HC Deb 06 May 1946 vol 422 cc731-48

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to civil aviation and matters connected therewith, and, in particular, to secure the development of air transport services by corporations operating under public control, it is expedient —

  1. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Civil Aviation in making, to the undertakings mentioned in that behalf in the said Act, in respect of periods not later than the end of 732 March, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, grants not exceeding in the aggregate eighty-four million pounds, and in making advances on account of any such grants.
  2. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums which, by virtue of the provisions of the said Act or any instrument made thereunder, are payable out of such moneys other wise than In respect of grants to Bach undertakings as aforesaid and advances on account thereof.
  3. To charge on and issue out of the Consolidated Fund any sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling any guarantee given by them in pursuance of the said Act, subject to the limitation that the aggregate amount outstanding of the principal of the stock and loans in respect of which guarantees are so given does not at any time exceed thirty million pounds, except in so far as that limit is exceeded for the purpose of redeeming stock which may properly be redeemed or of paying off a loan.
  4. To charge on and issue out of the Consolidated Fund any additional sums required to be so charged and isued by reason of any provision of the said Act increasing the amounts in respect of which guarantees may be given under section sixteen of the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939, subject to the limitation that the aggregate amount out- 733 standing of the principal of the stock and loans in respect of which guarantees are so given does not at any time exceed fifty million pounds, except in so far as that limit is exceeded for the purpose of redeeming stock which may be properly redeemed or of paying off a loan.
  5. To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums requird to be so paid by, under or in consequence of the said Act of the present session."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Ivor Thomas.]

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Erroll (Altrincham and Sale)

There are several points in this Resolution which I think call for detailed examination by the Committee. We now propose voting very large sums of money for the purpose of civil aviation, and it is far from clear just how these funds will be spent. First I should like to draw attention to such arrangements as the corporations may make with other Government Departments either for their own needs or the needs of their own staffs, in the services which are to be provided. No mention has been made in today's Debate for instance of the relations between the Post Office, the Minister and the corporations. I suggest that the Post Office will be a very important customer of the three corporations. We are entitled to know to what extent moneys from the Post Office will subsidise air services or whether the grants supplied to the corporations will, in fact, subsidise the Post Office. Other Government Departments, particularly the Colonial Office and the Service Departments, may send their officials by means of the air services, and thereby subsidise them. Alternatively, those sums may be used to subsidise those Departments. In regard to the grants themselves, I am anxious to learn whether they are to be used to purchase aircraft, or whether separate sums will be made available to the Minister of Supply who, in turn, will supply the aircraft to the corporations. We are not clear how these grants will be limited.

The Chairman

I would point out that these are matters for the Standing Committee to decide. They are not matters for discussion on the Financial Resolution before the Committee.

Mr. Erroll

Thank you, Major Milner, for directing my attention to that point. With regard to paragraph 5 of the Resolution, there is the matter of the profits which may be made by the corporations. Provision is made for grants to be paid back to the Exchequer, but there is no reference to the desirability of using those profits for such purposes as the reduction of fares or the provision of improved services. In voting these large sums, we are not clear whether they can be used for competitive trading and whether it will be possible for amenities to be arranged at airports such as shops, swimming pools, cinemas, and other facilities, in direct competition.

The Chairman

Those again are matters of detail upon which it will be the function of the Standing Committee to decide. It is not the function of the present Committee to do that but only, in the main, to decide upon the adequacy or otherwise of the sums which are set out in the Resolution, for the general purposes there indicated.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)

Further to your Ruling, Major Milner, it is very important to know whether or not these sums are to be used for hotels, swimming pools, and the like. Surely the Committee should have information, so as to decide in principle whether these sums should be so used?

The Chairman

I agree that those matters are important, but they are for discussion and decision by the Committee to which the Bill will go. The Resolution before this Committee is drawn in very wide terms to enable that to be done and for that very reason detailed discussion of the objects for which the money is required would be out of Order now.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Erroll

I would like to assure you, Major Milner, that I was only bringing in points of detail in an effort to explain the principles which are involved. If I have strayed wide of the mark, it was only in an endeavour to make my point more clear.

The Chairman

I am sorry, but again these are details which must be considered by the Standing Committee to which the Bill has been committed.

Mr. Erroll

In regard to the main issues for which the money is to be granted, I hope it will be appreciated that the question of whether the money is to be used for capital expenditure or income expenditure is no mere point of detail, but a large and important point of principle. I hope that when the Committee to which the Bill has been committed comes to discuss points of detail that will be made clear. For instance, the purchase of aircraft is undoubtedly capital expenditure, and not income expenditure. I hope that in respect of the salaries of the board, I shall not be out of Order if I say that the question raises an important issue of principle—

The Chairman

The Resolution has been drawn very widely indeed. The details and objects of the Bill, and hence this expenditure, must be considered and settled by the Committee to which the Bill has been committed.

Mr. Erroll

Might I suggest a reduction in the amount of £84 million which is, according to the Resolution, to be spent? I suggest that this sum might be considerably reduced if, for example, such matters as aerodrome construction and maintenance were eliminated from consideration. It is not clear whether the Minister intends to assume financial responsibility for aerodrome maintenance, or whether he intends to make the corporations pay for the use of the aerodromes. I suggest that this sum could be considerably reduced if the financial responsibility were placed on the corporations. We could, if we were to eliminate unprofitable competitive trading, further reduce the sum to be granted. I think we are unwise in voting a large sum without having an assurance that the corporations will not indulge in forms of competitive trading which may prove to be extremely expensive.

The Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt again, but I must repeat that these are points to be considered by the Committee to which the Bill has been committed. The hon. Member is straying far too widely into details of the Bill which it is not competent to discuss on this Resolution as drawn.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)

As you have said, Major Milner, that the Financial Resolution is so very widely drawn this Committee is left in doubt about what it is in Order to discuss. You have more or less said that everything is to be left to the Committee to which the Bill has been com- mitted. If that is so. then I submit, with respect, that it is a waste of time to talk about this Resolution at all now.

The Chairman

It is for the hon. Member to judge for himself how far this discussion is a waste of time. I can only advise the Committee on what, in my view, according to our rules and practices, is the proper limitation of the discussion on this Resolution now.

Mr. McKie

With great respect, Major Milner, I never intended to suggest that any discussion in this House, or in Committee of this House, is a waste of time. I was merely pointing out, with great respect, that repeated interruptions and Rulings from the Chair to the effect that an hon. Member on this side of the Committee cannot discuss this or that, rather reduce the value of this procedure.

The Chairman

I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to criticise the actions of the Chair.

Mr. Erroll

I have found your Rulings of the greatest help, Major Milner, in keeping my comments within the bounds of Order, and also in allowing me to remain on my feet to make what I think is the most important—and my final—point. In granting such a large sum of money, in such wide terms, we are in grave danger of granting what can only be described as hidden subsidies to these corporations and this may appear dangerous and unpleasant when we come to make future agreements with other countries. It is not clear how the money is to be spent, but we shall have an opportunity later to discuss that in greater detail. Therefore, I simply draw the Committee's attention to the fact that we are in danger here of giving the corporations large sums of money which may cause them later to run foul of foreign Governments, to the embarrassment of the present Government.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

I am in the somewhat embarrassing position of not having yet been able to make up my mind whether to go into the Lobby in favour of this Resolution, or to vote against it. As you pointed out to us just now, Major Milner, the Resolution has been drawn very widely, so as to permit discussion of the details of administration in Committee It has not only been very widely drawn; it has been drawn in a very complicated way, which makes it difficult to understand. I believe that there is only one right hon. Gentleman in the Government who, at this time of night, could really make this Resolution clear to the Committee; that is obviously the Lord Privy Seal. Unfortunately, he is not here. He, undoubtedly, with his great financial genius, might help us to solve the problem of whether this sum of £84 million which is mentioned is really adequate. I think that is the correct word to deal with what is wanted under this Resolution. We also have to find out—I think I am not erring in this matter—whether the period until 1956 is just adequate or grossly over-adequate as regards the time covered by this Resolution. Personally, I am inclined to think it is unnecessary to have a sum anywhere near the region of £84 million for this purpose. As though to show how little the Government think it necessary, they have not put anyone up to agree that it is necessary. Here we have the Government asking for a blank cheque. I am quite sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation cannot treat us to another outburst of eloquence tonight. This sum is a very large one, and it is not the only sum mentioned, I regret to say. I, personally, would very much like to see this sum reduced to about :£30 million, for a start. I say the Government have asked for far too large an amount of money.

Then we come to the question of time. It is laid down here and I do not think it can be discussed anywhere else but in this Committee. The year 1956 is mentioned. Perhaps the Government will accept my proposal to reduce the amount to £30 million, because there is no absolute certainty it will not be wasted. But I would also reduce the period for the experiment, from 1956 to, say, about 1948. That would give a fair time in which to see how this experiment is going to run. Those are the first two points to which I should like an answer. I am sure I shall get some support from hon. Members opposite, because they know that by that time they will in all probability be out of office.

Let us come to the second sum that we find mentioned here. I will not now say anything about paragraph 2, but on paragraph 3 I want to know about the sum of £30 million. I do not know whether it is adequate or inadequate, but I do know the merry habit the Government have of asking for three times as much as they want, so that they can grossly squander money. I notice there is no responsible member of the Government here to answer, except the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that frugal man—

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

On a point of Order. That part of the hon. Gentleman's argument which invites the Government on the Financial Resolution to reduce the time limit is, I submit, out of Order at this stage. The period of time appears to be fixed in Clauses 11 to 14 of the Bill. The Bill has just been given a Second Reading.

The Chairman

I am inclined to think that a discussion on the general question of the time is in Order.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Williams

Thank you very much, Major Milner. May I thank the hon. Gentleman opposite for his interruption —because I did have some slight qualms of conscience, about whether I was in Order on that point or not. Now we return to paragraph 3. When I was interrupted, I was trying to explain on behalf of the taxpayers to whoever is to reply on behalf of the Government, that I object to the sum being so large. I would ask the Government severely to reduce it at this time, or on the Committee stage of the Bill. It may be possible then to reduce it. It may be the Government have never thought of it but I say it is a gross scandal to hand over money without any explanation of whether the sum is adequate for the purposes for which it is asked. The third sum of money, mentioned in the next paragraph, is a sum of £50 million. That, again, is grossly overpaying for this work. Everyone knows it is really asking much more than is necessary. Let us put these three sums together, and what do we get? I will not overdo my arithmetic. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) can work it out. We are asked to give the Government this enormous sum spread over a considerable time. We have not the Chancellor of the Exchequer here. No one has given the slightest reason of any sort why we should be expected to vote in favour of giving this sum of money. The Government treat the Opposition with contempt. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may shake their heads at me. I am impervious to that sort of thing. I do say it is a gross insult to the electorate and to the taxpayers of the country that we should be asked at this time of night, with no explanation wnatever, to vote vast sums of their money, which the Government will have to find, taken from the taxpayer when many of them in my constituency, at any rate, and in many parts of the country, are suffering bitterly under the present rate of taxation. We are asked to give, in this way, a great flood of money, enough to carry the whole of the Services in prewar days, and we are asked to do this with no explanation at all. I think it is right that at any rate one or two hon. Members on this side of the Committee should express the view that the finances of this country should be kept under much closer supervision than that which is indicated in this Financial Resolution.

Sir Frank Sanderson (Ealing, East)

I do not propose to keep the Committee long, but there is a point of substance which should be raised. The Committee is being asked to provide a sum of £84 million to secure the development of air transport services. The question I want to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury before we pass this considerable amount of money is this. When the plan for this organisation is put into practice a large volume of money will be spent on capital assets. I believe that, primarily, this money is to be used for that purpose. Can the hon. Gentleman satisfy the Committee that proper accounts will be kept, showing the volume of money spent in capital expenditure, and the money—

The Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. These are matters of detail which can adequately be dealt with in Committee on the Bill. They are not properly advanced in this Committee on the Financial Resolution.

Sir F. Sanderson

Am I not in Order in asking my hon. Friend whether he will present to the House, annual accounts of how this money is expended?

The Chairman

Yes, certainly, at the proper time. That is a matter which might properly be raised on the Committee stage, but not now.

Sir F. Sanderson

Then I will defer my remarks until the Committee stage.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

I want to address a few remarks to the Committee on certain matters which cause me some alarm. I have been wise, I feel, to keep what I have to say until the end of the evening. Before I came to this House I believed that the greatest privilege of Parliament was that it had control over the public purse. When I see a thin attendance of Members in this Committee lightly dismissing a thing which is called a Financial Resolution, without any responsible Minister to guide and inspire and instruct the less well-informed Members of the Opposition I am rather disillusioned I think it is important and desirable that those of us who have unanswered questions should put them to the Minister for guidance, and to you, Major Milner, for instruction. I followed with great pleasure the remarks of previous speakers, because there is much that is obscure and doubtful in my mind about this Resolution and I am glad that some other hon. Members have given the impression that they do not understand this Resolution any more than I do. I want to draw attention to the fact that we are here discussing a sum of some £168 million. That is the total involved in the Financial Resolution. We have not yet received much information on how it is to be disposed of. I, of course, in the absence of any verbal instruction resort to the printed page, and I draw your attention, Major Milner, to the phraseology of this Financial Resolution with a view to securing some elucidation. It reads: to make further provision with respect to civil aviation and matters connected therewith, and, in particular"— and it is this parenthesis I am concerned about— to secure development of air transport services. Is that "in particular" a mere legalistic or financial phrase? May that be explained? Is it not sufficient to say, "In connection with civil aviation and matters connected therewith"? What is the "in particular"? I would like elucidation on that point. I look at Clause 15—

The Chairman

The hon. Member appears to be dealing with the Bill. The Committee, of course, is dealing with the Financial Resolution.

Sir W. Darling

It was from the Financial Resolution, with all respect, that I quoted. The lines I quoted are to be found on page 482 of the Order Paper of 6th May, 1946, under the heading "Orders of the Day." There we find the words: Mr. GLENVIL HALL—To move the following Resolution in Committee of the Whole House under Standing Order No. 69 [King's Recommendation to be signified].

I presumed after reading that, that I could scarcely, even with my clumsiness, be out of Order. I actually read these words, "In particular," from the Order Paper. Fortified by a, perhaps accidental, stumbling into the right way, I am now concerned to seek your guidance, Major Milner, on this item in which the Minister is of opinion that he will require £10 million a year for the subsidy. I think I am right in saying that it is under Clause 15 that that reference is made. I must not read the Bill, but you have a copy and can look at it. You will find that the Minister requires subsidies of some £10 million a year, which is what the Financial Resolution in part, I take it, covers. I want to ask whether the Minister is not a little optimistic in his Financial Resolution. Is he satisfied that he will not want more than £10 million a year? How does he arrive at this figure? He is, of course, a financial expert dealing with a very large sum of money. But how is this figure of £10 million arrived at? Why not £5 million? Has the Minister just thought of a number, and then reverted to the number he originally thought of?

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman has been out of Order on more than one occasion. These are matters which the Standing Committee can quite properly bear in mind and determine when the Bill comes before them.

Mr. McKie

Surely it is in Order for the hon. Member to discuss what is clearly relevant to the Financial Resolution?

The Chairman

I must point out that the wider a Financial Resolution is drawn the more the objects, conditions and details of expenditure are left to the Committee on the Bill. We are discussing a very widely drawn Resolution and in practice therefore the only matter it is in Order to discuss is the adequacy or otherwise of the sums recommended by His Majesty for the purposes set out in general terms in the Resolution. The details are matters for discussion and decision by the Standing Committee.

Mr. C. Williams

May I ask your guidance, Major Milner, on this point? I think we all realise that the whole matter turns on the point of whether these sums are adequate or not. What some of us want to be told is why the Government think these sums adequate. What I want to ask is whether we are doing our duty in giving these sums, or should we give larger sums, or perhaps smaller sums. It should be possible to learn that without infringing the Ruling that one cannot go into the provisions of the Bill in the present discussion. But we do wish to know if these sums are adequate or otherwise.

The Chairman:

I do not think I can do more than give the general indication I have given. I do not of course wish to limit the Debate in any way.

Mr. Williams

I had no idea, Mr. Chairman, of asking you to limit the Debate. Nothing was farther from my mind. I have not asked my question for the purposes of limitation, or for the purpose of winding up. We want to know whether these sums are adequate or grossly over adequate. The sums may be completely inadequate. I would repeat that I never for one moment wished to dictate to the Chair.

12 m.

Sir W. Darling

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. Williams) and also to you, Major Milner, for your Ruling. I should like to know and I hope I shall be informed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what the money mentioned on page 4083 of the Order Paper is for. The item in question is £84 million. This sum of money is in respect of periods not later than the end of March, 1956. Had there been a mistake, or had there been a printer's error—and we are familiar with printer's errors because we had an apology a few nights ago from the Government for an unfortunate error in an important Government order—and this £84 million had been put down as £65 million we on this side of the Committee would not have known about it, though possibly hon. Members on the other side of the Committee with their insight into financial matters would have known. I should like some details of this money. I only want to know what different amounts make up this total. I am entitled to ask how this £84 million was arrived at. Why was it £84 million and not £83 million or £85 million? I think it is not unreasonable to proceed to ask that question, also, about the other paragraphs of the Resolution. This is a large sum of money and the Committee—

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of Order. I would draw attention to the fact that paragraph 1 of the Money Resolution does not ask for £84 million at all. What it does ask for is, grants not exceeding in the aggregate eighty-four million pounds. Therefore, arguments directed to showing that £84 million may be too little or too much are, I submit, out of Order.

Mr. McKie

Has it not always been the custom of this House or a Committee of the whole House to assume that the figure named in the Financial Resolution will be the figure acted upon by the Government of the day?

The Chairman

That is not a point of Order. In reply to the point of Order by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) the question of whether the sum of money is inadequate or otherwise is certainly one for the Committee to debate, and it is perfectly true as the hon. Member stated that the sum recommended by His Majesty's Government is a grant not exceeding £84 million. It may well be that the sum may not all be utilised.

Sir W. Darling

My indebtedness grows as I proceed with this discussion. I have already said I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torquay, and now I am grateful to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) and also to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). He is apparently anxious to add me to the list of those who are greatly indebted to him for his goodness in many ways. I am not unhappy to be included in that category, which is a small group.I think my hon. Friend said it was a small group, but no one will deny the assiduity with which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne cultivates it, and I would not be true to myself if I did not acknowledge my indebtedness to him. The item with which I was dealing was the payment of large sums of money provided by Parliament. It is true that, in the aggregate, the sum is £84 million, but I want to know some of the details of that aggregate. I am told that I shall learn them, unfortunately not from a Committee of the whole House, but by hearsay, or from HANSARD. That makes me all the more pressing that some indication should be given now in order that we may see by what method the aggregate figure was reached.

The sum of £84 million is a lot of money. Even if one says it quickly, it still is a considerable sum of money. You, Major Milner, with your high sense of public spirit would not want it to be lightly passed over. If we reiterate it, or dwell upon it, or recite it, that is in order to allow it to sink more deeply into the minds and hearts of those who ultimately have to pay it. Weighty matters of importance like this ought not to be treated lightly. I beg hon. Members on the other side to consider this matter fully, because it would be even more reprehensible if it went out to the country that in the matter of our own salaries we were eager, but that we allowed a matter of £84 million to pass through without the due discussion which such a sum should be given. I think that would go far to shake the already weakening confidence in hon. Members opposite. What I have said on paragraph 1 I could say with equal relevancy on paragraph 3, and even the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne would not rise to a point of Order if I said it on paragraph 4. I am grateful to you, Major Milner, for your guidance. I hope that some indication will be given—and that this question will appear in the Scottish papers—of what this monstrous sum is for, and what are the relevant details. If the Minister will give us that reply, he will continue to enjoy, I am sure, a very large measure of the confidence of the general public which is not shared by his colleagues.

Mr. Ivor Thomas

The sums mentioned in the Resolution are maximum sums, and they were fixed after close consultation between my Ministry, the corporations and the Treasury. They are the best estimates that we can give of the sum that will be needed. Likewise, the date 1956 was fixed as the period that is likely to be required for such Exchequer grants. All I need say in addition is that the sums of £30 million and £50 million that are mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 are not sums which we are asking Parliament to authorise, but are only for guarantees of the principal and interest of loans to those maximum sums. I should be out of Order in saying very much more on the Resolution, which has been drawn very widely for the convenience of the Standing Committee. There will be be an opportunity in Committee for the very fullest discussion. That is the purpose of the Financial Resolution.

Sir W. Wakefield

Before the Minister sits down, may I ask whether he will answer a question? The amounts here are very great. How is it that these grants should be required if, indeed, an efficient public service is to be given, because the service will make a profit? A profit is made when an efficient service is given. The present proposal surely suggests that an inadequate service will be given. The Lord President of the Council and the Parliamentary Secretary told us on Second Reading that a first-class service would be given. If that is so, why this huge sum of £84 million? It is inconsistent. I cannot leave the matter without asking the Parliamentary Secretary to answer the question.

Mr. Ivor Thomas

On the hon. Gentleman's supposition, these sums will not be required, but we have to provide for all kinds of contingencies. After full consideration, this is the sum which we considered it necessary to ask Parliament to authorise.

Sir W. Wakefield

Is this not the measure of the gross inefficiency of the service to the public that is expected of civil aviation?

Major Cecil Poole (Lichfield)

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he applies the same principle to the £3 million a year, given to the B.O.A.C. by the Government of which he was a supporter?

Sir W. Wakefield

That was a different matter.

Mr. McKie

I am very disappointed at the curt way in which the Parliamentary Secretary endeavoured to reply, so far as he made any answer at all, to the repeated pleas which have been put forward from this side of the Committee for a fuller explanation of why £84 million is required under this Finance Resolution. My hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) raised a very material point, when he asked whether the expenditure of this sum of money was to be the criterion by which the Government intended to proceed with all their vast projected schemes of nationalisation and socialisation when—

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is again referring to matters which have no relevance to the Financial Resolution.

Mr. McKie

I was only saying, by way of illustration, that the Government are presenting these schemes of nationalisation while completely ignoring more pressing problems of the moment, and I was asking the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a little fuller explanation as to why this £84 million was required. Is it a cover up for the mistakes which may be made, and the deficiencies which may have to be accounted for in this ambitious scheme, of socialisation of the civil airlines of this country? I was trying to elucidate a little more information than the Parliamentary Secretary has seen fit to give us so far. Are we continually to be asked to provide these vast sums of money for socialisation and nationalisation?

The Chairman

The hon. Member is quite out of Order. He is referring to matters other than those which are associated with the Financial Resolution before the Committee.

Mr. McKie

I bow to your Ruling, of course, Major Milner, and have no wish to trespass upon it. I merely used the point by way of illustration, and I would ask, again—

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is now indulging in repetition. I must ask him not to repeat what he has already said.

Mr. McKie

I want to support, in every possible way, what my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) has said. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he cannot see fit to give this Committee of the whole House—and under this Administration we do not often have Committees of the whole House—a little fuller explanation of why this inordinately large sum of £84 million is necessary in this Financial Resolution in support of a Bill which, we think, will not be for the ultimate good of British civil aviation.

Wing-Commander Hulbert

My hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) has just addressed a very pertinent question to the Parliamentary Secretary, with regard to the expenditure of this £84 million. The Parliamentary Secretary said he did not think that the full sum would be required. Should I be in Order in asking the Parliamentary Secretary if he could tell this Committee what sum he thinks will be required?

12.15 a.m.

Mr. C. Williams

As this is a Committee stage, may I say, in spite of the black looks of the Chief Patronage Secretary, that we are still allowed to speak twice on this matter. It would be grossly discourteous on my part if I did not thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the precise, courteous and, as far as he is concerned, far more adequate explanation than I had ever expected to get out of him. I would like also to point out to the Government that I shall have the greatest pleasure, in due course, in showing the people that all the Government think the taxpayers ought to know, when dealing with an important matter of this kind, is that "certain consultations have taken place "—no reasons are given why all this money is demanded or anything else. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who have been jeering so much during the last half hour will realise, when they think it over, that it is not right that any Member of any Government should on a matter of this kind, which vitally affects financially the people of the country, give an answer of that kind. When I think beyond that of the shocking greed with which certain hon. Members opposite rushed in to try to get their own salaries raised.—

The Chairman

Again, that is a matter which it is quite out of Order to discuss on this Resolution.

Mr. Williams

I would never dream of discussing it, Major Milner. I was simply using it as an illustration of how we casually pass over the interests of the taxpayer as a whole in comparison with other things which I am not at liberty to discuss now. I hope that the country as a whole will notice the contempt with which the Parliamentary Secretary, and the whole Government, with a responsible Minister sitting there, have treated the overburdened taxpayers of this country. That is a point I am free to make. I hope that the world will notice the way our taxpayers are being treated.

Major Cecil Poole

I shall not detain the Committee long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I do not need any exhortation from hon. Members opposite. I know that when I am exhorted by Members on the other side of the Committee to do something it must of necessity be wrong. If the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is to tell the world about the profligate way the Government dispose of this money, if he is to put so many things on record, I hope that he will add just one thing to the record to show how sincerely his Party are interested in the finances of the country—

The Chairman

The hon. and gallant Member is also not entitled to deal with matters other than those contained in the Resolution, as I gather he intends to do.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported this day.