HC Deb 14 March 1939 vol 345 cc333-78

7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year":—

Schedule.
— Sums not exceeding
Supply Grants. Appropriations in Aid.
Vote. £ £
2. Quartering, non-technical stores, supplies and transportation. Cr. 227,000 14,000
3. Technical and warlike stores (including experimental and research services). 168,000 2,540,000
4. Works, buildings, and lands. 690,000 5,470,000
7. Reserve and Auxiliary Forces. Cr. 130,900 —
8. Civil aviation … Cr. 360,000 *—34,000
9. Meteorological and miscellaneous effective services. Cr. 140,000 —
Total, Air Services (Supplementary), 1938. £ 100 7,990,000
Deficite

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

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Attlee

It is rather a late hour to embark on the consideration of this important subject, and I do not propose to detain the House very long. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) dealt with a number of major issues in the Debate last week. I want to deal with some particular points, and also with some matters of general policy. In the course of the Debate last week a number of hon. Members in all parts of the House commented upon the changed atmosphere of the Debate this year as compared with a year ago. I think that full credit has been given to the Minister for what he has done, and if we want to give credit we ought to give credit not only to the Minister but to our Parliamentary system, because we should not have got these changes if it had not been that Members of the House did their duty and brought deficiencies to light, thus forcing these changes to be made. Again and again, when deficiencies were brought up, we were assured that everything was all right and that no change was needed. It took a great deal of pressure to get the changes made, and it was only the publicity of Parliament and the work of hon. Members in all parts of the House which have effected the very drastic changes that have been made. We shall have to keep up the pressure if we want to get this matter put on a proper basis.

There is a second consideration which arises, and that is that the very achievements announced by the present Minister for Air and the changes he has made are really the measure of the defects which he had to cure. I will deal only with one or two instances. The first is the allegation of excess profits. That has been raised over and over again not only from this side but from the other side of the House. We have had numerous statements by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and the Minister for Air, and we have been assured that the utmost that could be done was being done to see that we got economy, and that there was no profiteering. The right hon. Gentleman has now decided to alter the basis of the McLintock agreement. We welcome that, but it is a confession that there was a need for an alteration. I am convinced that the right hon. Gentleman will have to go a great deal further. We have had speeches from the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), both of whom speak with a great deal of authority on the question of production in engineering establishments. The question still is whether, as a matter of fact, we are not being overcharged. We have had several arguments recently in the House which seem to me to show some curious ideas on the part of Ministers as to how we arrive at profits. I say that no explanation of the system of costing and no special pleading can really get over the fact that big fortunes are being made, and that is what the public are thinking about.

In the second place, it was a very long time before we got any admission that all was not well in the production of aeroplanes and other air munitions. The right hon. Gentleman has made his changes. We felt obliged to make some criticism of the Air Ministry, its organisation and personnel, but it took weeks and months before we got changes made, and eventually we were helped rather fortuitously by the report of the Cadman Committee. But we got the changes. We see how necessary they were by what the right hon. Gentleman has been doing. Let me remind him of what he said in his speech in introducing the Estimates: I spoke in November of the considerable steps that we had taken in relation to our organisation and machinery for production. Since that time we have continued to build up and perfect our organisation, and at present more than half of our directors and assistant directors in the department of production including the Director-General are business men who have been brought in from outside."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1939; col. 2392, Vol. 344.] Either that practice is right or it is wrong, but the previous practice must also have been either right or wrong. I think he is right in bringing in these business men from outside, but it shows that there was a great deal of unnecessary stone-walling in rejecting criticism before, and it does point to this, that a great deal of the trouble—and I think we ought to be perfectly fair to the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman—is, as has been pointed out so often in this House, that it really is an impossible task to expect one Minister to control a great fighting force and at the same time to deal with supply. It reinforces the demand that is made so often that we should have had a proper Ministry of Supply, and that is further reinforced, to my mind, by the very changes that the right hon. Gentleman is introducing. He says there are directors of materials production, of statistics and planning, of sub-contracting, and of war planning. It may be quite right to have special directors of all those subjects, but the thing that strikes me about them is that, with the possible exception of the last, they are none of them really directors who ought to be inside the Air Ministry. They are really designed to control just those functions that ought to be in the hands of a Ministry of Supply.

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has made a survey of his Department as a whole. He has added certain new directors, but I wonder whether that is merely adding, without considering the general architecture of his organisation. As a matter of fact, the Air Ministry grew up under rather adverse conditions. It was an unhealthy child and was not expected to live, and it struggled for existence for a considerable period. It has now, so to speak, had a heavy dose of boom food. But the question is whether its constitution is right. I wonder how far the right hon. Gentleman has looked at the organisation of the Air Force as an administrative problem. I can imagine him saying that he is far too busy, that his time is fully occupied, as I am sure it is, and that now is not the right time, but the trouble is that it never is the right time to overhaul a Department. If things are going on quietly, why disturb them? If they are busy, you have no time to go into the matter. I think it would be worth while the right hon. Gentleman considering having a kind of objective study made of the organisation of his Ministry. I do not think it would necessarily mean taking up a great deal of time, because the impression that I have had from a great deal of evidence that I have received is that a real overhaul of the system is wanted.

My third point is the rather more delicate one of personnel. We have had a change of personnel in the Ministry, but I cannot help being struck by the fact that the principal officers remain. I have no personal bias whatever against these officers, but it is the fact that these were the occupants who were in the principal posts in the Air Ministry while these deficiencies and defects occurred, and although there has been the introduction of, I think, one new officer on the Air Council, and there has been the introduction of business men, the three principal officers have been there for a considerable time, and it is worth while considering whether a little new blood might not be useful. After all, the Air Service is a young Service, its personnel is young, and it is developing very rapidly, and I must say that I think there is probably a case for introducing some new blood at the top.

Now I will refer to some specific points. I think the right hon. Gentleman was a little reticent in his replies on the question of maintenance. We have had very considerable complaints in the past with regard to maintenance. We have now a special director, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the period has really been shortened between the time when an accident or a defect in a plane occurs and the time when it comes back into service, because that was one of the big complaints, that it took so long to get repairs done. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether we really have had a good change made there? There are two more small points to put to the right hon. Gentleman. Can he give us any figures with regard to promotions to commissioned rank from the ranks? I gathered from a reply that it was intended that in the Air Force there should be a career for talent, and we would like to know how far that is being carried out.

I have a smaller point in regard to which perhaps it would be interesting for the House to know the facts, and that is with regard to the balloon barrage. It has a local interest for me, because I happen to live in a place where one of the balloons was brought down, I understand by a discharge of heaven's artillery. It was in fact, I believe, struck by lightning, and I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us how that occurred, why such a danger was not foreseen, and whether, as a matter of fact, balloon barrages as a whole are liable to be brought down if we should happen to have a thunder storm at the wrong time.

I am willing to concede that the right hon. Gentleman has made a considerable improvement, but we on this side are not yet satisfied. We found a number of things which we thought were defective, we brought them to the Miniser, we discussed them with the Minister, and some of them are being remedied, but I think there is a long way to go, and we shall continue to exercise great vigilance in this matter. There is one difficulty in discussing these Air Estimates. There is a very great deal of information which cannot possibly be given in public, and there are criticisms which we might like to make but which we should not like to make in public. The hon. Member for Mossley called attention to the fact that in the really big items of expenditure we know nothing whatever. We merely get a figure, and we are also left very much in the dark when we try to estimate what progress has really been made towards shortening that gap between our force and the nearest potential enemy force. We really get nothing at all. All that we have to-day is a percentage of an unknown quantity to set against another unknown quantity, and that is very difficult to evaluate at all. I should like to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that that gap is really being filled up. I am not entirely satisfied on that question.

However satisfactory the Debate may have been to the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure he will agree with me that, facing these enormous Estimates for a great Air Force, none of us is at all satisfied with the whole position. For years the right hon. Gentleman was concerned with public health and with the Post Office. There he had a very definite objective—better health, better housing, better postal services. Now he has to try and produce an efficient Air Force comparable to that of our nearest potential enemy. Suppose that he is successful. Suppose he gets an efficient Air Force, suppose he holds the distance, suppose he goes further and narrows the gap, suppose even that we get a momentary parity with Germany or any other country, the trouble is that there is no finality. I think that is a matter which hon. Members ought to consider when discussing the Air Estimates. In the air, as at sea and on land, we cannot get any finality in trying to get any form of equality. There are the three constantly changing factors —speed, hitting power and defensive armaments, and when one sees the constant increase in the size of bombs, the size of aeroplanes and the pace of aeroplanes, we seem to be going on without any end in sight. In fact, the sky is the limit. Moreover, in an air force there is no real parity owing to the rapidity with which air forces can be taken across from one country to another. We have seen what happened in the contest in Spain, with a flow of Italian aeroplanes coming across. Even from the point of view of the balance of power there cannot be any stable equilibrium of air forces unless all the world is got into two camps.,

The point I am making is that however hard the right hon. Gentleman works, he cannot give us any security. We are building up insecurity. In prewar days, we were accustomed to a kind of uneasy equilibrium of armed forces in a world of anarchy. In those days the time factor was not, as it is to-day, a matter of minutes, but of hours or days— more likely days, and even weeks. But even then, every country had to surround itself with a protective shell. On the Continent, there were forts and armies, and we had our Fleet. Within that shell, normal life could proceed. To-day every family has to have a shell round it. It has to have gas masks, a tin hut, and it may be a deep dug-out, and unless science steps in and finds something that is really effective in stopping raiding aircraft, it seems to me that we are condemned henceforward to live in a perpetual state of fear and apprehension, and we may be driven underground, like Mr. H. G. Wells's Morlocks. The menace to-day might materialise at 10 minutes' notice. This condition of an armed world in the air age is one in which one cannot possibly get any stability as long as there are separate air forces. One can put up an air force, as one puts up a bayonet, but one cannot sit on it. It is a situation unparalleled in the history of civilisation.

Therefore, the Minister is really building a machine that we must want to see scrapped, because I see no way in any reduction or agreement for parity in air armaments. Suppose that we could get an agreement to limit air armaments, it would not relieve us of the need for air-raid precautions at all hours of the day or night. While we are forced to agree, in these circumstances, to these Estimates, we view the future with the greatest apprehension. I have been looking at speeches that were made in 1932, while the Disarmament Conference was sitting. I remember pointing out then that if we did not deal with this, we should find the gas mask and the trench as the ordinary concomitants of civilisation. I remember the speech that Lord Baldwin made at that time. The opportunity was lost. I remember moving then that the only way out was the creation of an international air force and the inter-nationalisation of civil aviation. I welcome in this Debate the very realistic speech that was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Colonel Moore-Brabazon), who knows more about flying, I think, than any other man in the House; he pointed out that the only way to rid us of this menace is by internationalising the air. Therefore, when we hear some talk of disarmament, we ought to face the fact that we cannot get security without total disarmament in the air. I should regret it very much if, in satisfaction with what has been achieved, hon. Members should feel that somehow or other things are fairly safe. I think that is a complete delusion. The armaments we are building will not give us safety any more than the armaments of the French, the Italians or the Germans will give them safety. Only the abolition of national air forces can give that safety.

I wish to echo the plea that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who spoke of the urgent need for another world conference and the urgent need for dealing with the air menace. We have suggested this many times during the last few years, but we have always been told that it was the wrong time. We were told that in 1932; we were told that we could not get disarmament then. We have had a pretty rude awakening recently to the danger we are in, and I do not think we ought to close this Debate on the Air Estimates without expressing the hope that before we reach any other Air Estimates we may see made a big effort to deal with the causes of war, so that we may go for disarmament.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Mander

In the course of the Debate, a good deal has been said in praise of the Secretary of State for Air, and I should like to associate myself with that. I feel that in these matters personality plays a very large part, and whatever high qualities other persons may possess, the right hon. Gentleman has a personality which enables him to get on very well with individuals, and in dealing with the matters of great urgency that attach to his office, I cannot help thinking that is an enormous asset. I think that a word of praise ought also to be given to another individual who, although he is not actually a Member of the Government, is very close to it, that is, the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary. Although he is only a Parliamentary Private Secretary, he really carries out duties that in some sense appertain to the Minister. He is widely respected and trusted, and I feel that he is a very great asset to the office of the Secretary of State for Air.

I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that while the progress which is being made with air rearmament may be regarded as satisfactory, it is simply winning a hopeless race. It is not an end in itself; it is merely a means to something else, and unless it leads to a disarmament conference, with an agreement for mutual inspection, then its results cannot be considered as satisfactory for anybody at all. I should like to support what was said the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) about joint action with France and other countries with whom we are allied, and indeed other countries with whom we may be called upon to act. There ought to be the closest correlation; we ought to make arrangements for the joint use of aerodromes and for joint air exercises. It may be that all these things are being considered and possibly being done, but nothing will add to our defences and to our strength in the world more than the knowledge, on the part of potential enemies, that, not only have we got these forces, but that they are all ready and co-ordinated with the forces of other countries with whom we shall act. It will then be seen that we really mean business.

There are certain aspects of the air problem to which I wish to refer. The first is with regard to the training of pilots carried out by the flying clubs and by the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve respectively. I cannot help thinking that the clubs are really doing better work and getting more out of the training than the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve. I have in mind the case of a club which turned out about 150 pilots in a year while the local R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve trained only 45 men in about 18 months—15 at a time. The R.A.F. training was done on eight expensive service machines, whereas the club training was done on civil machines. Furthermore, the Volunteer Reserve gives its members no experience in bombing and in gunnery, and the difference between the two types of training seems to be that, in the Reserve, a man gets the advantage of training on military aircraft. I hope consideration will be given to the question of whether it would not be both cheaper and more effective to extend the training of pilots by the clubs. On the question of the Auxiliary Air Force, I understand it has been the practice to train them as bombing squadrons. I should have thought that, in the circumstances, there was a great deal to be said for training them as fighters and not as bombers. It may be that that is realised and that alterations are taking place, but I feel that there was originally an error of judgment in allocating to the Auxiliary Force the task of bombing.

On the subject of accidents these, no doubt, are often due to lack of experience, but they involve very heavy loss both in life and in expensive machines such as the Hurricane and the Spitfire, I would suggest that experience of flying in bad weather might be obtained in civil machines such as Tiger Moths. These would not, I think, be so liable to accidents, and, if accidents did occur, then obviously the losses involved would not be so great. Flying in service machines should be done, as far as possible, in good weather. I cannot help feeling, though I do not wish to do more than very lightly refer to this matter, that some young officers who are in command of squadrons now—necessarily so in the circumstances of the case— do not perhaps always exercise the wisest judgment in the orders given in regard to flying arrangements. I understand that one of the greatest needs for military aircraft is an efficient automatic pilot— known, I believe, as "George" in the service. We are behind other countries such as the United States and Germany in this respect, and I believe that few things would give more satisfaction throughout the service than the achievement of success in this matter.

In regard to civil aviation, the situation is admittedly unsatisfactory. We understand that that is inevitable, to some extent, owing to the great concentration at present on the military effort, but I do not know that our civil aviation need be as unsatisfactory as it is. Probably the right hon. Gentleman has not had the time or opportunity to give his personal attention to many matters of detail which he would like to supervise if his mind were more free from the military tasks. In civil aviation at present we are living on the Empire flying boats. That is the only great success that has been obtained in recent years. The Ensign machines have turned out to be under-powered and have been sent back to the manufacturers for alterations and adjustments. It is very unsatisfactory to find that this had to be done. Reference, no doubt, will be made to the well-known Rae Report and its recommendations, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman could devote his own attention to that matter.

The position at the Air Ministry and the Civil Aviation Department seems to be thoroughly unsatisfactory at present. There is a Director-General of Civil Aviation; to whom certain references were made in the Cadman Report. Unfortunately, through illness he has been unable for a long time to carry out his duties. As Deputy Director-General we have a high Treasury official, a very competent person I am sure, doing his best, but he has had little experience up to the present of aviation work. He is there as second in command and is supposed to work closely with the Secretary of the Department, Sir Donald Banks, but Sir Donald Banks has gone to Australia, so that this admirable Treasury official is really running the Civil Aviation Department, more or less by himself as regards the higher command. The time has come to face the situation there, and I hope the Secretary of State will make a definite appointment of a Director-General of Civil Aviation who can give his full time to the work and has the personality, drive and experience to make such success as is possible in existing circumstances. A subsidy was to be made available for civil aviation of £100,000 a year. It was voted last year, and I presume it will be voted again this year, but not one penny piece has been paid. Will the sum that was voted last year lapse, or will it in due course be paid in addition to the sum which is voted this year? The licensing authority has been considering the cases of the 11 different lines in this country for the last six months or so, and they have not issued any licences. It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.

The railway companies, who are crying out on every hoarding for a square deal, are themselves doing their utmost to prevent any square deal being given to the civil aviation lines. They are opposing the granting of licences to every independent company that they possibly can. The result of this delay is that the civil aviation companies are in a bad way. They cannot hold out indefinitely, and if the delay goes on some of them may find it impossible to continue. Is that the object of the Air Ministry? Do they really want them to give up and hand over civil aviation to the railway companies? If that is so, let them say so. If not, will they come to some definite decision as soon as possible and make the money which has been voted available for those companies who are struggling to carry on? It may be the right thing to amalgamate the different civil aviation companies—Imperial Airways, British Airways and all the internal airways—but whether it is or not, there should be some definite statement of policy. I recognise the difficulties of civil aviation in existing circumstances, but it is most important that we should be in a position to make the most of all the resources that we possess, and to show to the world that in the realm of civil aviation we are second to none.

10.17 p.m.

Captain Peter Macdonald

I would like to begin by referring to the admirable statement which was made by the Secretary of State last week in introducing the Estimates with regard to the military side of this programme. Remarkable progress has been made during the time that he and his Under-Secretary have been at the Air Ministry. I want to urge upon the Ministry to-night that in developing the military side of their programme they should not overlook the civil side. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has raised a point of great importance, that of assisting those civil aviation companies who are endeavouring under great difficulties to build up services throughout the country. The Ministry has to decide whether these services are to be handed over to the railway companies, who, as the hon. Member says, are putting every obstacle in the way of many companies developing their services. I have in mind a service to the Isle of Wight, about which the hon. and gallant Member the Under-Secretary knows something. The service was operating satisfactorily for a time, although, perhaps, without very great remuneration for the directors and shareholders, but it eventually amalgamated with the railway company. The railway company took it over and took the service off, and there is now no direct service to the Isle of Wight. That is one instance which happened to come within my purview, but I hear on all sides that there are many other cases of the same kind. If the railway companies are merely going to take over those companies, or are doing everything they can to put obstacles in their way in order to keep all traffic to their own railway lines, I think it is time the Air Ministry intervened and did something about it.

What I chiefly want to discuss to-night are the Imperial air-routes. I should like to know what is in the mind of the Secretary of State regarding the future of those air-routes. That subject is extremely important in view of the lack of a definite policy in the past upon this important branch of civil aviation. In the past 15 years Governments have done nothing but change their mind and their policy, with the result that neither the civil air companies, like Imperial Airways, British Airways or others, which have been trying to develop these routes or the manufacturers of civil aircraft have at any time had any idea of what the future policy was to be. There are two points upon which the Ministry should definitely make up its mind. First, it should decide once and for all upon a long-term policy for external civil aviation. In the second place it should make up its mind to make it possible for our aircraft manufacturing industry to turn out modern types of aircraft in sufficient numbers.

The first point is essential because we have had so many changes in the past 15 years. Originally, it was the policy of the Government that civil aviation should fly "on its own." A subsidy was granted, but on a diminishing scale. We were to leave Imperial Airways a clear field, but eventually without any subsidy. Imperial Airways for a considerable time struggled on. I think they gave a very efficient service to the Empire, considering their handicap. I have travelled a good deal upon Imperial Airways routes and in face of all their difficulties I consider that they put up a very good show indeed. I have nothing but praise for Imperial Airways, knowing as I do the handicaps which they had to overcome. The chief handicap was not knowing what their future was to be, whether they would have to rely entirely upon their own resources and at the same time try to find dividends for their, share- holders, or whether they were going to have further assistance from the Government. The result was that they were obliged to use their machines for too long, and other countries like the Dutch, the Germans and the French have gained a great superiority over them upon some routes.

Then the question of the prestige of this country came in, and again the Government changed its mind. In moving the Air Navigation Bill in this House the Secretary of State for Air said: The original idea of civil aviation was that it was to fly by itself, but the fact remains that everywhere and by all countries civil aviation is subsidised to-day, and I do not think there is any doubt, whatever method we may have in mind for dealing with it, that more money is needed if this country is to keep its proper position in relation to this important matter."—[Official Report, 18th May, 1938; col. 427, Vol. 336.] A great many of us had tried to press that point upon the attention of various Ministers for a long time.

This view was shared also by the Cad-man Committee, which thought that in addition to asking for subsidies for civil aviation the matter should be dealt with more on a basis of prestige than of economics. It was regarded as desirable to introduce an element of competition and of sub-division. Here again is where the Air Ministry changed their minds. The Cadman Committee recommended that in addition to granting large subsidies to Imperial Airways the Government should subsidise another airway company to compete with Imperial Airways and that they should give a subsidy to British Airways. Reference has been made to the fact that while the Government were giving the subsidy they were giving no machines to the company to fly those routes. The company appealed to the Air Ministry for machines, but the machines were not forthcoming. By that time this country had embarked upon the rearmament programme and that necessity was paramount at the time and no civil aviation machines could be produced in time. That was last August. British Airways appealed to the Air Ministry to be allowed to buy a machine outside this country, and for a long time that appeal was rejected, in spite of the fact that K.L.M. and other airways were buying American machines. They were not allowed to buy even British machines, and no American machines were forthcoming. Eventually the company were granted permission to buy an American machine. Orders were put in hand, but delivery could not be taken for a considerable time.

That was the position until recently. Now British Airways have some excellent American machines, but that does not add to the prestige of British aviation. On the contrary, it is a very great blot upon our prestige to have Imperial Airways with American or any other make of foreign machine. It should have British machines. That policy did not last very long, because no sooner had we decided that the Government had a special policy for civil aviation complete than there was another sudden change, and instead of having those two chosen instruments for the future the Government suddenly decided to come to Parliament with legislation setting up a fresh organisation and taking over the interests of Imperial Airways and British Airways. I am sure that when the time comes the House will want to know a good deal more about the proposed corporation, but I am not going to press the right hon. Gentleman to-night because there will be many more hon. Members who wish to speak.

I am sure that this House is very anxious to maintain some control over this form of corporation. A considerably larger subsidy will have to be paid from public funds and the new director-general of Imperial Airways will know something about public corporations. I hope that the position will not be what it was before, when no one could ask a question in the House or criticise in any way the workings of that organisation without being told that it was outside the purview of Parliament. That will be a very important consideration when the Minister introduces the Bill, because I am convinced that Parliament will not allow him to set up a large public corporation to control the whole of our Imperial air routes without Parliament having some say in its management and control. The position of Imperial Airways has always been unsatisfactory. It has often been pointed out that, while they have control over the operating part of their business, there is no one to answer for them in this House except the Secretary of State, and he has no direct control over their operations, although he can withhold the subsidy. I hope that that will not be the position of the new corporation.

I was very glad that the Secretary of State, in his speech and in the Memorandum accompanying the Estimates, was able to indicate that considerable progress has been made during the past year with new developments in Imperial air routes, and that now we are to have the air-mail scheme completed to Australia and Hong Kong. That has taken a long time to develop. To-day, I believe, it is working satisfactorily, apart from some delays on schedule due to various causes which I hope in time will be overcome. I understand, also, that arrangements are to be made for an extension of the service to New Zealand, and that negotiations are on foot for an extension between Burma and China. There are proposals also for services between East Africa and South Africa, and for a service from the Gold Coast to Nigeria; and the Atlantic service is to be opened this year. Another branch of the service which has not yet been developed is the West Indian colonial service. There the Americans have stolen a march upon us, and have developed quite a considerable service between the Islands. Until quite recently no British air service had been operating in these Islands, and it is certainly to the detriment of British prestige that that should be so.

One hears reports of inconveniences and delays due to various causes. It is very unsatisfactory when, in a service operating on schedule, the schedules are not maintained, and when an air-mail service is advertised to carry mails on schedule and those mails do not arrive in time. It is also extremely unsatisfactory, especially to business men in this country who desire to use Imperial air routes, when, on arriving at an air base, they are told that they cannot be accommodated because of the amount of mail that has been taken on board, and when, owing to there being no room for passengers, they are compelled to travel by a foreign service. That frequently occurs, I am told; and the reason is obvious. It is because these Imperial flying boats, excellent as they are, are not made for the dual purpose, and it is quite impossible, as far as I can see, to develop a type of aircraft that is going to be serviceable for both passengers and mail service. The sooner the Minister makes up his mind that these services have got to be divorced, and that a type of machine has to be evolved for carrying mails throughout the Empire and a different type of machine evolved for carrying passengers, the better. Unless that is done, there will always be dissatisfaction with both services, as there is to-day. Remarkable progress has been made in the past year in developing these services and adding another 20,000 miles, making about 50,000 miles in all of Imperial air routes flown over by British companies, though not altogether by British machines, and I urge my right hon. Friend not to endeavour to develop this dual service, but to separate the two, and so give far greater satisfaction.

10.37 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely

I intervene for only a few moments, to raise one or two points. One was referred to earlier to-day, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) asked the Prime Minister whether we could have a day to discuss the Ministry for the Coordination of Defence, and that raises the important point, brought forward earlier in the Debate, on the question of the air as regards the Army to-day. As far as we are concerned—and this is a question for the Opposition to raise—we think that one of the most important questions that arise in this matter of the Co-ordination of Defence, with reference to the relation of the air both to the Army and to the Navy. We have the Fleet Air Arm, and we have heard a strong appeal by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) for information as to what is going to happen with respect to fighters for the Army. It would be very useful in clarifying the position if we could get a definite statement on that.

The Leader of the Opposition has raised again the questions of waste and profits. On the question of waste, I would like to refer to a matter of which I happen to have knowledge, relating to the overlapping which happens at present. On the aerodrome at Hucknall, where I happen to be stationed, they are putting in an enormous number of trees. These have been brought all the way from Wiltshire, instead of being obtained locally as one might have expected, which would have been much cheaper. They have been put up all around, and in the aerodrome itself. Yet during this year we are going to have a reorganisation and a rebuilding of the aerodrome, and over that very place where those trees are now being put hangars are going to be built. This has been pointed out, but somebody has the order for the trees, and the trees, which are big ones, are now being put in. Then they will have to pull them up in order to put up those hangars. The lack of organisation which one sees in a matter like that is creating an immense amount of waste at the present time.

There are one or two other small points which I would like to bring out, one of which is the question of the new Harvard trainer. Although there has been a certain amount written to the effect that this trainer machine which has come from America is not satisfactory, I do not think that that is the proper view to take. There is no doubt that this is a very efficient trainer, although the noise it makes can be very irritating, and no doubt it will have to be put in places where you will not get the complaints that are being received now. I hope that the Ministry will induce all aircraft manufacturers in this country to study that trainer to see the way a machine of that type should be built. There is no doubt that it has a far better lay-out than the machines which are now being produced in the Service to-day. There is a great deal to be learned from the American machines.

I wish to bring up a point on the question of recruiting for the Air Force. There are certain accounts going round as to other parts of the Territorial Army trying to build up the idea that they are to get the recruits. I have come across a particular case—it is not a single case—of a person who has been in the Auxiliary Air Force for four years wanting to re-engage again, but because he happens to be in the Post Office he is told that he cannot re-engage in the Auxiliary Air Force but must join one of the units which are in the interests of the Post Office. I hope that the Minister will see to it that this cross-staging from one side of the auxiliary services to another is not allowed to continue, as is undoubtedly happening to-day.

We are building up a voluntary reserve which is undoubtedly producing good and efficient pilots, but there are great difficulties. I know of a case where there are something like 92 pilots to be trained, and all they have available are six small machines. Unless you can get more machines, it will slow up the putting through of pilots and dishearten them in the training which they must undergo. I am certain that the Volunteer Reserve will be more satisfactory than any other system in producing the pilots really needed for fully developing and expanding the Air Force, but it must be helped. It is not in criticism that I call attention to a question of waste. In some places equipment is given for night flying. It is very costly and the aerodrome is not fitted for night flying, and so the equipment is not used. Under the present system—and I am not blaming the Secretary of State for Air—you are not getting the full value for the amount of money that is being spent, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will certainly go into that matter.

The only other point I wish to bring out is the question of new aerodromes and the nuisance of aerodromes. I know of many cases where aerodromes have had to be established in places where they had not been expected, and a great deal of feeling has been aroused because they have gone there. The Minister might pay a tribute to many people who have suffered great inconvenience and disturbance by the coming of those aerodromes into their midst. I know of one or two cases where people have suffered immensely through this establishment of aerodromes. It is nearly always the people who suffer most who complain the least. There is one particular case near my training camp at Chesil Bank. The owner of a house there has suffered complete misery and scarcely been able to use it, and yet has made no complaint. Such people deserve a great tribute of praise. There are others who have done what they could in many ways.

With regard to Chesil Bank, there was an accident the other day and there have been several others. Other accidents, perhaps of a fatal character, might be avoided if the present regulations, which have been laid down because of a certain owner there, could be altered. The Minister might take some steps in that matter so that it might be remedied, and we should then have a better feeling in the district. I do not want to be too critical of what the Minister is doing. There is, however, a great deal of waste going on and much reorganisation is needed. I hope that every effort will be made to improve matters, because it is only by getting real value for money that we shall be able to build up the Air Force we want.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Perkins

I should like to reinforce the protest of the Leader of the Opposition to the Government for bringing on the Debate on this important matter at a late hour of the evening. This is the biggest of the three Defence Estimates. It is the biggest Estimate that has ever been presented to this House by the Air Minister. I am informed that it is possibly as big as the Estimates that would have been presented in 1919 if the War had continued until then. It is, therefore, rather unfair at this late hour that the House should be asked to discuss such important matters. In the past I have been an unrepentant critic of Air Ministers, Under-Secretaries and the Air Ministry itself, both in regard to military aviation and civil aviation, but to-night I must say, like the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) that as far as military aviation is concerned I am completely satisfied. I believe that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary in the last 12 months have performed the impossible. They have increased the monthly output of aeroplanes from 200 to 450, and at the end of this year the output is likely to go up to 800 or 900.

With regard to civil aviation, there are many matters that are very far from being right. I intend to raise 12 detailed matters in regard to civil aviation, and I hope the Secretary of State will realise that I am doing this as a friendly critic and not in any hostile spirit, but because I want to see things better in British civil aviation. Unless attention is called to these matters they will not right themselves. First, I would deal with pilots employed in British air lines. I refer not only to Imperial Airways pilots but to all pilots. As far as the pilots employed by Imperial Airways are concerned I believe that never before have they been so happy or so contented as they are at this moment. They are now at last being treated as human beings. What they appreciate most is the fact that they now have the right to go either to Sir John Reith or to Mr. Runciman, either as individuals or collectively through the British Air Lines Pilots' Association. There is right through the company now, I am informed, an entirely different spirit from what there was three or four years ago.

There is one matter that is worrying all pilots in this country. In the Maybury Report, which was presented 2i years ago, and which the House has never yet had an opportunity to discuss, though we have often asked for it, there is a definite recommendation that a central school, assisted by the Government, for training air line pilots should be set up. The Government accepted the recommendation, but the school has never been set up. I know the Undersecretary will say that British Airways have a school, and in theory it is open to all pilots. In fact, it is not open to all pilots, because it is always full of British Airways pilots, and pilots from other companies cannot get the advantage of this training. I urge the Secretary of State to look into the matter and see if it is not possible to implement the pledge in the Maybury Report and set up this assisted school.

The next point that I want to raise is connected with London air ports. It was announced about a month ago that in due course Croydon is to be closed, Lulling-stone is to be purchased and Heston is to be enlarged. That is a very great step forward, and I should like to congratulate and thank the Secretary of State once again, but I should also like to urge him to push on with those schemes. I cannot help comparing him to a batsman batting on a perfect wicket at the close of a summer's day, well set, and the bowling thoroughly tired. But he suddenly realises in the distance that a thunderstorm is coming up and he has to make runs quickly if the match is to be won. I have a feeling that in two or three years' time we shall see another Geddes axe. The Treasury will cry halt to all expenditure of this kind, and for that reason I urge the Secretary of State to push on with the scheme. While the batting is easy, while the wicket is playing so well, we can get the money in order to get the scheme.

The third point is in regard to new machines. As far as one can see, for the first time for many years past we shall have some aeroplanes which are likely to sell in the Empire market. I am talking of civil aeroplanes. With any luck we shall sell the Flamingo and Albatross aeroplanes, and in due course, when the new Fairey aeroplane comes along, I hope we shall sell some of those. The credit for these machines must be given entirely to the Secretary of State, but I suggest that the time has come for another move for an order to produce aeroplanes which we can sell in the markets of the world, not in a year or two, but in five years' time.

A year ago I mentioned a specification put up by Pan-American Airways to the main contractors in America. They asked for an aircraft capable of taking 100 passengers 5,000 miles at a cruising speed of 200 miles an hour. Five companies have quoted, and I am informed that in every case the specification has actually been exceeded. What are we doing along these lines? Have any inquiries been sent out? Have any orders been placed? Is he aware that designs were got out nearly two years ago by a British manufacturer for a machine which was far in excess of the American specifications? It had a speed of 300 miles an hour, and was capable of taking 100 passengers to New York non-stop, at an inclusive fee per passenger of £15. I suggest that the time has come for us to make another move in this direction. If I am right we have a machine which is a long way in front of anything even that they have in America at the moment. I would urge the Secretary of State to give an order for one of these machines at once, in order that in four or five years' time we may be well ahead of the Americans.

My fourth point is in connection with the Mayo-composite. I have always thought that this was rather a frivolous experiment, but on the whole it has been successful. It certainly has brought off some fine achievements and even record flights. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Air Ministry to go on with experiments with this Mayo-composite or has the idea been dropped? If it is the intention to go on with the experiment I should like to know what steps have been taken. Have any more orders been placed for bigger machines, or is the matter still being considered? I hope the Secretary of State will be able to tell us what is likely to happen to this experiment.

I come to my fifth point, and that is the service in Europe, and particularly the services of Imperial Airways. I am sure every hon. Member hopes that in the near future, possibly during this year, we shall see a great change for the better. At the moment the situation could not be much worse. Even the service to Switzerland, which was promised last November to start in January, has not as yet materialised. The reason why these services are not there at the moment is because the Ensign air-liner has not yet been delivered. It was ordered in September, 1934, and here we are in March, 1939, and not one of these machines is in regular service. I am informed by some of my friends that the machine, as a machine, is an extraordinarily good one, but, unfortunately, it is equipped with engines known as the Tiger 9, which are a complete failure. I suggest that the time has come to stop fooling with these engines and to issue an ultimatum to the manufacturers, and tell them plainly that the Secretary of State proposes to remove them from the Air Ministry list unless they take immediate steps to scrap these dud engines and equip the machines with proper engines so that they may be in service in Europe during this summer. It is absolutely absurd that development of British civil aviation in Europe and on the Empire routes should be held up simply by one obstinate and incompetent manufacturer.

Then I want to refer to the flying boat services which have always come in for a good deal of praise. The particular service I want to refer to is the service to Singapore. It makes my blood boil when I find that on the run to Singapore we are being defeated all along the line by the Dutch air liners. I have here the timetable schedules of our service and the Royal Dutch service, and I find that we are definitely one day behind when we reach Singapore on the schedule. But that is not the whole story. In answer to a question I put in the House a few days ago my hon. and gallant Friend told the House that in more than 50 per cent. of the cases we are late. In actual times we are not late by a few hours; we are late often by days. The kind of reasons which are put forward why we are late are sometimes the weather, sometimes engine trouble, sometimes it is the Post Office which has delayed the machine, and sometimes it is lack of night facilities.

All kinds of excuses are put up, but I suggest to the Secretary of State that the fundamental reason why we are late at Singapore is because our machines have a lower cruising speed than the Dutch machines. We are cruising at about 150 miles an hour against the Dutch machine, which is cruising at about 175 miles an hour, and it must be obvious that just as if there are two trains going from London to Glasgow, the one which goes the faster will reach Glasgow first, so, if there are two aeroplanes going from London to Singapore, the one which goes the faster will arrive first.

I know there are troubles with engines, with weather, and with the Post Office, but those troubles are met equally by the Dutch airlines. We have to go through bad weather, but so do the Dutch. The only difference is that the Dutchman, with his extra turn of speed, has the opportunity of making up lost time, which we unfortunately have not got. I want to ask the Secretary of State what he is going to do about this situation. These machines have been built to last for seven years, and we have had them about two and a-half or three years, so that they have about four to go. I am sure it is not his wish that we should be behind the Dutchmen for the next four years, and I would suggest to him that the solution of this problem is to retain these boats and to give an order immediately for some fast land planes. I know that at the moment the whole question of whether this route is to be run by flying boats or by land planes is still undecided. The Air Ministry, Imperial Airways, and various people concerned cannot quite make up their minds and want time to consider it, but it seems to me that now is a Heaven-sent opportunity for the great ideal of separating passengers and mail to be put into practice.

Surely the solution of this problem is to keep the boats as they are now and to send passengers by the boats. It does not make much difference to the passenger going out to Singapore if he arrives on the fifth day or on the sixth, but when you are dealing with mails, it is a different matter, particularly when the machines do not always run to time. We have two machines being delivered in this country quite suitable for running a fast mail service to Australia—the Albatros and the Flamingo. They are both in production. Would it not be possible to give an order for the makers of these two machines to produce enough aeroplanes to carry the mails day and night, to beat at any rate the Dutchmen, so far as the mails are concerned, to Singapore?

The next point that I want to bring out is the question of the South Atlantic. I know there are immense difficulties in the way of starting up that route. I know that General Franco put his foot down and refused to allow British Airways to fly across Spain, and as a result of that action the whole of that route has been held up. But the facts are that the German Luft Hansa Company has been flying that route once a week with mails since 1934, every week for five years, and that Air France, the French Air Line, has been flying it also once a week since 1936. We have not started yet, and, as far as I can make out, the chances of our running a regular mail service over the South Atlantic are pretty bad, and there is little likelihood of our starting up this service until 1941 or 1942, eight years after the Germans.

Then I come to a point which is, I believe, of a rather controversial nature, and that is the loss of the Cavalier flying boat off Bermuda, and the question of ice formation. I believe that disaster is a major disaster for British civil aviation, coming as it does at a time when flying boats are about to cross the North Atlantic and when the old dream of mails being carried from London to New York in 12 or 15 hours is about to become a reality. What is causing the delay in the publication of this report? When it is published, is it to be published in full, or are we to have only a little summary suitably doctored for public consumption? Surely, there can be no object in hiding this report or hushing it up. In view of the fact that every man in aviation knows that the cause of the accident was ice in the carburettor, surely there can be no object in not publishing the report in full.

I go further and urge upon the Secretary of State that it is important that, when the report is published, there should not appear in it statements to the effect that the question of ice in carburettors is some new phenomenon never before encountered by British aviation. It has been encountered before, and the technical experts of the Ministry and Imperial Airways have known all about it for many years. In 1933, the crash of the air liner "Apollo" in Belgium was due to ice in the carburettor. As a result, Imperial Airways were convicted in a British court of negligence, and had to pay £4,000 damages, out of which they managed to escape on a technical point on appeal. That shows that as far back as 1933, this problem was encountered. Not only was it encountered then, but it was encountered steadily right through last winter. The other day my hon. Friend told me, in answer to a question, that three flying boats had suffered from this trouble, and in any one of those cases, there might have been a disastrous crash. Therefore, this is no new phenomenon.

I want to ask the Secretary of State what progress, if any, has been made in research into this problem in this country. I would draw his attention to what is being done in America. In that country, the conditions that pilots have to fly through are far more severe, from the point of view of ice, than they are in Europe, and yet the Pan-American Air Lines have, for two and a-half years, used a method which I am told is very satisfactory—although I speak subject to correction—in getting over this problem. It consists of a little reserve tank, which is attached to the main petrol supply, filled wih a concoction consisting of alcohol and aniline. In that way they have, to a very large extent, overcome the problem of ice in the carburettor. I ask the Under-Secretary whether it is not possible to equip one or two machines in this country and to try out this new device at once? Is it not possible that the technical advisers of Imperial Airways and the technical people at the Air Ministry are perhaps a little out of touch with what is happening on the technical side in the New World? Again and again we have illustrations of our technical people being behind the designers in other countries as far as civil aviation is concerned. They never seem to be in a hurry to adopt new ideas and inventions. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition was not right when he said that perhaps new blood was needed at the Air Ministry, particularly on the technical side.

Lastly, I would like to say a few words regarding the future of civil aviation and the future unemployment problem we have to face. The armaments race is on. It will end either by war or by an arms convention; personally, I believe there will be an arms convention. Possibly that convention will fix 2,000 or 3,000 first-line machines, but whatever the number may be, it will be a big one. There- fore, one cannot help feeling that there will be enough work in the industry to keep the old aircraft firms at work. What is to happen to the new firms that have come into the industry and the people employed in them, and to the people now employed in our shadow factories? What is going to happen to the people now employed on municipal aerodromes when the Volunteer Reserve schools have been taken away? I do not believe there is a solution of the problem, but I do believe it will be possible to alleviate this trouble when it comes, if the proper steps are taken now.

My right hon. Friend when he introduced these Estimates, boasted that this year we were going to spend £4,500,000 on civil aviation. That is only 2 per cent. of the total Estimate—a "widow's mite" compared with what we are spending on the military side. May I suggest to him that this proportion should be increased from 2 per cent. to 10 per cent. of the total. If that were done, I believe my right hon. Friend would be laying a foundation on which in the future we could readily expand our civil aviation if, when an Arms Convention comes along, there should be a big increase in unemployment in this country.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Ross Taylor

I wish to ask the Secretary of State a specific question on a matter of detail, namely, whether provision is made in the Estimates for the payment of a share of the cost of erecting sea defences at two points on the Suffolk coast where Air Ministry property is threatened by the sea, as a result of coast erosion. The two points to which I refer are Felixstowe and Aldeburgh. I am familiar with both places, and I have watched what is taking place. There is not the slightest doubt that there is at both places very grave risk of the sea breaking through and flooding the low-lying land behind. I know the Air Ministry is in possession of reports prepared by experts, at the instance of the two local authorities concerned, and I have no doubt that the Ministry's own experts have visited the sites and know what is taking place. Suffice it to say that there is not any doubt that the land upon which the Air Ministry has spent very large sums, and which is doubtless of great importance for defence purposes, is very seriously menaced. I hope, therefore, that provision has been made for the payment of a share of the cost—because it will have to be borne also by others whose property is threatened in the same way—of putting up the necessary defences. As we have just been reminded, we are spending colossal sums on defence against a potential enemy. Here we have an actual enemy at our gate and the relatively small sum necessary to defend ourselves against that enemy can, surely, be easily afforded.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Davidson

I think the Secretary of State for Air and the Under-Secretary will expect me to take part in this Debate, because for a considerable time I have been worrying the Minister and his assistants about air development in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman is the one Secretary of State for Air who has visited Scotland in connection with this question, but I am not yet satisfied that he is taking full advantage of the facilities that can be given by Scotland in air development. When the Minister flew to Glasgow, the flight took place in very bad weather and, as a result, he walked through the McLellan Galleries with a very jaunty step. I agreed wholeheartedly with that part of his speech which he made in Glasgow in which he said that the development of air-minded-ness was not something which should be restricted to any particular area; while centralisation with regard to the air force might be necessary, it was bad when it neglected important parts of the country.

I raised the question with the Minister a considerable time ago with regard to the development of the balloon barrage system for Glasgow. I am of the opinion from my own research into this question and from information given to me by those who are experienced in such matters that this system was the most appropriate and practically the only defence for Glasgow, situated as it is with its docks. At long last the Ministry have agreed, and a statement was recently issued that Glasgow was one of the seven centres that would have a balloon barrage system. I would like to ask in regard to air development in Scotland how the Air Ministry fix contracts for work that has to be done. My experience in visiting offices of works and speaking to secretaries has been that where an order can be placed round the corner or where interests are centred in Whitehall, it is difficult for areas outside the centre to be represented in the granting of contracts. I find that Scotland has been badly treated with regard to Air Ministry work in Scotland, and Scottish contractors have had practically no say in it. If the Minister desires, as he stated in his Glasgow speech, the co-operation of the Scottish people, the Welsh people, and the people of the whole country, in the development of air-mindedness, he must give to these people an equal share in any benefits that accrue from Air Ministry policy. I would like to ask the Minister what Scottish firms have been asked to quote for the new aerodrome at Abbots-inch. Is it not a fact that one firm was sent for by the Ministry and given the contract, which ran to nearly £1,000,000, and that no Scottish firm was even asked to quote? Is it not a fact that this firm, which has got this plum, has in the past been unable in quoting to approach the tenders of almost every other firm with which it was in competition?

Can the Minister make a statement also with regard to the benefits which may have accrued from the exhibition in Glasgow? I visited that exhibition and found it a most interesting one, but I should like to have a statement from him as to whether that exhibition did not indicate to Scottish firms that the work for them would be almost wholly on a sub-contracting basis and that there was little chance of direct contracts being given to them. As regards the increased accommodation to be provided at Mont-rose aerodrome, where a new hangar was to be built, I should like to know whether that work has been completed; if so, whether it was a Scottish contractor who did the job, and whether the Air Ministry are satisfied with the time taken. Further, I should like to know what progress has been made with the establishment of the training school in the North of Scotland for which provision was made in the last Estimates? Have any pupils yet attended or what stage of development has been reached? Speaking from memory, I believe that the expenditure of £400,000 on that school was questioned by some Members, and I should like to know what progress it has made towards securing that air-mindedness in the Scottish people which the Minister so much desires.

Next I should like to know what facilities exist in Scotland for training boys who join the Air Force in Scotland. Is it still the policy of the Air Ministry to recruit the boys in Scotland and transfer them to England for training or is the training being carried out in Scotland? I think the Minister must see the advantages of training the boys in Scotland in preference to sending them to other parts of the country, a system which creates difficulties for both the boys and for their parents, who like to see their sons occasionally.

There is one other question which I should like to ask the Minister and I have done. Having met him at the exhibition, and having noticed the terrific effect of his placatory manner upon the Lord Provost of Glasgow, whom I could almost claim to be the right hon. Gentleman's chief recruiting agent in Scotland to-day, may I ask him to tell us what are the new developments taking place in Scotland as a result of his visit. Has there been an increase in recruits or of expenditure in Scotland, and a return to the people of something of value for their services to the Ministry? In this matter the Air Ministry can have a closer accord than the military forces, because the air method is quicker. Do the Scottish people depend for their defence, as they did last year, upon the air squadrons stationed in England? Have we at Montrose aerodrome modern planes that can defend the people of Scotland efficiently without having to depend upon those squadrons in England?

11.27 P.m.

Mr. David Adams

Like many other hon. Members I agree that we owe a debt of gratitude to the Air Minister and his colleagues for the work they have so far efficiently carried out, although a vast amount of work remains to be carried out. It is well to recognise services rendered to the State at a time of urgent necessity. Coming from the North-East coast I am anxious to have some specific assurance with regard to the protection to be afforded to that great industrial population in County Durham, on both banks of the Tyne. I particularise that coast, because we have a dense population there of some 1,500,000 people, engaged in important work of national importance in the manufacture of arms of various kinds, shipbuilding and other trades and industries. Unless protection is afforded, and there are convincing indications that it is genuine, there will be unrest there which will not be too easily allayed. The Gov- ernment have not made up their mind on the provision of deep bombproof shelters such as the industrial and engineering population have been long convinced are an imperative necessity for their protection in the event of warfare. If the population are to conduct their work satisfactorily they must have that protection I ask whether we are to have the benefit not only of the balloon barrage but of whatever other air protection the area is to receive.

I have not heard a satisfactory response on another point which has been raised in the Debate, concerning the protection of the community against excessive rates of profit in the manufacture of aircraft, aeroplanes and the instruments of warfare. I recognise that the difficulties are great. We have the privately-owned factories which are used now for new and possibly temporary purposes, and there are difficulties in limiting the profits in such cases, where the owners are employing their capital to the disadvantage of their normal trade, in an enterprise which may disappear altogether in a year or so. But there is also the publicly owned factory, created at the expense of the Government, in which the experiment might well be made of controlling production, as shipping was controlled, or partially controlled, during the War. There could be no complaint of such control of production in Government-owned factories, and that would be an effective check on and a challenge to the privately owned factories. The whole House knows that a costing system affords no practical check on profits. You may have the most perfect costing system without getting any check on profits. When the latest figures published in the financial papers show that profits of between 21 and 82 per cent. on the capital invested have been declared, there is an evident need for some rectification of the rates of profit that are permitted to-day.

Mr. Liddall

Can the hon. Member suggest a method of rectification. What is the point that he is making?

Mr. Adams

I am suggesting that in the Government-owned factories the production should be controlled by the Government, in identically the same way in which it was controlled in certain cases during the War, and certainly in the case of shipping.

Mr. Liddall

Does the hon. Member want to go back to the sort of things that were done during the Great War?

Mr. Adams

It is clear that in the privately-owned concern there is not yet an efficient check on the rates of profit, which, as we have seen from the financial papers during the last week or two, have been from 21 to as much as 82 per cent. on the capital invested. When one considers that the National Defence Contribution this year has produced only £20,000,000 as against the estimate of £25,000,000, it is clear that the manufacture of armaments is a very lucrative industry indeed at the moment. With regard to the machines which we are obtaining from abroad, the Government are to be congratulated on that departure. It is stated that since 1st January £2,340,000 has been spent on warplanes from the United States—and an excellent expenditure it is. With the principle extended to Australia, Canada, and possibly elsewhere, it will be not only of practical value for defence purposes but will be also of high psychological value, indicating to the world the vast financial strength of this country; its world-wide effectiveness in peace and the inevitability of its great power in time of war.

I would like to say a word regarding our air clubs, the Civil Air Guard and Volunteer Reserve training schools. Is it a fact that in certain of these the lists have been closed as the personnel is complete? If so, it seems that we are putting back the clock. It may be that there is a shortage of machines at the moment, but surely that can be overcome. I am advised by those who are interested in municipal airports that the Government seem to be neglecting certain aspects of them, yet the training of pilots and the full use of these municipal airports is as vital as any other aspect of our defence problem.

11.39 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood)

I am very much indebted to the House for the observations and questions that have been addressed to me. Although I am naturally gratified at certain personal references that have been made, I am by no means complacent about the work of my Department. I am gratified that progress has been possible, but the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and I recognise that there is a great deal still to be achieved, and we shall do our best to accomplish what remains to be done. I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said in that respect. He put one or two specific questions to me to-night to which I would like to reply. He made a reference to the fact that I was taking steps in relation to profits in the aircraft industry, and I would emphasise, as I emphasised in this House a few days ago, that the reason for these steps is, that in my opinion the circumstances are different to-day to the circumstances which prevailed when the present agreement was negotiated. He also raised, among other matters, the question of promotions from the ranks, on which I would like to say a few words. He asked how that matter was proceeding. The House may know that, as far as the existing arrangements are concerned, there are a certain number of apprentices from the training schools at Cosford, Hal-ton, and Cranwell, who on the completion of their training are granted cadetships at the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell. In those cases all fees, deposits for uniform, books, etc., are remitted and when they have successfully completed the Cranwell course they receive permanent commissions as pilot officers in the General Duties Branch. There are also certain permanent commissions as pilot officers in the General Duties Branch which are awarded annually to a certain number of airman pilots specially recommended. There are, too, a certain number of permanent commissions in the Equipment Branch granted to ex-apprentice clerks who have attained the rank of corporal, and there are also a number of commissions granted annually to warrant officers as commissioned engineer, signals and armament officers. I have the figures, and during last year, 193 men were given commissions from the ranks, including promotions from warrant rank. This year, including certain promotions which will be effected during the next month, the total will be some 300.

As to the question put to me in relation to the mishaps which occurred to certain balloons, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we cannot protect balloons from lightning, but normally balloons are not sent up when lightning is forecast. But equally, raiding aircraft has to suffer in the same way as we do. If there were lightning conditions the raiding aircraft would meet with the corresponding disadvantage because of electrical interference with radio, which is essential to long distance navigation. But I think that it can be said that normally we do endeavour to avoid conditions of that kind.

Mr. Attlee

Is there no way of insulating at all? I understood that it was the wires that were struck.

Sir K. Wood

I think that is so. I do not think that anything has yet been evolved. The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether the time had been shortened between an accident to an aeroplane and the time it comes back into use after repair. We are endeavouring to deal with that situation. I daresay the right hon. Gentleman has observed that we have been constructing during the past two years certain repair depots, which will be ready this summer. Another repair depot which as temporarily diverted to training purposes will revert to its proper functions in the summer, and further repair depots are being built, and, in my view, this is very essential from the point of view of the question which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me. It would be too early for me to draw any general conclusion about the length of time necessary and as to whether the period for repairs has been lessened. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the steps we have taken will help to that end. He will also agree with me when I remind him that, owing to the complexity of modern aircraft the time taken to repair a crashed machine must of necessity be longer than was the case when we had the older and simpler types. I think I could say that the period has been progressively reduced as the new types have come completely into production, but I should naturally like to be sure of that before I make a definite statement. I hope that I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman that we are taking all essential steps in that direction.

He also put a question about the Air Ministry organisation as a whole. The organisation of the Ministry as a whole and the Departments within it have been constantly under review, particularly during the last 12 months. On the Air Council issues often arise which bring this matter forward. Various changes have already been made. Soon after the expansion started an additional member of the Air Council was appointed to take charge of certain matters and to relieve the Chief of the Air Staff and the Air Member responsible for Research and Development. Last year a further major reorganisation was made to co-ordinate the technical aspects of production and development by uniting them under the Air Member for Development and Production. We also appointed an additional member of the Council to be specially responsible for production. Similar changes have also been made continually below the Council level itself. Other changes have been the reorganisation of the Department of the Chief of the Air Staff, where a new post of Assistant Chief of the Air Staff has been introduced, and of the Directorates of Contracts, Equipment and Accounts. In all these important branches of the Service steps have been taken in order to deal with particular aspects of administration.

In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's request for information about filling the gap between ourselves and other countries, I must adhere to the statement I made in the House on a previous occasion. The right hon. Gentleman put a question to the Prime Minister on this subject a few weeks ago and my right hon. Friend said, after consultation with me, that he did not think it was in the national interest that he should give a reply. I must maintain that position.

I share the views which the Leader of the Opposition expressed at the conclusion of his speech. He referred to the fact that I had left an office which had to do with the health and housing of the people. I regret very much having had to sever my connection with that Department, but I have had one consolation in the reflection that if you have the best social services in the world, as I believe we have, in the end they all depend upon the security and safety of this country. All these things would go if we were not amply protected. That reflection gives a certain measure of satisfaction to anybody like myself who has to spend all his time now in endeavouring to get a more rapid production of the implements of defence and war.

Let me say a few words on the points raised by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). As he knows, I have stated that we are taking certain measures in co-operation with France particularly so far as Air Services are concerned. He also asked me about internal Air Services and the payment of subsidy. The position is that payment will not be made until full licences are granted but it will date back to 1st January and the scheme is to operate with effect from that date. Eleven operating companies have been selected for participation, and the subsidy will be based on capacity-ton-miles and it will be possible for a company to earn £15,000 a year in respect of approved licensed services, provided that the sum of £100,000 in all is not reached. The agreement in respect of each service will be laid before Parliament. The hon. Member also made a point about the automatic pilot. We were, in fact, the first in the field with an effective automatic pilot, and I think we have had the best pilot of that kind for many years. We are one of the few countries where mass production methods are now being used for these instruments and there is no shortage.

Mr. Mander

Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the Director-General of Civil Aviation and the reorganisation of that Department—whether it is proposed to appoint an acting Director-General in view of the continued illness of the present holder of the office?

Sir K. Wood

That officer is on duty again carrying on his work. I have that Department continually under review and I would desire, if I could, to strengthen it. I feel that we are very much behind as far as civil aviation is concerned. I agree that we have to take a long view of the matter and I hope the day will come when we shall finish with the military side and be able to concentrate more and more on the civil aspect of aviation. I am keeping that in mind and I shall do my best to strengthen that Department. In the memorandum accompanying the Air Estimates it was explained that in 1939 as much as £500,000 was being provided for a greatly enlarged programme of civil aircraft development, including the early production of medium sized all metal land planes of about 18,000 lbs., four engined land planes of 40,000 lbs., a long-range land plane of 70,000 lbs., and further work in connection with the design and construction of still more advanced types of civil aircraft. I do not pretend that we must not do more, but that is some evidence of what is being done.

As far as railway undertakings are concerned, it is only fair to say that the Cadman Committee reported that the railway companies were making a useful contribution to civil air development. That verdict in their favour should be mentioned in view of some of the suggestions that have been made. I agree with a good many of the criticisms and suggestions that have been made, and I will carefully study them all, because we want to devote a proper proportion of our time to civil aviation. The separation of mails and passengers, for instance, is one of those basic problems which I hope we shall be able to consider during the next 12 months.

The hon. Member for Berwick (Sir H. Seely) referred to some points about coordination, and reinforced what had been said earlier on the War Office Estimates. In view of the increased forces which are now 1o be made available, these are matters which will have to be considered. There was one matter he mentioned which, although of some interest to me, is more a matter for the Post Office, but the case he quoted must be examined by some Ministerial authority. I do not know whether it is really a matter for me, but I will look into it. The hon. Member also raised the question of the planting of trees and asked why it was necessary to get trees from Wiltshire instead of using local trees for planting in front of hangars at Hucknall. The necessity for camouflaging hangars is a matter of some urgency. The trees have to be from 15 to 30 ft. high, and there is no time to wait for them to grow. We have to take large trees that are specially suitable for transplanting, and they have to be found where they are available. If they can be found locally they are always used. On this question of transplanting trees the Department is advised by the expert King's Park Keepers of the Office of Works. As to the particular case the hon. Member mentioned of Hucknall I have no information, but I will ask for it, and let him know.

Several points were raised by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins). He asked what was the present position and what are our future proposals in regard to the Mayo-composite. This matter has been under special consideration by the Department for some time, but at the moment no final decision has been reached. He mentioned the Ensign aircraft. Imperial Airways have exercised their right to reject the first five aircraft engines tendered for delivery by the makers. The sixth has been under trial by the company, and I think the trial is likely to be completed in a few days time. I understand that the main cause for the rejection of the Ensigns is that they have been found to be underpowered, and negotiations are proceeding between the company and the firm as to the steps which should be taken. The hon. Member also raised the question of replacing the machines used on the present Empire services. I understand that Imperial Airways are considering this matter, and it should be some encouragement to see the number of new aircraft which are coming along. Of the 15–38 type 14 aircraft are on order; and of the 14–38 type, three are on order, and there are the "G" class boats. It is also true to say that we are trying to get further new designs in that particular connection.

My hon. Friend also raised a matter about the flying boat services. The Empire flying boats were designed to operate at a speed which was considered as high as was reasonable, having regard to the general characteristics required for the transport of the heavy mail loads on the Empire service. A long-range land plane is now being developed, and the desirability of supplementing the flying boat services by fast land plane services operating over stages of 2,000 miles will receive our careful consideration. He also raised the question of South American services. Some progress was made in 1938. A British Airways survey party has visited Portugal, West Africa and South America. Experimental flights were carried out by British Airways between the United Kingdom and Lisbon. A decision has been taken to operate a service throughout the route from this country to Buenos Aires by flying boats, and an effort will be made to make the first south Atlantic crossing before the end of this year.

Mr. Perkins

Will it be a regular service or only experimental.

Sir K. Wood

It will be an experimental service in the first place. My hon. Friend asked about the report on the "Cavalier." I have decided to publish the report in full and it will shortly be available. With reference to ice forma- tion, we are well aware of the importance of endeavouring to prevent it by all possible means, including the use of such aids as anilol and other preparations. More than two years ago these preparations were compared at Farnborough and it was found that methyl and ethyl alcohol possessed better ice prevention qualities than anilol. We have been concentrating on trying to achieve the simple automatic application of the preparations so that their ice prevention qualities can be brought into play automatically without action on the part of the pilots when aircraft meet icing conditions. This would be by means of automatically controlled injections. My hon. Friend referred to America. It is true that America has made practical use of the preparation, but without automatic functioning, as United States aviation fuel has physical properties which tend to encourage ice formation, and therefore entails greater precautions. Use has been limited to one or two air lines, and the reports I have received from the United States indicate general satisfaction in a limited sphere, but experience has not been such as to lead the air-worthiness authorities to make it compulsory. We are active on the method of injection of alcohols into fuel, and Imperial Airways, the Bristol Aeroplane Company and my Department are at work in colloboration on this and other methods. My hon. Friend also raised the question of the school for pilots. It is true that the Maybury Committee recommendation involved assistance from the State towards the cost of the school when it is set up, but it cannot be set up until the enhanced qualifications which are required in future airline pilots are settled. These are now being thrashed out by a committee of the Air Ministry, the operators and the pilots organisations. We will give assistance as soon as conclusions have been reached in that respect.

As this hour of the night, I would not like to follow the remarks made by my hon. Friend with regard to the future of aviation, particularly military aviation. We all hope that things will improve. This is one of the difficult problems that will face us, but in one sense, the sooner it comes, the better it will be for the world in general. At the present time, however, I should hesitate to say what steps would have to be taken in that direction. I will have regard also to the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald).

My hon. Friend the Member for Wood-bridge (Mr. Ross Taylor) raised the question of the sea defences at Felixstowe. Both the Air Ministry and the War Office have made provision in the Estimates for 1939 for a contribution towards the sea defence works at Felixstowe, and the War Office are now discussing with the Felixstowe Urban District Council various details of the scheme with a view to expediting the commencement of the work. With regard to the sea defence works at Orfordness, we have made no special provision, and the extent of the Air Ministry's liability, if any, is not clear, but a representative from my Department will attend a meeting which is to be arranged locally to discuss the matter.

The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) raised a number of points concerning Scotland. I hope the hon. Member will agree with a good many of his friends in Scotland who expressed the view, when I had the pleasure of visiting them, that we had made a real effort to help Scotland. I think the exhibitions that were held in Edinburgh and Glasgow can be said to have been highly successful. Many thousands of people visited both exhibitions, and although it is too early to say what were the specific results, I feel that with regard to recruitment they were very helpful. I hope also that many firms will respond to the opportunities that are afforded with regard to contracts. We are developing the balloon defences at Glasgow. With regard to Abbotsinch, the estimated cost of the building work there is £1,000,000. On grounds of urgency, it was necessary to dispense with competitive tenders, and nine firms were considered, including one Scottish firm. The order was not given to that firm, but it has been stipulated that the steel work required should be carried out by Scottish firms, nominated by my Department, and that as far as possible, Scottish firms should be employed on any further work which it may be necesasry to subcontract and for the supply of materials.

Mr. Davidson

Can the right hon. Gentleman state on what grounds it was considered that there was an emergency with regard to this particular contract, when no such emergency existed with regard to contracts in past years?

Sir K. Wood

This was a very urgent matter. As a matter of fact, I took a special step in regard to the choice of a contractor in this case. The order was a very extensive one, the matter was very urgent, and only a certain number of firms were really qualified to carry out the work. The hon. Member raised the question of a boys' training school in Scotland. All the boys' training establishments are in England, and it is not possible to segregate boys for training in Scotland. Scottish boys are, however, given an opportunity, at the conclusion of their training, to state the locality to which they woud like to be posted. We are endeavouring to meet the position in that way.

The hon. Member also asked a question about the general defence of Scotland. When I had an opportunity of speaking in Glasgow, I gave some details of the steps that we are taking with regard to the defence of Scotland. I emphasised then, as I do again now, that the defence of Scotland and the defence of England are really one problem, particularly in the air; and it is difficult to say how many squadrons we should have here and how many there. We have to take the strategy as a whole. If the hon. Gentleman does me the honour of referring to my observations on that occasion, he will find that I dealt, in rather more detail than would be possible to-night, with that aspect of the matter.

I would say to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) that we are making arrangements for the defences of both Newcastle and Hull but, again, I would point out as regards Newcastle and other areas which have been mentioned, that it is not a question of allocating particular units to specific parts of the country, but of making general and, I think, adequate provision for these and for all parts of the country. I hope the House will feel that I have dealt adequately with the questions which have been put to me. I am very much indebted to hon. Members for the patience with which they have heard me and I hope that I have been able to give them some satisfaction on the points raised in the Debate.

Mr. Grant-Ferris

Will the Minister make some reference to the question of radio-telephony, and say what steps are being taken to speed up the process of dealing with this most important and vital matter?

Sir K. Wood

I had made a note on that question. There are difficulties in regard to that matter. I observed what was said in the Debate by the hon. Member and I know the interest which he, personally, takes in this matter. I can give him the assurance that we are continually studying the problem and that we hope to be able to make some improvements.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Lyons

I hope the House will bear with me while I refer to one or two matters which have not, I think, been sufficiently dealt with yet. Even at this late hour I would like before doing so to express my appreciation of the fulness and clarity with which the right hon. Gentleman has presented these Estimates and answered the various points raised in the discussion. I would, however, ask him to make some statement, not tonight but at the first convenient opportunity, as to when the third-party insurance scheme, recommended by the committee which reported some four years ago, will be brought into operation. Many of us feel that this is a matter about which some information should be forthcoming at once, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give his attention to the question and give a reply at an early date.

On the subject of civil aviation I would point out that this year the Estimate for civil aviation has been increased by £2,000,000, to an amount slightly over £5,000,000. Many of us who realise the vast amount of work that is done and that can be done by civil aviation, both in welding the Empire together and in giving better communications elsewhere, do not object to that amount. But we think that the increased expenditure demands some assurance from the Government that it will mean some fundamental difference as regards measures for achieving the degree of supremacy which we think ought to be established for British external air routes. We are told that the next step is to be the establishment of a corporation which is to merge Imperial Airways with British Airways and remove certain conflicting loyalties which have hitherto faced those companies. We are told that this is to be done with the object of making the primary consideration the maintenance of British prestige at all costs, as against any conception of profit-making. Many of us have thought, in view of the need which has always existed for large subsidies to assist the establishment of our Empire air routes, that it was better to confine this assistance to one instrument —"a chosen instrument" I think is the phrase which has been used—than to extend it over a number of units which would be in unnecessary competition with each other.

That was the original conception of the Hambling Committee in 1923, and I think that would have continued except for the fact that inadequate subsidies were given year after year, which made it impossible for Imperial Airways to operate the services they ought to have operated, or to show the same disregard for economy as some of their foreign competitors. The result, as we all know, was that we had another committee of inquiry, largely brought about by the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins), namely, the Cadman Committee, which did not hesitate to recommend increased subsidies and suggested some kind of competitive element. Speaking on the Air Navigation Bill on 18th May my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary said the Government had decided that private enterprise, controlled and limited by Statute, should be the principle of the development of civil aviation. With that general statement, I think, the whole House is in substantial agreement, but about six months later that policy seemed to be substantially changed by the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister that the Government had come to the conclusion that a single chosen instrument was most desirable for the development of oversea civil aviation. That meant, in other words, that the original plan of the Hambling Committee was to be retained and the intervening changes meant only additions to the difficulties.

I rise to-night to ask: Is this the last word in connection with the Government's policy for civil aviation? It has been stated over and over again, that as long as the call for National Defence is as urgent as it is to-day, civil aviation must be made a secondary consideration. Is this the policy of the Government, or are we to expect the whole organisation to be thrown again into the melting-pot with the inevitable result of creating uncertainty? We cannot expect the full benefit to accrue from the appointment of Sir John Reith as a whole-time officer of Imperial Airways, if he is not given clear instructions as to what Government policy is and what the desire of the Government is, in regard to the work which he has to perform. Is the future Imperial Airways to concern itself mainly with the maintenance of British prestige and British civil aviation, regardless of cost, or is it to concern itself with the rapid transport of British mails and British passengers? Are we to compete with the Dutch air lines of which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud spoke just now, regardless of economics, of cost, of safety or of comfort? Are we to consider that the loyalty of Imperial Airways to their shareholders should have precedence over their loyalty to the broad interests of the nation? Is their duty to their shareholders to come before their duty to British civil aviation? Are they to regard their organisation as of potential use in any emergency, and, if so, to what extent? Is it the duty of Imperial Airways to try to attract business from every quarter to help them to pay their way, or are they to regard themselves merely as an organisation functioning for the particular benefit of the Post Office?

We must remember that so far as European services were concerned Imperial Airways operated under a severe handicap caused by the late delivery of machines which had been ordered. British Airways is flying all foreign machines and Imperial Airways all British-made machines. It may be said that if there had been foresight this condition of affairs would not have arisen. I do not think that is true. For years Imperial Airways have laboured under the difficulty of not being able to have British-made machines at their disposal, but this is not a matter upon which criticism should be directed to them alone. The other day an American journalist travelling on the service from Bermuda to New York wrote: We have seen it stated that the British were far behind in commercial aviation, but we can say with all candour that one of the greatest experiences in flying on scheduled air transport lines was a New York bound flight in an Imperial Airways machine. Imperial Airways is four or five years ahead from the point of view of the passenger. Is it too much to ask, when there is to be this amalgamation between Imperial Airways and British Airways, that the standard which has been reached by Imperial Airways in the face of extreme difficulties shall be maintained? So far as the Government are concerned the Estimates provide for very much increased expenditure upon ground equipment and ancillary services on the Empire routes. Is night-flying in Africa now considered a practical aid to the British flying services to the Cape? Can we fly by night as well as by day over this big route which has done so much to establish the efficiency and the position of Imperial Airways in the welding of Empire communications? I raise these matters at this time because I believe they are important, and I hope that at some early date my right hon. Friend the Secre- tary of State will give me an answer to the questions which I have put.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.