Lords Sitting of 25 November 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
EAST AFRICA.
Message from the Commons, That they have appointed a Committee of ten members to be joined with the Select Committee appointed by the House of Lords to consider Reports on Closer Union in East Africa, etc., and to report thereon.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I regret to say that the Lord Chairman, Lord Donoughmore, cannot be present to-day as he is suffering from a cold which keeps him in his room. Lord Stanmore has consented to take his place, and I beg to move that Lord Stanmore be appointed to take the Chair in Committee of the Whole House, to-day, in the absence of the Lord Chairman of Committees.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strafford appointed to take the Chair in the Special Orders Committee this day.

COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Passfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Expenses of Colonial vessels and naval forces while at disposal of His Majesty.
3. Nothing in this Act or any Order in Council made thereunder shall be taken to
316
authorise the payment out of the revenues of the United Kingdom of any expenses incurred in equipping or maintaining any vessel, officers or men placed at the disposal of His Majesty under this Act, but any such expenses may be so paid, if, and so far as, the Commons House of Parliament hereafter think fit to make provision by Resolution for that purpose.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD) moved, after the second "Act," to insert "or in providing the pay, wages, pensions, grants or other emoluments of any such officers or men or of their wives, widows, children or other dependants." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. These words are in Clause 2, but apparently were accidentally omitted from Clause 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2S, after ("Act") insert ("or in providing the pay, wages, pensions, grants or other emoluments of any such officers or men or of their wives, widows, children or other dependants").—(Lord Pussfield.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I have given private notice to the noble Lord opposite of my intention to raise a small point. On the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord said:—
"The only two new provisions are that the Colonial Naval Defence Acts of 1865 and 1909 empower the legislative authority of each Colony to provide vessels of war and to raise seamen and others bound to serve in such vessels."
Further on he said:—
"The second point is that, whilst the Acts already provide that such vessels, crews and volunteers may be placed at the disposal of the Admiralty, no provision exists for the training of the crews or volunteers outside the territorial waters of each particular Colony."
Then, later, he went on to say:—
"The two Acts are embodied in the Bill without alteration, except for those two small provisions which legal opinion states to be necessary to give effect to the intention of the original Act."
On the face of it that does not seem to he quite accurate, because under the Bill which we are now discussing it is stated that:
"any such expenses may be so paid, if, and so far as, the Commons House of Parliament hereafter think fit to make provision by Resolution for that purpose."

317
But in Clause 9 of the Act of 1865 this is what we read:
"Nothing done under this Act by Order in Council, or by the Admiralty, or otherwise, shall impose any charge on the revenues of the United Kingdom without express provision made by Parliament for meeting the same."
I know that the present Government consider that the House of Commons is Parliament, but I do not think that we on this side quite agree, and this matter calls for some explanation.
LORD PASSFIELD: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for having had the courtesy to inform me of the point he was going to raise, and I confess that if he had not given me notice, I should have been in very considerable difficulty, because it is a minute and extremely technical drafting point. At the time that the Act of 1865 was passed it was apparently the custom, if an expense had to be incurred, that it should simply be proposed in the Estimates and voted in Supply, and, of course, be authorised by the Appropriation Act. Apparently the custom has so far changed. The Public Accounts Committee have made various objections to any new expenditure appearing in that way merely as a Vote in Supply without any specific direction from the House; and accordingly the draftsman changed the phrase. Instead of saying "without express provision made by Parliament for meeting the same," he altered the phrase to that which is now in the Bill, requiring a definite Resolution by Parliament.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: By the House of Commons.
LORD PASSFIELD: Yes, by the House of Commons. I should remind your Lordships that the privileges of this House are not at all in doubt, because as a matter of fact the Appropriation Bill, which is the sole legislative authority, necessarily comes before your Lordships' House. The change is simply, as I understand it, between a 'Vote in Supply of the House of Commons followed by the Appropriation Bill, and a specific Resolution of the House of Commons. That, I am advised, of course, does not obviate the necessity for the Appropriation Bill, without which nothing can be issued from the exchequer. This wording was put in to
318
comply with the change in practice that there should be a specific Resolution and not merely a Vote in Supply prior to the charge being put into the Appropriation Bill. It must be a Vote of the House of Commons for such a purpose, passed as an instruction to the draftsman of the Appropriation Bill. But, as I understand it, not a peony can be issued from the Exchequer without the authority of the Appropriation Bill. I do not profess to understand any more than what I have stated to your Lordships. This is a technical point of drafting, and I am advised that the words of the Act of 1865 would not be sufficient to meet the practice that is followed.
We do not foresee any expenditure from the Exchequer at all, as a matter of fact. But if these vessels were to be handed over and dealt with by the Admiralty, no doubt an expense would fall upon the British Exchequer. In that ease there would have to be a Vote of the House of Commons and not merely provision made, which might be understood to mean merely the ordinary Vote in Supply. I think your Lordships will see that, as regards this House, the procedure is the same. The authority will be the Appropriation Act. But, as regards the preliminary proceedings in another place, instead of merely having a Vote in Supply, preparatory to putting it into the Appropriation Bill, there would have to be a substantial and definite Resolution prescribing the proposed expenditure before it could be put into the Appropriation Bill. I should be very glad, if your Lordships feel that there is anything more to be explained in the matter, to have it dealt with again on Third Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very loth to set myself up as an authority on a matter of this technical character, but I felt very glad indeed that the noble Lord said at the end of his speech that he was prepared to reconsider the matter between now and Third Reading, because certainly, on the face of it, the case, as put by my noble friend behind me, does not seem to be adequately met by the noble Lord's answer. He did not tell us, for example, whether there was any

319
precedent for the words which appear in the Bill. I do not know of any precedent for the particular form for which authority is given. But certainly upon the face of the clause it seems that we are asked to enact that if the House of Commons pass a Resolution, that shall be a sufficient authority for the payment of this money. I know that the noble Lord did not content himself with that. He said that the Resolution would be ineffective unless it were followed by an Appropriation Act, but I confess that, as the words stand, that does not appear on the face of it to be the case. The words in the Bill are complete. They say that no money shall be paid unless there is a Resolution of the House of Commons, and it follows, therefore, that if there is a Resolution of the House of Commons the money may be paid; and this Bill, when it has passed through both Houses of Parliament and become an Act, will be quite as authoritative as any Appropriation Act, and therefore the Appropriation Act, unless, of course, it repealed in any form has been done here, would have to be read with it, and this Resolution would be effective, I should have thought, without any further Act of Parliament.
The noble Lord opposite said that all that this does is to give an additional safeguard so that a Resolution would be necessary as well as an Appropriation Act. I cannot think that he has fully followed the advice which must have been given to him, because the question whether a Resolution of the House of Commons is necessary to precede an Appropriation Bill is a matter entirely for the House of Commons itself. But an Act of Parliament has nothing whatever to do with it. The Appropriation Act, whether it has been preceded by a Resolution or not, when it comes to your Lordships' House is a Bill, and when it is passed by you is fully effective, even it there has been no Resolution in Committee of Supply before it; and it would not be at all regular for us to put into an Act of Parliament that the House of Commons cannot pass an Appropriation Bill unless there has been a Resolution in Committee of Supply before. That is a purely domestic matter for them, to deal with. And therefore if there were anything in the defence of the noble Lord, if I may so call it, it would mean
320
that we were invading the privileges of the House of Commons by enacting any such words as are in the Bill. I cannot think that they are rightly drawn. I cannot help suspecting that when the noble Lord asks his advisers, as he has promised us, he will find that he had better fall back on the old form—namely, that this money cannot be expended without the authority of Parliament.
LORD PASSFIELD: I will only say in reply to the noble Marquess that I will certainly look into this question and raise it again on the next stage, the Report stage, so that the matter can be thoroughly investigated.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for the answer he has given, although I am not sure that I have followed it entirely. Until I see it in black and white it is rather difficult to do so. In the meantime, I reserve my rights for the Report stage.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

AIRSHIP R101: DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE.
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND rose to ask His Majesty's Government for an assurance that all Papers and correspondence which passed between Government Departments and the Air Ministry and office files (whether secret or not), dealing with the construction and policy of the Airship R101 shall be produced for the. Court of Inquiry and especially all correspondence which passed between the Treasury and the Air Ministry on the subject: and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the great catastrophe that has recently befallen this country, in the loss of the airship R101, and the lives of so many eminent, aeronautical experts. I feel that in bringing this Motion forward no apology is needed. The work of the Court of Inquiry is exceedingly difficult. Not only is it charged with endeavouring to ascertain the cause of the disaster, but its findings may have a profound effect on the whole future policy of constructing airships in this country. This Government showed great wisdom when they asked Sir John Simon to act

321
as President of the Court, and I feel that this whole country owes him and his two able assessors a great debt of gratitude for the manner in which the Inquiry has, so far, been conducted. I fully realised that the subjects they have to investigate cover a wide range of scientific data and would have to be looked into and dealt with in turn by the Court. But there is the added difficulty of the Court having to elicit evidence from a very intricate organisation. For instance, there is the Headquarters Staff of the Air Ministry, the Technical Department at Cardington and the Inspection Department. Evidence from all these departments has got to be brought into play.
When I heard that a Court of Inquiry had been set up I felt somewhat dubious as to much good resulting, hut any doubts which I had were greatly minimised when the Attorney-General said in his opening speech that he was prepared to produce all Papers, secret, confidential or otherwise, and that as far as he was concerned no Papers would he held back. It would appear that a great many documents have been produced, but I am a little apprehensive on two points. During the proceedings somewhat startling evidence has been brought out under the skilful handling of the Chairman and we are beginning to learn that the whole question of gas-bags is far from satisfactory, and certain questions of inspection. Also, evidence was given of a small breakage of sorts in the airship.
During the time involved in the building of this airship, a great deal of correspondence and files must have been amassed, and no doubt it is proving a herculean task for the Air Ministry to produce all the necessary information, and I have no reason to think that the information asked for (under kindly persuasion) has not been given to the Court, but I am a little uneasy as to the manner in which some of the documents are brought to light. It would appear to me that there must exist, somewhere, a carefully planned co-ordinated system where the complete history from start to finish of the structural part of the airship together with all details as to the interior fittings, gas-bags, etc., is set down, and when evidence has been produced that trouble existed, I venture to suggest that the whole work of the Court would be
322
greatly minimised if these records were already in Court.
I now deal with the question of policy. I think that we are beginning to realise that the decision to send the airship on its flight to India was to a certain extent based on the fact that the late Secretary of State was most anxious to demonstrate to the Imperial Conference the great future of airships. All honour to him; he was, perhaps, one of the most anxious to make this flight. Be this as it may, I am a little surprised that, so far as I have been able to ascertain, practically no mention has been made of any correspondence that must have taken place between the Air Ministry and the Treasury. We all know and realise that the work involved in the construction of this airship has covered a long period and necessitated spending vast sums of money. It is natural therefore that the Treasury should want to have a clear account of the manner in which the expenditure has been carried out, and I want to be quite sure that the Treasury, acting in all good faith, were not participators in the policy of flying at once in order to justify the amount of money that had been expended.
I have no desire to impute the blame for this tragedy to any individual person or any Government Department, but we must remember that this inquiry is not quite the same as some public inquiries that have been held on other catastrophes where human lives have been lost. The difference, to my mind, is that in some cases private capital only has been involved; whereas, in this ease the capital came out of public funds. No stone should be left unturned to furnish the Court with the necessary material to enable the President and his assessors to be in a position to give a clear finding and to make special recommendations for safeguarding our future policy. I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have listened to me, and my whole desire, which I am certain is shared by everyone, is to see that steps are taken to ensure that nothing is kept back from the Court. I beg to move.
LORD TRENCHARD: Your Lordships will permit me to take this opportunity of saying a few words on the loss your Lordships' House has sustained in the death of Lord Thomson, late Secretary

323
of State for Air. I had the privilege and honour of serving under him when he first became a Cabinet Minister and Secretary of State for Air in 1924 and again in 1929. It was soon obvious to those of us who worked in the Air Ministry in 1924 that we had in Lord Thomson an unusual type of man, a man who was determined to face and grapple with all the problems that arise from air power. He was also only too ready to see any official or unofficial person, however junior or however senior, if it helped him in doing his work. I feel certain that we lost a man who believed in the air and had the mind to grapple with the problems of the air.
Turning for a moment to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, I am certain, and he himself said so, that he did not imply in any way that any documents were being kept back by the Air Ministry. But it has been implied in some places, as I have seen, that all the Papers are not being readily produced. After twelve years in Whitehall and in that office, I know the office, the officers and officials. It must be remembered that those officers and officials were brother officers and brother officials of those who were killed in the wreck of R101. Knowing them I am perfectly certain that their one ambition is to produce every Paper that will throw any light on the disaster. I feel certain that your Lordships will remember what a mass of documents there is. I have had some experience after twelve years of the mass of Papers written on any subject, and on a subject like R101 it will take a very long time to go through them. I am perfectly certain the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Air, will be able to give the assurance for which the noble Lord who moved the Motion asked.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD AMULREE): My Lords, I believe I am in a position, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to give the assurance for which the noble Lord has asked in his Question. But before dealing more specifically with the Question put I Should like, if I may, to associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Trenchard, in the tribute he has paid to the memory of Lord Thomson. Lord Thomson was my friend. I had the privilege of an intimate acquaintance with him, certainly for only a short period, but during that time I was able to
324
appreciate his sterling qualities and his great abilities.
With regard to the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, he will forgive me, and I am sure your Lordships will forgive me, if I do not deal with any questions which may affect the matters that come directly before the Court of inquiry now sitting. The Inquiry itself is sub-judice and it would be inappropriate for me, and I take it for anyone, to anticipate the findings of the Court; but I may in answer to the noble Lord's Question state clearly that His Majesty's Government, in setting up the Court of Inquiry, determined that the Inquiry into the cause of the accident that befell the airship R101 should be full and searching. As the noble Lord suggested, the Attorney-General, who is conducting the case at the Inquiry, requested that in view of the nature of the case, every document bearing upon the matter, whether directly or indirectly, should be produced and that all questions of privilege should be waived. His Majesty's Government agreed to this request, and instructions were given accordingly. These instructions have been duly and faithfully carried out; the one aim being to ascertain the cause of the accident to the airship and to render all possible assistance in ascertaining the cause.
The Court of Inquiry, which is presided over by Sir John Simon, has compulsory powers to require the attendance of witnesses, to examine them on oath and to enforce the production of documents. The Treasury Solicitor was retained to prepare the case for the Inquiry and the Air Ministry has placed at his disposal, without reserve, all files, documents and other Papers in possession of the Department, whether at headquarters in London or at the Royal Airship Works at Cardington, where the airship was built, which might elucidate or which might be of assistance in elucidating the cause of the accident. No distinction has been drawn between open, confidential and secret Papers, all of which were made freely available. These Papers include all correspondence between the Air Ministry and the Treasury and other Government Departments dealing with the construction and policy of the airship. This, I think, answers the Question asked by the noble Lord.

325
I would, however, like to add that the Papers are voluminous, as they cover the whole period of the design and construction of the airship, about four or five years. Representatives of the Treasury Solicitor have visited the offices of the Air Ministry, and, with the assistance of the staff of the Ministry, have made a comprehensive examination of all Papers relating to airships, and not only airship R101. The examination covered more than 1,100 registered files and, in addition, the airship Papers in the offices of the Secretary of State, of the Air Member for Supply and Research, and of that branch of the Ministry dealing with airships at headquarters. Further, at the suggestion of the Attorney-General, the counsel concerned with him in the case have themselves visited the offices of the Air Ministry and have checked n very large number of files.
I have mentioned that Papers are also kept at the Royal Airship Works at Cardington. The efforts of the staff to produce relevant Papers have been supplemented by a representative of the Treasury Solicitor. It will be appreciated that the search at the Royal Airship Works has been carried out under very difficult circumstances, as most of those responsible for the branches chiefly concerned perished in the accident. The Director, and two out of three Assistant Directors, are dead, and the one or two senior officers left, after a period of exceptionally heavy pressure of work following the accident, had to be in continuous attendance at the Court during the Inquiry. Nevertheless, every effort has been made to produce all available information. The widows and relatives of those who lost their lives have been asked to search for Papers in their homes, which they have kindly done, and any relevant Papers have been produced. In more than one instance useful information has come to light by examining note-
326
books of shorthand typists. I mention these facts to show how exhaustive the examination has been. In view, however, of the mass of Papers that had to be gone through and the fact that those who were familiar with the Papers at Cardington had lost their lives, the examination was prolonged. This accounts for the fact that at the Inquiry Papers could only be placed before the Court as and when they were found and not in snore orderly sequence.
As a result of the steps which have been taken, it can, I think, be confidently stated that it is highly improbable that anything likely to be of assistance to the Court has not come to light. This is also confirmed by the recollection of those who have been associated with airship matters during the past few years. I have the authority of the Attorney-General to say that he himself and the counsel engaged with him are satisfied that the Air Ministry have kept nothing back having a direct or indirect bearing upon the subject of the Inquiry. I think it right to add that the disclosure given in this ease has been fuller than that given in any previous case in which a, Government Department has been concerned. No question of privilege has been raised and inter-departmental communications have not only been produced to the Court but made public; and the Attorney-General has had to make it plain that the extent of the disclosure made in the course of the Inquiry must not be treated as a precedent in asking for a similar disclosure in other cases. The noble Lord asked for Papers—
LORD AUCKLAND: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion. I Should like to thank the noble Lord for the satisfactory reply which he has given.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes before five o'clock.