-morrow is a Supply day, and it may be that you will occupy the Chair during part of the proceedings. Would it be convenient for you on that occasion to give a Ruling on this matter, or, if not, on some other occasion when as Deputy-Chairman you are occupying the Chair, before the Third Reading is taken?

The Deputy-Chairman

I am afraid it would be quite out of order to give a Ruling on this matter then. Whether there will be another opportunity is not a matter on which I can give an opinion at this moment. There is the difficulty that I am not in charge of the business of the House, and, moreover, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this question goes back a rather long way, and possibly it will take a day or so to look up the Rulings, but without looking them up I should not like to commit myself.

Mr. Benn

We shall be very grateful if you will try to find an opportunity of giving us the advantage of your Ruling. I do not know whether I might suggest that possibly such a Ruling could be given in answer to a Parliamentary question? Erskine May does say that questions may be addressed to Members on matters concerning public business on which they are concerned, and that might possibly cover it, but, if you would try to find an opportunity, at some time before the Third Reading is taken, of giving us your decision, I feel that it would be of the very greatest assistance to the House.

The Deputy-Chairman

I think the right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience of the House, will agree that the question whether a question of that sort should be addressed to me in my capacity of Deputy-Chairman is really a matter for Mr. Speaker, and not for me. If Mr. Speaker were prepared to agree, I, of course, should be willing, but it is not for me to decide. Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend agrees that the best thing will be for Mr. Speaker to be consulted on the matter through the usual channels.

The Deputy-Chairman

I think the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is obviously the right one. I could not possibly anticipate what Mr. Speaker might decide.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Davidson

I desire to draw attention to some of the statements made by the Under-Secretary of State for Air. The Government will recognise that, in any legislation which they place before the House for the consideration of Members on this side of the House, the Bill cannot be considered separately from the statements of the Minister who represents the Government. Therefore, because of the statements of the Under-Secretary, and because of the position he has placed before us, I trust that every Member of the Opposition will oppose this Bill as ardently as he can. The hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff, South (Captain A. Evans) has said that no Government, or Department, or firm, could be expected to lay chapter and verse before the House of Commons on a question of their internal affairs. I agree. But where a firm is asking the taxpayers of this country to subsidise it to the extent of millions of pounds, where the Government have representatives on that board, and where the representatives of the taxpayers in the House of Commons raise a question affecting that firm as a question of public importance, it is the duty of the Government or firm to lay a full report before the Members of the House. The Under-Secretary gave us some technical explanation—at least, he attempted to do so. I want to say to the Under-Secretary, as a man of about his own age, that he must not, in the newness of his position or the height of his glory, consider that he can stand at that Box and make flippant statements with regard to the dismissal of men and expect to get away with it. I can assure the Government that they have not been well served to-night, and that the Under-Secretary will have to change his tune and adopt a different tone to the Opposition if he wants to get on better in future than he has done to-night.

We have had the argument that if a wealthy firm are entitled to the subsidy, we should not consider the finances of that particular firm. The Under-Secretary said that a wealthy firm may have one line running from A to B, which is a bad line, and that in order to improve this bad line that wealthy firm ought to be subsidised. Let us take "A" as standing for Ayr, and "B" for a small place in Scotland called Balfour. I suggest that any line running from Ayr to Balfour must be a bad line, and the House of Commons, as a result, would be asked by the Under-Secretary to agree that a firm which has much wealth and can expand their funds on their air lines should be subsidised at the expense of the people of this country. I know that many hon. Members on this side, with a very laudable desire to improve the air services of this country give much of their time and any assistance they can to that end. But is there any Member, even on the Government benches, who will agree that a wealthy firm should be entitled, because of one bad line, to be subsidised by the Government? Surely, it is the duty of the firm itself to see that the air lines of this country are kept in as strong a condition as possible having regard to the finances of the company. I think, therefore, that the Under-Secretary's argument is a bad argument: an argument that cannot be accepted by logical business men; and I trust that the Under-Secretary of State, if he is making appeals in future, will make appeals for companies that require subsidies, companies that have bad lines because of lack of finances, and not for companies that are strong financially, that have bad lines because they desire that the Government should pay the subsidy.

We had an air service in this country that was defended time and again by representatives of the Government, but because of the continual complaints, because of the question being raised in this House, because of the dismissal of pilots, there had to be a Government inquiry into its condition. The pilots who were dismissed, the Under-Secretary says—as the previous Under-Secretary said, and as many speeches made on behalf of the Government have indicated—are first-class pilots with first-class qualifications, some of whom had served, I think, 20 years without a flaw in their record, men who had taken part in improving the Empire service, who had given continued loyalty to that service, and who, merely because of their loyalty to the service and their desire to improve it, had taken certain action. What happened? They were dismissed. The Under-Secretary of State tells us to-night that the report stated that the dismissals were justified. He tells the newspapers and the people of this country that the dismissals were justified, and then says that the Government are placing no bar in the way of the re-employment of these pilots. Does the Under-Secretary expect other firms to accept his statement that the Government have nothing against these men? The Government have one thing against these pilots, that they tried to organise themselves in order to improve their conditions. Until the question of an inquiry was pressed in the House of Commons, the opinion in the Government was that these pilots had no right to organise and stick up for themselves.

The Under-Secretary must realise that he is now a responsible statesman, although his statement to-night did not quite come up to expectations. I say to him quite plainly that there is not a Member of this Committee be he Tory, Liberal or Labour, who, acting in strict accordance with his mental capacity, will agree with him that, when he states that the Government directors found that the dismissals were justified he is placing no bar in the way of the future of these men. I do not want to over-state my case or to use terms which may be called an exaggeration, but he is condemning these pilots in the face of every air service in the world. It is not right for any Minister, no matter how important he may be, to come to the House of Commons, and, dealing with the future of men who have given service such as these pilots have given, say that we must accept his statement that the Government directors were correct and must not ask for that statement to be substantiated. I maintain that the report of the Government directors, being made in consequence of the agitation against the dismissal of these pilots, should be the property of Members of the House of Commons. Unless that report is placed before the House, the House of Commons will not be satisfied with the bald statement of the new Under-Secretary of State for Air. The statement of the Under-Secretary has raised a feeling against the Bill which might quite well have been avoided. It is bad to give subsidies blindly to organisations when they do not require them. It is bad for a Government representative to say that, no matter whether a firm is wealthy or poor, they shall be entitled in certain circumstances to the subsidy. In every other phase of the social life of this country particularly in regard to the unemployed they impose a means test. This Government only depart from the means test when they are dealing with wealthy firms. I appeal to every member of the Opposition to vote against the proposal because of the unfair statement of the Under-Secretary, because of his attack upon the character and records of the pilots, because of his statement that their dismissal was justified, because of the generally bad Government statement and the fact that wealthy firms will benefit from this subsidy. I trust the proposal will be turned down by every fairminded person in the House.

11.11 p.m.

Colonel Ropner

The Committee will recollect that when my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) proposed an inquiry into civil aviation I opposed his Motion. I thought then and still think that Imperial Airways on the whole, is an exceptionally efficient Company; but I have listened during the last few weeks to many speeches with regard to the dismissal of Imperial Airways pilots, and I am bound to say that my mind is uneasy about this matter. I have risen chiefly for the purpose of asking the Under-Secretary a question. If it is not within his province or the province of his chief to ask for information from the Government directors on the board of Imperial Airways, then what is the use of the Government appointing directors? We are on very difficult ground. This matter will be quoted as a precedent in the future. Although I think the House of Commons has no right to demand that they shall be given all the facts of the case, I feel that the Under-Secretary should be able to assure us that he knows the facts: not merely that he has been assured by the Government directors that the dismissals were justified, but that he has satisfied himself from information from the Government directors. I hope that when this Bill comes forward for Third Reading the Under-Secretary will he able to assure the House that he has investigated the matter and that he can give us his own opinion. I for one will accept his opinion.

11.14 p.m.

Captain Balfour

Much has been said to-night and many arguments which I endeavoured to put before the Committee have been repeated not in the manner in which I endeavoured to put them; but I do not make any complaint about that. In answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), who said that I had stated that the Government had no right to ask the Government directors questions in regard to the administration of the company, I would say that I never made any such statement. The fact that that is a travesty of what I said is borne out by my statement that we asked the Government directors to investigate the particular circumstances of these dismissals. That in itself is surely a contradiction of what the hon and gallant Member says. We have received their report.

I would remind hon. Members that this is a commercial concern, on the board of which the Government have directors who take their part in the running of the company with their colleagues on the board. As regards this particular matter of the pilots, the Government asked the Government directors to look into it, and they reported to the then Secretary of State for Air to the effect that in their judgment the reasons for the dismissal were adequate.

Mr. Montague

Does that mean that judgment on the matter was left to the Government representatives on the board? Does that mean that the Secretary of State does not know why these pilots were dismissed?

Captain Balfour

I never said that. I said that the Government directors had investigated at the request of the then Secretary of State for Air the reasons for the dismissal, and that they reported to to the then Secretary of State that in their opinion they considered the executive action of the company was justified.

Mr. Montague

Did they report at all to the Secretary of State why these pilots were dismissed? Did they or did they not?

Captain Balfour

They informed the then Secretary of State, after investigation and after interviewing the pilots concerned, that they were of the opinion that the dismissals were justified.

Mr. Montague

On what grounds?

Mr. Benn

The Under-Secretary has said that he went down himself and saw them. What was the report?

Captain Balfour

The right hon. Gentleman is not going to trap me into quoting from some document, of which I have given the House the general conclusions.

Mr. Benn

The Under-Secretary has not answered my question. He said earlier that in order to influence the Debate he went down to the company and saw the report for himself. What is the report to which he has referred?

Captain Balfour

I never said that I went to the company. I said that I had looked myself at the report given to my right hon. Friend's predecessor by the Government directors, the effect of which was (1) that there was no victimisation as regards Air Line Pilots, (2) that the dismissals were justified.

Mr. Montague

On what grounds? Did the report say that?

Captain Balfour

The report said the dismissals were justified.

Mr. Montague

On what grounds? We must have them.

Mr. Gallacher

Does the Secretary of State know the reasons why these men were dismissed?

Captain Balfour

I very much doubt whether my right hon. Friend has had time to look at the very many documents which he will no doubt look at.

Mr. Gallacher

Is there a document in the hands of the Secretary for Air which gives the reasons why these men were dismissed?

11.19 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths

This is a matter on which many of us have had some experience. Quite frankly if I were a trade union officer dealing with such dismissals and received the kind of reply we have had to-night I should raise Cain. It is a scandal. It is the kind of thing no decent employer would attempt to do. If a man is dismissed by his employer we as trade union representatives ask why the man has been dismissed. The workman has a right to know why he has been dismissed. If he loses this elementary right it is impossible for him to be a man: he is a slave. I do not care who the employer is, whether a Government Department or anybody else. He should not be allowed to dismiss a man without giving reasons. It is adding insult to injury to say to those pilots afterwards, "You are dismissed, and we are satisfied that your dismissal is justified; we will not raise any bar to your future employment by any other companies." The Under-Secretary has said to-night that he is satisfied—and presumably the Cabinet is satisfied—that the dismissal of these men is justified. But if the Under-Secretary were a director charged with employing pilots for another company, would he employ a pilot who had been dismissed, and whose dismissal was said to have been justified? Surely, the dismissal in these circumstances is the committal of these people to permanent unemployment. This is a very serious matter. I am sorry that I was not able to be present during the whole of the Under-Secretary's speech, but I listened to the earlier part of it. All the time there has been in my mind the thought that this is a matter on which the miners, the railway workers, and other workers, would strike, and fight to the bitter end. This company has given an awful example to the employers, and this is a thing which we would not tolerate for a moment.

The Deputy-Chairman

I thought the hon. Gentleman rose to ask a question. I would remind him that the Under-Secretary is in possession.

Mr. Griffiths

I will put my question. Because of the row in the country and in the House, the Cabinet asked the Government directors to investigate the dismissal of these pilots. That means that, to begin with, the Government were not very easy about those dismissals, and had some suspicions. The Government directors agreed to investigate, and they reported back to the Cabinet that they were satisfied that the dismissals were justified. Did the Cabinet accept that reply of the Government directors without any other further explanation? If they did, it is time to censure the Cabinet as well. Did the Cabinet accept the mere assurance of the Government directors, or did they get definite reasons for the dismissal of the pilots?

11.23 p.m.

Captain Balfour rose—

Miss Wilkinson

Do not look like that.

Captain Balfour

The hon. Lady makes a personal remark to me in order, I suppose, to try to put me into a state of anger, but I can undertake that she will fail in her efforts All I want to do is to try to give the Committee such information as I have. The hon. Gentleman asked me a question, and I can tell him this, that I saw the actual report written, stating, as I have already told the House, that the dismissals were justified, that there was no victimisation, and that proper notice had been given to the pilots Beyond that I cannot go; beyond that I do not intend to go.

Mr. J. Griffiths

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not replied to my question. The Cabinet instructed the Secretary of State for Air to make an investigation into this matter. Therefore, the Cabinet at least thought there was something to investigate. The Secretary of State for Air asked the Government directors to make an investigation. The Government directors reported that the dismissals were justified. Were the Cabinet, which instructed the. Secretary of State for Air to instruct the Government directors to make inquiries, satisfied with the reply, or did the Government directors give definite reasons as to why the dismissals were justified?

Captain Balfour

The hon. Gentleman asks me a question with an assumption which I cannot accept, and which I do not think he is entitled to make. He assumes that the Cabinet, apparently some few weeks ago, instructed my right hon. Friend's predecessor to take certain action. On what ground my right hon. Friend's predecessor, the then Secretary of State for Air, asked the Government directors to investigate, I do not know. I do not know whether it was on his own initiative or on the Cabinet's initiative, and what has happened since I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman. All I can say is that I looked at the report of the Government directors and found those facts and broad conclusions which I have given to the Committee.

Mr. Davidson

On a point of Order. The Under-Secretary has just pointed out that an inquiry was held by two Government directors of the company. That investigation was made because the House of Commons asked for it. Is it not in order for us to receive a report of an investigation which was asked for by the House of Commons?

The Deputy-Chairman

Most certainly not in these circumstances. The House of Commons has no inherent right to compel the Government to lay papers dealing with an inquiry into a matter which is confidential.

Mr. Davidson

I may have expressed myself badly, but I am not asking for your Ruling, Captain Bourne, on the question of the Government placing papers before the House of Commons. In view of the fact that it was the House of Commons which instituted this investigation, is it not right that we should have the reasons for the decision reached as a result of the investigation?

The Deputy-Chairman

That is a matter on which I do not think I can answer. No doubt it is open to Members of the House to put down a motion asking for papers, but the fact that an inquiry has taken place following on a Debate in the House, does not, in itself, entitle the House to have the result of that inquiry laid before it. That, however, is not a matter of order, over which I have any control. Whether or not other methods are open to hon. Members for obtaining the result it is not for me to say.

Mr. Davidson

Am I to understand then, that when the House of Commons itself institutes an investigation, it is out- side the privilege of Members to ask for the reasons for the decision arrived at as a result of that investigation?

The Deputy-Chairman

Obviously, if the House orders an investigation by Members of the House it is entitled to a report, but if the investigation is held by the Government as a result of Debate in this House, the House has no right, on that account, to receive a report.

Mr. Davidson

Is it not a fact that the two Government directors on this board represent the House of Commons because of the fact that the House of Commons grants a subsidy?

The Deputy-Chairman

That is a point on which I have no opinion. It is not a point of Order.

Mr. Boothby

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has repeatedly said that he has read the report. There has been a report and my hon. Friend has read it, and he says that there are certain general conclusions but no specific reasons in it. He has on several occasions referred to the report and has based conclusions upon it. Are we not then entitled to demand it?

The Deputy-Chairman

I have already given a Ruling on that point of which I would remind the hon. Member. Unless a Minister quotes from a report, he is not bound to lay it. In saying that, I do not wish to anticipate any Ruling which may be given later by Mr. Speaker on the specific point raised this evening. I am only quoting the general practice.

Mr. Benn

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, or whoever is in charge, would it not be a great deal simpler, without waiting for Mr. Speaker's Ruling, to produce his report? What possible harm can it do? If the Under-Secretary would say now that he is prepared to produce the report to which he has made copious references, and on which he has based all his arguments, he would greatly ease matters for himself.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Kelly

The case is much worse than was stated by the hon. Member. Not only have there been dismissals, stated by two Government directors to be justified, but there has developed since then a position which has worsened the case of the greater number of these men, because the Government now say, "We are prepared to recommend two of them for employment elsewhere, but we refuse to agree to the others being employed." In fact, the Under-Secretary of State has made the position worse by giving the impression that these men are unfit for work, because he has stated that the technical adviser feels a great responsibility if any of these men should meet with an accident while flying or in the service of other people. The whole position is this, that not only should we have that Paper, but it looks as if the Government directors had themselves better be dismissed now. I hope that one of the results of this discussion will be that those people who are not prepared to face up to the position and give the House of Commons the reasons why these men were discharged, namely, these directors, will be removed from their position.

The Deputy-Chairman

I do not think the question of the Government directors can possibly arise under this Clause.

Mr. Kelly

These Government directors have been representing the Government in the disbursing of this £1,500,000 which has been given to Imperial Airways up to now, and it may be that part of this £3,000,000 will be given to Imperial Airways, and these two Government directors, who have not spent that money as they ought to have done and we demand that they should do, cannot be trusted to deal with the workpeople in spending the rest of this money in a way that is satisfactory to this Committee. I hope that those people, who have shown by the fact that they are not prepared to deal with these men properly, simply saying that their dismissal was justified—

The Deputy-Chairman

I do not think the hon. Member can possibly raise the question of Government directors, either on Imperial Airways or on any other company, on this Clause.

Mr. Kelly

Then I must ask that this document, which is supposed to be a secret one, shall be presented to the House, and if that report gives reasons for the dismissal of these people, then the House has a right to express itself upon them. Certainly we have no right to allow the position to remain where it is, a position in which these men, with one exception, are condemned as being unfit to occupy the position of pilots, and I hope that the Committee will insist that these men shall be treated justly. I know well that if private employers—and I see one sitting on those benches with whose firm I have had to deal—had attempted to deal with their workpeople in the way in which these men have been dealt with, there would have been trouble in this country long before this.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Montague

We have no desire to embarrass the Under-Secretary of State. We quite realise that he is new to his job, if I may put it in that way, but that is not my point, which is that he has spoken under instructions, and I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether this Committee is not entitled to the presence of a responsible Minister of the Crown.

11.35 p.m.

Captain Balfour

May I reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman whether I would undertake to produce this report? It is obviously impossible for me to give any such undertaking irrespective of the results of the point of Order which has been put to the Chair, but I will do this. I will convey the request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, who will read the Debate to-morrow, and he will no doubt give a decision, empowered as he is to give such a decision.

Mr. Montague

Is it or is it not possible for a Minister of State to be here?

The Deputy-Chairman

We cannot discuss that on the Question "That the Clause stand part."

Mr. Benn

Surely it is within the rights of the Committee to have some Member of the Cabinet present?

The Deputy-Chairman

I am only pointing out that we cannot discuss that on the Question "That the Clause stand part."

Mr. Benn

Will you accept a Motion to report Progress in order that some Member of the Cabinet may be present?

The Deputy-Chairman

About an hour ago we had a Motion to report Progress, and there has been no further Question before the Committee.

Mr. Attlee

This is an entirely new Question. The Committee has been left in a very difficult position because we have an Under-Secretary who is newly appointed, and there has been no responsible Cabinet Minister on the Bench, either of that Department or of any other Department. All we are asking is to get some light on the matter which the Under-Secretary, obviously, cannot give. As he said, he has not the power to give a decision. In these circumstances we ought to report Progress in order that we may have a responsible Minister who can take charge of this matter.

The Deputy-Chairman

I merely pointed out that once a Motion to report Progress has been negatived another Motion to report Progress cannot be moved until a fresh Question has intervened. No fresh Question has intervened.

11.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson)

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Perhaps I may intervene to move this Motion on the ground, as the Under-Secretary has already stated, that he is prepared to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether the document in question can or cannot be produced on some future occasion. The Committee will note how I make that statement—whether it can or cannot be produced. I am not saying whether it can or cannot. I am merely saying that I move this Motion so that the Under-Secretary shall have an opportunity of consulting his right hon. Friend. Further there is a point which has been put to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) as to whether a certain document should or should not be laid in accordance with the practice of the House. In these circumstances I believe it would be for the convenience of the Committee if this Motion were agreed to, and we resumed discussion on the subject on some future occasion.

The Deputy-Chairman

I would again point out that this Motion is irregular, as no fresh Question has arisen, but there is a precedent for this Motion being moved by the Government in similar circumstances, and I am willing to accept the Motion on this occasion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.